Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150210

25,000 for my sons to go to one school. A school, snow school, that theyve never set foot in for any reason at all. If they were vouchered theyd only be paid once. If it was a scholarship, wed only be paid once. The reason why were in the situation that were in is were trying to keep the other school open so that the grown people can keep their jobs. But what even they neglect to understand is that the number of students doesnt change, its static, meaning if there are thousands of students that need teachers there are thousands of students that need teachers no matter where they are. So if you can halfway teach or at least convince someone for 45 minutes that you can halfway teach, then youre going to have a job as a teacher. We need to make it plain to our community that theyre being played by the system so that the people who dont utilize these urban schools, who send their kids to suburban charter or Catholic Schools, which is always funny, they send their own children to Catholic Schools but they dont support private schools. We need to make it plain for our community so our community can fight with us as opposed to us simply fighting and them not understanding what were fighting for. [ applause ] as one of those khaki, you know suited potential policy people, dr. Perry talked about grassroots politics. So theyve done some incredible work on grassroots politics and grassroots activism. What are the big challenges you faced at baio and in particular dealing with people in khaki pants and blue blazers . Well, i agree with what dr. Perry says. Sometimes the policy makers or the funders think this is an intellectual debate. They think lets talk through it, we can talk our way through the problems. And what it really is is personal one on one relationships. Weve got to spend the time the other challenge is its an urgent problem. People want to give money and get sxorgd come out today and then it be done. But this is a longterm battle. Its a longterm fight. And weve got to invest. It just takes time but it takes a oneonone conversation. You know, as we think about organizing or engagement whether its in louisiana or alabama, kentucky, or even in newark new jersey we have to start with the oneonone conversations and the reality is there are better people who are messengers in the community. We cant have the flyin pilot helicopter type of people who come in and say believe in these policies and come fight with us. It really has to be from the parents and from the community. But it takes the trusted relationships. It takes time. And it takes real support. I would agree with that. Nina, looking at the charter sector, what are some examples of great grassroots act advise frmt charter sector . The families of her school rallied 20,000 Community Leaders and parents to walk to albany to ask to make sure one of the schools that the mayor, mayor de blasio was trying to close would stay open. To me thats a great example of an effort that started with one school, families for excellence schools brought leaders to the forefront. We have two leaders in the room today, darlene chambers from the ohio Charter School association and Mary Carmichael with the South Carolina Charter School association in the back. These two individuals probably can tell you more about what theyre doing in their respective communities. But i will tell you this, piggybacking on what mishay said. One of the things you notice when you go to a lot of these communities is the sense of learned helplessness. A lot of people have come to these communities to offer hope and they have left. Thats often quite frankly and unfortunately what happens with School District leaders who go in with a lot of hope. They may have the School Boards support at the time. In an office they offer hope they create a safe community, but unfortunately the average tenure of an inner City District superintendent is less than three years. So when they leave they take those ideas and the next person comes with new ideas. I think understanding where theyre coming from and making sure that whatever infrastructure you have in place is one thats going to stay there after the reform has gone is important. And one reason why Charter Schools or any form of choice trumps any systemic reform is because those schools are going to stay and families are choosing them. Theyre not beholden to them because theyre assigned to those schools. You know, we often overlook the most obvious grassroots efforts. The waiting lists. Parents are voting with their feet. They are saying i dont want this school to which i am assigned assigned. So some of the Largest School systems in america are losing 10 , 20 30 , 40 , 50 of their entire student population. There are no other cities no other movement thats clearer than that. Our city in hartford has 4,200 children on the waiting list. One school. 70 available seats. But because of a weak school board, because of a weak mayor and because visionless leaders in the community our school is not allowed to expand. With vouchers we wouldnt have to go through this. Each one of those children would just leave. And wed just open another school. Wed open as many schools as the community has asked for. When the Community Says so resoundingly that they want something and the politicians stand in the way because literally a blogger or a union person sends something mean to them or says something about them, theyre so weak in their conviction yet they say that theyre for children these same people do not send their own children to the schools which they legislate over. We have what we refer to as microactivism. Microactivism is what we overlook when we have the conversation about grassroots movements. These families are families who seemed for a long time to be uneducated, have found a way to understand which schools are the best performing schools. They may not understand the test data. They may not understand what stem means. They may not understand what the theme is. But if you look at the schools with the longest waiting lists you will find that they are also the best performing schools. So the streets are talking. The drums are playing. And our Community Wants out. We the powerful people are not letting them out. We need to fight on to make sure that when they do their part that we do our part. That we put in place policies that will allow them to have the choices theyre asking for. When you have cities with school after school with waiting lists on it, that is the clearest example of the grassroots. And then we go around and blame the parents for not wanting to participate in the process. Are you kidding me . Some of these parents are so enraged, and guess who theyre mad at. Us. They shouldnt be mad at us. But because we dont explain to them is the reason youre on the waiting list is not because the Charter School association doesnt want you or the Catholic School doesnt want you, its because the weak school board and the overzealous and the overzealous Union Members have put a cap, they put a limit on how many of you can get out of this school. Until we begin to make p abundantly clear who is to blame for this, we keep getting the blame. So when im out there doing bus duty, because i still am a principal. Dont worry. We have a snow day. I knowing somebodys writing about why is he in d. C. Today . Mind your damn business. Im working. [ applause ] when im out doing bus duty and parents will come up and stop and say my child has been on your waiting list for six years, that doesnt feel good. I am not proud of that. Theres nothing that makes me feel like ive done something right, to know that somebody has waited that childs entire academic career on a waiting list in a school they do not want to be in when i would open the school. Many of us would open more schools if we could just get to the children. We have a grassroots movement. Give it voice. Fight to make sure that once the parents have done what they could do which is to vote with their feet once they have moved out of these failed School Systems and theyve sought an opportunity, then fight to make sure that vouchers are real, that choice is real so that they can get their children out of the doldrums of the very system that uneducated them. [ applause ] i have to say this. As a proud Catholic School parent for my children for many years, i dont know of a more grassrootsbased or communitybased organization than the Catholic Church when it comes to education. So how have you been so successful at getting parents to come . And my school of course was filled with a wide Diverse Income group. There are a lot of people in poverty that were there that were working hard. So how have you been able to create the success . Well, i think the product and i use that word widely. Parents want an excellent education for their children. And Catholic Schools have over many years graduated their students at 98 . 87 go on to a fouryear institution institution. And do very well. And so the reality of whats going on within the school itself itself, to piggyback off dr. Perry, that parents really want that. And theyll do what they can do and need to do to be part of that. We have approximately 6,500 schools in the United States. According to the most recent ncaa data 41 of those are in urban or inner city settings. So i think part of our challenge still, although we have a very good brand and parents want our product, is to help with those structures that do actually give parents more voice and give them an opportunity to state why its important that they are actually the ones involved and theyre the ones choosing the school that matters most to them, including faithbased schools, including the opportunity to have a full education for their child. So i think one, parents recognize a good education when they see it and they want it. And thats been very helpful as far as attracting people to the Catholic School. But i think we need to do more structurally in our country to give parents a greater voice related to the question of Parental Choice. And we use the term very specifically, Parental Choice. We dont tend to use School Choice. We tend to use Parental Choice because we believe thats actually what this is all about. Its much, much more about the parents choosing and having the right to choose than it is necessarily supporting a particular institution. I think thats right. [ applause ] yes, go ahead. Dr. Perry. One of the things thats also important to do is to point out the hypocrisy. Were having a conversation around School Choice as if it isnt something thats typically engaged in by other people. Im often disappointed by members of the Congressional Black Caucus and latino caucuses who themselves as parents exercise School Choice who in many cases do not send their children to the Neighborhood School in the hood that they represent. But send their child because some of them get really lucky and through lotteries all of a sudden get their children into Charter Schools with long waiting lists and magnet schools with long waiting lists and its just awesome how lucky some of these folks are. If we dont call out the hypocrisy of individuals who themselves benefit from choice but then pull the bridge of choice up behind them then were not going to get to where we need to be. In america, in this country your fate should not be decided by lottery. But in many cases the reason why there is a lottery in many states is because the law is written such that when there are more applicants than there are seats there needs to be a lottery. But if there were more seats or more options than there were applicants there would be no more lotteries in most states. So then we would all get to enjoy the same benefits that those people who we elect to represent us enjoy. With all due respect to our president , he wasnt always the president. He didnt send his children to private to Public Schools. At any point. Nor did he attend them. Im not against him for that. Im saying i want what he wants for his kids for all kids. Im saying i respect and support this brother but i want him to respect and support the other children in the same way that his own children have been respected and supported. [ applause ] so we only have a short period of time left. I want to get everyone to answer one last question. We have lots of people in the audience. Heres what i