a child cannot learn or thrive if he or she is in a culture of fear or disrespect. so, we know that kids can't achieve their full potential if they do not feel safe, and we often understand there are some serious and tragic consequences as well. so the best way to address bullying is to prevent a bullying. i am so excited about this opportunity these next couple of days to learn from you guys we can learn from each other. this is a really good opportunity. thank you for being here for taking the time out of your busy schedule to be here with us. at this point in going to turn it over to my colleague dr. deborah from the office of safe and healthy students and she is going to kick us off. thanks. deborah gup triet [applause]

>> good morning everyone. so, many of you have joined us in the past for the first two summits in 2010 and 2011 and i am so pleased to see so many new faces in the room including a huge group of youth. the first thing i'm going to do is ask if you are under the age of 22, i want to hear from you. [laughter] if you're at the summit i know some of them are arriving a little late we are going to have about 30 in the room. that's huge, because we know that this issue isn't one that's affecting us as adults. it's one that is happening every day to kids coming and we can't do anything about this problem if we are not listening to the kids involved so we are pleased to have you. thank you so much for being here. what is the purpose for being

here today? we have had three of these. this is the third summit this year. what are we doing here? we are learning the best available research and we are learning to collaborate with each other. we want to make sure that in all of our collective experts that in this important problem we are not repeating what each other is doing and we are actually furthering the prevention effort. i want is a special welcome to those that are joining us over life's dream and remind you at home that you are welcome to participate with us overt ritter and facebook using hashed had bullying a consummate. now it is my great pleasure to welcome rodriguez the special assistant to the president for education. now, robert of has a number of great achievements starting out of the la raza and going to the senate health committee where he

was with senator kennedy. he is now t white house lead on education and i first got to meet him when we started discussing the white house conference that was held in march of 2011. he is one of the sweetest and most generous guys i have ever known, and one of the most brilliant minds that i have ever had a poor of the legal privilege interact with so i am pleased to welcome roberto rodriguez. [applause] good morning everyone. it's my pleasure to welcome you to the third annual federal partners and bullying prevention summit. i want to start this conference by giving a very warm thanks to our administration's leaders on this important issue across the

federal government. from the part of education, justice, health and human services and all of our other federal partners. many hours of time and effort were invested to bring us all together here for this important work, and we are grateful to them for all they have done to make this summit a reality. i would like to ask you to join me in and applause for all of our federal staff have worked on this issue. [applause] as in the years past, we come together again this morning with a familiar and common purpose. we come together unified by the same shared belief which is to bring light to the problem of bullying in our schools and in our communities, and to make the an equivocal statement that bullying for any reason is unacceptable. just last march, president obama and the first lady gathered students, parents, community

leaders and national experts from around the country at the white house to issue a national stop bullying and to dispel the destructive myth that bullying is just a rite of passage or an inevitable part of growing up. it is not. and at that convening we heard about the devastating effects of bullying. we learned about some tragic experiences and circumstances that dashed the dreams and the lives of young people. but we also heard stories of great courage and we were inspired by young people who were taking a stand, and taking action in their schools, in their neighborhoods, on line and with their peers to stop bullying. they brought new ideas and new solutions to confront this problem head-on and most importantly they demonstrated the zeal and determination to make a difference. many of you in the room share that spirit and determination

and we want to celebrate that spirit during this week's convening because our administration shares it, too. we also ought to explore new ways to work together to stop bullying now. we still have a long way to go. the past year alone almost 3 million students reported that they have been bullied, pushed or shove on the playground or on the way to school, tripped in the hallway, even spit on. during the school year about a third of middle school and high school students report being bullied and as we all know this behavior is and just contained to our classrooms and our schoolyards. it can follow children from hallways to their cell phones to their computer screens. we all pay the price for absences during the school year to poor performance in the classroom and more devastating and far reaching effects. any way you look at this, our

children suffered when bullying a curse. now i still consider myself a relatively new parent. i have two children, four and six at home and one thing you learn as a parent particularly as your children start school is that their journey to adolescence and ultimately to adulthood will be challenging regardless of the circumstances. growing up can be a time for thoughtful introspection when you come into your own you begin to feel comfortable in your own skin and at the same time you can produce and security and that is either exacerbated or diffused by a child surroundings by their peers, by their school, by the neighborhood in which they live. we've experienced this transition and our own lives with the highs and lows. as a pair and i've already started to watch my children

experience life already filled with a few moments of downfall and uprising and as they grow up there will be moments of hope and there will be some moments of disciplined men in their lives. but as parents, we all want to provide space for them and make sure that they are able to make their own decisions to learn from those decisions along the way. but there is one area where there is no paradox and no gray area. above all things we want our children to be safe. that responsibility to provide a safe environment for our children starts at birth. it is instilled in all of us as parents. when a child visible lead, we have failed that duty. we can't place the blame on any one individual for how that came to be. but we must all know and we must all remind ourselves that we have had a role in preventing it from happening.

as parents, as teachers come as community members and caring adults we must all be proactive to make sure that we stop bullying before it starts. and it's from those instinct said president obama has placed such an emphasis on bullying prevention and used his position as our president and as a parent to provide leadership to stop bullying when we see it and before it starts. when we fall short of keeping our kids safe and free from bullying the president reacts as any parent would. what if that had been my child we have seen too many lives damaged and too many children suffer from the words and actions of police. no child should be made to feel unsafe and alone. as the president said we have to make sure that our young people know if they are in trouble there are caring adults and young adults who can help. if they are having a tough time, we've got to let them know that

they are going to get through and that there is a whole world of possibility that's waiting for them. a commitment to ensure the safety of our children has been the central tenet of our administration's broadbased effort to prevent a bullying. six cabinet agencies departments of the agriculture, defense, education, health and human services, interior and justice along with 80 partners more than nationwide are collaborating to help prevent bullying to keep young people save and to create a climate in our schools and in our communities that support all young people. our administration has been aggressive in our efforts to identify the problem and to address it and we have several milestones that we have to show for it we have launched stop bullying.gov, a one-stop integrated resource for children, parents, teachers and

community members to identify bullying and to find ways to end at. we improved data collection at the department of education to better understand the scope of the problem and the prevalence of bullying across the school's. at the same time, we've issued more effective policy guidance that's aimed at protecting students against harassment based on race, national origin, sex, gender and disability. we've taken steps to urge governors and state school chiefs to establish and about comprehensive antibullying policies. we have launched robust advocacy campaigns through offices such as the department of justice community relations service and through the department of health and human services resources and substance abuse and mental health services administration's to expand awareness of what bullying is and to provide the resources and the tool kits to prevent it. and of course, we are joining

together to host the summit to further explore how this issue impacts our families and communities and to chart the steps for future success. so, i want to be sure that i do two things before i conclude this morning. the first is to thank each and every one of you for your presence here today. our administration is grateful for your participation in this work and for everything that each of you has done and will continue to do to prevent and stop bullying. over the next two days you will hear from a number of our administration officials from all of the departments that i mentioned who will go into greater detail about the initiatives and the goals that we have at the federal level. you will also hear from our partners in the private and nonprofit sectors who are forced multipliers in this effort. and that brings me to my second task, which is to enlist your

support and partnership in moving forward. the programs that you will hear about both inside and outside of the government are making great strides to stop bullying. our challenge is not necessarily to develop the new initiative or to reinvent the wheel, but rather to explore how we can work together and collaborate to expand the impact of the investments and efforts that are already under way across the country. we all share the same goal, and we can double down on our impact if we work together to achieve a new culture of respect in our schools and in our communities. a climate where all of our children feel safe and know that they belong. this is the and to words which our collective work aspires to be i hope the summit will inspire a renewed commitment and an effort on this critical issue that will bring us forward and help urge us towards greater

action. it is up to each of us to act against bullying. it's wrong, it's destructive and it can be prevented. thank you so much. [applause] thank you so much. i think that he deserves another round of applause. [applause] the commitment the white house has shown towards the prevention and making sure all kids are safe no matter the context is outstanding and unprecedented, and i want to thank rubber for his leadership in this area. with that, we are going to start to the next panel. so, it is my pleasure to welcome to the stage peggy the president and ceo of the ad council, and marlo thomas, the founder of the

free to the foundation. just a little background, peggy as you'll see in your program books joined the council in june of 1999 and she serves as a chief executive officer of an organization that mobilizes more than one and a half billion dollars of advertising time and space. the creative services over 50 advertising agencies and related financial support from hundreds of corporations. i am so excited for them to join us today to announce the launch of a contest that i had the pleasure of working with over the last several months. with that, please help me welcome peggy conlon and marlo thomas. [applause] >> thank you very much and good

morning. this is not my first time at this podium. last year i attended the summit and spoke alongside panelists from facebook and time warner as well as a man and kevin jacobson. a ninth grader from new york had been a victim of bullying and tragically took his own life. as many of you know just seven months ago we lost kevin, too. he was an important advocate for bullying prevention, and like many of you, we were devastated by this news. we feel his loss deeply and we are honored to continue his work. in a world where we are constantly hearing new data and shocking statistics, it's important to keep in mind that bullying is an intensely personal issue, and beautiful lives are lost as a result. we are all here today because bullying is one of the most pressing social issues facing the country. it has led to devastating

consequences for our children, our families and our communities i am honored to be joined today by marlo thomas, who we all know well. marlo was a founder and president of the free to be foundation and she has been a champion for all children facing adversity throughout her life. together we will preview a new national multinational media public-service campaign designed to empower parents to teach their children how to be more than a bystander. whether it's under age drinking or obesity prevention, we know that parents play a critical role in preparing their children for the challenges that they may encounter. the ad council psa campaign which will launch this october will specifically target parents. this campaign is truly unprecedented in nature. the single crusade has brought together public foundations,

corporate and media support. our partners on this effort include aol, facebook, the free to the foundation, the we've institute for violence prevention, johnson & johnson, and the u.s. the part of education and health and human services. and the cause has been aided by a probe of resources from bbb, come in space and tara as well as generous media support from clear channel, aol, facebook and many of there's. we are delighted that some of our partners have joined us today and i would like to take a moment to acknowledge them over here. we have joe and geneina levine. also from cartoon network, alex cahn. a special thanks to devotee to from the the part of the ejection for her input and guidance and organizing this

terrific summit. [applause] the campaign was developed from help from a very engaged advisory group many of whom are also with us today and we really appreciate your valuable feedback. in nearly three out of four children in our country witness bullying. research has shown parents don't see an inherent need to talk to their kids about fleeing unless their child is involved in an incident or approaches them to talk about it. however we all know that bullying affects children regardless of whether or not they personally experienced it. while the vast majority of kids want to stop bleeding, they are not sure what to do. less than 20% of kids that say they witnessed bullying have reported taking any action to stop it. i know what you're thinking.

intervening during an act of bullying can be very scary for a child. our campaign with a educate parents about how to be proactive in talking to their children about bullying and honor them with a list of lowercase actions that they can take. as a bystander. actions like tell an adult, the friend the person being bullied come and don't give bullying an audience. tracy reese of new tv print and web ads as well as social media channels, we will not only get this on the parent's radar, we will ensure that the of the best tools to address bullying and prevent future tragedies. this is a very complex and multifaceted issue but we are hopeful that our campaign will engage parents and help them understand their critical role in solving this problem. in a moment we will preview the first psa on the campaign the first i would like to introduce

to you the perfect example of how one person can empower others for social good. i first got to know marlo thomas as ann marie in the suit, fat girl. she was a role model to me and most girls in the 60's and 70's. today, i remain in awe of her force of nature particularly how she's continued her father's work on behalf of st. jude's hospital, raising over $700 million every year for children with cancer. [applause] she is the president of free to be foundation, and she has worked for nearly 40 years to help children challenge stereotypes, fight discrimination and encourage individuality. it has been with a personal and professional privilege to work with marlo on our upcoming psa campaign and i'm delighted to have her with me today. please welcome marlo thomas.

