previous outbreaks are no longer meaningful. it is a different ballgame. >> well, i think tony has answered that question. i think -- i just wanted to agree with the issue raised by l about how to implement. it is not simply just do it. it is worth some of the , in this is fundamental, and we can learn. the other thing we can respond thinkthe ncd's, where i part of what will define the

effectiveness or is defining the effectiveness is the global , and i will give you one anecdote. this is on the prevention of overweight, obesity, and meeting, and at that ncd, arned about mexico's policy they enacted about three months earlier, and they stage, andis on the part of it was a major value said,tax on drinks, and i how on earth did you get the big beverage industry to agree to be and they said it wasn't that easy.

they said initially it was , but then west looked to the european union, and there was a directive that all the beverage companies had signed up to, including , so they drew on this eu directive, brought it to mexico, and said if you are able to sign onto a directive in europe, why aren't you able to sign on to a similar directive whatxico, and that is mobilized the beverage industry to sign on. they realized that by having a they would look

at the public side anonymously, so i am using that as an , because what is the value of an eu directive? i mean, g, that is brussels bureaucracy, but here is a case of the value. you,is not only in the ee and this is to tackle some of the sorts of challenges, and i think this is what we call soft law, and i think one can use both hard and soft, and the of diplomacy.eory not everything has to have teeth. it could be very influential in changing behavior. i am not suggesting that is the when it, but i think

comes to global health, part of what is going to determine our effectiveness collectively is our ability to think creatively about how to draw on these instruments, not just a is-size-fits-all, and this how tobacco consumption was beat, and understanding what works in different contexts, it is rarely one-size-fits-all. point about how to get the authority to engage, how to get the policy and the authority to engage, that is one of the fundamental questions on the table today. we're talking about deployment of exceptional capacities that our military in character to

address something that is beyond the scope of terror organizations, and i guess my response would be that only happens when there is a and thosedecision, strategic decisions have not been taken, and, was it 53? after 53, you get one back, and this is in this particular situation. and the question around why didn't we learn from this from or 20 five 24 previous cases, i think it is important to point out, and tony this, thising us -- case in west africa pushed us into the unknown very rapidly, and it jumps from one to three,

and when it jumped from the coastal cases, when the numbers began to take off, it did things we had not seen before on a scale and speed and ferocity, and we were slow to get it, and we were slow to come around to where it was going to take us, and there are some places where we naturally fall back and go to the things that work in the past and doubled at effort. and we were at this very difficult moment of saying this and there was a similar logic that the who and the way the who is doing it, it and it does not fit the situation, and that is -- and likewise that is a very good sub

-- segway. i was going to address the who issued. it is such a wonderful promise. agency andfirst u.n. when i wrote the book, it the 1947to me that in to 1940 nine period, there were three fundamental things that happened. the u.n. charter, the who constitution, and the universal declaration of human rights, all of which talk about right. and what happened with who? this is a story that we need to learn from, because tim mentioned that who has chronic challenges. there are mass staff layoffs and things, and people were so andedibly disheartened,

they basically have a begging bowl, where they are going around trying to get money, and that is not the way to do business. the who not only has a shortage, but it does not control two thirds of its budget. what organization could exist when you have no control over two thirds of its budget? because these aren't dedicated funds by donors. are important, polio eradication and so forth, nonetheless, who cannot do anything about it. this has to change before who can't even begin to meet its and govern the way , andwe would like to see that would transition to things like universal health coverage and commutable diseases and so forth, and we have been talking

with global health infectious diseases, but it is and it is notrd, just what is prominent in the news. and it is not polio eradication. it is cancer. it is heart disease, and it is things people never talk about. it is mental health. it is injuries. oft go and see the level devastating injuries. nobody talks about it, so you look at the global burden of disease, and you compare that to the who touch it. todevote very few resources ncd's, mental health, and it is a sad situation, but we need that political will. another round of questions.

lets start on this side, and then there are two hands. let's take these three folks here. >> i am with howard university. the global health fund, and the doctor mentioned about an emergency fund. and it is an idea of having a , and things have been around like the global fund. and i guess i am going back to a comment over here. if there are several different types of funds that people are thinking about, doesn't it go back to something like the world tank, where there is funding going on to several

organizations -- i am sorry, several different priorities, and i am wondering if you could talk about, whether there are and funds in the plural like can you put some cloth onto these funds? >> thank you. you hand the microphone over there, and then a couple of rows in front >> something people should hear about, you mentioned the backdrop of all of the and whous diseases, could do this, wouldn't you suggest we have extraordinary capabilities here? matching the capabilities to be able to have a broad range of week sets, and given the

governments in places like sierra leone and guinea, how'd you compel those who are weak and perhaps riveted with corruption, and the rules-based primaryk with access to care, public health, and access to capabilities? >> thank you. ma'am, right here? we will take two or more questions right here. >> thank you. i am with the voice of vietnamese americans. thank you for the presentations. and this seems to be the key. and how do you help to have the

capacity for the government -- and you can look at the justice. and a young vietnamese man, they have been lured in without any , like when they come and donate a kidney that they had proper surgery done to them, and thetions afterward, whole village near the borders had that happen to them, and that whole village is devastated, and i think nobody

seemed to care, so that is something that i think significantly -- it has not been brought up, but i truly think it is the system with many different issues, and this is not just that case, but there are vaccinations, things being , with a the market cheaper price. >> thank you. >> thank you, gentlemen. i am the vice president of an ngo, and my question has to do with the fuehrer over the use of experimental drugs, and the --nd what do you think

how do you determine the priorities? >> and let's come back. >> thank you. i am a phd student in health care policy, so when we talk about ebola, it very much ssars, and of wednesday sars outbreak happened, i was in high school, and i remember every day i went to school, ok, i might die , and my classmates will not stop learning, so i have to work hard, even if i died findrow, so i think people sos from people around them,

i care, and i wonder how are people in west africa doing, what are they doing, and what are they fighting against this disease and how international organizations help them. >> thank you very much. >> do you want to start with some protocol issues? >> yes, the question of the drugs and vaccines, major, major misconception is that there are effective drugs that have been given selectively to a few people and not to others. the drugs that are in question safe orer shown to be even effective, and when the drugs were given, the antibodies, to the two americans who came, there was a lot of press. , and there is no scientific

evidence that there was any difference made by that drug. aso receiving the drug was spanish priest who died. also receiving the priest was one of three liberian health care providers, who died, so i think the misperception needs to be clarified. drugsou have experimental , even though emotionally went give something to someone who has no other hope, you have got to at least understand that they need to be safe. now, the difference between a drug and a vaccine is another thing that people do not understand. aen someone is dying from very serious disease, and you have a drug that is in a very experimental stage, you want to make that available to them as quickly as you possibly can, and it is easy if there is a limited amount of drugs. you can do anything from a lottery, a clinical trial, you

can randomize it, and it is different when you have a whole variety, and that is not the situation, because there is no drug that has actually been shown to be effective, and that seems to be a different story. safety,mount thing is because you are not giving a vaccine to someone who is desperately ill and need something. you are giving a vaccine to a normal, healthy person, and the big important principle is first, do no harm when you are soing it to the person, right now, the only vaccine that has ever been given to a human for this right now in the context of the epidemic is the first dose that we gave to our patient up in bethesda at about 10:25 this morning. that is the first time that that vaccine has ever gone into a human, so the first thing is you