have to say or ask you. You all have been involved in grassroots and schools for a long time. What one piece of advice would you give to reformers and in particular the young reformers and Young Scholars in the room . Because people like me may not change our stripes very often. What one piece of advice would you give them about grassroots act advise sxm getting involved . Why dont we start with mishay and come down this way . Thanks again for having me. I think the one thing i want us to impress upon as we have this intellectual debate is what i often hear is that parents in lowin come and working class communities cannot make great choices. And i just think we have to go away with that idea and really meet parents where they are. Every parent wnts whats best for their child or for their children, and weve got to assume the best and give them the tools and resources and the advocacy tools to fight for themselves. In particular i see the children here in the room. Your voice matters. You can be the voice for the voiceless. I was hoping that a child would be up on the panel. Maybe later this afternoon we can hear from the children because they actually know whats happening in our schools. Thanks robert. [ applause ] and i completely agree with mishay. I would just leave you with one bit of advice. As congressman kathy mc mcmorrisrogers mentioned theres a program at the federal level that supports the growth of Charter Schools. Its called the Charter School program. Its been around since the mid 90s. It has huge bipartisan support. But it simply doesnt have enough funding in it to keep up with the pace of growth. As dr. Perry mentioned, there are a lot of families who are currently putting their childrens names on wait lists. We have over a million names right now on these Charter School wait lists. There is a very quick and easy way. I dont want to say quick and easy because nothing is easy here in washington. But there is a way to address this wait list by creating more Charter School seats. And one way congress can help is by putting more money into this program. So if you want to engage at the federal level, tell your members of congress to put more funding into the Charter School program. Thats the quickest, fastest, easiest way to get rid of this wait list and to make more opportunities available for families. [ applause ] you know, both chavez and Richard Wright are here. And if i miss any other schools, ill meet you afterwards. But your this is not a day off for you either. Youre here to learn how to make it possible for your brothers and sisters and cousins and them as a group to get off waiting lists and to get into good schools. So many of you have watched your family and friends who didnt have access to the same quality loving relationship that you have with your educators, youve watched their lives crumble in just your short lives. And youre seeing them fall down even worse. And thats not cool. So i talk to you like i do my own kids and let you know that that on the one hand you are special. But dont ever think that youre so special that youre different than them. They deserve what you have. And you do not have the right to sit stillar to be silent as they suffer. So you have to fight to expand School Choice. You dont have an option. Since its been given to you. Since you are partaking in it you have a moral obligation to fight to ensure that for every seat that one of you is in that you get ten more kids in behind you. Because as far as im concerned, when we were younger if you somehow got into the party and you didnt pay you were supposed to go around back and open the door for your brothers who came with you. [ applause ] ill do a shout out to the students from Bishop Ireton and archbishop spalding, and i know we have one other Catholic School here. Who is that . Connell. Thank you. Anyway, just thanks for being here today. And dr. Perry has pretty much laid the moral gauntlet down. So i dont have to do that at this particular point. But what i do want to say is that in dealing with advocacy and the whole question of advocacy respecting the local community and respecting the parent i think is fundamental in any reform that were about. The parents, i agree, do know what they want for their children, and theyre looking to us to help give them a voice to be sure that the Legislature Knows what they want for their children. And so that partnership i think is critical to success in the reform. The other thing is education, education, education. There are so many people we know who really dont understand what Parental Choice is all about. And therefore, we think they do. And so i think its important for us to keep remembering theres a lot of people out there who could be with us and help us but may not fully comprehend what it really is all about. So education advocacy, implementation, those are the three things. [ applause ] amen. Ladies and gentlemen, were three minutes over on the panel. Id like to give the panelists one more round of applause. [ applause ] thank you. And we will come back at 12 15. Or 12 00 i think after lunch. Thank you. Coming up tomorrow, here on cspan 3, the Senate Finance committee tackles the tax code. A pair of former senators will testify. Democratic and former president ial candidate bill bradley and Oregon Republican bob packwood. Both served on the Financial Committee while in the senate. Watch it live at 10 00 a. M. Eastern tomorrow. At todays joint News Conference with german chancellor Angela Merkel president obama talked about arming ukraine against russianbacked rebels. Heres a look. Its important to point out that we have been providing assistance to the Ukrainian Military general. Thats been a part of a longstanding relationship between nato and ukraine. And our goal has not been for ukraine to be equipped to carry on offensive operations but to simply defend itself. And president poroshenko has been very clear. Hes not interested in escalating violence. Hes interested in having his countrys boundaries respected by its neighbor. So theres not going to be any specific point at which i say, ah clearly lethal defensive weapons would be appropriate here here. It is our ongoing analysis of what can we do to dissuade russia from encroaching further and further on ukrainian territory. Our hope is that thats done through diplomatic means. And i just want to emphasize here once again for the benefit not just of the American People but for the german people we are not looking for russia to fail. We are not looking for russia to be surrounded and contained and weakened. Our preference is for a strong, prosperous vibrant, confident russia that can be a partner with us on a whole host of global challenges. And thats how i operated throughout my first term in office. Unfortunately, russia has made a decision that i think is bad for them strategically, bad for europe bad for the world. And in the face of this aggression and these bad decisions we cant simply try to talk them out of it. We have to show them that the world is unified in imposing a cost for this aggression. And thats what were going to continue to do. If you missed any of todays joint white house News Conference with german chancellor Angela Merkel you can see it in its entirety. Tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on our companion network cspan. To join the conversation answer our facebook question. Should the west arm ukraine against the russianbacked rebels . Log on to facebook. Com cspan or tweet your answers using the hashtag cspan chat. The Political Landscape has changed with the 114th congress. Not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, theres also 108 women in congress, including the first africanamerican republican in the house. And the first woman veteran in the senate. Keep track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on cspan. Org. The congressional chronicle page has lots of useful information including Voting Results and statistics about each session of congress. New congress, best access on cspan, cspan 2, cspan radio and cspan. Org. February is black History Month, and the cspan bus is on the road visiting the top historically black colleges and universities to speak with their faculty and discuss Public Policy issues and to highlight their role in americas Education System. This tuesday during washington journal well be at Fisk University in nashville followed by Morehouse College and Spellman College in atlanta. Back now to senator tim scotts daylong Academic Forum for keynote remarks from former education secretary rod paige. He talks about universal School Choice and the need to tie choice to economic reform. His remarks run about 35 minutes. Well, let me start my introductory remarks about dr. Rod paige. What an amazing life. If you listen carefully youll at least have a glimpse of why im excited about having dr. Paige present to you today. The son of a School Principal and librarian, dr. Paige. Now, this is going to be the longest introduction in the history of man. I want you to know three things. A School Principal a librarian that produces a doctor, does that not speak to the power and the necessity of education. He rose from humble roots in segregated smalltown mississippi all the way to the United States department of education. As secretary of that department paige championed student achievement and employed best of Breed Solutions to raise standards of educational excellence. Dr. Paige forged his reputation for seeking out and putting in place innovative approaches to systemic academic improvement when he was the dean of the college of education at Texas Southern university. At tsu he established a universal center for excellence in urban education. Hes also been known to have a knack for inclusive leadership. First as a School Board Trustee and then as superintendent of the houston independent School District. Now, that School District was the seventh largest School District in all of the United States. He was appointed superintendent in 1994 and he was the first africanamerican in the districts history to serve in that position. In 1999 dr. Paige was named one of two educators in the country by the council of the great city schools. Two years later paige was honored as the National Superintendent of the year by the American Association of school administrators. Following his time as secretary of education dr. Paige served as a Public Policy fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for scholars. In 2006 he authored the war against hope, and in 2010 published a blackwhite achievement gap, why closing it is the greatest civil rights issue of our time. Dr. Paige is the eldest of five siblings. And has a son and a daughter. Dr. Paige resides in houston because he couldnt find a house in charleston South Carolina. Not so funny. Anyways. With his wife, stephanie nehlens paige. Please help me welcome dr. Rod paige. [ cheers and applause ] thank you so much for that warm welcome. He left out part of my history. So ive got to share that with you to begin with. I was also a football coach. Jackson State University of cincinnati and then again at Texas Southern. It was at Texas Southern where i learned a little humility. We were playing grambling one game and we had the largest crowd Third Largest crowd to ever assemble in the astro dome. I think the largest crowd was the sandy koufax pitching performance. Then there was a billy graham event. And next one was a Texas Southern university Texas Southern universitygrambling football game. And this is the game where i learned humility. At the end of the game the scoreboard had our scores on the wrong side of the scoreboard. You didnt get that. The grambling score had the biggest score. We had the smallest one. So i felt really bad about that. I was a little dejected. As i walked out of the stadium carefully, i knocked a little old ladys purse on the floor. And so as a gentleman i stepped down to pick up her purse and she looked up at me and said i said, excuse me maam, no offense. She said, thats right, sonny, and i didnt give a damn about your defense either. [ laughter ] i hope you got that one. Did you . Im not altogether certain i deserved as good an introduction as the senator shared for me but i want to thank him for that. Not only that i want to begin by thanking him for sponsoring this event. I think we owe him a round of applause for