responsible for planning and directing terrorist attacks against the united states. nevertheless, aqap continues to be al-qaeda's most active affiliate, and it continues to seek the opportunity to strike our homeland. we, therefore, continue to support the government of yemen in its efforts against aqap which is being forced to fight for the territory it needs to plan attacks beyond yemen. ..

and appeal in the eyes of muslims around the world. >> excuse me. would you speak, the united states, what about the hundreds of innocent people we are killing with our drone strikes in pakistan and in the yemen and somalia? i speak on behalf of those innocent victims. they deserve an apology from you, mr. brennan. >> ma'am. >> how many people are you buying to sacrifice? why are you lying to the american people and not saying how many innocents have been killed? >> thank? for expressing your views. there will be a time for questions and answers after the presentation. >> pakistan, killed because he wanted to document the drawn strikes. i speak out on behalf of a 16 year old born in denver killed

in yemen because his father was someone we don't like. i speak out on behalf of the constitution, on behalf of the rule of law. i love the rule of law. i love my country. killing so many innocent people around the world. shame on you. >> thank you. more broadly, the killing of innocents by al qaeda has badly tarnished its appeal and image in the eyes of muslims around the world. even bin laden and his lieutenants knew this. his propagandists admitted that they were now seen as a group that does not hesitate to take people's money by false said detonating mosques and spilling the blood of scores of people. bin laden agreed that a large portion of muslims around the world have lost their trust and al qaeda. so damaged is the image of al

qaeda that bin laden even consider changing his name. one of the reasons, as a .. sentence of, u.s. officials have largely stopped using the phrase the war on terror in the context of not wanting to provoke muslims. simply calling them al qaeda, .. said, reduces the feeling of muslims that we belong to them to which i would add that is because al qaeda does not belong to muslims. al qaeda is the antithesis of the peace dollars and humanity that is the hallmark of a slump. despite the great progress we have made to be a mistake said who believe this thread has passed. al qaeda and its associated forces still have the intent to attack the united states. we have seen loan individuals, including american citizens, often inspired by the murderous ideology of al qaeda, kill innocent americans and seek to disarm. still the damage that has been inflicted on the leadership core in pakistan combined with how. ♪

has alienated itself from so much of the world allows us to look forward. indeed, if the decade before 9/11 was the time of the rise of al qaeda, the decade after 9/11 was the time of its decline to i believe this ticket will be the one that sees its demise this progress is no accident. it is the direct result of intense efforts made over more than a decade across two administrations, across the u.s. government, and in concert with allies and partners. this includes the comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy being directed by president obama, a strategy guide by the president's highest responsibility, to protect the safety and security of the american people. in this fight we are harnessing every element of american power, intelligence, military, diplomatic and development, economic, financial, law enforcement, homeland security, and the power to the power of our values including our commitment to the rule of law.

that is why, for instance, in his first days of office president obama banned the use of enhanced interrogation techniques which are not needed to keep our country safe. staying true to our values also includes upholding the transparency upon which our democracy depends. a few months after taking office the president traveled to the national archives where he discussed how national security required a delicate balance between secrecy and transparency he pledged to share as much information as possible with the american people said that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. he has consistently encouraged those of us on his national security team to be as open and as candid as possible as well. earlier this year attorney-general holder discussed hell counter-terrorism efforts are rooted in and strengthened by adherence to law, including the legal authorities that allows us to pursue members of al qaeda,

including u.s. citizens and to do so using technologically advanced weapons. in addition, j johnson, the general counsel of the department of defense has a just legal basis for our military efforts against al qaeda. stephen preston, general counsel of the cia, as discussed at the agency operates under u.s. law. the speeches build, lectured two years ago by the state department legal adviser who noted the u.s. targeting practices, including legal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war. given these efforts i venture to say that the united states government has never been so open regarding its counter-terrorism policies and their legal justification. still, there continues to be considerable public and legal debate surrounding these technologies and how they are sometimes used in the fight against al qaeda.

no, i want to be very clear. in the course of the war in afghanistan and the fight against al qaeda i think the american people expect us to use advanced technologies. for example, to prevent attacks on u.s. forces and to remove terrorists from the battlefield. we do, and it has saved the lives of our men and woman in uniform. what has clearly captured the attention of many however is a different practice beyond battlefields like afghanistan, identifying specific members of al qaeda and targeting them with legal force, often using aircraft remotely operated by pilots who can be hundreds if not thousands of miles away. this is what i want to focus on today. jack goldsmith, a former assistant attorney general is now a professor at harvard law school captured the situation well. he wrote the government needs a

way to credibly convey to the public that its decisions about who is being targeted, especially when the target is a u.s. citizen are sound. first, the government can and should tell us more about the process by which it reaches its high-value targeting decisions. the more the government tells us about the eyeballs on the issue and the robustness of the process the more credible will be its claims about the accuracy of its determinations and the soundness of its legal ones. of this information can be disclosed in some form without endangering critical intelligence. well, president obama agrees, and that is why i am here today. i stand here as someone who has been involved with our nation's security for more than 30 years. i have a profound appreciation for the truly remarkable capabilities of our counter-terrorism professionals and our relationships with other nations.

we must never compromise that. i will not discuss the sensitive details of any specific operation today. i will not, nor will i ever, publicly divulge sensitive intelligence sources and methods . when that happens our national security is endangered and lives can be lost. at the same time we reject the notion that a discussion of these matters is a step onto a slippery slope that inevitably endangers our national security. too often that here can become an excuse for saying nothing and all which creates avoid that is then filled with myths and falsehoods. that in turn can erode our credibility with the american people and with foreign partners and can undermine the public understanding and support for our effort. in contrast president obama believes that done carefully, deliberately, and responsibly, we can be more transparent and still ensure our national security.

let me say it as simply as i can yes, in full accordance with the law and in order to prevent terrorist attacks in the united states and to save american lives the united states government conducts targets strikes against specific al qaeda terrorists, sometimes using a remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones. i'm here today because president obama has instructed us to be more open with the american people about these efforts. broadly speaking, the debate over strikes targeted at individual members of al qaeda has centered on their legality, ethics, the wisdom of using them, and the standards by which they are approved. with the remainder of my time of like to address each of these in turn. first, these targeted strikes are illegal. attorney-general holder and j johnson have all addressed this

question at length. to briefly recap, as a matter of domestic law the constitution empowers the president to protect the nation from any imminent threat of attack. the authorization for the use of military force passed by congress after the september 11th the tax authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate forces against those nations, organizations, and individuals responsible for 9/11. there is nothing that restricts the use of military force against al qaeda to afghanistan. as a matter of international law the united states is in an armed conflict with al qaeda, the taliban, and a seceded forces in response to the canine attacks, and we may also use force consistent with unhaired right of national defence. there is nothing in international law that bans the

use of remotely piloted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an act and battlefield, at least when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat. second, targeted strikes are ethical. without question the ability to target a specific individual from hundreds or thousands of miles away raises profound questions. here i think it is useful to consider such strikes against the basic principles of the law of work that govern the use of force. targeted strikes conform to the principle of necessity. the requirement that the target have definite military value. in this armed conflict individuals who are part of al qaeda or its associated forces are legitimate military targets. we have the authority to target them with lethal force just as

we target enemy leaders in past conflicts, such as germans and japanese commanders during world war ii. it targeted strikes conform to the principles of distinction, the idea that only military objectives may be intentionally targeted and that civilians are protected from being intentionally targeted. with the unprecedented ability of remotely piloted aircraft to precisely target a military objective while minimizing collateral damage, one could argue that never before has there been a weapon that allows us to distinguish more effectively between 86 terrorist and innocent civilians. targeted strikes conformed to the principle of proportionality , the notion that the anticipated collateral damage cannot be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. by targeting an individual terrorist or small number of terrorists with ordinance that

can be adapted to avoid harming others in the immediate vicinity , it is hard to imagine a tool that can better minimize the risk to civilians than a remotely piloted aircraft. for the same reason targeted strikes conform to the principle of humanity which require us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering. for all these reasons i suggest to you that these targeted strikes against al qaeda terrorists are, indeed, ethical and just. of course, even if the tool is legal and ethical, that does not necessarily make it appropriate or advisable in a given circumstance. this brings me to my next point. targeted strikes are wise. remotely piloted aircraft in particular can be a wise choice because of geography with their ability to fly hundreds of miles over the most treacherous terrain, strike their targets with astonishing precision, and then returned to base.

can be a wise choice because of time when windows of opportunity can close quickly and their just may be only minutes to act. they can be a wise choice because that dramatically reduce the danger to u.s. personnel, even eliminating the danger altogether. yet there are also of wise choice because they dramatically reduced the danger to innocent civilians, especially considered against massive ordinance that can cause injury and death far beyond their intended target. in addition, compared against other options a pilot up reading the aircraft from molly with the benefit of technology and with the safety of distance might actually have a clearer picture of a target and its surroundings, including the presence of innocent civilians. it is this a surgical precision, the ability with laser light focus to eliminate a cancerous tumor called a al qaeda

terrorist, while limiting damage to the tissue around it that makes this counter-terrorism tool so essential. there is another reason that targeted strikes can be a wise choice, the strategic consequences that inevitably come with the use of force. as we have seen, deploying large armies abroad won't always be our best offense. countries typically don't want foreign soldiers in their cities and towns. in fact, large interested military deployments risk playing into. ♪ strategy of trying to draw us into long, costly wars that train as financially, enflame anti-american resentment and inspire the next generation of terrorists. in comparison, there is the precision of targeted strikes. i acknowledge that we as a government along with our foreign partners can and must do a better job of addressing the mistaken belief among some foreign publics that we engage in these strikes casually as if

we are simply unwilling to expose u.s. forces to the dangers faced every day by people in those regions. for as have described today there is absolutely nothing casual about the extraordinary care we take in making the decision to pursue a al qaeda terrorist and the links to which we go to ensure precision and avoid the loss of innocent life. still, there is no more consequential a decision then deciding whether to use lethal force against another human being, even a terrorist dedicated to killing american citizens. so in order to ensure our counter-terrorism operations involving the use of lethal force are legal, ethical, and wise, president obama has demanded that we hold ourselves to the highest possible standards and processes. this reflects his approach to broader questions regarding the use of force. in his speech in oslo accepting the nobel peace prize the

president said that all nations strong and weak alike must adhere to standards that govern the use of force, and he added, where force is necessary we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conflict. even as we confront of dishes adversary that abides by no rules, i believe the united states of america must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. that is what makes this different than those whom we fight. that is a source of our strength . the united states is the first nation to regularly conduct strikes using remotely piloted aircraft in an armed conflict. other nations also possess this technology. many more are seeking it. more will succeed in acquiring it. president obama and those of us on his national security team are very mindful that as our nation uses this technology we

are establishing precedents that other nations may follow. not all of those nations -- and not all of them will be nations that share our interests or the premium we put on protecting human life, including innocent civilians. if we want other nations to use these technologies responsibly, we must use them responsibly. if we want other nations to adhere to high and rigorous standards for their use, then we must do so as well. we cannot expect of others what we will not to ourselves. president obama has therefore demanded that we hold ourselves to the highest standards, that at every step we be as thorough and as deliberate as possible. this leads me to the final point i want to discuss today, the rigorous standards and processes of review to which we hold ourselves to date when considering and authorizing strikes against a specific member of al qaeda outside the hot battlefield of afghanistan.

what i hope to do is to give you a general sense in broad terms of the high bar we require ourselves to me when making these profound decisions today. that includes not only whether a specific member of al qaeda can legally be pursued with the force, but also whether he should be. over time we have work to refine, clarify, and strengthen this process and our standards. we continue to do so. if our counter-terrorism professionals assess, for example, that a suspected member of al qaeda poses such a threat to the united states toward legal action, they may read that individual's name for consideration. the proposal would go through a careful review. as appropriate, will be evaluated by the most senior officials and our government for a decision. first and foremost, the individual must be a legitimate target under the law.

earlier and describe how the use of force against members of al qaeda is authorized under both international and u.s. law, including both the inherent right of national self-defense and the 2001 authorization for use of military force which courts have held extends to those who are part of al qaeda, the @booktv, and associated forces. if after a legal review we determined that the individual is not unlawful target, in the discussion. we are a nation of laws, and we will always act within the bounds of the law. of course, the lot is only establishing the outer limits of the authority in which counter-terrorism professionals can operate. even if we determine that it is lawful to pursue the terrorist in question with lethal force delayed is not necessarily mean that we should. there are, after all, literally thousands of individuals who are part of al qaeda, the taliban,

or a seceded forces. even if it were possible, going after every single one of these individuals with lethal force would not be wise, nor an effective use of our intelligence and counter-terrorism resources. as a result we have to be strategic. even if it is lawful to pursue a specific number of al qaeda we ask ourselves whether that individual's activities rise to a certain threshold for action and whether taking action will, in fact, enhance our security. for example, when considering the of course we ask ourselves with the individual poses a significant threat to u.s. interest. this is absolutely critical and goes to the very essence of why we take this kind of exceptional action. we do not engage in legal action in order to eliminate every single member of al qaeda in the world. most times and as we have done for more than a decade we rely

on cooperation with other countries that are also interested in removing these terrorists with their own capabilities and within their own loss. nor is legal action about punishing terrorists for past crimes. we are not seeking vengeance. rather, we conduct targeted strikes because they are necessary to mitigate an actual ongoing threat, to stop plotz, prevent future attacks, and to save american lives. what do we mean when we say significant threat? i am not referring to some hypothetical threats, the mere possibility that a member of al qaeda might try to attack us at some point in the future. a significant threat might be posed by an individual who is an operational leader of al qaeda are one of its associated forces or perhaps the individual is himself an operative in the midst of actually training for were planning to carry out attacks against u.s. persons and interests.

