>> and that is we should be begin drafting and introduce a bankruptcy code for states right now. to my mind, that's the only federalism problem that will really matter over the coming years because sooner or later, and i mean sooner rather than later, some state will default on its payment obligations. most likely illinois, california is next in line. they don't have liquidity problems in those states anymore. they have solvency problems. and the question is, how do you deal with those kinds of coming defaults? and the choices are unpalatable. you want to bail them out? there isn't enough money to bail them out at least by the federal government, maybe the imf could do it. and plus you can't revent --

prevent a event. and as long as they stay on the books so that's not really an opposition. do you want -- the alternative is you could let the creditors suck it up. this is, in fact, what we used to do. we used to do it in the 1840s. we did it after the civil war. we did it during the new deal. the states went bust and municipalities and we just let the creditor suck it up. really we're going to do that again when the chinese show up and say, wait a minute, we bought california bonds. you have to make us whole. or when pimco stands there and says, wait a minute, our investors are going to go bust or when the banks show up and say we ended up with all these debts on our hands or with all these obligations. we're going to tell them to suck it up. i think it will end like europe, which did not really have a choice between bailing out greece or not bailing out greece. it only had a choice between

bailing out greece or bailing out the french and german banks and that is an utterly unattractive choice so that brings me to the last option. you could have an orderly process to settle the accounts and to make people whole to the extent that you can. when a state goes bust it will be too late to design a process like that. it's really complicated. there's constitutional questions so i think starting that work now would be an act of federalism foresight and responsibility. >> thank you, michael greve. david mcintosh? >> thank you, thank you, matt. what i wanted to share with you today were some observations about having served in both the executive and the congressional branches. the ability to move towards a more constitutional popularly branches.

and i would posit the way to get to that political unity that michael referred to in addition to the -- on the question of federalism but on other issues is well is to design what i've referred to as constitutional conservatism. my experience in the executive branch was that we were very attuned to constitutional prerogatives of the president, i asserted them under reagan and first bush. and developed a theory for not only constitutional prerogatives but constitutional limits on executive action. then shortly after that i was elected to congress and realized congress operates roughly on a british parliamentary system where there's a vague notion of a constitutional structure and we'll try to do our best based on the received wisdom from the senior members and the body about what we should and shouldn't be doing.

very little thought actually on what powers were enumerated to the legislative branch. and as long as you did something similar to that which had been done before you, you were fine. and didn't have to think about it. so it's not surprising that nancy pelosi came back with that response. are you serious? she for all her time in congress had never had to think about what the constitutional limits would be on her prerogatives as a member of congress. i do remember that chris cox and i having both come out of that executive branch experience would from time to time be sitting at the back of the room looking at each other as a republican congress started to vote some limitation on a democratic president, bill clinton, which we knew if we had been -- congress -- democratic congress had tried to do that for ronald reagan we would have been fighting because it violated the notion of a unified executive.

and ended up being the two lone no-votes in the republican house. having understood the perspective from both branches. that being said, what are some things that we should and can do? first, i think we need to pick up on the things that have been mentioned here by both matt and michael. and that is educate now a willing group of elected leaders about the constitution. and i just came from a federalist society conference all about constitution and the modern era. and the obama agenda. and somebody drew the distinction which i think is very apt between the constitution and constitutional law. oftentimes constitutional law, as it's evolved in the courts ends up becoming technical, confusing and viewed as -- by congressmen as something that they are not an expert in.

the constitution and the enumeration of powers for the legislative branch is something that they can and should become familiar with. and should strive to adhere to. that's the momentum from the tea party movement where 5 million copies of the constitution have been sent out across the country in the last two years. they want government to adhere to that notion that it has limited powers and that they are enumerated in that document. the flip side of that that there is a part of our society that is outside of the government. we've taken that for granted. most of our lives. but, in fact, i think we have a governing coalition in the last two years led by president obama who believed he was responsible for every segment of our lives. whether it was government or private sector or free enterprise. he was the guy running the country. and, therefore, could have

opinions on all sorts of things that go beyond any notion of what the federal government should do. so the flip side of educating people about enumerated powers and constitutional limits is also to educate them about the values and the benefits of keeping things out of government. what we refer to as the private sector or free enterprise but it also includes family, churches, community groups, institutions that exist and should do much of the building up of our country. and then i have to come back to something michael really stressed. and i agree completely. we've got adopt an ethic of no bailouts because with the bailouts comes control or at least a myriad of regulations. but of those private institutions. but you also have the phenomenon that i think is the spoiled child syndrome where once somebody has received a bailout,

their behavior in the future is going to continue to get worse. and so just as you were referring to with the states you hand them the money to bail them out of the current crisis without doing anything to change the structure and they'll be back in a dozen years with a bigger problem and more money, more request for money. what are some specific things -- so on the outside, i think particularly groups like our host today, we need to focus on ways of bringing to the discussion and helping the elected leaders who now have received the message from the people we want you to pay to the constitution -- explaining what that means. but the legislative branch, democratically branch in our system can do right now to reassert greater attention to that constitution? and i thought of three different ways that i'll briefly describe and mention a couple of examples.

but the first is support direct challenges in the judiciary to unconstitutional legislation. the greatest example right now is the health care bill that's being challenged by multiple states. it would be wonderful if this new congress passed a resolution saying we agree with the premise of these challenges that an individual mandate really isn't in the commerce clause or any other section of the constitution. you're seeing salami slices on mccain-feingold is well, if they can muster the courage to actually express a constitutional view of the first amendment, that would be another area where they could be very helpful. second is legislative awareness or oversight that matt mentioned. i think in addition to looking at particular programs and the way they are operating and asking the constitutional questions which is critical and was delighted that matt included that on his list of suggestions

for people, i think they should also hold some oversight or hearings on what are these constitutional provisions? what does it mean to have enumerated powers? what is federalism and our proper role in that? what is the commerce clause? and historically, overexpansion after the new deal and what should it be in modern america? what are limits on the spending power or the taxing power? to continue to bring to the fore in people's minds, these are important issues that we need to think about. and then the third one is legislative action. i have two favorites. one of them is -- was mentioned earlier. it was the extension of the congressional review act that don nichols and i worked on in 1995. what we found is that that really only works when you've got a congress of one party and a president of another coming in.

and the president of the same party coming in and reversing the decision by the previous administration as we saw in the ergonomics rule at the beginning of the bush administration. so the current proposal, it takes it to the next step and flips the presumption. and it's important to step back and realize the problem that's being addressed here, which is essentially one of violating the nondelegation doctrine. congress not being specific enough and clear enough in its delegation of a legislative authority is one symptom of that. frankly, whether they should have delegated that is another issue that i think this addresses. the procedure it does is to say for important rules before they can actually be binding on the public, we're taking away the delegation. they have to come back and be approved by the -- by both houses and signed into law. so when you have the clean air act spelling out that there will

be 100 different major regulations that have a huge impact on the economic system in our country, congress can't simply sit back and we'll toss all those issues to epa. the biggest impediment to that are the sophisticated groups in our society that have spent a lot of money lobbying the clean air act and have confidence in their ability to lobby the epa once they know they've gotten the deal that they can live with, they don't want another bite at the apple. either by their competitors or other interests. so they essentially don't want to have to defend the final rule back in the legislative process. you're going to see that frankly with a lot of large corporations who invest a lot of money in having very good and sophisticated lobbying groups here being concerned if we've reached an agreement essentially with the government on how much regulation will that be done. my proposition to them and there should be another panel and another debate is that if we correct the nondelegation

problem, you'll be just as well off as you are now because you're sophisticated about this and there will be less of a problem of overregulation by government. the second one is the funding limitation. those very important words, none of the funds appropriated in this act. and that is a way in which congress can very effectively assert its view of the constitutional proprietary of the program and maybe while they're going through a rewrite of the underlying authorization bill. and so i would encourage members in this new congress to think about areas where there is a strong question of the constitutionality, an appropriateness in of a program. use that spending power to put a break on it and then engage in the debate and fix the underlying law. with that, those were the things that i wanted to share with people. thank you. >> all right. thank you, david.

i'm looking at the clock and thinking that given many people's interest in constitutional matters, this is the panel i think where everyone in the room can have some expertise. i'll just throw it open to questions. and we'll send the microphone arenas. -- around. yes, all the way in the back there. >> this is for michael greve, on the issue of municipal -- not municipal, state bankruptcy legislation, i think that is an absolutely brilliant suggestion because it would really focus attention on the public sector unions and the different arrangements in the different states. and one thing i've learned recently looking at this, is in some states you have the benefits and the contracts are constitutionally mandated. whereas, in other states, they're not and they're actually

trying to pack away at them. but so in the face of this enormous admiration to actually see that so that the creditors could understand what trouble they might be in if there were bankruptcy, i would like to know, number one, has anyone ever thought about that in congress? has there been any movement towards doing that? and i'd also be interested for one or two of the topic examples in which the states have already been bailed out from problems. >> thank you for the warm endorsement. there have been discussions about this -- this step in the 1930s. well, since you asked, that led to what is now chapter 9 of bankruptcy code which governs municipalities, states. -- states were on the agenda but were exempted on account of

unanticipated constitutional problems so i want to bring this up again. the reasons why i want to raise this now and bring it up now is, of course, precisely -- i mean, one of the reasons is the one you mentioned. short of bankruptcy, there isn't any way of getting out of the legacy costs. because the public union contracts are either constitutionally protected or protected by state supreme courts under ordinary contract principles you can't get out of them unless these people make a concession sua sponte and what david mention creating a bailouts. one of the premises of the american federalism which is really unique, no other federal system in the world, is that we will not bail out states. it's a long story how we got to

that point and created this credible commitment against bailouts. it comes out of the 1830s. it held through thick and thin through american history that i believe it's now gone. the bond markets -- if you look at the rates and the ray the bond markets behave, nobody believes that. we won't bail them out. why is it that illinois can borrow money at all, let alone at 7%. come on now. i mean, everybody is betting on the bailout, right? so rolling out sort of a bankruptcy code for states in full regalia and saying, no, we're serious about this. that sends a signal to the bond markets, no, we actually are serious about our once upon a time commitment and to make these people a little more hazard than to drive the states more hesitant to drive themselves. into the ditches. as to the bailouts that we've

already had, one of the reasons for obama-care is it's a -- it's one large bailout for states, right. they will shift it into the exchanges and be done with them. that yanks $500 billion of obligations off their books, hallelujah, that's one example. the american recovery act or whatever that was called, that's another one. $23 billion, they tossed out, you know, for another bailout, that's the third one. schip, when it was originally passed in 1996, whenever it was under the clinton administration, right, that was a de facto bailout because you took kids off the medicare accounts and they put them under a more generous program. the increases on the fmap on the medicaid and those are additional examples and on and on it goes.

>> next question, yes -- yes, back by the window. >> rick again. what do you think about -- i know there's this court case or court cases going on, on the ability to recall a senator using state law. can you comment on that? i think that in combination with instant runoff-type voting called rank choice voting or -- it's kind of like an elimination round type of approach. that would basically -- you know, you list your first candidate, your first candidate loses your second choice would apply. your second choice loses and your third choice would apply. that's basically the way it happens in the private sector. you can recall a worker at any time. and then when you're hiring somebody, you don't just get one choice. you have several choices. if muhammad doesn't want the job, you give it to karen. karen doesn't want it and you give it to lorenzo, et cetera. >> any of you care to field one or both of those questions?

>> i think -- actually, the recall -- on the recall question, i can say it just doesn't square with the constitution. there are three ways to get rid of a senator or representative. if you count death, it's a fourth. >> three constitutional. >> right, three constitutional ways. they retire, resign, they are defeated for re-election or they're expelled by super majority of their respective houses. i can recall, oh, more than a decade ago a movement afoot on arizona to recall john mccain. it got nowhere and i think that -- that if the attempts were seriously made in any state, senator representative would be quite safe in ignoring it, no court would enforce it.

the leadership of the houses of congress would simply ignore it is well. on the second question, i think that alterations in our traditional plurality voting system first past the "post." there are many alternatives that are proportional representation and so on that are perfectly constitutional, square with the constitution but would have serious effects on the two-party system. and we have to think hard about whether we want to jettison that. >> and i would add, as an example thinking creatively in this moment. you're absolutely right with the recall not squaring with the constitution but i see no reason why and i would encourage state legislatures to actually subpoena members -- to come back and explain their votes and perhaps explaining what they've been doing. they would turn it down. they wouldn't do it. they are perfectly legitimate straight from the muscles so to speak of thinking

constitutionally and not assuming which has been so long the case that these are merely legal questions. legislatures, at the state and federal level, i think, need to flex their muscles a bit. and even if they won't win the battles it shows they are thinking outside of the box. >> it's an interposition that even a federalist could get behind. [laughter] >> other questions? yes, here. >> jack park for michael greve, for the state bankruptcy receivers like jefferson county, alabama. [inaudible] >> and the second question, one would think, you know, on a 2,000-page bill like the -- [inaudible] >> there wouldn't be a delegation problem. in fact, at last big -- nothing but delegation. and once the regulations come out, the standards for evaluating them, chevron, are not favorable to challenges.

is there anything we can do to reinvigorate either, a, the nondelegation doctrine or -- [inaudible] >> the standards under chevron? >> you want to go first? >> i'll try to go first. this is precisely -- i mean, that's why i sort of caution -- i mean, this is one of the reasons why i said, look, let's think about this now. it's actually a horrifying thing at some level to think that a state could end up in receivership, in bankruptcy receivership, right? just like a municipality. yeah, there are serious constitutional problems. but i wouldn't -- i mean, let me put it another way. i believe that we will renegotiate the american federalism bargain as a result of this crisis in a fundamental way. i do not know what federalism will look like when we're done with it. but it will look nothing like what we're used to.

we will have to do some and contemplate some very, very dramatic changes. i'd be happy to elaborate on that. there's only one aspect of it. but if we just sit there and say, oh, no, we can't do that because of states rights, yeah, well, then you're back -- what's your alternative? they ran you back to the unpalatable alternative of, you know, bailing out banks, you know. in a made-up proceeding where the only certainty is that the guys from goldman sachs will sit on all sides of the table because they always do. but everything else is up for grabs, that's not a good thing to do. you know, or, you know, create some real chaos out there so let's think about what an orderly process bankruptcy life would actually look like. on the delegation issue, i wouldn't look for that for a resurrection of that doctrine anytime soon. i will, however, say this.

i'm not an expert on 2400 pages of obama-care or however many pages that was or for that matter, i will say this. there are dozens and dozens of agencies, boards with very poorly defined authority, bizarre appointment procedures. >> more than dozens and dozens. >> more than dozens and dozens fair enough. i didn't want to exaggerate here, okay? i don't think it's out of the question at all that in some of these big enactments, there are real viable sort of separation of powers and appointments, challenges lurking. there are certainly some in dodd-frank. that i'm confident of. obama-care -- i just don't know sort of how that beast works. well enough to answer, to give you any specifics.

but that rather than the pure delegation challenge is what in legal terms i would look to. >> let me just add to that a couple additional thoughts. one, obama-care is an interesting and unusual example in that it was passed and signed into law without consensus among the american people that it was good policy. and that failure to adopt has continued. and we saw that expressed in the most recent election. so you now have a congress that at least in part no longer supports the policy and a president who does -- part of the answer will be the next election. will it continue to be something the american people are rejecting and want their leaders to reverse. the other part -- i think we have to be careful as we look at

mechanisms like the she hachevr doctrine and where it causes problems in other context. so the one i favor and it may not be expect as they've written it but it's a good start is this reins act that says congress is going to -- four different regulatory processes bring them back for a legislative -- basically affirmation, basically an up or down vote where basically the agencies would have the force of law. and i think that's a good way and in other applications so i'm not troubled by it having momentum simply in the health care context. >> a quick point, matt? >> yes, i want to make a quick point. i agree with what's been said especially michael with the death of the doctrine of delegation. i would just keep in mind that's in sync with a legal doctrine and a political doctrine.

which is to say right now the political argument about delegation is alive and well but they don't call it and there was a rejection of the notion of these bureaucrats are running our lives and we didn't vote for them. i think congress has a huge opening here to act legislatively and put things in motion like the rens act that actually force some responsibility and openness and transparency into that system. that is a revive -- that's kind of a political revival that i'm talking about that i'm talking about that some day might have some legal implications. >> i think we can take one more quick question. >> the hard question. >> i think it's so refreshing to hear a discussion of the constitution that's not all about the supreme court. but i'm going to ask about the supreme court. i don't have people suggested

the justice sotomayor in her conference hearings had to ape regimentalist remarks and what has that suggest that they won the public debate about the constitution? >> i think it does suggest that, david? >> yeah, i would agree and actually it's become such an issue that there's polling been done as you described the regionalist position or limited judiciary position. as obama's view of judges doing what is just and between the particular parties. and it's 2-1 in favor of the originalist and limited judiciary. now, the courts are set up to be insulated from popular opinion. so whether justice sotomayor having expressed it in her confirmation hearings will actually lead to decisions based on that is another question. [laughter] >> every kind of encouragement would be good. perhaps she can be invited to keynote next year's federalist society my colleague.

-- meeting>>. we've had some interesting debates. it would be great to have her. >> it's good to have been reminded today that our constitution creates not only a limited government but a government energetic within its limits. and i thank all our panelists. i thank again arthur brooks for a very simulating morning. thanks very much. >> thank you. >> thank you, matt. and on behalf of arthur brooks and aei and national review institute, i want to thank all our speakers. in several weeks the 112th congress will be in office and it seems to me the able talented experts have ably represented the kind of conservative policy advice of these new members of congress will be getting. we just have to hope they heed so many smart ideas and i want to thank you for having been a

really attentive audience and for joining us this morning. thank you. [applause] .. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> usl f-16 you senators when it 112 congress begins in january. among them republican john hoeven of north dakota. he takes the seat of democrat byron dorgan who is retiring the into this year. mr. homies north dakota's governor, and before that he was a bank ceo. from ohio, rob will be joining the senate that he's been a member of the house, the u.s. trade representatives, and most recently the white house budget tractor under president bush. he has taken the seat of republican george one of age who has retired. -- george voinovich who has retired. at 12:30 p.m. eastern c-span take you live take you live to the american constitution society for law and policy. tonight on "the communicator's."