this event. [ applause ] senator, we thank you for your leadership in this event. And although im a citizen of the state of texas ive got to tell you as i watch the Election Results i cant tell you how happy i was when it was announced that you were the winner. God bless you, senator. Thank you for your compassionate yet powerful leadership. Thank you and ill borrow a phrase from the kip schools and just say plow on. Plow on. Also i want to thank the founders of this great organization, the American Federation of children. And the founder and participating founder of the modern Choice Movement in the United States of america, the late john walton. You should always keep them in mind. And also the work of the reliance for School Choice and the freedman foundation. For this organization id like to thank its leadership and also the membership, the men and women who do the work and is the wind beneath wings of this great organization. To you also, plow on. 50 years ago thousands marched across the Edmund Pettis bridge in a determined effort and quest for freedom. A few days ago over 2,500 School Choice supporters marched through Montgomery Alabama in a determined quest for another kind of freedom. The freedom of School Choice. This march was led by two american heroes. First that great warrior for children, the indomitable civil rights leader dr. Howard fuller. And second the American Federation for children heroic combatant whos present with us today, calvin chavis. [ applause ] in his great 1920 book request the quout line of history, h. G. Wells, the distinguished english author, historian futurist essayist teacher, and avid socialist advised that the world advised the world that Human History is becoming more and more a race between education and catastrophe. Lets take a look at the current education situation and see how were doing in that great race. Almost 32 years has passed since the current generation of School Reform effort was ushered in by publication of the alarmist call for action entitled a nation at risk. Even so, our Public School system today is disastrously close to insolvency. In spite of 32 years following a nation at risk being brimll with wellintended School Reform efforts, an alarming high and growing segment of the nations population, especially minorities in our great cities has fallen short because of educational inadequacies. Although the years following the release of a nation at risk were replete with gargantuan efforts of skill and wellmeaning educational theorists and practitioners student underachievement primarily that of urban school children, still is with us unabated. Through School Opinion polls newspaper editorials talk shows, americans shout their rolling confidence in the very concept of Public Education. Evidence abounds that the public views educators attempt to improve the Public School system and the Public Education of our children a little like shakespeares macbeth, a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing. The disastrous performance of American School youth on the recent nate pro tests amplifies this condition. All of these alarming reports point to one salient fact. Present Public School efforts notwithstanding, todays publics schools are not equipped to face the problems with our schools. Present public School Reform efforts in the main are failing to reach a growing segment of our population. Bottom line is that public School Reform efforts thus far have failed and will continue to fail if we dont find an appropriate way to manage this crisis. The current failing of public School Reforms cannot be attributed to lack of effort. During the middle and late 80s and all through the 90s and the first half of the first decade of the 20s School Reform was dominated by education theorists, political leaders, researchers, a long list of other interested parties and agencies. Governors. Corporate america chimed in. The Judicial Branch took shots at it. The parade to reform American Schools was indeed long. But despite all that effort here we are now with an Education System that some described as in crisis. Even the education secretary anna ducken described it as educational stagnation. Its indisputable. How we are presently working is not working. And continuing as we are presently working seems clearly unwise. To be sure, there are some signs of progress, some glimmers of hope that things are getting better, but its indisputable that americas children are still lagging behind their european neighbors and their asian neighbors. Furthermore, the gap between minority and nonminority students still exists. These signs of progress, these glimmers of hope can only be described as random pockets of improvement. So how do you explain this lack of progress after all this effort . Im glad you asked. Its said that opinions are like back sides. Everybody has one. Well i too have one. And i would like to share mine with you. My opinion that is. Since the publication of a nation at risk much educational policy on the state and federal level has been heavily influenced or has been or has had its implementation sabotaged by forces that i describe as guardians of the status quo. These forces are well financed highly organized, and extremely motivated. So far we have failed to match their intensity. They have three very clear strategic goals. More money, less accountability, and no competition. These three guiding principals of the guard yansians of the status quo underpin all their efforts. Those who are members of uth aentic School Reform efforts must understand these principles if they have any expectation of success of reforming americas schools. So where do we go from here . Heres where my opinion comes in. What we need to reform americas schools is a total restructuring of School Operations. My suggest is to design our School Operations around the principle of universal School Choice. Completely remove the power of government to dictate where a child attends school and give that decision power to parents and children. [ applause ] now, ive been asked why i support universal School Choice, and i need to explain that. Last week roger joejz a journalist from the Dallas Morning News while preparing an article that ran in the Dallas Morning Newspaper yesterday, he asked me why i supported universal School Choice. Now, this question had never been posed to me because i just naturally supported this, but now i had to frame a statement that was going to run in the qus Dallas Morning News. And because education School Choice is going to be a subject highly discussed in the now sitting legislative session in texas, i needed to make sure that i had this precise. So i gave some thought to it, to figure out when did i come to this conclusion . Where did i get these thoughts from . And i resurrfound out where it was. And ill share it with you. I support universal School Choice for two reasons. The first reason is i believe chaining a child to a school thats not serving him well is a miscarriage of justice. This was brought to my i came to this conclusion by my encounter with Howard Fuller. Have you guys ever heard of Howard Fuller . Ill tell but this. I was superintendent of schools in houston. And at the Brookings Foundation i was making a presentation about School Choice. Id just become superintendent of schools in houston, and i was working, trying to improve School Operations in houston. And my reasoning for School Choice then had to do with making schools work better. So my presentation was all about making schools work better. And that came off as why i supported universal School Choice. And at the end of my presentation in the q a there was a booming voice coming from the back of the room. A tall black gentleman stood up. He said thats not the reason. The reason is it aint right. The reason is its not fair. The reason is its not justice. I was almost intimidated by the size of that voice. But then i had a chance to think about it. And thats right. It is right. Its not right to chain a child to a school thats not supporting them well. It is not right to have a child go to a school that is really that reason became embedded in my mind and i worked through many years with that as the reason. But i want to bring this back to my original reason, which i think how it was right, but i think its also right to look at this other reason. Look at the other reason. As superintendent of schools in houston i came to the opinion that reforming a major School District of 200,000 students with the Largest Employee base, the Third Largest Employee Base in Houston Texas 35,000 employees, a very complicated system, i came to the conclusion that the system could not work efficiently embedded in a monopolistic system. The system of monopoly did not serve this organization well. So i believe that School Choice is a necessary condition for effective and efficient School Operations. All of the talk now about reforming schools are going to go nowhere unless they are freed from this grip of a monopoly. Our parties teachers parents students and the public at large would benefit from the innovations and creativity inspired by universal School Choice. For example, a texas policy article entitled teach us when, a case for School Choice, pointed out that School Choices primary effect on teachers would be to increase teachers salary. Think about that. To increase teachers salary would be the basic impact of School Choice. It would be the primary effect on teachers. And they have the research to support this. It held that universal School Choice would lead to an average raise in pay of 12,000 for the teachers in houston. Think about the impact of raising teacher salaries. Think about the positive impact of paying teachers more. It would increase the demand for good teachers. It would stimulate greater interest in becoming a teacher for young people. It would direct more school funds to the classroom. It would enhance teacher quality. It would be a powerful force for school improvement. It would help solve many school problems. I need to share an example of my experience to show you why i came to that conclusion. During the early part of my superintendent cy, houston went into an economic decline. It was due to the changes in the all market. Because houston was basically a petroleum, economically based community. Oil prices go down, houston economy goes down. And at this time weve diversified somewhat but at that time it was stark. On the southwest side of houston that was a big group of luxury apartments. These apartments were there for upandcoming young people without children who were basically middle class and above. They were living the good life driving the luxury automobiles. Great jobs. But when the economy went down and stayed down for a long time. These jobs went away and there were no people to put in these apartments. But the real estate people were not going to just close down apartments. They had to find a market for them. Guess where they found a market. Governmentsupported housing. So they moved government supported people into these luxury apartments. Thousands of them. Guess what happens to my schools because of this. Now all of a sudden we got a whole different population in these schools. And by the way there are more children than weve got schools in this area. Because people who lived there before didnt have children. So my principals were doing their best to pack these kids into limited schools. The Fire Department was issuing tickets to my principals for overcrowded schools. So we had to have a solution to this problem. After a lot of thought we came up with a solution. I proposed it to the school board. And i didnt have any idea it was going to cause the problems that i had. I proposed to the school board. Said we are a school thats certified by the texas education agency. They said yes. In this area where we are there are four schools that also are accredited by the texas education agency. They said yes. Said but those four schools are private schools. Theyre private schools. Now, here are our options. We can take these kids and bus them 17 miles across the city in drive time to put them in schools where there are seats, adding 45 minutes to their time to get to school and 45 minutes to their time to get back. Or we can have these children go to these private schools and we could take the funds that come to us from the Texas Educational Agency and pay the private School People to teach these kids if the parents choose to do that. I dont have to explain to you what the newspapers did to me about that. But you know what . We did it anyway. I convinced the school board. We did it anyway. So what did we do . We solved a problem for their parents. We solved a problem for me because my biggest headaches came from the Transportation System. 