perhaps the individual possesses unique operational skills that are being a leveraged in a planned attack. the purpose of a strike against a particular individual is to stop him before he can carry out his attack and kill innocents. the purpose is to disrupt his plans in his plots before they come to fruition. in addition, our unqualified preference is still only undertake lethal force when we believe that capturing the individual is not feasible. i have heard it suggested that the obama administration somehow prefers killing al qaeda members rather than capturing them. nothing could be further from the truth. it is our preference to capture suspected terrorists whenever and wherever feasible. for what reason, this allows us together valuable intelligence that we might not be able to obtain any other way. in fact, the members of al qaeda that we or other nations have captured have been one of our

greatest source of the permission of al qaeda, its plans and intentions. once in u.s. custody we often can prosecute them in our federal courts for a reformed military commission, both of which are used for gathering intelligence and preventing future terrorist attacks. you see a preference for capture a member of al shabaab with significant ties to al qaeda. last year we learned that he would be traveling from human to somalia. u.s. forces captured him and route and subsequently judged amid federal court. the reality is that since 2001 such unilateral captures by u.s. forces outside of on battlefields like afghanistan have been exceedingly rare. this is due in part to the fact that in many parts of the world our counter-terrorism partners have been able to capture or kill dangerous individuals themselves. moreover after being subjected to more than a decade of relentless pressure, al qaeda

ranks have dwindled and scattered. these terrorists are skilled at seguin remote inhospitable terrain, places where the united states and our partners simply do not have the ability to arrest or capture. at other times are forces might have the ability to attempt captured but only by putting the lives of our personnel at to greater risk. oftentimes attempting capture could subject civilians to unacceptable risks. there are many reasons why capture might not be feasible in which case of lethal force might be the only remaining option to address the threat, prevent an attack, and save lives. finally when considering lethal force we are mindful that there are important sex and our ability to act unilaterally in foreign territories . we do not use force whenever we want wherever we want. international legal principles, including state sovereignty in the laws of war imposed constraints. the united states of america

respects national sovereignty and international law. those are some of the questions we considered, the high standards we strive to meet. in the end we make a decision, decide whether a particular member of al qaeda warrants being pursued in this manner. given the stakes involved in the consequences of our decision we consider all the intermission available to us carefully and responsibly. we reviewed the most up-to-date intelligence, try on the full range of our intelligence capabilities, and we do -- do with sound intelligence commence , questioning and challenging including any assumptions on which it might be based. if we want to know what we may ask the committee to go back and collect additional intelligence or refine its analysis so that a more informed decision can be made. we listen to the departments and agencies across our national security team. we don't just tear out differing views. we ask for them and encourage them. we discuss, debate, disagree, consider the advantages and

disadvantages of taking action. we also carefully consider the cost of inaction and whether a decision not to carry out a strike could allow a terrorist attack to proceed and potentially kill scores of innocence. nor do we limit ourselves narrowly to counter-terrorism considerations. we consider the broader strategic implications of any action, including what affected any connection might have of malicious tips with other countries. we don't simply make a decision and never revisited again. quite the opposite. over time we refresh the intelligence and continue to consider whether lethal force is still warranted. in some cases such as senior alkyne the leaders who are directing and planning attacks against the united states the individual clearly meets our stand is for taking action. in other cases individuals have not met our standards. indeed there have been numerous occasions where after careful review working on a consensus

basis concluded that lethal force was not justified in a given case. as president obama's counter-terrorism adviser i feel it is important for the american people to know these efforts are overseen with extraordinary care and thoughtfulness. the president addressed -- expects this to address all the questions. his capture not feasible? is a significant threat to u.s. interest? is this really the best option? have we brought to the consequences, especially any unattended once? is this really going to help protect our country from further attacks? is this going to save lives? our commitment to upholding the ethics and efficacy of this counter-terrorism tool continues even after we decide to pursue a specific terrorist in this way. for example, we only authorize a particular operation against a specific individual if we have a high degree of confidence that the individual being targeted is indeed a terrorist.

this is a very high bar. national intelligence sources and methods which i will not discuss. suffice it to say our intelligence community has multiple ways to determine what the high degree of confidence that the individual being targeted is indeed the al qaeda terrace we're seeking. in addition, we only authorize a strike if we have a high degree of confidence that innocent civilians will not be injured or killed, except in the rest of circumstances. the unprecedented advances that we have made in technology provide as greater proximity to target for a longer time, and as a result allow us to better understand what is happening in real time on the ground in ways that were previously impossible. we can be much more discriminating and make more informed judgments about factors that might contribute to collateral damage.

i can tell you today that there have indeed been occasions where we have decided against conducting a strike in order to avoid the injuries or deaths of innocent civilians. this reflects our commitment to doing everything in our power to avoid civilian casualties, even if it means having to come back another day to take out the terrorist as we have done previously. in that would not that these standards for identifying the target and avoiding the loss of innocent -- loss of lives of innocent civilians exceed what is required as a matter of international law on typical battlefields. that is an example of the high standards which we hold ourselves. our commitment to ensuring accuracy and effectiveness continues even after a strike. in the wake of a strike we harness the full range of our intelligence capabilities to assess whether the mission in fact achieved its objective. we try to determine whether there was any collateral damage

including civilian deaths. there is, of course, no such thing as a perfect weapon. remotely piloted aircraft are no exception. as the president and other seven knowledges there have been instances when despite the extraordinary precautions we take civilians have been accidently killed or worse have accidentally been injured or worse killed in these strikes. it is exceedingly rare, but it has happened. when it does it pains this. we regretted deeply. as we do any time innocents are killed in war. when it happens, we take it very, very seriously. we go back and review our actions. we examine our practices, and we constantly work to improve and refine our efforts so that we're doing everything in our power to prevent the loss of innocent life. this too is a reflection of our values as americans.

insuring the ethics and efficacy of these strikes often includes regularly in forming appropriate members of congress and the committees who have oversight of our counter-terrorism programs. in the dark after terrorism programs including the use of lethal force have grown more effective over time because of congressional oversight in our ongoing dialogue with members and staff. this is the seriousness, extraordinary care the president obama and those of us on the national security team bring to this question, whether to pursue lethal force against a terrorist who is plotting to attack her country. when that person is a u.s. citizen we ask ourselves additional questions. attorney general holder has already described the legal authority that clearly allows us to use lethal force against an american citizen who is a senior operational leader of al qaeda. he has discussed the thorough and careful review, including

all relevant constitutional consideration that is to be undertaken by the u.s. government when terming whether the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the united states. to recap, the standards and processes and describe today which we were fined and strengthen over time reflect our commitment to ensuring the individual is a legitimate target under law, determining whether the individual poses a significant threat to u.s. interest, determining that capture is not feasible, be mindful of the important checks and our abilities act unilaterally in foreign territories, having a high degree of confidence, both in the identity of the target and that innocent civilians will not be harmed and, of course, engaging in additional review at the al qaeda terrorist is a u.s. citizen. going forward we will continue to strengthen and refine these standards and processes, looking to institutionalize our approach so that the high standards we set for ourselves in to work overtime, including as an

example for other nations that pursue these capabilities. as the president said, in the conduct of war america must be the standard bearer. this includes our continuing commitment to greater transparency. with that in mind i have made a sincere effort to address some of the main questions that citizens and scholars have raised regarding the use of targeted lethal force against. ♪ i suspect that there are those, perhaps some in this audience, who feel we have not been transparent enough. i suspect there are those inside and outside of government to feel i have been to open. both groups feel a little bit and satisfied i have probably struck the right balance. again, there are some lines recently will not and cannot cross because at times our national security demands secrecy. but we are a democracy. the people are sovereign, and our counter-terrorism tools to not exist in a vacuum.

they are stronger and more sustainable when the american people understand and support them. they are weaker and less sustainable when the american people do not. as a result of my remarks today i hope the american people have a better understanding of this critical tool, why we use it, will we do, how carefully we use it, and why it is absolutely essential to protecting our country in citizens. would just like to close on a personal note, i know that for many people in our government and across the country the issue of targeted strikes raises profound moral questions. it forces us to confront deeply held personal beliefs in our values as a nation. if anyone in government who works in this area tells you they have not struggle with this, then they have not spent much time thinking about it. i know i have and i will continue to struggle with that as long as i remain in counter-terrorism. i am certain of one thing, we are a more. we are a war against a terrorist

organization called al qaeda that has brutally murdered thousands of americans, men, women, and children, as well as thousands of other innocent people around the world. in recent years with the help of a targeted strikes we have turned al qaeda into the shadow of what it once was. they are on the road to destruction. until that finally happens if there are still terrorists in hard to reach places work actively planning attacks against this. if given the chance they will gladly strike again and kill more of our citizens. the president has a constitutional and solemn obligation to do everything in his power to protect the safety and security of the american people. yes, war is hell. it is awful. it involves human beings killing others human beings, sometimes innocents civilians. that is why we despise war.

that is webby want this war against. ♪ to be over as soon as possible and not a moment longer. in the overtime as al qaeda and fades into history and as our partners go stronger, i do hope that the united states would have to rely less on lethal force to keep our country safe. until that happens, as president obama's said here five years ago, if another nation cannot or will not take action we will. it is unfortunate that to save many innocent lives we are sometimes obliged to take lives. the lives of terrorists who seek to murder our fellow citizens. on behalf of president obama and his administration i am here to say to the american people that we will continue to work to safeguard this nation in its citizens responsibly. adhering to a loss and staying true to the values that to finance as americans. thank you very much.

[applause] >> thank you. i hope you can stay a few extra minutes to take questions, and i would just like to make a comment and ask you one question and then turned over to our -- turning over to our audience for questions. please no statements. ask questions. first, your call for greater transparency is certainly appreciated by me. i think that the clearer we can make our policies in the better we can explain them and the more debate we can have in the public square about them more there will be understood and they will persuade the would-be suicide bomber about to strap on the best that their is a better answer. we do have to win the argument in the end with the next generation, not just take out those who can't be rehabilitated in this generation. i see you nodding, so i see you

agree. i also want to say how honored we are that you would make this important speech at the wilson center. there is new material here for those who may have missed it. the fact that the u.s. conducts targeted strikes using drone this has always been something that i as a public official danced around because i knew it had not been officially announced by our governments. i was one of those members of congress briefed and have seen this see that shows how we do these things. i will not comment on specific operations or areas of the world , but i think it is important that our government has a knowledge of this and set as carefully as possible the reasons why we do it, and i want to commend you personally as well as eric holder, j johnson, and "herald," for carefully laying out the legal framework and add that at the wilson center we will continue to debate these issues and see what value we can add free from spin on a non-partisan basis to

helping to articulate even more clearly the reasons why, as you said, war is hell and why, as you said, there is no decision more consequential then deciding to use legal force. thank you very much for making those remarks. my question is this. one thing i don't think you mentioned in that enormously important address was the rise of islamist parties which have been elected in tunisia, egypt, and probably will be elected in turkey in other countries. do you think that having islamists inside the tents in a political sphere also helps diminish the threat of outside groups like al qaeda? >> well, hopefully political pluralism is breaking out in the middle east. we will find in many countries the ability of constituencies to

find political parties. certainly we are very strong advocates of using the political system, a loss to be able to express the views of individual groups within different countries. and so rather than finding expression through violent extremism these groups have the upper genital now as they have never had before a countries like tunisia and egypt, yemen, other places where they can participate meaningfully in the political system, this is going to take some time for these systems to deal to mature sufficiently so that there can be a very robust and democratic system. certainly those individuals who are parties -- who are associated with parties that have a religious basis to them, they can find out the opportunity to be able to participate. >> my second and final question, and i see all of you with your hands about to be raised. please just state the question as i am about to. you just mentioned yemen.

that has been part of your broader portfolio. i know you made many trips. you were a key architect in the deal to get the agreement to the 40 year autocrat to agree to accept community and leave the country and then to be replaced by an elected leader, in this case is vice-president and a restructured government. do you think a human-type solution could work in syria? do you think there is any possibility of getting the family of assyria and structuring a new government and perhaps having russia lead the effort to do that because of its close ties to syria and the fact it is still unfortunately supporting the syrian regime? >> countries are facing different types of circumstances , and they have unique histories. yemen was fortunate that they did have a degree of political pluralism. in fact allowing certain political institutions to develop.