[applause] >> thank you. i also work for aol and huffingtonpost.com where i have my own web site and i do quite a bit of blogging. i've done about a dozen blogs on bullying in fact i heard from kevin jay gibson. he reached out to me after reading a few of them and wanted to meet and talk and i was heartbroken as everyone else was when he took his own life. it was quite a shock that he finally just gave up hope on the anniversary of cameron's death and left his wife and his other children devastated. but it became apparent to me that i needed to get even deeper involved and that is why i brought in the free to be foundation because it is the idea that we are targeting parents is so correct. we learn from our parents. my first lesson on bullying i learned from my father.

i will never forget we were driving in the car. i was 8-years-old, and there were some little boy is beating up on another little boy and my father stopped the car and jumped out of the car. and i was terrified and i remember looking through the back window at what my father was doing. and he was shaking them and talking to them. he pulled them apart and then he pulled the little boy there was being bullied into our car and we took him home. after we took him home, my father was very upset and he hit his hand on the steering wheel and he said i hate a bully. i remember it to this day. i remember when i was wearing i remember what street did was to be it was such an -- it had such an enormous effect on me. and i thought of that when i started hearing about targeting parents, because we learn so much. we learn everything from our parents, either by example or words. so, getting parents to truly get involved i think is the key to stopping this. and all of the research comes

down to these points. it's that children are alone with this problem. many, many teachers turn the other way. their friends abandon them out of fear that the too will be targeted if they side with the victim and kids themselves are ashamed to tell their parents. that they are not like it at school or they can't handle it themselves or if they tell them they will look like a went to the other kids and get beaten up even more. as a, there is just no exit for them. it is absolutely trapped in this vise that they cannot stop. so, it really is up to the parents to look at this time and effort it looks like when a child as will lead. are their friends no longer calling do they not get invited to with a party is committed to come home crying, do they not want to go to school in the morning? to the the strange stomachache? they don't want to take the bus? these are all signs that this child is having a bad time at school. and also come as a parent, to be honest and face it if your child

is the lead. so many parents are in denial that their child is doing this to other children and that is a huge problem we have to speak to those parents as well. the last thing for the third thing for me today is to instill in your child that you will stand up for a child that is being a leader who will be there to stand up for you? this is how you grow and this is what they say in the bible, treat others as you wish to be treated. yes. stand up or who will be there for you? what has been speaking to a lot of families since i started my whole campaign on aol and huffingtonpost.com i spoke to a mother who told me that she had no idea that her son was being bullied and one day she got a phone call from a mother of one of his friends, the boy's name was jack. one of jack's friend's mother's call and 71 you to know my son came home crying today.

nine or 10-years-old. my son came home crying today because he just couldn't take it anymore watching his friend, jack, be bullied by this big kid. she said today jack was eating in the cafeteria and this kid came behind him, smashed him in the back and the little kid choked on his food, fell over, people held him up. but there was a dangerous situation. so the mother went to jack and said did something happen in school today and he said no. did you have some kind of fight or something? he said no. so she called the mother back and she said he said no. just a minute. let me put my son on a so billy gets on the phone and is crying and tells the mother jack's mother would have been so jack's mother goes back to jack. jack, i just spoke to billy and this is what he told me. and jack cried and admitted that it had happened, but he didn't want his mother to do anything.

what ever. the mother did do something. she called the school, they called the parents of the bully, and the little boy that was the witness and they went in a room at the school, and after the whole thing was done, with the little boy that was a victim crying and the little boy that was a witness, the way that had done the bullying said that isn't what happened in the appearance of the child said they believed their child that their child would never do a thing like that in any way come kids always do things like this. it's an absolute disconnect for all of these people in this room, and this mother -- i'm in touch with her -- and she still is involved in it. now, thankfully this moly who was picking on little jack is kind of slowed down as his momentum because he is being watched now. but you can't even get them in the room and have it stopped. so, you have to really, really dig away at all the parents. the parents are the bystanders,

the parents of the bowl yet of the child that was the victim. it really is time for parents to take charge of this and i am thrilled to be a part of the ad council and facebook and aol and the department of education and j and j and the creator of the bully movie are part of this and all focused on parents to realize that this issue impacts all children. the resources for the campaign is of course stop bullying.gov, and what i've tried to do is focus on the human side by talking to the parents, talking to the children. i spoke to dozens of parents but i spoke to a 15-year-old girl whose younger sister is around 9-years-old, and she has a lot of special disabilities, and she of course it's believed and the older sister is trying and very hard to pave the way for her little sister to stop being

victimized and one of the things she has done is her and her friends at 15 -- doing this for a couple of years, they've gotten together to do this smile and hug a program. when they see a kid that is by themselves, a little girl maybe, the little girl focused on the girl, being shunned and eating alone, they go over and invite her to their group. they make sure that nobody feels alone. when they walk down mahalla and see somebody looking sad or something, they smiled and hugged. they're doing it in their own way what we are trying to get parents to do, to acknowledge, to see it coming to bring some warmth and light to it. i was touched by this little girl named jonnah. you know, i have devoted a great deal of my life since my father's death 21 years ago to raising money for st. jude's children's hospital. and i spent a great deal of time there. and i see these children, how compassionating are.

little 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds hugging little 3-year-olds who are losing their hair and not feeling well, feeling nauseous from their chemotherapy. they're so compassionate to each other. and i look at them and i think what is that? that compassion. why can they put that compassion in children that are not sick, children that are able-bodied. body -- what is this necessity to other children? i look into the faces of the children at st. jude and i see such compassion and such strength and such love and capacity for jolie in the face of such adversity. and i think we have to find a way. it is in all of us. it is and all the children to find a way to bring the good news out of the children. well we are talking to the parents the parents need to find a way to bring the good news out of their children, too. you can't just schoolchildren you also have to bring out their goodness. i do a lot of interviews for my

website. i interviewed kelly rippa last week. she said she looked for a school because she is very worried about her children. they are mexican-american. their mamas famous. there were too many ways they could be taunted. she found a school that has a zero tolerance for bullying. she said one little boy called another little boy gay and he was expelled. i will tell you something you can help all of the government committees that you want, and you can have all of these wonderful organizations and we can raise all of the money that we want but if we don't have a zero tolerance and schools, this is going to go on and on and on. i truly believe that if some child is cruel to another child they should be expelled, that is the end of it you've got to stop it, yet to pull those children out of the schools because i don't know how else are you going to prevent?

there's other ways i'm sure but i would like us to start thinking about a zero tolerance. i do know that in my work with children, with st. jude and children around the country, speaking to them and helping them through a lot of the situations it means all of our energy to the i hope next year when we come to this event we can look at each other and say look, to accomplished this year. look how much pain we have stopped. i hope we can do that and i wish you luck and god bless you on your way. [applause] see how lucky we are to have marlo in the campus. she is really incredible no matter what form she has. she always manages to work in the bullying campaign and there's so many people to help us with this effort.

and i understand this is supposed to be a clicker to advance the work appeared. i haven't seen it yet. if you ought to advance it that's okay, too. okay. thank you. i was going to get down a. now what we've been waiting for psa has been developed pro bono by the new york based ad agency why mentioned earlier and without further ado let's take a look at our new tv spot. >> your hair looks pretty today. can you pick that up? [laughter] you are such a door. everyday kids witness bullying. >> your crash is looking at you.

>> they want to help but they don't know how. teach kids how to be more than a bystander. a visit stopbullying.gov. isn't that great? [applause] of course our campaign is more than television spots, and i would like to take a second to give you a lot of the print ads and online presence. here is the print. for those of you that can't read it, the first one says you are worth less. you don't see bullying like this every day. your kids do. teach your kids how to be more than a bystander. learn how at stopbullying.gov. the second, everybody hates you. you don't see bullying like this every day. your kids do. teach your kids how to be more than a bystander. learn how at stopbullying.gov. we are developing web banners that have a similar look and

feel to the sprint adds. as you can see each of our campaign components will direct parents to stopbullying.gov. the site provides parents with engaging and interacting resources in putting the ability to collect each of the tips to receive more information. each will include video content from experts, kids and parents. i would like to leave you all with one more powerful creative with remarkable footage from his acclaimed documentary. this footage from the firm is courtesy of the bowie project and the alliance team company and we are grateful for their collaboration and i am so glad that sarah from global the project could join us here today.

>> and all level conversations everyday kids witness bullying. they want to help but they don't know how. teach your kids how to be more than a bystander. a visit stopbullying.gov. but we manages to capture on camera is a poignant reminder about the importance of equipping our children to be more than just bystanders. before we take questions for a minute or 2i would like to say once again none of this would be possible without the tremendous support of our expert and a partners. this is an unprecedented event where so many have come forward to provide corporate and media support, non-profit leadership and government resources to take on such a critical issue. i know it will have impact. for those of you that have already done so much to fight

bullying, we thank you. we are proud of what has already been accomplished and we are excited as we work towards our october launch. now i would like to open up the discussion to questions from the audience. if we have any. >> i can't quite see. yes? >> to the microphones. there's nobody there. >> i work with teen angels. maybe you don't know that group of people. i have another group that i work with that we really need help with. i work with the education association, and there are teachers going into classrooms that had no training. we have a toolkit and some of you have things, too.

but how do we get that information to the teachers come to the universities come to the colleges and the community colleges? >> asenap to something else the department of education to the safe supported technical assistance center is excited to announce the module for teachers' training and i am looking over here at tim duffy and sandy from the technical assistance centers, so you'll hear more about that later. we agree teachers' training is an important aspect and we do want to provide you those tools. >> from the university of virginia and wanted to raise some concern about the suggestion that we use expulsion and a zero tolerance for bullying. [applause] the american psychological losses edition had a task force

that studied intensively the policy of zero tolerance that is what around the country and found primarily negative effect on and no evidence of the zero tolerance was an effective policy that kept schools safer. they also found that it tends to be used in a highly discriminatory manner that long-term suspension policies are disproportionately applied to the minority students and a trifle our dropout rates. there are more effective alternatives to the tolerance dealing with bullying and i would hope that we would bring together some of the research support for those alternative approaches. again, you are reviewing what we will have a leader in the agenda. tomorrow we will have a panel one supporting you which will look at the effect bullying have on the kids that are doing the bullying and also ways of we can help support them. >> if i could jump on that as well. there is an imperative here that we have our schools and our

states really adopt comprehensive policies but hold themselves accountable by bullying and we do more to make sure we are identifying those policies that work best and i want to just come in our federal partners and the department of education for documenting statewide state-by-state looking out with those policies and practices are at the state level to disseminate that. that's just got to be a huge goal for us. spec i am from the university of illinois. i wonder the research showing the connection of an exposure to family violence in the bullying perpetration how are you going to reach those parents that may not go to your web site to learn the bystander intervention because the behavior that we are seeing in our children stem from

their own violence in their homes. >> i think that might have been a question regarding the communications program so i will take a stab at that. i think what we see in creating social change is that it's not any one message. i think that we execute across a variety of platforms, and hopefully over time change the norms about what is acceptable and not acceptable. there are so many different ways to create a conversation and a dialogue and people have to see that. you see an ad in the mass media and for social media, and eventually hopefully it also becomes word of mouth. so, we are really the factoring in on it from every angle. >> my name is jonathan cohen and i am from the national school climate center and also d. driscoll which columbia university and i wanted to say two things.