13,000 buses rolling every morning and every evening delivering 56,000 children to and from School Every Day and every day somebody ran into somebody. I got a major part of my bad press coming from transportation. I did not need to add that transportation problem to my list of problems. So then this choice issue assisted me in solving problems. So its not only an advantage for children but it also makes available to the School Operations itself choices that will make the School Operations better. During this period of time i came directly from Texas Southern university as a professor in education. I didnt come up through the traditional route to become the superintendent of a major school system. The practices and experience that they had in operating schools. So i had to seek methods of making schools work better. I had a goal to make these schools work better. I resented the idea that a Public School a large Public School, could not deliver Educational Services to children. I wanted to make a lot of the people who thought public School Systems couldnt work effectively. So my whole goal was directed towards how do i operate an organization that works better costs less, taking care of the employees employees, and guarantees a result for children . And so part of the studying called for taking classes over at the apqc, american productivity and quality center, that taught fortune 500 ceos how to run ceos. Reading books to get ideas from. Several reports that made sense. One was a kettering foundation. Who had a little book called is there a public for Public Schools . . Reading that book i determined there was no public for Public Schools. Because the Public Schools didnt create their publics and i dont want to go into all that detail but creating a public for Public Schools made a big difference. The Rand Foundation report, high schools of character pointed out to me to think as i look around the country ask the question, why do these choice schools work . Why is it that in my School District, the specialized schools work . Why is it that the magnet schools are working so well . Why is it that schools of choice are working so well . I concluded its because the people who work in those schools are there because of their choice. Students who were there in those schools were there because of their choice. The things they were studying in those schools are the things that they chose to study. This situation of choice became more and more situations that i thought made perfect, perfect sense. And as i look around, about forces that are driving change in our society, there are two that you cannot escape from. One is technology. And the second one is choice. This is an idea whose time has come. We can continue to limp along as were doing. If we really want to make meaningful process we have to embrace the power of technology and choice. In his 2000 book the next deal, a guy named kharny, who is the author of the 2000 democratic platform senior speechwriter for Vice President gore, put it best. He termed our current generation as the choice generation. He said that we are in the midst of a choice revolution. The principal driving force of the choice revolution is that all americans should have the ability to make choices for themselves and their families. Choices like how to save for their children. Choice is that privilege of how to prepare for your future. Choices like what school your children should attend. Which is not reserved only to the wealthy. The time for choice has come. Todays new technology and globalization provides people with more and more choices. In our daily lives. More individual power. More personalization. More customization based on their choice. And as they draw these expanded opportunities of choice for themselves they will not long tolerate being presented with situations where there is no choice. In where their children attend school. My parents had a choice of three tv networks when they wanted to watch tv. Their children have hundreds of choices. They can tivo tv and watch their Favorite Program when they want to, not when the programs put on. If they dont like fox news they can go to msnbc. At lunch they can choose between mcdonalds wendys, what a burger, jack in the box, kentucky fried chicken. Even Services Like the post office, which was my fathers only choice has given away to feddings, u. P. S. And dhl. This is a choice revolution. And as people enjoy more and more choices, the notion that they are being told how to live their lives, that theyre having others make choice decisions for them is becoming more and more repugnant to them. This is a time for choice. Choice defines our generation. In our fastpaced world, everywhere we tour choice and power are thrust into our hands. This generation will demand the right to choose. The right to carve their own way. The right to be an individual. The right to choose where their children go to school. Universal School Choice will put real muscle in the School Reform movement. So Howard Fuller was right. Its not right to chain a child to a school thats not serving them well. But the other part of the issue is, School Operations and School Reform will not work embedded in a monopoly. Universal School Choice is the answer to many of our problems. So i propose to this august body of School Reformers and choice pioneers to tie strategically tie School Choice to School Reform. Point out that for those people who want to Reform School should be our natural allies. Teachers should want School Choice for many reasons. If not only the reason that they will be paid more it will increase it would increase the Environments Movement toward giving them more power. It will make their situation work better. Theyre natural candidates to join our army. Lets strategically recruit them and explain to them why this is a good idea. So two reasons why i support School Choice. Using fullers term it aint right. Using my own term schools cant work better embedded in a monopoly. Ill close with a quote from cheneys book. Thus it is only a matter of time time. With evergrowing pressure from a Rising School generation government will come to realize that they will have to embrace the choice revolution. They have no choice. To use Humphrey Bogarts words he might say, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon. And in the words of that great vocalist and spiritual singer andrew crouch, soon but very soon. This world is simply moving too fast for guardians of the status quo to keep the doors closed to choice. God bless you and god bless the United States of america. February is black History Month and the cspan bus is on the road visiting the top historically black colleges and universities to speak with their faculty and discuss Public Policy issues and highlight their role in americas Education System. This tuesday during washington journal well be at Fisk University in nashville, told by Morehouse College and Spelman College in atlanta with live coverage of the u. S. House on cspan and the senate on cspan2, on cspan3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and Public Affairs events. Then on weekends cspan3 is the home to American History tv with programs that tell our nations story including six unique series. The civil wars 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. American artifacts touring museums and Historic Sites to discover what artifacts reveal about americas past. History bookshelf with the bestknown American History writers. The presidency looking at the policies and legacies of our nations commanders in chief. Lectures in history with top College Professors delves into americas past. Real america featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the 70s. Cspan3. Created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. Watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. Tonight on cspan3, a look at u. S. Infrastructure needs. And how president obama is proposing transportation funding through his 2016 budget request. Then more about the president s Budget Proposal with Administration Officials testifying before congress. Beginning with health and Human Services secretary sylvia burwell. And Later White House budget diarrhea shaun donovan. The Senate Health Committee Hears from a panel of doctors about disease prevention through the vaccines. The hearing comes amid National Debate whether vaccinations should be mandatory as several states deal with a current outbreak of measles. Watch the hearing live at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. And the Senate Finance committee holds a hearing on the u. S. Tax code. The witnesses are former senators bob packwood and bill bradley. Both had a role in the 1986 tax deal reached under president reagan. That will be live on cspan3 at 10 00 a. M. Eastern. Next a look at the proposal and the corn state transportation projects. From washington journal, this is 50 minutes. Today we continue our weekly look at how your money is being spent, taxpayer dollars. And this week focusing on infrastructure in this country. Let me introduce you to Chris Edwards whose tax policy studies director at cato institute. Robert pew win december, metropolitan policy senior fellow for Brookings Institution. Robert, what grade would you give this nations infrastructure . Its bridges, its roads are what kind of condition is it in . There are some wellknown assessments that show that this nations infrastructure is in bad shape. Just because of the age most of it is. Weve built this system mostly throughout the 1950s 1960s. It just has to be maintained and rehabilitated. Its reaching the end of its useful life. We have to fix whats on the ground. We also have to build the kind of infrastructure we need to compete in the 21st century. We look around the world, we see what other countries are doing with infrastructure to help with trade, to move passengers to move telecommunications, things like this. We see that the ups has a lot to do just to upgrade infrastructure we have on the ground today. Okay so Chris Edwards what grade would you give it . It really depends on what infrastructure. Theres mixed data on it. For example, politicians like to say bridges are falling down, for example. But there is good data from the federal Highway Administration showing that the number of american bridges that are structurally deficient has actually declined over the years. And our interstate highway system is actually in better shape in a lot of ways than it has been. The highways are getting more congested, its true. In terms of the quality of the interstates and our bridges, theyre in pretty decent shape. So robert puentes, you obviously disagree. So who should pay for what needs to be done; who should pay for it, whos responsible . Chris is exactly right we have to get more specific about the type of infrastructure were talking about. Because we have lots of different things. Theres energy, telecommunications, transportation, even within transportation theres airports transit systems highways. Theres all designed governed financed delivered so many different ways. We tend to overemphasize the federal role in a lot of this stuff. We look at the freight rail system which is the envy of the world over, its entirely privately owned and operated. Things like Public Transit the heavier Public Sector role. Things like telecommunications are a mixed bag. So it really depends on whos using the system and who is the owner and operator. Okay, lets talk about the highway system. How is it funded . How should it be funded . How to make it up that gap in funding . Right now we have a lot of the money coming from the federal governments, probably the area where the federal government has the largest role to play. We fund a lot of the highway spending through the federal gasoline tax which has been raised since the early 1990s. Even with highways and transit its only about onethird, maybe 30 of the money is coming from the federal government. The states the