find out if it is safe. reduces safe, then it the response, and then you have an interesting tension. do you immediately distribute it, or do you try to distribute it in the context of a clinical trial, and that is what you struggle with to do the ethically sound thing, but the main goal of all of this is to get into the africans who need it, but, you understand, none of them have been proven to be effective. >> thank you. to talkld you like about how you engage and persuade governments to make the investments? so it also draws on this issue of selling the organs. first is in every country of the world, people do care. , and if the public sector is ,bsent, then markets will form

and an unregulated market in health, it is a very bad idea. that doesn't mean that the private sector has no role. it just means that the private sector needs to be regulated. if there were no regulations, we would have anarchy, chaos, and unparalleled levels of harm when the principal is to do no harm. matters, so the case of the organs failed in vietnam is a classic failure of public provision of dialysis for people who need it, and, perhaps, this case china. if the demand for kidney replacement is so great, there is a market for harvesting organs, which is illegal and

dangerous, and as you very eloquently described, terrible for the communities affected, and then the best prescription there is to have an adequately funded, publicly accessible system where the private sector can play a role, but in the context of the bigger one. there is an overall question which is, first, your citizens want it. and what we are seeing is many low income country politicians are saying, they want to have access to care, and they want the whole shebang. i am not saying they only want access to hiv treatment, we also want access to hypertension treatment, high blood pressure treatment, because we are getting old, and we have high

blood pressure. so there are those expectations. secondly, if you think about it then, the structure of systems, the institutional capacity to deliver is absolutely fundamental, and health systems and creating that is not just simply the nike expression just do it. we can learn a lot. we can learn a lot about how to weelop infectious disease so can appropriately respond to epidemics and also change things in the context of lifestyles and chronic diseases, but we have to learn much more systematically and be able to support those countries in moving in that isection, so i think that part of what we need to move forward. there was a doctoral student

who lived through sars. are the people responding? how are they thinking and responding today? well, itd you say? >> would be so much similar to tim's. i really think there is a universal aspiration for health, and everybody yearns for it. when youte remarkable have people on the ground, when you have signs of ebola, heart , and there might be a traffic crash, and there is nowhere to turn. the hospital system has fearful,, and they are

so i think that the human spirit , there is nothing more than they want, and it is what they never told you. everything,health, and i think that is a truism that we tend to forget. and how we get there, this is what my book is about. so what do you do with this? post-conflict states. they are very fragile. people have lost trust in their government, to a large extent, and i think that is unacceptable. i think what we need is to have a rule of law, both nationally and internationally.

and it is true that the who or the world health, they have and with the, world trade organization, they have adjudication, and they have rules and norms that countries abide by. i don't see why he would not be possible to do that with health, both at the national level. issues like corruption, transparency, accountability. and we have found that way to bring that kind of govern society for the purposes of health. >> your results based on sars,

as well as this? >> i think everything that larry and tim said, it is different from what it is going on right now, and the people in west ofica have a perfect storm conditions against them. they are frightened. where they do not trust authority. and you can get into isolation by allowing a contact tracing. if they go into the hospital, they will die, and they take the six -- sick person, and they infect everyone in the home. withdon't cooperate contact tracing because they are

afraid of the stigma, and people were frightened of sars in china and countries in the far east, but you were within a pretty good infrastructure of health, where you're able to have your teacher tell you, study, and everything will be all right. that is totally different from a situation where there is terror and fear that is going on right now. it is really a horrible they are in. >> we have gotten to the close, and there are further discussions in other parts of town, so i think we want to close. i would like to ask our three speakers to leave us with just a quick parting thought, and let's start with tim and close with larry. and point your comment really to

this audience. audience.on-based what is the message you want this audience to take away, looking to this next phase? we have spent a lot of time on ebola. we do not need to make it central, but we have talked about the challenges and big ideas. tim, what is your last word of ?dvice >> well, i am not sure i have any advice, other than, perhaps, to say that there are realities in the world that we live in, which are such that we increasingly need to think about global health as intimately linked to our health locally, and i think that means that you not only have to be concerned

with the issues that confront us directly and proximately, close to our neighborhoods, but we also have to be as concerned elsewhere,onditions because we are increasingly therefore,ted, and our role in trying to make sure we move towards that principle of valuing equally the lives, wherever they may be lived, is extremely important, a value to see embodied in all forms of governance, and thank you. >> tim? as you said, this washington, d.c. sophisticated audience, because something may seem insurmountable, do not give up. just because it cannot be done not bet mean it will

done. back in 2002, everyone thought africa would be the fall off the face of the earth with hiv aids, and the program was put together, and people were saying you can never ever get africans to take medicines. you will never get them to lives aate into their daily medication that could save them or prevention, and then they came along and has completely transformed the lives of millions of people throughout health andso global addressing the disparities is something that will take a long time, but if you use that as an example, i think we should be is possible.at it >> this is a celebration of your work. you get the last word. >> it is always a good place to pick up on.

some days i get up and am more inspired, but other days i get up and say it is overwhelming. it is useless, but i am saying what you just said. never give up. we actually can do it. end with we would just camu, and i am paraphrasing, but he said pathogen's just come in common, us -- just come and come us, and we are wildly surprised. why do we jump from crisis to crisis, from haiti to the to ebola? sars

isn't it obvious? it is affordable. it is doable, so let's just do it. [applause] all for joining us. i want to thank all of the speakers, and i particularly want to congratulate larry, so please join me. so thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> here is a look at our prime time schedule. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, the second u.s. court of appeals hears an argument in the aclu versus clapper case, which challenges the nsa collection of american phone records. tv, with2, book authors that have written about american presidents, and on c-span3, it is american history tv, with the burning of washington in 1812. "washingtonning on

dansky on the possibility of american police forces being militarized, and then former secretary of state nicholas burns talks about the threat of isis and the american journalists. "washington journal" at 7:00 on c-span. and then a north carolina senate debate between democratic incumbent kay hagan and challenger thom tillis. in a poll, both candidates are in a dead heat, with mr. tillis leading senator hagan. here is a look at some recent ads. >> tired of being disgusted

about recent news? washington has completely lost touch with working americans, and senators never pay the price. i am thom tillis. i came up in the real world. i have been a cook and a partner. -- thom tillis. let's make this right. >> hi. i am kay hagan. one of the things i love about north carolina is unless you are talking basketball, you do not have to pick a team. it's an idea works for middle-class families, i am all for it. i approved this message because i was so proud when the journal ranked me as the most moderate senator, not too far left, not too far right, just like north carolina. >> and a reminder that senator

hagan and republican challenger face off in the debate sponsored by the association of broadcasters. you can see it on c-span. now, a discussion on the common core initiative and the education policy. from washington journal, this is one hour. : we'll spend our next hour this morning focusing on the over common core. >> we have our guests, including from the cato institute. and neil m mccluskey. invective to lace discuss the best educational methods. gentlemen on opposite sides of the common core debate. debate on rting the

the facts, what are the facts we need to lay out on the table to get the conversation going. guest: i think the main disputed facts are where did common core come from and what it? and i think the stories kind of gotten on the side of this, but the facts.n right to common ity is that the core of these standards came from the national governing ssociation, the council of g state school officers that are two private organizations but epresent membership organizations from state level officials. they're not exactly state. the federal ot government. that's been a big dispute. he federal government was heavily involved in pushing the common core and probably for ace to the top and through waivers out of no child left behind was able to pressure a lot of states to join the common core. it's also true that the common state nt selected two

create tests and they have control of what's in the tests. that's reality. the federal government, but it's involved. how much of it is just standards, in other words, what do and how much is he curriculum saying how it will be done. begins to box in your curriculum and asks you to do certain things to get to common core. common porter of the core. any of the facts in dispute? guest: no, neil said i well. of whatying to be clear the facts are. mention, for example, the federal rule. this is something that's on the right has many conservatives upset. understandably. we don't want e the federal government involved in writing standards or prescribing curriculum. started are that this out as a state-led initiative was even ack obama presiden president.