first, thank you. i think it's extraordinary that the government and the ad council are coming together and explicitly appreciating that bullying is never an individual act and that focusing on punishment is not helpful. you are highlighting the role of the witness has a tremendous contribution. my second thought is that in addition to parents being the change agents as you, the organizers of this conference are explicitly saying, students are also key change agency and we can and i would suggest we need to support student being up stand ambassadors, students learn in detail about what does it mean to be socially responsible? and we can all support students and parents and teachers who need to be in trouble partners thinking and struggling in the best sense of the word about what does that mean to do

socially responsible. how can we be enough standard rather than a bystander and the op standard alliance that you can find on the website has a series of ideas to support that. >> can i just had a remark to that? the opportunity to preview the movie before it came out and obviously as everyone knows it is an incredibly powerful movie, and then i saw a link to a picture on the facebook page i think it was on the facebook page that they were committing the movie of the kodak fever in los angeles and they were nearly a thousand kids in this audience in this picture and this panoramic view and i was like my goodness these kids are going to see this movie and that is what is going to change the future, for asian-americans pacific islander and i want to echo the comments, the previous comment about the outstanding work that

these psa's will present and they are really powerful images. mauney questions about whether there are plans to have those ads in other languages and spanish and perhaps eventually asian languages as well. >> that is a terrific observation. we do translate ad council campaigns, and we do more than that. we do primary research and minority populations and hispanic and african-american to understand the cultural references and get the language just right. it is a matter of funding because we have to reimburse our partners out of pocket even though all of this is done pro bono but that is for the plan in the campaign, and we hope that this campaign will thrive and survive for years and there will be many iterations so thanks for your support.

>> good morning. my name is helen from asian americans united in philadelphia i have two questions. one is i really appreciate the presidential let attrition focusing bullying losing it from the individual's relationship based kind of situation to recognize the institutional impact it has within schools in particular and having the justice the burden and education department working specifically around institutional issues. my question is about the centers for disease the cdc definition are not bullying which as been sort of a problem in at least philadelphia and terms of understanding how institutions respond. the definition talks about how bullying is a relationship based experience over time and in which one person is physically larger, stronger, mentally quick or socially more powerful than the other but the concern is that it locates blame with the

victim and doesn't seek out solutions for the entire situation and offered teachers and administrators, community people proper solutions, so i was wondering if you could maybe talk about how -- i am not denying the situation because understand that psychologically based and that it's the k-town behavioral and mental health but when it shifts into an institutional setting, it does have -- there may be a different way of looking at bullying. >> so the definition hasn't yet been fully released yet. it has pending release probably by the end of this year but knowing the government we can never be too precise. it should be out in the next several months. the point to really clarify the purpose of the definition is that it is a research definition. more work is going to need to be done in order to translate in

net policy definition. and there are very precise distinctions between a policy definition and a research definition. but, in order to get to that policy definition, we need to have some sort of a consensus in the literature because right now if we go and look into the literature of what the antecedents might be, to develop our prevention strategy, people are varying in their definitions. so it is hard for us to develop a comprehensive understanding of risk and protective factors when we don't have a common definition even in the research. so i think that is a very important place for us to start coming and we definitely need to have more of those conversations about how that has translated into policy. >> good morning. i am with the national association of secondary school principals. i am here to thank you for being partners in this situation. i think it is very common for

public-school education to get from the bus every time there is a problem, and we are ready and willing to be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem. and so my question is to you school starts monday morning. we are ready. the doors are opening. the kids are walking in. could you give an indication of time lines so that we as leaders in our schools can support our students and communities in your efforts? >> do you mean time lines for the campaign? >> for the campaign, yes. >> we will be rolling out the campaign in october. it will appear in the media platforms as i mentioned earlier, and we see this as a multimedia campaign. we want to be pushing it out to all of the constituency particularly on the web suite to engage you through all of the various organizations that are

represented here today. while it will start in october, what i've mentioned earlier to the gentleman that asked about the hispanic language executions this is a long-term effort. we are going to be there with you for years to come and just as we have with issues like the seat belts and drunk driving and a variety of other social issues that we know communications can help change the norms that is our long-term objective and thanks for your role in advance of helping to push it out. >> i want to also add to that and applaud you for being here and thank you for committing our principles to this work to read our principles are such an important part of the solution here retinal only are the instructional leaders, but they are the place to go to make sure that the building is safe, that

a culture is conducive to social development for kids and to make sure that everybody feels included and belongs in a school. a day to create the climate, so we can't get there without our principles leadership in identifying bullying as the key priority in stopping that. and doing more throughout the year to address the challenge with our staff. >> i will point out one more thing. the tips are now the bystander intervention are going to be life on stopbullying.gov. it will launch in october along with the rest of the campaign that you have to sneak peek on stopbullying.gov along with other updates we have made including a brand new kids site so i encourage you if you haven't been to stopbullying.gov in a while, to go back to be there are all sorts of new updates. >> good morning. my name is kevin with bullying police usa. i lost my son in 2003 bullycide

sidespin at the grass-roots level for 15 years and i want to say this is important and it's just a huge thing for me to kind of the year and i've been here each year and thanks for putting on such a conference like this and bring people together because it will take a community, and i applaud you. this is a community activity since day one when i first started talking about this in 2003 and was basically laughed out by people. so we have come a long way. and i think we do have to embody those students and empower them. we have to move them forward and i have seen great things. i think it is great and tremendous we focusing now on the parents and getting information because sometimes they have been locked out by schools. so, that part of education we also need to push schools to make sure they are getting information to those parents because everybody has to do this and i know we've brought law enforcement into this as well to

talk to schools about bringing law enforcement into the fold. so it's a great thing and i think that the ad campaign is great. do we have any plans to do some ad campaign to encourage participation by students across the united states? you said something about campaign of the contest for students to get involved because things change rapidly, so thank you for everyone this year. >> thank you. i would just add that the fees sort of issues when we take them on particularly working with partners like the people in this room today, we find the next generation, the next federation, the next population. so i'm sure at some point there will be a specific effort to words students, but we think that the most fertile area right now is to reach them through the parents. and unfortunately we do need to move on. you have a question but perhaps we can ask it of our next panel.

thank you so much. we are just going to take a moment or two to transition to the next panel. [applause] health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius spoke today at the third annual bullying the prevention summit in washington and she said more studies need to be done to understandable being better. she talks of the antibullying initiatives at the education and health and human services department. this is about 15 minutes >> good afternoon. it's my honor and privilege to introduce secretary kathleen sebelius who currently serves as the 21st secretary at the u.s. department of health and human services. secretary sebelius has led in bush's efforts to improve america's health and enhance the

delivery of human services. some of these efforts conclude implementing reforms, the affordable care act, holding 34 million uninsured americans get health coverage, working to slow health care growth costs, promoting public-private partnerships to bring life-saving medicine to markets and collaborating with the u.s. department of education to help states increase the quality of early childhood education programs to get along with other administration officials, secretary sebelius is a champion of bullying prevention efforts such as launching the historic effort to stop bullying in schools and communities for mechanisms such as the stop bullying website. a one-stop shop for kids, teens, parents and educators to go on line to learn more about preventing and stopping bullying. she is truly passionate of helping others. her passion is to make america a

better place for all individuals and as the secretary of the the part of health and human services, she has spent countless hours working to improve the health and well-being of all americans. that passion is what has brought her here today because she knows that one and three children being bullied in america is simply unacceptable. in order to tackle this problem it takes a coordinated and well-organized federal, state, local and community response to prevent bullying tall levels and with champions and leaders like psychiatry sebelius and hard-working public private and community partners, we can help to make america a safer and healthier nation for all of our children. so this afternoon a display distinct pleasure to introduce secretaries sebelius. please join me in welcoming our keynote speaker, secretary kathleen sebelius.

[applause] good afternoon everybody. thank you for that mize will come -- nice welcome also the leadership that you provide that the office of adolescent health. she doesn't job at hhs and also i think -- i can't really see. is katie o'malley still here? inr you are joined by the first lady of maryland earlier in the day and she has done a wonderful job not only within the state of maryland, but leading an effort with the governors' spouses across the country to indicate how the states can be really involved in this antibullying effort. i want to recognize deborah temkin fer organizing the summit

and roberta rodriguez at the department of education for being a great partner and i know that tomorrow you are going to hear from my friend and colleague arne duncan as part of the summit effort. i'm pleased to have the chance to visit with all of you and begin really by thanking you for your commitment to give our young people the safety and support the need to grow and thrive. two years ago we came together for the first-ever national bullying summit with about 150 state locals, civic and corporate leaders and began to map out a comprehensive national plan to end of bullying. there have been efforts, many efforts in the past to confront bullying of the department of self and human services health resources and services

administration launched an education campaign that reached young people everywhere from elementary and middle schools to the boys and girls clubs to the 4-h clubs. the department of justice have a coordinated and conducted outreach to its office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. and fought to protect bullied students' civil rights in the courtroom. the department of education worked with their peers at the state department of education and local school boards to collect better data and develop antibullying policies and curriculum. and we saw private canteens and fatta based leaders and nonprofit institutions step of like piecers, national center for bullying prevention. all of those efforts were making an impact and reaching some of the young people in need. yet we recognize that despite such a wide array of programs and campaigns, bullying still wasn't being treated as a

national priority. so we convened the first summit two years ago when we set for the first time it was a serious national challenge in the required truly a national response. around the same time, our nation faced a number of tragic incidents involving teenagers who having been bullied felt like the had nowhere to turn and cook their own lives. it sees the nation's attention. and for many it was a real wake-up call. it was a call that said a bullying is not just a harmless rite of passage or an inevitable part of growing up. it is a systematic situation that threatens the health and well-being of our young people. ..

and brave young people began stepping up to be leaders, protecting one another in their own communities. and i know some of those young leaders are here today, and i want to thank you for your

bravery and for your leadership. now, all of this momentum is encouraging, but we know that our work has only begun. today one out of five high school students reports being bullied on school property. and as youth spend more of their time on facebook, e-mail, and text messages, there are more opportunities to bully each other, while hiding it from teachers and parents. and in way too many communities across this country, bullying is still an accepted norm. more adults may be stepping in to stop it, and more young leaders have stepped up. these actions are important and they can make powerful and lasting impressions. but if we're really going to prevent bullying on a national scale, we must take our efforts deeper still, and work systematically to prevent bullying as early as possible.