cities, the metropolitan areas are still responsible fare the lions share of the spending. How are they getting the money to fund that if. Lots of different sources. All 50 states have their own gasoline taxes. Many of the states are willing to raise their own taxes. We saw eight states last year as different as wyoming and maryland raise their own taxes to pay for this kind of infrastructure. So its a big country. Infrastructures a big toipic. Its funded in a lot of different ways. This is a topic congress has to wrestle with. They have to fund the highway trust and theres lechbls lation percolating out there. Sounds like some republicans might be open to this idea of raising the gas tax. I dont think raising the gas tax is going to happen for one thing the president is not in favor of raising the gas tax Public Opinion polls show the American Public is very much against that. Think where president obama goes wrong in his new Transportation Plan is to increase federal spending in the centralization of a lot of this infrastructure. I think we ought to let the 50 states be the laboratories of democracy and infrastructure. State governments can raise their own gas tax whenever they want. They can do more innovative reforms such as moving to privatization for their infrastructure. I think we ought to let the 50 states go their own way on things like airports, seaports, highways and transit. Theres no reason for all the answers to come from washington d. C. What would that do competitively, though . You would have one state who spends significantly more than its neighboring state. I mean what does that do . We have an interstate highway system. So what does that mean for companies, Trucking Companies et cetera, that have to use this highway system . Yeah, theres a good argument that the interstate highway system, theres an appropriate federal rule there. But a lot of the money in that federal Highway Trust Fund actually goes, for example to mass transit, buses and light rail systems and subway systems in americas cities. In my view theres no real role for the federal government in mass transit. State and see governments can and should raise their own money for their mass transit systems. I think when the federal government gets involved you get a lot of inefficiency and cost year runs and that sort of problem. Some there be some sort of user fee for mass transit, highways . Sure, and in fact im strongly in favor of userfunded infrastructure. The original idea with the interstate highway system that eisenhower steined into law in 1956 was a gas tax would pay for highway funding. And thats a good system. The people who use the infrastructure pay for it. Unfortunately, over time, weve steadily moved away from that. President obama would move even further away from that sort of userfunded system by taxing corporations to fund our highways which i think is really the wrong way to go. Lets take a look at the specifics of this. What the president proposed in his budget request to congress. 478 billion for the infrastructure. 238 billion from taxes on foreign earnings. 240 billion from gas tax and other revenue. Creates an Infrastructure Investment bank, includes tax incentives for private investment. Robert puentes what did you make of his recommendation . Would it work . Theres a lot in here. Would it work . In terms of finding the money to pay for it in terms of getting agreement throughout congress, throughout washington, its tough to say. Theres an awful lot thats in here. Its a lot of hon to spend. And by decoupling the funding with this idea for Corporate Tax reform, it does create some wrinkles in it i think folks are not ready to deal with right now. There are two parallel tracks. But finding the money to invest in infrastructure has been the big challenge. The obvious things like the gasoline tax, chris said it, political nonstarter right now. We cant keep kicking this can down the road. There is a crisis with the Highway Trust Fund which is starting to rear its head where the trust fund is going to start to run a negative balance at the end of may. All 50 states are going to lose from this. All 100 senators are going to feel from it their constituents. They have to do something. Theyre kind of running out of budget gimmicks. Theyll probably figure out some way to take general funds, inject it into the trust fund. It just goes to show. This is a whole system where the user hasnt really paid for the system for a long long time. Highways transit aviation. So having a different conversation about our transportation infrastructure really what do we need to invest in, by nesting that in the larger economical i think its a conversation that we need to have. Once we can put that vision independent behind it i think well see a very different conversation in washington. I think robert and i would probably agree, congress has been irresponsible with the Highway Trust Fund. It spends about 53 billion a year, the gas tax revenues that go into it are around 40 billion a year. Theres a giant gap thats getting more and more difficult for congress to paper over. I think president obamas been irresponsible in proposing a financing mechanism, this Corporate Tax increase, that is not going anywhere in congress. So rather than proposing real solution, hes sort of claimed in his budget hesing about to raise 278 billion from his tax on multinational corporations. Theres not a chance the Republican Congress would agree to that. So then were stuck again. What to do about the giant gap in the Highway Trust Fund. Robert and i would disagree on the solution. I would cut the federal spending down to the level of the gas tax revenue as a permanent solution. But i think president obama really missed a chance here to propose a real solution. If you robert if the spending was cut down to what the revenue brings in, what would be the result, in your opinion . Well, again, all states are going to lose on this. Because they have money thats authorized and appropriated for them that they make these longterm decisions on. Because these are not projects that they can just kind of turn on and turn off. It takes a lot of planning, it takes a lot of construction. So whats going to start to happen is the department of transportation, the federal department, will start slowing down their repayments to the states. So the states are already starting to reassess projects that they need. So there might be a Little Silver lining here insofar as the states are starting to look very carefully at the spending theyre doing and prioritizeingeing the types of investments they absolutely have to make right now, as opposed to those things that may be more as operational. Is it worth doing that just coming out of this recession starting to recover, having a negative Economic Impact like that on states . I dont think it would be a negative Economic Impact. I think that state governments, they know better than the federal government how much spending they need to do on their transit and highways. Theres no advantage, in my view, in the federal Government Spending the money. Theres a lot of problems with that. You get more inefficiency when the federal government spends and you get this misallocation between the states. You get these fastgrowing states like texas that have historically been cheated by the federal Highway Trust Fund. So that make not sense to me. Id rather state governments handle these decisions themselves. All right, lets get our viewers involved in this conversation. Mark in porterdale, georgia, independent caller. Caller good morning. Morning. Caller yes, i would like the video the epa and the blue water. Then were talking about hijacking this money from the infrastructure to build these housing for the 40 cities for the illegal immigrants. How theyre going to hijack it for transit and stuff for them in detroit and different cities, what they call future cities. And ive got the video. Ill put it on youtube if you dont know about it. And please answer, tell us about that. Thank you. Robert puentes . I cant say i know exactly what the callers talking about. I do think theres a larger conversation happening in this country about the role of cities, happening globally, the role of cities and the role that infrastructure plays in maintaining a productive and sa intestinable kind of environment for these areas. We havent really coupled the transportation conversation with this larger discussion around sustainability and things the c40 cares about and the things theyre trying to push. So by putting all this together by putting mayors particularly in the drivers seat on how on the future of these places, really changes the calculus. Because as chris was saying, what theyre looking for is something very very specific. They have their pulse on what the cities need. And their deposit on things like sustainability, on economic health, is a very different conversation than whats happening in washington. Heres a tweet from one of our viewers, lynn holly hansen. In terms of overall infrastructure the u. S. Ranks 25th. Along with declining education new companies will not move to the u. S. To invest. Shes saying immight go that we ought to have a better infrastructure and i agree, we ought to have the best infrastructure in the world. I think theres difference differences of opinion as to how to get there. I think, for example some of the best infrastructure in the world has been privatized. So for example, the best seaports and airports in the world, in my view, have been privatized in places like britain. One of the problems in the United States, in my view, that is a lot of our infrastructure is governmentowned. All our seaports are government owned, airports are government owned. Thats a mistake. I think the new thing, theres been reforms around the world, is to privatize. So what about privatization . Theres absolutely a role for the private sector in areas of u. S. Infrastructure. Weve taken this very kind of bicameral approach to this. I think what were starting to see is more of this mix and true partnerships between the public and the private and the nonprofit sectors where theyre kind of coinventing new ideas that are coming from the bottom up. In a lot of cases its going to be with the private sector. So much infrastructure is already owned by the private sector. So its starting to inject some of those new ideas some of those new innovations, and a lot of private capital into infrastructure which heretofore has been publicly sector driven. Were talking about the nations infrastructure. President obama proposing to spend 478 billion on highways bridges and mass transit. In the budget blueprint he released for 2016. Whats your take on this . Tony next in buffaloham, pennsylvania, democratic caller. Caller yes, good morning, greta. My concerns are sort of on line with your first caller. Once this money comes through and they start the projects in comes the epa, in comes the environmentalists. How does this project affect the spotted owl . How does this roadway affect the migratory habits of termites . How does this bridge affect turtles . You know its going to become a boondoggle, held up in the courts for years. The lawyers are going to get rich, the moneys going to run out, and were going to basically be in the same position we are today. Okay ill have both of you answer that. Chris edwards, go ahead. I think the caller expresses skepticism about the efficiency and skills of our governments and i think part of the solution here, again, is to decentralize the funding and operation of our infrastructure. Let the states compete with each other over this infrastructure. If one state, if the environmental regulations or labor regulations are too stringent, then investment will go to other states and the states could learn best practices from each other. I think thats the way to help solve the problem. Robert puentes . I think some of this is a bit of a red herring and overblown. We spend a lot of time talking about some of the environmental rules, regulations which do get in the way sometimes. But really the big challenge that we have is were not really creating projects that have broad space port. If we have projects people really want to invest in and theres alignment between the civic sector and public and private corporate interests these projects get through without any problem. What we have to do is figure out projects that matter to these cities and metropolitan areas and a lot of these rules and regulations become derivative of the overall process. Fred in idaho, republican caller. Caller yes. Hey, what happened to that 800 billion, 850 billion stimulus package earlier in the Obama Administration . I thought that was supposed to go for infrastructure. And somehow its all disappeared. Yeah, id like to know where it went. Okay robert . Well a lot of the tax the stimulus package had an awful lot in there for tax cuts. That was the biggest share. Infrastructure was the secondlargest share. We just came off of the campaign, such a long time ago now. It was really an emphasis on a clean, green recovery, and infrastructure was a big piece of that. When it came time to inject the money into these projects, it became clear all we had that was quoteunquote shovel ready, we had to put this money to work quickly, we had to stem the bleeding from losing american jobs, was a lot of these projects that were rehabbing the maintenance stuff that we had to do. The bridge repaintings, pothole refillings, the things that were literally ready to go. Because we dont have a good sense of Overall Investment needs, some of the big i think glitsy projects that folks thought we were going to get out of this had to be tabled because they werent ready to go. Shovel ready meant those things we were able to invest in in the immediate shortterm to put americans back to work. Why is there not adequate assessment of what needs to be done . Every state has their own assessments, every metro area has their own assessments. 