>> "washington journal" ntinues. >> host: richard wolffe joins us, the author of "revival: the struggle for survival inside the white house." thanks for being here guess next having me.j >> host: you set out a dynamicyt when the people you called the revivalists and the survivalist. talk to us about those two can't.ivalists who is in them and what are they competing to do? ? -- camp? host: -- guest: looking at it now, particularly at the start of the year, i wanted to look at the messes that they were in and how they got out. campaigns are a means to an end. you make a list of promises, you get to washington, then you kind of undo them. in this case it is a 21

monthlong journey. it was not just the process, it was where they forged their identity. transitioning from campaigning to governing was much more of a challenge than it has been four previous presidents and white houses -- more a challenge than previousen four previouor presidents and white house's. this idea of being a transformer, that c-span pledge, televising of debates. it became emblematic of how they wanted a transparent approach. revivalists are on that side of it. survivalists are on the washington side, saying do what it takes to get washington done. make the deals you have to make, grease the wheels, that is how

it works in washington. that battle between the ideas has been happening in the white house for the last two years. host: does it happen in the mind of the president as well? guest: exactly. how pragmatic and realistic he is, but revivalists call him an mp sir. -- appeaser. a few weeks before the former clinton chief of staff had this dispute with campaign folks, that they talked about getting lobbyists out of the administration, but then they said they wanted to work around it. then they said that the candidate meant it. that it was true. what happened? they held the line but there

were a couple of exceptions. host: we are talking about rohm emmanuel, survivalist. how many of them will carry over? guest: it is important that the replacement for rohm emmanuel is the leader of the survivalists. a congressional liaison, with people like larry summers on the economic team. some of them have left or are on their way out. the most interesting character that was not part of the coming in white house, getting other people involved in communication, like dan piper or david axelrod, shifting from campaigning to governing. what they did not understand was that technically the other side have a soft campaign. they were transitioning into

this washington mode. they expected republicans to come with it? but it never happened. host: what about this notion of getting through the campaign and then having a couple of years instituting legislation and changing the culture? what does it tell you? guest: they thought they would have a window, maybe a few months, maybe a year. but there was no window. not in washington. every administration, it seems to actually get much worse and more exaggerated. the culture, especially with the technology and the media and the influence of cable, the influence of all of these things together means that people on capitol hill making it much

harder for a long-term policy. host: the numbers to call, for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. you talk about how emotional president obama was in the health-care bill, something that many journalists did not really pickup on. he was viewed as a stomach president. how emotional was he? did you get a glimpse of that? photographers have a strange sense of what is going on. what i noticed was that there were very few moments when this

president as a candidate showed emotions that he could not control. i have always been very aware of them. even after his grandmother died , he actually spoke about her and gave a stump speech and started to cry than. -- then. this is a moment, as the vice president was introducing him, where the vice-president was his normal and hyperbolic self. everything was literally the greatest ever. it was all very excessive. i think that people were very focused on him. next to him, the president was released groveling. his face was all contorted.

it was extremely striking. just in case i did not get it right, but would check with his senior staff. he was released troubling to hold it together. he has such a polished performance, it makes you wonder that when the mask comes off, what is really going on? that is what took me to the critical nature of health care and why he had risked so much. it was the memory of his mother and her experience with terminal cancer, struggling with insurance, almost every single case besides that campaigning for health care, almost every piece of this legislature was campaign -- tailored for people in her situation.

that was a focal point for him precisely because of the experience of his mother. host: you wrote in your book that "obama it is giving up his most emotional moments in his political career into his personal life." guest: right. that. asked him about it is striking as well, but his senior aides were trying to tell him not to do a thing because it would cost him politically, he would talk about his mother. which is why he wanted to risk so much. revivalists really refers to him

digging themselves out of a whole 10 months ago when people said that health care was dead. host: you are talking about one year into his presidency. guest: we are all showing pictures of 1 million people on the mall in saying that he had 78% approval, now look at him. having lost the senate race, the start of my time line here, it ended up as two months. starting out as the ted kennedy's seat. that shock and surprise of the republican victory where everyone said that the president was doomed and finished. it reminded me of several points through the primary where people declared him to be over, finished, and dead. two months later, he gets health care done. a dramatic turnaround. i wanted to see how he did it.

how they responded to that kind of pressure in failure. what do they talk about now? everyone says that the president is finished, that he is gone and that there is nothing else that he can do. we will see. at some point, you do not know. he will cling to the edge of the cliff. hillary clinton thought that he was finished. when sarah palin was nominated, democrats said that he was finished. .

in the high-cost. and also, i was wondering, what do you think of the election and what it really meant? i mean, does it really mean people want less government, or was there a difference --

different message? gets back let it try to do with those, because when it comes down to the election, the interpretation of it is important. if you look at what changed between 2008 in 2010, it's independent voters. that was the group that the president sorely needs to get back. they voted for him heavily in 2008 and they voted for republicans heavily in 2010. what to independent voters will want what they want to see people working across party lines. me what nancy doesn't like. and so the part on both sides are not particular happier but the real battleground is with those independent voters. secondly, independent voters want to see a change. they want to see a change in th. way washington works. .com provides that reallycy mab matters, that nancy maybe wasrre referring to, are the things like transparency, the kind of thckroom. deals, signing 9000

earmarks in july which the president did in the first giant appropriations bill. those were things that especially independent voterses may be this guy wasn't straight with w you. and that's where it comes down in terms of the bad compromises they made to washington's way. they were unnecessary. they didn't actually give them much. when it comes out to the public option, it is what's addressing. i hear this from progressives all over this president never talked about public option. he didn't even agree with the individual mandate as something he was going to support. and that's actually now law. no serious democrat suggested that there should be a government plan. not since the clinton's effort in the early 1990's. and the way -- as i describe in the book, the way the public option took on the life of its own was a real barrier to getting health care done. recount a scene where chuck grassley, the only -- has a final confrontation with the

president, or rather the president confronts him. they say, listen, senator grassley, this is your plan, this is essentially the policy that you've advocated all of these years. if we give you everything you want, can you still support it? and he said, well, no. but he asked for something in return. he says, mr. president, if you go out publicly and say no public option, then i'm with you. and the president couldn't do it. even though there was never going to be a public option, he couldn't say no public option because he would disappoint people like nancy so taking it off the table meant meant that everyone's political options would have been constricted. so the public option was a distortion. nobody seriously advocated it. not john edwards, not hillary clinton in the primaries. and i would argue that it actually cost the white house politically. maybe chuck grassley would never have been there. but it distorted the debate. host: let's hear from patty in minneapolis.

republican line. caller: good morning. i'm one of the few people that watch msnbc. you know, it sounds like the same thing here. that they do all day long on msnbc, praising president obama, making excuses. oh, he's got the two camps, and one's telling him to do this and the other is telling him to do that. the guy can't make a decision for one thing. he's never won anything. and you folks didn't do your job when he was running to back him. and all his communist, socialist friends, terrorists, got a who wrote the book about wish they had done more even in the light of 9/11. the other thing i want to say is, why don't you talk about all the czars, van jones, why don't you talk about that? your first clue with premeditate people have when he said he wasn't going to take public donations, when he reneged on that. he says, no, no, he's not going

to go with the government funding for the election. that was your first clue he was a big phony. host: you have a lot of points. let's get a response. guest: i'm surprised she can be that uninformed after watching msnbc all day. you need to check the dictionary. if you ever have known a communist or socialist or even a terrorist, you'd know that that's just ridiculous. so you made a lot of points -- you suggest that i'm making excuses. i can tell you there are plenty of people in the white house who have not been happy about what's been in the book. we just talked right now about how the president awas conflicted. the interesting thing, there's no question that he had this different decision making process from president bush. however, if you look at what has motivated people in this last election, it's not a lack of doing things.

it's that he's done so much. so can you challenge whether or not he makes decisions quickly enough, but -- weird for a terrorist, patty, he has this health care legislation through . and credit card reform, financial regulatory reform, $800 billion of recovery money. that's not someone who doesn't make decisions. you may think he's done too much. you may think he has taken too throng get to his policy positions. but the question about whether he has had any experience, we've used lots of different models for presidents over the years. president bush was a managing director of a baseball team. does that make him a great executive? that wasn't the model people were looking for then either. host: during the campaign -- of course all sides in political campaigns use rhetoric. but sarah palin, the v.p. take

on the republican side, talked with the president paling around with terrorists after the president won the elections, sarah palin criticized him as having death panels as part of the health care bill. was the obama team surprised by how much traction buzz phrases have gotten even if they have not actually been legitimate parts of the obama campaign? >> right. and they shouldn't have been. because in the campaign this was not unusual. remember, there was all of the rumors that he was a muslim, and they spent an extraordinary amount of effort and time thinking about how to deal with that, putting up websites, doing targeted ads online to try and marginalize this kind of stuff. to say we know we can't stop it, but we can at least make seem to the extreme because that's what it is so they put up the birth certificate and everything else. in terms of now, their attitude was, well this stuff will take care of itself. isn't it obvious? and it wasn't obvious. and in the current media,

technological environment, things can go viral extremely quickly. so death panel talk goes from a facebook posting to something that pops out of the mouth of a senator or congressman. and it's played all day long on cable. a different environment, would they had been far less nimble dealing with than during the campaign. host: our line from missouri. hi, brent. caller: good morning. thank you for not -- richard, i've not read your most recent book, but i can't wait to based on the subject matter you've been talk about today. guest: thank you. caller: pretty much a long check list, i'm sure. i'll throw out as many as i can. the primary thing is the debate between the revivalists guest: survivalists.

caller: whatever you want to call them. and now with so many people like rahm and others leaving and others coming in, do you see that maybe him coming back and getting exclusively a little more on the revivalist point of now that he's lost the house, etc.? and if could you also address -- as someone that voted for him, first democratic president i've ever voted for, and still supporting vigorously to this day, i was utterly befuddled leading up to four months before the mid-term elections as to why did he not -- you made an excellent point just a moment ago about how it wasn't that he hasn't done anything, it's that he's done an astonishing amount in two years or less compared to as many presidents as i can remember back to 1980, perhaps earlier.

the places that a million jobs are saved just by not legislate g.m. go under -- host: talking about that p.r. campaign. guest: yes. it's interesting. he's done a huge amount. the basic assumption is the people would understand this stuff. they came to see how a lot of these things got mench the together. -- merged together. people thought that the recovery act was confused with the top bailouts, the wall streets. and that it self, was also confused with the carmakers' bailout. they've got to spend the next two years unpacking all of this stuff. because they have done this huge amount. and it didn't tell its own story. one of the problems they've had

with the recovery act is that it did so much, they said politically -- and, again, -- politically it would have been much more sense dwroible break it up. you had tax cuts, infrastructure pieces of it. then you deal with the state budgets and teexers' jobs and everything else. -- teachers' jobs and everything else. they couldn't do it like that because it would have taken too much time, or at least that's what their economic and political advice was at the time. in retrospect, it's hard to tell a single story when you've got everything lumped in there. now that the g.m. has had its successful public offering, part of the money has been -- tarp money has been substantially paid back. the carmakers aren track, at least in terms of obama, they're on track. there is a story. but they have to go out and do that. campaigning, revivalalist spirit, it's something that would naturally happen as they

gear up for election time. but campaign does force them to tell the story about what they've done in a way that you just don't when you're governing, when you're trying to do deals with members of congress. if you are worried about how each vote will play -- if you are trying to get a small circle of republicans instead of a broad section ofment in -- independent voters on your side, then you're very cautious about what you say. you don't want to exclude any options. i don't want to say something in case that triggers a bad response in the vote you're trying to get. that's the essential dynamic they've had. and moving into campaigning, talking to a broader base, especially independent voters, not just republican members of congress that allows them to tell the story much more vigorously in the revivalist sort of spirit. host: richard wolffe. let's go to faye in chicago, democratic caller. welcome. caller: thank you so much. i'm so glad to be on c-span.

i've been trying forever. i'm so pleased that richard is on. i'm a little bit nervous. i can't believe that the survivalists -- revivalists -- i'm not a revivalist. think -- i'm now a revivalist i think it was a natural progression because over the summer i wanted the health care debate to be over because i got so sick of hearing susan collins, chuck grassley, olympia snowe just keep going over and over and over. i just wanted to get it done. want it to be so over. and now at this juncture, i'm more of a revivalist in the regards that i want to see more of the essence of what the president campaigns on. as a support ofer and tremendous supporter of -- as a supporter of the president, i

want to see if he can get back to those principles and put that out there. i think we'll be better off. guest: that's a great point. think everyone wanted health care over. it was sort of like the pennsylvania primary. if they just did one more thing and just gave one more compromise, they'd reach their goal. but along the way every single compromise made it that much harder for them to cling ton what they stood for in the first place. it was one more deal after another deal with ben nelson in nebraska and louisiana with senator dran drew. -- landrieu. so it was a sort of desperate letterch to the finish line. en that killed people terms behalf it stood for, about what they could talk about. you know, it's interesting, people wanting him to get back to the reform, changed spirit of 2008.

i don't think it's just a question for democrats wanting to be more popular here. here's a guy who campaigned saying that he was going to approach these problems, these massive problems the country faces, in an honest and grown-up way. when you come to tax cuts and the deficit, he's got an opportunity there to say if we're going to have an honest discussion for people on the left and the right, then we've got to deal with everything. that's a real opportunity. one thing we all opportunity because one thing congress cannot actually deal with is a big debate in a grownup way. if you're going to -- look at how people reacted to the deficit commission proposals. social security, we can't touch that. he has an opportunity to say cobbs on, we've got to be real. we've got to be honest and serious here. >> host: are there lessons worked trying to work across party lines does not work with the white house when you think of their efforts trying to get republicans on board and getting shot down and things not working out. what is the take-away and does that still leave room for

compromise and working across the aisle. >> guest: it appears where you draw the line, okay? they have worked extensively on the recovery act across party lines with republican governors. many of whom as the vice president pointed out in my book -- many of whom are going to be running for president. so when you see governor bobby jindal out there you've got to remember they have been happy to take recovery act, the administration's money, the people's money through the administration -- they've been taking that money to prop up their own budgets. so this is -- you know, which republicans are you reaching out for? and what do independents think of all of this? there's some interesting polling that shows independents and democrats in general want to see compromise. they want to see people reaching out across party lines. republicans generally don't. and that's a very interesting dynamic. let's see where the president comes out. if he's just trying to reach out to republicans in congress, i think we've got ample evidence

to say he's not going to get anywhere in the next couple of years. but if he's saying to independent voters, i'd like some republican ideas, i embrace them, i can work with republicans when they work with me that's a vedifferent option. >> host: richard wolffe is a former correspondent for "newsweek" and a journalist and mnsbc commentator and we're hearing from his new book "revival." good morning. >> caller: please let me make a few points with this gentleman. the hope and change that obama talked about was never really clearly defined. during that time it was all about just get rid of bush. many republicans felt the same way. so he really did not define specifically what it is the hope and change was. it was pretty much a fixation of individuals' imagination. the main issue dealing with this country at this time was the economy. it was almost like having a car that needed a paint job, needed

some new tires and all of a sudden the motor falls out and blows up the car. and that's what many want with the economy and the housing market at the time. now, the t.a.r.p. and the bailout and all those different things were something that they did that does not impact the people. the stock market could be at 15,000, the average person does not partake in that. yeah, perhaps maybe retirement so the president has done a lot of different things but all the things he did was not things that needed to be done at the time. thank you. >> host: we'll get a response. >> guest: yes, an interesting point. the economy was the central point in the general election, it's true. but this president talked about a number of different things. health care, and foreign policy. it was a very long campaign. you couldn't get by 21 months without talking about hope and change. how does it affect real people that the financial market didn't in fact continue its collapse? well, you know, a lot of banks collapsing even more than they

had done would have affected the real economy much, much more than we even saw. and so you take the stock market -- the stock market doesn't directly affect jobs but it does affect everyone's 401k's and it does affect everyone's employers because employers largely in the market in one way or another -- whether they are listed themselves or the trading with listed companies and the stock market has gone from a low of, what, 6,000, 7,000 in march of '09 to 11,000 now. that's a huge change and it's a signal that confidence is has come back at least in the financial market. if you don't have a financial market and if you don't have a financial sector we don't have a functioning economy. so the expectations quite rightly are high in terms of where unemployment should come down. but dealing with the economy was job number one. he spent $800 billion on the recovery act. that was as i point out in "revival" as much as president bush spent in iraq and afghanistan combined.

the enact people think it had no impact is itself curious. it tells you how badly this white house, this president and this administration has spoken of its own record but you can't spend $800 billion and have nothing to show for it. and there are teachers who have jobs. there are -- there's money that's gone into people's paychecks, again, come back to vice president biden who told me -- he's the guy with tasked with selling the recovery act and managing it and he said to me, yeah, people didn't know they were getting a tax cut. they thought they were getting a at a raise from their employer. if the vice president, the man tasked with selling this stuff says, we did a terrible job of telling people what happened to this money, a third of that $800 billion was that tax cut and people didn't know where it was coming from. that's a giant mistake. >> host: can it be corrected? >> guest: well, they got two years of campaigning.

>> host: is it too late in the stimulus -- >> guest: it's extremely hard. can you tell a story through repetition? look, the clearest model for them is george bush in 2004. there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq. iraq was spiraling into a civil war. the economy was actually slowing down and yet they won a big victory in 2004 as an incumbent president -- now admittedly they had a weak opponent, who knows what opponent the president will face in 2012. but through discipline and repetition and coming up with a clear story, even with a disastrous situation that iraq was in 2004, a sitting president managed to barrel through it. not easy, not easy at all. but can it be done? he's got two years to talk about the health care and the economy and it's not going to be different. >> host: let's go to an independent caller in kentucky. good morning. >> caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. the point i have to make in the question that i have is on what i see what happens with this

election in 2010 was that it seemed to me the political process now is fought and won over the television now. and a lot of people are getting their information or misinformation from the shows, the people who do not support the president or support the president, whether he's right or wrong. and me as an independent voter, that's where i got turned off. because i'm not someone who get my information from the television. i believe in the old-fashioned political process knocking on my door. how is it affecting my local neighborhood. i live very close to cincinnati, ohio, and that leads right over to my city and so i'm very active in both states elections. but what i saw in the grassroots is people what they needed and what they wanted, that's not what was presented through the media. so people who get their information solely from the media, they're not being informed properly. >> let's leave it there. >> that's why c-span is important.