momentum in the states. it's playing a role with the with race to the top. doesn't mean it's a federal mandate or that the government but iving the train, there's a federal role. so we're trying to put the basic have a real us to discussion about whether it's going to be good for kids. this is going to help many more young people in this country get ready for a good paying career and that will affect the challenges in this country. i agree about a lot of the problems that we have an education system that's not be.forming where it needs to my view is common core will help to fix it. won't do it all by itself. it will be important. i know neil disagrees. i want to show some folks who may be new to the common core debate. year or raging for a so. common core polls. howing up here for our radio listeners, education standards for k through 12 in english math, ge, arts, and

designed to ensure high school graduates are prepared to enter college or workforce by the council of chief state school officers. adoption by tary states of common core. mccluskey, why do you oppose? uest: we need to approach the voluntary vote. states were not required, but if hey want a realistic way of getting race to the top category, there was no choice. and no child left behind set expectations. 2014, every child would be proficient in math and reading. the common could use core which they essentially had to adopt if they wanted to win top money. host: for folks who may not know, how much money are we talking about there that was on table? guest: it was $4 billion. and remember time the important too. so this was at the low point of recession.

and so the federal government is saying to most states, look, if money, t part of this there are lots of things you have to do. one is adopting college and career-ready standards that are common to a majority of state ifs you want to maximize your chance of winning. it's not voluntary. if you are a state representative or you're a overnor or you're a state school chief, from most states to say, i'm just not going to ry to get that money, because most people say, why did you just give up on getting the millions of dollars that we desperately need. and then the waivers, everybody a wall ng sort of like in 2014, everybody was supposed proficient. it was understood long ago that wasn't going to happen. two choices. they generallych agreed to, or they have their college tem and universities say their standards ready.llege and career not voluntary in the sense that ramifications for

not doing it. there are serious ramifications. taxpayers live in states and to send that money to the federal government. and so i want to mention -- disagreeing to start on what we wrote here. ike just said there was real mow money tum on the state level before the federal government was involved. there wasn't, what i can see. pushed every state to adopt these things were the race to the top. dates, it was the almost exactly at the deadline the race to the top called for. out on this set debate in the next hour or so in the washington journal, we want viewers to call in. questions and comments on common core. 202-585-3880. teachers, 202-585-3881. others 202-585-3883. those are all open. we want to get you respond. >> sure, let's talk about why we core.omething like common

we have an education system that we've been working on trying to reform for decades now. we've made progress recess. if you look at how the lowest performing kids in this country doing, minority students, low-income students, huge gains reading, math, el meant bry school, middle in the most assuredly, 1990s and in the 2000s, we embraced testing standards, accountability for a all of the of that. there are many. the evidence seems to indicate we saw significant gains in student achievements for those kids. the problem was the standards the tests were so easy, all of the pressure was getting the lowest performing over a low bar. it wasn't doing anything for the rest of the kids. system he kids in the were going to be proficient no matter what. now we have the problem, kids education hrough the system. every year, they're passing their courses, getting good rades, they're passing these state tests easily with flying colors. and the education system is their parents d

and educators and the taxpayers, everybody is going great, fine.thing is then millions of the kids get to age 18. they show up on a college campus i'm sorry, you're not ready to take a credit-bearing course or they employer and he the employer says i would love paying job,the good but you don't have the math, the reading, the critical thinking we set ou need, because the standards too low. the revolutionary part of common core is to say the standards of k-12 education system should comes ed up with what next for students. it doesn't sound so revolutionary. but for the education system, a dramatically higher standard than we've had before. that's what we're all about. issue of the e federal role, again, this is something we can debate. e can both agree, it's not a federal mandate. but there was a federal role. for some conservatives, any role disqualifies it. i don't love there was a federal role. i'm concerned about

accountability and better outcomes. so i'm willing to take -- look and say, s and cons look, on the whole, what this means is our schools are aiming higher standards than they have before in almost every state. and i'm hopeful that's going to learning more and many more kids ready for what's going to come next with college or career. a supporter of common core, how concerned are you about polling numbers on common gallup poll on this, do you favor or oppose having teachers in your have common core state standards to guide what they teach? 60% 33% say they favored, saying they opposed. and as you have noted in some of our writing on this, those numbers are down from the years before. absolutely. it's concerning. not surprising there's been a to year negative campaign try to drive down the poll numbers of common core. it's political campaign, they attack ads, drive down the

numbers. if you like the idea of higher idea rds, do you like the of making sure that the schools are held accountable for the ready level.r the there's still overwhelming support for the idea. the here's no doubt that brand -- the words common core turned been very much into a negative. right. the you can see them reacting negatively on those terms. guest: a negative campaign. way to putnteresting it. what we saw because of the heavy federal pressure, most states before common core anybody knew what it was. the thing was no one knew what was.common core host: as you speak through this, the states that adopted common core appearing on this states have the not adopted common core, the yellow states on the map as follow along as we talk. guest: you start to see states hat adopted it started to drop

it. especially moving out of tests, but some states are moving out common core, the entire thing. and the reality was, there was this negative campaign the last because a couple of years ago, districts and parents confronted with the new standards. they said what are these? where do they come from? hey didn't like them in many cases. they were confronted in math in ways that they didn't understand, that department make th -- didn't make sense to them. started to do research, look at common core or national standards. base thatt a research says national standards or state standards drive higher results. and you've got people across the board, experts who will agree with that. and them they found that the itself department have much of a research base to say, we've tested this, we know it's going work. people found that this was really a hollow thing, but it's them.ing being imposed on and they started to say, stop, this is something that's being on our kids.

there doesn't seem to be much basis for it. and, of course, we're going to resist it. and people who are going to it, to me, anyone, people say, hey, we got what we ago, they're surprised that when the public became more aware, there was a big growth in negative response to it. host: the associate director or the center for education freedom at the kato institute. michael petrilli is the thomas b. f the fordham institute here as we talk about common core. and the debate over common core. are open.lines umbers for parents, teachers, all others. jamie is calling for clarkston, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for having me on. for common core. i have grandchildren, they're graduating from high school. and i always believed that reading was fundamental. they don't want to read a book.

