one note that before you have four leading experts on the topic. we want to know they represent several of the agencies that are involved but there are many others involved as well. ?rt interest of time we cannot have represents from all. we hope it has been useful to have a few points for the discussion and will stimulate further discussion of the issues. one more thank you to our naomi foundation. one final reminder on the way out of the door. if you didn't sign in. we will have materials available we have the web stream, the reporting the event posted shortly. please check back to our website for additional information with that. thank you very much for coming. ..

last week the education department posted its third annual bullying prevention summit here in washington. this panel focuses on ensuring that antibullying efforts are based on the best available research. >> good morning everyone. my name is blachman-demner at the institute of justice, and i think i will be joined momentarily by michael moderator, valerie maholmes from the institute of childhood health and development. we are both very excited to have this panel. today the panel will be started shortly. we're still getting all the lights up.

but both al and i are in the federal partners and bullying provincial worker per particularly on the committee. this is valerie. and we are very excited actually for this panel today. this panel really grew out of a recognition in the last couple but we have been understanding lately focused on the use of the victims of bullying. but as we have heard from all ready at this year's summit, we know bullying occurs in a much broader coext, and in order to ensure that our schools are safe and support of places for all students, we really need to understand what factors may be used to participate in bullying behavior and to find ways to support those as well. as we heard a little bit about yesterday many of the current strategies such as a zero tolerance, ultimately are not particularly helpful. the research shows and we really want to understand more about

youth who bully but there is a good number come small but critical number who are actually involved in both behavior as well as victims and we want to make sure that we can really understand those experiences and find ways to support all use, so i'm excited for the panel today who will be presenting some of the research and interventions that research is supported to help us explore these issues. so, are they ready? okay. we will have them all come out and then i will briefly introduce them. >> i'm going to briefly

introduced the speakers who have their full biographies in the book. i don't want to take any more time away from their presentations. we will start with dr. dorothy espelage professor in the the cut of educational psychology at the university of illinois urbana champagne and she's been conducting research on bullying, homophobic teasing, sexual harassment and dating violence the last 20 years. she will start off by reviewing the risk factors associated with aggression and bullying and discuss how it is linked with gender based aggression. >> thank you. >> thank you for a much. good morning. so, we have about 12 minutes to take you for 20 years of research. hopefully you have your coffee. what i first want to do is because we have about 12 minutes, i want to talk about what we know from the perspective. if we were to take the study and look at the extent to which they looked at 153 studies and see

what we know about those kids that bully others peery if we look at this data analysis across on hundred 53 studies, from the cross sectional studies many snapshot, if we look a child that belize others at high rates, what we see that occurs? and what we find is that at least cook and his colleagues at the university of washington found these kids have significant externalized behavior, increased social decreased social confidence, academic challenges, negative attitudes towards others, and a family characterized by conflict. however, if you look closely at that met the analysis you will see there's these types of outcome, really that are moderated by age meaning that as the kids age they became more popular within the context of the peer groups and you'll hear more about that from dr. faris. but if we want to think about moving forward from cross sectional studies, and you have heard already from the department of justice there's a.m. an apparent link between

bullying and criminality. if we look at a special pleasure of the commercial behavior and mental health coming and if you dig deeper into those studies you ultimately find that those kids that are engaged in bullying across longitudinal analysis are at risk for criminal involvement, alcohol and drug use, challenges within their occupation. but the reality is they conclude there might be association. once they can control all of these other risk factors within their environment, that association between bullying and commonality is reduced. so we are at a point where there might be some kids got bully others that may have a criminal trajectory but that may not be the entire story for all kids. so, the bottom line is there is a limited number of longitudinal studies that unpack the mechanisms and the context of variables that explain why kids bully others. there's few longitudinal studies that consider how it is related to these negative outcomes

coming and with the mechanisms are undermining peace process these. and so what i want to do is show you some research funded by the center for disease control, and i want to appreciate my project officer, kathleen and the late morrill who was instrumental in funding this work and really driving those research questions. what we know what those kids that both the others and what we see year and what i am showing you this example and a really quick and a demonstration of the research of the tip of the iceberg to understand what are these kids like that will the others. we're looking at about 1,108th graders and we tracked them from fifth to eighth grade over and i'm going to show you some findings. you may not be impressed by this beautiful structure but ibm and my team is coming into this builds on the cross sectional research which limits our ability to understand the nuanced mechanisms hallett is kids begin to bully others.

what i'm going to walk you through our three waves of data from fifth grade to seventh grade and what this shows is that for boys and this is the boy model, boy is better in homes where there are high rates of family violence and civil aggression are more likely to bully others longitudinal iain if you have to look at the aero from time one to time to then you will see that that is not the complete picture, that in fact engagement and bullying father children places them at risk for alcohol and drug use. see they're a tree. but if you also look at the red circle, that actually predicts alcohol and drug use which and predicts further engagement in bullying perpetration so it's not just focusing on the cross sectional believe it is limited we need to understand the mechanism so this would say that family violence might be one of the potential risk factors that we should really think about in our prevention efforts rather

than those that will the others. but the take-home message is from those analysis is that many do so in reaction to a conflict or violence within their homes and if we see a version perhaps as a proxy for family violence and then we may want to think about the bullying prevention effort addressing some of that. at the same time, those that a bully others may have particular risk for using substances. now, i want to draw -- i'm trying to tell this story in a very short amount of time we are seeing very complex associations with bullying and sexual violence and homophobic patrician. so it's not just that kids baliles there is but the middle school may actually lead them to engage in other forms of bullying and that could be homophobic teasing. and ultimately is kids are in schools in which there's a promotion of masculinity and endorsement of what we would call heterosexual norms, it may be that they have to demonstrate their heterosexuality by

engaging in sexual violence over time and my colleagues kathleen besio and others have talked about sexual violence pathway. and we have done a number of series of studies looking at bully, homophobic content to the extent they also engage in homophobic and direct homophobic banter to others. we also have free engaged the sexual to see what is happening there is a training for banter and the mcginn kids feel the need to demonstrate their heterosexuality by sexually harassing one publicly. so, our hypothesis is just that that bullying perpetration and homophobic teasing patrician are associated and linked and i did say possibly linked and i feel very comfortable about that and i would also hypothesize bullying perpetration and homophobic teasing perpetration would be associated with later

onset of sexual violence perpetration. then let's take it even more to the point we might be able to intervene at this is this idea that bullying perpetration is the association with sexual harassment or longitudinal the need be the strongest for those kids that adhere to what we call the traditional masculinity that you always need to be boys like we heard yesterday from the young man that he had to man out he demonstrated why he engaged in bleeding perpetration towards others when we look at the same office as the one you to recognize that first when we look at this middle school sample when we look at the kids engaging in high rates of bullying refine equal numbers between male and female, 12%. more alarming however is finding out we continue to see since 2000 and the number of kids that engage in homophobic than turning towards others pity or 34% of the police are engaged in the behavior of high rate and 20% of the girls are engaging in this case you're a high rate. so again there is a suggestion that perhaps bullying a

perpetration as common. 12%. but perhaps the homophobic bantering content directed towards others may be even more common. that's to get to yet another beautiful, i know, model let 9:00 in the morning. dorothy of course will show you this is what is called the kossel transactional model for the association deutsch and those kids that bully others, and those that the indirect homophobic banter and to others to nine dirty early adolescence. the words we think are so innocent play a major socialization and the stem and early adolescence. if your bullying provincial primm is not addressing homophobic bantering, the use of that language, it is public and to be ineffective. given these really strong longitudinal links. homophobic name-calling is prevalent in middle school and it's not just in the state of illinois we are finding it in other states. resorts to homophobic name

calling over the middle school years. we have a causal link that we feel very strongly about and it is replicated in multiple studies. we also find the prevention programs should include that discussion. around the language that marginalize is not just lgbt boys and girls that anyone that is gender nonconforming. the second hypophysis is what's called a story not only bullying and homophobic bantering, but we also show in a series of studies that bullying, homophobic of bullying is linked to sexual violence over time and that is essentially what these circles show and the longitudinal analysis one way, way to come a two year difference. strong longitudinal was seized along bullying, homophobic bantering and sexual harassment perpetration. now, rather than showing you another beautiful diagram that has even more circles on it, i

want to tell you about our moderating analysis. now, the bottom line is what this shows. longitudinal you that if kids -- when they believe others in fifth or sixth grade, they will have a high propensity to engage in sexual violence perpetration if they endorse a traditional masculinity ideology. and this is for the ways and girls. if boys and girls believe they should be still and not express their emotions, there will be an increase for bullying to sexual violence perpetration over the middle school years. we should remember the sexual violence perpetration in middle school we are not necessarily talking about sexual assault but we are talking about commentary and sexual rumors that may be precursors to other forms of violence as the transition to high school. so what are the implications prevention? i hinted on many of them but we must consider as we think about who are these kids that bully others? this great complexity and what they bring to the table.

whether it's violence in the home, whether it is a sampling aggression where they've modeled this behavior. i have chosen to focus on something that is very amenable and prevention. and that is the use of homophobic banter and the expression of sexual violence that seems to stand longitudinal lee from bullying. we must address this in our bullying prevention program. it's one way where we can. people are starting to do this coming and we must, must address homophobic and turning and the ways in which sexual violence patrician as expressed in order to promote hyrum orman devotee and our schools. thank you. [applause] thank you, dorothy. many of dr. roger faris is as yet professor of sociology the university california davis. his research focuses on social networks and how they are structured, how they structure ander structure of the conflict and aggression. and he will talk about social network drivers of aggression and bullying.

>> thank you very much for having me. i really appreciate this opportunity to talk to kind of a new community of people that i'm not usually talking to. is the microphone okay? okay. so, i also am going to have to compress a whole lot of research, many use of 3-cd because the six years of research into a few slides, about 25. but i'm going to gloss over a lot of the deals here. but all of my research lately has focused on two and have questions. the first one and have questions or who victimizes whom and why? and i think this is one and have questions because the answer to both of these questions are linked. the motivation, it turns out, drives the targeting. and the second question is what happens to them as a result of their involvement in the aggression? so, the data on use come from to 40 different communities. the first is a large study of adolescents in north carolina

who usually a typical small town and rural areas of north carolina. the second study is a wealthy suburb of new york city on long island. quite different communities. but the kids are all in eighth through 12th grade. we follow them over a period of time, different periods of time it would be the longitudinal studies, which allow us again to sort of disentangle some of the causal relationships here. so, one of the things i focus on in my research and social networking analysis which is kind of a fancy way of saying a study relationships between people and how those relationships are linked to read a lot of social network analsis is focused on positive relationships like friendship, so we have collected the friendship relation of these kids and we know we can create social maps in the schools but on top of that we also collect the data on who is speaking on whom, who is bullying homing and victimizing whom.