[laughter] >> guest: one thing to cock back to 2004. face-to-face contact at the grassroots was really important. that was the skill of the 2008 campaign having people go to door to door. and in states where they had a machine, the democrats could actually help themselves and many people in many districts didn't of that. so the door to door direct information is a very effective way for campaigns to operate. >> host: and talking about the power of the media, the power of these new shows, cable shows and you're a commentator on mnbc and talking on the shows and there's this idea that a couple of callers have brought up that it's a very powerful medium and the message really affects people's viewpoints. >> guest: it is powerful, there is no question. i try and deal with it by reaching my analysis on what i say in reporting.

so that's one way you deal with it to try to ground things rather than saying we're just going to have a competition to sort of enrage and inflame people. if it's a race to the extremes it's not helpful for anyone. it's not in keeping with what i want to do as a journalist. or what i think these cable networks should be doing either. having said that, i think the real influence is what goes on your shoulder here. what happens there -- in terms of what they're watching and that has been the big shift. they are focusing much more on these cable shows and both debates rather than a sort of broader audience. rather than even newspapers or anything else. these people in congress used to care about has shifted over time. so if their competition is to appear on those shows, i think you see the whole public debate shifting to the extremes in a more sensationalist approach. that's what's shocking. people get on cable tv over

there now are the most -- >> we'll leave this recorded program and take you live now to the white house press briefing with press secretary robert gibbs. this is live coverage on c-span2. >> thanks, robert. on north korea, could you give us some detail on the president's thoughts on the revelation of this new enrichment facility? >> well, look, i'm not going to get into -- into intelligence or anything like that. i'll just say that obviously their claims, if true, contradict the pledges and commitments that they've made repeatedly to the international community. as you know, representatives are traveling in the region right now.

to brief our partners and our allies and coordinating a policy response to their actions. >> if true, will it -- >> i'm not going to discuss intelligence. >> one of the parties involved is trying to get through the party process. does the white house view that this threat is deepening and this is another example of that? >> look, i'll open this for just a second. i think the six-party process can and the administration believes the six-party process can play an important role if and when the north koreans take that six-party process to move toward denuclearization seriously. we do not wish to talk simply for the sake of talking. north koreans have to be serious about living up to their obligations and not having done so has put sanctions regime in

place that is the strongest that the country has ever faced. and has greatly increased the price of their noncompliance. what was your second -- >> all the while, is the -- >> well, look, i think that the threat has -- has always been serious. we have certainly taken it as such. and we'll continue to do so. that's why we went to -- why we went to the u.n. to get a stronger sanctions regime on their ability to move anything out of their country. that could do others harm. >> one other topic, please, on the controversy that's emerged about the security screening process at airports. does the white house have a view about the planned protests on wednesday at airports and how that might affect both security

and travel? >> well, i think that our tsa administrator, mr. pistol, addressed that in some interviews this morning. i would just remind people that -- well, a couple of things. first i'd point obviously to what the president had to say on this with saturday evening in lisbon, and that is we put in place enhanced security measures for the simple reason that for more than two decades, al-qaeda and terrorists have sought to do us harm and have focused in on aviation and airplanes. just in the past year, we've seen the christmas day attempt by mr. abdulmutallab to blow up an airplane using a device that as the president said would not have and was not picked up by a

simple metal detector. just in the past few weeks alone, we've seen an effort by al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula to bring down an airplane using explosives in cargo. so we must do everything that we can to protect the public. the president again as you heard him say a few days ago in meeting with secretary napolitano and administrator pistol have said, our goal is to maximize protection and security and minimize inconvenience and invasiveness. he asked them then and continues to ask those that we do all that we can to protect the public and do so in a way that is the least inconvenient as possible. and it is -- it's not an easy task. but we know that -- we know that

al-qaeda -- we know from intelligence that al-qaeda seeks to -- seeks to do harm through the aviation -- through aviation security, through -- through devices concealed on a body inside of a device that one might take on to an airplane or in luggage that's put on an airplane. so our charge is to do all that we can to protect those that travel. but also to do so in a way that's, as i said minimally invasive and that's a balance that we will continue to search for. i think what's important is the -- so they process that based on intelligence and based on feedback is and will continue to evolve and change. that's the nature of both the threat and the response to it.

so i think that -- you've been asked, well, will you take into account some of people's concerns or complaints based on, you know, medical conditions or how they feel personally about some of this. absolutely. we seek to do as -- as i said we seek to minimize that invasiveness. so this is -- these are procedures that will -- will continue to evolve. again, the charge of the tsa is to ensure when you and others or i get onto an airplane, that we can feel reasonably assured that we can travel safely and i think that's what the president wants certainly most of all around travel for this thanksgiving holiday. >> robert, what happens between sunday when the head of the tsa

seemed to be signaling no ground on the searches and patdowns and sunday night and this morning when he's talking about the need for some flexibility? >> well, look, i don't know that anything in particular happened except -- again, i think if you look at what the president's charge has been in a -- in a flexible and evolving security process is to ensure exactly what i just told ben. that we put the utmost importance on protection. and to do so in a way -- to have that carried out in a way that is the least inconvenient for those that travel. again, and look the policies have to evolve. remember, when we originally -- when -- and this is years ago. so i'm going to use a couple of examples.

we originally did tsa screening -- you didn't have to take your shoes off. then someone tried to put a bomb in their shoes and x-raying shoes was something that was important. now we've moved obviously to something where mr. abdulmutallab had a device on himself that walking through a metal detector isn't going to -- the metal detector is not going to go off. because of that, we moved to a.i.t.'s advanced imaging technology, to provide security screen injuries with a better opportunity to detect whether or not somebody is trying to smuggle again something concealed on themselves, concealed in what would be a normal device or in their luggage. >> i also wanted to ask about s.t.a.r.t. treaty. do you feel you answered senator kyl's concerns? at what point does it just become a political disagreement?

>> well, i think as the president said on saturday that we take -- we take everyone at their word that they are here to protect and do all that they can to protect the country. the president spoke with senator kyl last week. >> was that before or after -- >> after. after. the vice president continues to speak with senators from both sides of the aisle on trying to move this process forward. look, if senator kyl has questions, we're happy to address them and to meet them. that's what -- that's an important thing to do in this process. i think it's important if you look at what the series and range of statements that we heard over the course of the weekend. from the military, from those retired in the military who had operational roles in our nuclear security.

hearing from our allies in nato and particularly our allies in eastern europe, those closest to russia and the old soviet union in saying clearly that ratification of this treaty is in their best interest and our best interest in getting it done quickly. that's, i think, a tremendously important endorsement for -- for those efforts incurtailing the number of deployed weapons and ensuring an information regime as it relates to the nuclear program. >> when secretary clinton was asked yesterday on cbs whether she would submit to it, she laughed and said that she wouldn't want to. how can you ask the rest of the public to follow through on

these rules if a senior administration official laughs at them and says she wouldn't do it? >> and if you go back to look at the course of her interviews, i think she also says, look, i think we'd all love to live in a world and exist in a place where none of this is required but as she said, we don't have that luxury because as i said earlier, we've known for two decades that al-qaeda and terrorists of the like have sought to do harm using an airplane. inside the aviation -- inside the realm of aviation. look, first and foremost, to avoid something like that, one should go through the a.i.t. one should go through that screening device in order to put on a plane. i think what she was saying was

if you look at -- we live in a world where, of course, nobody would want to -- it would be nice to live in a world where that wasn't necessary. but again, just less than a year ago we know that somebody got on an airplane with the intent of blowing it up using a device that would not have been picked up by a metal detector and that's cause for quite a bit of security concerns. >> so if the regulations are important why did it take a year? >> there's a series of procedures that have been phased in. we have a.i.t., advanced imaging technology, those are the machines and i believe 69 of them, in roughly 450 airports across the country. obviously, there has been a process for the construction and the procurement of those

machines, but it was not going to happen overnight. we have -- and, look, i think as the security system involving patdowns as i said earlier has evolved. it's not something that -- not something that just started week or so ago. this is something that has been phased in over a series of time. >> on north korea, various officials and secretary gates have said that north korea wanted to enrich uranium but they didn't know about this specific facility. is that a failure of u.s. intelligence then that it took the north koreans to tell the u.s. who it is? >> i'm not going to get into openly discussing the intelligence on that. >> we have a new poll on some of these security measures being taken. nearly half the public says they are concerned about the health risks possible because of the new scanners or unsure about the health risks. the administration's position is that there are no health risks.

>> well, the administration's position based on the studies through the fda and others that the imaging technology provides so little in terms of -- you're supposed -- the truth is, greater exposure to sitting in an airplane than going through one of those machines. >> well, why has the administration failed to convince so many members of the public that there are no health concerns about these new scanners? >> dick, i've not seen the poll but -- >> it's obvious that there's a lot of people -- >> if you have another question let me try to find this in my paper here and i think i've got something i think i can talk to you about on that. >> okay. and the other question i have also about the tsa, is that the public does support -- they do care about security. but when there is an intrusion on privacy, if they want it to

be targeted and justified, you spend a lot of time on the internet and you watch youtube and you spend a great deal of time watching cable, don't -- >> i'll accept the premise of your question. >> do you think -- are you confident that the tsa intrusions on people's privacy have been targeted and justified? >> well, i'll say this, there are -- we are used to the understanding of a profile that looks at a range of people, for instance,, you know, 18 to 35. yet we've seen just in the past year -- we know of people that have been arrested in this country for terrorism that would not fit into the range of those ages, right? we know specifically that aqap

in like mr. abdulmutallab that did not have the characteristics that those previously that had attempted to do us harm through an airliner. that they shared. we know that -- we know that they are continually looking for ways and i think the cardinal example is a very good one of ways in which they can take something that looks normal or a situation that appears not out of the ordinary to augment that in a way that gets past security and does us harm. so i think this -- what we would normally think of as, okay, these are the characteristics of what might happen. understanding that we have seen

and we know about very specific efforts to find people outside of what security might normally be continued to look for, right? we know that -- i mean, i don't think it's an accident that aqap through mr. abdulmutallab was seeking to, through concealing this device, on him get onto a plane, something that wasn't going to be in a metal detector that would be delivered by somebody that's not normally seen as somebody associated or affiliated with aqap in an effort to get around what you would normally be constructed or set up to look for. and i think it's important that our -- i go back again to what i said to ben. that in and of itself provides

the basis for how security policy and screening has to evolve. because the nature of whatever the threat is today is going to be different in three to six months because they're going to be trying to find different ways around what's been set up. and i think that goes back again to what secretary of state clinton said. look, we would love and the president said we have an apparatus now that greets us in going into buildings or getting onto an airplane that didn't exist before. and we'd love to go back to a world in which none of that had to exist but we have to continue to evolve and meet the threat that is out there. >> you're a parent, and the president is a father. there are a lot of parents out there whose children have been subjected to patdowns and they've been very upset about it. there have been individuals of medical conditions who have been forced into humiliating situations. is this evolution?

>> no, i think it's important to understand that anybody that's under 12 goes through something much more modified. i would say first and foremost and i think if the tsa administrator was here, he would say this to you is well, has all of this been done perfectly? no. if somebody feels as if they have been unduly subjected to something, that they find to be far more invasive than the line of convenience and security, they should speak to a tsa representative at the airport. again, without leaning too far into this, i think it's important that -- it's not out of the realm of possibility to think that. i'm trying to be somewhat careful here.

that those that wish to do people harm, in an airplane, haven't looked at some of the ways through explosives and devices or luggage or on themselves that that we know can get around and through security and we have to be careful about that. ...

>> have gone to the overall security process have gone through this more stepped-up procedure. >> thanks, robert. during this period between the time that tsa administrator, like it was no give at all, and later taking where this is going to have to be flexibility here, were there any conversations with him by anybody at the white house? >> i'm sure people at the white house speak with tsa and dhs constantly, on security, on -- >> on that topic, about whether there should be some flexibili flexibility? >> again, chip, i think what the president said on saturday is he communicated that to tsa, dhs several weeks ago. >> but i'm talking about between the comments.

>> chip, i don't know every conversation, but i sent that to delay some people have constantly been in touch with them? share. >> i think specifically with regard to the inflexibility, get summary at the white house call him and say -- >> again, i don't know every conversation that happens with every person you, but if you're asking me if people are costly in touch with and talking to -- [inaudible] >> i make noting unsure conversations have happened. >> about that particular -- >> again, i don't know every conversation. [inaudible] spent i have not talked to tsa directly. >> i'm reluctant to get graphic here, but everybody knows there are theoretical possibility way beyond what a duly tall did with body cavities and such. why responsive specifically to what he did with searches in a particularly when there so many other possibilities out there that i don't think anybody even

agreed you would actually subject people to? >> i think that, again, i think again, let's take this somewhat broader. i think that, again, i think you seen the progression in screening writ large, right? we all remember, you put your stuff on, goes to the x-ray machine, you walk through, right? so you've seen the evolution of something that's going to detect something that is no. we now know, again, if you look at the evolution of security, of the plots and attempts right now you've got shoes, liquids, again, based on specific attempts to use of those very devices to do harm. and again, the transitioning to

an a.i.d., which keys you the ability to detect something that might be on someone hoping to be harmon is not something that is metal. stick your completely topics. on the tax cut use of the vice president is working with the centers on both sides of the aisle. is the president or anybody at a high level in the administration doing the same thing? >> i have not -- look, i'm sure that others are discussing issues like taxes that we dealt with in the lame duck. the president, to my knowledge, has not. other than the last week. >> could i just do one more on the millionaire's tax? there's this group of millionaires that i don't think they don't want to extend the tax cuts for millionaires, so they say there passionate it is their patriotic duty.

what does the presidenpresident think about what is it patriotic to campaign to pay more taxes if you're a millionaire? >> i'm not going to -- though i would love to be the spokesperson for warren buffett, i'm not going to. that's a good gig. [laughter] >> yes, i know he is slightly above the millionaire threshold. i don't -- i don't necessarily have anything to add on that, except look, i think you seen or heard from, again, using mr. buffett as an example, mr. buffett is somebody who's marginal tax rate, raised on where he derives his income, is as i think he said before, pays a rate that is far lesser than that of presumably his spokesperson, and -- though he is his spokesperson, then you

secretary. ache as he derives, again, a vast majority of his income from investments rather than from his paycheck. i will come back. >> steny hoyer says, not just in light of -- [inaudible] >> did i forget you, lynn? >> and in light of the election order this month, he said, in his way of thinking, impossible, that congress is going to approve the money for several civilian files of guantánamo bay detainees that are you willing to basically give up on that i cannot? >> no. i think i said something different last week. i don't -- unit, we spent the first few minutes or talk about al qaeda.

we know al qaeda uses the prison at guantanamo bay as a recruiting effort to seek those, the participation of those interested in doing us harm because of that. i think together on that, we're not giving up on that goal. >> conversely, it's almost two years into the president's administration. you have been able to close it. are you willing to commit to closing it in 2011? >> i'm willing to commit as soon as possible to close or spent any possible timeframe on that? >> no. i think i said last week that no one expects this to be easy. but i know that the president has not and will not give up on his goal. >> this is on start. my question will be whether or not, is whether the administration is willing to handle through the entire star trek. 11 to you why i'm asking us.

there's a new republican senator coming in, mark kerr, who has quite a shopping list of things he wants because, the complete negotiation of a tree, also the dr. witt relating to discussions with u.s. russian sale. all declassified briefing -- >> i'm sorry, the russian recent? >> the u.s.-russian missile defense, that were conducted by -- >> sure. >> a whole written analysis of all he was strategic commands -- u.s. strategic command. he wants all the fannie dr. witt and all the briefings with state defense and energy. what is the posture of the white house? will they possibly be able to accommodate -- >> i would say not knowing specifically -- i would have to have somebody look at the technical list, but i think a lot of what senator-elect kirk

is looking for in way of documentation and briefing, questions, i don't know if some of that has been asked and answered, and we certainly would provide the documentation to him. i think a discussion with somebody like general cartwright, on missile defense, or others at a classified level. those are conversations that are being had currently with the senators right now. so i think, if there's information that we have that can help answer those questions, we would be more than happy to provide them, that information, those briefings, that documentation to senator-elect kirk, or anybody else, in order to demonstrate -- general cartwright were telling, if this has no effect on our ability, no effect on our ability to conduct

our own missile defense activities, i think a pretty good example of that is nato a green to the presidents adapted approach to protect europe at a meeting that saw the russians ultimately participate in. and at the same time, they are doing, people like the head of nato, are arguing for ratification of the treaty. so look, i think, i don't know if senator-elect kirk has talked to anybody on the national security staff here, but i don't doubt that if he hasn't, that folks here will reach out rather quickly to provide information that he think is necessary. >> some senators, that the white house has refused, and various entities have refused to turn over these negotiating records? >> i'm not somewhere with this. as i said a minute ago, with each and every aspect of. i would have to ask whether,

whether that's the case. again, i think two of the best spokespeople -- three of the best spokespeople for our defense posture as it relates to this treaty are the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. that's general cartwright begin. he is sort of the missile expert in that realm. and i think all of them, all of them are very good spokespeople for how this enhances our security and our protection, rather than the opposite. >> a quick win. on north korea you mentioned that his latest regime on the u.s. actions is among the strongest, or is the strongest. is there concern that the sanctions had been strong enough or well enough to prevent this facility from -- >> without getting into the timing of the sanctions, that

were put on korea and hinders greatly its ability to move product outside of the country, date back i think sometime committed last year. so i think that again, that was in direct response to the testing of a long range missile in late march, early april, i forget the exact date. so, look, i think you can go back many, many years to the north koreans walking away from their obligations in six-party talks, in discussions with their neighbors, their partners, their allies. and the flaunting of those international standards.

that's we've been aware of for quite some time spent by the sanctions don't -- i mean, are you saying was this plant built rather quickly in the last couple of years? >> again, i'm not going to get into the specifics of what's in the intelligence, but understanding that again, what you just asked and when the sanctions, the sanctions based off what the u.n. did last year, those don't line up spent an quickly on s.t.a.r.t. you guys had the midterm show the american public wants democrats and republican's to work together. and so given that, why not be more correct in accusing the gop are accusing senator kyl of being, playing politics on s.t.a.r.t. the president seems to shy away from saying that directly. >> we live in an atmosphere in this town that normally, if one side wants to do something, then the other side doesn't want to

do something. i think given who you've seen in terms of validaters and supporters of this treaty, that doesn't fit the mold of what we normally see in a political issue. and we don't think it should fit that mold given to those supporters are. we think this is something that can and should get done over the course of the next several weeks. and certainly, before the end of the year. >> there have been colorful descriptions about -- [inaudible] he said to be a big fight and hair in eyeballs all over the floor. so i you guys concerned that tea party -- will stand in the way, but in concerned that people will stand in the way of that in a way that can really hurt? >> i think we've got a ways to go before we get to the

situation that former senator simpson describes. i would point you to what i think the incoming house speaker said last week. it's an issue that we're going to have to deal with and we will have to deal with, i think his words were, as adults. we understand that we did not get into a debt crisis in the last year or two years. that this is something that has built up for many, many, many, years. we have to deal with that and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sustainability. spend your such a gentleman robert, but you didn't answer the basic question. [inaudible] >> you cut to understand that i am, let me give you to answer that one, i think it's very safe

to say that as the threat has evolved, our screening process has had to, and has evolved. i think you could understand why i would not want to get into the intricacies of exactly what would be detected, how and when. because we do know that those that want to get around those procedures watched what it is we do and what we say. specs are you saying at this point,. [inaudible] spent i'm saying that in order to address the most up-to-date threats possible, we have instituted the very best in technology and in screening efforts in order to, in order to detect that. >> what's wrong with the israeli system where they are questioning people? >> let me point out that i think the israelis have, i think it is too airports, or two

international airports. i think that's right. [inaudible] >> the one in tel aviv, we have 450. there's a scale that is -- look, i've watched and read the stories of, can't you just do that check the understanding of the scale involved is infinitely different. >> a couple of questions. first on next week, wednesday, the president debt commission is due to reach its conclusions. does the president have anything planned off of that to try to pick up the ball? >> i have not looked through the next week's schedule, john, and don't know, don't know the process into that, but i can go back and check. >> and on s.t.a.r.t., president

and senator lugar both said if this treaty gives to the floor of the senate, it will pass. so, what kind of conversations are going on between president obama or vice president biden and harry reid to make that happen? ultimately harry reid, that -- >> look, this is a priority of this administration for the president and vice president it is a topic that came up. it comes up, has come up in conversations between staff here and the majority leader staff and conversations directly with majority leader. it is a priority of ours to see it put on the floor and active. >> is it worse for u.s. international relations to see this go to the floor and fail than to sit not go to the floor at all? >> it is a -- for us not to get this done is, as you have seen those, not just in our

administration, but again, throughout the weekend at nato, discuss its impact on our security, those countries, i made mention of this, that represent that easternmost border with russia, are as, believes this has to get done as urgently as we do. and i think that is an overwhelming endorsement for why delay on this just doesn't make a lot of sense. >> robert, thank you. the news of the irish bail out lead on a short rally in the financial markets. how concerned is the president about the effects of the bailout on the u.s. and global markets? and i have a follow-up as well. >> look, we welcome ireland's intention to seek the assistance, and for europe to

deal with the crisis that affects those countries that i don't think there's any doubt, in which we made mention of it, the impact of the greece on average every. and acting quickly to deal with problems in ireland, by the europeans, is good news spent do you think the bailout will stem the tide of other problems in the eurozone? >> i'm not a eurozone expert. i think that addressing these causes and concerns quickly is a good step. >> robert, on wednesday the president pardoned another couple of turkeys that are there any people pardons tax. [laughter] >> you would make news if they were. >> i've will check with counsel to see the degree to which,

what's the process for active pardons in the administration. i will check. [inaudible] >> no, he is not. >> do you know why? >> no, i do not. >> i think that's a gubernatorial issue. >> is the irish bailout coming up in the presence of daily briefing, how close do you see monitoring the situation there? >> it's a topic that it wasn't economic daily briefing today, but i know it has come up in the past. i mean, it's been part of his briefings. >> is there concern that portugal is being -- [inaudible] >> i would point to i guess more particularly to their governments on that. we have, most i think, the briefings that the present have got have focused by merely on -- well, primarily on island and somewhat portugal. that's the extent that i can recall. >> do you know if today it came