all they want to do was do their it.work and that was i never saw them pick up a newspaper. i never saw them pick up a book. now some of them want to go to college. prepared.'re not kids have to be prepared to go to college. they need math, they need reading. and i'm from the old school. writing, and arithmetic. that's what i was taught. in the hat we need back schools today. that's all important. we need math, even though we say we don't. we need reading, we need all of those. and -- host: the kids are not prepared today? good i think that's a question, jamie. the problem is for a long time, think in michigan, most other states, of course there was math orents that you do

reading. common core isn't adding a whole new idea of math and reading. and this gets to an important point that i think public olicy, we have to be very humble in what we think public policy, common core, any other do.orms can a lot of what we get in or outcomes i think are cultural that we don't focus the way many other countries do. we do have to address that. going to fix n't that. by saying let's set high change s, we don't people's minds. interestingly if you look at testing data, what we find is there are many periods test core before no child major testingfore than ever. is testing proving this or is it read,likely that americans look, we need to do better in science, math, we need to read more. nd over time, the culture

changes and we focus more on the things that are important. to ink that's what has happen. and common core can't drive that. that has to happen organically. in : jotting down notes that call? guest: sure, i appreciate jamie's call. we have told kids and their that they are doing fine. that they're on track, they're on grade level only for them to later that that's not true. it's too late when you're in now 18 and r you're going to the community college to be told that you don't have the preparation that you need. so, you know, the hope here is that if we can give that information to people much look, if you're going to go to college -- most young people today say they want to go to college. for a lot of reasons they're go to ging people to college. you need to be able to do some things, you need to be able to and an academic article make sense of it. you need to write an essay hat's not just about your own

feelings or opinions but draws evidence from a text that you read. ou have to read great literature, you have to do math at an algebra ii level. of those ways in most states, the standards have been much lower than that. focus has been to get kids basic literacy and num are a si. good job of do a telling apartments, hey, don't think when your kid passes this means they're on grade level and doing great. lit rail or ot ill enumerate. right? that. trying to physician we have testing for a reason. we have a public education ystem that spends $600 billion a year. we want to hold it accountable for results. the results are student learning. i don't believe the testing is going away. are we going to have the ow-level mickey mouse tests or much higher that gives good information to parents, kids, are yers about how kids really doing and whether they're really prepared. frank, efore we get to

the thomas b. fordham institute is -- guest: we're a think tank based here in washington, d.c. do on the ground work in the great state of ohio. so we have an office in columbus and do support things like charter schools and private school choice and higher standards. host: mr. mccluskey? tow? >> education is one of the things we do. oriented.rtarian like fordham, we do a lot of work on school choice, charters, programs. but we're also obviously the federal hat government is doing. that means common core. we study standards and testing and accountability, things like that. host: to frank in new castle, pennsylvania. frank, good morning. who r: there's not anybody wouldn't want to see the educational system improved, or er through common core

something else. what you have to expect out of the educational institution to begin with. for example, when i went to school, we knew what children would be going to college when we were in high school. knew that. they're the ones that took the academic scientific program. everyone else took vocational or general program. if you set up standards for adhere to, ry to what are you going to do with who are not n college material, for example, s that n with average iq will never learn physic s trigonometry or calculus in high school. those children have to go on in life as well. we can't all be computer scientists. be physicians. nd with the emphasis on this testing, which is a good thing for the average student that may college, but for those

ho are just marginal students through no fault of their own whether it's iq levels or with er, what do we do those people? guest: this is one of the tough issues in education. tracking thate of people made it clear, okay, we think these kids are college not.rial, these kids are there was a rebellion to that. especially because if it was the system deciding. it didn't feel american to pick wirns and losers in this system. we've gone to the other extreme where there are some people who say we should send everybody to college. with that.ee i think that what frank is getting at is important is that pathways to tiple opportunity, to the middle class, to a good life, and of them.s just one so in my view, common core is everybody etting going to a four-year college. it's about getting many more

a point where they could succeed in a four-year college and succeed in a rigorous educational program. but we can't be utopian. of e not going to get 100% kids to that high standard and we have to make sure to have provide other pathways to the middle class for kids who don't want to go that way. host: do you want to jump in? guest: frank gets to a central here, or a central point. people learn different things at rates, different abilities, talents. what common core does is moves us all in the wrong direction human reality.c it says everybody should be ollowinge sen lshlly the same model of educational trajectory. his point is that, look, some ids are going to want to do vocational things. some people want to go to college for a liberal arts degree. become doctors. so we need a system that rather really ing centralized

top-down one-size-fits-all model, we need to go in the direction, towards really school choice where i you have gree where -- educators with the autonomy to start different schools to move them to where the kids want to go, where they're best suited and inclined to go. then you can have an efficient system where the unique individuals can get education needs.d to their common core is the exact opposite direction of that. do saying everybody should essentially the same thing. guest: can i get in on that. to disagree strongly with my friend, neil, that he's right school choice. some say how do you support school choice and standards? the standard is about where do by the end ofo be the school year. it doesn't say how we have to get there, which curriculum going to use, which methods you're going to use. we're all parents, we have young

kids. we take our kids in for a physical once a year. why do we do that? e love our kids, we want to make sure they're on track. there's no problems. there are these charts that the octors use to see whether they're on the right trajectory in terms of height and weight. we go in, we say everything right?ood, that's what we're talking about here. checking in once a year to see f kids are on the right trajectory. now the problem was the scale we were using before wasn't an accurate scale. we kept giving all of the false information to parents that things were oh can i when they weren't. that neil would agree if we're going to are standards and tests. ook, i think the libertarians aren't going to win this argument. i think they're going have standards and tests, they ought at a high level and they ought to be linked to what is going to come next for kids. we?st: who is who is we who gets to decide what is right or wrong for every child. unique.now that's and this isn't whether or not we're finding out whether hey're dangerously underweight or something. this is saying here is your ultimate future when you get out of high school. idea of k whole

through 12 standards. a lot of people have a lot of ideas about what they want to that are very different from the common core. so we -- when we decide, it's who we ortant to know is. a lot of people asking that question right now. host: we have a half hour for debate to play out. we want to get to as many calls can.e john in maryland on our line for all others, john, good morning. caller: good morning, frank stole my thunder. million ok at the 3.5 new students and overlay the -- intellectual curve, 20% of the opportunity students will not wherewithal to get through high school. 0% will be termed average and struggle. but they'll probably make it. 5% have the wherewithal to

continue on to college. and as the discussion just common core addresses in 25% at the topthe should know. it doesn't seem to address how implementation of those applied to documents middle and what we could do for the the 25% that we know. personority, we know the that will not be able to get core h even a basic program to graduate from high school. host: what do you make of the stats? guest: i disagree we know those or these things are etched in stone, right? there's exciting research coming out. out a few weeks ago showing that fantastic schools can have a huge impact their ing kids maximize potential. there may be some things, happens in -- what

the home or the upbringing or genetics or whatever you want to be limiting may factors, right? i'm never going to be a pro basketball player, right? to how much omes you learn, most kids today are ot anywhere near the full potential. grade schools can help move them much closer. into the nt to give idea that the system is it cally doing as well as could be or we have to write off as much of these kids. not going to be utopian. to get 100% of the level where they'll succeed in a four-year college. done that.has massachusetts, the leading state gets 50% of their kids there. 100%. not going to get to i don't want to go to the other extreme awhereined a25% or 50% 75% of the kids. i think our system could do ramatically better to help all kids get to their full potential. host: mike is the parent. good morning. yes, good morning, c-span. vehemently opposed to common core.