20 years ago there would be all kinds of projects that were third beltways, big projects that were not connected with their economic trajectory of these places. I think things have change in and out. Theres lots of really good ideas about what the economy of these places looks like. And what kind of projects that they need to enhance those economies. We dont have any we dont have the resources right now. And we dont really have a good sense of where were going to get them and what the proper mix of public and private money is to get it done. I think the callers raised the issue of the stimulus and i think he raises theres an interesting issue here which is i think theres been too much focus on shortterm sort of job creation stimulus of some of this government Infrastructure Spending. The focus instead should oblong term efficiency. Is the piece of infrastructure needed . Which is the most efficient level of government to fund it . And that is more important than the shortterm, any shortterm stimulus. All right. Glen shelton, washington republican caller, your question or comment about the nations infrastructure . Go ahead. Caller good morning. I have a quick comment about what the gentleman from the Brookings Institute said. Id like to also ask a question of the gentleman from the cato institute. So when i hear myself on statements like investment and people are wanting to use the context of the government i dont want to digress, but we dont need the government to invest in anything other than the military and the absolute things that are absolutely needed. And so the offramps, isnt it where the funding for the whole federal highway system ends . So interstate highways funded by federal tax dollars dont they end at the offramp . Thats a question for the gentleman from the cato institute. Thank you. The interesting thing about the interstate highway system, 50,000 miles of it, its virtually all owned by state governments. And i think its something for people to remember. If people are complaining about potholes and bridges falling down on the interstates, that sort of stuff the state governments own those highways. They are ultimately the first group that is most responsible is the state governments. Currently, federal highway spending goes to the broader array of highways called the national highway system. 160,000 miles of highways. I think thats a mistake. I think one reform would be to start narrowing the types of highways that federal funding goes to. I think we ought to go back to the original idea and just use federal funding for the interstate highway system not these broader other secondary highways and certainly not mass transit. How much money are we talking about that the federal government gives to states for their infrastructure needs . Its tough to assess. I think for highways its about 40 billion, 50 billion, Something Like that. And again, as chris said, its used for lots of different transportation purposes. Do states get that money equally . Is it split up, even pies . Its theyve come to an agreement. That theyve agreed to politically. Thats based on this loose concept of donors and donees. The states want to get back as much money as they feel like theyre contributing to the Highway Trust Fund. Mostly through gas tax receipts. Because weve injected so much general fund revenue into the trust fund over the last bunch of years, through the stimulus, then through these bailouts that the government has had to do we completely blew that system apart. States that contribute a lot to the general fund are now kind of losing states like california and new york, we have this system that rewards states like texas and arizona that contribute more to the trust fund. Weve really got to rethink this entire system. Its absolutely not equitable. Is that being proposed up on capitol hill . Absolutely not. Theres no conversation about that . Thats off the table. Its not being talked about. Something that has i find is very curious is that the federal highway the Highway Trust Fund it does this misallocation between the states. Some states are winners, some are losers. And it is odd that the loser states dont complain more. For example, florida and texas. For a long time consistently have given a higher share in gas tax money than theyve got back in spending. Its odd that the texas and florida politicians dont complain more about that. Then maybe well see that more in the future. Newport, tennessee, tony, youre next, independent caller. Tony, youre on the air. Caller yes hello. Ive got a question for you if i might ask. Here in tennessee right outside of morristown. They spent about 100 million on the 25 scenic route by eliminating two lights. But they added six lights. They dug tunnels to go under youve got to actually go through a mall to get to the Shopping Center on the other side of 25e. And go through two lights to do that. Coming off, if you come toward the end to the mall youve got to come off and almost commit suicide because one lane crosses another lane to get onto 25 with two lights to do that. Its just amazing. They closed the hardees they closed the hotel closed the gas station to add two more gas stations and the hardees to put it back. I mention those now the two lights they eliminated, theres six lights in its place. How did that make it becomes very dangerous in what theyve done. Okay, all right. Chris edwards . The caller is discussing the efficiency or inefficiency of his local government Infrastructure Spending. Northern virginia i notice that local governments often seem to do odd and seemingly wasteful things with putting in new lights and changing sidewalks and that sort of stuff. I think the solution here is more transparency by local governments. Its often very difficult to find out how local governments are spending their infrastructure money. A few years ago in my neighborhood in Northern Virginia they repaved some streets in our neighborhood but not others. I called to try to complain. I couldnt get an answer. And theres no transparency in the current system. I think that is a solution for local government infrastructure. Isnt that an argument for federal guidelines to have the federal government make these decisions . I think youd be even more confusing with multiple levels of government involved in infrastructure. Sort of like the same problem with education. Every level of government is involved. So no one really knows whos responsible. Robert puentes . I think were starting to change. Northern virginia is a great example of a place where theres a lot of money coming in from the state and theyre trying to do something very different. Theyre really trying to make sure those investments are measured. Exactly what chris was saying. Having it much more transparent about how theyre choosing these projects and have them compared to one another. And if youre really trying to invest limited resources you have to get the best bang for your buck. If its going to be a sixlane highway or whatever the taller was talking about in tennessee, those things have to be measured against other projects so we can make those kinds of decisions based on limited resources. Its starting to change but because the system has been on auto pilot for so long and the focus on Congestion Relief and mobility has been the frame, you know, by shifting transportation and making it more about economic growth, making it about accessibility, by trying to access economic opportunity, as opposed to just moving things around, it changes the kind of projects you pick. Back to tennessee. Don, a republican. Caller yeah. I got two questions. One of them is, we voted against a highway that runs in sevierville, tennessee, into green county. It lost election twice. But still we got them going to put that highway through. If you lose it why should it go through . And another one is in ohio, it took 15 years to put a fivemile road through because the apa Animal Rights are fighting over the rattlesnakes or some little worm they was trying to save. And the Wayne National forest didnt want to cut through it. It took 15 years to put a fivemile stretch of highway through there. I wonder why it took so long to waste money and why if you vote against something they still do it. Okay, don, all right. Robert, ill have you go first. I think theres a lot of transition thats going on right now. I think states like tennessee are starting to reevaluate the role of their Transportation System in the larger goals and objectives for the states. But look you have governors that come in every four to eight years. They bring in a whole new set of state transportation officials. And oftentimes things change. And projects that may have looked good 15 years ago may not look good to new administrations. But because were going through this very disruptive time, demographically, economically environmentally, socially, all these changes are happening, are starting to give states a different look about what kind of Transportation System theyre trying to build. And the role of these projects and the role for Overall Economic growth. The callers first point regarded why politicians would persist in trying to spend on a project when the people apparently didnt like it. One of the reasons you see that sometimes is because theres federal money involved. Where i live in Northern Virginia, for years local politicians pushed for a new streetcar line which as someone who lived in the area i didnt think made any sense. A lot of people in the area didnt think it made any sense. But one of the reasons why local government officials wanted to go ahead was because its federal money dangling out there, they thought they wanted to grab the federal money. I think youve got the federal money out of the equation, youd get more efficient decisions. Jean on twitter is asking about that. Do states have to use federal money for only roads . Or can they also use it for mass transit . Can they get a pot of money and say, we changed our mind, were going to do this over here . The money is highly flexible. Federal money that goes to the states, states are pretty much able to use it on almost any conceivable transportation purpose based on their own needs and objectives. The federal government targets it in their programs but theres an awful lot of flexibility the states have. Caller good morning. Im glad you got me on. I appreciate cspan. I have a question for chris. Its not exactly a question, its more of a comment. He wants the states to handle it. He needs to take a look at virginia, richmond, virginia and look at our road systems. We do not have a circle highway around richmond. We would not accept federal funds. We logical 288 the missed the highway coming around by five miles. And we just started a new project going down to suffolk. And we spent 3 million