up at all? >> just one other thing. with the present be speaking in the next few months and was he doing to revive that? >> in terms of the second part, i would certainly point you to the first several days in india. in terms of invitations from the chamber, obviously, we are continued to be interested in speaking with them and their members. and we will see if the schedule allows for that in the beginning of the year. i know that they originally had an event for early in the center that i think has been rescheduled for sometime in january. >> following up on the response to this question, the president learned about these tsa procedures several weeks or and he raised a concern. and the second question, have you personally lived through either one of these machines or

the patdowns? >> personally, i think i've been through and a.i.t. i'm trying to think that most of, as you might, most of my travel is on air force one. i traveled to and from atlanta a few weeks ago, and then i thought i went through one of the a.i.t.'s your. >> thank you, robert. [inaudible] if this is a shove showing a love for chrysler,. [inaudible] >> look, i think that t [inaudible] >> look, i think that this is a particular plant in kokomo that, that because of some of the restructuring and some of the funding for retooling and

modernization, is a transmission plant that was able to retain more than a thousand workers, rather than seeing its plants shudder. look, we were, we've been to and will continue to go to chrysler, gm, even for facilities, a company that didn't have to receive restructuring help. look, i think if you look at some of these places, plants that are located throughout the country, particularly in the midwest, you'll see coco is a pretty good example of a town that is very dependent upon those types of jobs for its economic livelihood. so i think those are -- that's important, and i think the president is proud of our efforts to ensure whether it was a thousand people there, or more

than a million people throughout the country, whose jobs were saved as part of that restructuring. understanding that that restructuring was about making some difficult choices. some plants were closed. we know there was some corporate restructuring, particularly at general motors in order to get, to get both of these companies pointed in the right direction. >> why does the president of the -- >> we come back to meet? >> what specifically in terms of stainless as the president think he can so get out of the lame-duck congress, either specific, understand this items that he talked about before? and is sure to do list for those lame-duck session getting shorter and shorter? there's left time -- less time not spent i think we talked about this last week. i don't believe that -- i don't think many people believe that the week that we came back before, basically last week,

this week was largely held off for thanksgiving and then they will be back again a week from today. i don't think many people believe that that first week back was going to be a great in which a love legislative business would be called for. it is traditionally an orientation and a caucus organizing progress on both sides of the out. you've got members and senators that are leading. you have new members and new centers that are coming in. spent my question really is more on what your going to get done. he did have a chance to meet with republicans, but a lot that focus was towards january. >> again, ann, i think you know, if i'm not mistaken that meeting is happening a week from tomorrow. so again, i don't -- i think moving the media from one way to the next dust dust on our legislative agenda. >> do you have a specific list

toward -- >> this is not a totally exhaustive list because my name is not what it is used to be. even from this morning. look, i think there's no doubt that, as you for the present say, we've got to deal with issues around taxes. we're going to deal with issues around unemployment insurance and compensation as well. you've heard the president made mention of s.t.a.r.t. that is something that is crucially important to our national security, and to our form of election. there are issues around don't ask, don't tell. that the president, and i think many people believe, are best dealt with through a legislative process and not through a legal system. there are priorities such as the

dream act. there are -- there are several things, and again, i know i'm probably leaving out more than i am mentioning, but i think we've got, there's no doubt we have plenty of work to do. [inaudible] >> an internal report on -- >> i take the original date was december 1. the report is being released a day or so are your in order to have some informed hearings on the survey and its results. i think those hearings, if i'm not mistaken, start on the first. but i think it's important if you look at what others who have said, take for instance, the secretary gates. we know, you know, we can do this legislatively. the house has done this. the senate can do this.

do this legislatively which provides an avenue with which to implement the policy. the core doing this is not likely to provide the pentagon and others with a pathway for doing this. and i think in order to do this anyway that the president and others want to see, doing this legislative is the best way to do it. >> robert, on two separate issues, is there such a focus on secured at airports, he talked about how terrorists are focusing in on airports using airlines as some of their ways. but what about this country's rail system? what are the securities of unreal? we saw in london, what about the rail system and subways in major cities? >> again without getting into a lot of detail about what's in there, let me say this. i think it's to resume only

aviation, that only aviation security is a priority is not the case that obviously, there's passenger rail. there's cargo real. there's a whole host of different ways in which we know terri can be brought into this country. aviation is not the only thing that we are, that we are concerned about. we know that -- i think if i'm recalling quickly, the plot that mr. zazi was planning dealt specifically with some aspects of transportation beyond that of airports. the only reason i mention airports is again, we know, we have known for quite a long period of time this has been, this has been a focus of al qaeda and its affiliates. >> i'm not finished. and track working along some sort of a passenger list, because some of these --

>> is there any pushback from amtrak, is administered to work with amtrak to try to work something out for more security on their rail system? >> i don't have a lot of this stuff in front of me, april, but i can assure you that i would contact both dhs and amtrak and discussed in particular regional transcontinental passenger rail and all that sort. >> also on my other issue that i wanted to ask. now that midterms are over,. [inaudible] are we expecting to hear something to be dropped and are you going to stand at the podium much longer? >> well, i'm going to be out here to answer a few more questions. >> how much longer? >> do you have anything? let me answer aprils question. spent we are comeback? >> not necessarily. >> why not? >> because there's a whole group of people and i think i called

on you last week. >> last week? >> we have briefings, for goodness sake. [inaudible] >> lester. leicester, leicester, let me answer the question that has been posed to me. i'm going to pick on some of the people. not necessarily. april. in terms of the reorganization, obviously that is something the chief of staff and the president and others are continuing to work on. i don't have a timeline for when any of those announcements we been made. >> what about you? are you going to leave a? >> i have spent very little time working on that. >> robert, about a week ago eight freshman republican congressman, naysayers, sat in on a hearing in the house and complaint about how the time it would take 28 days for his government subsidized health insurance to kick in. do you think there is some

element -- [inaudible] do you think there is some progressive groups to call for house members who want to repeal the health reform law to renounce their health insurance? do you think it would be a wise idea for them speak was i think there is an element of understand that health insurance plays a security and families, regardless of their economic plot line. i'm not going to make a blanket statement about what congressman elect harris and did. i would -- i would say that, that you know, i think it's probably a pretty good demonstration of the fact that the rhetoric of what people say, either throughout political debates or in campaigns and the reality of how something like

that impact their lives is apparently quite different just in this example alone. i think he's going to have to reconcile with himself the notion of health care that is subsidized, subsidized by the american people, and his statements surrounding that. i think it presents a particularly interesting dilemma for those who have castigated that in the past. >> robert,. [inaudible] spent i would agree with you. speck on the last hotel,. [inaudible] regarding repeal, but the remaining service cheese, they're on record saying it want to wait for the poor to come out of her, takes action. once support comes out, they

will be on board of a better deal? >> i think the service cheese, as i understand our meeting with the chair of the joint chiefs at the secretary as we get closer to this report coming out, and come in reduce discuss what they are based on the survey. the president has not yet seen that survey. so i don't want to presume whether, based on those results, that would change their opinion or not. and i think it's best not to get too far down the road on commenting on that until, until we get a chance to personally see for ourselves. >> was the purpose of the study though? the president has said he wants to look for military leaders. to get them onboard with repeal. so what's the point of this report? >> look, i'm not saying -- i think the original question you asked it is, that report change

their mind. i haven't seen the report. the president hasn't seen that report. and neither of us have had an opportunity to talk with the cheese. that's not to say that it won't. that's not to say, quite frankly that's not to say whether or not that you want unanimous agreement or not that the policy passionate look, the president has known where people have stood on this policy for as long as he has supported changing that policy. so i think it will be important to again, view the attitudes. to view and use those attitudes to craft a pathway to implementing a change legislative policy. ..

>> thanks, guys. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the new 112th congress begins in january with 16 new senators. 1 republicans, and -- 13 republicans and 3 democrats. mark kirk is replacing and is a

five term house member. joining him in the senate is kentucky republican rand paul and mr. paul is an ophthalmologist with no previous political experience. >> the fcc reports with the growing popularity of wireless products, lawrence strickling talks about it and what happens if they fail on communicators tonight on c-span2. >> our cove rang of the

education's department continues now with the scope of the problem in schools. a panel of child development researchers talk about scientific research available on solving the problem. it's just over an hour. >> this collaborates hard work across federal agencies. we have not only joined forces, but more important, we are committed to using this summit to launch a sustained commit to dray massically reduce bull bullying across the country. every educator and school leader has to ask what can we do to sustain that commitment to sustain bullying? to answer that question, we start with another leading question that the summit itself raise, and why have not the agencies come together for a federal summit on bullying before today? the answers are many, but they start and end with the fact that

the problem of bullying has been shrouded in myth and myth in understanding for far too long. officials and us at the federal level have not taken the problem of bullying seriously enough. bullying gets slugged off, and you have all heard the excuses to minimize the gravity of bullying and dismiss the affective programs to reduce it. what can you do, people say? bullying has been going on forever. kids will be kids. kids are mean, or she just made a bad joke. she didn't mean to hurt anyone. it was just a wrong time thing. it's really not an education issue, and at the heart of bullying, is a belief that it is an elusive concept that cannot be defined. 've excuse outside -- each excuse outside is wrong.

it has a legal definition in many states and good prevention programs work to reduce bullying and it is an education priority that goes to the heart of school performance and culture. the truth is that bullying is ultimately an issue of school safety. ken jennings talks about the effect that school safety is a much broader issue than the shootings and gang violence we see on the evening news. bullying is part of that continuum of school safety. it is troubling in and of itself, but bullying is doubly dangerous because if unattended it can lead to more violence and abuse. just as you have gateway drugs, bullying can be gateway behavior. too often, it's the first step down the road of the school violence. as a ceo, we dealt with the issue of school safety, and it's

a subject i am passionate about. we are not doing nearly enough as a nation or school leaders to keep our children safe, my children safe and students safe was a tough challenge, and our inability as adults to secure the safety of innocent children was a failing that haunts me every single day. for the record, let me state my basic operating premise both in dc and chicago. no student shoild feel unsafe in school. take that as your starting point and it is a miranda rule issue and a practical one. every child's entitled to feel safe in the classroom, hallways in school, and the playground. they go to school to learn and educational opportunities must be the great equalizer in our country. no matter your race, sex, zip code, every child is entitled to

a quality education, and no child can get a quality education if they don't first feel safe in school. it's a travesty of school when students worry about their safety or suffer discrimination because of their ethnicity, their religion, sexual orientation, disability, or a host of other reasons. the job of teachers and principals is to help students learn and grow, and they don't do that in schools where safety is not ensured. the practice imported safety is just as plain as the moral side of the equation. a school where children do not feel safe is a school where children struggle to learn. it is a school where children tune out, drop out, and get depressed. not just violence, but bullying, substance abuse, cyberbullying all interfere with a student's

ability to learn. i don't like the arguments that kids will be kids. i hate the excuses and passivity. i know that prevention programs have the power to dramatically improve school environments and safety. the default position of schools, parents, and communities should be that bullying is completely unacceptable. the fact is that no school can be a great school until it is a safe school first, a positive school climate is foundational to strong academic achievements which is why in chicago we established school safety on report cards for each school every year as academic metrics to measure the number of students to exceeded state standards. what is a safe school look like? it is oven the minute you --

it is obvious when you walk in the door. students feel like they belong, are secure, and surrounded by adults they can trust. safe schools have a culture of respect and caring and have little tolerance for disruptiveness. at a safe school, students don't curse or threaten teachers or spend their time testing other students or roam the hallways. at safe schools, teachers are engaged in helping students learn an grow and students empowered by safety feel free to explore and fail as they learn. at safe schools, all of the building staff pitches in to create a culture of respect, teachers, principals, secretaries, lunchroom staff, everyone in the building is part of the solution. i just talked about what a safe school feels like. i have to tell you i've been in many, many schools around the country that don't feel safe,

and this is a tragedy we have to avoid. this is not just a big city problem. bullying is an epidemic in urban, suburban, and rural schools. it is staggering. in 2007 one out of 3 students reported they were bullied in school during that school year. that's 8.2 million young people a year are suffering at the hands of bullies. the most common form of bullying is being made fun of or being a part of rumors. one out of 9 secondary school students or 2.8 million teenagers say they have been pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on in the last school year, and another 1.5 million students said they are threatened with harm or they had their property destroyed during the school year. cyberbullying, as you know, is a

new form of bullying. in 2007, more than 900,000 secondary students were cyberbutlied. they do their work at the distance outside of schools in front of a broad audience, and under the protection of anonymity. they have new tools to hurt students in old ways. bullying has been going on forever, but the truth is it doesn't have to keep going on forever. bullying is not something school leaders or teachers can shrug off. children are never, ever born as butlies. it is a learned behavior. if they learn it from nare peer -- their peers or parents, children can learn to act differently as well. it is not the occasional bad joke or a child who gets a bit too aggressive. it is deliberate. the bully wants to hurt

someone. the bullying is reported with the bully targeting the same victim again and again and takes advantage of an imbalance in power by picking those who are vulnerable. it can occur in physical, verbal, or relational means through rumors or social exclusion. bullying, in other words, is not just a boy behavior or a mean girl behavior. it is a problem with an impact on children who are neither butlies nor the victims. it occurs in groups. it shapes the way that everyone bully, victims, and bystanders alike view the school's environment. bullying is really a form of physical and mental abuse. if you don't stop it when it starts, it usually spreads. a powerful testament to the fact that bullying is not part of the natural order of things is that most people can remember literally decades later the feeling of bullying or being

bullied of an individual or the feeling of standing by while their friends were butlied. they are instilled in our brain and it leaves scars on children. why does bullying have such long-lasting effects? why do victims of bullying descrop out of school and become depressed? it tends to get enveal lopped in a code of silence and shame. it is reported they don't recognize the behavior as bullying or fear retaliation or don't have an adult they trust to talk to about what is going on or think nothing can be done to stop that behavior. the situation is much the same with cyberbullying and sexting. now, one of the an dotes is

sunshine. teachers, peers, and students should be confronting behavior and learn to be assertive and stand up for themselves. we do not want to encourage them to respond to bullying with violence or force themselves. instead, schools should be cultivating a culture of trust and accountability, a culture of trust empowers students to tell teachers when bullying is occurring and that they should have responsibility of themselves and of their peers as well and schools that say no of bullying, keep students safe and hold bullies accountable for their miss treatment. when 11-year-old got tired of being bullied, she wrote president obama a letter. the president wrote her back and said her letter demonstrates the desire to change the culture in her classroom and community.

she appears here this morning. please stand up. please give her a round of applause. [applause] [applause] >> schools can have an enormous impact on bullying and they should have a code of conduct that sends a message to staff and students and the community alike that they have high expectations of all of them and little tolerance for cruelty or disrespect, but a code of conduct cannot be punitive. schools must teach and reward positive behavior as well. part of expectations is being consistent. principals, teachers, and parents send messages to students oven how they should behave all of time. all of the hallmarks of great schools, student support, a since of connection to caring adults, clearance of admission,

inclusiveness and parental engagement, they are hallmarks of safe schools. i want to shift gears to talk about a related school safety concern, the problem of disruptive and disorderly classrooms. if many parents and teachers, disruptiveness is a serious problem because so little learning can take place in a classroom that's in chaos. a survey indicates that one in three teachers nationwide thinks a student's misbehavior disrupts teaching and tardiness is impeding learning. students themselves think that disruptive classrooms are a bigger problem than the teachers,. one survey of 10,0005th graders and 75% of 10th graders say students disrupted their

classes. in urban schools, it's more severe. 12% of secretary schoolteachers report they were threatened by physical injury the previous year by a school student and 5% said they were actually attacked by a student in the past year. this absolutely inexcusable that so many teachers are attacked, threatened, or face per sis tently chaotic classrooms. you can tell an unsafe classroom too. just as good practice echoes through a school, so too does bad practice. the broken window theory suggests not so much shootings on the playground, but the message of disruption. it's the broken window that goes unfixed that signals the students that no one is in control or taking care of thing, and no one really cares about them. that's just one more reason schools and districts need to be a better job of setting clear

expectations, minimizing classroom disruption, and disciplining students who prevent other students from learning. school leadership matters tremendously in school safety. that encouraging fact that what we do in schools matters is still true even when violence occurs away from school. everyone here knows that the time of most anxiety is the time of most violent activity is not twelve o'clock at night, it's 3 p.m. when school gettings out. that's why i feel strong support in extending the school day and keeping people off the streets and having students do something positive either in school or in a community-based organization is crucial to safety and their physical and emotional development. community organizations have a crucial role to play to work with schools to provide students with more opportunities. teachers don't have to stay in

all the time. we have great providers to run after school programs. we have a boys club and girls club, after school programs, the ymca, college readiness programs, counseling initiatives, and other nonprofits and community-based organizations. we made the school centers of the community where addless sents can participate after the school day was over, and i really believe in the field of dreams, if you build it, they will come. they are looking for structure and positive activities to engage in. if you work with the congress, take away a couple different messages. first, our department has a renewed commitment to enforcing the law including a civil rights law applying to racial, sexual, or disability harassment. we want to collect better data and formulate better solutions.

finally, we'll provide more dollars and resources to places with the most challenging problems. outside of this room, i'm not sure many educators and parents realize that bullying can constitute racial, sexual, and disability harassment that is prohibited by civil rights laws enforced by our department of office of civil rights. ocr has relationships between bullying and discriminatory harassment and outlining school's responsibility to protect students from discriminatory harassment. as a part of the enhanced data collection that ocr instituted, we also will be gathering new and better data on harassment. we understand that stopping this plague of bullying takes time. it takes a sustained commitment and resources and i promise you that we're in this battle for the long hall. the department stepped up its support of hhs's stop bullying now campaign managed by

stephanie berm to include a focus on elementary school children and bullying starts young. we need to reach students when they are young enough with a message thatburg u bullying is not okay. we are backing that stepped up commitment with increased resources. both our budget and our blueprint for reforming the elementary and secretary education agent called for a 12% increase in programs to ensure that students feel safety, healthy, and supported in schools. the successful safe and healthy students program in our blueprint enables distributes to measure school safety including bullying at the school level providing federal funds for interventions in the schools with the greatest needs, and just as important, we will be getting information about school safety not just from data, but also from surveying the real experts on school climate, and that's our students themselves. for the first time, students

will be given a formal role in shaping our efforts to make schools safer. we are piloting this program through our successful and supportive school program. i have to ask why as a country have we been so reluctant to ask students how they feel about their own schools? as important the steps are, the department cannot begin to solve the problem alone. we have gathered so many partners here today because it takes a sustained commitment and resources from all of us to meet this challenge. the department of education stands ready to step up to provide leadership and be a good partner, but we need your help. this challenge requires all the facets of the federal government and i'm proud to have great leaders here and partnerships here and others speaking later in the program. preventing bullying will take leadership from state and local authorities like the officials you'll hear about tomorrow from

the state of iowa and sullivan county in tennessee. it is a fantastic illustration how a school climate survey empowers students to have a voice and develop buy in from all members in the community for reform, and not surprisingly academic achievement is up in sullivan county. to keep making progress in the battle to reduce bullying, we need to support an involvement of the corporate, civic, and nonprofit leadership as well taking action by individual students, teachers, school staff, parents, and concerned citizens. all of us, all of us have a part to play here. let me close by saying as part of your leadership, we desperately need your ideas. the summit seeks to collect efforts on bullying in america in one place at one time to get the best thinking about what needs to be done to bring this plague to an end. we will never begin to have all

the answers in our department of education, but i believe with a collective knowledge and wisdom of all of you aseminled here -- assembled here today, we can highlight the most effective solutions. i ask you to be daring, think imaginatively, and listen to yourselves and to break this, we have to be bold. the status quo cannot persist. with your courage, imagination, with your leadership, i think this summit can be a turning point where america tackles the problem with tenacity and leaves the myth of bullying behind once and for all. thank you very much, and i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. [applause] [applause]