so that as a new layer of questions when we can focus on. we also know what they are doing with physical violence. is it ostracism and so on and how frequently it occurs. the idea of the social network analysis is best illustrated in pictures. here we have an image of a hypothetical school and where they represent students the line between them are friendships. and this probably looks like something like a bird's nest there are some important ideas that come through. one is if you can see there are some clustering in the school that works. kids don't all aggregate together equal the. the cluster in groups and you can see that. you can see there are dense regions of this diagram and more peripheral sparse regions, so there are kids who very in popularity or centrality of the networks. and that might have implications for their involvement in bullying. as one possible pattern that we might observe what look like this. so, where we see kids who are on the margins of a social networks

are taking on other kids who are marginal and that is a lot of reason to think that might occur. but in fact when we actually find in our data is the opposite. so, we find that actually has kids become more central in the social networks, their involvement in aggression but as a perpetrator and as a victim increases. the rates of aggression increase as they climb the social hierarchy. that begins to taper off once they approach the top. as a come in in these terms, once they reach around the four or five levels of mentality and you don't have to worry about what that means that it means they are very central. they are at the hub of centralized school. and at that point their aggression and victimization rates tend to taper off but what we are finding is the will of aggression is occurring within the center of these networks rather than the periphery. and there is one exception. there are kids who are what we

call isolette who do not receive french of nominations. they are at elevated risk of being picked on by their classmates. so, with that exception, most of it is occurring at the center and we can also look at ths as a diavik level. so this is an illustration of the rate of aggression and the diavik level. so between parents and kids and what it basically tel us is that the highest rates of aggression are occurring when both, both kids are relatively high status. as a, a lot of the central. that is that orange area on the top right of the grass. so, we are seeing a lot occurring between the relatively high status kids who are targeting other high status kids. we are also finding that a lot of aggression is occurring within the cicione demographic categories. so, on the left side we see the rate of aggression are the

highest within racial groups rather than across. is what has a african-americans are likely to target other african-americans and caucasians the highest rates are with engender but you see a somewhat more crossing gender line and then the last group we looked at is sexual categories from and we see high year rates of involvement in aggression among lgbt youth but i want to interpret those numbers cautiously because we have a relatively small number of kids whose of identified with those categories. we also see that bullying aggression tends to occur with a relatively short social distance. so in other words, we see more of it occurring within friendship groups rather than across the school that works. so it's not like kids are picking on complete strangers. they're picking on kids who are

friends of friends and the rate of aggression declines the farther apart they are. so again, this is consistent with the notion that there is a lot of targeting of rifles. and it is a process of trying to claim the social hierarchy. there is a - evidence that is occurring within the groups but i'm not going to read this out loud. i think you'll have printouts of the slides. these stories come from kids who reported their experiences on a website called a bullying board feet could or did. they're talking about how their friends turn on them and how it would involve a lot of harassment and torment. so this is actually what we see. so again, this kind of encapsulates everything i've been talking about so far. the kids in the middle are targeting other kids in the middle. this is coded by gender. and you can see the same. this is a different school, this is a long island school. you see the same pattern with

race, excuse me, grade and schooling and you see most of the aggression is occurring within the dense core of these networks. so, why do they do it? what we find is the status motivation really are driving this. the market's care about being popular, the more likely they are to become aggressive. but moreover, the more their friends care about being popular, the more likely they are to become aggressive. so there is a period of the process that is driving which is a game in which kids are using aggression to climb the social hierarchy. okay, so the last question what happens to them as a result of their involvement. we find for victims this is very standard in our data we find the number of times the number of classmates that on you is associated with increases in anxiety, depression and anger levels, and we also find that they become marginalized social become so victims lose that

social network center of the can become less attached to the schools of these are facts we see at as well. but these are facts are actually worse for the high status victims, yet i can talk about that later on in the q&a if there's questions about that. so, for the aggressive side of the ideas proposed are these are ways in which kids plan hierarchies get one of the questions as whether it works. our kids who are aggressive, do they actually gain in status, and to address the question, my colleague and i gathered information from a high school yearbooks we have great indicators of who is a high status kid. so we identify eletes in the schools and we look at who their friends were coming using our social network data and we try to predict whether aggression as onetime point predicted the status two years later. and what we found is that yes,

aggression, kids who are more aggressive far more likely to reach one of these elite social circles but also really depended on who the victims were. so who the target it mattered for this prospect. but it also comes as psychological chris. so, even though they were gaining social status, they were also increasing in anxiety and depression and a losing attachment with school, somewhat paradoxically. what i would like to do is actually with a question rather than a summation i want to recap to say that we find basically to patterns and work. kids are -- kids are getting harassed and targeted as we might expect. but we also see a process that is relatively high status kids dropping for social position and with a damaging consequences across the board i think one of the questions i would like to propose out there is more are the implications for if this is something the kids are using to

climb social hierarchy and if it actually works, how can we retool the prevention programs to address this process? if it's working and is being rewarded what are the prevention programs going to do about it? so, how can they change that dynamic? thank you. [applause] >> next we will have dr. joseph wright the head of the child's health advocacy institute which is a newly established center of excellence of the children's national center as well as a professor and vice chairman of the department of pediatrics and professor of the marriage and the medicine and health policy at george washington university school of medicine and public health. and he is going to talk to us today about mental and physical health impacts on the youth who engage in bullying behavior. >> thank you, valerie. good morning everyone. try like to shift gears just a

little bit. i have nothing to disclose other than i am a card-carrying member of the american academy of pediatrics and one question i want to ask you to think about the as we move through my presentation is for those of you that her parents in the audience, have you had an opportunity to think about your pediatrician, you're child's pediatrician as a player with regard to bullying prevention? the other lines that i am coming from is as a 20 year member of the the part of emergency medicine at the children's national medical center which is one of the busiest pediatric, has one of the busiest pediatric emergencies departments with over 100,000 visits, and i mention that because this is where i got my clinical introduction to the issue of bullying and frames mauney remarks this morning. not only do we have a children's

national great deal of exposure through our emergency department but also my colleague who is pictured there in a one of our publications manages a clinic for health-related problems associated with bullying, not surprisingly most of his patience in that clinic are victims and not identified as bullies. you're familiar with this epidemiology. i just show it to point out that the small percentage of children that are victims is an important category to be cognizant of, and we welcome back to that with regard to practical approaches in the clinical environment. this is the question i get asked most often from my colleagues. so, you know, what's all the fuss? isn't this just kids being kids? and the answer that i have come to get is the issue of concern

is really the association with the development of more serious behavior with a fever tell the jury behavior down the line. and also deleterious consequences that clearly may not be evident in the acute care situation. so, the question is is it the tip of the intentional injury iceberg as a concern from a clinical standpoint that we need to pay attention to? certainly from the standpoint of the literature as recently as a decade ago, this comes from an editorial at the medical association there was not a great deal of evidence at all that should a relationship of bullying were being bullied with the risk of serious violence downstream. over the course of the last decade of course there's been a great deal of work and i'm sure

most of you are familiar with this work down at the national institute of child health and human development. the group that demonstrated that there is not only in association , but also an association that is greater with regard to the within carriage, with regard to frequent fighting and also injuries that bring children to my attention and the emergency department. and again, these associations are stronger for the bullies and their targets. and we have heard from all of the speakers so far this morning. the higher likelihood of the number of other features downstream using the substance abuse and academic performance, truancy and crime conviction down the line. now, one of the issues we were concerned about an hour clinical

ephriam it is that of retaliation. and i mentioned to you the small percentage of children that are bully victims may represent in my practice a large percentage of the kids at present in the clinical space. so we conducted the study supported in part by funding from the health resources and services administration to emergency medical service for children's program to actually take a look at the children who were presenting to us as assault victims had our emergency department and trauma center and asked several questions of that group. some very interesting findings i wanted to share with you 64% of them disagreed with the statement that i believe revenge is a good thing. however, when we ask the question you hit them back 77% endorsed a statement and this is a little bit confusing to us.

what we learn is the adolescents perception of their parents' attitude towards fighting had the greatest single impact on their response to this and it poses a bit of a conundrum as reactivate young people to be actors and to be advocates and participate in the prevention of bully. one of the challenge is one of the attitudes of their parents and it in their households. it's really have a crossroads and something that i think for me certainly as a pediatrician who has to counsel in the office space both parents and children at the same time a challenge as to how to do that. this actually speaks to what we are aware of in the ms. analysis

and the secret service that looks at the incidence columbine going back to look at the cases of mass casualty shootings. two-thirds of the cases the analysis revealed they had threatened or injured before the incident. so again, making the point that the victim dynamic very much as an important factor to consider. now, here's the bottom line for me. what is it that the pediatrician can do? a clinician that is dealing with families and children and parents all in this case of either an office visit or if the community-based health clinics. what is it that clinicians can offer? the first thing that i tell my colleagues is obviously awareness and advocacy around the issue is critical. there is so much misinformation and lack of information that

parents have that's critical particularly for pediatricians who have many more contact opportunities with parents of younger children than other clinicians. but in terms of the individual level what is it that we can actually incorporate into the practice as part of the anticipatory guidance, as part of the way that you actually get information and talk to young people in the office space what is it that pediatricians can do? three years ago, the american academy of pediatrics really got on board with this in a big way and published this policy statement around the world with pediatrician and youth violence prevention with a big focus on bullying and i wanted to take a moment just to share with you, and by the way, what i'm going to show you supported in part by work from funding from the doj

and izzie ojjdp that the american academy of pediatrics has published called connected kids and has made available to all of its members. so let's see if this technology will work. this is the pediatrician with the victim. >> allin in your shoes ever wants to be here. i totally understand why you don't feel like being here. but i ask your mom to weed out site so that i could talk to you by yourself because i think when stuff like this is going on it is easier to have these conversations one on one. so, i and and you are having trouble at school. >> getting kicked around in all of a sudden everybody is concerned. >> you probably feel like that isn't fair. you're right it is and care to

the cover. they should have cared when it was you and i care now and i carow for the kids that you're giving a hard time for and eye care for you because what you are doing is actually bullying. and it is not okay. we need to help you figure out another way to resolve your conflicts besides bullying the kids that are getting on your nerves. >> the just bother me. they think they are better than everyone else. estimate but you know that's not your job to keep them in line, right? it's your job to keep yourself in line, not anybody else in line. if you think these kids are scary to you? >> the better be. >> okay. so this is a facsimile of an

office visit that points out a couple of very fundamental approaches that may not be evident to the pediatrician, the commission if reasonable approach an open-ended question being able to allow the young person to tell a story and sometimes that is tough to do and the pressure confines of an office visit. the other thing is obviously subornation from the parent. we can talk about the value and the importance of that. again, i just wanted to share with you this morning from a clinical perspective what it is and how this presents in the clinical space and how we might activate clinician's specifically pediatricians to participate. thank you. [applause] >> now we will have dr. nancy

riestenberg join us who will be talking about another strategy for supporting students that bully. she has over 25 years of experience in the field of violence prevention education, child sexual abuse prevention and restorative measures in schools and she is currently in school specialist for the administrative department of education so let's give her a round of applause. [applause] >> good morning everyone. i'm very honored to be here. however i do have to make one correction. i do not have a ph.d. but if you ought to give me 1i would appreciate it. i feel so welcome here in washington when i came here yesterday i thought they thought about me. it's so cold it reminds me of minnesota in january. thank you. actually though i do want to say that it has been really wonderful to work always with the staff here at the u.s. department of education over the 18 years i worked for minnesota. i found them enormously helpful

so thank you. what i would like to talk about today, and here is the fancy clicker is restored as practices strategies to support students involved in bullying but before it took about about ways to hold students accountable without sending them away and to build communities in the school, i want to first -- with a white to press that? talk about wall. i want to tell a little story. some of your probably quite familiar with it. it's about the beginning of public health. there was a neighborhood in london back in the 1800's where people were getting very sick from cholera and they would leave the neighborhood and they've got to the hospital and they would get better and come back to the neighborhood and they would get sick again. it wasn't until they figured out people were getting sick because the wealth that everybody drinks from in the neighborhood was causing that. so they were able to overcome the cholera epidemic. such talk about this in the way of illustrating that in a school

the same thing that we learn from that is it holds true. you can have fabulous intervention in the office of the counselor's office but if the child comes back to a classroom or a playground that is unhealthy but is not safe and supportive and positive for intervention is not going to be very strong. so you think about preventing things in school preventing a bullying in a school it's not just about how we intervened it is about how we create the climate that is healthy and welcoming to everyone. in regards to the restored as practices as a framework for making that save caring environment and using those interventions, i will give you this definition. restorative practices and schools are the ones that sustained save and just school communities grounded in the premise that human beings are relational and thriving in social engagements over control.

