Either just trying to hire the next engineer or highskilled immigrants or to a laptop give away. We have actually built a Strong Coalition of some of the Top Tech Companies thinking longterm investing in Elementary School education which will not pay them back dividends but the country. To give you a sense, we may be one of the only non profits, collectively participating not on small levels delivering video lectures. These are all longterm investments in changing the system. These Companies Want to form a Publicprivate Partnership to bring Computer Science to all of american schools. Thank you, and i yield back my time. You did not have any time. So i would like to thank all of the witnesses. And also, we did not talk about it much today, but i think that the retention issue of students that do initially go into s. T. E. M. Is a big deal. I am a big glad well fan. In his most recent book he talks about the fact that the mismatch between the student and a school, which school that they choose is important in that area if the student chooses a school that does not match them challenge lies or otherwise they have a tendency to drop out and feel like they cannot compete. So that is a big problem. I would like to thank the witnesses, the members of the committee may have additional questions. We will ask you to respond in writing. The witnesses are excused from this part of our hearing. We will take a short break. Everyone that can stay seated, please do because we will try to transition as quickly as possible to the next hearing. Thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] all right. We are glad to begin our second panel. A cspan2 can be seated we will proceed. This is going to be a fascinating part of the hearing because we will hear from those who s. T. E. M. Education is most important, the students. Thank you for being here. May not have been easy to get permission from the parents and teachers to come, but when you told them their work of your going to testify in front of congress to give you a little latitude. Not every program gets every student excited, we are interested in learning from your experiences and perspectives, whether it has been f. I. R. S. T. , code. Org, or something else. Our first witness for our second panel, in 12th grade at south River Highschool in edge water maryland. It into of grade in virginia. Our third witness, an 11th grader at George Mason High School in falls church, virginia. Our final witness is in the 12th grade at Eleanor Roosevelt high school in greenbelt, maryland. Our witnesses and no that spoken testimony is limited to five minutes after was the members of the committee will have five minutes east as questions. Just money will be included in the record of the hearing. I now recognize our first witness, ms. Ellana crew, for testimony. Welcome. Thank you, chairman and a highranking member and members of the committee. I am different than most of the other kids here for two reasons, one being and legally blind cannot fully blind but not fully cited, caught in the middle definitely has changed a lot and encourage lots of things for me just being a partner of f. I. R. S. T. I have never been able to play sports. An immediate target for dodge paul. They went out of their way to try. All is the first one out. Games were hard. And lots of other activities were difficult. I first heard about f. I. R. S. T. Through a friend of mine who was on the team. Her sister was as well. They have been doing it for awhile. The way she talked about it seemed like it is a great atmosphere and a good opportunity. I applied for it next year and got in on the business side. Once i was in after a while i just got adjusted. Ec all kinds of things. It is interesting to see. These robots are cool. But theyre is a place for everybody. I did not have to worry about being judged. I did not have to worry about whether or not i could do it. I could not working correctly. I could not see well enough to do that. You can certainly be involved. When you watch it happen it is very cool. That is all i have to say. Thank you very much. A fascinating perspective that you do not have to be interested in the fields to benefit from education and what it can offer students in all areas of whatever their interests are. I now recognize our next witness, mr. More. It. Good morning, mr. Chairman, ranking members of the committee. I am a veteran first member with my involvement spanning seven years and several programs such as fln frc. An integral part of my development as a person, student, and aspiring engineer and has challenged and trained me in ways normal classrooms cooling never has. Because of that i feel more prepared to face the challenges and obstacles of the real world than i ever imagined i would. My involvement dates back to seventh grade. My friends and i decided to give robotic to try. And while i originally thought of the program only as games were entertainment combines and realized it was so much more. It is not about the competition but the life and learning experiences of being on 18, working with technology, solving problems, and inspiring others to do the same. This is what got me hooked, competing, learning, and having fun of the same time. I could not say what my favorite part is. There is so much a have enjoyed. I had the chance to work on longterm projects, seen them go from the drawing board to physical, finished projects which is my favorite part of engineering, learned in valuable Technical Skills as well as how to manage and leave large groups. The community puts the program above any individual go or interest and is overwhelmingly hope unsupportive thanks to the principle of creches professionalism. The outpouring of passion and enthusiasm is really refreshing and watching that enthusiasm of so many young people for science and Technology Gives me hope for the future. F. I. R. S. T. Helped discover my passion for engineering command because of f. I. R. S. T. I can definitively state and want to pursue Electrical Engineering and Computer Science as a career have applied to several top