we were fortunate to have a peaceful transition from the previous regime to the government. progress in syria. continued to death of syrian citizens at the hands of the brutal authoritarian government. this is something that needs to stop. the generous community has come together. i would like to be able to see something that will be a will to transition peacefully. the sooner it can be done obviously the more lives were saved. >> six you very much. a identify yourselves and ask a question. the woman's right ahead. just wait for the microphone. >> i am as dollar here and a correspondent for newsweek and the daily beast. he talked a little bit about the struggle that you have in this process of targeted strikes.

general car right talk to me about the question of surrender. that is not really an option when he used a predator drunk. i wonder if you could talk about which kinds of issues that you found most troubling when you think about these? >> one of the considerations that we go through is the feasibility of capture. we would prefer to get these individuals so that they can be captured. working with the local governments will we would like to be a will to do is provide intelligence that they can get the individuals so it does not have to be u.s. forces on the ground in certain areas, but if it is not feasible either because it is too risky from the standpoint of forces with the government does not have the will or ability to do it that we make a determination whether or not the significance or the threat to the person requires us to take action so that we are able to mitigate the threat they pose. these are individuals that could be involved in a very active plot. as -- epaulet to continue it

could result in a tax either in yemen against the u.s. embassy or here in the homeland that could kill dozens if not hundreds of people. so what we always want to do is look at whether or not there is an option to get this person and bring them to justice somehow for intelligence. >> thank you. man in the green shirt. >> the wilson center and the university of missouri. thank you for your comments. i did want to ask about one area where we seem to be less successful, the evidence in now and nigeria seemed to suggest we have been less successful at containing al qaeda. i was wondering if you could talk about your efforts in west africa and also urge you to emphasize the importance of economic development as a weight of strategic importance of economic development and combining terrorism. >> you raised two important points. one is what are we doing in

terms of confronting the terrorist threat that emanates from places like molly in nigeria. then what we need to do further upstream as far as the type of development assistance so that we can build the institutions that will be able to address the needs of the people. nigeria is a particularly dangerous situation. has the link with al qaeda but also al-sabah -- al shabaab. this radical offshoot there really is focused on the u.s. and western interests. and so there is a domestic challenge that he poses to a jury. as we know, there has been more struggle. tensions between the christian and moslem communities. we are trying to work with the nigerian governments as well as other governments to try to give them the capabilities they need to confront the terrorist threat but also the issue of building a political institutions within nigeria's so that they can deal with this not just from a law enforcement or internal security perspective but also to address

those needs that are fueling some of these fires of byron extremism. because of the recent coup we have been trying to work across this hell. address the growing phenomenon of threat, a unique organization because it as a criminal aspects to it. it kidnaps individuals for large ransoms. outraged whenever countries or organizations pay these huge sums to al qaeda whether it be in the sahara war in yemen. they're able to feed their activities. but right now you have the rebellion in the north. that area that basically is such a large expensive territory. that also requires both a balancing of addressing the near term threats that are opposed, but also trying to give the government the ability to build up those institutions, addressed the development needs.

a difference of ethnic and tribal rivalries, so it is a complicated area. i worked very closely with the french and british colleagues as well as others in the region about how there might be some way to address some of these broader african issues that manifest themselves unfortunately in the kidnappings and the piracy in the criminal activities and terrorist attacks. so there is an operational cadence in africa that is concerning in a number of parts of the continent -- content. >> back there, metal. >> another ten minutes. >> hi. the state department. how can we ensure that executive interagency actors when they are undertaking counter-terrorism actions are held to a proper standards and processes as we ask them to act as prosecutors, judges to managers and how we can ensure that their help to

the same standards and processes that evidences? >> well, as i tried to say in my remarks, we are not carrying out these actions to retaliate for past transgressions. we are not the courts. and not trying to determine guilt or innocence and then the counter -- carryout a strike in retaliation. what we are trying to do is prevent the loss of lives. so it is not as though we are sort of judge and jury on their involvement in past activities. we see a thread developing, followed carefully, identify the individuals who are responsible for allowing that plot and plan to go forward, and then we make a determination about whether or not we have a solid intelligence base. this led tried to say. we have standards. the intelligence is brought forward. reevaluate. interagency meetings that a number of us are involved in on an ongoing basis scrutinizing intelligence, determining

whether or not we have a degree of confidence that that person is indeed involved in carrying out this plan to kill americans three if it reaches that level below we do is look at it according to the other standards that i talked about in terms of in a feasibility of capture, determination that we're able to have the intelligence that would give us a high degree of confidence that we can check the individual and find them and be confident that we are taking action against an individual who really is involved in carrying out attacks. if we didn't have to take these actions and greece still had confidence i think everybody would be very pleased. we only decide to take that action if there is no other option available, if there is not the option of capture. local governments will not take action. if we cannot do something that will prevent that attack from taking place. the only available option is taking that individual off the battlefield, and we do it in a way that gives us the confidence that we are not going to in fact

inflicted collateral damage. so it really is a very rigorous system of standards and processes that we go through. >> thank you. in the far back. yes, you. >> i was wondering if you could tell us -- >> identify yourself. >> john harper. the japanese paper. i was wondering if you could tell me how many times of what percentage of the time have proposals to target a specific individual been denied and also if you could address the issue of signature strikes which i guess are not necessarily targeted against specific individuals but people who are engaging in suspicious activities. could you comment on what the criteria is for targeting them? >> and not going to go into how many times instances there have been either approvals are declamations of these recommendations that come

forward. i can tell you that there have been numerous times where individuals that were put forward for consideration for this type of action, it was declined. you make reference to signature strikes that are frequently reported. i was speaking here, specifically about targeted strikes against individuals who are involved. everything we do that is carried out against al qaeda is carried out consistent with the rule of law, the authorization of the use of military force in domestic law. we do it with a similar record, and there are various ways that we can make sure that we are taking the actions that we need to to prevent a terrorist attack. that is the whole purpose of whatever action we use, the tool we use him to prevent an attack and save lives.

i spoke today for the first time openly about what is commonly referred to in the press as drones, remotely piloted aircraft that can give you that type of laser light precision that can excise that terrorists or the threat in a manner that, again, with the metaphor, that will not damage in the surrounding tissue. we are trying to do, al qaeda is a cancer throughout the world that has metastasized in so many different places. when that metastasize tumor becomes lethal and malignant is will we are going to take action that we need to. >> last question will be the woman in the back. >> what about in the country -- >> could you identify yourself. >> what about in a country like pakistan, frequently carried out in the pakistan government has over the last two months

repeatedly protested to the u.s. government about an end to drug strikes. you mentioned that countries can be incapable or unwilling to carry out -- to address militants. >> we have an ongoing dialogue with many countries throughout the world and counter-terrorism programs. some of those countries are involved in very detailed discussions about the appropriate tools to bring to bear. in the case of pakistan, as you point out, the ambassador was there recently. there are ongoing discussions with the government of pakistan about how best to address the terrorist threat that emanates from that area. i will point out that so many pakistanis have been killed by that malignant tumor that is within the southern borders pakistan. many committee brave pakistan said given their lives against these terrorist in notes and organizations. and so as the parliament

recently said in its resolution, pakistan used to rid itself of the foreign militants and foreign terrorists that have taken root inside pakistan. we are committed to working very closely on an ongoing basis with the pakistan governments which include various components, intelligence, security, and various civilian departments and agencies in order to help them address the terrorist threat but also said that they can help us make sure that pakistan and that area near afghanistan is never ever again use as a launching pad for attacks in the united states. >> thank you. let me just conclude by saying that former cia director mike hayden used to use the analogy of a football field, the lines of football field. he talked about our intelligence operatives and others to the players on the field, and he said we need them to get shot on their cleats.

to go right up to the line in carrying out what are approved policies of the united states. if you think about it that way it is really important to have policies that are transparent so that those who are carrying out the mission and those in the united states and those who are trying to understand the mission know where the lines are. if you don't know where the lines are some people will be risk averse. other people will commit excesses', and we have certainly seen a few of those. abel grave comes to mind, black eyes on our country. and so i just want to applaud the fact that john britton has come over here from the white house, spent over an hour with us laying out in great detail what the rules are for something that has been revealed today which is the use of drones in certain operations, targeted operations. the debate will continue. no question.

people in this audience and listening and have different points of view. we know one young woman did during his remarks. but that is why the wilson center is here to offer a platform free of spin and partisan rhetoric to debate these issues thoroughly, and you aren't us by coming here today. thank you very much. [applause] ..

>> first, benjamin bush recalls his childhood in new york and his military service in iraq. then kevin march and mitch weiss detail eastern afghanistan in "no way out: a story of valor in the mountains of afghanistan." and finally, co-author chris kyle looks at his autobiography, "american sniper." booktv is all this week in prime time here on c-span2. well, newt gingrich made it official today, effectively ending his campaign, suspending his presidential campaign. both mitt romney and ron paul have released statements of support. we're going to show you the comments this evening at 8 eastern on c-span. next up here on c-span2, economists give their assessment of the fiscal state of the u.s.

calling on congress to address the debt and deficit. we'll hear remarks from former federal reserve vice chairman alice rivlin as well as house budget committee ranking member chris van hollen. this was part of an all-day forum hosted by the bloomberg summit. this is an hour. >> and with that, we are beginning with the central issue, again, in this presidential election year, the state of the economy, tailwinds and headwinds. my colleague, dan moss, is going to be moderating that panel discussion, and if he and his guests could come up on stage, i'll do a quick introduction, and they'll get this show on the road. first of all, dan is an executive editor of bloomberg news responsible not only for government, but also economics at bloomberg, and we have here, as you can see, two of our panelists, robert engel and michael armellino, director of the volatility institute, the

stern school of business at new york university. he's a nobel laureate, 2003, and, daniel yergin, he's the chairman of cambridge research associates, the author, of course, of "the prize," "also the author of the quest." necessary reading for ceos, conservationists, lawmakers, generals, spies, tech geeks, thriller writers among others. so with that introduction, dan, please, take it away. [laughter] >> well, chairman bernanke's final question at his press conference on wednesday, and, peter, you asked that here we are, the economy has been growing for almost three years, what in the chairman's perspective is the most confounding thing about this recovery? his response was that the most frustrating thing was that the recovery is still quite slow, and unemployment has not dropped

below 8%. so, rob engel, the chairman says he's frustrated, but should he be surprised? >> well, i think we expected this to be a long recovery because financial crises tend to have slow recoveries. in addition, it was hard to imagine how to have a recovery if you can't get the housing market to recover, if your trading partners are weak. we didn't anticipate the european southern debt crisis. that's been a real negative, i think, for the recovery, and i think it's still moving, and that's what's the good news is. >> the fed uses the term "modest to moderate" to describe the current expansion. what has to happen to get us beyond the "modest" part? >> well, i think that we need to take a little, quick lookback at

the great depression. where we had a similar sort of a financial crisis. it lasted years and years, and then in '36 and '37 there was an effort to rebalance the budget to stop the deficit spending, and the economy turned back down again. so i think that we need to keep our eyes on historical events like this and recognize that the need for stimulus in the short run is still with us. the long run austerity that is needed to bring our revenues and expenditures in line is ever more important, but we can't cut the stimulus at this point without turning the economy back down again. >> well, vince reinhart, you've scrutinized the aftermath of

financial crises. should the chairman really be surprised? is. >> not particularly. my wife carmen and i did a paper for the jackson hole symposium about a year and a half ago that was nothing but bad news. but the bottom line is we looked at the 15 most severe financial crises of the second half of the 20th century, and ten years after the crisis the level of gdp per capita is 15% below that predicted by the trend ten years prior to the crisis. so financial be crises have long-lived consequences. we always leave unfinished business. we always have a very pronounced leverage cycle and regulatory overshooting. and the united states has ticked all three boxes. >> can i jump in there, daniel? because i think that regulatory overshooting, it is very interesting as we went into this crisis, it was as though the great depression was not something that happened a long time ago, it was something that happened a few years ago. and went back to lessons. one of them is also about the importance of business

confidence. you go back to that period, '36-'37, if you have a hostile environment to investment and decision making, that has a feedback loop, and i think that's what vince was just referring to, and we shouldn't forget that part of it. >> so here's a question for you, do you know what the top marginal tax rate will be ten months from now or the corporate tax rate or -- >> i'm not going to tell anybody. [laughter] >> okay. >> exactly. >> or for your environmental policy. there's always an option value for waiting in fixed investment, and the option is probably pretty valuable right now. >> yeah. so, vince, you ran the monetary affairs division at the fed. what does the fed do now? >> can i deny that? [laughter] >> chairman bernanke stressed a number of times on wednesday that there are things that are within the fed's realm and things that are not. what would your advice be? >> so the overall message the fed has sent is it's resigned. that is, it's not willing to get