essentially an extension of education model of ing good ou're breed ing workers but not creating free thinkers. one of the foundation of a free is free thought. we're getting away from that. the viewer if you are not familiar should familiarize by a ladyith the lady eiserby.otte thompson she has a book called "the deliberate dumbing down of america" where she documents the last 100 or so years that the educational standards have we've allowed re federal government to supplant the role of the states. over the laste is 100 or so years is we have these

big thinkers and the people who move our country forward are now away from those types of or thinkers or contributors to society. and what we're getting is we're get expert button pushers and we're going to get people who can solve the simplest of problems because the addressed, they -- i have an extremely iq. i'm looking at the common core math and it's literally ridiculous. host: the disagreement over common core. guest: i think mike is getting at something that's important. we talk about soviet style of education, we have to be careful, because the soviet supposed course, was to be social control kind of mind control. i don't think common core is trying to do that. similarity, though, is that the common core is now the of seeing our

curriculum, because standards do hether we think they're curriculum or standards do, have some impact. it has to on curriculum. this come from the federal government, from washington for the first time where they're starting to say the standards that you should use, as opposed to saying you need to have some standards. moving to centralization. i don't think we can say we're scary ways y of the towards a soviet style, other than the evidence on federal education n of doesn't work. grade. look at 12th assessment scores. flat throughout the time the is involved.nment more and more money. more and more control from the ederal government hasn't fixed anything. that's a big problem. the more important problem and i think it's been a messaging for the common core is is the common core supposed to

creative thinking, or is it supposed to be about producing better workers? lot of the rhetoric supporting it is to say if we want to be competitive, we have to create common core to get better workers. for a lot of people, that's not what education is about. host: the authors on the piece "the washington times" on restarting the common core debate. here for the next 25 minutes or to answer your questions about this debate, trying to lay out the facts of the debate, the agree and e they disagree. want to get your thoughts as well. line for, ohio on your parents. good morning caller: good morning, sirs, how you today? ahead.good, go caller: my comment is my children when they bring home books from school, and we go through them, i don't see any don't see any ohio history. i don't see any u.s. history.

my comment is how do they kind ditch their books that they bring home and bring out some and from the late '60s early '70s. their math book -- they're ones they have today. wouldt understand why you want to force somebody from the to try to ernment somebody in ohio when they don't have a clue about what's going on. host: john's experience? guest: i'm glad john called, especially from ohio. we work on the ground in ohio. we have a team there. there's a big debate going on in whether to stay with the common core, there's hearings happening in the state house. there have been superintendents and school board members, local ohio people after the other

about how much progress the common core has allowed them to ake in the last four years and putting in place stronger curriculum and putting in place materials that are better for their kids. to remember, before the common core started, not like everything was great with the system. we're all seeing some of the we've got.at our textbooks in this country have been terrible for decades. i'm not surprised. it's a great idea to go back to some of the textbooks that you might have used when you were a probably aree they much better than what we've seen s, the '80s, the '90 2000s, way off track. if anything, common core is rying to get us back to a more traditional approach. especially in math if you look at the early grades that says ou have to know your math facts, times tables, no fourth or until the fifth grade. to the english standards, to mike's comments before, they say e need kids to read the founding documents. we have need kids to read a play

of shakespeare. very traditional in many bays which is different from many including ohio and florida had done which many ways go way off the deep end in a of education yle and the common core in many respects is trying to be a corrective to that. that's why we support the common core. to the more back traditional foundation in the early grades. > the map we have shows the states that adopted in green and states that have not adopted in yellow. what states might be joining that yellow list sometime soon? guest: depends on how you look at it. i'm not sure from that math what all of them are. see oklahoma on there. you don't see south carolina, hich is -- is put off for a year going to new standards because they couldn't make the transition fast enough. rumblings in places like north carolina to change. so i think you'll see, you know, four more r three or states that drop the standards out right maybe in the next year or so.

of course, that's a guess. a lot more of is states not using the two test.lly selected the park, and the sbac test. out a leg of the tripod that fordham talked about. tests, and ndards, ramifications for performance on that test. ow, the states, this is all predicated to the notions that states will hold themselves accountable. this points to the federal having to be the one who directs accountability. that's a big problem because the federal government failed on repeatedly. it's micromanaged out of democracy, but it hasn't proven outcomes. this is important because we beingbout standards maybe better. there's a lot of debate about the quality of the standards. is, and i ou've seen think mike will agree with this, lots of questionable tests, bad lots of things saying they're common core aligned.

that's because you can set and it's hard to enforce them. hard to implement them. and it's why most people looked this and said standardizations alone can't do things that common core is promising to do. guest: i agree in the federal role. that we do not want the feds involved in it. i don't agree that standards equal standardization. that the charter school movement, all of the great schools of choice, overwhelmingly support this movement? know they can get to the standards lots of different ways. they can still have a lot of creativity, they want to be held accountable for igh standards, meaningful standards to show the stuff against it rather than the low standards they have. ook, neil, let's be honest, there's no debate that these standards are higher standards than what we had before. like the other figures that you hear of will acknowledge that the common core than what say three-quarters of the states had before. the debate is around a couple of that had very good standards before. how did the common core compare

there. the debates in the studio, it's happening on our twitter page. along at c-span wj if you want to follow that conversation. a er writes, common core is race to the bottom. it will bring down those bright, inspiring districts to the least denominator. and peg writes in that all of the leading countries in and tion have standards much tougher standards. you can follow along there or call like lisa did. lisa is from aston, pennsylvania. good morning, lisa. are you? host: good. caller: i'm a school board director. the departmentce of education was created in the 1979, was the late the downing of our education the top.rough race to and no child left behind. race -- common core is untested. wanted to do higher standards, why wouldn't laboratories of innovation and use those for best practices instead of the

math that we're seeing there that parents can't with.their children i'm not sure why that has happened. ut the -- bill gates said that when the testing is implemented, he level will follow, which says that the curriculum is the ultimate goal. nd that is very concerning to me. and i think parents kneeled -- up right now. they need slow have a voice. they feel they're alone. voices heard.r we've had new math, sight reading, other things that have come and gone. i had a good education. i graduated in 1980. its's been downhill. government has not done much right and something they need to stay out of. because it affects every child. that's left to the states. teachers are boxed in. their autonomy and creativity is being denied. and they pretty much pull -- they push the students along.

before they used to pull the students. now they have to push that last student to get to where the rest of the students are. host: there's a lot there to tackle. sympathize with lisa on many of the points. she was in the end focusing on kids.owest performing that's what happened under no child left behind. we had the low standards, pennsylvania, very easy tests. all of the incentives were for eachers to just get the lowest performing kids over the low bar. now we have a very different ystem coming, much higher bar, toucher standards, and the --eptembin incentiv incentives. why don't we look for the aboratories of innovation, the states, we did. the common core, the state that those most influence on standards no doubt was massachusetts. they had a great set of standards. massachusetts were heavily involved in crafting the common core. verbatim was taken from the massachusetts standards. it is in there. these standards -- you say research-based.

you look at the different aspects of the standards, strong early n phonics in the grades. big research base. on the math, big focus on math facts. getting the arit many tick down to fluency. research based. means to be college and career ready. what is the evidence about what need now be able to do at the end of high school if they're going to succeed in klemming? evidence based. these standards more than any other before we've done took the idea of evidence based seriously. doesn't mean they're perfect. down from t handed mt. sinai. they need to be improved. ego.l learn as with i see big problems with math, a lot of confusion where i don't think there needs to be. to try to on was not force new math on the country. if schools are thinking that's hat they're being asked to do, that's a serious problem. but by in large, these are good solid standards. think lisa had a great point about laboratories of innovation.