now, what we know is that we at the federal government can't solve these problems on our own. there are some steps we can take to give you the tools, especially at this pivotal moment to translate today's unprecedented awareness into action. and let me tell you about some of the ways we're working to do just that. first, we recognize we need better data. there is a lot more to learn about bullying. for many years, our understanding was limited to anecdotal evidence, and a scattering of state and local surveys. but we have had very few rigorous scientific studies about the specific factors that put youth at risk for bullying or the specific steps that can be taken to protect them. but that's againing to change. our centers for disease control and prevention have incorporated bullying to its youth risk

behavior survey. the agencies' buy an annual survey of schools across the country about student health behavior. now, with some new questions on the survey, we'll have a good national picture of how many young people actually experience bullying and what the connection is to other risk factors. and since the survey is repeated every two years he'll we'll be able to accurately measure or progress. as we go forward we also want to make sure we're speaking the same language as all of our partners, so our work at hhs is developing even more closely with the department of education to develop a standard definition of bullying, to get a more accurate and consistent picture of bullying's prevalence in school and connection to other hex risks, -- health risks and e hope to finalize that before the end of the year. second, we want to give people

the support to become bullying prevention leaders in their own communities. over the years experts from our health resources and services administration, have gone out to communities and they worked to train school staff, to talk to coaches, to parents, and young people about the best practices of bullying prevention, but we were limited in how many people could actually be reached through the one-on-one connections. we knew that bullying was taking place in nearly every community in america, and we didn't have the resources to do that on the ground training everywhere. we do, however, have the tools to empower community leaders with the best information and expertise to train and lead their own colleagues and neighbors. and that's the idea behind the new training modual we're making available for the first time today on stopbullying.gov. over and over again we hear from local leaders who say, i want to

establish a bullying prevention plan for my community don't know where to begin. now, we have given them a great tool for that beginning. they can download the training right from our web site, adapt it to their own needs and deliver it at their own training events the training module is also paired with a community action tool kid that leaders can use to delve and roll out more comprehensive prevention strategies, tailored to each community's individual needs. this is just the latest terrific resource available on stopbullying.gov, which has book the country's one-stop-shop for bullying prevention tools. its resource database includes more than 100 proven tool kits, fact sheets, article, and program directories.

and it's not just for policymakers. it's a great starting point for young adults, teens, parents, and anyone who is working with young people. there's also an updated and revamped section just for kids. and for you can people who might think about hurting themselves, the web site shows them where they can get immediate help. now, we have also been focusing on the media. for many reporters and way too many producers, bullying is a relatively new topic. some are informed by outdated notions that bulling may be harmless or unavoidable. others want to focus on the tragedy of a single child who is victimized by a bully but fails to recognize the deeper impact on public health and public safety. so, another of our agencies, our substance abuse and mental health services administration, has launched a task force of both journalists and experts in bullying prevention.

they're working together to create background materials, guidelines, and other resources, for journalists, bloggers, producers and writers who cover bullying. our goal is to help them provide accurate information so that americans can understand what is truly going on among our youth, and learn how they can make a difference. so, again, i want to close by thanking all of you for your leadership and your partnership. this may be only our third annual summit, but i know that many, many of you have been working on these issues for years and years. bullying is not new. these are behaviors that have been around for a long time. they're attitudes that have been hasn't down from one generation to the next. what we need now are not just stronger programs and more persuasive campaigns, although

they're critical tools. we also need to commit ourselves to changing a culture that too often says, it's not my responsibility. we must do more. building safe neighborhoods and schools, where young people can thrive, is a job for all of us. not just government. not just schools. not just parents. all of us. we are all responsible for our children's safety, and no one can afford to be a bystander. now, as a mother, i've seen the awful power of bullying on young people. and i know that any parent would move heaven and earth to defend heir child from the pain and fear that bullying might cause. so, working together, we can all join that cause. we can build a nation where every single child no matter where he or she lives, or who they are, gets that same protection and support.

thank you for what you do, and have a great conference tomorrow. [applause] >> the education department continues with the second day of the annual bullying prevention summit in washington. speakers include education secretary arne duncan, white house senior adviser valerie jarrett, and mother of musician lady good good our live coverage begins at 8:30 eastern on c-span2.

>> i had no idea about the experiences -- despite all the time i spent in germany, i haven't spent a lot of time thinking about what it would have been like to be a correspondent there in the 20s and 30s, and how would you have operated? what would you have noticed or not noticed? much less how would you have acted? >> next, a look at financial regulations and the state of the american economy since the dodd-frank financial regulation law. "new york times" columnist joe nocera moderates the panel.

from the hamptons institute, this is an hour and 15 minutes. [applause] >> good afternoon. we're glad to be here. to talk about economics, finance, regulation, wall street, and various other things over the next hour to hour and 15 minutes. so, hope you stay with us and enjoy it. and let me start by introducing the panel. to my near left, is ken miller, the president and ceo of ken miller capital, one of the more prolific writers and best

thinkers on wall street. he has also been -- served successly as vice president of merrill lynch and he served on a number of boards, including viacom, intel sat, kinder care -- a long list. an active member of the council on foreign relation and we're going to ask him about china today. which is one of his areas of expertise. in the middle is cyrus amir-mokri. cyrus is most recently serve as the senior counsel to the commodities trading commission and he was the deputy representative to financial

stability oversight council. also been partner at the law firm, focusing on complex securities and antitrust litigation. to my far left its one of the legends of wall street, joe porella. he has also been a -- several senior positions at morgan stanley, including vice-chairman, and of course, he was the founder of -- cofounder of a law firm, and before that with his late partner, bruce, they ran the first wall street investment banking desk memorably in my own experience, my very first business story in 1982 was about boone pickens' first takeover attempt on citiservice and bruce and joe were on the other side of that

dale, working for citiservice, and it was a memorable way to be introduced to the world of business, i must say. cyrus, let's start with you, just because this is such a -- this is the second anniversary, this weekend, of the passage of dodd-frank. the financial regulation bill. and we're going to talk a little bit about how wall street feels about the regulation, whether they make sense or whether there's overreach. as a member of the administration that helped push them and pass them and is now in the very, very complicated process of trying to get them up and running, just give us a sense, please, of where we stand with dodd-frank at this moment in time. >> sure, joe. the bottom line, in my view, is that very -- well, first of all,

dodd-frank includes some essential reforms for the financial system that were put in place. y'all remember where we were in the fall of 2008 with the fall of the financial system at the brink. we needed to strengthen the financial institutions. we needed to reform our regulatory structure. we needed to put in place reforms to improve some of the shadow banking system and how it works. bring the derivatives market into the light of day. overall, those -- the basic contures of what the financial system should look like has been put in place through the legislation. the regulators have been working extremely hard over the past

couple of years to further define those contures. they have -- there's been a lot of articles, especially in the past week, for instance -- this has been a criticism that a number of people have mentioned over the past couple of years, as to why isn't this going more quickly. i think there was a judgment made very early on that the results of the -- should be to calibrate properly the details of the reform effort, to get things right, emphasize quality over speed, and that's what has been going on. and when you look at where we are two years from the crisis, i think basically in the area of parity with respect to where the rules are headed, there's been

significant progress. 90-plus percent of the rules have been proposed. many important ones have been finalized. many other important ones are soon to be finalized, and also i think our financial institutions are much better off than where they were a couple years ago. >> well, just to take one example. if too big to fail institution was on the brink of failure, would dodd-frank -- would the federal government be able to close it down? >> i think what you have, joe, in the legislation and in the rules of the fdir and the feds have put together -- are the basic outlines of what would happen in the instance of major financial institutions whose failure would have financial stability implications. what that basic outline of action is going to be.

so if you put title 2 together with some of the other authorities, for instance, that the federal reserve and fdic have, you have the basic template for how it's going to happen. >> joe, what is your take on the amount of regulation -- basically what the government has done in a regulatory framework since the financial crisis. >> well, hmm. certain fundamental things that happened to the world of finance, and it sort of raises the question in my mind -- again i'm speaking personally, not for my firm -- and that is whether or not the creativity and inning newt and the diabolical people

that exist in all life can be kept up with by regulators. so, implicit in the word "regulation" is somehow there's real regulation going on, and that one's able to protect the society from the excesses of the events that happened on a regular basis, and have happen throughout history on a regular basis in our industry. so if you look at the financial system, it evolved from a low-tech paper-based system to a -- and i might add -- privately owned so the people who worked in the industry had their houses, if you will, on the table every day, up for capture if they misbehaved and lost money.

and that system evolved to one that was very technology-driven rather than paper-driven, and one which was publicly held so that the institutions had permanent capital, which got pushed to the limits because of the pressure on public companies to perform. and then that all culminated and this is a very short history -- with the demise of barriers between the things that were once security companies and deposit-taking federally guaranteed institutions. and so -- these aren't my thoughts. having started a company six years ago that now has 425 people in it, i don't -- i have never read dodd-frank, okay? so, it's how many pages?

okay. the original glass stiegel act was around 35 pages. so i haven't read it and i don't spend a whole lot of time obsessing about it because, in a sense, i'm in what you call the shadow banking industry, in a positive way. just about every business that commercial banks are in today are being set upon by new entrants that are picking apart the different businesses they're in, with the exception of two things. market-making and lehning. those are -- there's no trying to get into the lending business in a big way. so, i'm -- i come from the school that says, these people are so smart and so crafty and so creative, and many times in a very positive way, that it's very hard for people sitting in a building reading e-mails and looking at charts and stuff to know what's really going on, and

to prevent the next deback kell, and even in the best run institutions like jp morgan were can he all hear for months and months they were the best run. they woke up one day and some guy called the whale in london cost them $6 billion. okay? so, i'm not against regulation. all i'm saying is in the words of henry kaufman, who was the chief economist for many years of solomon brothers and who people have high regard for, he said dodd-frank enshrined two big to fail. >> i think ken had thoughts also about basically what needs to be done to reign in wall street, and the regulatory and otherwise. right? >> i do have some thoughts about

is, joe. i think the problem with regulation is that it, as joe said, it enshrines a certain protocol, and then people make it their job to get around that. so, remember the body count in vietnam. people would shoot for a target. then there are unintended consequences, like the whistle blower part of dodd-frank, which tends to chill internal discussion. and then there's the sheer complexity of it. but my basic issue with dodd-frank -- on balance i agree that it is a step forward, a good step forward. but my basic problem is -- again taking up on joe -- it's not going to solve the cycle problem. there will be additional panics. because it's in the nature of banking to run businesses on leverage, which means they

borrow ten to $30 for every dollar of equity that they can rely on, and when people change their mind about the stability of the institution, there's a run on the bank. and asner lynn -- asmerlin king, the bank of england guy said, when there's a run on the bank, the only rational thing to do is participate. so i have ideas what to do about wall street but it gets down to my perception that we have allowed wall street to get away with a worshiping at the altar of short-term greed and i can talk about that later. >> you'll get a chance to. >> let me just make a -- just made a number of very important and interesting comments. a lot of them. let me just compacta couple. as to whether there should be regulation or no regulation, i

think -- i don't think that's a debate. i think -- there does need to be regulation. i seem to recall that david human once made this point but i can't vouch for it. but he said that rules of the road are important for people to understand basically what is allowable and what is not. and in fact that could be -- that is in fact liberty enhancing. once you know the rules of the road, you can act more freely and you aren't dealing with chaos. so that's -- at least in my mind, it's not a question of regulation versus not regulation. so, if you're going to have regulation, then you have to think about what are the problems you're trying to solve. and one of the major problems coming out of the crisis, it seemed to me, was trying to do your best to see to it that the kinds of activities that were just described, don't cause what