>> [inaudible] >> good morning. thank you very much. i think that's very inspiring. i'm perry and i run wired safety and stop cyberbullying. i like your approach to attack a lot of gender preference, sexual preference, ethnicity, those types of issues that are often the root of this. how would that work? >> well, our office of civil rights worked hard to revitalize it. it's been a little dormant for awhile, but we have a fantastic new leader now, and we are seeing real issues around the country. we're going to confront them openly and honestly and her office is thrilled to be back in the game and in business. they will move aggressively to spotlight places where things are not working for students and we'll challenge that open and honestly, and that office, i think, has a chance to be a

significant partner in this effort, but a piece of a solution that's been enacting for a long time quite frankly. >> mr. secretary, steve culverson. big news this week, race to the top. lots of news coming from the department. how are you tieing in this particular issue with actual dollars going to the states, and how can they understand they need to take this seriously? >> well, what we tried to do in the blueprint budget is try to do a couple things well, and not be all things to all people. we are asking for a 12% budget increase. we have a do a much better job of engaging students, ask what they are thinking, survey, you know, look at the tones and climate and from the mouth of babes a lot of truth is going to come, and what cell phone and

his -- kevin and his team are doing well are getting out there to give people the tools and opportunity and ask how they feel and if they feel safe. we'll have the tools in place to ask those tough questions. we focus so much on test calls, but they are magnet indicators. i think building a positive school climate and trust are leading indicators. if we start to do some of these things better, test scores and graduation rates will follow. you can't get there without doing this better. putting resources behind what we are doing, engaging students i think will be a big part of the solution moving forward. >> good morning, secretary duncan. i'm with big brothers and sisters of america. i'm delighted to hear about this 12% increase in the budget.

do you see in your blueprint that some of those resources will go towards research, specifically what types of program capacity are able to influence bullying in the classroom and beyond? >> that's a great question. in everything we do whether it's working this area or working parental engagement or a whole host of things, we're trying to become a data-driven organization, and we think there's great practices out there and practices that are not quite making a difference, and we have not done a good job on finding what is working. we are not doing everything perfectly, but in three years from now i hope we are smarter as an organization and through great research and understanding what practices make a difference in reducing dropout ratings and violence and increasing engagement, we'll have resources behind that and evidence behind everything we do is hugely important and recognizing we

have investments in race to the top and lots of bets in a lot of areas. we know we will have mistakes, but we'll have effectiveness too. our goal is to move from a compliance office to an engine of innovation and best practices in a whole host of ways to be a foundational areas where we can get a lot better as a country. >> mr. secretary, i'm drew albrun with the middle school association. if butlies are violating the law -- if bullies are breaking the law, why don't we bring law enforcement in? >> it's a good question, a come plex one. why bullying rises to a criminal offense, that may be appropriate. i also have to say there's a lot we have to do to get to students

before their behavior rises to criminal acts. i think so many students can be turned with role models and intervention. my goal here it not to -- is not to lock up america's youth, but help the students who don't have the support at home or in the community. if you know bullies, they were once bullied. it is a learned behavior. we have to to get to children early to give them the strategies to behave in different ways. at the end of the day if criminal behavior is involved, we have to deal with it openly and honestly, but i'm on the prevention side. i don't think locking up students gets us where we need to go. [applause] >> hi, good morning. thank you for all you are doing on our collective behalf. one of the -- i'm with the pacers national center of bullying prevention and american dairy queen.

one of the buzzes in the room is resources and maybe lack of resources specifically relating to civil or nonprofession organization. do you have a model in mind or success models for corporations getting involved with resources to help with the cause? >> great questions. resources are extraordinary tough. you are living that today. if you talk to people working in education in three or four decades, this is the toughest time we've had. it's tough across the board. there are not easy answers. it's a short answer. it means we have to be much more efficient and collaborative. we have to be more productive in what we have. i'll give you one idea i tried to push hard. our schools should be open. we talk about this a lot, 13-14 hours a week 11-12 months of the year. it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.

in chicago, we run the school from nine o'clock to three o'clock and then the boys club is there seven three o'clock to nine o'clock. we have 95,000 schools in our country. rich neighborhoods, poor neighborhoods, every neighborhood there's school. every school has classrooms, computer labs, gyms, libraries, some have pools. these are great physical assets and resources. they don't belong to me or to the principal, but to the community. when nonprofits are struggling financially, put the money into tutoring and mentoring and support, and i think we can become much more efficient that way, so, you know, having a corporate sector come in help to leverage those relationships, help folks colocate makes folks a member of the community. we started this in chicago and a lot of people thought we were

crazy. teens don't want to go out to the streets. teens want something positive and productive to do. we were only limited by our resources. hundreds of teens in our toughest schools getting into dance and drama and afterschool programs. thinking about schools as community centers can colocate and support those partnerships, and it's interesting, we got into battles of who is in charge of cleaning up and toilet paper and kids are first and figure those things out and more corpg corporations can use their resources to incentive resources. i think whether resources are scarce, we have to behave in different ways and if we have outside players, i think there's a lot of upside there.

>> good morning, i'm from the university of illinois. we have 67 bullying prevention programs, none of which are working in the united states. i want to have you have a comment about your plan of supporting some real research it evaluate 67 programs, 42 states with legislation. comment on that? >> i don't think we're going to legislate that. we need to figure out of the 67 that is a lot, 64 too many. and we need a handful of programs making a proven difference and take those to scale. there's great work going on out there, we have to scale the best practices and use all of our resources to do that. we have to demonstrate not just looks good on paper, but that's really leading to student achievement and belter outcomes and take the practices and scale them up. it's -- this is not a unique challenge.

parental engagement there's probably 1067 programs that are not effective. let's let folks learn. i think this is where we can -- you know, these ideas can be shared and share spotlights and idea come from the local level and we are changing the business we are in and do a much better job of highlights like that and calling out things that are not working and making those tough decisions. >> hi, ease liz beth, professor at massachusetts where in massachusetts we have a great momentum with the new law and really excited about it, but in the public colleges, i think, what we're looking for and i speak to the other professor here is get college students into the high schools to do some of this work.

i think we have a unique moe -- momentum, and that's the kind i want to see. i don't want to see expensive programs or $4,000 a pop to go to different kinds of trainings. i'd like to see colleges, public and private, going into high schools and k-12. i don't know how i can help do that. i'm here to learn how to do that, but i'd love to hear you speak to that. >> i love that idea of gets college students getting into high schools and being mentors and tumors and role -- tutors and role models. they are the next counselors. i love the idea and encourage you to pursue it. i think we can help and use l butly -- bullying at the federal level, but you find a creative principle that partner with you

and it's really getting in there and not every school welcomes this culture change, and it's not getting frustrated if one says no, go knock on three more doors. once you have success, success builds upon itself. you have to be per persistent. two more. >> i'm one of the youth here today, and one of my questions is for like your blueprint things on just asking questions and really getting the surveys about the youth and the idea about bullying. is there a way we can create nonprofit organizations and stuff to help empower the youth and let them know that we are the ones who have to make this change happen in schools? >> that's a great question. [applause] i think the honest answer is we have a job in this area. i think the youth and the youth

solution and the youth dialogue will help us get to where we need to go. whether it's student government, whether it's -- so we create like little minipeace keeping teams in schools, and the best ideas come from the local level and teens themselves, so i just actively encourage you to step up and get your fellow peers to step up and challenge us as adults to do a much better job. i might think that there's just a tremendous uncapped unleashed power and not just students like yourself, but 6th and 7th and 8th graders are smart on what's working on what's not. we as adults need to do a better job of listening. okay. last one? okay, sorry, two more. >> i'm with the national institute on drug abuse and prevention research branch, and

we have a number of programs developed that are effective, and the idea of scaling up is easier said than done, and i was wondering what your relationship was with the department of education with teacher preparation as a problem with teacher burnout, and you know, a lot of teachers stop teaching after three to five years, and i wonder what the royal of disruptive bullying is there and what initiatives are there for teacher training? >> that's a great question. it's a huge concern and the number of teachers want to make a difference and have an impact, and they get there and they don't feel supported or have the management skills and they feel like they hit a wall every day, and without the support, we lose them. it's a major challenge. none of the stuff has easy answers. i challenged the department of education really hard in many areas. i've talked to hundreds and hundreds of great young teachers around the country.

one the complaints is that they don't have enough experience while an underground. they have theory and history of education, but not working with 30 students in a class with different backgrounds. we have to get students into a variety of classrooms, helping them with the confidence they need to be successful is hugely important. some schools of education are doing a great job, and others have a long way to go quite frankly. there's one school at illinois state university 90 minutes from chicago where they started having students come and live in one of our hispanic communities and stay in dorms as opposed to just teaching, it was cultural emergence. a lot came back and wanted to serve their communities. they were fully engaged. this is one of the areas that

we're challenging schools of education to do a much better job with experience. once young teachers hit the classroom, we in our schools, have to do a better job of pairing them with a master teacher. this is tough, tough, tough work and asking more teachers now with less resources and great preparation is a big piece of it, but we need to support and mentor which is hugely important, and if we keep that talent in the classroom, the student dividends are huge. it's a big, big deal that we want to get better at going forward. >> directer of pacer center in minnesota. first of all, thank you for your commitment today. it's excellent. i want to ask about parents. we talk to a lot of parents who are concerned about their child being bullied. what provisions might there be? i understand supporting youth in schools, but parents are concerned. we saw ms. walker with her son committing suicide. how do we provide information to

families about these issues whether their child is being bullied or are being the bully. >> that's a great question. i'm taking it in a broader context that i think, you know, part of the challenge, and obviously it's related, but it's even bigger that we don't do a great job of engaging parents generally. i think parents are the missing ingredient and piece of the equation whether it's around student achievement, climate, or safety, whatever it might be, we have not done a great job there. a couple things we are trying to do on similar issues is looking to double funding for parental engagement. money alone doesn't begin to solve it, but it's a 100% increase. that's a huge investment. there's 67 bullying programs and parental programs are out there that are ineffective and just

look good on paper. we're going to push hard to figure out what parental engagement strategies are helpful and making a difference and taking it to an open scale. we want to do a much better job of asking parents, how do you feel about school? we're going to survey parents. you know, would you recommend this school to someone else? is your child safe there? do they have an teutul to talk -- adult to talk to? we need to listen to our students, customers, and parents. we need to say each year, this is how parents are feeling and students feel. i am convinced whether the trends are going the right way, academic results are better, but if they are going south or flat lining, the school goes the other way. these are predictive to student outcomes. we want to get better. easier said than done. we want to put a huge amount of resources behind this, and i want to be clear. we talk about parental

engagement and the primary and middle schools. what's fascinating to me when we surveyed teens in chicago, one the biggest things our high school students were asking for was more activities with their parents. this is unsolicited. a huge percentage of teens who usually look for freedom, they wanted to connect to their parents. we tried to do family bowling night and little things to give students and parents a chance or even an excuse to get together. it's not just for the little kids, but 15 and 16 and 17 -year-olds and our teens are crying out to have more time with their parents and we are facilitating that in a nontraditional way. thank you for having me and have a great time. >> the fcc reports with the growing popularity of wireless

devices, the spectrum will be 30 times higher in a few years ago. richard strickling talks about the freeing up and what happens if they fail on the communicators continue on c-span2.

also new next year, ron johnson of wisconsin. he defeated incumbent department, russ fine russ feingold. he is a plastics owner and new to public office. >> our coverage of the education's department first bullying summit continues now with a look at the scope of the problem in schools. a panel of child development researchers talk about scientific research currently available on solving the problem. it's just over an hour. >> we hope the panel will be able to answer or at least to raise additional questions that

you might want to wrestle with throughout your workshops and facilitation sessions over the next day and a half. my name is valerie maholmes, director of the aspect of child program at the national institute of child health and human development at the national institutes of health. that's a department of health and human services. [laughter] in the federal government. it is my pleasure to introduce my panelists this morning. we're going to be talking about the scope of the problem in the state of the science with respect to bullying, and i'm going to introduce our speakers, and they will give you a brief overview of their topic, and we'll have a facilitated discussion and then time forever questions and answers. my colleagues greta massetti and i have the pleasure of helping to shape this session and look forward to your questions and

engaging with you on this topic. first, i'd like to introduce phillip rodkins a child professor and department of psychology at the university of illinois in champaigne. he's interested in promoting healthy peer relationship for children in educational settings, and the goal of his work is to understand the development of aggressive behavior, and to devise interventions that take account of children's existing social relationships. next, sameer hinduju who is an associate professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at florida atlantic university and the codirector of the cyberbullying research center of the he works nationally and internationally with the public and private sector to reduce online victimization and real world consequences, he's a member of the advisory board on internet

safety task force and he's given trainings and keynotes to a range of audiences, and in his most recent book, "bullying beyond the schoolyard, preventing and responding to cyberbullying." finally it's catherine bradshaw, an associate at the john hopkins school of public health, a joint appointment in the john hopkins school of education. she's also the associate director of the john hopkins center for the prevention of youth violence and early intervention. she's a busy woman. her research focuses on bullying in school climate which we heard from secretary duncan and involved with the problem behaviors and the design implementation and evaluation of school-based prevention programs.

we also had dr. limbburg who is ill and not able to be with us today unfortunately, and dr. bradshaw agreed to stand in for her and share part of her presentation. without further adieu, i'd like to bring forward dr. phillip rodkins. [applause] >> thank you very much. it's a privilege to be at this meeting. let's see -- how do we move the mic down -- oh, i can't get -- oh, i see. here we go, and there we are. part of what is exciting about this summit is that the history of bullying research is one of tragedy and response of some terrible, awful event happenings like we had seen in the opening

video, and then reactively we try and do something about it. it's the tail wagging the dog, and this is always been the case in research on bullying, and around 30 years ago, there was a situation in scanned knave ya with three boys committed suicide for many of the reasons that we're now well aware, bullying, taunting, and so forth, and in response, dan o'heir who is still active there was commissioned by the government of norway to do a great bullying intervention. now, what's interesting is that he, there he is right there, had written a paper around three years before this that said well, aggression is withdrawn of the most stable behaviors there are for people, meaning that if you're aggressive at one point in time, you're probably going to be aggressive at a later point in time. very difficult to change.

words like professor hewsman who is here showed us aggression in chirp is7f# -- in the or mewlation, -- formulation, he had a definition referred to already by secretary

duncan. there we go. our equal power dynamic, and intentional action, a chronic condition. bullying happens repeatedly over time. it's not reactive. it's intentional and meaningful. unequal power, what does that mean? it doesn't necessarily mean physical power because at times, especially in cyberbullying, you don't need physical strength to bully. it means power, it means control, so the paradox of aggressive behavior is that aggressive behavior is both completely dysfunctional and it also serves a purpose. it marks territory, aggression does and it's a way of changing someone else's behavior, and in

school and outside of school, bullying is about gaining power and gaining control, not just physical power, but social power. this is why bullies tend to be popular. they have more social status than kids who are being victims, and when we think of bullying as opposed to aggression, bullying is a relationship. ..

>> help make aggression adaptive to the bully. so in some of our work what we do is that we asked kids to name, you know, not just are you bullied, or are you being harassed, but who is bullying who? what is the relationship between the bully and the victim? and because it is such a sensitive topic, we don't just ask kids to report on who they

feel is bullying them, but in the entire classroom, at least in elementary school context. so for instance, this is the kind of measure that we use in the research capacity here you see on the left cookie monster. you always thought he was a nice guy. he is bullying elmo and shrek. now, when you put together, when you aggregate the responses of all the kids in the classroom or in a school, you'll know who is bullying whom. now, in our work, we can't tell the teachers, the principles who is bullying film, because of confidentiality reasons. but there's no reason why schools can't do this where measure similar to this on their own. if bullying is a relationship and if bullying is supported, by

some of the kids in the school, then you need to talk to the kids. not just in formally, but any systematic way. ask the children whose bullying whom in this school. and you add it up together, and, you know. with every tragedy in bullying, there's always an issue of, well, why they seem so obvious. how come the teachers didn't see this? how come the principal didn't see this? and answer is usually because they didn't ask. they didn't want to know. it's not so hard to figure out. 50, 60 years ago, as part of education curricula, teachers and instructors were asked to do so symmetric tests in their classrooms, ask all the kids in your classroom, who do you like most, who do you like least, who is popular, who was not popular?

and use that information about the social current, social contours of this society and the classroom to make it work. teachers don't do that anymore. they are too concerned about standardized tests. they have this dualism between academic learning and the morals of the kids are learning in the classrooms. but they should do it and it really wouldn't take that long. when we use this measure, we find something that is pretty interesting. among elementary school kids, third, fourth, fifth grade, there are a lot of boys who are bullying girls. almost epic we have found this in three separate studies. when we have a list of kids on the left who are bullied and he listed kids on the right, and were asked kids to line them up, we have many boys who are bullying girls. this also reflects some of the concerns that were mentioned

previously about sexual harassment, homophobic epithets, professors work. when you look at who's a bully and who's a victim, and you don't connect the line, you don't see the relationship that is there. and that is so troubling. so bullying is a relationship, relationship of dominance and control, and abusive relationship. interventions don't just look at how the aggressive child is rejected or dysfunctional or deficient. you look at why the bullying is working, for the bully and in that school. possibly the most important thing, you've got to track children's relationships. you have to understand, what do society of children is like at your very own school. in a formal way, in an objective way, it's a very easy task almost never done.

what does this dynamic look like? and finally, on the social metric testing, on the social network modeling won't overcome the moral issues of bullying that was put to the well by the secretary in the opening video. when it comes down to it, schools have to be a place that is welcoming for all children. parents have to support that, even if some of them don't. and ultimately, at whatever age, you don't put yourself up by putting other people down. and when that message gets across to kids, and adults, and we watch that in the schools, the problem of bullying will diminish. thanks. [applause]

>> good morning. it's an honor to be here. i've entitled this bullying, what we know and what we can do. to start off with definition, we defined cytoplasm willful and repeated harm inflicted to use of computers, cell phones and other electronic devices. and earlier discussed various constituent elements, no intentional, and, of course, maybe repetition is also involved. and then these devices we know kids embrace computers and internet. of course, cell phones and other electronic devices. we see cyberbullying perpetrated via picked a chat on nintendo ds i. we sit on kids i phoned. and a chat function there in. that's how we define it.