inflation above goal, it's not willing to use its balance sheet much beyond what it's done unless the data materially soften. so it's saying in its forecast, this is the best it can get. that's not particularly good. i think there's probably still scope for balance sheet action that's conditional, contingent on the economic outlook. as long as the fed has a forecast that is materially short of both of its goals, it's got a responsibility to use the size and composition of its balance sheet to provide more policy accommodation. >> so, dan, without the drive toward energy self-sufficiency, how much worse would things be? >> well, i think, you know, i was struck by the title of our session, headwinds and tailwinds. if we look at energy, it's both a headwind and a tailwind. the tailwind is in your question which is the growth of u.s. production. it's up about 20% since 2008, oil production. certainly what we've seen in

natural gas, low natural gas prices help to offset some of the high oil prices. and i think one of the things that's become apart in the last couple of years is this big expansion in our country has very long supply chains and a lot of job implications. so we would have had less jobs, jobs,600,000 jobs created by shale gas, and given the tight oil market we have, we would be looking at much higher oil prices than we're seeing today. >> so let's talk a little bit more about the employment aspect of that. how is the drive toward energy self-sufficiency reshaping the labor market both at a macro level and at a regional level? >> i think it's turned out to be a surprise about how extensive these supply chains are and the job creation that even if you look at offshore oil or you look at what's happening in shale, it creates manufacturing jobs in ohio, it creates i.t. jobs in california and that it, you know, i think that even i think a couple years ago i'd more

focused on energy security, balance of payments and not so much on if you have these rather large dollars being invested here in the united states rather than being in a sovereign wealth fund somewhere else, it has a big impact. it really radiates out into the economy. and i think you can see the shift that has occurred here in the political discussion in washington, and a lot of the discussion about energy is really now a discussion about jobs. >> in terms of the economic data that's been released this year, the section amongst most economists is the year got off to a pretty encouraging start. now, in the last two weeks the narrative has been slowdown. so, rob, are we headed for a repeat of last year where the slowdown became quite substantial as we headed into the summer, and people were talking about double dip? is that on the menu again? >> well, we've had such a big turn around from last summer til, til the sort of the middle of the first quarter as financial market volatility

dropped from, well, the aggregate was 45% down to well below average. but, actually, for the financial sector it was much higher than that last august, and it's come back down again. so we've had a blip up in the last few weeks which corresponds with these new gdp numbers. i don't think this is the beginning of the next high volatility and negative information for the economy, and there are a couple reasons to feel encouraged by these gdp numbers even though they were not up to expectations. they're still robust. and there are some reasons to look inside the numbers to feel encouraged. particularly interesting is the residential construction number which was up 19% from previous quarter, and when you couple

that with the case shiller housing price series which if you read it carefully you can say, well, it looks sort of like the bottom is believable, but the bottom has been reached which might suggest that the housing market actually is a source of recovery. and this getting added to consumer expenditures which have been, were very strong in the data. so if we could get business to come along, and this is the point that you're making, if you get business to come along, maybe this recovery is alive and well. >> vince? >> so do not count out the resilience of a market economy. market economies, basically, want to grow unless they're impeded. but here's the problem, the world's a risky place. there's an ongoing sovereign and banking crisis in europe, there is a risk of elevated energy prices because of events in the middle east, and we face a fiscal cliff on december 31st.

our politicians have dug the equivalent of a five percentage point worth of gdp hole. in a world in which you have such uncertainty, investors reasonably lack conviction. if you don't have conviction, you don't have durable wealth creation. and it's wealth creation that pulls an economy up relative to trend. so in the risky world without conviction, you don't get the wealth creation, so you grow a trend. the bad news is the trend right now is depressed because we went through a severe financial crisis. hence, we grow something in the neighborhood of 2%. can we do better? most surely. but are we, in fact, you know, impeding our own progress? yes, almost surely. >> so accompanying that increasing consumption was a decline in the savings rate. >> uh-huh. >> how significant is that? >> don't think it is. it's mostly about the quarterly

pattern of gdp, basically, there's a whole lot of pent-up demand associate with the the earlier rise in energy prices at the end of '10, 2010 into 2011. we had a lot of purchases of durables late in the year. the saving rate tends to be paid unfairly closely pinned to the wealth income ratio, and that's the bad news. because we destroyed something like one in three-quarters years' worth of income, equivalent of wealth, in what we did to ourself in 2008 and '9. and so as long as we don't get that durable wealth creation, there's going to be a need to save, and if there's a need to save, then consumption isn't the overall contributor to gdp growth. we got some good news, we're a big nation, we're building houses on both of the coasts -- rather, in the middle part of it, middle part of the country. that's a contributor to gdp.

we have a strong external factor, that's a contributor to the gdp. that's going to offset the higher savings rate. >> so let's talk about those energy prices, dan. some of the recent softness in consumer confidence has been attributed to energy prices. where are we going with this? >> i think that a lot -- obviously, it's partly what we're talking about here in the ongoing drama in europe and pa pace the -- what pace the global economy grows and particularly the emerging markets. the other thing is starting in november we entered a new phase with iran over its nuclear weapons. when the u.n. said iran is assembling the elements for a nuclear weapon, a lot of things happened. and our sanctions on iranian, on anybody doing business with the central bank of iran go in at the end of june, but they're already starting to have their impact. last week or two there was this relaxation in negotiations, they're going to have, meet this

month in a neutral city, baghdad, to continue the negotiations. and so, you know, you see israel's kind of debate, so there's kind of, you know, that's taken $7 or $8 out of the oil price because, basically, it's a security premium. it's still high. we're still on a track to tighten, to see the oil market tighten as these sanctions go into place, and then the key question is where is the other supply going to come from. and that will really determine the price. but i think there's no question that oil prices as in 2008, you know, high oil prices are a drag on the economy, and they add to the worries of consumers. they take purchasing power out of the economy, and so i think this is one of your big headwinds. >> so in terms of the macroeconomic impact, it doesn't really matter whether what's driving it now is different from '08, it only matters whether it goes up or down. >> yeah, i think up or down and how much anxiety there is about the future.

and it is, you know, in '08 we were, basically, looking the kind of world discovered the emerging markets really count. that was a sort of fundamental thing. this time it's, it is iran and a tight oil market and, you know, the need for new supplies. >> i mean, it's always worse when it's about supply. if prices are going up because of concerns about supply, that is more material when prices are going up because it's global demand growing. because the demand is an offset. so '08 is a little bit different than -- >> yeah. but, you know, always remember that two months before lehman brothers collapsed, oil prices hit their peak, and who was really hurt the most? people who were paying subprime mortgages. >> let's do another comparison with '08. china was perceived to be one of the big heroes of that period. not just because of their stimulus, but certainly that was a major, perceived to be a major contributor. now we have china slowing.

so what role can china play? >> well, i think one of the things that happened in china is the stimulus got out of control. the stimulus -- >> too much of a good thing. >> which it was too much of a good thing, and it was, actually, turned out to be very difficult to monitor. when, once the spigot is opened at the top, then every municipal government says, okay, this is my opportunity to build the new construction that i want to build, and china has been on a building spree. and there is a mountain of debt that we don't know too much about yet in china, and be there's a question of whether that is, ultimately, going to be a big problem in china is still to be seen. i think the fact that china is able to sit down and make five-year plans and design

policies that are targeted at whatever particular problem they have in mind is actually very promising. i think if we were to come up with five-year plans, it might be kind of a useful exercise. >> five-week plans -- [laughter] >> if you could carry it out. and so, you know, i think there are a variety of things that china can do. they have a big war chest of dollars sitting there, they can throw at this problem. but i think it is a concern. i think -- >> with can i add, i mean, what i call in the quest to build out china is clearly one of the fundamental factors driving the world economy. however, you know, we tend to think that everything is very well organized there, but as we can see this kind of disarray that's going on in terms of the leadership right now, it is a transition point, a very critical point. it only happens once every ten years in china, and that adds kind of to the uncertainty of the whole picture. >> it's a very opaque economy, and the line between the public and the private sector is, at

best, indistinct. good news about that, it means that there's lots of levers of policy. the bad news is that every ten years or so they have to take a hit associated with mistakes you make in terms of allocating capital and credit on such a large scale. it's probably the case that chinese officials would not take that hit in a year of transition, a year in which the global economy is at risk. the problem about china over time is as the middle class gets bigger, as there's more market-related activity in china, it will become less and less a decision of the official community went to take the hit. we don't think they're there yet so that china doesn't grow, doesn't slow. it'll be a continuing contributor to global growth. which is good news because the u.s. is past the trend, and

europe right now is in a shallow recession. >> and one of the undercurrents, not so under this leadership change in china, is that struggle about how much the economy's going to be driven by government, by the party and how much of it is going to be more market-oriented. and we're kind of seeing that play out in front of our eyes. >> we've been talking about debt in the chinese context, but let's talk about the u.s. context. most attention is focused on what happens first tuesday in november, but we're also headed into another debt ceiling episode soon after the next administration, be it the incumbent returning or be it a new president. vince, are any of your clients starting to ask about this? >> so here is the bad news, i think we're mostly going to spend all summer looking at end trade quotes on who's going to be the president, who's going to control the house, who's going to control the senate and multiply that in to what we hear on the weekend talk shows about

what they'll do, actually, if they're in power. and fiscal policy's going to be material: we have dug a five be percentage point hole worth of gdp in 2013 associated with sunsetting the bush tax cuts, lapsing of payroll, unemployment benefits, alternative minimum tax relief, sequestration associated with the budget control act, some tax increases associated with the affordable care act, and i probably left a few out. doc fix, yes, medicare. and the problem is it takes a decision, it takes the lame duck congress and the president to agree to something to avoid that 5% cliff. about the same time, the secretary of treasury will probably have to declare a debt ceiling emergency because they'll be bumping up against the debt ceiling.

and depending on what congress does in the next couple weeks, we may very well have a problem with funding the government in terms of a continuing resolution. so if you think back in august the last time we had a debt ceiling problem, well, it's a debt ceiling problem, it's a funding the government problem, and there's a fiscal cliff. that's a lot of uncertainty. >> rob? >> doesn't sound good to me. but, actually, i feel like -- as an economist i'd say, you know, if i were able to do what needed to be done or someone who's a better economist, a lot of these problems wouldn't be there. so i see these as political issues. there are risks associated with oil prices, there are risks associated with china, but the risks that we're talking about here are made by ourselves. and i think it's a real shame that the political system is not focused more on what's good for the country, but really what's

good for the party. and, you know, this is an across-the-board statement, and i think that the economy is actually going to be hurt by this, by this attitude. >> yeah. so, by the way, and morgan stanley, our forecast is we muddle through. politicians don't -- [inaudible conversations] >> that's the american fate. >> exactly. don't drive into the chasm. european leaders go from summit meeting to summit meeting and don't solve the problem, but they don't make the problem worse and that it was encouraging to hear baghdad's a neutral city, by the way. [laughter] really bad things happen. >> better than the iranians. >> but the general principle is when you're making a forecast, it's the presence of the tale suggesting something about investors -- the tails are so stretched out, you don't get the wealth creation that means your

central tendency is, at best, tend growth. >> and i think as you say it's a political problem, but the political problems are very dominating. as a result of the last four years, our politics have actually become more polarized, less communication, less ability to work across party lines than it was in 2007-2008. >> actually, it was in 1870. we do this count of the party line votes in the house and senate, and we are as polarized in our history as, i think it's 1870 onward in the house -- rather, in the senate and just at the previous peak which was arguing about reconstruction. >> right. >> so we're fighting about, you know, about two extra months on unemployment benefits to the same extent as we were trying to bring the nation back together 104 years ago. >> and we can see in primary season that there's a penalty now for people who were kind of

more bipartisan in primaries and so forth that wasn't necessarily there before. so just reinforcing your point. >> and are there any ways that washington is helping? [laughter] >> give us a minute. [laughter] >> could have been worse. >> next question. >> well, the fed's down the block, right? and the fed has provided extraordinary accommodation. here's the bad news. if you drew up the 15 things that washington could do to help sustain economic expansion, quantitative easing and managing interest rate expectations are number like 14 and 15. but i think everyone appreciates that 1-1 are just not -- 1-14 are just not possible given how polarized our system is. so we put this pressure on our monetary policymakers to do something even if they don't have a particularly effective

instrument. >> dan? >> well, i think there is, you know, a fundamental disagreement that's sharper than it's been in many years about the role of government and what it should be in the economy. and i think that probably that the kind of overhang of debt and everything that we have is kind of so awesome that that's just in itself a dominating political fact. >> well, thank you. my colleague, peter, is indicating there are some questions. >> we have a question that i'd like to put to the panel, not directed to anyone in particular. it comes from ted berry of morgan stanley. how does the fed ignore non-core inflation when it is the driver of the trend? and, dan, why don't you pick whoever should be -- we'll put that one to you first. [laughter] >> oh, yeah. >> so this is an inner house dispute, apparently, and the answer is that the fed cares about core inflation, the fed cares about inflation

expectations, that price stability is something that is in the eye of the beholder. when, you know, changeable prices are not material in the decision making of households and firms, you're at the right place, and they're at the right place now. and so they're going to see through the blips associated with the effects of energy prices. >> i would add one thing not so directly answering the question, but it seems to me we as a global society may need to rethink our hatred of inflation. that the, a little bit of inflation would do a whole lot of good for the u.s. economy, it would certainly do a lot of good for the housing market. a little bit of inflation would do a whole lot of good for europe which would allow the