was nk what the problem that this was, again, heavily pressured by the federal government. nd i think a lot of people who supported the common core did want it to be something that voluntarily adopted. the problem was, there are also people who are supporting the core, including the national government association and of chief state schools and officers that were in charge of it that said, no, right off f the bat, the federal government's job is to incentivize adoption of these things. get ates really didn't truly voluntary ability to adopt these things and you didn't get five or six four or states that were really committed, use them, see what the outcomes were after three or four years, know everybody was told that -- the technician had been given any sort of trial run. the research that i'm talking about for the most part is we research to show that having national standards leads to better outcomes. ut we never got to have the debate about the policy because comes the top suddenly

around in 2009, 2010. and everybody stopped in to get it seems in cause many cases, states thought that the common core was the best way to go. guest: we don't know that, neil. we don't know how many states have adopted without race to the top. we do know it's been a long time since race to the top. 2010, 2011. we still have 40 plus states onboard. despite all of the controversy, 40 states saying we invested in higher standards. e decided there would be much bigger tests coming. we will have much better assessments coming. all of the political heat, we're going to stick with this. this sh good for kids. plus states and most of those states are free at any time to back out. they have no obligation to the government to stay with this. but they're sticking in there. to me, the leaders in those tates tell me it's good for

kids. guest: an important point. if most states wanted a waiver that child left behind start in 2011 and they still want or still need had to say or would use common core would have the states and colleges and universities ertify their own college and career ready. most had promised to use common core to get race to the top money. to suddenly going say we were just recently doing it for the money. they're stuck with this. it doesn't mean they're happy. we don't have evidence that moat excited about common core. what we do have clear evidence of is that the federal applied pressure to adopt them and keep them. guest: give you a little hearings in ohio, going on right now, mostly out of state people coming in and get rid of theld standards and people in ohio, educators, school board members, want to keep it. guest: it's not right. host: let's look at the teacher looked at the standards and thought about the standards. ichael is a teacher from

deerfield beach, florida, lots of people to talk to. we want to get to as many as we can. morning, michael. hole l hello. i'm calling from broward county, the nation rgest in as far as number of students. the issue of testing is the center of a lot of this, i think. things that i find possibly disingenuous on both really that no one cares about tracking through performance. everyone is talking about example, the tests, for ere in broward, only 5 of 260 schools received passing grades on all six subjects. only 5 of 260. the reports hear results of the test, this doesn't come out. it's we're doing wonderfully and

everything is going great. we're ditching a new test, no one is talking about the fact hat we have statistical, mathematical capability. i would like both of you to address this. say 5% of the questions, the actual questions maintained when we transition from one test to another when we can go back and say, look, we know based on the tens of only ads of tests given, small percentage of these, the same math that we use to make presidentialor the candidates. we the can say, look, we changed the test entirely. we had a subset. we can go back and statistically pull out of the kids who did it, sometimes we'll have kids taking questions that may go back ten years. t will be a small number of kids doing that. host: i want to give you each a minute or so to answer the questions. guest: some of this is happening. last spring, they did the tests

ms.the new assess the state like massachusetts gave kids both tests so they could do the equating. ways to figure out what it means when we have a new test and trend line. no doubt in many states, the tests are going to be harder. you can see passage rates but there are ways to be able to equate this. this is something we've seen continued efforts to try to improve standards of testing. tests that at the it's supposed to be pretty years, ent, over 40 some which is the long term trend, progress.ssessment of but you see when you get to high school kids, it's totally flat. so far, standards in testing has not led to meaningful improvements in outcomes. testing can tell us some things but always major disagreement on what's on the test, what's not the test. and how do you assess things that aren't easy to test. assess the critical

thinking or the creativity and things like that. ests are only one barometer of what we want. but unfortunately policy is heavily focused on testing and test results. host: josie is calling in in pennsylvania, good morning. aller: i'm a retired schoolteacher. i retired five years ago. i had some in public and some in private. i want to say the standardization is absolutely else in. very mobile society. when students move from one state to the other, you find -- area, moving patch into our system, who didn't have the same capabilities, i won't say capabilities, i would ave to say preparation for moving into our curriculum. found with at i that you haven is

consistency. there was a lag time saying we were five to ten years behind the curve. true.nd that to be but we're in a rapidly moving society now. we have moved with all of our social media, etc. we have to be able to keep up. host: neil? guest: there's an important point. talk about people who move -- movement between states or among states. because remember for a long time, we've had state-level standardization. look at those numbers, there are not that many school-aged kids who move from one state to the other. the common core would have no effect on them. as more important thing is much as we like and want kids to ideally be at the highest level

we would like them all to be an equal highest level possible, the reality is, all kids are different. so we can set standards, but you can't make everybody learn the rate, hing at the same unless you want to have a very low rate, slow rate, where you the slowest t even learners, and that would go from subject to subject. necessarily the slowest learner in all subjects, but then you would have then tailored to them so that they don't fall behind. that's not what we need. that's the stem exact opposite where you can get he education that's best for your unique child who learns different rates and different things. to a system of school choice and away from this idea of set national standardization. host: a few minutes left with ccluskey of the cay tow petrelli from r. the fordham institute.

to write a gether piece in "the washington times," "restarting the common core debate." bob is a parent from virginia, good morning, bob. caller: hi, good morning. doctor, i'm a neurologist. stuff to address this about core curriculum. both of those guys presumed to degrees.ege you have xhcollege degrees. core curriculum or not? so what? electives for everybody. host: talk about his background in education? yeah, it's an important point about core curriculum. t's interesting when you go to college where there is a lot of ontrol, there is not core curriculum. we can go to choose for the most go to school.

i went to a school that focused on political science. areas of of their expertise which would be different from going to a school with an engineering area of expertise. so what i got was through school a place that had a program tailored to me. i can guarantee you that what where rn in many classes i went to college would be different from what you learn in political science and government elsewhere. there's been a big push to let people choose the schools -- the they want even in their major? host: your background? in political d science at the university of michigan. lot. core curriculum, not a a lot of colleges have moved away from that. the importance of kids moving across states. you know who it happens a lot for? military families. family community is hugely supportive of the common core. they think it will help them as families are moved every couple of years around the country and the world.

more likely now to have consistency in those standards. o that's something that again not a ton of kids, but certainly part of them. department of defense in many cases run schools. if it makesquestion more sense if that's a heavily mobile population, the have ment of defense schools but we have the ability to choose schools that are their children because they're not as mobile. host: a military family out experience, take a few minutes to take your calls. karen who's been waiting on the franklin, rents from tennessee. good morning. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. neil thinks, first of all. i have three concerns. okay? efinitely government needs to a standard.rom the federal government needs to be taken out of this.

the eds to go back to states. and i think that is so important. what my background is is i'm man and his mother and father were in the education system. principal, one was a teacher. they both started as a teacher. his father went to be a principal. what i noticed is dating for used to s, his mother have in the beginning, she had an assistant, she had an aide. teacher.he first grade she had an aide that helped cut hings out, that helped the children. numerous ways. away.ide was taken they're taking the money and putting it in technology. technology needs to be removed from the first six years of education. they should be all -- they of the et rid of all computers and put aides back in single room.

