[applause] >> i'll introduce my friend, cam edwards. ..

if those are the new rules, we are going to be in immediate, too, and we're going to start our own radio station and program, and soon enter a news came into being, and right at the inception of nra news, cam edwards as the host of it as he has been every day since. and i think one of cam's great contributions, besides being knowledgeable and providing people with three and four hours of important information every day is the constructive and positive attitude he brings to it. there some people on the gun issue on either side or lots of other issues as main emotional energy negativitnegativit y. and hostility. and wanting to be angry and upset all the time. you can be concerned. you can be angry about things,

and those competitive action but you can still do it in a way that is constructive and has positive energy, and makes the world a nicer and happier place. and so i'd like to introduce cam. where is he? so, cam, thank you for making us all better informed, and for making the world a little bit nicer. >> thank you so much. i guess i will forgo the minute of screening us going to start the speech off with the today. let me put my stuff down here. i do have quite as much stuff in my hands as christopher hitchens had a few years ago. i am going to borrow my notes if you don't mind. first of all, john, i've got to say, it is great to be an adult, is it? >> i wouldn't know. [laughter] >> but i've got to say wouldn't this be awesome like an adult summer camp, a weeklong event, right? [applause]

i think so. so listen, i have to say thank you to john and thank you david and everyone at the independence institute for inviting out today. i clearly need it the range more often. i spent much more time in history than i do on the range and it was very, very obvious today. it's also a rare privilege for me to be out here today because we've been covering on nra news what's been going on right here in colorado. so to be able to talk to laura in person and to talk to dave in person and to see these shares and shake their heads and say thank you for doing what you're doing. if we can take a second, can you all just give yourselves a round of applause? i know you're not getting thank enough, and thank you for each and every one of you -- [applause] -- has has done, is doing, will continue to do here in colorado. this state is a flashpoint. this state at the beginning of

the year was on a list. it was where are we going to go past the gun-control? there were obvious places, connecticut, new jersey, although we've seen governor christie veto some bills. california, some awful bills coming. but all of new york state and state back but all of these were expected places. maryland. nobody really sees maryland as a pro-gun state anymore. colorado was supposed to be the surprise here and all these politicians who embrace these gun-control proposals were told not by people in colorado but by people in washington, d.c., you guys are going to be heroes because they will have parades for you guys. it's going to be awesome. and that didn't happen, didn't it? more of a recall than a parade. [laughter] dave and jon and the sheriffs have done i think i very good

job of going over the recent history. but if you want to just offer a couple of highlights, if i can come off some the things that we cover during the gun-control debate in colorado. we have joe biden calling lawmakers on the legislative floor. we also had politicians telling other elected officials, take joe biden's call but don't take the call from your constituents. what the hell? how do you run for reelection -- i know i didn't take your call, but joe was really important. we have elected officials offering incredible advice on how to avoid sexual assault. right? whistles, that's right. we had an incredible display of -- on the part of state senator which is talking to amanda collins. do you know amanda's historic with who knows i'm in this story?

okay. amanda collins was a college student at university of nevada. she was a concealed carry only, she was 22. the college denied her and every other concealed carry holder the right to carry. when i can out of class, amanda collins was walking to her car, walking with a group of people, doing everything they told her to do. she was 40 feet from the campus police department. she could see the campus police cars as a stranger grabbed her and told her to the ground and held a gun to her head, and sexual assault or. after that happened, amanda collins was told she could carry her concealed firearm on campus, as long as she didn't tell anybody. because the second of the women could hear about this and say i want to be able to take care of myself. this guy is still out here. amended would lose her right to carry. amanda is an incredibly brave

woman. i fed the honor to interview her on a couple of occasions. to a politician say, amanda, thanks for testifying. i got together, statistics say that god wouldn't have helped you at all, but here's a pat on the head, but when your merry way. thanks very much. we will see back in nevada. this type of disrespect, this type of, i don't even know the word for it -- [inaudible] >> well, it is arrogance. no, it is arrogance but is not directed just against amanda collins but it's directed against everyone of you. because your gun owners and you understand that you want your firearm for your rights come whether to right of self-defense, you're right to go into a great day at the range can when it's your right to hunt. you are exercising your right to keep and bear arms. there are legitimate reasons for these exercises of these rights. but the opponents don't see it.

i've got to say, too, i wonder if somewhere in the state of colorado is a gathering of violent criminals who are wondering how do we comply with these new laws? [laughter] what are we going to do? this could dramatically impact us. i, i can't have a 15 round magazines any more? i don't know what i'm going to do. the criminals don't care. they've already shrugged off our laws. they have rejected society. we are the law-abiding, and get we are the ones who they are targeting. there are 5 million -- think of all of the ink that has been spilled over the last few months about the nra and its members. they are 1.4 million gang members in this country.