adjustments of the weaker economies to be more rapid and be more seamless. and i think that our notion of what these inflation targets are should be revised. we haven't had serious inflation in decades. we can, i think we've overdone it. >> daniel yergin, you want the weigh in at all? >> well, i think, one thing that you were saying reflecting on europe, you can see now there are kind of politics or politics of austerity are just buckling under the popular pressure. >> that's right. >> could you imagine if we had 25% unemployment in the united states, what would happen to our fiscal system? >> hard to imagine. >> let me weigh in with a quick question before i hand it back over to dan, and let me put this question, again, to all of our panelists. if i'm ben bernanke right now and it's the question sort of i was lucky enough to put to him at the top of the, at the end of his last news conference, what

is keeping ben bernanke up most at night? what should be worrying him most, and what should he do about it? >> 2% trend, an economy in which wealth creation is impaired. i think you look down the end of the, you know, the street to congress there to say there's a heck of a lot of uncertainties. and if the major risk to economic progress is politicians, it's really hard for an independent central bank to weigh in on that. >> anyone else want to weigh in on that? >> that's kind of the way i feel too. it doesn't seem to me the fed has a lot of effective tools still ready to go, and if i were

ben bernanke, i think i'd be worried that the rest of the government wasn't doing what's needed. >> i guess i'd just add to that certainly worry about the rest of the world, particularly europe. >> on that -- >> we're going to -- sorry, we're going to go over time here, but i really want to come back to something. you talked about rethinking our hatred of inflation. >> right. >> how do we do that? >> well, i think we might talk about the housing market for one thing. i mean, we have all these houses that are underwater. how do we deal with foreclosures? how do we deal with all this misery? well, if we have just a little bit of inflation and house prices went up, all of a sudden they'd be above the mortgages. now, this may be an expensive way to do it, but all the alternatives that have been discussed are so quickly dismissed by one party or

another, that it seems to me inflation might be one of the easiest ways to do it, and if you saw this as a benefit to the way the housing market worked, i think everybody might feel like they were more comfortable with it. >> vince, what do you think? >> so there was a siren song in there, right? .. if it's too much the new windup eroding the controls and making everything worse. here is the problem.

we have not had the conversation. central bankers asserted for reasons of mostly framing inflation around 2 percent, and they said 2% look good. we never had this conversation in the united states about the right inflation goal. and in fact this central bank should not asserted for itself. it should be part of the national dialogue. the election should be about this policy. the election should be about central bank. the elections should actually be important. >> a profound question that they leave us with. >> thank you. >> thank you all very much. appreciate your participation in the panel. thank you. there going to ask you all to make way for our next panelist. they will have a beer and talk about another profound issue. just discussed appear. moving on to the topic of

government spending, revenue, deficit and debt. discussion will be by my colleague judy snyder, team leader for congress and action policy. our panelists taking their seats. first of all, the comptroller general of the united states, had the u.s. a covenant accountability office. we have a senior fellow of economic studies for the brookings institution, a member of the national commission of this responsibility in reform. former vice chair of the federal reserve. she also ran el indio and cbo is well. many hats involved in the budget. and the ranking democrat on the house budget committee. he was also a member of the super committee and so much and smell the involves. take away. >> and its topic. and i will get started. september 31st 2001 and 2003

the tax cuts expire. the estate tax was raised from 35 to 55%. automatic reductions will begin in january. the alternative minimum tax, millions more taxpayers. and as we all know, as we just heard, the u.s. government will probably go out in january. so given all of that and the fact that congress has enough trouble finding $200 billion debt spent a row, with the chances of congress addressed in the so-called fiscal for the end of this year, what are the potential economic and fiscal implications from the budget deficit of congress wedding? >> do you want me to it? all right. the whole problem was gridlock on capitol hill. as to the first part of your question, whether i think this is a reasonable prospect,

revolving some of these major issues before the election, i would say regretfully no. having served on the super committee where we try to resolve a lot of these issues and many of a special recall a balanced approach, a combination of cuts and revenue and we are not successful in achieving that have come, i believe these major issues will have to be dealt with after the election. i say that out of regret. i do think that the cocktail of issues, very combustible cocktail of issues that you mentioned could have a positive action. especially because you have the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. now, very few people that believe we should keep -- allow of those tax cuts to expire. that's about five jillion dollars over ten years. but it does create an opportunity to take what has

been described as a balanced approach, meaning a combination of revenue plus cuts. i'm not suggesting you can revolve -- evolve all those issues. i don't think that's realistic. especially tax reform. but i do think that it provides an opportunity to move forward. and if we don't seize that opportunity i think we're in a world of hurt. >> all right. >> i totally agree with that. i don't think anything will happen before the election. i wish it would. there are people talking across the aisle and trying to say if we get the chance mobile we do, but i don't think that is realistic. this confluence of bad things, many of which were deliberately put in place to be bad things, things that you did not want to happen that would force some action that is more reasonable,

i think that will help. now, they certainly can't put together a grand bargain in six weeks that everybody would sign nonsuit in a lame-duck session. but they could put together a framework that would kick the problem into the next session of congress but not too far. a deadline of six months or something like that which would say we will avoid this catastrophe and give ourselves the time to put together a grand bargain. now, the holdup, when the congressman knows this, he has used a lot of what came out of the two commissions, the super committee, got clothes but did not quite get there. so the pieces are all known. we are not inventing new things. and this could be the chance to do it. now, if congress does not act

then we will have, i think, an economic catastrophe which will force the next congress to do something. if everybody's taxes go up, as you start cutting spending mindlessly across the board amid that will be the wake-up call. but we ought to have the good sense to avoid it. >> i think the action forcing events that you talk about are going to require action sometime before the end of the year. hopefully to achieve the balance of maintaining economic growth, yet developing and lane the groundwork for long-term plans to deal with the federal government's fiscal imbalance which is an unsustainable fiscal path. i think the need to take action on the short term, but we also need a medium-term and long-term plan to set the country on a more fiscally sustainable path. i'm optimistic that congress will rise to the challenge whenever it might be to be able to do that.

>> you mentioned short-term extensions. kicking the can down the road. isn't that what is been happening the last few years? we have seen it in things like the payroll tax that, congress could not agree in december to do it, so they waited until february. short-term extension. raising a lot of short-term extensions, even a routine authorizations. >> a very bad way to run a government. absolutely terrible, but i don't think we have a choice right now if they grand bargain could come together in a lame-duck session that would be better. i just don't think it's feasible , and it is feasible to do a framework which says we're going to do these cuts and things to entitlement programs. will do this. i hope comprehensive across the board tax reform that would give us a simpler and broader based tax system with lower rates and more revenue. that is what we need.

if we put those things in place, congressional committee, you have until to get this done, then there is a chance that you and your colleagues might actually do it. >> no pressure. >> let me to say, i agree with everything that was just said. it's really hard to get it all done in six weeks, especially if tax reform is a part of it. a lot of work has been on tax reform, but a lot remains to be done. at think there's a lot of misunderstanding about to what extent you can lower their rates and expand the base just in terms of what the numbers are, different numbers coming out of different organizations, different analyses. but that is the goal. a very important part of that is to generate some revenue for the

purpose of deficit reduction. if you were to do something that created a structure for the decision making and made sure that you kept a very short fuse on the process, that could be a recipe for success. the danger, of course, as you suggest is that you get to the end of the three month or six month time. i do believe that outside pressures will be great enough to require communal, force action. and as was said, we tried. these efforts are designed to try and force action because the alternatives are worse. >> and they are the law of the land. they happen if you don't do it. >> an action forcing event. >> doesn't allow of this rest on actually who wins in the election in november?

is there an ideal election outcome from the standpoint of the budget deficit? isn't it true that when major deficit reduction packages have passed they have been in divided government? >> well, i do think that it does . and i do believe that the outcome, one outcome will favor a solution more than the other. obviously i'm a democrat breaking member of the budget committee, but i propose to everybody in a non-partisan or bipartisan basis, what constellation of outcomes in the election you think would best lead to a solution to make every bi-partisan improvement, we need a balanced approach. what does that mean? it means that revenue has to be part of the solution. cuts and other reforms the to be part of the solution. i would suggest, running on a platform of a absolutely no

revenue increase, in fact running out of a platform of additional tax cuts which will lose revenue, that makes it very difficult for that candid it to then turn around and enter into a balanced bipartisan deficit reduction agreement. you know, i have seen people turned very quickly on the positions, but i just think that is gymnastics on the budget that is very politically unlikely and therefore if you believe into things, we need an agreement and the belief that the only real likely outcome is a balanced approach, i would challenge people to say how that candidate would do would. how would a republican president who has run on a platform of no new revenue, not 1 penny for deficit reduction, turn around and enter into a balanced agreement? >> i agree with that. i think it is going to be very

interesting if mr. romney wins, to see how he gets out of the box that he is built for itself. no, one way out for republicans in general is to say, well, we've really been to lower rates we didn't mean that we would not raise more revenue, and we believe that the lower rates will raise more revenue. therefore we are willing to broaden the base drastically. now, but republicans have not done yet it is to say how they would broaden the base and to get where, for example, congressman ryan wants to get on taxes or, indeed, where mitt romney wants to get in terms of lowering the rate, you would have to get rid of almost all deductions, exemptions, exclusions. that means the tough stuff that no one must talk about. the home mortgage deduction, the exclusion of employer paid

health benefits, charitable deductions, state and local taxes, you name it. he's a very controversial issues there are ways of putting together a plan that will still protect homeowners but be less generous to those of the top. but nobody has been willing to talk about that on the republican side of the campaign. there is the spade king, if we're going to lower rates and it will all work out. >> but want those things need to be on the table? >> certainly if you're talking about drafting the race, 35 to 25% or 39% where it would otherwise go, you're going to have to do exactly what she said and i think that is my point. when i say tax reform is part of this process, it's very hard to get done in a six week time frame because i think there is going to be great reluctance to make radical changes.

i think there are significant things we can do. i also think there are ways to do it where you're not picking on any one direction or another. you are taking the marty feldstein approach, and i'm not endorsing the specifics of that proposal, but the idea is your not thinking on any one kind of deduction but you are reducing the value of the deductions overall. in order to get from 35% to 25 percent according to tax policies, that's over for a half trillion in revenue. that is on top of the $5 trillion in revenue from the end of the 2001, making up over four and a half trillion by reducing or eliminating some of the tax expenditures, i would suggest, his challenge. we have challenged a republican colleagues. i have not seen how you do that without reducing the progress of the tax cut. that is a challenge we have made, and they have not put

anything on the table that shows us that it would not increase the relative burden on middle income taxpayers. >> an independent nonpartisan, i don't prognosticate on election issues. i prefer -- defer on those issues. i would only say that the size of this problem that the national government faces means that everything really needs to be on the table in order to solve this is some point in time revenues, spending, discretionary, mandatory, it all needs to be addressed in order to come up with a proper solution that is going to put us on a sustainable path. >> the gao has been very good for a long time. >> right. >> and pointing out the cost of a much larger overpopulation and their health care. >> yes. definitely. that is really the two main drivers. that affects state and local

government as well as the federal government. we really have fiscal challenges at all levels of government right now which compounds the problem and really needs to be taken into account as the federal government deals with these issues. there will be important consequences to the state and local sector that need to be factored in from tax reform as well as spending decisions. >> i actually wanted to ask you about that. in april report from gao found the state and local governments continue to face short and long-term fiscal stress. the tax receipts, the municipalities have only recently begun to return to pre recession 2007 levels. with the effects of the 2009 stimulus what can lawmakers and policy makers in washington to about this? >> what makes sense? >> i'll take a stab at that. i'm sure my colleagues will want to as well. let me just go back to the recovery bill, stimulus bill. much maligned by republican

congress. according to the congressional budget office, help save a create up to 4 million jobs. you saw a direct correlation between the end of the stimulus package and increase in public-sector unemployment. of the private sector side of course we have seen positive private-sector job growth for 25 months. on the public sector side light sleep because the recovery bill ended after about two years and begins to tail off, you have seen that continue to be a drag on the economy, which is one of the reasons why the president when he submitted his jobs plan to congress back in september, it had a number of elements including the major infrastructure investment which we still haven't done, which we should. very high unemployment in the construction industry, close to 15%. we have a big need. it seems like a no-brainer, yet we can get that through. another component was to provide some additional relief to state

and local government to prevent the layoffs of our teachers and firefighters and police. a just want to emphasize what i think -- i know the doctor has said in the past. we need to do two things at the same time. they are not contradictory and all. we need to make sure that we sustain a very fragile recovery. at the same time way to put in place a plan to deal with the long-term deficit and drivers of the deficit. we can do both, but some of our colleagues to push for more austerity which would only hurt the economy. and then refuse to take a balanced approach and long-term debt as a reduction. >> i thoroughly agree with that. the biggest drag on the economy right now his continued layoffs at the state and local level. you hear on the bluebird radio,

government employment is going down. that is not the federal government. it is the state and local government laying off teachers and fire fighters and whoever to balance their budget. so we need some counter action to that immediately to keep this recovery going, but it should be in the context of a legislative long run solution to the sustainability of the budget to stabilizing the debt. that has been my theme for a long time. i think we should have been focusing on how these two things are not antithetical. they need to be done at the same time, and we need to do them now. >> i think that the state and localities are already starting to take some action. for example, patient -- pension issue costs are an important component.