there is a lot to be said. probably it would take a couple of hours to unpack all of those words but i would like to identify to for this morning. community and relation. building communities through creating healthy relationships is the key component of a restorative school. a lot of people think about a restorative practices in schools and regards to the intervention that is a circle to prepare harm or family group conferencing so those of you that are not familiar, the basic idea is that you have a trained fasuba tater who brings together the person whose armed the person who did the harm and anyone else that was accepted by the goalie or any other harm that happened in the school. with those are not bystanders were the years to the cup years. teachers and other staff, administrators, community members and all of those people together because the agreed to come together voluntarily talked about what has happened, what

were they thinking about at the time, what have they thought about since, where the effect of what happened and what can be done to identify solutions for the person who hurt somebody to make amends to give back to the community and to make a plan for how the feature isn't going to continue and attend to the needs to the personnel was hurt and perhaps make a plan to help support them so that everyone can restore order and get back to a safer learning environment. but, that intervention as i said is only as good as we held the intimate people would go back to. so in a restore of school, we think in terms of primary, secondary prevention from the vantage point of relationships with everybody in the school we want to reaffirm the relationship and teach the skills of relationship which is basically teaching people social emotional skills. teaching them how to get along

and the behavior that we want to see with an eye towards creating community among everyone that if something goes wrong we would repair those relationships and rebuild relationships with a big problem that happens on going bullying of some kind of sight where students needed to take more time to put things back together again. you may recall yesterday the triangle that i forget his name right now isn't that funny when there is a timer in front of you someone will shout it out and sure gave the triangle of red, green and yellow. we are looking from the top because i want to emphasize the fact that we would do in intervention for bullying not by sending somebody away, but by keeping them close, and that the child that needs the intervention of this is also always going to be getting the learning and the education and the connection in the classroom

with reaffirming relationships. so, why would we want to think about the relation practices for bullying in particular that is the question i guess that was given to me. and we have the famous people up on this slide. but it is a relational problem that requires relationship solutions. it occurs in napier context as the beautiful wonderful what kind of slide that was with all of the slides to do so eloquently illustrated. so we need to think about how we can engage all of those people that are involved in bullying. if you do in intervention in the office the one student at the did most of the bullying or that you think was the instigator is remorseful and regrets what they have done and so they are not ever going to do it again and after a suspension going back to the same group, that no one has asked any questions of and the

peer group is expecting them to continue to keep their status by picking on someone else we are not we to make any kind of headway. we need to think in terms of the larger group and how can we engage that? students regularly involved in bullying as a victim or a bully victim was found in our analysis of the survey a seceded experiencing the most of them are - which are more accurately and illustrated by the other speakers today. and as a committee restorative process gives you the opportunity to also look at the larger context that the child may be involved in and to take that as an opportunity to provide extra support as well. now, with the met analysis the was done with bullying prevention efforts throughout the world, the following list of things were found to provide reductions in bullying, parent

training etc.. but i would like to highlight the fact that in this list you have on punitive disciplinary methods. there is a growing body of research that indicates that is not very effective. why did it go away? there we go. or when you have to talk fast you get nervous about the smallest things that go wrong. but at any rate, the restorative process these are non-punitive. the idea is to hold people accountable in a real way and an honest way and to help people learn from what has happened and try to repair the harm that they have done. and in that we, you help students associate power with kindness as opposed to harm and help people of the size of each other. it also provides home-schooled communications because the problem is large enough and it makes a lot of sense brings it into the process family members instead of having to hide behind the better practice is i can't tell you what i did to the person that has been harassing

your kid for the last two and a half years have them come in and participate with the parents of the child who did the harm as well so that everyone, all of the adults, the school and the family can work together to provide support and to hold people accountable. and then having relationships intentionally taught and thought about in the classroom helps to create more effective classroom management. now i would like to tell you a story as a way of illustration to try to point out to you how important it is in my mind for us to not just stop at the schoolhouse door in terms of thinking that the schools are going to be doubled to take care of this problem because particularly when we think about electronic aggression, which can happen 24/7, with all kind of different settings, this is a problem that is as much of the

community as much about family as it is about the schools. and so my illustration for you is about the response of a county actually to a very large sexting case. sexting is a new senate and received explicit pictures and sometimes it's because you are trying to keep a relationship and sometimes you're doing it because you are mean. so yes, wright county is a rural county for the most part in central minnesota. it has cowles and corn and leaks and also a nuclear power plant. it has ten school districts within the county, and the communities range from about a thousand to 30,000. and in this county back in 1996, of the county attorney, the sheriff's office and the county social workers and probation all decided that there would be helpful for them to hold regular meetings with of the administrator the each one of the school districts and so everybody gets together individually at the school

districts up their buildings once a month or quarterly to talk together about how the children are in the counties and to see how they can work together. in doing that they also create relationships with each other. they see each other, they know about each other and so they can respond more quickly when some kind of problem happens. and a problem happens monday and one of the middle schools in the cafeteria what happened was that like and many middle schools across the world, the kids could have their cell phone during lunchtime, and a couple grows picked up this one voice cell phone and scrolled through his pictures and they went ha! and ran into the bathroom. they found a picture his girlfriend said when he asked her send me something sexy and they said that picture, a couple pictures actually on to four more students who then send those pictures on to eight more students and in a short period

of time this picture was all over the school and half way to madagascar are and back again. by the time they were able to find it, the adults, a lot of damage had been done. well, what are you going to do? when you have 14 kids who are middle schoolers who have essentially committed a felony because sending and receiving sexually explicit pictures to somebody under the age of 18 is sending and receiving child pornography. as all of the adults sat together and they stood talking about what would be the best way to respond to this. and the head of the first family group conference for sexting in the state of minnesota as far as i could tell because in the county had a restorative justice agent that works for the county and does diversion and she was given this case. she brought together those students and their parents to talk about what had happened and to figure of how to repair the harm and try to divert them from being charged with this very

serious charge. when the conference started, some of the parents said why is my child here? what is the big deal? after all, public people, football players, celebrities, they send pictures like this. it doesn't matter. but, everyone agreed they needed to talk things through when they found out they could be charged with a felony. so, they figured out what to do. they now have an outcome or they now have the education that happens for all of the parents, for all of the students on an annual basis and they are seeing a decrease in the number of affected parties, decreasing the explicitness of shows and recording and the parents are more likely to enforce the policies. so, they were able to more clearly and humanely help these

students repair the harm they caused. we need to think about prevention or bullying that happens as an opportunity to learn and help people repair the harm so they can get back to class because we no time spent in learning is the single best predictor of positive outcomes. thank you. [applause] >> less e3 all of the presenters for itself provoking presentation. and now we will take time for questions. we will have a card you can write your question dhaka on cards and send them up to us and we will be happy to take those questions. weigel we are waiting i have a question for dr. wright. the question you ask what's all the fuss i think is important and how do we get the word out to all of those people who can

provide services and support to children in the schools and families to really know what all the fuss is about and why this is such an important issue. >> thanks for bringing that question up because i've been struck in the time i've been doing this work particularly with my own a professional organization about the steepness of the learning curve. one area that i think is right as an opportunity is in professional development in the education sphere. i saw a map of the united states that showed the number of states that had as a matter of practice through the regulation professional development required folks in the education environment, and it was a very small percentage in the united

states, like i can't quote it right now. but, for folks like myself or, again, professionals who need to be the mouthpiece who have regular contact with parents and children and communities that is a piece of low hanging fruit with regard to professional development to its low-cost, and i can drum up some folks to start to participate right away. i didn't complete my homework and i don't want to delay the q&a. but i asked a question about how many parents in the audience had actually had their children's pediatrician in any way address bullying is a part of anticipatory guidance. i see the lights are kind of bright but i saw one hand go up. not surprising. i assume there are more parents who have pediatrician's than this one gentleman that this

kind of the response i get as a mover of the countries we have a long way to go. >> we have a question for nancy riestenberg. how can school resource officers play a role in the strategy? >> we as a number of resource officers that are trained in family conferencing to repair harm so part of their response in schools or their partnership with the administrators in the schools is to be the person that facilitates that. and i think that when a resource officers trained in the development and brain research and learns all of the letters in a special-education of those things mean, they are much more effective officers them if they think about using their power over students. they can be enormously x effective in creating

relationships with kids at helping them solve problems. >> dr. faris, how does your hypothesis - five with the fact that the majority of children with developmental disabilities or who are lgbt are bullied >> is this on? okay. i think it may have been a little bit modeled in the presentation because of time, but we observed two different patterns of data and it is not inconsistent with the notion there are some kids that are vulnerable and perhaps different in some ways than the school norm. those kids tend to be on the margins in the social school network. and we defined elevated victimization among those kids. so, it is a sort of bimodal distribution. the kids in the middle but also some kids about 12% who fall on the fringes of social life are getting harassed at elevated

rates of so both patterns are occurring. >> dr. espelage, can the link between bullying and homophobic bantering be extended to other areas such as racial and religious stereotyping and possibly later perpetration of a hate crime? >> that's a great question. we haven't analyzed the extent to which bullying and this aggressive behavior predict other forms of violence by literature and extrapolate and that would be a nice hypophysis. but i tend not to extend beyond my data but i also recognize the use in the context of the schools are not the only vulnerable populations at risk and in the school where we do other forms of research we do see at least at a correlation level associations between

homophobic bantering and also racial slurs, so it is something perhaps we should look at in subsequent studies. >> this is for two of our speakers. given that children may bleed to climb the social ladder as we heard in one presentation are their intervention programs that have been evaluated that focus on, quote commesso seeding power with kindness from one of our other speakers? >> i will take that. so, this is the first time i met bob and life and following his work and we are within to the context and understanding that you hang out with flock together but there's also the socialization process, so it is very clear that we could hypothesize the lowest excise that we are finding with school bullying prevention program may be in part because we are not shifting that from an acceptance of aggression to these social behaviors. we are engaged at the center for disease control and a large

trial and 36 model schools where we are collecting the social network data we hope to be able to -- we are finding some significant reductions and aggression but what we would like to do is just dig deeper and see if that mechanism has something to do with changing the networks. but that's exactly where the basic research needs to go because regardless how you look at the basic research, ebbers of 80 or 90% of bullying is explained by who you hang out with so it is clear that we need to shift that into a more social direction and if we are not targeting that specifically through the social network and the prevention program, that might be contributing to the list excise that we are seeing. ..