engineering schools in virginia and the nation and hope my experience with f. I. R. S. T. Will give me an edge up in admissions no matter what university i end up that i am sure the skills ive learned at f. I. R. S. T. Will serve me well in my studies and beyond. Thank you very much. I am sure that they will. I now recognize mr. Daniel nette for his testimony. Thank you, members of the committee. I first learned about f. I. R. S. T. For my older brother who was a Founding Member of team 1418 at my school in 2004 making this hour to end the year. He currently serves as the director for a tournament held at our local metals cool. Like many of my science and mathematics class as a f. I. R. S. T. Prize their paternity to apply hands on solutions to real challenges. As we complete the challenge we learned hon. Skills like team building, communication, and the four elements. Through the program will find my ability to seek my own solutions to problems and develop my own desire to learn. Working with robots has helped me learn about the idea of development, Material Properties , nematic metalworking and motors by applying concepts island of a class from june are reallife problem. F. I. R. S. T. Is gives us the challenge and then we go through the process of brainstorming, designing, prototyping, building and, of course, rebuilding multiple times until a working solution is achieved. In addition to the process is the pressure of a 6week kind time constraint. I never encountered these deadlines and utilize these problemsolving skills and my future career. Many students involved in the Program Experience for the first time the importance of interaction and communication with the bills such as mentors and judges. While that was not a problem so much for me because of my experiences in becoming an eagle scout and discover the power to spread their ideas have a conversation last year with a family friend who became interested in the program. She invested on a kid and took it on a mission trip to the school in rwanda so that the students could begin to learn about robotics. She has now gone on to serve as a judge and hopes to become a mentor in the near future. As a student and had an interest in mathematics and science, but it was not until the last few years i realized i would like to pursue a career and s. T. E. M. I have gone to Virginia Tech and hope to work with robots to solve challenges. Excellent. Thank you very much. Now recognize our final witness. Thank you, chairman, ranking member, other members for being here. It attend Eleanor Roosevelt high school in the 12th grade. A significant number of students and my experience with f. I. R. S. T. As i started in the seventh grade. And digest have decided, by fellow students touched very well on the educational aspects and values. I would like to talk about my personal story. And i describe it in three ways, spirited, challenging, fun. I am basketball fan, a tennis fan, football fan, so i love hearing everyone talk about that but for me it has been spirited and different than any other educational activity i have been too, the subculture behind it. It the guy who comes up with the challenges behind it, all of the mentors to do it, they are the people who are my role models with respect to engineering which i think is unique to f. I. R. S. T. And in general to these kind of activities. So i think that to f. I. R. S. T. , the challenge that is before me pushed me to engage these s. T. E. M. Feels differently and more thoroughly than anything i have ever done in class. I have done all these glasses and got the grades, but being in f. I. R. S. T. , i cannot stand the best in my club because i am not i have gotten better grades, but he beats mitt being an engineer. In challenging me it has been unique and different in valuable finally it has been fun. We all alluded to our being fun is critical to engaging students. And frc has done that. In f. I. R. S. T. Programs have done that. Importantly the fact that we get to interact with professional mentors has made a huge difference. I work with mr. Healy, who is here with me today. These people have become role models and pursuing an engineering career and giving back to the community. Frc has made a personal change. I would like to tell a short story about how i have come to appreciate f. I. R. S. T. More. Went to japan on a trip to present research. At that conference for Highschool Students it was there is something called World PremiereResearch Institutes model of american universities to his. The same thing as japan to try and replicate what we do. Theyre asking me what you guys do in school . What is it that you do that allows you to do such Good Research . We were presenting unique research at japanese Highschool Students were not capable of doing out for lack of intelligence but facilities and support. What i tell them about f. I. R. S. T. And what we did and how we manage a 25,000 budgets, students build these robots, there were absolutely flabbergasted. Top scientists saying, kids can do that . But the point was that it allowed me to appreciate f. I. R. S. T. And the programs that these unique private sector programs are engaging in. All of our students learn coating through the academy and these websites which is opening up new avenues. Hopefully three things would be teacher support to. It is difficult and high School Ticket teachers to support programs. And he designed a new sponsor this year. It was hard. I have so much work in terms of testing or whenever it is that there were not able to be sponsors or whenever. Hopefully some way teachers can be more focused or allowed to sponsor these kind of private sector s. T. E. M. Programs because it all starts with the school. Internships and stuff like that, realworld experience, practical experience is critical. And i think that up here it comes back to college of nations. That is an important aspect to this s. T. E. M. Engagement for students. Yes. On a personal note i plan to major in biomedical or Electrical Engineering when i get to college. I dont know where yet. Thank you. Later