approximate 15 to 35% of students have been victims. that differs based on how cyberbullying is defined and presented to you. it also efforts on where you including cyber vote on social networking sites, via cell phone and if that includes tax and video and picture. and if you're asking them about over the last 30 days were over their lifetime. just a number of nuances a fact that specific percentage. in our most recent cyberbullying, most recent data collection which was the spring edition we found about 21% of youths have been victims. approximate 10 to 20% of student submit to cyberbullying others and the same sort situation there with different in our spring 2010 data we found it's about 20%. one out of every five use that you know is being cajoled by someone else online. also in a research this is being played out in continuous studies over time. that girls are likely if not more likely to be involved in

cyberbullying, as victims. more textual, more verbal, more towards aggression or social advertise, rumor spreading, gossip and the like. we're also seeing that involved in cyberbullying tends to peak during middle school, grades six through eight. that's not without exceptions, but for the most part. this also makes sense to us. we think about elementary school being about attitude testing again to feel for the school environment. we think about high school where you're getting more self-confident, in baltimore extracurricular activities, and i don't know but your own stories but for me middle school was worse. i was extremely concerned about what ever thought about me and. perceptions largely dictated myself worth. so it when they were making fun of me in a variety of ways. kids tend to really internalize the harm that comes from bullying in cyberbullying at that age. and then finally most victims of cyberbullying know are at least

thinking out who the cyberbullying's. so maybe we think about the internet we initially think about stranger danger, but that's not all the case when you're considering cyberbullying. it tends to be known bullies from the school or the neighborhood. what does the research show? there's a number of researchers, some of them are here nor focusing on the problem. who are able to get my first love, definite consequences. researchers point out headaches, sleeping difficulties and even abdominal pain. the psychiatric, psychosomatic, physiological consequences are stemming from kids having to do with this from the stress and strain that results from this. we're also seeing emotional consequences such as anger and frustration and sadness and fear. maybe you're thinking these negative emotions, we all have to do with the. the story is that you've, they haven't developed the coping skills as well as adults have. they haven't tell out these resiliency mechanism in or to

cope with anger or sadness. moving onto psychological consequences, we've identified a link between cyberbullying and self-esteem and that those who have been victimized yes, i'm going in the lower self-esteem than those who have not. we did flush that out over the course of time to see which came first, nor self-esteem or is it cyberbullying. as we are hearing, we identified a link between idolization and cyberbullying. they are engage in suicide more often as compared to their non-cyber bullied. additionally, social consequences, think about rejection and. conflicts and social competence which is used the ability to succeed in social interaction. many of us have gotten to where we are, we haven't developed that over time. disabilities succeed in just interacting with other people. that is covered by the cyberbullying. there's conduct problems, world believes, those been victimized

in cyberspace can be victimized in the real world. additionally, those were bullies online tend because off-line. delicacy and violence have been tied into this. alcohol use and academic struggles, just overall difficulty in this very tenuous developmental point. so, work to be done. first off, and i love the fact department of education is you is you joined us, formal assessment, rigorous research, identifying the scope of the problem that only students but also amongst parents, educators and so forth. we create an online survey structure in order to -- i know the department of education have encouraged online methodologies for this. information sharing, workshops and assembled. i think that also really helps. there's an uncool way to get in front of kids and lecture them but there's also a very accessible and relevant and meaningful and hard-hitting way to get the message across about acceptable. relationships and how to keep yourself safe.

social norm climate, i know we will focus a good couple days but it really be. you can think that teachers are investing in the success are in the corner, or telling them please company if you ever feel threatened or unsafe. all tied into a positive school climate. been here metric we talk of getting overused in front of the younger years. highly important in mobilizing youth whether having them create tsa's on youtube, maybe doing some serve audio message on the morning announcements. to be having some sort of awareness or pledge campaign, a walk let's say once again to raise awareness on this issue. i think it's important to focus in a special population. we are seeing that those who indicate in a research they are not heterosexual are targeted more so for cyberbullying and traditional bullying. i'm interested in utah the authors and spectrum disorders. for instance, asperger's center. the gravity online but also their targeted because they want to pick up on the social or

emotional cues that you and i are putting the mother with. finally, as i am, research. i think it's important, what influence of peers. were funnier if you are pure cyberbullying, you to others. there's a link that i talk about that later. electronic, i did that for you as well. as long as sexting. and, finally, this isn't just something we can relegate you cyberspace. it's affecting kids in the behaviors in the real world. it's tied to juvenile delinquent. i look forward to the next couple days chatting with you, brainstorming and figuring out an action plan. [applause] >> it's quite an honor to be here today.

thank you very much. i am so pleased to represent, i will start out my talk them into hers with is a little bit more on policy and prevention strategies. research on factors influencing children's risk for falling in bullying often draw upon social ecological framework. based on the work of doctors are here today on with their colleagues, have applied this framework to bullying hide on the importance of context in relation to individual factors that context includes social as well as physical aspects of the environment which includes both the involvement as was the impact of bullying on social, emotional and academic outcomes. not surprisingly, there's increased interest in the link between bullying and school climate. in fact, several studies indicate that you've involved in bullying either as a bullet or as a victim have left terrible procession of the school and feel less connected to school. the more freckly they are involved in bullying, the less

safe they feel. more importantly, bystanders also negatively affected by bullying. researchers have identified a set of social factors that contribute to what they call a climate or a culture of a bullying. this includes of shared beliefs and attitudes that support folding and aggressive retaliation. in the context, aggressions at your victimization become the norm. so-called is really or disorganized schools and classrooms have high rates of bullying and aggressive behavior. the risk for aggression is a very great within this context. yet when it comes to assessing school climates their often discrepant use between students, staff and parents. making it difficult to get a clear picture of the social contact. for example, a recent maryland study found that staff members grossly underestimates the prevalence of bullying, although they were concerned about its impact on students in the school

environment. furthermore students thought staff were unaware of bullying and that they did not intervene effectively. yet when we asked staff to 97% said that they had effective strategy for handling bullying situations, and that the ready-made situations worse when the intervene. i think this highlights the discord between tubes are perceiving the situation and the waitstaff are. compared to the research, there's relatively little work that is focus on paris perception of bullying. the available research suggests that they generally underestimate the emotional and physical harm associated with bullying that tends to be most to be most concerned about the link in middle and high school level, and share concerns regarding the school climate, especially at the high school level. preventioprevention research is emphasizes the importance of supporting parents who have been victimized. and encouraging them to ask we talk to their kids, surprise one of our studies indicated that about 5% of parents when the child recordable into them, they

did nothing, not even talk to each other. so wow that was relatively rare we want to get parents to be able to support their children and help them cope and the next epic like contacting the school. that's a very important move. we need to be careful not to model a aggressive responses, or encourage retaliatory behaviors to students. it's often a parent initial reaction when their child is a demise. in fact, some of our studies show that parents are even coaching their children to fight back. we have rather see with us today and has been instrumental in leading this field around him to believes about violence and attitudes about retaliation, and have some of those attitudes are formed in the home and carried out into the school. so i think that's an important target as we think about future intervention efforts. it since such mixed mayors express -- mixed messages. there's also a port medal did not middle issues about how students respond to bullying. for example, younger children

are more likely to contact their parents and teachers when they have been going to as teens turn to their peers or handle it themselves. that often having its house means an aggressive type of back. this highlights importance of adult intervention focus for younger children, were as pure groups are rather to prevention for adolescents. a common approach to prevention of bullying and other emotional behavior problems is the cute public health model. as outlined by the institute of medicine, 2009 report, the public health approach to prevention include a universal system, a set of programs or activities that affect all students within the design community or setting. that's depicted here in the green zone of the triangle as you can see. there's a set of selected interventions which targets subgroups of that. a third level supports indicated interventions showing early signs of involvement in bullying. some popular models in school

such as positive behavioral interventions, in response to intervention apply this type of three-tiered model. these types of preventive intervention and efforts can be implemented at multiple levels within the child psychology, going interventions in counseling, efforts are individual students. at the classroom level research highlights the importance of using lessons to foster social, emotional skills and competency, effective to medication and coping power. a recent meta- analysis of social emotional learning programs conducted by joe and roger and colleagues highlight the significant impact of social emotional learning programs on children's academic as well as behavior outcomes. effective classroom management is also a critical piece of the equation. there's a growing body of research document the importance of schoolwide prevention effort that provide positive behavior support, stabbed a common set of expectations across, and involve all school staff and prevention

activity. effective supervision, especially in hot spots, are essential element of effective school and prevention models. families also play a critical role in this process by them on a context that promotes child disclosure and the faucet of social and coping skills. at security awareness and social marketing campaign can be take late and structure. the three-tier public health framework provides the logic for connecting bullying prevention with other programs to prevent behavioral and academic problems. it can often seem like doing more in programs is better, but that may not be the case. in fact, research indicates that schools on average are doing about 14 violence prevention or other types of programs to promote a safe and supportive violence. this can often be overwhelming for staff, thereby leading to poor implementation fidelity. we encourage schools to integrate are connected their prevention effort for support

which is coordinated, monitored with high fidelity, and into the across all school context. although it's tempting to latch onto a new program to combat each new problem that emerges, we recommend a comprehensive and long-term prevention plan which addresses multiple students concerned through a set of innovative programs and services. now, i will close with this triangle that helps us illustrate the ways in which we can start thinking about integrating assistance or support across that public health continuum. so that we can implement programs that foster multiple competencies and skills in order to prevent a range of problems, including bullying, and help youth cope and respond appropriately when bullying does occur. so now i will put on my stoop hat. it's quite an honor to present on her behalf. i have been a very influenced by

a lot of her work. she has been sick of the past couple days i was unable to travel but tend -- center notes and slides from which i'm working for today's presentation. one impetus here is on a roll policy. the state of georgia was the first in the u.s. to codify require us pursue -- school districts in public schools. that law passed in 1999. the same year the shootings at columbine high school. currently 43 states have learned addressing bullying and schools. these vary widely in how have a definable and. in fact, some of them provide no definition of bullying at all. they typically require state or local officials to develop and enforce policies against bullying, but there's considerable variability in what must be addressed in these policies. for example, most require a recommend procedures for reporting bullying incidents. most require policies that inform proper investigations of incidents. that often that include parental notification.

most policies also hide the importance of discipline for students, and training for school staff. quite a few require state department of education to develop or oppose model policies that can be any lead on a local level. sadly, relatively few other states encourage implement a nation of evidence-based prevention programs. they have developed a series of best practices recommendations which are based on existing bullying prevention pro-grams, the available research, and considerable input from educators. one set of recommendations focuses on what she refers to as misdirections. these are common approach is used in schools but may do more harm than good, and are important to take note of. for example, zero-tolerance policies typically mandated suspension for children who bully. if consistently applied zero-tolerance policies have the potential to impact a large number of students, given that we know about 30% of students

are frankly involved in bullying. such policies also deter or discourage students or staff from reporting bullying. was also important to remember is that boys have problems, too. by sending them home without any type of intervention or support, and they continue down a trajectory toward further aggression, delimited or true to be the. children who bully are in need of intervention and the court services to stop their behavior. conflict resolution or other commonly used strategies of bullying to prevent bullying, but they too may do more harm than good. for example, a conflict is since there's a disagreement to be resolved between two or more individuals. however, bullying is abuse. and that should be stopped rather than treated as a disagreement. in some cases group trigger for children of bullying can make them worse. research by tom and his colleagues highlight the importance and potential role for deviance training and poorly supervised training.

in the context a contagion process occurs whereby the pulleys learn from each other and reinforce each other's aggressive behavior. simple short-term solutions are not sufficient to change the culture of bullying. changing social norms about bullying and the broader school climate is a time intensive activity. one which will require a long-term commitment to the change process. therefore, brief assemblies or one the awareness raising activities in schools are not going to be able to produce the changes. in contrast to these misdirections, they have identified a set of 10 principles for best practices. the first one builds on that social ecological framework by focusing on social environment to the school. the cycle and emphasizes the of data, clicking information we've heard about this morning, from students to understand where some of the hotspots are where some of the activities are happening. i have to feel strong about the role of data from parents as well as staff to get a full perspective on the situation.

these data can be helpful in putting staff. helps to get by and help them on the problem. another recommendation focuses on teen days coronation of these activities. i reference in my previous set of slides, this is important when you're trying to integrate or connect programs having a staff that are responsible for overseeing that, and those teams are often diverse and include on occasion student, especially at the high school level and certainly parents, diverse set of teachers and administrators. training is critical, especially about how to reinforce rules of policies in the building, and had to increase supervision in those hotspots. staff should also receive training about how to intervene consistently and be rewarded and reinforce when they do anything. challenges for most programs include finding class time to actually do some of this stuff. and that's on the challenge in the bullying literature.

sues research suggesting out on agreement on a weekly basis rethink some of these issues is a very important piece when you're looking at some of the curriculum-based activities, especially social learning, and might be two or three times a week you needing to spend that time. finally, to be sustained over time when courage and ministers to make it three to five your commitment to implement the program schools get program critique would have a new program that turns every year but had leadershithe vision and the building to say that april, try for number of years, a distributed time, is part of an action plan. it's very important. it could sometimes these programs take a while to take effect and changes not going to occur overnight. so with regard to bullying prevention programs, specific strategies this goal might be using, a series of meta- and audi have been conducted on the past six years examined the extent to which particular models have an impact on bullying. unfortunately, the findings from these studies have been next it was some say suggesting that

certain models are effective and other meta- analyses concluding that the effects are very limited. one set study examines the impact of 14 programs and conclude that programs produced quote a reasonable rate of return on investment. in my mind that's not good enough. we really need to have a much stronger commitment to producing sound research in this area. another more comprehensive and rigorous study that was conducted more recently by david franken and his colleagues reviewed over 30 programs in 59 studies, and they conclude that host school programs can be effective but it affects 10 to very by the actual activity, as well as implementation. they conclude this programs inspired by the work by daniel worked best to further research is needed on programs to determine their effectiveness and diverse contexts with different populations.

and in urban steady with minorities you toward these have been rarely tested that additional research is also needed to determine which program components are critical for success and factors that are important in predicting program input. thank you. [applause] >> okay. my name is tragic i'm from the division of violence prevention at the sitters were to freeze until a position equivalent to move to audience questions but i'm going to start it off by asking all of our panelists if you just as quickly your perception of what is the next that for research in bullying prevention. what come if you at your disposal, research funding, what would you invested in?

>> that might need to be turned on. >> you have to talk to kids about bullying and who is bullying in their classrooms and in their schools. that's the next up. and to develop technologies that already existing to enable that information to be understood in a simple way i teachers and school psychologists. if you talk about bullying and a school-based setting. so the next that is to ask it's about what's going on in the school, and to follow that that i was a the second step, from a research program, is, and catherine other to this at the end of he either her or sues presentation, is to see if there are really bullying prevention programs that are effective. i think dorothy indicated in her question secretary duncan, there is in some ways less than meets

the eye. unfortunate, in terms of programs that were. that doesn't mean that there aren't pro-guns out there in the schools that are working. what it means is we don't really know about it. and we really haven't formalized them anyway so we can understand if they work and why they work. i think with bullying preventi prevention, as in any other field of endeavor, people want to say that their products are effective. and there's a great hope among all of us that they are effective. but, of course, where to look at them are carefully. so number one, talk to kids. and number two, really try and find out what works. >> i mean, just to save time i would like to ask of what philip said. [laughter] >> i would like to say that i think there are a number of programs that have been developed. some of them very thoroughly developed, and we just don't have the resources will be to test them come and test them in

the way that they need to be tested with large enough sample sizes. most of these our whole school kind of interventions, and the assignment is at the school level so you need to have trials and 40, 50, if not more schools to be able to detect significant affects. i know one topic that dorsey is so passionate about is not only rely on student reports, because that may not be sensitive to the kind of changes that we're seeing, but also doing observation on data collection, pure nominations it as a heard a little bit about, philip. on staff reports, students behaviors. so having a more comprehensive assessment system within those trials to be able to detect and a sensitive way the changes that might be occurring. >> if there is a third thing, not necessarily in order of priority, as the secretary duncan had mentioned this, it teachers classrooms management ability. by teachers, i mean teachers

broadly. you know, folks are running extra curricula activities, coaches, school psychologist. anyone who is involved with kids. but let's just take teachers. as a way to simplify. you know, we all know that some teachers, teaching a class, even apart from the content, it's about establishing a dynamic that it's about establishing a social atmosphere, and not letting that get out of control. so when you have teachers can second grade teachers, who breakdown in tears in the classroom because kids are shouting at them, that's not a teacher. who could manage a classroom. right? a classroom is a society. it's a small edb society of 20 or 30 kids. or older kids that if its middle schools our high schools. how how do you manage this diverse group of children. when kids are not just 20 kids sitting in a row in desk come by

their kids are connected, who are networks of relationships, positive relationships, negative relationships and have different characteristics. does the teacher know that or it is a teacher just focused on having the school make -- what teachers can do, what we are working on now is watching teachers in the classroom and outside of the classroom and st. helena, which teachers are doing what that helps promote a positive social atmosphere in the class from the get-go so they don't lose control, so kids are with the teacher and you have an orderly class environment. so focusing on the adults and the schools would be a third very influential step. >> great, thank you. are the questions from the audience? yes. [inaudible]

>> hi. my name is rachel simmons but i'm the author of a book called odd girl out which is one of the first books to expose their culture. i do bunch of things or ideas and the speaker goes into schools and they do a lot of kind of public work on this issue. either marco one of your slides indicated that girls were bullying boys 8% of the time and bullying girls 13% of the time. were as these have pretty high double-digit rates. how are you defining bullying. into a larger question, the reason i wrote my book was because the definitions of bullying were really excluding psychological aggression, and a particulaparticular relation aggression. so i'm curious how are you defining bullying, and also to the panel, do you think that bullying is now consistently looking at the range of aggression? particularly those most likely to slip underneath the radar speak what you make an absolute point about relationship aggression and bullying among

girls. in our work we give kids, the definition intentional, chronic, you know, imbalance of power. but the kids, my work isn't all primary elementary school kids. date. they figure out what bullying means in and of themselves. and when you just ask kids, whose bullying whom, they tend to pick out the boys. now, -- object. [inaudible] >> i think it's partly a responsibility to make sure kids understand that, because girls grew up believing this is just girls being girls but it's -- to learn how to define us as a graduate i'm sorry to interrupt, but i think if you asked them to name of bullying is to simply reflect back what the coach is

telling them that bullying is. and that's my concern about the research is that it should be a repeating some of the negative messages about bullying that are coming from the culture. >> i agree with with the substance of your point. a measure that we have, and will kids tend to report isn't sensitive to the kind of bullying among girls that you've been focusing on. so i completely agree with that. i guess what i agree with possibly, although that last come is it is asking the question where reinforcing these types of roles for bullying. what we're asking is, according to children, who seems to be a bully? and, in fact, when we asked the question, i should a simplified version of it, we add -- had four pages, page number one, who are boys who bully of the boys? a, poised on the left and the, boys underwear. and boy, girl, girl, boy, girl,

girl. we have a question is who are the girls and today pick on? >> the question i would ask is who is convincing other people not to be a threat? is getting the silent treatment? in other words, so my point is, is that kids to find bullying in a very narrow way. and that is part of our task is to teach families and kids and teachers that the were bullying as we have learned it, actually doesn't attend and it's not attuned to have the range that kids are hurting each other. there's all kinds of cyber cruelties that occur that kids don't themselves understand in cyber bullying is because there's a lack of awareness and a connection to what that word means. so that's all passionate these behaviors really need to become part of the research because i don't agree that a% of girls are bullying boys. i think growth only boys are much bigger numbers and growth bully girls and much bigger number and i want to make sure the right questions are being

asked to i believe at that and it i appreciate your candor. >> we have a comment. >> we talk a lot about that social relation. i'm of the researchers who do not give a definition that i asked about what types of behaviors kids are doing. we could talk about years about this kind of definitional issue that we've adopted from norway. we've adopted a program and. so certainly there's many of us who look at a racial -- that are really focused on what are the dynamics of the cross gender. i would also point out that there is a recent meta-analysis connected by the university of arizona that showed very clearly that point and girls do not differ across this notion of relational and social aggression. is about a girl phenomenon that that boys engaging. the process is different at the outcomes are more severe for growth. so i think that we need to focus on the fact that there are many very aggressive girls. i have worked and chicago public

school. the girls are scarier than the girls. -- boy. we cannot just think these girls are just spreading rumors and exclude one another from the weekend parties. but in federal fighting israel. we cannot abandon that. we must consider this in our programs. beyond relational and social. that is up her by class social phenomena. it plays out different that we need to consider culture and context as well. >> a question in the front. >> i think i want to frame a question for cabinet, but of what to do based on two things. you talk about davis collaboration systematic review, and the other is a series of articles that were put together in education research in general in american education research association. both of which doctor out the