kids need attention, assistance, that are guiding them and helping them. what our school system has done s put so much pressure on one teacher to take care of 30 some ids in a classroom by themselves. and then the terrible to all of hese standard tests and things like that where i also agree, kids learn individually. they -- karen likes it way that mr. mccluskey thinks. respond to you karen. guest: i like the way neil issues.a lot of these are good questions of technology versus people. two young , i've got boys. a constant struggle at home to keep them away from technology. 'm not sure we need to be giving them a whole lot of screen time when they re actually in school. i think that's a place where mostly doing things like reading books and getting that attention from the teacher. sympathy for t of that. host: we go to washington, ennsylvania, charlotte calling

on the line for all others this morning. charlotte, good morning. charlotte's not with us. we'll go to janice waiting in odenton, maryland, also a parent. janice. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you. i oppose common core for a totally different reason. don't hear anyone really talking about the advanced students. who worked with their children. y husband and i and the grandparents and others have worked with our children. child, before kindergarten, she knew how to read, she was reading "charlotte's web." she knew how to do multiplication and addition. scored on the common core advanced.test you know, during the beginning, in the end of the school year, kinked kindergarten and the fit

grade. and i asked the teacher, well, are you going to give her do?anced work to she said yes, but she never did. it seems to me they drop the score high.ds that they don't really care if a kid scores high. they only worry about the kids who didn't score as high. advanced y about the o ones. again, a very s, important question. common core has a bad effect in further rd in that it centralizes and further says there should be one standard for everyone. naturally what the schools will teach to you. that you tant to note can have the common core, but the main driver of this sort of tandardization and focus, especially on low performers, comes from broader policy, comes

child left behind in particular that said if you on't get all kids to a certain level, then you get punished. a that led to a sort of triage that you would focus on getting as many kids over the you could and not worry about the other kids. even broader than that, we have education, government is going, government is saying that everyone will get essentially the same school, the government will provide that school as opposed to the parents of the child. have the autonomy to start the schools and you go and find the school that focuses on the needs of your unique child. child ced child, or a that struggles in math getting help in math. and we have a system far beyond the common core. host: in the last minute, matilda on the line for apartments. matilda, good morning. aller: good morning, thank you for c-span.

the debate reminds me of health care law. certain groups ape tempt to crush it, lots of money, didn't in place to offer. our schools are not performing well. if you look at other developed nations. nd i really think that this is an effort by the koch brothers for the cato institute. it's to abolish the department of education. kids in their place because wealthier students can get education because their parents can get it to them. ost: give mr. mccluskey a chance to respond. guest: i would hope when we have this debate, i would like on the evidence and the merits rather than whom is funding whom. with k there are people money on both sides. i don't think anybody disagrees with that. what's important is that when we the evidence about

national standards, do they have discernible positive income -- no evidence comes, to suggest that. you look at reality, all kids are different. they have different rates, skills and ability, we need to treat them like individuals. these are the important things we need to talk about. guest: she raises a great question. which is what is plan b for want states to pull out of the common core. we can look tot oh k o.k. which has repealed the common core. now, it's total chaos. no one knows what the standards are. teachers don't know what they're supposed to be teaching to. in six months they're supposed to be giving some test, they the test will be. we're four years in to this. if we're going to do something for, we need to have a plan that. and unfortunately, many opponents do not have that plan. do, you can go back to old standards, you can move to school choice. but the reality is common core that was pushed on many people. they don't know it's coming. they don't like it now.

it's not sufficient to say, well, you bet verse a full plan in place to get rid of the thing you didn't want and you were blind sided by if you don't hink it's good for your kids dansky talks about a report released by heard union looking at the possibility of american police forces being militarized. statermer secretary of discusses the threat of crisis in light of the murders of three american journalists. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. the wall street journal has a video released reporting to show beheading ther u.s. journalist steven sotloff.

he was 31 years old and was a journalist who worked for several publications, including time magazine, the christian science monitor, and foreign policy magazine. house foreign affairs committee chair released a statement saying in part -- i am disgusted by what appears to be another karen is killing of an american journalist at the hands of isis. sadly, isis is bringing this barbarity across the region anchors a fine those who don't share their dark ideology. the state department discussed the murder during a briefing today. here is part of that. >> have you seen the purported video of the beheading of steven sotloff? if you have, are you in a position to confirm? >> let me share everything i can at this point. we have seen reports of the video that purports to be the

murder of u.s. citizen steven sotloff by isil. the intelligence community will work as quickly as possible to determine its authenticity. are sickened, we by this brutal act -- taking the life of american citizen. familyrts go out to the and we will provide information as it becomes in for -- available. >> i do not want to waste everyone's time. if you don't have anything else to say -- >> i really don't. go-ahead. >> [indiscernible] don't get into specific numbers for the safety and security of individuals. that continues to be accurate. alive aseven sotloff of last week? what was the last information you had? >> i don't have any additional

information to provide. >> does the u.s. government actually have the video in its possession? there video has been out through many media outlets. the process has begun? >> it is a process that has to be undergone by our intelligence community. i don't know if it officially started but i don't know if that would be happening rapidly. >> do you know when you are made aware of this? was it before this extremist group put it out for do you know if the intel community was aware of it before? >> i am not sure if i can say more. go ahead. >> i will defer to james. >> does the obama administration consider this an act of war? >> i am not going to put any labels on it.

i would say we certainly consider this act, the act of the killing of james foley as a .orrific terrorist act has one of the motivating factors and the efforts to undergo an international coalition to address this threat. >> we now have two american journalists beheaded by this group. is there any doubt on your part or the part of the administration that the united states is at war with isis? >> i want to be very careful here. we have not confirmed through the proper processes. i need to restate that as the u.s. -- speaking on behalf of the u.s. government. i am not going to put any labels on it. i think it is clear we are concerned about the threat of isil to western interests, to interests in the region. that is why the secretary, the

president, secretary hagel are all going to be working every contact they have to build a coalition to address the threat. >> members of congress are sending tweets about what happened to steven sotloff. sean duffy says prayers to his family. him -- friend described the guy lit up a room and was always a loyal, caring and good friend. a tweet from gregg harper -- please keep steven sotloff in your prayers today. the texasne from congressman -- terrorist have committed another atrocity against an american citizen. pray for peace and justice. look at the primetime schedule. withtv on c-span 2 authors who have written about american presidents. c-span 3 has american history

tv. c-span, the second circuit court of appeals oral argument which challenges the collection of american phone records. recently, we spoke with chief on the second court of appeals robert katzmann. here is the interview. ♪ >> this week on "q&a," our guest is the chief judge of the u.s. second circuit court of appeals, robert katzmann. he talks about his new book "judging statutes," which talks about his approach to interpreting laws. he also talks about his thoughts on televised coverage of courtroom proceedings.

>> chief judge robert katzmann of the second circuit courts in new york, it says in your bio you are the only jurist in the federal courts with a phd in political science. how can that be? >> it just happens, i guess. but i started out going to graduate school in political science at harvard. and i got a phd, worked with james wilson and daniel patrick moynihan and richard neustadt, and then went to law school at yale. i am originally from new york. i am a product of the public schools in new york. so, going to those schools -- outside columbia as an

undergraduate, going to those schools were really my first exposure outside of new york and got those degrees and then spent really a career before the bench trying to look at the workings of our institutions. and studied relations between the branches of government at the brookings institution and at georgetown. then because of senator daniel patrick moynihan, who had been my professor at harvard, and i was his teaching assistant, he was on my oral exam. because of him, i became a judge. >> we have got some videotape of you from 1993 testifying. where would you have been? >> i can tell you exactly what i

was doing, that day in fact. i was accompanying ruth bader ginsburg, meeting with the senators on the hill. senator moynihan had asked me if i would work with her. she did not need any work because she was so fully prepared and everything. and i made every meeting with her that was scheduled except one, with barbara boxer, because the time i was opposed to meet with boxer with then judge ginsburg, i was to testify before the joint committee on the organization of congress on matters of judicial and congressional relations. >> it is a short clip.