they're making some revisions. at think from a national level than is to be a continual monitoring of health care cost as the new reform legislation is implemented as to what the impact will be at the state level as well as the national level because health care costs and changing demographics were really the two main drivers both that the national level and at the state level as well. so i think that's really important command the needs to be sensitivity particularly on tax reform issues, the implications for the state and local tax systems, particularly state and local. >> another gao report found that there was 81 and opportunities to reduce government duplication , achieve cost savings or enhance revenue. an update that shut another 51 areas where programs may be able to achieve greater efficiency. little has been done, not much has happened since the

february 2011 report. with such concern about the deficit and gao, why is it so hard serve bring in efficiencies out of the government? >> you have a lot of experience. >> it is just hard because there may be duplications in programs. there certainly are. but every program has a constituency that it is serving and that believes it should not be cut and the subcommittee that is protecting it. so it is very difficult to do a grand design that says these things should be consolidated. it also doesn't say much money. so the motivation to do it these difficult tinkering in defense or domestic spending, and there is waste in both, is limited because you goes through enormous effort and political cost.

you haven't said much. he. >> i would just say there should be an added incentive for a lot of the federal agencies to make some of the changes that gao has proposed because as part of the budget control act we did put spending caps on discretionary spending which is close to a trillion dollars to over ten years. so that will build greater pressure in the process half those caps are maintained to achieve some of those savings. so those are important recommendations. as pointed out, some of the bay drivers, health care cost. but i still think where there are savings to be made we should, of course, make them. i think the pressure will build. on the discretionary side of the budget under the president's plan it will be reduced to a lower percentage gdp sense any time since the eisenhower administration by the end of that ten year time frame.

>> i am worried that we are squeezing down government too much. it is true that it will be hard to do the consolidations and reductions right, but even if you do that, there are lots of things we need a government to do that will be done worse than if we are squeezing everybody and saying don't modernize the air traffic control system. what? we ought to be modernizing that. we ought to be investing in a whole lot of things that make our government run better for the future. >> a couple of things are important to note. of the 81 areas that you mentioned, about 40 or so of them to with overlap and duplication. the rest for cost savings and revenue enhancement opportunities that have greater consequences if implemented, tens of billions of dollars in savings. and there has been action taken

on about 60 of the 81 areas. only 17 weather has not been any most of those are dealing with the tax gap issue which is now estimated to be 285 billion. so i have seen some encouraging signs. the administration has required all the agencies to address in their budget submissions, the 81 areas your identify and the report. congress is beginning to take action. one notable example is the authorization surface transportation program. we pointed out 100 different programs that developed over the years. consolidation efforts under way. congress is asking a lot of good questions based on the report. hopefully that dialogue and will yield some good results. >> we have been talking. a lot of talk in washington about a grand bargain. spending and taxes, maybe it would occur last year. and opportunity maybe.

a little optimism, not a lot. the super committee was going to be able to find a grand bargain. what would it take to be able to reform taxes, have a tax overhaul and at the same time not have major effects on the deficit? >> well, what will it take to have the grand bargain? well, it is going to take us adopting the kind of framework that has been proposed by the bipartisan commission. simpson bowles, they lay down the pathway that said you have to get here through this combination of increased revenue and some tough cuts including some reforms and modernization. and as we started out the conversation with the action forcing events that we are going to see at the end of this year, i do think that has the

potential for bringing the parties together. you have a lot of political gridlock. it's pretty clear that we have an overwhelming majority, one party that has actually signed a pledge that says they won't allow 1 penny, not 1 penny for an additional tax revenue to go for the purpose of deficit reduction. we have a challenge. at the end of this year by law all those tax cuts would expire, about 5 trillion, just to give you a sense. some symbols suggested about 2 trillion of the 5 trillion go to deficit reduction. so you could see a possibility where you couple that with cuts in a number of areas. reforms and a number of various. you can achieve deficit reduction, but as your question implied, we need to be very careful that in the process we don't hurt the fragile recovery.

i agree that investments that the government makes in the economy to help strengthen our economy, whether it is investment in science and research and the infrastructure or education. >> i agree with that, and that think we may have the forcing events during as in the face in november. and i hope so. the grand bargain has been on some table for quite a long time now. the history of the last couple of years is the history of the opportunities missed. now, i just hope we don't ms. the next one. a piece of the grand bargain has already been done. i think we should be clear. there are always three, maybe four pieces, entitlement reform, tax reform that raises more revenue, and holding the line on discretionary spending. we have done that. that was in the budget control act that cap spending and saved

as the congressman said earlier, a trillion dollars over ten years. we don't need to go back to that and cut discretionary spending more. we need to solve the other to pieces and a final peace which is how you keep the economy going well you phase-in these long run deficit reduction measures. and i think there are lots of ways of doing that, but we need -- you should pardon the expression -- stimulus up front, particularly directed to easing the pain of state and local governments. >> one last question before we run out of time. you talk about the balanced approach of some symbols. on the commission. aversion made it to the house floor. a few weeks back 38 votes and all to read what encouragement should this audience take away from that? >> well, as those of us who have really dealt in simpson bowles

no and as i mentioned in "usa today" editorial in response, there was a huge difference which we will was proposed in the house and simpson bowles. it goes to this argument rehabing on baseline issues which is an arcane but important debate because the proposal on the floor of the house was about $1 trillion in revenue short of what simpson bowles proposed. some symbols as a starting point in the sense that we would achieve the revenue that we would gain him if the tax rate high on the top 2 percent went back to 39 percent, where it was during the clinton years. that is now about a chilean dollars in revenue over the next in years. ..

we have an obligation to come up with and alternative so i support the framework there, and the proposal on the house just was $1 trillion of revenue over simpson-bowles. that is a pretty big difference. >> listen, thank you all for participating on the a panel. great discussion. we are going to move on to who our next panel again thank you very much, dr. rivlin and mr. van hollen.

>> this week on q&a, our guest is the president of southern methodist university, r. gerald turner. the university will be the site of the george w. bush presidential library scheduled to open in 2013. c-span: dr. gerald turner, president of southern methodist university, is it true you have not spoken the truth shall set you free? >> guest: that was the motto that was identified that accompanied the opening of the school when it was founded in 1911 and opened in 1915 so that is the motto. c-span: what does it mean today to you? >> guest: i think it means to all of us the truth will set you free. that means the basic goal of institution is to try to find truth whether that is in our research efforts in teaching or in the human experiences or whatever. of course ultimately the goal is to find what is really there.

c-span: what is the toughest part of being a president today and what is the best part of being the president? >> guest: the toughest part of being a president, i tell people when they say what is your job description? i say it's a coordination of incompatible forces, and truthfully that pretty much is the case. if you're in business you have got one basic goal and that is to increase shareholder value and make a quarter to quarter and so on. you can be pretty focused about it whereas here we have so many goals. the truth shall set you free, you have to sponsor of research and you've got to sponsor recruitment of the best units you can get and comment and learn what we do know, past and present and the future. the constituencies you have sometimes have truly incompatible goals to the institution and you kind of have to plow through trying to get as much support as possible from those constituencies toward a

vision and toward an image that there are different ways of approaching things it can align behind and energize. so the complexity of the university presidents job i think is something that wears a lot of people out. it either wears you out or you are energized by it and to me, that is what makes the job exciting, because no two days are the same menu of got to keep ahead of the pack to some extent. so the variety of it is -- and the complexity of it i think is what makes it difficult. all of those things make it difficult but they also make it enjoyable. c-span: how many students? >> guest: we have about 11,000 students total. we keep the undergraduate enrollment at 6200, very stable and 4800 are professional and graduate and i think it varies somewhat. we have 1400 first-year students a year and 300 transfers so that

will be stable. the undergraduates, our goal is for have to be from texas and half of them from out of state. that half the comes from out of state, california is always first, florida second florida's second and eleanor is usually third. then georgia, tennessee and missouri is always in there, connecticut is in there and so the top 10 states don't vary a whole lot but it's a zero-sum game so california goes up and someone else goes down. c-span: the southern methodist university, how important today is the method as part? >> well the methodist heritage we have we put in our statement. the only person on campus that has to be methodist is the dean, and my predecessor was catholic. there is a lot of variation here and there are a lot of people that are not christian that are on the faculty or in the student body and the staff too. i think it gives us a set of values and a set of directions

and one of the things i like the most about it is that it is still a place where all variations and approaches toward the truth are viable. so the spiritual convention alliance and still has its place in conversation. it's just that it's not mandatory or it's not foisted on anyone but it's just a part of the dialogue here. in a very real way i think it has the tradition of open inquiry, academic freedom and so on. the spiritual dimension of our existence is still something that can be discussed that really gives a much broader perspective and is purely secular but strongly religious and not tolerant throughout the continuum. c-span: if i read it right, you started in like a community college or a small, where you got an associate degree? explain that because today with the expensive college so many people are starting with a

community college. where did you start? >> guest: well i actually got farmed out. i was from a small town, new boston where you played every sport. c-span: texas? >> guest: in northeast texas up by texarkana. if you are good at all there were opportunities for you and i actually grew up reading the "dallas morning news" and hoping i could play -- i loved basketball more than any other and i played football. i wanted to play here but it wasn't that good so abilene christian was recruiting me and talking with me and they had a very good point guard and a little town. i had been a forward so they decided i need to become a guard. so they literally said why don't you go to the two-year school at christian college which frankly i didn't know existed at the time. at go up there and we will bring it back here after you graduate. i literally went up there to play basketball and tore up my

knee in my sophomore year to where i couldn't continue on it but i went back to abilene on an academic scholarship because i had maintained that focus throughout it all. c-span: where did you go next? >> guest: after abilene i went to ut austin and got my masters and ph.d. but the fact that i have an aa degree, i like to note and whenever we are recruiting community college is because that is 300 transfers students, 160 to 170 of them are local. they are older than our traditional students. i think they just add a lot to our upper division classes so when i got here, we set up a number of articulation agreements with the local community colleges and we created a scholarship program where we get 10 full tuition scholarships to the local dallas county and college -- community college is so there's a lot of competition for those. it helped solidify the

opportunity. people in this part of the world know the value of an su education and they are learning it over the country. those 10 spots are important and they are important to me because i know i can communicate to the students that they are welcome here and i do know some of the transfer issues they might have. they will be welcome. c-span: you have a ph.d. from ut austin? in psychology. where did you get your interest in psychology and how did you use it during your academic career? >> guest: i was majoring in math and looking for something to put it with because i never wanted to teach in a college or university. my parents were teachers in the public schools and so in every way i'm in the family business. i just started taking psychology courses and it made a lot of sense, particularly when you saw how most of the conclusions where. i ended up having 30 hours of

college and 30 hours of method mike graduate degree, i take 18 hours of graduate statistics and ended up teaching more than psychology. it was just an interest in a way i could utilize another ability i knew i had in an atlas and mathematics. c-span: what is the difference difference -- to what year did you get out of your undergrad? >> guest: undergrad and 68. c-span: what is the difference for a person going to college and 68 or graduating then today? >> guest: the competition is a lot stiffer in terms of admissions and getting and graduate programs in various things like that. the cost obviously are greater than they were because state schools were really supplying the predominance of the operational funds for state colleges and universities. and i think there was a greater hunger for the college graduate. there weren't as many of them out there as there are now on a proportional basis.

i think it's like everything else, it's harder to be a young person today than it was then. you have more things diverting it. of you have more drug and alcohol pressures on you than then we had growing up. to have a few beers when we were growing up was the main thing whereas now the plethora of options that are pushed in these kids is just enormous. i think it was easier growing up when i was growing up than it is now. c-span: if we sell you at a meeting with your staff talking about drug and alcohol problems, what kind of things would you be talking about? >> guest: well we talk about them all the time. we had a task force on drug and alcohol abuse prevention. it's been a year and came out in 2008 and implement of things. that would be working with local bars on trying to make them utilize our i.d. set so they know if they are underage.