fact that there appears to be ceiling of bullying impacts in terms of the current literature, including. and particularly the authors of the educational research articles started to suggest, and i was one of them, but i wasn't the one that if you really want to have an impact, we really have to think about how do we connect bullying interventions with other things that people are talking about? that are whole school and it is not one of the other. and probably is a combination of social learning integrated, and how those things would connect with anti-bullying endeavors. and i want to add one more thing. that's the big question. >> i thought i was a great answer. i didn't hear your question in there. >> but you're a smart lady, okay. a smart researcher. but i've also not, i haven't

heard a lot of people talking about other things that impact in schools, other than academic press. it is the fact that we have issues of racism and homophobia or things like that, that really impact how kids behave. we also have not just teachers in capacity, and i think we have models for how to help teachers become more effective. but there's much more work that is necessary. but i'm intrigued with the fact that while i'm a great fan of teachers in the u.s., people don't talk about the fact that sometimes people bully. when i do work internationally and i used to a survey among the questions is, to students, do you feel bullied, what i get from both students and adults say how can you don't ask whether teachers also to bullying? and so, the softball i hope i throw you is, how can we think

about what we are doing more comprehensively, particularly at a time when in the blueprint, the department of education is talking about focusing on the entire school system climate, and is it is interagency effort that really connects to the institute on medicine's work about the fact that there are common risk and protective factors that cut across everything. which is your last graphic expect jack, i think it's important to recognize that you can prevent bullying with a program that doesn't have bullying in the title. so that we will do a little bit later on today from judy nasa about the social learning curricula, the thinking straight that mark greenberg has developed along with some of his colleagues. and has been used in pre-k through grade five. we're going in the process of bringing that up to a middle school level where there's a great void of evidence-based

programs across multiple different dimensions. so i think we can turn to some of the other models that have been more effective at preventing violence or promoting academic achievement, because they are targeting some of the similar types of risk factors. and feel and i had a conversation in the elevator last night about will be going to get into weird is bullying and and where is aggression begin and the overlap there, i think we're are here with a focus on bullying. by these kids are involved in a lot of other things. they're abusing substances that they might be at risk for getting involvement in urban context. so i think we have to recognize that while he had a relatively specific focus here today on bullying, that there are a range of other programs that we can look at. some have been looked at. but i have to think we're not clicking the right kind of data. maybe we are relying too heavily on self-report and not getting into some the other methodologies that would be sensitive to that. >> i did have one little piece there. you know, the focus on the

component program is they think really great. and we are doing that, but we are kind of at a gap as to what to do with that second tier and third tier. so we had this great framework and the come along with our olweus model or other school by prevention model. but when i get to teachers, this has to do these 15 kids, what do i do with them? and we are really lacking interventions that are research-based that a pullout programs for kids. and so i think not to say we shouldn't continue to pursue the schoolwide peace, but it's likely that the school what peace is going to be effective when you also have more indicators selected programs for the higher risk kids, that 80% of kids that are chronically involved in both as a bold and effective. those kids are going to get something more than just schoolwide piece. so i think as we move forward with research we need to keep our eye on not just the schoolwide, but also when we going to do with those other

tears and is consistent with the department education in response to approach his that we're getting a budget digital are not respond to a bunch of universal citizens and elites only the more intensive. but right now we're lacking in evidence base for what to do with those kids. there's some promising programs in the fields around violence prevention like tom's work aga again. on strong family component that has shown to be effective at reducing violence and aggression that i do know if he is collected data on bullying per se. we're also working closely with john who is develop a program with coping are that follows the social information processes peace and focus on changing words about violence and getting kids to rake in motions. that would be more of that tip of the triangle, the kids that will need more support and that includes the family peace that all these are well and good. if i can get people to show up to them, that's also a challenge. so hand-in-hand goes with

developing the interventions, but also doing the research around implementation sides. no, becomes attractive to families, why would they want to come to those sessions ?-que?-quex was into them and had to be benefit? >> we running a little short on time so we can just let it in as many questions as possible. i will go to the back and then out. >> i am from penn state university, and founder of club of you. i want to comment on catherine and philip, something you said about a definition of bullying. i speak all of the country and they do this and to students and parents and teachers and administrators. one of the things i hear is that it isn't as common definition of bullying, and that's what really stands in the way. teachers really feel stymied by the inability of backup from the administrators so that they would discipline students in the classroom, and then they will go to their administrators, and administers will say, well, that was a bullying, or i don't consider that to be bullying.

are a child will go home until their parent something happen at school and and the pair will call the school in school say, well, that's not bullying. we don't discipline for that. i've even done group exercises with had children by doubt what is bullying to you, and parents, what is bullying to you, and teachers and administrators. and i compared the results, and they're all vastly different. how do we get a unified -- i had secretary say will have a unified definition of bullying. i think that's the biggest task before us, because until we are all talking about the same kind of behavior, everybody is going to be working from a different definition, antidumping different programs and talking about different things. so, you know, that's why i see teachers burning at because they are working on one kind of behavior and none of there. are to support them. and so they feel totally lost in the system. and catherine, i know you mentioned that as well.

>> i think this is a heated ongoing debate within the field of researchers disagree, i swear he would use all my papers because i get them back with the same kind of comments. he calls it the achilles' heel of the bullying research is a lack of a consistent definition. and did some research that indicates a different finding if you give a definition versus if you don't agree to break out the individual behavior. so that's a real problem, and perhaps that's another issue that could be explored in some of the small group discussions about the potential utility of coming up with a consistent definition at u.s. department of education puts forward and helps researchers monitor in her own study so that we take and draw some comparisons. >> i would just add that, you know, for me i would say, if a kid feels that he or she has no

home at school, feels that the school is a hostile environment, that to me is enough for action. every school, every kid needs to feel at home and save in school. when they don't, then as the secretary said, everything goes to pieces. so in that sense i would take the child's word as for the school as a hostile environment. >> can we take a question for new? do you have any questions? go ahead. >> i am david, a member of the youth representation today. i wanted to say that i appreciate, i think that's the way to go. i think, a lot of the research that is done on this issue, the bullying prevention programs that we all hear about, you, daily on a regular basis are often emphasized, and people just focus on the ones that people put the money into an a

lot of reasons. but people often forget about the ones that are student led. the students themselves come up with a lot of programs and put a lot of hard work into schools and bullying prevention. i think as a student, they would save we're having this program today and nobody would kind of groan as he walked into the auditorium and had to sit for an hour nap cube does not have to treat each other. each other. were a students would go into classrooms and myself, and another computer about today, did. and talk with a student. because to listen to student. so a question for you is, in your research, are you looking at the student led program and are you willing to support student led programs? thank you. [applause] >> i will just them and make i completely agree with you, and these programs are coming up more and more often. and they do have to be formally evaluate. i believe that generally speaking are being encouraged but we haven't really focused in on clear evaluations yet but we will.

that's why we're here. >> one more question. >> thank you. good morning. my name is dick. i served as the executive director for national resource school officers. i do want to blame doctor bratcher, but thank you for bringing the comet regarding trying to get a handle around the number of issues that are facing our kids. i presented as a question to the panel, along with looking at it from a research point of view. as best as i can discover, we have not lost a child to a fire in this country in over 50 years. if somebody can correct me, please do. so i ask a question why. and the answer is redundant layers of protection. we have not won -- you have fire extinguishers but you have sprinkler systems. you have evacuation drills.

et cetera, et cetera. is there a model, question them if we been that successful is the key threat. it's an easier situation to deal with because it's tangible. but we have sustained at 450 years. is there a message their? the second question that i have representing a group of law enforcement officers that as i call boots on the ground people, i know answer for them, or speak for them. and i think i speak having for some years as a school administered, i believe i can speak for them, too. we have got to get a handle on how we're going to approach from a research point of view what we can deliver it in a school because of finite resources. i will go back to the fire example. if you want to find what it's costing you, it's has made about one-third of the cost of the building is to build -- devoted to fire protection that i'm just telling you look at what works. so from a finance standpoint, but in terms of bullying, game related, great program. we've got bigger. we have to find a way to begin

and that of how to do that. or the fact that the people in the school can get their hands around it. and i believe that a child who is being bullied or is a bully or has an issue, too. will be some of the other criteria, whether they're proud to join a gang, whether they are proud to be in the drug culture, et cetera. awesome task, folks, but i really believe that's where it is at. >> i like the model. i think it is intended. something we should perhaps look to it, try to got of course resources, a lot of am so much an issue. maybe some redundancy there. whether not just go why the classroom level, getting all the stakeholders involved, not just teachers, but students, educators, commuters. i think that will provide the redundancy we are looking for. >> i think you also bring up an important part about how we can

involve education and support personnel, or the people that are non-teaching staff. we've been working with the national education association to try to understand what kind of support and resources not teaching staff, including resource officers, other paraprofessionals, because i think they can really play a pro construction will. our research indicates then again country that they need around policies. they are not feeding that, in fact, it suggests that data but the intervention and bullying is necessarily the role. and so i think we need to do some additional support. so in training around that, or more so that they're less likely than teachers who say they thought the bullying was a priority for their job. so i think we really need to think a constructive role, how we can involve them. you also bring up the program they are, anything that highlights highlights the need for us to continue to rigorous research studies. in fact, there has been shown to be an ineffective program. and so we want to make sure that we are capitalizing on that active group of resource

officers or police officers they're willing and engaged to be involved in prevention activities and given other kind of programs or ways to get them involved. because d.a.r.e. is unfortunately one of the programs that we do now, at least the earlier of d.a.r.e. and new d.a.r.e. trials going on now. but actually increase in substance abuse among youth. but it is so widely used, it's kind of a network that we can tap into to deliver some other evidence-based programs. i know some researchers at penn state word at life skill programs, for example, to be delivered by home resource officers as one of the strategy for building on the delivery systems. >> thank you for commenting about is other people in the building that we often easily overlook would talk about bullying prevention. >> i'm sorry, i'm going to have to jump in here. someone will get the hook out pretty soon. but there's lots of discussions that have been stimulated and lots of ideas that i think will be carried onto the breakout discussion that i going to

follow that i'm sure there'll be a lot of big discussions about. research directions and the future of bullying prevention. i just want to mention that the breakout sessions are going to happen right now, and the room for the breakout will be on the sticker does on the back of your name tag, if you have not received a sticker, please go to the registration desk and you can get the sticker there. thank you. i would also like to remind the press that operate outside should are closed to the press. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. senate will have 16 new senators when the 112th congress begins in january. ..

>> during this bullying summit, representatives heard from the corporation of dairy and facebook to help form partnerships with local communities and schools to stop bullying. it's about an hour and 10 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. i know we still have people aliving, but continue to enjoy your lunch. i'm with the department of education and i'm going to moderate our lunch corporate panel, and we're pleased today to have three representatives from corporate america talk about their perspective on bullying. to my left is michael keller, chief marketing officer of dairy

queen, and i have to say that was my fast food place growing up. we don't have mcdonalds or burger queen so i grew up on dairy queen. [laughter] >> thank you. >> michael was chair of pacer center for marketing advisory board, and he has been very involved in the national bullying prevention center and he helped create national bullying prevention month and secure disney star, demi lovato on bullyings. he's running around with the jonas brothers. your teens know who they are talking about bullying prevention. to michael's left, we have stuart snyder, the president and chief operating officer of turner broadcasting systems, an

animation, young adult, and kids media division incoming cartoon network, boomerang, adult swim, digital businesses, and other products. michael, also, i was pleased to see was in the release of several of my favorite films like "traffic". thank you for bringing pleasure to me and my wife with those wonderful films. final, we have mozelle thompson here, he's on facebook and we're happen to have him there. he is ceo of strategic consulting providing advice to technology companies. we were talking in the hall, and mozelle was also a commissioner at the u.s. federal trades commission where he worked on

technology competition, converging issues, online issues, and has been a leader in the online safety space. we're very happy to have these folks here, and we are going to kick off with michael keller from dairy queen international. [applause] okay. sorry, we need to pull up the powerpoint. there it is. okay. good afternoon, everyone. >> good afternoon. >> let's that try again. good afternoon, everyone. >> good afternoon. >> i thank you for the introduction and i also happen to be a father of three, and 32 or 33 years ago experienced a pretty significant series of bullying episodes of the hand of two bullies, and 32 years later

i'm still working through those issues which is why i'm passionate about this cause and pleased, privileged, and humbled to be with you today. i don't have a lot of time as you know, so i'll jump into what pacer is up to and a setup for the role that corporations can play in this whole process that we are on about here. i'll talk briefly about some dreams, pacer's initiatives, and the potential role of corporations. starting with the dreams, almost everyone here has problem articulated some version of this dream in a way, but know that pacer is a national bullying prevention center and has those dreams too and through our executive director living out those dreams every day, we want to create and lead a movement to put an end to bullying, and the most important word up there is movement, really believe in many ways this needs to be a social movement at the grass roots were kids leading the movement, and

us, adults, helping along the way. we want to make if impossible for bullying to occur, because when the culture changes around bullying and the intolerance for it with peer groups, we have that chance, and to have that movement lead to the federal and state laws added or changed to help protect kids and their families. this is what we're trying to chase down at pacer. you might be familiar with these things. the website kidsagainstbullying.org that was launched years ago. there's all classroom resources that schools are using around the country, and was mentioned, national bullying prevention month has grown into something larger because the involvement of so many different organizations. this is to give you a little bit of a flavor for a very kid centric resource, online, very popular and heavily used for

kids themselves, parents, administrators, and various experts in the field. very importantly, the award-winning pacer pacerteensagainstbullying.org. almost all the content created by, edited by, written by, produced by teens themselves around the area, and very importantly as i mentioned earlier, the idea of national bullying prevention month raises awareness around bullying preftion and at your tables are fliers regarding pacer and the second page of that flier involves potential participation on any of your parts as a partner in some way or another in national bullying awareness month. we hope the u.s., canada, maybe the world stops during national bullying prevention month and focus on this collective issue

and cause. yeah, it's probably thinking on the big side, but that's the way we think it needs to unfold for something very important to happen. a variety of other educational and inspirational sources are available across those websites. pacer is very involved with a number of corporate partners from demi and the jonas brothers, best buy, and at 15, an arm of their corporate foundation, and ibm. here on the panel, we are in the process of developing nice relationships with both the facebook team and cartoon network and cnn. we believe these types of corporate sponsorships and la critical to get the message out to a very, very wide audience and as many eye eyeballs and ears as possible. demi is with us and some say she's the next # hannah

montana. she's a tremendous woman and 17. she was bullied sioux bad that she feared for her life. she was home schooled from there and has used our art, music, and acting as a channel to express herself and to heal from our experience. the amazing thing about demi is she is a teen. she has millions and millions and millions of between and teen -- tween and teen followers. when demi talks, they follow. it's remarkable the type of impact a peer can have on other peers which is why we are focused on her media outreach in regime, her work on facebook, and her concert tours that will begin when she reaches hundreds of thousands. this is what demi looks like integrated into teens against bullying right now. she's integrated in a variety of ways, and teens can reach through to her through pacer.

this is all set up for the two key messages i want to share with you today. the first is the importance of collaboration. i can tell you from a potential corporate sponsor stand point, someone working on pacer's behalf that ultimately supply the dollars and resources that so many of us in this room need to get the movement rolling or keep it rolling. we have to unit our efforts through some type of network, and also come up with common deaf nations as -- definitions as mentioned today. nothing drives corporations more crazy who might be willing to donate than to have a poorly defined cause and nottens the difference they -- not understand the difference they can make. there's amazing activity going on, but how fragmented a lot of that activity is. our cause is an enormous one, and there's so many strengths in this room, and what my perception is and there's a general perception that we have

not reached a tipping point to tip this over and to become a true movement in many ways to lead to long-lasting change toe want to see occur. that's the key to long-term funding. if doesn't come together like that, it's hard to get private sector funding, and quite frankly, kids need us to pull together and lead because in many ways while they are the depress roots element to this, they need us to occur because we pull the resources they need to get their work done. as it relates to the potential role of corporate sponsors, there's so many things that corporate sponsors can do to help kids, their families, and the schools in which they attend, and also the communities. underwriting and fund raiding, but it's beyond that. corporations can bring wide scale awareness for various nonproflt organizations, and ngos who don't have the platform you get with a corporation to expose the cause of the issue to

millions and millions and millions of people. they can bring marketing expertise, leet exper -- legal expertise and very importantly which is why i ended with it is social relevance, the right type of corporation aligning themselves with a cause like ours can have a tremendous impact on youth and the youth that follow that yiewt just by association. there's a lot of great brands out there when they are clothes, music, digital brands, social media brands who are closely connected to this cause without even fully knowing or understanding it. i have happen to be the incoming chair for board of governors representing all the corporate sponsors that raise money for children's miracle network hospitals. there's about 25-30 of us and we raised $140 million a year for 175 hospitals in the u.s. and canada. i assume everyone in this room from researchers, ngo's, and

civic agencies would appreciate millions of dollars for your cause. true? would that be true? remarkably, $140 million gets raised a year for the children's hospitals. it's a simple cause. what we're able to do as corporate sponsors is activate our employees to raise the funds. the funds are raised from consumer, and we also enable all the fund recipients to do the work they are supposed to do which is help the kids themselves, and it frees them up to do a lot of things. i always wound -- wonder if there's a model available to the bullying movement, and if there is, we need to collaborate and clarify our cause and needs so that we can get the funding that many of us need to further our aspect of the cause we are working on so hard. we share the exact same dream,

but maybe the deaf nation of the dream varies slightly. my sense is, and i think even secretary duncan said it himself, we need to work together to realize it which maybe was the inspiration for the summit to begin with, and the fact we're in the room together is 5 great start, but we have to go much, much further to combine our strengths, and when we do, my sense is also that private sector help will be there because the ability for corporations to reach in and out to families, reach into their homes and schools is incredibly important to them on many level, but we have to provide them a clear channel, and a clear vehicle for doing that, and ultimately, kids and their families need us to do that because this cause has gone underdressed long enough and there's a certain urgency we feel around this, and we would like to see solutions in place sooner rather than later and that's where entrepreneurial corporations can help us

accelerate the pace of change. that's it. thank you for your time, and i look forward to any questions later. [applause] >> we're going to hear from stiewt -- stuart snyder. >> i'm just looking for the -- you've got a slide; right? okay. ♪

♪ ♪ cartoon network, the boys and girls club, tony hawk. it's important. >> 160,000 children take home every day. >> i feel scared, and i feel like i shouldn't be in that world. >> they are getting bombarded with people saying i wish you would kill yourself. we're going to beat you up the next day.