they help the person who has done the bullying separate their behavior from who they are. yesterday we will a wonderful illustration of a young man who went through a life trajectory learned variety of different things try ought behaviors that in many cases were inappropriate. early on people could have said, you are important but this behavior is not. and we are going to support you because you are important to the community and we're going do that by helping you engage in the behaviors and what do we need do in order to that. i think it shows respect to the

person who does the bullying after ul, there are children and trying to learn how to operate in the world. and they're getting lots of mixed messages. and that basic treating people with humidity in that regard is critical. if i were the bully someone would appreciate that my behavior was dammittive whether it was climbing the social ladder or -- violence the home and my community. separatingseparating it but seeing it more adaptable. >> in the context of a health encounter nonjudgmental open-ended an opportunity for the young person to express and talk. that's a wonderful way to end this open-ended. we have many, many questions that have to be asked and

answered and exemployed and studied. we want to thank the panel for getting us started on the right track. thank you for your time. [applause] that concludes this panel. ♪ >> all this week at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2 we'll have presentations of q and a. today navy secretary discusses his military and political careers as well as his current role as the navy's 75th navy secretary and goals he's set for future energy consumption. q and a today and all this week at 7 p.m. here on c-span2. >> you're watching c-span2 with public affairs featuring live coverage of the senate and watch key public policy events and latest non-fiction authors on

booktv on the weekend. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. earlier this week michael weaner the major league baseball talking about the future of collective bargaining. last november baseball players and owners reached a agreement to min michelle obama -- minimum salary. this is close to an hour. [applause] thank you teresa for the introduction and the privilege of peeking here today. before i get started, i'd like to acknowledge a few people that were kind enough to come today. first, a long time friend and committed union leader during

the distinguished playing career, bj sur hoff. [applause] [applause] they have to leave apparently to new orleans sainteds matter. players association cho is long -- the exec stiff director of the soccer players association and the general counsel. judy scott, pat i'm honored to acknowledge here the presence of mark pierce. sharon block and richard griffin, the executive secretary sitting over here, patricia smith, solicitor of labor. john lund assistant secretary of labor. i welcome long time friends and

assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel. thank you for attending this afternoon. for going on years, i have worked for the union that represents major league baseball players. for going on 24 years, i have heard that's great, mike, but it's not like you work for a real union. come on, you goat hang out with derrick jeter. trs part of your job you have to go to the world series every single year. i will concede there are benefit for working for the union. i'll insist at the same time that the mlbpa has been and remains today a real labor union. our members make more money than most. our guys will have a higher public profile. at bottom the mlbpa does what every year unit does. we attempt to further the

member's interest and protect the rights through the process of collective bargaining. collective bargaining as an institution took body shots over the past year. in wisconsin, most notably among other places the right of public sector employees to bargain was blaminged finish the state difficulty. in indiana so called right to work legislation was passed with supporters contending that collective bargaining hamper job growth. national labor relations board has been vilified for fulfilling the statutory mandate. in the sports world nfl players abandoned their right to bargain collective. fortunate for all, that dispute was resolved without the result of the regular games. nba fans were not as fortunate. as the lockout resulted in

truncated season. the 30 baseball clubs by contrast announced new, five-year labor contracts last november a month before the briefs deal end. we had no lockout, no strike, no threat. why did collective bargaining succeed in baseball last year? how did baseball the labor history sport most contention avoid strich? >> some suggest a smooth negotiation was inevitable given the circumstance which he bargained. neither revenue nor profitability explain our result. coming into 2011, the nfl annual revenue exceeded mlb and the nba annual revenue lagged ours. both leagues picked protacts fight with the players. and the millionaires v billionaires line was said of baseball in the '0eus and

'90s which every negotiation included a work stoppage. profitability is not the driver either. a reportedly -- baseball's profitability fell in between the two. more over, each of the last three labor contracts in baseball were reached without a stoppage. one negotiated with the owners were suffering losses in 2002, one when they were enjoying substantial profits in 2006, and last year when the truth lay in between. there was nothing preor daned about bargaining during this round. as always, the union was pro paired for worse case scenario. we sufficient reserves in the bank, we counseled players to save their money. we told players no one wanted a stoppage. they had to be ready as if one were coming. we have roundly applauded for

having achieved labor piece. i'll let you in on a secret, labor peace was not our goal when we started bargaining. our list objectives generated over years of discussions with players including improved health care and pensions, higher minimal salary, free agency rules, and a whole host of other demands. labor peace wasn't on the list. neither was labor war. we set out in the negotiation to achieve a fair deal for play ears ideally a good deal for players. our preference, just as it was under marvin miller's leadership was to get that deal without a work stoppage. but the goal was a good deal. not a quick, easy, or painless one. collective bargaining by design is aned aer have czarrial process. our negotiation in 2011 with major league baseball was wered

aer have czarrial. controversial even provocative positions were advanced. comforts were heated, meetings ended abruptly. people, players, owners, negotiates for both sides got angry. we didn't air the arguments publicly as we did in the past. collective bargaining in the england is about power. federal law governing collective bargaining limits the exercise of the but not much. there's plenty of room under the national labor act to beat your party into submission and destroy your industry. for years in baseball, the power struggle that is collective bargaining was defined by owners attempts to force the demands down the players throat sometimes through distasteful means such as lackouts.

sometimes not through cocollusion and unfair labor practices. in 2011, and many our more recent bargaining rounds that power struggle has manifested itself differently. it's a power struggle. baseball owners desires have not changed. they want to pay players as little as possible and control l services for as long as possible. thews understandive from the own's perspective. baseball owners lead by commissioner bud sleelg. that respect was earned true the solidarity of the players in the '60s, '70s, '80 's it cull mat nateed in the real sensed in the spring of 1995 when they used replacement players throughout spring training to break the union. not a single union member, not a

single 40-man roster player crossed line. that was then. the membership of our union turns over very quickly. only a handful players acted in 2011 were professionals during the 1994- 95 strike. they understand that each generation of players must justify the respect that their predecessors earned. we must refind the owners of the players collective power every time we come to the gar -- bargaining table. that is why starting with the dayers of the marvin miller. the union -- in the bargaining process. the playerers tend bargaining sessions, we won't schedule such sessions unless players can be there. and players actively participate in the sessions. at any given meeting the mlb negotiators are as likely to hear from curtis graderson or

c.j. wilson as they are to hear from me. player participation in our bargaining in 2011, was extraordinary. in even for our union unprecedented. as for layer leadership, we had a remarkingingly dedicated commissioning committee of 25 active players. week after week of conference call they were responsible for developing and approving. those attending bargaining session after bargaining session. player participation extended to the full union membership. we had 237 different major league players attend negotiating sessions in 2011. players the first week in the majors and twenty years of major league service. players who had tickets to

coopertown had already been punched and the major league careers may not extend to tbfl. players making the minimum salary and $20 million a year. prayers from virtually every country. it was a tremendous show of force. ed in the power strug that is collective bargaining, it is natural to garage the strength of your counter part. the players by their presence provided unmistakable answer to any owner who might have questioned in 2011 the collective power of the plays remain deserving of respect. collective bargaining changes when each side respects the power of the other. you have to try something else if you can't push your counter part around. if you have want to change, you have to persuade them to give it or it fashion some comprise which you trade for it. the most likely result of

bargaining in the situation is a truce. a deal at or very close to status quo. that might not what is best for either party, or for that industry, that's what you are left with. our new collective bargaining agreement amounts to far more than a truce. it contains meaningful changes in the salary arbitration and the amateur draft, significant revision in revenue share, competitive balance tax new format for post season play, enhanced health care coverage for international players and families, improved benefits and other payments flowing to former players and widows, important changes and dozen of other improvements in the working conditions of players. this negotiation touched more parts of our labor contracts than any other in which i have been involved in 24 years.

none of those changes were made at gunpoint. some resulted from persuasion, there were times which one side recognized that the validity of the other's position, and resulted in a proposal. many changes resulted from comprise and frequently from creative comprise. one side or the other often expanded the scope of matters under discussion to create more flexibility, more moving parts to fashion that comprise. other changes resulted from the party's identifying areas of mutual benefit. i can't say this has never happened before in the bargaining but only in bits and pieces. in 2011, we made agreements that were unimaginable in our past. in revenue sharing and health care and drug testing and most notably perhaps in the 15-15 alignment and additional wild card team. it happens only because each side was prepared to recognize a

good idea when it appeared no matter who presents it, and no matter if the idea historically was associated with the other side. more than ever before or bargaining is not how to resolve the differences how we could identify and further or common objectives. how ask that happen? we avoided a work stoppage because of mutual respect for each side's collective strength. but why didn't we just default to a status quo deal? the answer, again, lies in respect, but respect here for the players' ideas not just the muscle. i credit bud, rob, and the mlb negotiators and owners recognize that the players not just a force to be reckoned with in area after area the players the 238 guys who showed up at the meetings had good idea how to improve the game and the

industry. it may seem obviously that the best players the world and the representatives would have those ideas. it just hasn't been obviously before to baseball owners and it's certainly didn't seem obvious in the approach adopted last year by the nfl and the nob toward their players. the real success of bargaining in baseball last year was not just that we made deal without a stoppage. but that we made agreements in scope and content that should benefit players, owners, fans, and all connected with the game for years to come. i'm now torn between prudence and opportunity. prudence tells a guy who has worked the entire professional career in baseball to limit his remarks to baseball. but on my other shoulder, opportunity tells me that i should at least try to relate baseball's bargaining success to the broader world. this the national press club,

afterall. it's not the mike and mike show. [laughter] so here it goes. the economic downturn has placed tremendous stress on the alreadieded aer have sallial relationship between workers and the bosses private sector employers and employees face increased global competition. public sector relations have been caught in the budgetary crisis. in both areas, a handy response has been to attack workers rights to organize and bargain collectively, to attempt to strip bargaining rights from -- [inaudible] at the handicapped private sector workers who eke seek to organize. that's unfair, in part because our economic difficulties were not caused by the working men and women. history counsels that such blame may be inevitable. that doesn't make it fair. it it's just not true that municipal and they employees

making $40 caused the current crisis. it depriseres thement of the research they. political candidates or have much companies have leverage because of the financials a set. it's okay in the country to obtain leverage through a successful push for legislative and regulatory advantage. why is it not accept for workers to exercise the only leverage they possess to act collectively. if you take bargaining rights away from wisconsin schoolteachers or 0 factory workers. it leaves one side in a contest with no ability to compete. it's been long the public policy of the country that labor relations should be a fight, never a one-sided fight. it's fundamentally unfair particularly in the common environment to pass legislation

that still allows that fight but rig it is against working men and women. all the collective bargaining allows workers is a voice in the ongoing argument over the working conditions. bargaining does not guarantee any result. it doesn't guarantee this a pensions won't be preserved or wages reduced. under program legislation on the books for other 70 years permitting workers to organize and bargain collectively has been seen as a natural component of the competitive economy. what is unnatural and counter productive are the recent legislative efforts to strip workers of the right. the economic health of our country will not revitalized by depriving workers of the voice. 2011 baseball demonstrated that collective bargaining can produce a productive agreement if each party republicans both

the power and the idea of the counter part. even in an economic environment as challenging as today's, better results were flow from the bargaining process and unilateral and position by management. better ideas will be generated with employee's input. we have proven in baseball through -- prune that in baseball through check -- jointly run international tournament to be play for the next time next march. agreement reached with employee support can be implemented more effectively and efficiently as shown by the drug program. unions can effectively and productively represent workers even in struggling industries. collective bargaining in times such as these may be difficult,ed aer have czarrial, and contentious as demonstrated in baseball of all places, the surest path to mutuallied a venn

teenage use solutions. thank you enjoy the season. should be a great one. [applause] >> thank you, michael. [applause] [applause] since you believe that baseball's collective bargaining agreement is the gold standard have you been approached by other union leaders asking for advice? >> the leaders of the various spotters unions cooperate on all kinds of matters and the you unions do as well as well as soccer, and football players representative here. i'm more than occasionally will talk with the head of the hockey players association. he happened to be my boss for twenty some odd years. the industries and sorts with different. we collaborate, as you might expect. >> you mentioned labor struggle in wisconsin. have you ever advised public

sector union leaders and do people seek you out? >> i haven't been presumption use enough to try to give somebody representing a public sector bargaining. the nature is different. we are frequently contacted by unions and the members for letters of sport and assistance. our players, our members, politically are all across the spectrum. when it comes to labor matters they understand the importance of unions. we tried to support the public sector unions every chance we could. >> you're heading into years of labor peace. do you think that people are more willing to negotiate because of what happened with the strike of 1994 and 1995? >> i don't know about more willing to negotiate but you can't understand our success in bargaining without understanding that history. as i said before, we move to a world where there was respect by both sides for the bargaining

power of the adversaries because of what happened leading up to perhaps most principally in 1994 and 1995. i don't think you have the agreements you have in 2002, 2006, or 2011 if the players hadn't taken the stand they took back then. >> a can couple of questions if they were representing during negotiations in internal union meetings or checkive gar banning. it cost it is a direct result of some of the players' huge searms. >> there's a few questions in there. [laughter] we didn't have any fans on our negotiate committee call unless you count the players themselves as fans. i tell you that the players and we have representatives here all of the player that are sitting up here as well as bj were negotiating committee members themselves when they were active. players are constantly thinking about the fans and public

acceptance of the game. that shows itself in the things like the schedule, over things like the post season, the drug testing program, throughout our negotiations. in terms of the potential link between ticket price and salaries. i know, there are a couple of distinguished economist in the room here today. ticket prices are based on supply endemand for the product. the owners set the prices as high as they can based on the demand. they don't have anything to do with the players wage. >> do you think they would agree to to eliminated designated hitter and restore the game it was meant to be played. >> i don't know if there names. it could have come from my wife who has been known -- a national league fan saying dump the dh. let me say this.