economists call negative externality. that is, firms should be free to fail. you can't really ultimately micromanage how a firm takes risks or tells them that this is a better judgment than -- unless it has negative externalities, and in that case you're trying to put together a system that contains the negative effects that the firm's behavior is going to have on others. and that was essentially what a lot of dodd-frank tries to do. and so to take the example of too big to fail, and going back to the question you posed, joe, which is, does the legislation provide a framework where you can deal with the situation like that? in fact it does. so, the entire logic of title 2. the resolution provisions, says as follows. that if there is a firm whose

insolvency is going to have consequences for the financial stability of the united states, the determination made by the fdic, the federal reserve, the secretary of the treasury, and the president, and -- so it is -- it's a very deliberative accountable process, and it has an entire mechanism allowing for a variety of different approaches to the firm. using both liquidity measures and other measures to try to contain the problem so it doesn't have the collateral effects we saw in the example of lehman brothers and even going back to ltcm. so that's the way the legislation tries to deal with this issue, and so i would

respectfully disagree with joe and his assertion that dodd-frank doesn't address the too big to fail problem. >> well, let me phrase it this way. i want to start with ken this time. you know, one of the things about glass stiegel is that it changed the world. it stayed we're going to split these companies up, and if you're this kind of company, you below re protected but you can't do anything dangerous. changed the incentive structure and worked pretty well for 50 years or so. dodd-frank, seems to me, accepts the world as it is and tries to fiddle on the margins is -- i'm

underselling it, but it doesn't fundamentally change the nature of how wall street operates, how it makes money and seems to me the london whale, the jp morgan example, is a good example about how nothing at its core has really changed. and so, ken, i want to ask you, do you think the incentive structure on wall street needs to change? and if so, how would you do it, and i want to ask joe the same thing. >> well, i do think the incentive structure needs to change in dodd-frank there is a clawback prognosis for listed companies. a clawback means once you have earned a big bonus, someone can come and get it. that's not quite enough to discourage risky behavior because if i don't have $5 million and i can put it in my pocket and hope for the best, you know, that doesn't solve the

problem. i think that the real problem is short-termism, a huge emphasis and excessive emphasis on speed. i think the culture of wall street needs to change, and i disagree. i don't think dodd-frank solved the problem of too big to fail. i think when you talk to practitioners in the area, they say, if this institution goes down it's got a living will, we'll do this and that. the problem it's never one institution at a time. so you have to address the recompense issue and you can put a ceiling on it, you can say that it's just a -- for example, 100% of base, or you can tax it. so that people can't earn outrageous amounts of money in short periods of time. all right? joe, what do you think about the incentive structure? you began your remarks by talking about the extent to which, when you started in the

business, they were mostly private partnerships and your own money was at risk and now it's the share holders' money. >> it's like allowing the croupiers to play with the house's money in las vegas, and if they win they tick the money home, and if the lose, the house loses the money. that's basically what happens in a lot of cases, and i spent a lot of time at morgan stanley working with bickerman, and he had mantra -- he was a very risk-averse guy, and he came in to take over citiafter the deback kell. he said, don't ever forget, it's the traders against the house. that was his warning all the time.

it's hard to regular lace the swan trip neural spirit and the desire to do better than they did yesterday. so you have to ask yourself, what's the price of failure? and the airline industry -- it's pretty simple. the chief safety officer is the pilot. that's why i see them walking around airplanes a lot of times before they get and actually fly you to where you want to go, and and they've got a pretty good safety record, and that's a regulated industry. so you sort of -- i'd be focused on what's the price of failure for an institution. and there's a danger there of overreacting. like jp morgan has a loss, so people get into this barkley's mode and they want to holler, let's take ute the ceo. that's like screaming for

democracy in the middle east. be careful what you wish to because it's not necessarily going to be better people coming along if you do that. having said that, i think you have to focus on what's the price of failure, and focus on, a., the share holders getting wiped out, which i think is the model you all are following with the fdic. the shareholders get wipe out. the subordinate debt holders get wiped out. the senior dead holders get wiped out and the company is forced to sell assets, all with a view toward protecting the taxpayers from having to come in and ultimately bail the institution out. but i think to sit around and say, well, you know, okay, you can make $500,000 a year, but you can't, or you can make $5 million a year -- a-rod makes 25 mental a -- 25 million a

year, but you, lloyd, can't. that's not the road we should go down. i think there should be a price for failure and ought to be high and ought to be enforced. >> ken, i believe you have an opposite view. >> well, joe issue think the financial sector is different from every other sector. i think a widget manufacturer is constrained by space and time. you can have a factory and you can run three shifts, but there's only so many tractors or batteries or things you can make. but what i think about the financial sector is that it's a place where the rubber never meets the road. in fact there is no rubber and there's no road. the fact is that you can move almost unlimited amounts of money in extremely short periods of time. so, i think we need to treat the

financial sector differently from other sectors of the economy. >> how would you treat it? >> i think we would make an attempt to change the culture and tell people, you can work on wall street at a regulated institution, but you're going to earn your money over time, and it's not going to be a bonanza base owned risking the balance sheet in a given year. one of the problems with regulation generally is that it has to be ubiquitous, or you create kind of blackmarks in other places and i'm not sure how i -- black markets in other places and i'm knock sure how to deal with that burt in general if we're going to change the culture -- if we're going to change short-term greed into at least long-term greed or maybe even make it a place where you realize you're doing the kind of good you're supposed to do, which is allocate society's

resources, where they need to be allocated, and create liquid markets, we're going to have to make some changes that dodd-frank didn't address because it addressed the symptoms and not the underlying cause. >> before i move on, i am curious what you think about this whole idea about the importance of changing incentives and whether the regulatory framework does that or not, and -- i think it's a really important issue. when you see what's gone on in recent areas-doesn't really look like ---recent years, doesn't look like incentives have changed. the toxic assets that blew up in 2008 don't exist now and that's because they blew up, not because anybody thinks there's anything inherently wrong with them. >> that's a very important

point, joe. let' me make a couple of observations. i think we're -- let me just pick up on something that joe perella mentioned and i the price of failure is -- he correctly mentioned dodd-frank addresses it with respect to potentially, depending on the resolution mechanism, with respect to shareholder, subordinated deadholders and so on, but also for management, too there are going to be consequences for management, callback provisions in title 2, and also management who have overseen the failure of the firm, is going to have a very, very difficult time getting another position in the financial services industry. but going back to your point about incentives. before the fact incentives.

this is -- joe's point is mostly what do you do after failure, the consequences of failure, and the question is, is that sufficient deterrent? the point that ken raises are before a failure, how do you lessen the probable of, let's say, reckless risk taking, and i think there are many different ways of addressing it and i think the new attitude regulators have and even possibly management and the financial services industry today, all though that i'm not quite sure about. but there are capital rules, rules around risk management, supervision around risk management. joe, you mentioned sometimes it's risk averse. maybe risk averseness of a kind

is going to be at least given the capital rules, liquidity rules, the counterpart, the exposure rules around some of the major financial companies, maybe thoses are going to be the kinds of breaks that people are -- at least i think they are -- that are going to diminish the kind of risk taking that took us where we were a couple of years ago. so, there are a number of different speed bumps or whatever you want to call them, and shock absorbers you can put into place to try to achieve exactly what ken was describing, before the fact. now, that -- whether that ultimately substitutes for someone's judgment, that is a more difficult question. i don't know that that's the case. and can you -- what is it about, for instance, compensation, you can do?

well, the legislation addresses some of that as well in the form of, let's say, callbacks for instance when a public company overstates their financials, there is also provisions where the bank regulators have authority around excessive pay for managers of financial institutions. so, there are certain measures -- the say on pay provision, giving shareholders more of a voice. but ultimately under the structure of the corporate law, how much the agent, bank managers in these days of financial institutions being public companies -- how much they're paid. new state corporate law and so on, right now, is a matter of the shareholders and what they decide, and -- but the legislation does put in a number of different mechanisms to address precisely what ken is

talking about. >> joe? >> a couple of comments where other pressures can come from. first of all, if you look at the performance of financial companies these days, they don't look anything like they did during the go-go days of, let's say, early part of this century. so, companies that were then earning 20 and 30% return on equity are barely earning 5% today. for two reasons. one, there's certain businesses that they are not allowed to go into anymore. two, their capital -- there have been stricter cap -- capital

rules impose, and that has a derivative outcome, which is the shareholds are sitting there, as they should, watching their investment decline in value, seeing the returns go down, and they're then saying, hey, your comp ratios are too high. so there's going to be a market force that puts downward pressure on compensation at these large institution because the returns they were earning ten years ago aren't there. secondly, there's a new force at work in the market and it's called shareholder activism, and it's a group of people -- we can mention them here in no particular order or distinguishing one from the other -- nelson pelts, phil pacman and others, who basically buy shares in companies and do

things that the traditional institutional investors, who might be thinking the same thing, like fidelity, or any of the others -- but don't kind of, you know, good to management and threaten them and raise the roof if something is going on they don't like. so, i think if this -- the low returns continue and the compensation at the big institutions don't come down quickly enough -- because they are coming down. i think it's an industry that is ripe for shareholder activism. right now i think they are being held off because of the -- what's called on wall street the black hole. in other words when people wake up and fine out an institution can lose $6 billion on a trading position, that makes a typical

activist investor think once or twice before they want to take the plunge and wonder what they're getting into. on the other hand, nelson pelts did file on a firm that was run by my late partner, bruce, and i think he hasn't spoken yet as to what he really wants to see happen there, but i wouldn't be surprised if he focused on the compensation ratios, even though lazard isn't a firm, that falls into the too big to fail category because they're not in a lot of those businesses. so, to summarize what i said, market forces are comping to bear on these big institutions because their returns are down. that's going to drive the comp ratios down, and shareholder pressure, and then there's also the potential for shareholder activism. >> ken, there's a lot of

anger -- it's almost four years later, and there's still on the one handan enormous amount of anger in the country at wall street and wall street firms, and on the other hand there's a lot of anger on wall street aimed at the president, and i guess i wanted to ask you whether you think that anger, ethe way, is justified? >> well, i think there's a nuanced answer to both questions. as far as the anger that the country feels to the bankers, yes, it's justified. but it's not exclusive that the -- the blame is not exclusive to the bankers. there were many, many constituencies that participated in creating the problem. the people who sold the loans that shouldn't have been made. the rating agencies of we could go over the litany of them. so, the fact that wall street

did what it does, and to heap all the blame on the bankers seems to me unfair. as to the other way around, i don't get it. i think democrats always have a tough time on wall street. i remember when teddy kennedy was on the rise, and the silly jokes that were made among us, you know, and i think that bill clinton didn't get his due for all the good things he did for the economy. so, i think -- my own personal criticism of president obama is that he made some priority choices about what he was going to fight for that i wouldn't have made. but i don't think wall street's criticism of obama is totally fair. he has moved down the populist

row because he is after votes-but in general i think both sides are being a little up fair. >> joe, do you have a thought on this? i bet you do. >> well, i think ken's right. most people on wall street tend to be on the financial conservative side of things, all though you could argue that there wasn't a lot of financial considerative jim in the bush administration. but i think that there'sd i thit of not deutsch real, but a let down on the part of a lot of people because the president had tremendous support from people who might have traditionally not supported a democrat three and a