>> there's threats of physical harm every day. >> breaking news of a teen girl bullied to death. her name is phoebe prince. >> bullied is not a new problem, but why is it so severe? at least 41 states have legislation addressingburg. >> routinely beaten up, harassed and threatened by other students. >> i found him hanging by an extension cord tied around his neck. he was 11 years old. this can happen to anybody. >> there's going to be a lot more bloodshed over this unless we as adults get it right. >> with kids afraid to stand up to bullies, the problem will not go away on its own. >> schools recognize the problem of bullying, and many have programs to stop it. >> we need the programs that

work. >> we need to respect values and who they are. >> no fighting, teasing, no name throwing, take control of any situation they might see and make them feel empowered to make a change. >> talk to them and let them talk to you and let them know some things are not okay. >> we need courage and someone behind us when we say knock it off. >> one-third of students reported having been bullied at school. clearly, there's more work to be done. >> thank you, norris, and good afternoon, everyone. usually at this time of day, i'm deciding whether our hero of ben tin should have more episodes to save the world or if scoobydoo

needs another mystery to solve. i have a fun job, but it's a job that comes with responsibilities. it's an honor for me to be here with you, and i want to thank kevin jennings for the invitation because as a parent, this is an issue that is very close to my heart. as i hope you've now gathered from the clip reel you saw, cartoon network empowers and motivates our young viewers to create positive change and live healthier lifestyles. as part of our responsibility to give back, we have created such varied campaigns as the movement movement which is currently touring the country inspiring kids to lead more active lives and supports first lady michelle obama's let's must've initiative and rescuing recess, used to boost recess in elementary

schools. in both cases, we secured industry leading partners to provide the research, whim we provided the events, the creative media, and the national distribution that got the word out to kids, parents, and educators, and decision makers. it's a partnership model that works. we're seen in more than 97 million homes every single day. we look specifically for groups with expert information our audiences and their families need to know. to date, our partners have included many of the country's most renowned organizations. the national pta, the centers for disease control, the robert wood johnson foundation, the national education association, the food and drug administration, and many more. i'm here today to expand those partnerships and to help stop bullying. i'm a dad, two daughters, one in

high school, one in college, and i represent the many parents from cartoon network, turner broadcasting, and time warner, all of whom are very passionate about the needs and concerns that we see and hear firsthand in our own kids' lives, and in the lives of our young viewers. our management is parents of children ranging in children who are infants through college. the issue came about naturally more than a year ago from conversations about our own childhood experiences and of our kids. the idea to do something meaningful with bullying prevention crystallized within these discussions and began to ask ourselves, what would the next steps be? what could we do that would be most effective? it inspired the leadership team to begin the process of

exploring if this was a topic that resinated with kids, so we went to them directly. our research people began asking kids across the country, what was most pressing on their mind? kids told us they realize there was very little they could do themselves to affect the war overseas, or even the economy here at home, and they already knew or at least were aware of what they needed to do to stay healthy and how they could help the environment, but what they really wanted to know is how to deal with bullying in all its forms whether it happened at school, on the bus, on the playground, on social media websites, or on cell phones. they shared that they didn't feel in control, and they wanted some useful tools that they would be able to handle and ultimately prevent bullying.

we had our marching orders. young people do believe they can change the world, and all our kids want is information and inspiration to stop the health crisis that is bullying, and so began the task of researching the issue, seeking out the very best advice and the most trusted partners to guide us in crafting a creative and effective multiplatform program. over the course of many months, we met with a wide range of the country's leading experts on bullying, listening to each of their concerns and priorities. it became clear very quickly that we needed to find a way to give our audiences the confidence and the skills needed to create change whether by direct involvement or by telling someone in authority. these experts each agreed to serve and partner with us as part of our bullying prevention

advisory board ensuring whatever we generate will provide the most useful tools to kids, parents, and educators alike. i'd like to recognize several key individuals with us here today each of whom have given their time to counsel and educated us on the critical issues surrounding butlies and -- bullies. stephanie brim, kevin jennings, assistant secretary of education, office of safe and drug free schools, and robin glass, executive director of project change. [applause] it also gives me particular to introduce our most recent parter, david warren, director of education from the antidefamation league. [applause] with the schools and school

boards, the adl has a long history of social projects helped to provide straining giving students the education to understand that bullying and bigotry have on individual as well as the social fabric of schools. lastly, i'd like to introduce alice connor who has been spearheading our efforts and working closely with our advisory board. [applause] so i've been giving the infamous cue for two minutes, so there's going to be a lot of editing now in my comments, but i'll get through key things. moving ahead, after months of research and discuss, we ultimately laid the foundation and set the specific focus of what will be the first national program to any may jr. kids -- major kids television network

addressing bullying. we have a new initiative aimed at educating the key individual who has the most power to affect change, the bystander. research has shown that 75-85% of students in schools are considered witnesses to bullying making them the single largest group who might be empowered to take action or prevent or reduce the bullying occurrences. in may, we anapped that our -- announced that our program would launch on october 4 in recognition of national prevention bullying month which was championed five years ago by the pacer organization. their director paul is here today. paul, thank you for your leadership. [applause] today i'm pleased to share with you the official name of cartoon network's contribution to the field, stop bullying, speak up. it will focus on encouraging young people to engage and be active as bystanders giving them

confidence and skills to use in difficult situations. finally, as part of turner broadcasting's overall commitment to address these issues with as many audiences as possible, we enlisted the help of our sister network, cnn, covering issues of bullying for some time as you saw in the opening reel. with news gathering resources and the most respected journalists in the industry, cn n has a series of editorial features on bullying this october to provide better understanding and response for victims, bystanders, and parents to help us affect change. in addition to this, to help kick off our ceforts, -- efforts, i'm thrilled to announce one of cnn's most prominent journalist, anderson cooper is serving as the host

and moderator on bullying as part of this initiative, and it will be part of an award winning prime time series, anderson cooper 360. [applause] one important message i want to emphasize to everyone here is that this program is not a short term program for cartoon network. we are committed to investing our considerable leverage of kids on this initiative on a long term basis whether it's on air, online, or throughout in market special events throughout the country. to wrap things up, thank you for welcoming us here today and for allowing my colleagues and i to work with you to address what we all know as a national health crisis. we have learned so much from the experts in this room, and with your help, we will create a useful, engaging content that will truly help our kids make a difference. our goal?

very simple. stop bullying. get those 160,000 kids who are scared to go to school every day back in the classroom. turn that 35% of kids who say they've been cyberbullied into cyberfriends. give our children the chance to learn and grow in communities that support their right to feel and be safe. stop bullying by having us all speak up. thank you, we look forward to working with you. [applause] >> now we're going to hear from mozelle thompson.

>> good afternoon, everyone. >> good afternoon. >> you know, thank you, norris for your kind introduction, and so secretary duncan and assistant secretary jennings for convening this important summit today. you know, i've worked on these issues dealing with cyberbullying, but also some related issues of cyberracism and cyberhate for quite a long time when i was back at the federal trade commission, and

with facebook since 2006, you know, there are a lot of public policy issues that a site like facebook has to deal with because it's out there, and it's growing, but there are few more important issues than the issues that we're talking about today, and it's the important work the company is doing to make the internet safer for young people. today, i'm here to discuss the ways that facebook is confronting bullying, and how it's bringing innovation to this important problem. i'll begin by giving you a little overview, a little bit about the company. how many of you are actually on facebook, any way? oh, it's not just the kids anymore. [laughter] you see, so kids, better check

your friends list. [laughter] then i'll talk about some of the safety tools that facebook has and how it's responding to cyberbullying and it's new partnership with the pta and the commitment to collaborate. you know, facebook recently made two important announcements. it's reached its 6th birthday. it is 6-year-old. amazing, suspect it? it -- isn't it? they also announced there's over 5 million people on facebook. that's larger than the population of u.s., germany, and japan together. now, one of the things that you realize is that facebook is a big community of people, and in some ways, 500 million

individual networks. like in the real word, it's very difficult to protect all the people all of the time, but we also can work together to make the interpret safer -- internet safer, and facebook believes that companies have a responsibility to be as innovative and creative when it comes to safety as it is with other aspects of their business. now, the overall approach to facebook has is its mission is to give people the power to share information and to make the world more openly connected, but a key element to that is creating a safe and comfortable environment so that people have control over what information they share and who they share it with, and for that reason, facebook has always been proactive on safety issues. one example is a facebook

innovation is a use of a real name culture. now, that wasn't always the common wisdom. people thought you might be safer if you are all anonymous, but using real names actually accomplishes a lot. it makes the site unattractive to people who would do bad things because you can find them. it attracts people who will adhere to community rules because it has community policing. you are not there alone, but there with people who know you and can squeal on you if you're doing bad thing, and kids, they do, they do actually skell on you. -- squeal on you. you have technical systems in place to flag and block fake

profiles, and unusual site activity, and we ask teens specific questions that will enable us to get a better response to make sure they are really teens. by the way, did you know that if someone asks a lot of people to be their friends and they say no, that they are likely to be blocked by facebook, and then they can appeal to facebook to get their account reinstated, but we have to determine whether they are a cyberstalker or they are just unlucky. [laughter] now, we respond to cyberbullying with an important reporting structure and train viewers who are there 24/7, and for the most urgent reports whether it's health or safety or bullying or hate speech, we usually respond within 24 hours, and we

prioritize the reports for cyberbullying. now, here is a couple of important things too, and that is that we are a founding member of the stop cyberbullying coalition operated by wire safety, and we've created a safety advisory board with a safety center, and this is really important. there's a new safety standard that you can go to on facebook at facebook.com/safety with resources for parents, teachers, teens, and for law enforcement. i think one of the reasons why we were called here today is to talk about this new program that we announced in june, a partnership with the pta. now, we're still at the early stages, but we expect to have a comprehensive program that will teach people about digital citizenship, and we will include

parents and teachers and students in that endeavor, so that is an indication, just one illustration of our commitment to collaborate because we think the best ideas in this area do not come from just one source: it comes from everybody in this room, parents, teachers, students, law enforcement, and the companies out there who work with you every day, so we're exited about these prospects, and i can tell you the other thing to remember is that this is not just here the people in the america. we are working on these issues around the world. i know personally. i've spent time in the u.k., the eu, in australia, and it's remarkable how similar the issues are, and we're trying to wrestle with this particular problem. like what mr. snyder said, we

need a culture of safety where this kind of behavior is just not tolerated, so on behalf the facebook, i thank you for having me here today. [applause] >> okay. i've just been begin the signal that rewith not unfortunate -- we are not unfortunately going to be able to have a question and answer time for our panel. we have the surgeon general here and i'm going to invite my colleagues from the department of health and human services to come up here and to kick this off and to make the introductions. [applause] let's give another round of applause for our great corporate

citizens here. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. the powerpoint slideses are important to a new session. i am pleased to be here today. i'm from the department of

health and human services, and i'll tell you about my role at the department of health and human services at the end of the panel. i am very pleased to be able to introduce this panel of distinguished leader from our department of health and human services. dr. benjamin. she's had scheduleing conflicts, and she'll open up the remarks, and then she'll move on to the next event for her. she's the 13th surgeon general of the united states and provides the public with the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and the health of the nation. dr. benjamin oversees the operational command of uniformed health offerses who serve --

officers who serve in -- ♪ >> she is the former ceo in alabama at the rural health clinic, and the former associate at the university -- [inaudible] she is chair of the medical board of the united states. she was the first position under aid and first african-american woman to be elected to the american medical association, education, and research fop dation. -- foundation. actually that's the medical board of trustees and education research foundation as the chair of the judicial affairs committee looking at some of the issues that people are struggling with today. she became the president of the medical associations state of

alabama making her the first african-american female president. many firsts. we are thrilled she can be here coming to us with many hon nors and she has been honored by pope benedict the 16th and received the mack arthur intelligence fellowship. she's stay tied to local services and sustaining medical clinics in alabama in a small town serving uninsured residents and struggled through hurricanes and fires and everything under the sun. i know she's reementdly been in -- recently been in louisiana to hear about the needs there. we're thrilled she is here with us today. please welcome dr. benjamin. [applause]

>> good afternoon. thank you so much for letting me come and speak to you for a couple minutes. i want to say thank you to secretary duncan and the department of education for putting this on, but also for the other federal departments that are part of this wonderful initiative. you know, i'd like to especially say hello to our young, i hope you're students, the young people sitting right here and hopefully one of you will become surgeon general one day. i'll hold the seat warm for you. [laughter] [applause] you know, prevention is a foundation of the public health system, and prevention is the foundation of my work as surgeon general, and as surgeon general, my priorities focus on a number of things. my first paper was the jury ongeneral's view of a healthy nation, and we are trying to become healthy and fit.

we have a breast-feeding report coming out soon active in tobacco and particularly smoking with youth. hiv aids is another area, mental health and substance abuse, and another area is violence. the violence in our society, domestic violence, violence in the workplace, and random violence, and particularly interesting for me is youth violence. that's one the first things i wanted to address when i first got this job, and in youth violence, of course, bullying is first, and it's very -- you've heard all day how important it is and how we really need to address it. throughout hhs, we've really started to look at how we can start to address bullying. there are a number of programs, and you're going to hear particularly about with hersa in just a few minutes, but there's 10 centers of excellence.

they try to bring together academic and community resources to staid and create lasting ways to prevent youth vims, and these centers collaborate with youth center, schools, and state and local officials to develop the comprehensive approaches to preventing youth violence. there's a canadian psychology professor who led a study on bullying in 40 crais. she says bullying should be considered a public health problem and guest should adopt national strategies to deal with bullying. a study from queens university involved more than 200,000 children age 11-15 in north america, europe, and israel. it was published in a recent issue of the international journal of health. in that study, estimates compared the prevalence of bullying among adolescents in

the country using standard measures, something that had to not been done before, and countries with antibullying campaigns had the lowest bullying rates. we must trust this as a public health issue because of the long term cost, mental health, the psychological, physical, and academic, and employment and call the crimes and all those things. i agree that there's a growing recognition that bullying does not happen in schools or just in schools, but in communities, recreation centers, on sports team, and in cyberspace. according to the 2009 youth risk behavior survey, one in five u.s. high school students said they had been bullied on a school property. with this in mind, the cbc developed a school health index that allows schools to identify the strengths and weaknesses of

their prevention efforts. the agency is also studying how facilities can be designed to provide an environment reducing violent behaviors and students' fears of afterschool properties. they are funding a project and the researchers from the university of illinois in champaigne are serving 3500 middle school students in 140 classrooms and their teachers over a three year period. they are going to use this data to determine what the risk is and what protective factors can be used and shared or what unique factors as well a bully can be used in the future and other communities, and so those are some of the statistics and the things that we're doing, you know, within hhs, but it's

really important to get down to the community level and get down and show leadership. that's where you guys come in that we can set the policies, make things better for you, but it's going to be one-on-one leadership, and one-on-one looking out for each other that really makes a difference. i'm going to end with a brief little story about a young lady who was jogging along the beach. it was early in the morning, and she was jogging along the beach, and this older gentleman was tossing these star fish in the water. as she ran, she saw him tossing one fish at a time, and when she was finished with her run, she said, well, i can't take it anymore. i need to know. she asked why are you bothering to throw the fish in the water. there are hundreds of them. conges the sun -- as soon as the sun comes up,

they will die. it's not going to make a difference. why do you bother? he looked at her, reached down, picked up a star fish, and said because it will make a difference to this star fish and tossed it into the water. we can make a difference by finding our own star fish one at a time and making a big difference. we hope that, or we know there's so much we can do to help our children live in communities with dignity and without fear, and so herser administrator is going to share some of those things with you and some exciting new programs that we have. thank you. i look forward to working with you. [applause] >> i am very pleased to introduce dr. mary wakefield. for anyone and everyone deal

with questions of the disadvantaged, shortages, education and practice, you will already recognize her as a leader as administrators, health resources and administration. she has a $7.5 billion agency that supports a national network of nearly 8,000 health centers serving 19 million patients, and with new funding, i know there's many challenges to move as quickly as possible to work with the health reform provisions that include supports for those health centers. the ryan white hiv aids program, the 5,000 clinicians, and the national health services for the healthy start program that fight the infant mortality, the national organ and marrow donor programs are all administered by the agency she leads. dr. wakefield brings a rare

combination of experience, urban and rural practice as a nurse, washington policymaking as a chief of staff to two u.s. senators, and her work in academic circles, and her administration of service and research partnerships that target health care infrastructure. i know that she has said that 24/7 is not enough hours in the week to get important things done and move at a fast pace herself and energizing fast pace agency, and i'm thrilled she's able to be here today. [applause] >> thank you very much, martha. it's a pleasure to be with you this afternoon on such an important topic as this one. i would just say, martha, i will help you get back on time as a group. when i left north dakota, they said i speak in a pace that's consistent with the east coast. i'll be moving through my content quickly. i want to say thanks to the

table that allowed me to sit with them. they have tables that are reserved up front for youth, they say they are reserved for youth. i said my birthday is tomorrow, august 12, so tomorrow i will not be young, but today i am, can i join you at your table? if you look around, you see this is a very full room today. they were kind enough to let any join them, but if i came back tomorrow, it would be a different story. thanks for accommodating me. it is a particular to be here today, and i like everyone else want to also recognize the department of education and the assistant deputy secretary, kevin jennings, for his leadership in bringing us all here. one of the operating divisions of the u.s. department of health and human services, we are very excited to be partnering through this effort, and we look forward to others going forward to have

as part of today's activities six different federal departments that are full partners with this particular focus on diminishing and eliminating bullying across the country. we appreciate your and all of our partners' efforts including each of you from the private sector as well as the public sector for taking time out of your schedules to be here today. her -- hrsa's work -- those are not my slides by the way. i'm hitting this, but trying hard not to. [laughter] hrsa's work in this area of focusing on bullying goes back almost 10 years now when the ago started a bullying awareness campaign back in 2001 after we saw very compelling research describing bullying as a public health problem for young people,

and so in response to those data, the public health professionals in hrsa's internal child health bureau believed that the destructive efforts of bullying, the impact of depression, poor school attendance, poor school performance, addiction, and other self-destructive behaviors, those destructive effects of bullying on victims could be contradicted by a broadly designed, well-constructed public health campaign. at hrsa, staff began by inviting researchers, practitioners, adultings, students, and families to develop a message. related to this, i want to pause here and acknowledge the great work and leadership of dr. peter van dyke, the social administrator and stephanie brim

of violation prevention programs and recognize them for their efforts in the stop bullying now campaign, and i also want to recognize and thank you the department of education office for drug free schools and prevention for joining us early on in the development and launch of this campaign. well, you might be interested to know that from the very beginning, again, almost ten years ago now, we had kids' input into this campaign. hrsa came together with a diverse group of children between the age of 9-17 to help design a message to fight bullying. the campaign, designed for children between the ages of 9-13, was named children themselves, and the slogan "take a stand, lend a hand, stop

bullying now." that was their quo. in 2004, this went public when they started the interactive website that remains to this day a reliable and practical source of information for bullying on adults and children, and including lings to the most current research. to give you some idea of its popularity, this website averages over 67,000 visiters a month, and visitors stay for more than 7 minutes. from this, we know the site is an important tool for youngsters, teachers, parents, and care givers to send off the damaging effects of bullying by looking at the site and the materials on it. the staff managed to get the dvd tool kilt to every elementary and middle school and library

across the country. every boys and girls club has the books and tool kits and sent resources to the american academy of pediatrics, and each coordinator. it has grown now where there's 80 organizational partners including the department of agriculture. the department of defense another partner, allowed us to reach overseas since the department of defense television station is worldwide, plays our public service announcements. the state of florida uses materials 20 train school personnel and the national organizations for youth safety coalition members use these resources to train their members. other partners continue to support the work of the campaign by placing articles on the harl done by bullying and ways to

combat it in their news letters, and by distributing campaign materials at meetings, by e-mail, and direct mailings, and promoting activities and web casts and posting antibullying links on their websites. new outreach material highlights the growing problems of cyberbullying another focus in 2011. to anchor the reach, the campaign next year is adding information and resources for children between the ages of 5-8 to bring guidance and resources to them during the earliers of their development. the office of safe and drug free schools is providing funding for these activities, and i thank them too for being in this work. there is clearly much more that we all can do to push out antibullying messages. your the experts here today, and

you're talking about some of the latest and most compelling information out there. this is, we think, the kind of information that needs to be shared widely with those across the country that can make the very best use of it, the guidance counselors, teachers, child care providers, school nurses, and others on the ground relates every single day to our nation's youth. our federal partners on the bullying prevention steering committee from the departments of education, defense, agriculture, justice, and inferior, as well as other health own human services agencies are planning a web cast this fall including some of the presentations given here today. that web cast addresses research and practice and will build input from the invited participants here about future directions and commitments made by each of you. you will be hearing more about that particular event in the upcoming