i have gotten burr ryed into the question. neither the owners nor the players game to the bargaining table this time locking to change the dh. i think -- i don't think anybody would design an industry where would one league had one set of rules and another has another. i think that comprise, if you will, is here to stay for a long time. >> safety and sports has become a big issue at the professional and amateur levels which is the mlbpa doing to address the issue in baseball? >> healthy and safety was as much as part of the negotiation as it's ever been. in addition to what we did in the joint drug program, and to address substance abuse and use by players we negotiated over safer batting helmets new

protocols for treating, diagnosing concussions and return to play. we negotiate over safer bats, negotiation over health and safety this time. i think that's a reflection as i said before, when bargaining can do when you stop trying to knock the stuffing out of one aanother it allows people to put their heads together and solve problems that you can't do in a death match. >> why can players only be required to take a blood test for human growth hormone for reasonable cause. why they don't have anything to hide why not conduct it all the time? >> i think the drug testing and the blood testing we agree to stands up with that in any other sport including olympics sports. in terms what we agree to as well, it's not only the players can be tested for reasonable cause. that's true. all players were tested for

blood during spring training of 2012, i dare to say that we had more blood cleks in spring training of 2012 than any sport had any single year alone just with the strain training testing. we have the random testing for all players starting this off season. every player in baseball is subject to testing for blood once the season is over. >> what is the difference between not smoking on ball field and not using smokeless tobacco? in other words why should players be allowed to chew tobacco in front of the cameras and kids? >> you can't play baseball while you're smoking. there are secondary interferes with work. there are secondary health risks associated with smoking. it was clear. we have long advised the players

of serious health risks of the product. we have provided resources for plaiters to try to seize using. .. since the collective bargaining agreement reached in 1996 has been unprecedented. through revenue sharing, through our reserve system, which allows

clubs to hold on to reserve rights for players for the first six years of their career and through other measures, including our -- the competitive balance tax. we think -- and i think as well, the representatives of the owners think that we're at a place where each team has a fair opportunity to win the world series. >> how can you encourage small market teams to use revenue sharing money on payroll instead of pocketing it. >> that's a subject we focus as much on in bargaining over the last 20 years as any other. we do it through a few different ways. we have an enforcement mechanism in our contract. clubs are required to use proceeds to put a more competitive team on the field. if they don't, there's an arbitration process to go through. we have used that effectively in the past to monitor this

position. we beefed that up in this last round of bargaining. more importantly, we try to create incentives in our revenue sharing program so that each team has the maximum incentive to increase their local revenue to put competitive team on the field. the most creative bar gapping with hey done -- i see chuck o'connor who was involved in the revenue sharing agreement. the most creative bargaining is in revenue sharing, so every team has an sin endtive to try to win. >> the head table is populated by former players who are active in union leadership. what role do they play that a union staff member does not. >> there's a lot of people in the country who think hey know about baseball and then there are guys that have played the game. guys that played the game know what it means to play the game. they know what means on the field. they know the stresses that

being a professional baseball player bring. they know the joy that being a professional baseball player brings. it's always been our view that, to effectively represent baseball players, you have to have the input of the players. we get the input of current players all the time. but it's incredibly useful, it's essential, really, to have the deep group of former players we have on staff. we have people, without giving away ages -- we have people on our staff, even on this day, whose playing careers spanned virtually the entire history of the players association, and part of our success is having that resource to tap anytime i need to send an e-mail or make a phone call. >> with 20-20 hindsight how do you think the drug testing in the mlb should have been handled? >> i don't have 20-20 hindsight nobody us dot. don fear has been asked that

question, and he said in retrospect it would have been better if everybody zone associated with the game moved more quickly. but without getting into too much history, the bargaining history of baseball suggests it would have been very difficult -- the bargaining history of baseball explains that we got to random drug testing about as quickly as we could. like with everything necessary baseball, there was very contentious drug testing history. in the mid-'8s, we had a joint drug program, and the owners terminated it. the drugs that were involved in were cocaine and drugs of abuse, not performance-enhancing drugs, but the owners chose to terminate the program. who knows what the world had been like if we had a joint drug program townisly operate throughout the 80s, we hat contentious legal fights about drug testing. the owners made a proposal on drug testing in 1949 but it's fair to say it was not seriously -- in 18994 but not seriously pushed by the owners.

the first time they seriously proposed it was in 2002 and the players agreed to it. so in retrospect, i think everybody can take a hard look at what they did but when you understand the history of bargaining and baseball, don't think we could have reached an agreement much sooner. >> from a players associate perspective is there any concern how young baseball players are being treated and developed in high schools and college that you care to address? >> well, sure. we want the best athletes playing baseball and we want all young people who are playing the game and are playing athletics to do so safely. we are very much involved, the union is -- this is another area of great cooperation with management in trying to provide resources, equipment, playing fields, for more players to play the game, particularly in urban areas in the country and other places around the world where the resources don't exist,

through the baseball tomorrow fund, something jointly trusteed by management and union officials. we have provided millions of dollars to try to get more players on the field and give more kid chance to play baseball and softball. >> with so many kids choosing soccer, what are you doing to encourage them to play baseball instead? [laughter] >> all right. so, sitting over here, i have the head of the soccer players union, general counsel. one of my dearest friends who would be very upset with me if he thought i was actually discouraging people from playing soccer. there's a lot of people in the country and the world and a lot of great games. i don't think we need to discourage any young kids from playing any sport. we want kids to be active. there's plenty of kid playing baseball. more girls playing softball than

ever before. there's plenty to go around. >> what will be then impact of the tv deal since the orioles got the mlb to give hem most of the profits for the nats as a tv sweetener for putting another team in his backyard. [laughing] >> chuck, you want to take this one? >> the local tv revenue is a crucial part of our game and a crucial part of our industry. you've seen the rights, the local broadcasting right goes through the roof for team after team and that only makes sense. when you think about it, baseball is 162 new reality shows a year. very cheap to produce. tremendous content. part of what -- and baseball fits the new media very, very closely. i'm not going to try to predict how the negotiations involving

the nationals, the orioles, is going to play out. it will be a very important negotiation for both franchises. >> players have benefited financially from the rise in regional sports networks and payments to the teams. do you see a potential bubble here bursting eventually? >> in the last question, i think -- i'm not a media consultant. i understand that all ratings for national events, not just athletics, are facing a challenge. when it comes to baseball locally, the power of baseball, is extremely high for the reasons i said. tremendous amount of content, whether that's for satellite radio, television, whether that's for the internet and the other ways baseball is transmitted. i give people of extra baseball a lot of credit for recognizing changing technology and seeing different ways to bring the game

to people not only in their local markets but people who want to follow the tigers and red sox even though they may live here in washington. i don't think there's a bubble trip. think that the value of that content is -- well, that value is there. >> could the new smart phone app ever fully replace baseball cards? [laughter] >> that may be the hardest question i've been asked. it requires me to know what a smart phone app is. i'm not the most technologically savvy person. i think that -- as a kid who grew up collecting baseball cards and even swapping baseball cards as late as college, including with some people in this room, i think that you can marry the technology with the joy of card collecting. and i think that our licensees,

joint licensees with major league baseball insuring order for cards to be vital, have to continue to figure out a way to use the new technology in that area. >> will mlb pa ever endorse other cards asides from tops. >> the mlb pa and mlb have long had agreements with other card companies. tops has not been, for now, is the exclusive baseball considered licensee of the players association. so, while tops historically, for reasons i won't bother you with, has been making cards for the longest period of time, we have had licenses with other companies and still do. >> whats the union's position on hall of fame induction for players who use steroids? >> i can't speak necessarily for the union on that one. when you ask the union's position, i'd have to talk with the current members of the

union. but i'll give you my opinion the hall of fame is for the best baseball players. pete rose belongs in the hall of fame. more hits than anybody else. he belongs in the hall of fame, and the best baseball players should be in the hall of fame. it's a museum. if you want to have some notation on their plaque that indicates they were either ajudged to have used performance-enhancing drugs substances or accused of having done that so be it. there are people in the hall of fame and there will be people in the hall of fame who have been ajudged by several arbitrators to have engaged in collusion to defraud the fans of free competition. those people belong in the hall of fame of way. for mr. perspective the hall of fame is for the best baseball players and the most influential executives involved and they should all be in. >> do you think the drug scandal has jaded young fans and made

them more suspicious of players' achievements? >> maybe, but i think young fans or young people are just more jaded than they used to be, period. and maybe that's a good thing. athletes and celebrities are covered in a way now that they weren't covered certainly when i was a kid. and it would be impossible, i think, whatever you're hero is, to see them as the larger than life figure we might have seen when we were can kids. baseball is as popular as it's ever been, shown by attendance, ratings, anymore following the game. at it extremely popular among today's youth. so even if they're jaded, think they understand both the beauty and power of the game and the incredible talent the players who are playing. >> should the union have a role in selecting bud selig's successor? >> absolutely not. one of the i think positive

things that i've seen in baseball since 1988 is a recognition by everybody that the commissioner of baseball is the top representative of the owners. there was a time when the commissioner was viewed as being representative of the fans, representative of the game or the institution, and i'm not saying that bud selig and people in the commissioner's office don't think about the game and institution and fans just like players do but as i said in i main remarks, collective bargaining is adversarial. bud was an owner. bussed unabashedly the head of the owners when its comes to time to bargain and when it comes time to represent baseball against third parties. that's how it should be. we'll obviously wait with interest 20, 30, 40 years from now when bud actually steps down -- [laughter] >> but we should have no role in selecting his successor. >> should financially strapped cities be subdiesing stadiums

for millionaire owners? >> so i have to decide whether to answer that one as the head of the baseball players association or as a citizen of this country. i'll hans as head of the baseball players association. any industry wants to get as much support from the municipal authorities as they can. it's a subject of some economic -- can be a subject of economic debate in particular cities, whether subsidizing sports arenas or entertainment facilities is best use of public funds, but in many places, baltimore being one for sure, it was critically important to revive the city there. baseball is an important institution, as you said, and we welcome the assistance of any municipality that is pilling to provide it. >> what impact will the sale of the dodgers and the mets lawsuit have on baseball considering these are two of the largest markets. >> a large impact.