let's watch you -- i guess this is 21 years ago. >> in the area of statute and the interpretation of statutes and the revision of statutes, we are so intimately involved with each other's processes, a think it certainly makes sense, and certainly the constitution does not preclude in any way that each branch try to have a better understanding of the other's work product with an eye toward improving that relationship. >> what do you say to somebody watching this? we are in the weeds. their eyes glaze over. you have a new book out called "judging statutes." how does it relate to the average person? >> i think it relates to the average person this way, the subject. if you ask the average person what does a judge do, the

average, intelligent citizen would say "interpret the constitution." and of course that is correct. but that is not all what judges do. what judges spend a lot of time doing, and the supreme court's docket, two thirds of its cases involve doing this, is to interpret the laws of congress. so, you have got laws from the affordable health care act. you have laws having to do with clean air, clean water, civil rights. you have major legislation, environmental legislation, gender legislation. you have laws having to do with national security. when congress passes a law, oftentimes there is a lawsuit in court about the way the statute should be interpreted. what do the words of the statute

mean? when those words are ambiguous, the challenge for a court is difficult. i think that understanding how judges go about interpreting statutes is something that we should all be interested in, because in a way, even though the legislative process formally ends with the passage of a law, in some sense that process continues when there is a lawsuit, trying to make sense of what the words mean. >> let's put it -- the second circuit court of appeals in context. i looked at some numbers. you can tell me if the numbers are wrong -- now, of course, i can't find them. how many district courts there are, how many circuit courts there are, and how they fit -- we hear a lot about the supreme court.

i counted 94 judicial boards, circuit district courts, 12 circuits, and of course one supreme court. what does a district court do? >> a district court is the court of entry in the federal system. district court is a one judge court. district court is the trials. so, if it is a martha stewart trial, a case involving a jury, that will be conducted by a one judge district court. and the district court also will hear other kinds of cases. when the party loses, the party, if it so chooses, will appeal to the court of appeals. that is the circuit court. that is my court. my court, second circuit, is one

of the cords that you alluded to. we have 13 full-time judges and nine senior judges. we have 22 judges. >> what is a senior judge? >> a senior judge is someone who is over 65, has the requisite number of years of experience, and can take senior status. there is an arcane rule known as the rule of 80. if you are 65 and have 15 years of service -- 65 plus 15 equals 80. you can go on senior status. if you're 70, if you went on the bench at 60, you have to wait. the senior judges do a large metal work and our court system. when they go senior, what happens is it creates a vacancy so that we can get another judge, and so a combination of the senior judges and the

full-time active judges allows us to function. >> all judges, federal judges for life? >> all federal judges for life. >> and we have 94 judicial courts, and within the second circuit court, how many district courts would send their appeals to you? >> there would be six district courts. the second circuit itself encompasses new york, connecticut, and vermont. new york has four districts. connecticut has its own district and vermont has its own district court. and so those cases all feed into our circuit. >> you were nominated and confirmed to be on the second circuit court when? >> 1999.

it was a process that fortunately went smoothly. senator moynihan was a tremendous advocate. >> let me show you something. we have some video of senator moynihan on the floor of the senate back in 1999. >> on a brief personal note, this is a special moment for the senator from new york. judge katzmann was a graduate student of mine. i was a member of the orals examining committee when he received his phd. he has been a remarkable student. professor of law at georgetown

university at this point. and an author of important articles and books on the relationship between the congress and the judiciary, a subject little attended and important. >> he has been gone since 2003, but how did you get interested in the first place in the subject between the judiciary and the courts? >> i got interested in it most generally because of my concern with the way that the branches of government interact. i have done books in other areas. the key point, i think, was in 1994, frank kaufman, the chair of the committee branch under the judicial conference, which is one of the committees of the conference that consists of the chief judges of the circuit and the district judges. and they work on administration of justice issues.

when judge kaufman who chaired that committee asked me if i would assist him and designing an agenda for research of relations between the courts and congress. that is how i really got into it. because i have the political science background, i was asked to work with him on this. i had known him from my year on the first circuit as a law clerk. and together we designed an agenda. and that led to a series of books and projects. judges and legislators, courts and congress. and then the projects that i designed with him, facilitating improvements between the branches with respect to making sure that when the courts of

appeals have opinions that are of interest to congress, congress would know about it. >> i think you point out there are only two former members of congress that are judges anywhere in the federal system? >> that is right. when i was working with the committee on the judicial branch, there were many judges who were former -- many legislators who were former judges. there was abner mikva, james buckley. donald russell. there was charles wiggins. and so on and so forth. now there are very few judges who have had legislative experience. and as members of congress,

there are a number of judges who have served on the hill, like richard eaton. but in terms of legislators who had judicial experience, you have alcee hastings. you have senator cornyn, who was on the texas supreme court. it is a very limited number of people in both branches who have had hands-on experience in the other branch. >> can't help but ask though, if you look at the statistics of the numbers are former members of congress and the senate who go into lobbying that makes a tremendous amount of money, how much of this is tied to the fact that judges in the context of the city do not make that much. your chief judge. what is it, $150,000 a year? >> no, it is an increase.

but the key is public service as a calling. those of us who are in it really feel privileged to be in it. it is certainly true that i have observed the phenomenon where i am in a court room and everybody arguing the cases are probably multimillionaires. but what a great system it is that we are in it not for the money, but we want to serve the public good? i consider it a really precious, treasured honor to be in the system. >> where is your court located? >> we are located in downtown new york city at 30 foley square. it is now known as the thurgood marshall courthouse because thurgood marshall served on the

second circuit and had chambers in our courthouse. the designer also designed to be supreme court courthouse. our courthouse has been the site of many exciting, important cases. pentagon papers case, example -- >> then it went to the supreme court. >> then it went to the supreme court. it also came up through the d.c. circuit, parallel cases, "the washington post" and "the new york times." >> you have been chief judge for how long and what does that mean?

>> i have been chief judge from most a year, september 1. the chief judge is responsible for the operations of the court. it is a seven-year term. we have 291 persons working in the second circuit, and that includes the judges, clerks, and the administrative people. we have a budget that ranges -- a local budget that ranges between $16.5 million and $19 million. plus there is money paid centrally by washington, d.c., the salaries of the judges and the clerks. that is another roughly $12.5 million. >> i do not want to put words in your mouth, but i would assume you are not primarily conservative? >> i would say to label is to ignore.

>> this guy, senator moynihan does not just appeal to people on the liberal side. i'm good to show you a clip of george will talking about him here. >> he was throughout his career the senate for a leading intellectual, which is like being the tallest building in topeka. [laughter] [applause] during his senate tenure, he wrote more books than most of his colleagues read. [laughter] what is a senator? 1% of one half of one of the three branches of government. unless of course you are mr. moynihan. then things are different. his life was, as we shall now endeavor to make clear, one of the broadest and deepest public careers in american history.

>> what is it about the memory of senator moynihan that can appeal to all political sides? >> i think that the reason that he is still a figure -- and it is really quite something. a week does not go by when somebody isn't quoting him for some proposition or another. i think part of it is he appealed to reason. and he reached out, regardless of political and party affiliation to talk about ideas. you will never hear him speak ill of somebody else. it is always about the ideals. and i think the fact that he also would always try to put himself in the other person's shoes was part of it. i will give you an example. i worked on the commission for reducing secrecy in government.

reducing and protecting secrecy wasovernment, and his ideal to open up lots of the documents that had been sealed, and he was trying to figure out a way to get jesse helms, who was on the board, so then he came up with a concept, secrecy and form of regulation, it senator helms was not a fan, so he came up with this concept ,hich would appeal to somebody who one might think would be perhaps opposed to releasing historical documents,