at any kid can prove he is 21 with his fake i.d.. and working with the students to try to help identify how is it that we can encourage the tip of these that are alcohol-free and how do you teach the 21-year-old and above responsible drinking and various things like that. one of our disciplinary programs regarding drugs. we have a big counseling center here to try to help students at yet you have got to be pretty intolerant of those, because you can catch on and one thing leads to another and so on. every campus in this country is deeply concerned about alcohol and drug abuse. sum of it is created on our campuses but it's amazing how many kids bring problems to you. you see all the surveys about much of you abuse starting in junior high and those kinds of things. so the challenges to us are

enormous and i think that is not only one of the major challenges facing higher ed in this country would also facing our country. and that is how we maintain our healthy lifestyle and get kids to have the strength in the and the judgment to say no and to use those things that are legal with moderation. c-span: what is worse for you, the drugs are the alcohol? >> guest: the drugs are worse. in terms of just how damaging their effects would be. alcohol is more pervasive obviously, but kids once they get hooked on cocaine or any of the other kinds of really addictive drugs, really have a hard time. fortunately we don't have as much of that as a lot of places do but we have a lot more than we want to experience. that's for sure. c-span: you started out where after you got your ph.d.? >> guest: i started out at pepperdine in malibu. c-span: that is a religious

connection school? >> guest: it has historical basis in the church of christ but it has been pretty open and even more so historically been now but still it has that religious tradition that was similar. it's in the family of schools. rakove and where? >> guest: than to oklahoma. i was at pepperdine for four years and then i went to oklahoma. the president at pepperdine went to oklahoma and hired me to be his chief of staff executive assistant and vice president for executive affairs and a term as interim provost. that i served there for five years and went to old miss. c-span: how long were you at ole miss? >> guest: five years. c-span: what is the big difference? what are the two institutions, how do they differ? >> guest: when i moved back here, had a lot of people ask me what is the difference and i told them two-thirds to

three-quarters are the same. you are still hiring the best faculty you can bet the 25% one third that is different is really refreshing. i felt like i had been repotted so to say and you know there's a pressure to bring in the money but there was always this fighting back and forth in competition with other institutions in ways that made it difficult and i just very much like having the ability to say we are private institution and we don't do that or we basically want to go in this direction and if we get approval and someone to fund that you can bring it about. when we want to add a program, but say a company and this has happened over and over. a company will say, we need to have our employees have access to a program in x, y and z.

we can basically go to the engineering program and they can develop a program like that and get it off the blocks within six to eight months. wears a state school would require about two years. oftentimes the local state schools will add that on but we will have arctic andre cohort to get it started. businesses find that is very helpful and i just like that response. c-span: when you walk around this campus you see a brand-new football stadium, a brand-new art center. you see the name of a lot of different people on the school, and i gather that it's money. why do people give lots of money and if you can say, what is the biggest contributor you have ever had? >> guest: well i think people give to higher education because they want to be proactive, and

they want to do something that lasts. if you really look at it, it in human society the two things that have endured our universities and churches. i mean, you look at government, the turnover and so on. there is a lifecycle for many, but the universities are a thousand years old and the churches are older than that. not only churches that religious institutions. those are at the core of the think human expression and you feel that if you are giving to a university that you are helping younger people and you are ensuring the best of civilization. people often have very strong ties to a piece of ground that they went to school on. the buildings that they were on and so on. we have the tremendous dedication as you can imagine to the campus is beautiful as this one is. people really get tied to and want to be a part of it. but in our last campaign, 40% of the donors were not alum.

they were people who believed in the university and believed in what its role is in this part of the world and so on and wanted to be a part of it. so as a result they have helped. frankly, i push very much, people putting their names on things because if you are an alumni and are not willing to put their name out on the institution with you, then you know what do you say about that? a lot of people want to be anonymous and i can understand that but it's affirming to a university when one of its stellar alums will put their name forward and endow a scholarship or build a building or help to build a building. so all of that kind of works together because a private school really is the sum of its alumni and supporters. if it ever loses credibility with those groups of people, there is no reason for it to excess. c-span: what is your biggest contributor?

who is? >> guest: the biggest numbers are in the 50 million range and so on. some go up toward 70 and total overtime. we have not had a 100 million-dollar donor but i'm certainly looking for that and anybody listening i would love them to be the first. c-span: can people give to this university and anonymously? >> guest: yes, sure. c-span: but you don't have to divulge where the money comes from. >> guest: we have a number of chairs and sometimes that person will designate someone whose name might be on that. we had a donner designate a faculty member that was retiring. he honored that faculty member at the chair because that faculty members met so much to him. there are all kinds of ways to do it, but it's always nice that someone will sign on with you and say we are in this together. c-span: over what, 1.3 billion?

>> guest: it was a 1.4 billion before the recession hit and we lost a quarter but now it's coming back. we are in the 53, really in the 50s in terms of size of endowment or to our endowment -- to s. india didn't get into raising money until the 70s. is a matter of building the campus and various things like that so our endowment was $70 million. so it is new which means it is restricting people and in the late 60's started restricting their gifts that were going to go to business. to scholarships or whatever. before that time, the older endowments like harvard and mostly i.v., they had huge parts of it they were unrestricted so they could decide to put it in scholarships or build buildings or renovate buildings where a school like us, endowment, very little is unrestricted. c-span: as you know we did a

program is george w. bush sitting in the chair and did reason i bring that up is laura bush is on your board? his minister for years is on your board? ray hunt the famous, i don't know where he hunts but the famous texas name. [inaudible] >> guest: sarah perot is an alumni. c-span: who is she married to? >> guest: she was married to ross perot jr.. he went to vanderbilt but he had been on our board. sarah is in the alumni so we are very pleased to have them a part of the university family. c-span: how big is your board? >> guest: our board is 42. it has a number of ex-officio numbers -- members. we have the voting students, an alumnus and we have three bishops of the united methodist church on the board. so it turns over more or less

every four years people have to be reaffirmed. there is a term limit of three, four year terms. that can there can be exceptions but by and large 42 is a good-sized. it's obviously has to not only govern the university but encourage others to be part of the university. c-span: go back to the first moment you thought about getting george w. bush to bring his library and his museum here to this campus. >> guest: the first time we set it in action, when he started running, but we didn't do anything at all until after the florida vote. after that vote, i walked into vice president for executive affairs the position i had in oklahoma and his name was tom berry. i said dr. very what do you know about a presidential library? he said i don't know anything about presidential library.

i said wrong answer, you are going to become an expert so he had been to most of them. we put together a committee and started working toward it and it was a very tense, competitive situation because there were a lot of institutions and cities that had claims that they could make also for why should be there. c-span: from outside of the dallas area i noticed just reading about it, the bush library on the campus, it appeared to have a lot of academics negative reaction to it. >> guest: there was a group of faculty that did have concerns about it. i told people who were very supportive that this is a university after on anything important is going to have a lot of dialogue and debate. so we did at the faculty as a whole were always behind it. but nevertheless, there were some legitimate questions that faculty members head and over that period of time we address them. we started our effort in 2001

and the planning part of it, and then in 2008, when we were basically identified as a recipient, that lets time for different things to be brought up and debated and so on. as a result, you have differences of opinion, but i think most of them were resolved and i think the campus as a whole is delighted to have the bush library center over there. c-span: if my sent -- members is me right -- there were others like that. i have heard of conservative saying this is nothing more than left-wing academics who don't want anything from the right or george bush on any campus. what would you say to that? >> guest: i think on university campuses the data shows that particularly in the humanities and social sciences you probably have more leaning to the left then to the right but issues that have to do with

the direction of the university are the appropriate purview of faculty. they need to talk about them and having different points of view on the campus ultimately, you shall know the truth, the ideas is is there a different direction store trying to understand what is ultimately the truth so you need different points of view. people would ask, why was i so convinced this was the right thing for the university? a large part of that conviction not only came from conversations with the president and people around him about what they wanted, but when i was in graduate school in austin, they announced they lbj layer -- lbj library library would be there. there were demonstrations against that because this was the late 60's and early 70s. and now, if you try to remove the lbj library from austin you would have demonstrations and so on. that experience really taught me that the value of presidential

library, if it has something that goes forward and it is not just a mausoleum more or less, that is something that moves forward like the lbj school school will and the institute here well, then they are worth working for. it was really a tough time in austin when that was announced, and so there were also a number of faculty here who were in graduate school at the same time i was. they could verify that was the case. so that made me feel like that it was set up appropriately. it would have a continuing value to the university and the greater dallas and north texas area over time. now there is a constellation of presidential libraries here with clinton and this one, bush 41 and lbj within driving distance of each other. c-span: this will be the 13th presidential library? how much money did you have to

race for this project? >> guest: there wasn't any set amount at part of our proposal it would be important for those advising the president to know there was a lot of support. we had had 20 individuals who said they would give at least a million dollars of the came here. i had been a part of the fundraising effort and so i can assure you that those associated with smu have given more than 20 million. we have not divided it up that way. i can just tell you it's a significant part of the contributions but also the contributions come from all over the country. i mean literally coast-to-coast. not only did smu people contribute to it but a lot of people who have never given anything to smu are helping build something here on the smu campus. c-span: once that opens in 2013, how much of it do you own and how much of it does the bush library, or the foundation on?

>> guest: the foundation owns the facility and so it's really a working arrangement between the university, the bush foundation and nora and dora will run the library and museum and the bush foundation will run the institute of general operations of its facilities. we have least than the land and so we are going to have a lot of joint programs with the institute and with the library. we will have a lot of student interns, students working there but we also want to have some what we call concurrent fellow appointments, people who have appointments in the bush institute. the faculty of a particular department at school have voted for them to have an appointment in the university also. i think those things going back and forth during programming all can help invigorate a number of areas in the university and certainly add to the dynamism of the library center. c-span: go back earlier to 1995

when you came here. why did you leave old mystic come to smu? >> guest: >> guest: as i mentioned at the beginning i had always had a sense i would like to be at smu and i had four sets of uncle's in dallas. dallas always been an awful lot to me. i came there quite a bit growing up. and so when the opportunity presented itself, then it was very much of interest to me and smu was at a point in time that i felt like what they needed. ken was a friend of mine and my predecessor and i knew what what what he had done to stabilize the institution and basically create a great foundation. he didn't enjoy the external aspect of the presidency and that is the part i really do enjoy, although the daily work of running an institution is always there. still i enjoy getting out and trying to make people believe in the vision and want to be a part

of it. c-span: you serve on a number of corporate boards. you also are co-chairman of the -- are you still involved in the ncaa? >> guest: not directly with them. i am on the board of a ce and higher education groups that may quarterly. c-span: go back to the knight commission. what is that? >> guest: the knight commission was set up to try to address some of the major problems facing athletics in 1989. i went on in 90 and have been with it ever since. it basically surrounds the idea that as a part of the campus community intercollegiate athletics should play its proper role and even then there was the concern that academics weren't being emphasized enough, issues

of student welfare and the financing of it and so on that there was a beginning of commercialism that now is just rampant throughout it. and their need to be some voice outside the ncaa basically trying to a jet address these things with no authority. only the bully pulpit if we ever had it. every time that we would go dormant for a while, issues and the demand of our colleagues kind of ring is back into operation. so it is, it's just one of those things you do because we have the unusual circumstance of having athletic to grams associated with their universities. here we are built on the german model and so on and one and that did not occur. when the first yacht races started, that got everything underway. c-span: so what did you take to the knight commission and what are the kinds of things you might have had something to say about in a different documents that they released? >> guest: well the first one

is called the three plus one model. the presidential control and service to academics, fidelity, certification and financial fidelity. and so, the whole issue back at that time was two presidents have the authority to run the program because trustees often would simply take over the athletic program. there were a lot of private foundations or associations that raised all the money and were not a part of the university. so athletics was really operating on a parallel track in some ways. so the effort was if they were going to represent the university they ought to be a part of the university. so that has been the effort and i cheered when certification was passed and that is an effort to try to have peers, and review the operation of the athletic program just like they do your academic student affairs and

financial colleges and schools for example in this area of the country. that there would be a certification every so often of athletic or row grants to try to bring more light into how things were operating and try to build some trust across institutions and conferences. so we pass that on the knight commission and the ncaa asked me if i would share the creation of it so it was one of those things, be careful what you asked for, you may get it. for five years we worked for a year, really two years creating certification on a blank sheet of paper and then i chair the first iteration of all 306 schools i believe it was an individual wants at that time. in between that time and now, it's just been efforts toward academic reform. i feel very good about the fact that now student athletes are required in high school to take a set of courses that gives them a realistic chance to get a college degree. now the high schools certainly have to furnish real courses for

that before the learning standards and kids were riding on colleges without a chance of getting a college degree at a euro university. i think there've been a lot of things that really have been for the benefit of the student athlete but i think the rampant commercialism that is the infatuation of american sports and the fact that basically television network, cable and so on view it just is a product and increases the demand. that is one of the great challenges facing our education right now. c-span: as you know you have been criticized for the money you have spent on football. you tell me, don't know where your knowledge is but a public institution may get as much as a million dollars a year? >> guest: if you take everything together that it would be about accurate. they are running up now to four or five. we basically did an analysis

with a group of individuals on the board of trustees and the amount of money we were losing per year, having programs that weren't competitive, one and 11, two and 10, whatever. why didn't we try to get someone because each year, each time we had an assistant hope that assistant can move up to the met -- next level to be the head coach. basically you find it can be writes some and the wrong a lot. so we decided to hire ones that had some experience under his belt and some success and the board, that group of individuals on the board agreed to furnish that outside of what they normally do, to give it a try, to see if overtime ticket sales and those kinds of things would make up the difference. during this last three years when this experiment had been going on, the operational deficit of the athletic program has gone down over $3 million