today book tv is live at politics and prose in washington for the kingdom of ice which recounts the u. S. Naval expedition to the north pole in 1879. That gets under way live here on cspan2 book tv at 7 00 p. M. Eastern. Join us tonight from more book tv primetime programming. Living in the tech h. Even though Drug Development is very High Technology coming it is really not giving as the medicines that we need a. Last year only 27 new drugs were approved. Twentyseven. All diseases, not just cancer. The Business Model of the Farmer Companies is not hard to understand spirited it is basically the same one used by hollywood. They go out and find interesting projects, bring them in house, polished and, get them through sensors, the fda in that Drug Development and then they are marketing and advertising works to deliver it to the public. It is long and risky and expensive, which is why, like hollywood, Drug Companies used to seek blockbusters. When you think about it, targeted madisons are more like those little independent art films, not a big audience. The problem is, it costs the same amount of money. So if you are making a targeted drug for cancer the result is it ends up being phenomenally expensive. The more expensive it is now harder it is to Insurance Companies to pay for it or for an individual to pay for it so that that madison in is up helping fewer people. It. Here are some of the highlights for this weekend. Friday on cspan and primetime important science in the history of the civilrights movement. Saturday night at 8 00 highlights from this years new York Ideas Forum including cancer biologist andrew hasselhoff. On sunday q a with new york congressman Charlie Rangel and 8 00 p. M. Eastern. A fight in 98 00 in depth with writer and religious scholar. Saturday at 10 00 retired neurosurgeon and columnist in carson. Sunday night at 11 00 p. M. Eastern Lawrence Goldstein on the competition between the right brothers and glenn curtis to be the predominant name in manned flight. American history tv on friday at 8 00 eastern. I look at the Hollywood Park trail of slavery. The 200th anniversary of the battle a blaze byrd in the burning of washington. Sunday night at 8 00 p. M. Former white house chiefs of staff discuss how president s make decisions. Finer Television Schedule one week in advance at cspan. Org and let us know what you think about the programs are watching. , less, and email us. It joined the cspan conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. In october, 2013, the u. S. Supreme court heard oral arguments in the case of mccutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. The case dealt with Campaign Financing laws. Next, the hourlong oral argument. First, some background on the issues involved. Next up is oral argument in the case mccutcheon v. Fec. This bill with a wealthy republican donor in alabama who challenged overall domestic political contributions. Joining us is Legal Correspondent mike doyle. But will be here . We will hear the conflict between free speech and efforts to and political corruption. The fec stands for the federal Election Commission which implemented the rules following Campaign Finance reform laws passed in the 1970s imposing several types of limits. One is on what you could give to candidates, and the other which in this case is the aggregate limit, the total amount you can get across all candid its. This donor in alabama wanted to give to a number of campaigns thats right. And under the aggregate limit formula he can only give a total of about 48,000 to all federal candid its. He said that by its his ability to speak politically. He said the First Amendment is designed to guarantee free speech and freedom of association, and that was constrained by the aggregate limit. Was this seen as a followon case for the Citizens United case. Very much so in the sense that this conservative court under chief Justice Roberts and his republican appointee colleagues have been very skeptical of limits on campaign speech. They dismantled the Citizens United case rules that restricted what corporations and labor unions could get. This was, all the different roles were at stake, very much in keeping with the theme of what can be limited and wants to of what must be allowed. Lets hear it. Oral arguments in the case of mccutcheon v. Fec. We will hear arguments first this morning in case 12536 mccutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Ms. Murphy. Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court, aggregate contribution limits as an impermissible attempt to it limit the individuals participation. They prohibit contributions that are within the base on which congress has already imposed to combat the reality or appearance of corruption is simply preventing individuals from engaging in too much First Amendment activity. These cannot be justified. They are addressed. A multitude of more direct anti circumvention measures. Because they imposed numerous measures. We have coordination restrictions on expenditures with the candidate. Proliferation restrictions on creating multiple packs that are all designed. All these except for one where theyre at the time of buckley versus valeo. I get that the court thought something could happen like the following. Candid its smith, you can only give him 2,600. He has a lot of supporters. And they have each didnt got some. And each puts on the internet. It says sam smith. This money goes to people like sam smith. Great people. Now, we can give each of those 45,000. Established by a Single Person, each independently run. We know pretty well that total of 5,000 times for will go to sam smith. There are a couple of problems with that a static the, your honor. First of all, they are based on what can be given 5,000. And what they can give to the candidate. 