the dodgers and the mets are not only play in two of the largest markets but are flagship franchises to the sport. and whether you're a mets fan or dodgers fan or not, you want to see those franchises thrive. the dodgers fail and moving -- and having the group that's involved there, a group not only has the financial whether withall but has the excitement for the game and the accept gasolines that community is great for dodger fans and everybody in baseball. i'm not just saying this because my wife is a mets fan but it's great for everybody in baseball that the mets and the world times can focus on trying to put the best team on the field national league baseball in new york is one of the best treasures and it will be only good for the game if nets have the best opportunity as possible. >> there's been a lot of talk

about paying ncaa athletes should student-athletes be paid or unionized. >> that's a little different for baseball players than it is for -- those questions come up with respect to football and basketball players. baseball players in college realyear a little different because when a baseball player goes to college, he must remain -- he can't come out and play professionally for three years. baseball players are much closer to the model of the scholar athlete that many people want to see. baseball players don't generate the same revenue in college that football and basketball players do. there are reforms that can be made in college baseball that could benefit the owners. one of the things don fehr pushed for is giving more baseball players a chance to use their talent to get an education before they try to play professionally. and along with the commissioner's office, we're working to try to make that more

of a reality, but i think that there was a serious debate that can be had with respect to football and basketball players given the rev enough they produce. those concerns don't apply to college baseball players. >> what do you advise player in terms of their use of social meet meada, such as twitter. >> i do know what twitter is. we advise players -- on the one hand, part of why baseball is as popular as it is, is that fans eave ha permanent connection with baseball players that may be different than their connection with any other athletes. they live with baseball player0s on their favorite teams every single day from the beginning of spring training until the team's seasones over and social media allows fans to connect with those players in a very intimate way. national fans think every single guy on the national's 25 man roster is a celebrity. and so we advise guys, it's

great nor you to use social media if you're comfortable doing it to establish that connection with fans. on the other hand, you got to think before you do it. and we've been fortunate. our players -- i'm not saying we haven't had any difficulties but compared to some of the athletes in other sports, our players have used that media responsibly. and i hope they continue do it. it's a great way to cement and further the connection between fans and players. >> what advice can you give young players who hope to become professional baseball players? >> learn to throw left-handed. [laughter] >> another possibility, and b.j. can help me out -- learn to catch and hit left-handed. those or two things that can keep you in the game for a long time. i think that -- i go back to day when kids played sports because it was fun to play sports, not

necessarily thinking when you were eight years old you're going to get a college scholarship or a chance to my professionally. what i would advise any kid is to play sports, be active, play as many sports as enjoy, rather than just focusing on one particular game and playing that year round. if you have the talent and the competitive drive to use your athletic skills to get an education, that's great. do that. and then if you happen to be one of the minute percentage that have the ability to make a living professionally, you can try it, but you can't be thinking about that when you're a young kid. >> i throw left-handed, so i was wondering, when will baseball have its first woman player, umpire or general manager? >> general manager could happen really at any point in time. there are several baseball executives right now working for clubs, working for the

commissioners office who are imminently qualified to be a general manager. umpires, i know less about the possibilities of a woman becoming an umpire at the major league level. i generally consider -- i don't know if it's a stereo type but women being smart arer than men so why they want to actually be an umpire is -- >> it's a very, very difficult and thankless job, but wear ready for a female general manager and there are a number of great candidates out there right now. >> will there ever be a true world series in which the top mlb team plays the top foreign team? >> i'm not sure that we'll get to a stage where the world series champion in north america plays a team in japan. that would be -- we thought about that. that's quite -- a lot of challenges there. but the world baseball classic,

the tournament i've described, really gets to that. the world baseball classic has the best players in the world. many of them playing in major league baseball but the cuban national team, japanese, korean players, playing professionally there competing against one another in a very high level competition, and we really hope that the wbc is already a great tournament. this is the first first time we're going to play in 2012-2013 with qualifying rounds and i think the world baseball classic has within it the potential to be that kind of true world series that fans have been looking for. >> you said the umpire job is tough and thankless. will mlb ever utilize instant replay to assist umpires? >> i think as many of you know, we already do use instant replay to some extent on what we call boundary calls for home runs, if a ball is over a fence. or if it's been interfered with by the fan or fair or foul.

in our collective bargaining with the owners, we did reach an agreement to expand instant replay to other calls, to all fair and foul calls and what are called trap plays, whether a player caught the ball or whether it hits the ground. that agreement was subject to further bargaining that hasn't been concluded between the owners and the umpires union. instant replay is a subject where the owners have an on gage to bargain not only with the players union but the umpires union and when that negotiation is cracked you may see expanded use of replay in the game. >> in your experience do baseball players consider themselves part of the 1% or the 99%? [laughter] >> i think if given that choice most baseball players would say then 99%. the best part about this job -- there's a lot of challenges to this job. the best part about the job is working for the players, and the reason for that is that the players recognize just how fortunate they are to get to

make a living and to make unbelievable living playing the game of baseball. they're incredibly humble guys, regular guys, they don't take for granted at all what they have. they give back to the community. part of what makes them such great union members, i think, while their economics of many of them will place them in the 1%, their outlook towards life is such these are regular guys. >> who do you think were the best baseball players of all-time and why? [laughter] >> steve rogers, bobby veneer,. [laughter] >> tony clark, and d.j. century surhoff. i'm going to be a little politic here and not name any names. i could say that everybody thinks the best baseball players are those that were playing the game when they were seven or eight or nine years old but i think i can say with confidence

the best baseball players of all-time are those playing the game right now. the quality of their training, of their fitness, the skill, the competition, has gotton to the point where the players and the fact we're more inclusive than we have ever been if you go back to the history of the game, before the african-americans could play and the best international players were playing. everybody has their own opinions, but i can say with confidence that the quality of the play of the game today is as high as it's ever been. >> if you were trapped on a desert island, with two mlb owners would you most prefer to be with. [laughter] >> let me think. so, the challenge here is, do -- does an owner want to be on the list or not on the list? that's what i have to figure out.

well, maybe tom warner would be a good choice. he is responsible for having create all the wonderful television shows and great entertainment so he would be an interesting guy to have as well. let's see. i guess magic johnson because who wouldn't want to be on a desert island with magic johnson. >> we're almost out of time but before asking the last question, we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first i'd like to remind you about our upcoming luncheon speakers on monday, april 16th , haved a electric baldwin, and spokesman, americas for the art. tune into c-span or log on to npc.org to watch it freeway lifed. on may 4th we'll have mike rizzo, general manager of the washington nationals and on may 9th, billie jean king, tennis legend. next up, i want to present our

traditional npc mug. handy for drinking coffee on the desert island. i i have one last question. who do you think will win the world series this year? >> someone predicted i was going to get this question and the answer i gave was every player bays the same amount of dues and those days pay the salaries here. in seriousness, i think even the most are department baseball writer would say this is almost an impossible year to pick that. you have six or seven teams in the american league that or just as good as any to make in the world series and the national league appears to be completely wide open. that's the one question i'm going to duck. i abced the owner question but that question i'm going to duck. >> how about a round of applause for our speaker today. [applause] >> i want to thank all of you for coming today, and i'd also like to thang our national press club staff, including its

journalism institute broadcast center for organizing the event. finally, you can find more information about the national press club on our web site, and if you would like to get a copy of today's program, please check out or web site at www.press.org. thank you all for coming. we're adjourned. [applause] [inaudible] [inaudible] ...

later tonight on c-span two executives from google, sisco and twitter talk about the impact and future about american technology around the world. >> one of the fascinating things about the olympics, i think, has been this -- i think it'll be really interesting for media of the people in the media industry to understand this change that we're going through from a filtered outside-view in where there's a broadcaster and they interviewed michael phelps before or after the race and you get the linear progression that deliberate to you in a certain

way. now, before, during, and after the event you have this very much unfiltered inside out view of the event from the participants and people who are at the event, you know, even some of the participants taking a photoof the guy three lanes over. and tweeting it. >> it's feeling sorry for the nbc folk. they spend all this money to do something which is time delays and they insert a lot of ads and lots of feature stories and wonderful narratives how the athletes and their personal stories and so forth. there's an alternative narrative which is watch out limericks by a twitter. boom. boom. boom. it's just a different choice. you can watch the full discussion standing at 8:30 p.m. on c-span2.

discusses had service as the country's 75th navy secretary. secretary of the navy, ray, you said a couple a months ago, i have had a lot of days since i became secretary. i got to do some of the coolest things on earth. what are you talking about? >> well, i get to do things like i get to see say slors in ma leans all around the world and talk to them. i get to go out on navy ships and goat go out with marines and go through some of the training with them. i get to name every ship that is made for the u.s. navy. but the best thing i get to do

is to lead the group of just extraordinary men and women who make up our armed forces today. but, you know, i was in the navy over four decades ago, and i served a lot of the really good dedicated people, but we couldn't touch the force we have today. we couldn't touch the skill, the training, the dedication, and just to deal with the people on a day-to-day basis deal with the sailors, the ma leans and their families and see the dedication, see the skill level, to see what this generation of americans is give together country is about the coolest thing i think anybody can do. >> how does compare with your time in governor in mississippi or ambassador to saudi arabia? >> well, i have had incredibly fortunate career of being

governor in mississippi great honor. my fellow mississippi people elected me to. i threw my heard and soul into it. worked on education, health care, the jobs, the things that will benefit mississippi and i think our benefiting mississippi today twenty years later. saudi arabia obviously a part of the world that is going to be a great interest to us in a country that is always going have a central role in whatever happens in that part of the world, and to learn about the part of the world, to learn by living there, i think it's been invaluable. but this job, this job of, as i said, dealing with the sailors, the marines, that i goat deal with on a day-to-day basis globally deploy in defensive america you just -- there's nothing to compare.

you can't beat it. >> host: you were on a when you a lieutenant general. give us one thing that you took away from the experience that was still with you today. >> guest: it was 21 years old. i was reported to bother and i was responsible for about sixty guys the service fleet being all men. i was their mother, father psychiatrist, preach are, best friend in terms of talking to them in their worst enemy in terms of just -- that's a pretty huge change for 21-year-old come right out of school and shown up, but it became those years that i was in the navy, it became some of the most consequential years in my life. it taught me responsibility, the importance of making a decision and doing something bigger than myself and how you had to be

part of a bigger structure, you had to -- the decisions you made didn't effect just you. they effected the thousands of people that were on the ship. i'm not sure i would have done what i did if w my life if i hadn't been in the navy and hadn't learned some of the lessons that at a really age. >> one inside lesson you learned from being a ambassador to saudi arabia? >> >> guest: well, i think the one i took away was how important our diplomacy it is and how important it is that our diplomats represent america. that they're the face of america they represent the values of america and you have to keep foremost in your mind you're there representing the united states to the saab i dids not vis versa. you're there to protect american interest. you're there to push the view of america and what we stand for

and not translate the views of the country you're in back to this country. but second, is it a energy. and it's something i brought into the job and how we shouldn't be as dependent on foreign sources of our energy as we are today. and it was driven home very loud and clear. not only in saudi arabia but in that part of the world. c-span: the president talk about the that in the state of the union in the address. what are you going to do? we said five bills for the navy. the biggest of which, we're going meet these bills is by 2020, at least half of all energy navy uses both afloat and ashore come from nonfossil fuel sources. we are too dependent on either potentially or actually volatile places on earth to get the

energy. we're sup acceptable to supply shock and even if we have enough we are sup acceptable to price shock. when the libyan thing started. almost it was a billion dollar u.s. additional fuel bill. a billion dollars, the only place we have to get the money is operations or training, so our ships steam less, our planes fly less, we train our is sailors and marines mess. less. we would never the countries the opportunity build them, we give a vote in whether those ships sail or the aircraft fly or the ground vehicles operate when we allow them to set the price and the supply of our energy. and we have got to move away from it. we're moving away for from it from one more. it makes better war fighters a

better military. it is a vol nebility we have now we have to shut down. i'll tell you one more quick story. the marines who aren't known as probably the most ardent environmentalist. they have embraced this in a way that is just astounding. because they know that we import more gasoline and water in afghanistan than anybody else for every 50 convoys, we lose a marine either killed or wounded. and so if we can make energy where we are. if we can use less energy, so the marines are doing things like solar, solar panels for their headquarter tents. solar blankets about this big they can power small electronics or radios or gps. it saves almost 200 pounds of batteries for marine plus you continue have to you are supply. it cuts away from the supply lines. it makes them better fighters.