during a period of time and hopefully we will continue to trend down. so far it worked out like we expect it. c-span: as you know many colleges and universities, the coach of the football team make significantly more money than the president of the school. is that a common trend? >> guest: i think it reflects the market and i think you can find in medical schools who will find their faculty members there in the professional plan that make multiples of what the president of the institution makes also. as athletics gets more commercialized and it reflects more of the market, i think that continues in basketball and football. so far, the other sports haven't really come up to that level but you see signs of it in baseball now and you wonder how long it will be before you start seeing huge salaries in baseball because more and more tv contracts for college baseball games are being signed. i don't have a baseball team but

nonetheless that's something the president are beginning to discuss a lot. c-span: what was your experience on the knight commission as to how many colleges and universities would make money on that and how many would lose money? >> guest: in the last five years, there are 120 football subdivisions in division i a, 120 of those. seven have broken even or made money in each of the last five years. last year, 2009, 14 broke even or made money. and what you see is a very small number of schools really driving everyone, and in their conferences and even in what we call the a few conference, automatic qualifying conference you see very few schools are driving the rest and many in the same conferences are having a hard time keeping up. i don't know where all of this

is headed but i do know it's taking more time because -- been presidents want to spend on it and the emphasis within academic communities particularly and alumni and friends and interest in athletics doesn't seem to be waning. c-span: when he said in your office and do your job, how often do you just go, i can't believe, i am squeezed between the alum that wants a football team in the academics who could care less and all that? what is the worst part of that situation? >> guest: i think every president knows there is a vice. it comes from a lot of different directions and it is an important aspect of the job in terms of being able to again, moderate those incompatible forces and coordinate them in a way that are constructive. i am fortunate here at smu that there are many many people that

are supportive of the institution and are building the academic program and giving scholarships and so on that don't care that much about the athletic program and there are people who do care about it and there are some that care about most. the ideas to idea is to keep all three groups supportive so the total institution goes forward. if you look at the buildings and the increase in average s.a.t.'s in research and all that we have been able to do that. c-span: on the personal side to you have a daughter that is soprano? >> guest: i have a daughter that is the soprano and a daughter that is an actress. c-span: how does that happen? >> guest: that is a debate that gail and i constantly have. where did those genes come from? our daughter angela is an opera singer, soprano and is a very good one and i have in my family some musical talent. i have a cousin that was an

opera singer and other second play various things. gail's mother has musical talent and we think it's is all aligned vocally behind her. our daughter that really does a lot of stage acting, some movies but mainly she likes to be on the stage, she has been on stage most of her life. she was the younger daughter and i became the chancellor of ole miss when she was seven so she has been in a fishbowl and various things like that. both of them are very talented and we are very proud of them. some of our great joys are watching them perform. c-span: is there any part of this job you don't like? >> guest: there are parts of it that i would rather do than others, but as a whole everyday i am ready to get to work. every day i enjoy being a part of it and it's not like a job really. is a way of life because it seven days a week.

you are -- i'm always the president and if i go out, you see people in various things like that. one time my younger daughter when she was eight or nine, gale said where are we going on vacation this year? her first statement was, let's go someplace where no one knows daddy. so you know it's always there. you do need a break from it but if you are not energized by it than you were in the wrong business. there is no one particular thing that i dislike that colors the whole job in a way that i don't get up every morning ready to go into it. c-span: how should one determine whether they should have a college degree? >> guest: if a person has a skilled that is at a high level or they believe it will be at a high level, and that can be both

in electronics or it could be in carpentry or it can be in painting or various other kinds of things. i think education is always there to augment whatever skills one has. but i do think that there are other kinds of things in which a person could make a very good living and not go to a college or university. but they will have, unless they read a lot, they will miss really the richness of the human experience, both present and in the past. i think the ability to deal with the vicissitudes of life were increased by going to college because you get different perspectives. as harry truman said there is nothing new under the sun, only history -- and that is just exaggeration but there are still some truth to that. i don't think college is necessary for everyone by any means but i do think for most

people that want a greater sense of the world around them and the ability to deal with business, engineering and those kinds of things, that you really have to go to college. for others, we need to find ways that they can make a good living that doesn't put them in the college student where their lack of interest or preparation will lead them to fail. c-span: name something that smu does the students that as you look around the rest of academia they don't do it anyplace else? >> guest: they don't do it anyplace else. c-span: in other words something special. the college i went to, perdue, everyone that goes there has to take a speech course. speech 104. is there something that kids who come here that have to do that is unique to smu? >> guest: i don't know of any course requirement. our curricular is set up in

combinations with other places but it has opportunities for students to get unique opportunities. it was the first one, which in that community means a lot, but within our undergraduate programs we have i think research opportunities that kids don't have as undergraduates in most places and because of their size or whatever else. i think the leadership opportunities we have are just enormous. being on board committees in various things like that. i know more schools have added that on that when smu started in 88 there weren't many schools that had a voting student on every board and the board itself. so i think those kinds of opportunities are fairly unique for smu. c-span: if i use the word death penalty, what does that mean to you? >> guest: well obviously that

occurred with our football program in the mid-to-late 80s in which the violations occurred in sequence within a period of time that the membership felt they would deserving of it. c-span: what is that mean? >> guest: it simply means that we couldn't compete in intercollegiate foot wall for that sport in that year. the institution decided to add another year to it to kind of get everything organized and in order so that is really -- had a detrimental affect on the intercollegiate program but particularly football here. we are just now kind of coming out of it. the positive thing that did come out of that was the fact that the board was restructured to where it is now kind of a model structure and a lot of the schools have copied different components of it. also would allow the institution i think to really review itself and kind of hit the start button allover again which structurally usually don't get a chance to

do. but as i have are said there has to be an easier way to do that than what we had to go through. c-span: but that didn't happen when you are here? >> guest: that happened and 86 to 88 are correct that here in 95. c-span: had that happened at any other school? >> guest: it has not. there have been schools that paying close to getting up at seeing the effect on smu has made the membership of the ncaa more reluctant to do that to other institutions. ours was compounded by the fact that the southwest conference dissolved in that period of time. so all the schools in texas and arkansas had a together forever, and when that fell apart and a number of us than were not moved into the big 12 but became part of the -- that created a series of conference memberships that we did not know. on a regular basis we were not playing texas and texas a&m and

so on. so i think the effect of the death penalty was essentially by the fact that it was the conference was assault at the same time people attributed all the effects to the death penalty but that is really not true. it was a double whammy. c-span: as you look at either as president of the school or co-chairman of the knight commission, as you look round around this country, our most schools honest? >> guest: well i think schools are a lot more honest than they used to be. i think presidents are really trying to -- i think most coaches and most athletic directors don't want that. i think there are probably exceptions that occur and their inadvertent things that occur but sometimes you break rules when you are not aware that you have. and so you have to report those. but i think usually where there are blatant violations, there are external forces that are doing things that they shouldn't

be and it's usually somebody inside, one or more, to the extent to which the institution knows it is that is what basically i think is what is pertinent in there. for smu, when i got here, because dr. pie had led a reassessment thing, there were such was such a readiness to move out and to be back and assertive. all these new facilities that at you see and the fact that we have added 50 acres of land and buildings in the fact that our scholarship profiles have gone up in the faculty profile has gone up and so on, all are a result that people really saying it's time to get going again. it's time for the school to emerge nationally. the great thing that we have had here in the last 15 years in many ways have their foundation in that negative aspect of it, to try to overcome it in a very real way. so i have been the beneficiary of all that work and in many

instances i know that i stand on his broad shoulders and many others that were part of that, that all of this positive era that we are in really came out of just terribly difficult years. c-span: i want to come to smu. what does my s.a.t. have to be? >> guest: the average for this next year will be somewhere between 1250 and 1260. it was 1140, 10 years ago. so we have come up over 100 points. the number of students that will apply this year will be about three times, 12 to 13,000. we will have a first-year class of 1470 chip average is going up somewhere between six and 10 points and so our goal is to be 1300 by 2015 and not to lose the leadership character, the involvement character and the entrepreneurial kind of character that her students

have. that is a challenge because we don't want just people who want to be in labs and stay there. we want them to be leaders in their area and have interpersonal skills and so on. you would need basically 36307 in our core and over 1200 or 1250 if you want early admission. c-span: i'm not that aware of what happened that you added 800 points with the writing. do you use that on the s.a.t.? >> guest: when i mention that score and basically talking about the two subparts, the verbal and quantitative. you would need about 1900. c-span: you are talking about a 1600.score? alright, then, don't qualify for any age. how much do i pay? >> guest: the tuition this

year is about 37,000. room and board, if you are living on campus and had an average male planet would be 49 and exterior will be about 52. 70% of our kids get some kind of financial aid be it needs a store merit-based or whatever else. for students that have a lot of ability -- to. c-span: that would cost a total of $45,000? >> guest: this next year it will be 42.5 for 43. c-span: books and all that throne in there? that is everything? >> guest: if you add all all of those up you will be over 50,000. the tuition will be close to 40 and is room and board and everything will be right over 50. c-span: you still have three times the number of the people that are willing to pay that? >> guest: we will have 13,000 applications for 1400 spots. c-span: if you were in charge of

the leadership school or future president of the university and you have to give them some tips, talking about the way you carry yourself around the school, the the things you would tell the leaders of school being the president of the school? >> guest: one that very few that are president intended to be and you come into it because you have some ideas if you want to implement and you saw you could have a greater impact doing that. but you have to be able to work with individuals. you have got to be able to -- you can't have a high threat ratio. you cannot have a hot temper. you have got to the the bee a will to moderate yourself as you try to moderate all the forces that are coming in. you have got to be able to see down the road. you've got to know that if i did x then three other iterations of

y are going to occur. i think that comes from experience obviously so you have got to have leadership experience. that is important to get but it also comes from having a pretty good sense of yourself because if you don't know yourself pretty well, then you are going to get yourself into a lot of trouble from time to time. so i think the experiences of working with people, nothing trains you like that. i tell students all the time that if they are president of no matter what and basically in charge of motivating individuals and then seeing to it that the plans are implemented, that is incredible experience for them going out because it is all the same. it's just a matter for the topic is and what the goal is. leadership basically plays out the same way. learning experience and learning to talk and to communicate, to take the speech classes, to always be willing to volunteer

to do things that are leadership oriented and then i tell them to get to know themselves. they cannot be impulsive. they cannot be short tempered and they have got to have a pretty good sense of themselves before they can hope to try to provide some leadership for this. c-span: what is the secret to generating money? >> guest: i think it's mainly having a vision that other people will share with you and that then you provide ways that empower them to implement that vision. ours is to be among the top 50 institutions in the united states. we were 50th, a nebulous number, but to be among those where people are talking about private schools in the united states. we won't be a harvard yale but we want to be an next group because we are only 100 years old this year. the founding. 96 years old at the opening so we are still in many ways

getting started from that aspect. but they have to have a sense that what the institution does is important and they can have an important role in it. once they see how what they can do and at whatever level, fits in with that vision, then they will help you. it's just a matter of giving money. it's not moving forward in improving. they're not going to want to be a part of it. it requires a vision that they can buy into and that they can support and they can see how they can do it and then knowing there will be a follow up, that this will occur and is going forward. it's not just based upon this particular year or this particular project. the image in the commitment to it is bigger and that is where your board comes in into ratify and affirm it. c-span: what definitive college presidents, university presidents, are a ph.d.'s? >> guest: by far and away the majority is 96%, the less

figure, but that is going down. more j.d.'s are present. there are not as -- there are not many master level people but there are a few. mainly its it's ph.d.'s or some edd and some variations on different doctoral degrees. you are seeing more lawyers become university presidents. c-span: what is an adt? >> guest: it doesn't have the independent research level that a ph.d. does. c-span: if you had to start over again and you're not going to become an academic and you had to choose another profession, what would it be? >> guest: i don't have any idea. i wanted to be an academic. it was just a matter of -- my dad was a junior high principal and my mom taught fourth to eighth grade so in a railway assistant at the beginning i'm in a family business. so i have always wanted to be a

part of working with young people and i have always wanted to. the company boards i have sat on, i've never been on the company board that i thought i would rather be president of the company than what i'm doing. i just never found anything that i would rather do. c-span: what are the three boards you are on? >> guest: jcpenney -- and american. c-span: .dear gerald turner, president of smu, we are out of time. >> thank you. >> guest: it's been my pleasure, thank you. for a dvd copy of this program called 1-877-662-7726. to give share comments about this program program visit us at

at q&a.org. q&a programs are also available at c-span podcasts. >> i don't regard this is just a biography of lyndon johnson. i want each book to examine the political power in america. i am saying this is a political power. seeing what a president can do in a moment of, any in a time of great crisis, how he gathers all around and what does he do to get legislation moving to take to washington? that is a way to examine the power and in a time of crisis. i want to do this in full as opposed to 300 pages. so i've that is why i said let's examine this. ..