half years ago. and i think his -- and all ose talked to -- i won't bother with the refrains of four years ago -- thought, well, he said that but he's really not going to do that. i think they were disappointed that, instead of moving to the center, he seemed everytime he is under pressure, lurches more to the left, and so i think that troubles a lot of people that i know on wall street, and that is his tendencies seem to veer toward the left or the center. not that he criticized wall street for the behavior, because a lot of people think they haven't had their comeup yaps -- comeuppance yet. i think it's that on so many

issues he seems to be very far removed from the center, and i think that just troubles a lot of people that had supported him four years ago, and i think he'll -- i don't know if he will regain their support, but those that i know, that i'm close to, are pretty convinced they're not going to support him this time around. but it's a was off yet. >> do you want to respond to that? >> i'll make a couple observations. obviously i firmly support the president, and just want to address the two questions you mentioned but maybe in a slightly different way. i think that one of the things that's happened four years ago was a decline in the trust with respect to the financial system. there's no question about that. even financial institutions, when they dealt with each other,

if you remember when the credit markets froze in 2008. i mean, people just didn't know whether they can trust the risk management of another financial institution to lend them money. what kind of relationship they're going to have with them. and it was -- a lot of the dodd-frank legislation and the policies that the president and secretary geithner pursued the stress testing, has been really to try to restore the trust among financial institutionness the first place and also our society generally in financial institutions and how well-managed and sound they are going to be. so, i think you're right. i think there was a decline in trust, and i think the policy of this administration has been to troy to restore that trust. >> one thing our country has

done much better than europe, for instance, is shore up their bank to -- the capital of the banks, and our banks are in fact much healthier now than almost any bank in europe. and -- which causes me to want to shift gears and ask my panel for their views on the eurozone crisis. whether it's salvageable, worth saving, what kind of destruction it could wrought if it came to that. anybody want to start? no? i think it could be pretty bad myself. >> i'll start. it's obviously something that is of serious concern. the financial stability oversight council report, chairman bernanke mentioned it in his testimony before congress of something that is a concern with respect to economic growth

going forward in the united states. the president, the secretary of the treasury, all engaged with the europeans on it. so in terms of your assessment of significance, joe, i don't think there's any question. i think a couple of points i would make are, in addition to your assessment, are the europeans have come a long way since august of '11 from being in a place where we weren't sure where they were headed, i thick they've made tremendous strides to at least put together an outline or at least a direction in which they're heading. they're going to be bumps in the road, as you know, but there's an outline for at least bringing together some of the banking regulation, which is very important. there have been a lot of progress made in trying to build

credible financial firewalls. there are regular meetings between the authorities at different levels, and so all of those are extremely positive signs. i think there's a natural aspect of, unless something is done, you don't know where it's going to end up, but i think that we -- a relevant baseline of reference is where we were summer of 2011 and how much has changed since then. >> ken? >> well, i just -- tying this back to your previous question about the president. you know, i think in fact the president has done quite a good job on the economy in terms of getting things become on an even keel. i think his treasurery department is first rate from top to bottom, and i think that they've been very favorably

disposed to business and the financial sector in particular, in an appropriate way. europe -- but the president tends to get blamed for everything. if it rains, the president gets blamed. when the crisis first broke out, a friend of mine said to me, this is like trying to get 30 hank paulsens to agree with 30 nancy pelosis. it's a very complicated situation on the ground in europe because they started without a fiscal union. my impression is that angela merckle is starting to move a little bet. i think she is being pushed and i think drogge is doing a great job but what role the united states has to play is a much more difficult issue and i think the president has a good team on the case but i have no idea

whether they're going to be able to solve the problem. and i'm with you. if they don't -- i don't think the uncertainty has been discounted in the markets. i think a pyrotechnic cal blowup of europe will set back our recovery plans in a major way. >> well, i'm not so sure there's very much the united states can do about it. it's a european problem. and what it does is it makes the u.s., with its problems, look relatively attractive to people around the world. so, i have a sort of fundamental view of life, and that is that if there's a loan out there somewhere -- in other words, somebody borrowed money, one of two things happen. it gets paid back or somebody loses, and everything that's

gone on has sort of been movement toward preventing someone from losing, and with good reason, because if you marking thises down to what they're worth, the institutions are worthless. so, you know, there's this dance going on that's trying to finesse this basic problem of life, and that is it the loan is not paid off, somebody is going to lose money, and some very traditional people would argue that the answer to that is not to print money. oregon, -- on the other hand, that's been going on for decades now, so there's no stopping that. i think there's very little for the united states to do except root for a good outcome, which i think they'll eventually get to because the alternative is worse that than what they're going to get too. >> i think it's tough for a president running for

re-election because you're not -- you have a situation that you're basically not the in control of in any way, shape or form, that could blow up on you. that's kind of life. wanted to see if there are questions from the audience, and also i'm not quite sure how we do this. there is a microphone to handout? no? yes? all right. so, let's start there, and let's get a microphone. >> there's four microphones up here. >> so, start with some questions, and we may interrupt from time to time, but we've got some time. so, want to hear what is on your minds. please ask it in the form of a question. >> right here. >> i'd like to question the idea that true capitalism is at work

on wall street. under true capitalism the aattractiveness of the industry should draw so much competition that no company could get too big to fail. and if it did fail, the penalty would be on the company and its stockholders, not on the public. so since those two important tenants of capitalism are not working, i would say capitalism is not alive and well on wall street. further evidence of that is that the corporations are too big to fail. they are too big to regulate. the man in charge of regulating them, senator dodd, said he wasn't even aware that he was getting a break from his bank on his own mortgage. now, if the person in charge of regulating the banks didn't know that -- >> okay. >> -- let me finish. the final piece of evidence is that when something goes wrong

on wall street, the -- here's the question is coming. the ceo -- listen, you can't have a question without evidence. the ceo comes to the congress and he said, i had no idea that happened. so, they're too big to fail, too big to regulate, and they're too big to manage. what's the -- here's my question. what's the conclusion? >> ken? >> well, it's not just too big to fail. it's could complex and interconnected to fail. so, i could have imagined a piece of legislation that says you can only have total footings of x on your balance sheet. i don't think that would solve the problem. generally, you know, you're right. the essence of capitalism, as laid out, is creative destruction. and if there's no destruction, what's happened -- we say in the

private sector that bad stuff flows downhill so you give a bad problem to the ceo, he gives it to the senior vice president, who gives it to the vice president, who gives it to the associate, and the associate finally solves the problem. but in the financial crises around the world, bad stuff flows uphill. ... ts around the world had to step in and grab the problem and in that sense, the questioner is absolutely right. anybody disagree? the point of the questionnaire are important ones and questions we have to think about the size

and the consequence and the risk taking i intend to agree with a lot of what ken says but i wouldn't necessarily discount the competitiveness that exists currently on wall street and in our financial system. i think the banks compete every day for a number of different line of products and their business what is on the institutional side or the consumer side. it doesn't mean that we should not be policing them all the time very vigorously that there should be formerly and now may trust lawyer they can be aware of the importance of both having a competitive playing field, but also making sure that there is no anti-competitive behavior to

distort the markets. so these are very important points that are raised and we should constantly be policing them. yes, sir? >> yes, the first secretary of the treasury under fdr and was a man who was president hall so i felt that that should come out. my question to you is fdr came in with a clear question and secretary was right behind him. i came in with a clear idea that i would have huge change the commission had a lot of information out there. is the problem that we have had the result of the fact we have and have the same clarity of who was at fault and what needs to be done.

[laughter] >> of the kennedy for along time and it's not like people woke up in 1929 and said we've got a problem and we know how to fix it. it took awhile however bad our problems were four years ago, they are a whole lot worse back then. the very first thing fdr did as president was call a bank holiday to stop the run on the bank so the legislation that followed established things like the fdic which by the way roosevelt himself didn't even like, and we had a much -- there's a much lower regulatory free-market there was a much

deeper need to i think for the creation of rules that didn't really exist, which is not to say i am not a total fan of dodd-frank. i do think it is overly complex and so on. but, i don't think that it is completely parallel to say that we should have followed the aaa followed how och and questions and why certain things and that is not the same world as 1930 and it is in the same world as 1950 and i don't think people today would want to trade the way they live for the way people used to live that is one guy i would make.

second it's a lot larger today and a lot more complex, what is ge that used to be relatively simple and has to be over 50% of their business outside of the united states and a financial institution and this is the point i was trying to make early on which is i don't think the regulators can keep up with the way in which these institutions more for and the gulf and i agree that you need to have rules of the road and try to please them as well you can't ten. but ultimately, let there be a high price for failure. a price that the management's pay, the boards and directors' pay, the owners and shareholders pay because without hitting over their head, that should modify or at least hold their behavior to achieve the objectives that

the policy makers want to achieve. is there a hand? yes, sir. >> i want to ask about the consequences of the two kinds. one is let's take the movie inside job which is right on topic to what we are talking about and i think it won an academy award. and just take all of the characters in there that were responsible for the financial crisis. you have the two leading professors. one is the dean of the major business school in new york and they've really did some pretty bad things. they were okay in icelandic bonds and they admit to this or they actually live on camera that they weren't but they were. okaying those bonds, and those two faculty members were here on cnbc as if there were no consequences.

the anyone watch that movie? >> can you let me respond to that for a second? the academics did were embarrassing, and nobody has really taken on the academics before the way the inside job did but not necessarily illegal. having said that i've written a number of columns and i feel very strongly that one of the failures of the justice department has been a failure to prosecute big fish who helped bring the system down. [applause] there's been an incredible lack of action on mortgage fraud and so on and so forth. so i think that's a failure of this government. i'm not going to ask to agree or

disagree with me that i do feel strongly about that, and a consequences if you create a company that systematically rights from event mortgages, somebody has to go to jail. [applause] and nick i once asked a justice department is anybody from countrywide on any level of four down had been prosecuted and the answer was no. sprigg even the board of trustees had a business scho can't take any action it's as if the movie didn't even exist. and one other question if i may was been watching for 40 years, and i think every year the republicans have always tried to cut down -- i used to work at the sec. the use to cut down the budget year after year after year and

finally when you have a case of bernie madoff and you see what happens when you have insufficient funds to have a good enforcement staff you think that the consequences in the 2008 election are the consequences and wall street now of the regulated community would be regulation is a good thing. how can the people who probably invested that there wasn't enough regulation still skew so far to the right against regulation. [laughter] >> the -- i sometimes say that on capitol hill the financial crisis is like the eighth season of dallas. if anybody remembers that season, the ninth season began with one of the characters making it and realizing the entire agency had been a dream and hadn't actually happened.