and it lets them do whey were sent there to do which is fight, train, to engage, to rebuild instead of guarding convoys and fuel. when you turn off a generator, you can hear. far better in terms what's going on around you. c-span: what would be the source of energy, then, if it's to not going to be fossil fuel? >> well, expedition energy like the marines we're doing solar, wind, for our basis here, even though we're sea going service, the navy has 3.3 million acres of lands. 3 we're doing a lot of efficiencies doing the same thing but using a lot less energy. we're putting smart merits to find out where energy is going.

and we just made the largest purchase bio fuel we think in american history. we have certified all of our aircraft, aircraft on the navy fly. for biofuels we're doing the same thing with the service fleet today. we have an f18, the hornet that has flown 1.7 times the speed of sounds using a 50 will/50 mix of biofuel. >> c-span: what is bio fuel? algae, made from things like -- inedible part of the mustard family. the main source of this big bio fuel purchase campaign from inedible grease that cametyson foods from scooking chicken,

basically.

budget in sex excess of $100 million. but it's the most fighting force the world has ever known. the that i have marine marine corps.es america is awaiting. when we're doing our job we're a long way from home.

c-span: can you remember the first time that somebody said to you you should be the secretary of the navy? >> no, i don't. i will say the people on my ship were probably the most surprised people in the world. c-span: how did it come about? >> well, i was approached during president obama's transition, and -- c-span: what you were doing? >> i was in the private sector. just finished being a ceo of the company. i had been working in the private sector since i had been ambassador. and living in mississippi had a great life, raising children and it -- i was approached and asked would i be interested in returning to government. c-span: and you had been obama supporter during the campaign? >> i had.

c-span: had you campaigned with him or anything like that? >> i endorsed then senator brawfm in april of 20112007. c-span: why did you do that? >> i thought he would be a great president. c-span: where did you meet him. >> here. we had a long talks with him. about what his plans were for america, what sort of campaign he planned to run. i was taken with it. i thought that with his combination, brains and personality and ability to get things done that he would be one of our truly great presidents and i have not been disappointed. i went out and did 300 events for president obama during the campaign. c-span: did you think during that time you might want to be secretary maybe? of the navy maybe? >> i didn't do it for that.

i did it because i thought he would be a good president. frankly, i had no idea that anybody would ask me to come back in to government. it'd been awhile since i'd been in government. i thought i did a good job. i liked the discussions you're able to make. the things '02 able to do. i loved the military. when i was in and then when i was governor of mississippi, i was commander in chief in the national guard, ambassador to saudi arabia. i went out to carriers all the time that were in there red sea when i was ambassador, i -- i hajtded a lot of american troops, soldiers, sailors, marines on the ground and had been from '94, to '96 in saudi arabia. but i had the love of the navy and this love of what the navy

marine corps. does for the country. and i asked if i had a preference. there was the preference i had. i compressed a strong performance for. c-span: i want to rush a video clip of bob gate secretary of defense he was there when you there were. speech at west point and get your reaction. >> the army must confront the reality that the most pawbl high end -- whether in asia, the persian gulf, or elsewhere. the strategic rational for swift moving expedition their forces be the army omar marines. it is self-evident given the likelihood of counterterrorism, rapid reaction, disaster response with, or stability or security force assistance

missions. in my any minnesota -- to send a big american land army into asia or the middle east or africa should have his head examined as general mcarthur put it. c-span: reaction? >> well, we have been sight and the navy has approach we are the most formable expedition their fighting force in the world. when you look at the strategy that the president announced that secretary panetta has been speaking about, that we have worked on now for a good while in the pentagon, with the focus on the western pacific, focus on the middle east, the focus on being fast, agill than being -- being able to get places fast,

being able to win when you get there or arrange a mission using the same people and flat forms. you're basically describing the united states navy marine corps. now, i do want to say that we have got have a great army. we have got have a great are force as secretary gates said. but the maritime challenges, he can go anywhere by sea, we can do anything when we get there, and we don't take up a single inch of anybody else easter story. we can project power and do everything from high end combat to disaster relief, humanitarian assistance to irregular warfare to enbasement as we're focus on the western pacific on central manned. we can't not engage in africa,

south america or the southern pacific with europe. and do training to exercises do the things that you do to prevent something from happening or to make sure that you know the people that you're dealing with. i mean, for a lot of people around the world, the only american they ever sea are sailors or marines. c-span: why do we want 25,000 sailors or maroons in australia? >> we don't. it's 2500. c-span: somebody -- only 2500? >> it's a rotation force. sphwhran for how long? >> when you say rotational force, they're not going to be based there. we're not going build a big base in australia. we're going to marines will come in, do training, do exercises with the australians, with allies, and then get back on

their chip ships and go throughout the pacific doing train andth. we get a ask for humanitarian systems or disaster relief about every three weeks. somewhere in the world, and our navy and marines in the first responders to that in almost every case. but these marines, as i said, are we're not going move 2500 marines, their families, everything there. there will be in a rotational posture, but they will be forward-deployeded in the area where they need to be. where they need to engage, where they need to to be to do the things that they need to do. and along with than, one of the things that secretary gates

said, we have known that the marines have been used as the second -- for a decade now. they have been magnificent at it. but that's not the purpose for the united states marine corps. in the history orgo rw c-span: how many active duty mas? >> 210,000. c-span: how many in afghanistan? littover 18,000. there are 20,000 that left. but we have about 1,000 there. c-span: go to your point about these expeditionary forces but they use of rescue. what -- why does this country spend the kind of money it spent to rescue the one woman in somalia and the one danish man. it was involvement with the seal team six with the army, the helicopter ores and the air force and the planes. what if we lost people in that.

was it worth it? >> well, i think what our job is, is to give the president an option to do that. and when the president makes a decision that it is worth it, that it's worth the risk, this president has been willing to take riska o after things that bin laden, this rescue, you can keep naming them, but when the -- whoever the president is, wants to make a decision, whatever that decision is, it's up to us to give him the options to be able to do it and the president has that option. this president has that option to go in, and using as you just pointed out, a completely joint force. navy, army, air force, marines,

that are finally honed and can do in additions like this. and i think if you ask them, they'd say, it wasn't that much of a risk. >> c-span: but they know exactly what they're getting in to. they are the finest trained, high-skilled people that you will ever hope to meet. and there almost all very low-key, very family-oriented. they're quite a tribe of warriors. but one argument i have made is that as high as the skill level is for the seals, for the other special forces, as great as their dedication, as willing as they are to take risks, a many sacrifices as they make, it's exactly the same level we have all across our military.

c-span: the former governor, secretary of defense, former chief of staff of the white house. representative he's a little politicking. >> the most extraordinary thing that happened with the military authorization is the president is planning on cutting a trillion dollars out of military spending. our navy is smaller than it's been since 1918. our air force is smaller and elder. we are cutting our number of troops. can't continue to cut the department of defensen budget if we remain the hope of the earth. c-span: reactions? >> well, factual number one we're cutting $48 7 billion over the american military. we're not actually cutting the amount of spending. we're slowing the growth of the amount of spending over the next

ten years. secondly, that number that we have the smallest fleet since 1917 came from the chief of naval operations last year in front of the senate. we have been saying this, but to measure the capability of today's ships versus those of 100 years ago is like saying we believe, the superiority of a smartphone is to be questioned because we don't have ooze many of those as we had telegraph machines 100 years ago. they are incredibly capable ships. the following thing i would say is on 9/11 u.s. navy had 316 ships in the battle fleet. why i got there, eight years later, we had 283. so in one of the great military buildups, that america has ever seen, our navy got smaller

during that time. and when we're not building enough ships to do what we need to do, now we have put in plans to congress and have been implementing those plans on year to year basis. to stablize the size of the fleet and over time begin to grow that fleet. but we have the ships in the navy that we need to be a global force, we have the ships we need to execute the strategy. we have the ships and the people to do everything we need to do for america. and i talked to captains and striker commanders before they go out. the only thing that is certain when you go to sea is that you will face something unapted. and you have to rely on your

training, you have to rely on your innovation, you have to rely on your skill to meet it. and so we can meet anything that comes over the horizon of the day. any part of the world. and this administration has been the other thing that bob gates said, in a speech about a month earlier was that the united states navy was in the best shape it had ever been under this administration. and we are committed to keeping that. we're committed to stablizing the fleet, doing so on affordable policy and with the quality and types of ships that we need. c-span: what's the chain of command. the secretary of the navy answers to? >> secretary of defense. c-span: you don't have direct access to the president? >> the law it's a little anomaly the law says that i do. that -- i don't secretary of the

navy has direct access to the president. but i'm not sure it's ever been exercised. but it -- i have a -- i could not ask for a better working relationship with secretary gates or secretary panetta. they are both incredibly bright, incredibly focused, incredibly dedicated people who understand what it takes to protect america and i couldn't, as i said, i could not ask for a better working relationship or better arena which to work. c-span: what does the seblg tear of the navy not have. in other words under the law of the way it's written, can you tell the chief of naval operations what to do? >> yes. it's a -- here's the way it works.

chief navel operations and the kommendant flu the -- they are members of the joint of chief of staff who advise the secretary of defense and the president. the three service secretaries navy, which has navy and marine corps., army and air force are charged to recruit, train, and e qipt the force. the combat commanders, the commander in central command which includes afghanistan or the pacific command, they're the ones that control the ships at sea, the troops on the ground, or whatever. but it is the service secretary's responsibility and the service chief's to get the people, the equipment, to buy

it, to do it the budget fop train, recruit, get the force ready and acting on the orders of the president and the secretary of defense, when commanders request troops or bring troops in to have the them ready. >> we found the video on the marine corps. ♪ took some time to travel around afghanistan. >> i'm here to see marines and sailors. i'm here because it's the holidays they a long way from home. i want to visit, i want to see what they're doing here. on the ground, how they're doing. anything they need. >> united states navy. the best fighting force in the

world has ever seen. >> i think it's important to show people that their families, the whole country are remembers them and wishes them in the hole cays. >> before he left there was one message he wanted to give. >> happy holidays, marines, sailors, come home safe. southern afghanistan.. c-span: the plane you're on. >> v22. c-span: very controversial over the years. where does it stand now? how many are you going to take delivery on? >> well, it was controversial about a decade ago. it's not got a great safety record. it's gives marines on astounding capability. it can get you in and out of places vertically. it can get you somewhere else

very fast. c-span: carries how many people? >> the fellowed is about 25 marines in the back. and that's where all the gear and again, it gets them out of danger very quickly from the ground, it gets in very quickly. it gets them from place to place and it can land on ships. marines, as we know, are going to go back to the nautical roots. i think that's an example of a program that did have process in the beginning the problems have been corrected and marines plan to buy out the whole program in fact they're getting close to doing that with the offspring. but i'd like to make a comment on another part of that clip, which is exactly what i've been

talking about, those marines -- i think the places that i was speaking to to the marines was one of the combat outpost of small and river valley. and, you know, marines kommendants marines rbtd happy unless they are dirty and outdoors. the guys and women go in for seven months. they have been extraordinarily successful as a military operation, and they have also been very successful in terms of engaging with the loam governor, the local police, with the local army beginning to train the afghans to take over. and when you visit, as i got do, the thing the clip didn't though

i took questions, and then i stayed and i think shook every hand and talked to marines individual. and every one of them to the person can tell you that the history that have region can tell you why they're there, can tell you exactly what they're objective is. the marines something called the strategic corporal. ere corporal in the unite know what the job is and the bigger picture of the marine corps. they are great at it. a low factoid. the marines are youngest force, the flattest force. most are a means come in and spend four years and go back home and do other things. 163 ceos of fortunate 500 companies or a 00 biggest