on trying to get looking at going through west hanson didnt even do a good job on that. I think maybe the federal government has as good a hand as our local politicians. Of course, local politicians do happen to get the roads where they need them. Thats my comment. I think that politicians always have trouble making decisions at every level, and theyre always compromising in certain ways. I do think that state politicians who can balance the pain of additional taxes to the benefits of the additional spending on infrastructure is the way to go. Virginias actually been interesting because theyve been very innovative in finance. Theyve got a lot of private sector finance into their highway systems. So for example, Northern Virginia, the capital beltway was bitened. In this project. Putting in highoccupancy toll lanes for 14 miles. And that was a mainly privately funded system that came in on time and under budget. And its been very successful. And down around the norfolk area theres been private Infrastructure Investment in bridges and hey ways. So thats been very successful. I think virginias actually a lead over a lot of innovation and infrastructure. Talking with Chris Edwards, tax policy, studies director at cato institute. Were joined by robert puentes, Brookings Institution, senior fellow for metropolitan policy program. Our discussion part of our your money series we do here on washington journal on mondays looking at how your tax dollars are being spent. President obama proposing, requesting from congress 478 billion to be spent on highways, bridges, and mass transit. So robert, how do we know what republicans will propose in their own budget . Where are they coming in on Infrastructure Spending . I think its along the lines what was chris was talking about. Theres really desire to try to get these programs to live within the means of the revenues that are coming in. But its such a unique system with the transportation program. Because weve had this dedicated firewall system. When the americans were paying a lot in the gas tax revenue, we were driving more and more money, it was throwing off so much revenue we had to firewall the program so it wasnt being siphoned off into other areas of the domestic budget. Now its flipped. Americans are driving less. Theyre driving much more fuel efficient cars. Its not throwing off as much revenue. We have to go the other way, trying to fill it in with general funds. Its this big conflict thats going on how do you take this program that has been so separated from the rest of the budget conversations and do what most other countries do making discretionary decisions every year based on revenues that are coming in. Not just the gas tax revenue. If these are areas that are important to the domestic government, or to the government here, how do you choose this . How do you make these decisions based on defense spending or mandatory spending and things we have to do to get a program that we need . Chris, what do you make about what republicans are talking about and thinking about doing . Well, the Infrastructure Spending area is an interesting area because its less partisan than a lot of other spending areas in washington. So for example, we have a bill proposed by senator rand paul, republican and barbara boxer, democrat that would help to it would put this voluntary additional tax on corporate earnings that would then be used to fill in the gap in the Highway Trust Fund. You get other sorts of bipartisan legislation. Theres legislation to reduce the federal gas tax and reduce federal spending, for example. So i dont know what the republicans will propose. But i know that theyre not going to go in the direction of the obama proposal im afraid. Michigan, tim, democratic caller. Caller yes. First, id like to comment on some transparency that never seems to evolve. We always say if people from the cato institute, the hudson institute, and all these other think tanks. Id like to know exactly who these guys are, what do they do, how much money do they pay . It seems to me that when i grew up, Dwight Eisenhower did a bangup job as far as getting transportation moving around the country. And all we need to do is follow his formula and get rid of these paid schills. Chris, care to respond . The cato institutes been around since the 1970s. We get no government funding of any sort were privately funded by individuals mainly. We hardly get any corporate money. We get some foundation money. In a lot of ways were modelled on the Brookings Institution which has been around since the 1920s, i think. Independent think tanks are important for the policy discussion in washington. You cant trust everything the politicians say so you need an independent voice. We dont take federal money for any of this work. Even though were a washingtonbased think tank at brookings, our metropolitan policy works outside of washington in cities states, metro areas across the country. At this time of really challenging discussions here in washington, we think that the cities and states and metro areas are doing the hard work to put this country back to work and to create the innovation that we think eventually will make a difference here in washington. But right now all the game seems to be outside this beltway. Our line for democrats, trish in seattle, good morning. Caller hi, good morning. Id just like to comment on chris idea of privatization on developing the infrastructure. Here in seattle we have a big project going on on mercer street which is now going to be called billionaire boulevard because thats access from the i5 down to amazon and microsoft and all the other burgeoning Tech Development biotech is down there as well with fred hutch. And i just always thought it was interesting why the taxpayer are we paying for all that new roadway, traffic disruption to get all those people to amazon microsoft, et cetera . And what am i getting out of that . In the meantime soar. I, thought you were done sorry go ahead. Thats an odd complaint. The caller seems to be complaining that the local government is responding to increased demand for automobile traffic because of the booming local economy. I would have thought thats an example where the local government is doing whats good for the economy and good for most of the folks in the general public which is making easing commutes for people to work for these very important companies. Windsor locks connecticut, ross, indiana caller. Caller hi. My comment is along these lines. The call in congress for the pipeline, the excel pipeline, they keep talking about how many jobs its going to create. And yet we know its controversial. Couldnt we take that money and put it into infrastructure that we know has to be done for roads, and if they keep arguing about jobs we could create as many jobs, im sure maybe more, working on roads instead of putting in a pipeline, which is very, very controversial. And may not get done. And it seems to me restoring our infrastructure, restoring the bridges and roads, is a necessity. Okay, all right. Robert puentes, do you think that the Keystone Pipeline is a valid Infrastructure Project . Well, i mean, the caller started saying mostly its a private project. The role of the government is for approvals and things like that. Its private money its not going to be able to be shifted to roads or anything in the way the callers thinking about it. I think the focus on jobs is the right one. Because infrastructure puts a lot of americans to work. 11 of the American Workforce is directly involved in occupations in infrastructure. Its not the guy cutting the the people doing the work. We emphasize a lot of construction jobs. Shortterm jobs that the pothole filling kind of cliche. But most of these jobs are in operations. These are longterm, sustained jobs difficult to outsource. And actually pay very well at the lower ends of the scale. So a lower quintile job in infrastructure pays better than lower jobs in other sectors. It really is very, very connected to the American Workforce conversation but it has to be bigger than giving a guy a shovel having him do a shortterm project. Its about longterm employment in this country. The keystone xl pipeline going back into the house this week for a vote. Then go to the president s desk where he said he will veto it. It will be the president s third veto this week on the keystone xl pipeline. Not just on keystone, his third veto overall. One of the things the caller raises infrastructure is not just a government thing. Most infrastructure in the United States is actually funded and put in place by the private sector. I think about all the cell phone towers and the internet pipes and electric utilities and electricity transmission towers. All that stuff is privately provided. When we think about infrastructure policy, we should also be thinking about how we can reduce barriers to private sector investment. Pine grove, pennsylvania, sterling, democratic caller, youre on the air. Caller yeah, my problem is i worked 40 years construction. And i live in pennsylvania. I worked in jersey delaware, virginia. And the federal rate i think is ridiculous. I worked my last five years down in philly. The rate down there to run a backhoe, and that was freaking ten years ago the rate was 61 an hour. Now, when i worked in delaware years ago, the rate down there was 15 an hour. I think really, i couldnt understand. I was in my own business years ago with my own backhoe. I thought it was crazy to charge somebody 61 an hour to run my own backhoe. So if im making 61, imagine what the corporations making. And i dont understand why the rates so different. You go to new jersey or new york, now youre talking almost 100 an hour to run a backhoe. Or heavy equipment. Okay, robert can introduce address that . Its a big country. Every state does have their own rules and regulations. The callers exactly right. Some things like insurance costs in new york state are much higher and so it takes up a larger share of the contract costs and the project costs. In other states its much less. So the callers exactly right. I think where chris was going, we talked early bear getting much more transparency about really what goes into these contracts. How much are we spending on these projects . Then we can start to make better decisions. It starts with transparency. There is a priority list of infrastructure needs in this country . Down to the specific . This bridge versus this bridge . No, not really. Because we havent really nested the conversation in the larger infrastructure frame. The president has an economic goal to double exports in five years. Exactly the right kind of Economic Strategy we need to take advantage of rising global demand. Do the next step and couple that with Infrastructure Investments we need to double exports. Things like ports, freight. Absolutely perfect area for the federal government to be practice where heretofore theyve been absent because we dont have a National Freight policy. Its derivative of a larger Economic Strategy. Once we can nest it and its not just infrastructure for infrastructures sake well start to see better projects. I would differ a little from robert. If you look at freight rail, for example, it has been a huge booming success for the American Economy since freight rail was deregulated back in 1980. I dont think we need sort of a National Plan or washington plans for freight rail. The private Rail Companies are doing an awesome job by themselves. And i think we should go in that sort of direction for seaports. I think sea ports ought to be privatized and they ought to compete with each other so baltimore can compete with norfolk and new york and los angeles. I think thats a good thing. Some of the best seaports in the world, like in hong kong, they are private selffunded. I think thats the way to go. Jennings, louisiana. David, independent caller. Caller yes. I was just wondering how the gas tax is alotted to the different projects. Does that go into a general fund like id read eight or ten years ago . It was close to a billion dollars between the Oil Companies and the gas tax and everything. A trillion, not a billion. And why is all that being collected and then nothings going toward transportation . Okay Chris Edwards, do you want to explain how it works . The federal gas tax is 18. 4 cents per gallon. It goes into two pots of money in the Highway Trust Fund. About 80 goes to highways. 