5,000. All we have is my 5,000 going. Theyre happen to be 400. So five 40, five 400, how much is that . And not to get at math. Without doing the math i will tell you youre marking and proliferation no, there is no earmarking. Youre marking requires the right on a check or accompanying letter that you want the money to go to something. Actually come made does not. The fec your market regulations are broader than that. If you have a contribution to what candidates. They will contribute to settle because it will get more than one. At that point you dont have the kind of disability you are talking about because theres more money coming in than can find its way to any one particular candidates. Named after a particular candidate, as a hypothetical, assuming i would be surprised if the federal Election Commission would not come after you for your marking. Lets say this one. You have 100 each of them say that they are going to support the five candidates in the most contested senate races. Really only five very contested races. And 100 say that they will support those five candidates. A donor gives 5,000 to each of those 100, which support those candidates. The money is divided up. In 1,000 to each candidate. The total, the 100,000 goes to each of the Senate Candidates in the five most contested races. Besides sanders must attend to donors. And who knows whos giving him 100,000 each of those five senators who get then on the trend of these contributions that are quiet times with the individual limits allow. I dont think it works to think of these as direct contributions in excess of the limits because the pact has limited its often how much you can contribute. What we are trying to do, because it is hard to do, but what we are trying to do in both our cases is we looked up all the rules in the rags in my law clerk look and what she discovered, and it av wrong because i will attend it again this air has been no significant change in the earmarking rules in any of the rules you are talking about but for one change. One change the one change is the change that all contributions made by political committees established by or financed or maintained or controlled dive a Single Person would count as one. So what you are a seat in you are seeing in this hypothetical is this simply the construction of precisely the same situation that existed in buckley while being careful to have not one person controlled the 4000 packs, which is easy to do. Is this a reality, turn on your Television Set or internet because we found instances without naming names. It certainly is a reality. Two responses. There are changes in earmarking more than what you suggested because the restrictions the fec has been regulation cover more than the statute is self. Specifically they cover these instances have a pac only contributed one candidate which is where a lot of the concern comes from. I want to declare what your answer to Justice Kagan was come your hypothetical. If part of it but contravened earmarking . It is earmarking concerns and proliferation concerns that were talking about is part of your absurd that the hypothetical is it real or is that going to happen or can have been . Best part of enhancer. I dont think its a realistic scenario under existing regulations. With the other side to this is true . I doubt they would be that its true. I think if you have a bunch of paths that are getting contributions from the same group of individuals come you are going to earmarking and proliferation restrictions. I cant remember that if you have a pac that says who give money to smith that is bad. But if you have on the sensibility of all the money you contribute to estee smith and jones, that is okay. For smith jones and three others. It seems to me that is earmarking. Exactly. If you think its earmarking that gives money to the candidates and the five most contested senate races, i just dont think any fec would say that its earmarking. I may have an overly suspicious thought, but i thought 100 wise up the knowledge that its at exactly the same thing. We are going to make contributions to the most contested candidates in the five most contested senate race. I would be suspicious and maybe the fec would also be suspicious that they didnt just offering up an apparently. I think thats absolutely right. Supposed the number of pac said we are going to give to congressional and senatorial candidate who want to cut down a governmental spending. And we know only for people like that. [laughter] at that point, when you have a pac comments not saying with insurgency what theyre going to do. The pac might be spending money in different ways that are not operating as a conduit for circumvention. I think i gets again to why this doesnt have the kind of coordination you need. Ms. Murphy, another one. Theyre 100 candidates are completely safe seats. And there are maybe 30 or 40 or Something Like that in their party who dont have safe seats. So the 150 get together and say we are going to run a joint fundraiser. And anybody can contribute 2600 to each of these candidates. 150 of them. So that makes about 400,000. And then its 150 candidates with completely safe seats transfer all this money to the one person who doesnt have a safe seat. So thats about 400,000. Double up for primary and the general election. Thats about 800,000 that all goes one candidate from one donor because of the ability for candidates to transfer money to each other. That is not the goal, Justice Kagan. They did not have the ability to transfer money to each other. They transfer a maximum 2600 for a candidate for election. A candidate can transfer 2000 per candidate per election. That is a hard contribution on how much they can contribute. But i think all of it is the over grass problem. In this scenario theres only one person who can even make a contribution. At that point, after the 2600 youre exactly right, ms. Murphy. One person can make an 800,000 contribution to a house 33 million goes a long way and then with these 150 candidates can do is do it for every single other candidate in a contested seat. To take your 30 or 40 house contested seats with him to conduit for a Single Person to make an 800,000 contribution so a candidate in a contested district. Even if you accept this scenario for candidates or deciding to give up their money, you cant have it lost a signed to