[laughter] but, you know, one of the ways the battle was being fought between democrats and republicans right now is that democrats are trying to push forward on dodd-frank and republicans are trying to squeeze the budget of the regulators to make it more difficult to carry out the regulations. that is just a fact. >> let me ask you a question. you are calling for criminal prosecution of the various wall street figures. without naming names, and obviously a fraud is something that people should go to jail for. is their anything besides fraga that you think the leadership of the financial sector should be criminally liable for? >> i think that is a really hard question, and i do for my own sort of investigation from the book by roche, you know, there were certainly people what wall

street firms who knew that they were creating tripoli their lives that were full of junk and putting it on their own balance sheet. was that a mistake in judgment or was that fraud? i think it is a pretty hard call, but i would also like to know that during the s&l crisis over a thousand people went to jail. >> sometimes what happens in life is that there is a shift in popular sentiment and all of a sudden what was within the guidelines is outside of the boundaries and when i was in my most active years on wall street we had a thing called structured finance, and the job of these guys that work at rocket science level intelligence was to interpret the accounting rules

and the tax rules to get the most favorable treatment under growth and that meant sailing very close to the line they were in change and there were dogs and some of them got into trouble. so i think one of the problems with this idea of criminal prosecution is that it is very easy to agree that when people sold crack and called it a gold, if they knew it, they should be prosecuted but there were so many things done by rating agencies and lawyers and accountants and international this and that. to grab one of these you have to grab somebody that was a egregiously in the wrong i would

think. and it hasn't been done. >> one of the reasons is because some people would argue that it all started with pressure from the political class to do certain things that these creative people figured out how to do and make money in the process. so, you know, if you sort of -- when you have something like this happen there is plenty of blame to go around. it's not just somebody running a wall street firm and that is to blame. somebody comes in and says we want you to make loans and marginal neighborhoods and these guys are rocket scientists and figure out how to do it and then duped the rating agency into giving it a triple a rating. i think ultimately if you wash all that laundry out there are a lot of people but got subsidized loans for mortgages and that won't look good. so i think that is a part of the problem that the reason it has

been all washed out is because they don't know where all of the roads will lead and some people may be don't like it leading to their back door. >> you know, in our mythologies of corporate democracy, the buck really stops of the board of directors. when i look at the lehman brothers crisis, i say where is the board of directors? shouldn't they have placed besio before the problem? what you have countervailing issues. you can't -- if you throw the whole board in jail or you prosecute them who is going to want to serve on the board of directors? >> its more fundamental than that. when we started this session, i mentioned there is a long history to how we got to where we were and that wasn't the purpose of the session about jim markets is sitting here in the

front row and is a partner of the old goldman sachs, and he can attest to the way the firm used to run and the way the other wall street firms use to run. it was a different world all the firms were private. they had a different risk profile, and there wasn't pressure for quarterly performance that the public firms are subject to. once you transform an industry from private ownership where people's money is on the line every day to the public ownership with permanent capital, and all the pressure for performance, it is very hard for a regulator to monitor every little thing that is going on in these companies and that's why you have to sort of bus tours of the more fundamental question and that is a question about the

structure industry what businesses they should be in and shouldn't be in and which former chairman of the federal reserve paul volcker tried to address and i think it is going to be hard to go back to the glass-stegall era and the old goldman sachs and the old morgan stanley and the old lehman brothers, the crisis of the time and when i left business school there were firms like dillon read, horned lower, dozens and dozens of firms. from time to time they went under but it wasn't in the earth shaking event other than the people that worked there lost their jobs. so, that's not the world we live in today.

>> in that little time we have left just want to ask each one a few. what's going on out there and thinking about whether they are slowing down and whether that is granted be a problem for us and more about our economy to you see signs of hope and where do you feel like we stand? >> in china i'm looking for some serious near-term preservation is. i think the housing market was basically they'd get the low hanging fruit. they have a model of investing and stimulating the economy through cheap capital it's also about the chief capital they get from this financial repression they are in the negative

interest rates on that and that money is funneled into the economy, and roads, bridges and tunnels are built, housing is built, people move from the countryside to the city and productivity goes up. but for now the chief environmental input has been used so i think they have to go through a period and they are trying to slow down the housing bubble so that they can start providing cheap housing for the people. in the long run, china is a powerhouse. they've got a lot of problems to solve, and of the party is feeling very insecure right now. what's your take on our economy? >> well, i think that we're feeling very insecure. we have a trillion sitting on corporate balance sheets. we can't print our way out of this problem. we've got to find a way to

stimulate the economy and get the velocity of money out and the fundamental problem i would see as the political economy, which is you've got 8% of the electorate that hasn't decided. both presidential candidates are named in the battleground states, and so neither of them is willing to say anything bold or to get anything bold going. i think one of the problems we are feeling is we have a president who came in on a bold change platform and we didn't get that. and so, the economy is just a above zero growth. the jobs are not there. i would personally look for some political boldness. ausley laughed when we heard about the idea from new gingrich about building a colony on the

moon but at least a was bold. >> i think first of all i just want to mention that we have had positive job growth since that trust that we have in a 09 every quarter. it's not been enough for sure. but, just so we are on the same page on that, you know, there are part of it probably is the phenomenon that is hidden we have your opinion out there that may have an impact. we also have fighting some of our fiscal issues.

i think we need to put that house in order. i think, you know, there are these certain major uncertainties of the outcome is going to be that has an impact and the clearer the picture becomes in the outcome. >> well, you know, i hate to be mr. down be, but americans tend to be in patient, and i feel in my lifetime become more instant gratification, and you mentioned something happened four years ago that started more than four years ago, but of the bottom line result of what happened was that a lot of wealth was wiped out from the middle class by relating that to agnes and donna

who were from italy and where i was born in newark new jersey and when they could they bought their own home in the religiously made their payments and that was basically the savings account for the average american citizen, and so, that system pretty much reigned in place until this crisis and there is only one thing that happened that didn't happen to my parents and that is one day the average american woke up and this nest egg that they thought they had didn't exist, and when you have that amount of wealth destruction, it doesn't get cured or overcome overnight and it has an impact on people's behavior, buying habits and the like. and so, i don't think there is a messiah held there that's going to come along in the slow return

to normalcy, whatever that is, and i think that is one of the reasons you are not hearing anyone making any bold claims. having said that, i think to say you are going to raise taxes is pretty bold because most people don't want to hear that. and there are a lot of things that could be done to incentivize people to behave in a certain way like repatriate earnings that exist in american corporations if they bring it back and invest in the united states. a lot of college kids i talked to today can't find a job. so you could provide an incentive for corporations that higher college graduates. i mean, there is a lot of things that could be done besides building and calling on the moon. , but i think we need to keep in mind all the time that this was a very profound event that had a very fundamental the impact on the net worth of the average

american family, and it is going to be a long time before that is recovered. >> the colony on the moon would be a stimulus plan, however. we are out of time. i would like to think you all for being here. i want to t

look at the end of spring iran's nuclear policy and the israeli-palestinian conflict with retired admiral william fallon. the retired admiral said the middle east means u.s. leadership and the region has great geopolitical importance. serving as the commander of u.s. central command for 2007 to 2008 at ralf rollin resigned following an article in "esquire" magazine. this is about an hour and five minutes. ernt >> my name is darryl press as a seat of government here and i'll also coordinatore of the centes for on peace studies program. admiray pleasure to welcome to dartmouth al nd to introduce toh you admiral william fallon. a aviaral fallon has spent more

than 40 years servingto in the united states military. o he began his career as a naval aviator in the vietnam culminatn his position as combatant commander in the united states specific command which is the position that is responsible for all u.s. military forces, plans and operations in the entire region of asia. he was subsequently the combatant commander of the united states central command which has the same responsibility but for all u.s. forces in the middle east. these are arguably the two most important positions in the united states military, and had oral fallon is the only person that has served in both positions. since his retirement, from the united states navy four years ago, admiral fallon has begun a second career of public service and served in a variety of boards and commissions and panels related to higher education, related to various congressional commissions and also for the private sector. admiral fallon is an expert will

only on u.s. national security policy but u.s. foreign policy. about two minutes ago, before we walk out here, he said what are you going to say in the introduction and i gave him a 22nd version of this and he said forget all that stuff. just say to use to fly airplanes and he wishes he still did. [laughter] with that please join me in welcoming admiral william fallon. [applause] thanks for the kind introduction short and sweet and following my mother's good advice to be seen, be seen and be gone. i hate to stop making excuses but as you can probably hear, i just spent an hour and a half a bunch of undergraduates here and i was screaming at them to make up for an hour and a half. that is actually not true.

i think this comes from chasing my grand kids around montana last week. come back here. come back here. anyway i'm delighted to be here with you today. at the dartmouth this is my last visit to the campus and i like what i see. i particularly like the factor that's about 40 degrees cooler and very grateful. timing is everything. let me get into it. just to talk a little bit about the middle east and our interest in the policies related thereto. it's an area of high interest and a fair amount of my path that's been in the area. but what i would like to begin with is this. american interaction with the extent of the middle east actually came early to the young nation through the u.s. navy and

its deployments against part in the 19th century and in fact until recently the u.s. presence and focus in the middle east region has been primarily maritime overseeing u.s. economic and security interests with only a small footprint. now, my first personal experience in the region was about 35 years ago and i was actually visiting in the capacity and a professional capacity as a naval officer. this 35 years ago is not very distant at least for some of us at a certain age, but it is a relatively recent from the historical perspective considered but from this course back a couple hundred years ago

sustained u.s. engagement as recent has only been predated by my visit for about 30 years. it's pretty upsetting. i was arriving at the mediterranean seaport he might ask what is the admiral know about the middle east and west we pay any attention to them at all and there's an awful lot written and written on the campus and many people know many things my perspective is a little bit different than some might have encountered and i visited every country from the arabian peninsula through southeast asia and all of the waterways. much as occurred on this part of the world in the last four

decades and for better or worse by an unseen for most of it and it's the most vivid experience in life revolved around people to the diverse culture of this region a woman by the name of dela so let me set the scene. 1977 and on the first aircraft carrier to ever visit the state of israel and the u.s. navy ship to ever call in this country so we enter the harbor, and a couple of us went to the shore to set up some things and we are greeted by this short energetic woman that seems to be everywhere and she comes up to

me and cubs my hand and hugs me and says my name is gela and i am pleased you are here we are so happy you come to visit us fifth and we have people that want to share your enthusiasm she was a wonderful woman from azerbaijan in the early country, and she seemed to know everybody in the country. it doesn't matter whether they are jewish or arab or christian who were visiting she seemed to know everybody and her enthusiasm for people and the

possibilities of people doing things together is quite contagious. i asked her what she down here employed at the israeli government or the u.s. navy hired her. she looked at me strangely. no, i came because i want to welcome you. we want to welcome you. meet my friends. i stayed in touch and have seen how many times and the last 30 some years and remarked to several people that if she were the president, maybe not likely to be the prime minister, if she were the president of this country, things would have happened probably a lot faster. she showed me what was possible. she would take me out when we have time and introduce me to people every religious and cultural and travel persuasion

we could imagine and it's actually a pretty diverse country and people are in lebanon and jordan and egypt and in turkey and just about every place else in the region i have to tell you i have to confess she is not quite so enthusiastic today about the longer-term as she was back in those days. but she still has an optimistic view of people. so i took a lot of lessons from that first meeting and i keep in mind. anything is possible if people are willing to work for it. and she certainly is. i digress. back to the policy. the policy-making and execution in this region has been shaped and pressurized by political and economic and security factors. you might ask so what. what's different. for this reason and legislatures. while the middle east is complicated by acutely

conflicting religious and ethnic and social issues and there's land, the sand, the vast desert areas, millions of square miles of mostly parched earth, rocks and sand. sand on the move, shifting constantly in the wind coming and there is the silence, the emptiness, the absolute absence of sound in the desert that envelops the census like a shroud. i didn't appreciate this until i actually experienced it. i've vented asserts many places. they've never been keeping that in the desert as i have in several places in the middle east to have this feeling. it presses down on one everywhere. it is an assault on the senses.

it is an ever-present reminder of the unforgiving environment in which the survival is a today where people with with a shrewd interaction. .. its appreciation of the environment is the ingredients understanding the history of culture and behavior of people in this region. of course the cultures have lived and thrived and often prospered since the earliest days reported to the featured change and conflict alliances

often shifting, and now the u.s. with a little more than half aaa century of experience in theregn region from half a, world awayf has inserted itself and never craft policy policy. it can be grouped into three main categories. economic, political and security. in the economic sphere, the defining issue the participated in renewed american interests in the 1940s and continues to shape engagement today can be expressed in one word. oil. the energy sector, by vast petroleum and natural gas, reserves in the region of the industrialized another development in the nations of the world.