20 goes to mass transit. In other words city bus and rail systems. So thats the basic split. 80 highways, 20 for mass transit. Jim in pennsylvania, democratic caller halifax, pennsylvania, go ahead. Caller yeah. Good morning. We just our governor tom corbett just substantially raised the gas tax for this. And i was wondering what percentage actually goes towards the improvement of the infrastructure. And i was also curious on here a few years ago we had a tractortrailer driver truck driver smashed a bridge, burnt the bridge up. And i understand that we the taxpayers of pennsylvania, helped bail that Insurance Company out. I was curious about this. Is the infrastructure money also to go to bail out Insurance Companies like we bail out wall street and we bail out the oil business . Thats my question. Okay, jim. Robert . Every state has their own rules how they spend the gas tax revenues that they generate. Its not just gas taxes in most states. We have all kinds of different fees that go into their transportation budgets. Registration fees, things like this. Theres lots and lots of different sources. Cigarette taxes, all kinds of things. Each state allocates it in their own way. I dont know about the example with the accident there in philly and how they dealt with the Insurance Companies. I suspect it was probably from a different pot of money and some other different sources the state had to pull together. Im not familiar with that project. Smiley on twitter, if the private sector wants to invest in infrastructure dont you think they should pay for upkeep instead of taxpayers . They do and thats generally the way it works. For example in Northern Virginia private companies came in and helped mainly finance the widening of the capital beltway with highoccupancy toll or electronic toll lanes. Those companies not only financed mainly financed and built the highway in Northern Virginia, they will be responsible for the maintenance and operation for decades to come. And that as i think robert has written in his studies its a good way to do it. Because if the same company is building and financing and operating, they can aim at longterm efficiency. Which is often something that you dont get with the typical government contract. Is it true for the railroads as well . Those companies that absolutely. The railroads generally fund their own freight rail systems. Amtrak uses some of the freight rail. Im not sure some of the whether the federal government or amtrak subsidizes some of it. Mainly the frail ray companies build their own infrastructure maintain it run the rate. Well hear from glen next, a republican in tallahassee, florida. Caller yes, thanks to cspan. Just wanted to know what is the impact of the davis bacon act on the cost of Infrastructure Construction in the country . Okay, robert . Caller and wouldnt it be a good idea for congress to just do away with that law . Okay. Glen . I dont think so. Were trying to make sure that workers are getting adequate wages in order to work on some of these projects. And this is a matter of Public Policy. Its a nice connection between money thats being spent from the policy level to getting the goals and be aabjectivesbe a objectives we want to achieve. How its awe all commingles. Its very ripe right now. I wouldnt throw it overboard right now. Weve got to make sure the workers who are getting paid for these projects are getting paid adequately. Do you agree . Davis bacon was a law that basically says if youre building a transportation project like a highway project with federal money, then you must pay essentially union pages, wages which are often higher. There has been a study a few years ago that showed this pushes up the wage costs on federally funded highway projects by about 20 . If its up to me i would repeal the davis bacon laws. I think construction workers ought to be paid in the market system like everyone else is paid. And i think that would reduce the cost of building and maintaining highways which would be better for everybody. Okay. Jim, oxford, maine, republican. Caller good morning. Good morning. Caller the previous caller asked the same question i was going to bring up the davis bacon act. If its federally funded, theyve got to pay much more than if its state funded. So there again, it makes a lot more sense for the states to do it themselves. The other question i have is, i dont know if this law is still in effect, but i know many years ago, back in the 70s when they were building route 495 in massachusetts, after that was built, it was brand new, they were going to lose their federal funding. I guess set amounts back then. So every year for many years they repaved that road over and over and over. And they near stopped repaving it until they had the big dig project in boston so they could continue getting their federal funds for that. Okay, jim. Robert . I dont know about the 495 project. Its tough weather up there in massachusetts. Cold weather is pretty bad for highway infrastructure. You have to maintain it over and over again when it frays and cracks and stuff like that. But its interesting on the davis bacon, on the jobs piece. There is another conversation going on now trying to link Infrastructure Spending to different kinds of outcomes. And we do a lot of spending through lowcost bidding. If you come in as a contractor, you bid low, you get the money. Because were such a desire to link Infrastructure Spending to other areas of Public Policy were trying to make sure that other things are coming with this spending. And so cities across the country are trying to put people back to work, particularly lowincome workers. And so trying to make sure that things like Public Transit money is coming in if youre a contractor and you want to build something in a certain area that you actually get credit for that. And were not just basing contract awards just on lowcosted bying. If youre going to come in put people to work, train a workforce, oar going to give them additional skills, you should get credit for that. And thats whats starting to happen in a lot of cities around the country. Yvonne in National City michigan, democratic caller, go ahead. Caller yes. Our Governor Snyder wants to raise our income tax. I mean sales tax. To 8 . He says for the roads and the school. Then he wants 54 cents on a user tax on the gas. And he wants 24 cents on the gas tax. Now, will the government on top of that raise more taxes on the gas . Chris edwards . Yeah Governor Snyders bid to raise the gas tax is sort of curious. Michigan is a state where the population isnt growing very much. I can understand why fastgrowing Southern States want to raise more money for infrastructure. But so i havent look the into detail in michigan but it is surprising to me that a state thats had a fairly stagnant population would want to raise so much money for infrastructure. On the last callers point, i would agree with him, his theme was that the federal government injects a lot of inefficiency in state highway spending. I know, for example with the big dig, which was about twothirds federally funded, that i believe that the federal money in the big dig project was one of the reasons why it ended up costing far more than it was originally estimated to cost. I think when federal money is involved, state governments, they dont spend their money as efficiently. We have to leave it there because we are all out of time. Chris edwards with the cato institute, go to downsizing government. Org. Robert puentes with the Brookings Institution, grow testing levels of incoming wealth inequality. When Climate Change in this country, but the entire planet. When you have a handful of billionaires in the process of dying in our Police Department i think it is important that we have candidates who are prepared to take on the bigmoney interest. So i am giving serious thought to do that. Dont tell my wife that. Shell leave me. She doesnt necessarily agree. Itell her to turn off the tv right now. On the other hand, those are our political realities. That is when you take on the billionaire class, it aint easy. If i do something, i want to do it well. Its eess important not just for my ego, but its important for millions of people who share the same set of believes. We would have to put together the strongest estest grassroots movement. Enough is enough. There is a lot of sentiment that the establishment, whether it is the economic establishment, the political establishment, all the Media Establishment is founding the American People. And you have two Million People say, you know what were going to put a hundred bucks into the campaign. And, by the way in my senate race, you know what my average contribution was . 45. So if you had 2 Million People, phenomenal response. Putting in a hundred bucks, thats 200 million. Thats 20 of what the coke brothers are prepared to send. Can you take that on . I dont know. Maybe weve gone over the edge. I dont know. I surely hope not. But we have to look at that reality. And last on that issue when candidates run for president , they often have two objectedives. The first objective obviously, is to win nominational election. But there have been plenty of candidates in our history who have run to an advance in an agenda even when they didnt win. How can i have an effect on the agenda from the winning candidate, which, at this point we assume would be hillary clinton. Looking at about 13. 3 trillion. When i was working with sylvia, they disgust me, and in my opinion they dont work. If i run, and if secretary clinton runs, what i would hope would happen, is that we would have a real serious this is a woman i respect, clearly a very intelligent person, who i think is interested in issues, by the way. And i think we would have a debate about how you rebuild a crumbling middle class, a debate about how you reverse Climate Change. A debate about Foreign Policy and the wisdom in the war in iraq. A debate about trade policy, a debate about wall street. And that would be, i think, good for the American People to be honest with you, it is not my style to trash people. It is not my style to run ugly negative ads. Never have, never will. Would you register as a democrat . Its a decision i have yet to make. I go around the country, there are a lot of people i say, look, the republican party, democratic party, they are the same, you have to start outside of the two party system. A lot of people feel that way. Other people then say, well, you have to run youve been in the Democratic Caucus since ive been in congress. And if you want to go where the action is, and you want to be in the debates, you want to get media attention, and so forth, have you to run. Thats the issue im talking to a lot of people about. You can see all of this event tonight at 9 05 on cspan. Also see all of our road to the white house coverage any time on our video library, cspan. Org. New congress, best access on cspan, cspan2 cspan radio and cspan. Org. President obamas fiscal request poses 84 bimon for discretional funding for the health and Human Services funding. Hhs secretary burr well recently appeared to talk about the plan. She also took questions on implementing the Health Care Law and the Upcoming Supreme Court case the challenges of stax credit subsidies. Good morning its a pleasure to welcome everyone to todays hearing on the fils k58 year 2016 budget for the dp of health and Human Services, hhs. I want to thank you, secretary burwell for being here with us today. This is your first hearing before the committee since being confirmed. At that time we also discussed three main areas that i encouraged you to focus on during your time at hhs. Responsibility, acountability and independence. Id like to talk more about each of these areas today. Lets talk about responsiveness. I raised the importance of being responsive to congress and to this committee in particular. You assured me that this would be a top priority of yours, as well, and that under your watch we would see a marked improvement. In the past year of this committee, written at least 20 letters asking questions about serious issues such as Fraud Prevention hacking of health care medic expansion and many others. I understand that we have not received answers to nearly every one just in time for your appearance here today with the last few responses coming just last week