prevent one person from circumvention by prohibiting everybody else from engaging in the contributions that dont everyone else, can you give us an idea of who is expressing expressing is that most people who come me for mayor. So what percentage is there any information on what percentage of all contributors are able to continue over the aggregate . We are talking about a large number of individuals. We are talking about or individuals with a First Amendment right in davis. It only prohibits this feature 2 of the country is okay. Absolutely not. Ms. Murphy, we havent talked yet about the effect of the aggregate limits on the ability of donors to give the minimum amount to as many candidates as they want. The effect of the aggregate limits is to limit someones contribution of the maximum amount to nine candidates. Thats right. Is there a way to the eliminate that aspect of retaining some of the aggregate limits . Another was come is that a necessary consequence of january of aggregate and it for alternative ways of enforcing the limitation that dont have the consequence . Insert a necessary consequence in which there is a distinct aggregate limit on contributions to candidates alone. I think aggregate limits in general are always right to have your fact that prohibiting people from getting contributions that dont themselves give rise to quick perl code and not his wife the government is concerned about the things it is talking about, they were newer avenues to get at them. Its a concern as joint fundraising committees im a little come used. I am confused because we are talking in the abstract. This decision was based on a motion to dismiss and there is a huge colloquy about what happens in doesnt happen. We dont have a record low. I can go into the news as Justice Breyer suggested. It is very hard to think any candidate doesnt know the contributor who has enough money to give not only to himself or herself, but too many of his or her affiliates who are supporting him or her. It is merely common sense, hard to dispute. So you are saying it cant happen, but i dont see charges of coordination going on not much. I guess im not sure what youre talking about happening. If youre talking about knowing some individuals are making contributions to other candidates for state parties who are not going to share contributions with a particular candidate, then i dont see how that gives rise. I wont name the candidate. You see a picture of the candidate. There is a sign that says smith. That is what he says. And then it says make a donation to help smiths pac support republican new light for democratic candidates. It doesnt have an address. It doesnt take a genius to figure out what theyre going to do with the money and maybe smith will get a pretty good share of it. If smith has 400 people who figured this out, he will have 400 times 5000 times 1 . Now you say they really couldnt have been because of the designation. We havent found a designation road that would stop it. But then Justice Sotomayor is saying i dont know. I donate there. Theres been no evidence presented. First of all, the case was briefed unadjusted really so it government have an opportunity to make a record of it chose to treat this as a legal case ms. Murphy, do we need a record to figured out issues . Is my second point. I agree that this campaignfinance law is so intricate that i cant figure it out. It mightve been nice to have the lower court tell me what the law is. But we dont normally require a record. And you shouldnt need when he are either because these limits are spatially overdone recluses. You are taking a position that the law stops corruption. And you are suggesting that the government is incapable of showing facts that the law does not work . As the days . Dont you need facts to prove that profit or disprove that proposition . Even if the government could prove the proposition they would so be it over and under. I like to reserve the remainder of my time. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Burchfield. Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court . Senator oconnell agrees this aggregate limit does not pass exacting skirt knee. Senator mcconnell believes all restrictions of this nature should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. To begin with, this is a severe restriction on political speech. I would like you to address this question about the restrictions on speech. It has been argued that these limits remote expression, promote democratic participation because what they require the candidate to do is instead of concentrating from the thing of the super affluent of the would then pass to raise money more broadly in the electorate so by having its amendments, you are promoting democratic participation. And you wont have to super affluence and the speakers that controlled the election. Your honor, i disagree with. First of all companies aggregate limit on Political Parties places like minor Political Parties competing against each other rather than collaborating against each other. All the national Political Parties compete against each other for an artificially limited pool of money from each contributor. The same is true in the candidate side. They compete against each other for the same artificially limited full of money. Even though each individual contribution to the candidate or party is limited by the baselines. The federal Election Commission regulations and Justice Breyer, i would propose you look at section 110. 1 h. , which specifically prohibits a pac of the nature you describe. If a person contributes of knowledge, contribution to a particular candidate, that is an earmark under the federal Election Commission. Is that correct that the consequence of this provision has been very severe with respect to national Political Parties . It is, your honor. Particularly the current environment where parties are being the money that used to go to that now goes to pacs. If not what is happening . This is really turning the dials are regulating elections. Why would members of Congress Want to hurt their political