>> recognized by the u.s. and on other industrial countries, created a harjo carbon dependency that magnify the influence of this region of the world economic and political status. the middle east embargo in the 1970s and the returning spike in the 1980s sent shockwaves rippling through the financial market. persistently high price of oil was a result, and resulted in small behavioral changes from the u.s., japan and western europe. namely reduced consumption, albeit slight, in a pursuit of alternative energy sources. you demand from china and india to power the developing country

has had baseball in the middle east and identity resources. the ripple effect of supply and sensitivity have maintained a high level of u.s. interests in the region. a major factor in the energy business in the available supply since the 70s has been the international oil cartel, opec, the organization of petroleum exporting countries, which has influenced supplies with a resulting impact on supplies on other nations. by the way, replacing the railroad commissioner of texas, for those with memory. as the arbiter of world oil prices. of course, this country tends to act in its interest, unanimity will not act in opec's behavior. the track record of the group in line with various wars and international tensions have

resulted in higher prices and is a major factor in the world economy. with high impact and high interest world leaders. opec has blamed a new factor in the past decade, which has supported the unusually were on a historic basis, high prices would be interesting will futures is an asset class and world financial market. i believe this is truly becoming a factor in keeping the markets up. u.s. policymakers have achieved only spotty success in moderating oil price fluctuations. supply and demand for oil and gas will continue to be at or near the top of economic concerns regardless of declining u.s. imports from the region because of worldwide energy needs. virtually all of these are conveyed by sea, along with other commerce in the region. these commercial lifelines are the economic lifelines of the

world and special interest of the u.s. and its identity for addressing this interest, the u.s. navy. of particular concern are the three major merits. potential choke points through which they are all energy exports in the region. strait of hormuz, and the suez canal. more than half of the oil and gas coming out of the golf actually continue around through india and through northeast asia. the straits are high interest all throughout the world. as we are aware, these points, namely iran, yemen, somalia and egypt, our current points of

purity and stability. we mentioned previously but to emphasize again the interdependence and counter activity of world economies guarantees the impact of events, good or otherwise, in this region, for world economic and political entities. given the near instantaneous transmission of information around the world, the combination of high energy demand, limited reserves and nearly continuous turmoil and attention on the region. the latest anxiety and potential for interference or manipulation of the energy flow. segueing into the topic of security is a driving factor of interest for the u.s. we note in stability, conflict in wars are continuous

hallmarks. the postcolonial era in the region is featured conflict of one kind or another spending the entire middle east through the north african area and beyond the call. in addition to concern about energy resources, the region feature commonly in the cold war. and witnessed the emergence of authoritarian leaders almost everywhere. the creation of the state of israel has proven to be an enduring flashpoint in arab and israeli relations. in a split up since the 1940s. the u.s. has had a robust marathon presence the end of world war ii. but only a modest few ships in the gulf through the 1970s. u.s. military forces became much more attentive with the rhizome rise of the iranian revolution procedure of the iraqi war in

1980. it was a series of bloodletting that was in the status quo antebellum between iraq and iran. president jimmy carter came into office not long after the oil embargo in 1973. having been deeply disturbed of the economic impact and u.s. dependency, he famously declared the energy crisis the moral equivalent of war. this concern heightened by events in iran and the soviet invasion of afghanistan, led to another declaration, the so-called carter doctrine, as stated by president carter in his state of the union address in january, 1980.

let our position be absolutely clear. an attempt by an outside force to gain control of the persian gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the united states of america in such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. this message was aimed primarily at the soviet union. this restatement of previous and more general warnings by truman and nixon, started wheels turning in washington and elsewhere. in fact, the time the u.s. had scant military capability in the region. and it recently begun strategizing about potential middle east contingencies. establish a task force was directed to focus on the area with the aim of ensuring stability and commerce. a few years later under president reagan, that reservation was upgraded to full

combatant status as the united states central command. the high-level military attention that continues today was institutionalized man. u.s. forces, again, primarily marathon, began spending more time particularly in the gulf. with both wrong in iraq as they jockey for advantage. throughout the 1980s. relations between the u.s. and around were contentious, setting the stage for what has become a decade-long of animosity, distrust and posture. this has evolved to the situation today in which iran is working hard to achieve an upper hand against preemptive action and nuclear weapons capabilities. saddam hussein's invasion of kuwait in 1990 and the resulting us-led coalition from iraqi forces led to the first

large-scale introduction of u.s. ground and air forces for the region. this influx of man and woman power and culture was viewed with anxiety and the gulf states. especially in the kingdom of saudi arabia. but it's a good, albeit reluctantly, in order to counter the aggression. expulsion of saddam's forces from kuwait featured a diverse coalition of forces and throughout the region, carefully assembled by the u.s. and is is considered the high watermark of regional security cooperation debate. iran, of course, did not join the coalition despite a decade-long conflict with iraq, in fact, agreed to terms ending hostilities with saddam, shortly after the latter invaded kuwait. in the aftermath of the first gulf war, u.s. retained a higher profile military presence in the

region. mostly naval and air forces, but including a substantial ground capability in kuwait. the focus now is to contain iraq, as if saddam continues suppression in the south of iraq, threatening neighbors against western interference. it is noteworthy that eventually all u.s. military presence is were removed from the kingdom of saudi arabia. tensions remained high in the '90s as they frustrated every effort to stabilize the region. despite enthusiastic intentions by president george h. w. bush and his administration, to leverage the cooperation experienced during the gulf war to encourage settlements of these really in palestinian issue, no real progress was realized and that security situation continued to feature almost constant conflict by

military and terrorist actions and all-too-familiar creature of the amnesty between the sides. attacks against the u.s. on september 11, 2001, headlined the seriousness of security threats posed by radical islamists, organized by al qaeda on the direction of osama bin laden. these attack attacks had huge repercussions on the world. the complexity and enormity of regional security issues and second, the consequences of perception by people. it is ironic that many of the radicals that caused so much pain and last decade, were the same people who we supported with financial material resources just a few years previously in afghanistan and the struggle against the soviets.

the complex and seemingly contradictory lines of activity in the region merit our attention an attempt at understanding. the second issue here of perceptions, our own people in the region is related to the previous one. a key attribute of our perception of the middle east is generalization. a common inclination for simple understanding but one fraught with peril was to know our differences but people won't together. this oversimplified perception coupled with the enormity of fear, outrage and the desire for retaliation, which ripped our nation and elsewhere, post 9/11, complicated our ability to plan strategically. we would do well to remember that the middle east defines generalization. after 9/11 we witnessed afghanistan to expel al qaeda,

the invasion of iraq in increasing hostility and relations with iran and the movement of forces throughout the nation. let me summarize recent security issues and the repercussions today. the wars in iraq and afghanistan and their consequences. finally, the continued threat of radicals enter attacks supported by regional entities. linkages about that, lingering mistrust of u.s. intentions continues to motivate potential terrorists. we are focused on regime change, following the iraqi model. u.s. support for recently deposed and currently challenge governments is viewed with great

suspicion. moving to the social dimensions of u.s. policy, we were immediately in uncharted waters. the unprecedented events commonly referred to as the arab spring, have challenged conventional thinking and appear to be moving in multiple directions. first, let's talk about some background. after our initial foray in the 19th century, the significant event next to occur in the region was president franklin delano roosevelt on his way back from tehran, he went to malta and including egypt, and then boarded a u.s. navy ship, interestingly. which set sail for the great lake. in a period of a day and a half,

president roosevelt entertained free three visitors. images and pictures of him at the time showed a serious situation and how ill he was. when he asked to meet with three leaders in the region. , individually, first, mahmoud ahmadinejad from saudi arabia. king farouk of egypt. in the emperor of ethiopia. i am seeing pictures of these events and they were entertaining if nothing else. a picture of this, it was a u.s. navy heavy cruiser with guns and anchors in the middle of the lake.

part of the suez canal passage. along comes the destroyer, bearing the king of saudi arabia and his entourage, which were in the hundreds. they all came aboard and pictures of the king and the president sitting together. in the line of what must be 100 watching intently. it is noteworthy that politics, not oil, highlighted each of these conversations with the president. king farouk was interested in getting out of egypt. the king returned to ethiopia.

a very strenuous terms, against the formation of the jewish state. as we know, the end of control, which borders arbitrarily the powers set in motion events and activities which vexed policymakers today. governments which replaced the orioles were headed without exception at one time or another. the absence of democracy, individuals and groups, including well-known entities like the muslim brotherhood in the [inaudible name] party, generally did little to address the need of advancements of individual citizens. with the cold war's backdrop, regional leaders often they

were, seeking economic and military support, and we usually reward them for their cooperation by the great powers. the u.s. has often found itself in regional policy dilemmas, as it strives to boost democratic processes, yet not alienate longtime supporters who are otherwise stable economic security arrangements. ultimately, vertical sediments and solutions must be found and should be the long-term aim of the united states. but where to focus first to with issues in the region, it is understandable that policymakers are often challenged with the issue du jour. something comes up every day. and we have to deal with it.

but we do it at the expense of the long-term issues. the three big challenges in the region today that overshadow all else, by the way their linkage between these two, first, the uprisings and protest are in record numbers. second, upon its request for nuclear weapons while continuing to inflate revolution and export terrorism. third, the long festering impasse between the israelis and palestinians. some are of the view that if only palestine were solved, everything else would be resolved. i don't embrace that view. but i do believe that a solution, no doubt imperfect, and not without risk and anxiety must be found for this problem. the status quo is untenable for both parties. the resolution of the conflict is a crucial and vital national security interest of the united states. the u.s., us, american leadership is an essential

component, catalyst and conference provider if we are ever to see a google lucian accommodates israeli security interests and palestinian sovereignty. iran, with the first shock waves of the postcolonial era itself, would be to overthrow the shop, has exchanged one type of authoritarian rule for the other, albeit with some trappings and government. the right to return to the historic dominance in the region, but they continue to arrange things to start trouble in and around palestine and israel and neighboring iraq and afghanistan. as with other top issues in the region, this one has many layers of complexity, including centuries-old competing, disputes, and anti-americanism as part of their credibility and visions of historic renderer.

resolution of this issue will involve the u.s. and require a vast reservoir of intern pension planning, terrible executions and a lot of patience. the last of the challenges is how to deal with the monumental achievements in the end of the colonial period or the popular movements sweeping the region are the clear indicator of dissatisfaction with the recent status quo. out with the old, and easily understood message. what remains to be seen is what macs. we have seen a revolution and governing from the past, more often than not, some degree of chaos, or at least untidiness and dues. we are inclined to admire actions that oppose tyrants. the problem, of course, is without her international and institutional structure of governance, the process is a little different. it is no small matter