country 163 are former marines. most of those were enlisted. marines teach leadership, and they go out and practice it. c-span: you said that three of four americans 18 to 24 years of age don't qualify for the navy. >> don't qualify for the military. that's absolutely correct. 75% of americans 18 to 24 do not qualify for the u.s. military because of health issues, mainly obese, because of criminal records, or because of education deficiencies. we don't give waivers very often at all. if at all. for education, you have to finish high school before you can join the navy or the marine corps. we don't give waivers if you have a criminal record. the marines have to shut off their recruiting about half way through the year. we have so many people ready to

join the marine corps. the navy is also, we have record recruiting and record retention once people are in. but it's a really, it's frightening and it's a statistic that we have to reverse that three out of four of our young people cannot qualify to defend this country to have the honor of defending this country. i think that we have to make sure that, i mean, it goes back to what i upped as governor. we have great education system for everybody. and not just for a few. that we've worry about stuff like obese, like the first lady is doing now. that we can't maintain a great military indefinitely. we can't maintain a great country indefinitelily unless we fix some of these endemic issues

like three out of four. >> how would are your three daughters? 21, 19, and 10. c-span: have any of them -- the 10-year-old couldn't have either thought going into the service? >> they have talked about ways to give back to the country. whether that's milling tear service, or something like teach for america or america corp. or some other way i think you'll see my older two daughters to do something to give back to the country whether it's the military. i don't know. also don't think it matters how you give back. c-span: here is one of the big critics of the military. winslow on a point. >> the 11 aircraft carriers are part of the national self-image. i think it's about to change. if iraq and afghanistan taught us anything, it's that we're

fools to be doing these kinds of things in the country occupying them and thinking we're doing them a favor. and my expectations is that along with the change in the defense budget in the next few years, we're going to see rethinking what we think we're doing out there and what do we need help us do what we need to do and one those answers is going to be a debate about aircraft carriers. c-span: is it right? >> no. secretary panetta announced last -- two weeks ago when he was on the uss enterprise we're going to keep 11 aircraft carriers. there is a law that says we have to have 11 aircraft carriers. as a matter of strategy we're going keep 11 aircraft care year and ten aircraft wings go to

scare gontd carriers which is exactly what we have today. he was sorting mixing apple and oranges. one of the thing that the strategy says we will be able to project power and be fast anding a guile and aggressive where we need to be. very flexible forces which a carrier is one of the most flexible platforms we have. but he was also talking about a ground war in iraq and afghanistan. at the same time, your clip from bob gates, but also the strategy talks about how there will be less emphasis placed on long-term ground stability operations. and military terminology that we will not have an emphasis on

stability operations but we will on being able to project american power in a flexibling a guile, small footprint sort of way. those 11 carriers give us just an astounding array of flexible. i'll tell you one quick story, last spring the uss ronltd region was heading to do combat air operations over afghanistan which the tsunami hit japan. that ship changed course in a matter of hours. and headed to help japanese. they used it -- i went and visited a couple of weeks later within visited sate already and marines that done that. they used the same targeting techniques they were doing to use in afghanistan for to do

disaster relief and made sure the right stuff deposit on the right aircraft and right sequence going to the right place by using the targeted techniques. say that went to doing high combat to humanitarian relief. they did it on a furp of a dime. when at mission was over, went back and did the combat air. c-span: as you know, much better than i do. there are three aircraft carriers on the planning one being build jerry ford class, and so i saw an estimate to the cbn aiding in 2018. it's going to cost $13 billion. >> well, junior i are -- the john f kennedy will be 79. we haven't gotten to that. c-span: those are $10 billion at least? >> yeah. and i'll -- yes, that

explanation. s awe pointed out sphord a brand new class of aircraft carrier. it's old from the limits it's replacing or following. the navy's plan when these came up in the late 1990's early part of 2000 was to put the technology on in three ships to incrementally change the ship. secretary of defense in 2002, secretary rumsfeld said no we're not going to do that. when you do that you raise the risk and chance of price overruns and problems just exponentially. it goes through the roof. c-span: you have a new system. you have a new power plant. you have a new hall shape. you have a new -- [inaudible]

>> that contract was supposed to be signed in 2006 all the stuff that was going on because we're trying to -- they were trying to jam it into one ship. that contract wasn't signed until late 2008. and when the contract was signed the ship was only about 30% designed. that's one of the things that has been one of the things we have focused on most. before we start billing the ship, we're going have a stable design. before we start building the ship we have mature technology. you have great technology, it's not going to be ready. we'll put it on the next version of the ship. we're not going put it onsha ship. we're going to try to give industry some view into it. because of trying to jam all that stuff? in there have been some cost overruns on the 87 on the ford.

we are focused very precisely on bringing those capping that. there was an article in the paper yesterday. there was an article recently. the builder of the ship is going to make no profit because of the overruns. >> is it a fixed price contract? >> it started out as cost place. and while insist on fixed price contract and every possible situation. first ship of the class is usually impossible to do. but what we have done is capped this. we're not going to spend more than this. if you spend more than this. it's your money. you're not earning any profit from now on i'll you be getting

is costing to build the ship. but there were things outside the ship build -- c-span: who is building it? why would they want to build ship like this if they don't make any money? >> say that didn't know it going in. i think while we need or got to have a strong defense industrial base, very strong defense industry, we have to maintain that industrial base. we have to maintain it in rd and we have to may be contain in goring and manufacturing. once you take on that sort of thing, we're going negotiate a contract that is fair to the taxpayers. we're going to negotiate a contract that requires you to do certain thing on time, on budget or the taxpayers will not be

there to pick up the tab. c-span: let's go back to personnel. >> those military people who are on reserve status who are actually in active duty capacity but technical reservist. when they try to stay on, they were told we don't need you. you can go home. officer enlisted nap kind of thing is already happening. and the other thing is promotion requires will get more string end and guys who may be would have been advanced in previous environments won't when this time and failure to advance is reason to get shown the door. so it's going to be tougher for to scare stay in and those who would have liked to have made it a career would maybe forced out. >> well, any time you get smaller, that happens. c-span: how much smaller will the navy be? >> what was going point out navy

has come done over 40,000 sailor in the last fen years already. as you luges the ship we were talk abouting in the last day we lost sailors that man the ship. the navy is smaller by almost 40,000. i think you'll' the navy pretty much the same size. you'll go up and down by a few thousand. in at 3,000 range the 323 today more or less, that's not counting reserves, we are already having to do enlisted retention boards and officer retention boards because our reenlistment rate is so high. so -- and it's -- to his point, it was beginning to clog up people were not getting promotion opportunities and so

we have gone through last fall to enlist retention boards. unoffice retention boards and gone through particularly gradings that overmanned. we have too many of. we gave everybody a champions to move into a rating that we had to view of. if they didn't take that opportunity, those boards went through record by record and selectedded people to separate from the service. based on merit, based on how good of sailors they were. now, they are all great sailors. it was simply, we have too many. we have too many at this level. we have too many in this rating. and so and these are always hard. they're always difficult. the military more than any other organization i've been in

promotes and manages people based on merit, based on the job that they do. now, the marine corps., i said it publicly, i said it publicly last spring to congress, we know the marine corps. has to get smaller because they had a surge of 27,000 during the surge in iraq. they increased their number of marines by 27,000. we know it has to come back down. the marines will end up at 182,100. where they will be slightly larger than they were after 9/11, completely different marine corp. in 9/11. the marines beginning to look -- they looked how to come down,

they didn't just say we going to take a percentage out on things. they were going to go back to where they were. they said what marine corps. do we need for the future if we're going to see marines in certain areas cyber, special operations, more marines in high, high critical things. and the marines are going to get lighter. they're going to go back to sea. to be expee big their force. use the word threat as china. >> what we would like to do and president said this, secretary of defense said this, what we would like to do is engage with china. what we would like to do is we don't fear the rise of china or

india or brazil or any of the number of countries that are growing. that are coming up. economically coming up militarily. that's not issue. the issue is transparently sei. why are we building the types of equipment, why are you building the tierp of military things you're buying? we diswed rick to work together on this. it's everybody's best interest. we have half of an aircraft carrier? >> russia aircraft carrier they have now got at sea. and we'll see how it works. they are clearing move into the area. and in terms of aircraft area

carries -- that's a good notion. c-span: every time you see the figure the navy is ten times bigger bigger than ten of the other navies in the world. why should we have that big of military given the condition of the financial system? well, number one, we're the only country that has a global reach and global responsibilities. i think it's crucial that we keep that global that global reach. the world economy depends on the oceans. 90% of all goods flow over the oceans 95% of all communications go urn the ocean. and i think we have got a responsibility to do that. to be that global navy, be that

global military power. but also think that we have a responsibility to spend taxpayer money wisely. to military obviously cannot be ement cement from this drawdown, i think that's what this new strategy points out, that's what the president that's what secretary panetta has been talking about over and over again the need to get sam for your money. and i'll give you a nor navy-example here. when i came into office, i have a new type of ship. you and i talked about it better. the combat ship. up with of each kind in the water. one of each kind being built. the prices came back were just unacceptably high. we could not afford it. first ship of the class. you can understand.

c-span: $5 billion? >> no. it was in the $700 million range. c-span: you make a hard study. [laughter] >> but i made the decision that these two were going to have to compete against each other. even though we wanted both. we had a use for both. and over the next year, the prices came down dramatically 40%. and went back to congress, and the congress gave me the ability to -- instead of the first plan we were going to buy ten ships from the winner. they going to giver us the. we going to bill out nine ships to kept. congress gave me the ability to buy ten of each. we got 20 ships instead of 19 and we safed $3 billion.

we did it on firm fixed price contracts. and the last ship, the tefnt of eachship is going to cost $350 million that's the or sort of thing we need to do. in terms of managing the taxpayer's money. keeping our global responsibilities. doing so in a way that is fiscally responsible. doing so in a way that is flexible and doing so in a way these are ships that are module lar. we don't have to build any. she ships. these are fast. they go in close shore. flat forms for unmanned system. so they're represent p representative of the future but it's a future that is affordable. it's a future that is no less capable in ferms of the nay

victim navy. c-span: i -- here's we haven't got much time. here you are twenty three years ago neighbor. let's look. >> force my status is about to change. i was reminded of that prettigraphicly at the grocery store a few weeks ago. even governors go to grocery stores and particularly future former governors do. there was woman following me around and she had been doing if for quite awhile and i noticed he was looking at me and trying not to be obviously, but it was something was on the mind and she finally got the courage up, and came up to me and said, didn't you used to be ray mabus? [laughter]

aside maybe. when you lose, you have to be able to laugh. you have to have a sense of perspective and the last eight weeks i have been given the opportunity to develop one. >> it was went years ago. but any desire that was when you least the race for governor in mississippi. any desire to run for office again? >> not really. as i said, being governor of mississippi was one of the incredibly high honors of my life. was elected by the people of mississippi by the people i live with. i think i did a good job as governor. i think mississippi is different and better because of some of the things that were put in place during that time. but i'm very, very happy doing what i'm doing. and i'm very, very happy in

terms of being able to work with the military being able to work with -- i've been talking about sailors and marines, and i don't see any political racism in my future. >> can you as secretary of the navy campaign? >> no. i cannot. c-span: train forking an old pal? >> you know. it's z as id said, there's school cool things about the job. one of the great things about it is it has to be nonpartisan. it has to be the interest of the military and the interest of america and not the interest of a political party. and you i think you see that in the service secretary. i'm a former democratic. a former republican congressman

from new york, and mike donlly the secretary of the air force was appointed by george w. bush. so it's one of the places in woo where party lines we work across those. in fact you don't though are party lines. i think it's one of the great strengths of the american military. they're not partisan. they're there for one reason. to protect america i'm happy to be a part of that. >> ray mabus. i thank you for joining us. >> great to see you. ♪ ♪ if a dvd copy of the program call 1-877-6612-7726.