and about half the population, about 700,000 individual americans are responsible for preponderance of violent crime in this country. why aren't we talking about in? why aren't the gun-control advocates talking about in? i think it's because it doesn't really serve their purpose. you know, back in december there were these three democratic consultant firms that came out with a message guide for anti-gun activists, and it came out on the internet a few weeks ago, it got released. it's called preventing gun violence through effective messaging, by the way. as opposed to for me -- preventing gun violence with come you know, a good guy with a gun, yeah. it's 80 pages long. i'm not going to share everything with you, but there was, there's a section that

tells the anti-gunners how to respond when there is a tragedy like the shooting in aurora, are shooting at sandy hook. and i want to share these tips for you, if i can. first, they say, don't hesitate to speak out. like right away. express concern for the victims, they say. but, quote, use language were our message flows for an expression of concern into the larger argument. which means when people are grieving, when families are in shock, think about how you can segue from gosh, this is awful, do we need more gun control laws. they say don't assume the facts, and don't wait for them. just find the nearest camera, do

your best chuck schumer impersonation. hopped right in front. ask hard questions. one where they said to link our arguments to an event without being trapped by shifting circumstances is to ask questions. policies that we favor, but resonate emotional power of the time of a high profile shooting. again, it's not about facts, it's not about data, not about what's happened. it's about what they feel. never apologize, they say, and they offer specific examples that i found that sending. this was their example. i know this is the time for mourning, but they say don't say that. challenge the nra silence. in other words, hopped right on out. don't wait for the facts to be known, don't exhibit what we would consider to be, i don't know, common human decency, right? expect for those to are grieving. make it a political issue as

quickly as you possibly can. and, of course, they say if someone is silent, then attack them for that. as it turns out the night at sandy hook, i actually did a show for three hours, and i have to say i'm pretty proud. i broke almost every one of these rules. [applause] thank you. we didn't talk politics that night. we all knew a gun-control debate was coming, but it could wait. we didn't badmouth anybody that night. i explained how i learned about sandy hook. i had actually just come from an elementary school, where we were getting our kids a tour. we are in the process of moving,

and we can't limit dollars for lunch and look at the tv and i saw was going on, and my kids are sitting right underneath. i talked a little bit about what i felt, if they would just opened up the show the messages of support and sympathy from all around the country. and i wouldn't change a thing that we did that night. you don't have to be quiet right away. but you can show respect for your fellow americans, for those who are grieving. you can show that, courtesy. you can have that human decency. at least i think that they can. i thought that they could. may be. because we sure didn't see that. and we really haven't seen it. and it's been this way maybe longer than we think. i'll give you another example. as an -- there's an author is a new book out, essays on villains

called i wear the black cat, and has an essay what he's talking about, he was on twitter when the news of the shooting in tucson broke. and he was getting way too tweet about football games which i figure out that cognitive dissonance, he couldn't figure out what was going on, and he was trying to figure out come he realized there's been a shooting and then he realized that a lot of people on my tomboy who are excited about what this means for sarah palin. they are very happy, and very this means bad things for sarah palin. his quote was, why wer would the people pretending to be sad about something that was clearly making them euphoric? it was a map, remember the math that sarah palin had? these sick freaks all said sarah palin is responsible. so again, while there were families grieving, mother law enforcement officers trying to figure out what was going on, here were these people who were so excited that the politics

they hated was going down and politics and policy meant more than a common humanity. this isn't healthy. that's not the actions of a healthy mind. it's not helping the pain and suffering of others in terms of how this benefits your gender. and i don't think we do that on our side. and by the way, if you see that, call it out, please. the debate over gun control really shouldn't be, and it's not come about who cares more. we all care how all of us, as americans care about violent crime in our communities, right? all of us, except the people are committing violent crime. the rest of us would like to see violent crime go down, right? it's about what works. and you know what? if gun control works, chicago

would be mayberry right now. [applause] and weld county and el paso county would be thunder door. you guys would have sheriff cooke. you have tina turner and mel gibson running around. it would be horrible. but that's not real life. real-life is going to check gun control not working in chicago and failing in camden, new jersey, and in oakland, california. and a lot of other communities around this country. when i met my wife, she was living in camden. she was a single mom of two. we had a decision to make. i was really young. i was just starting out. i was making $4 something a. we're trying to figure out what we're going to do. she had two kids, instant family. was i going to try to move to philadelphia and try to bake into the market the?

which he tried to move the home of lex i felt i should know differently. known to know. i was told this was a very easy decision but they were moving to oklahoma. now, why would, all things considered, we were still poor, we were still dirt poor. we were still going to live in a crappy neighborhood. all things considered, why would we want to move from camden with the really good gun law that would giv keep us all safe to te wild west of oklahoma? it's because oklahoma was safer than camden, new jersey. because these gun-control laws don't do a damn thing to stop the bad guys. but they do stop single moms and candor from being able to afford to exercise their rights. how many law-abiding people in the city can exercise the right to own a pistol? forget about right to carry. talk about hundreds of dollars in extra fees just to exercise

the constitutional right. because they say that it makes the city safer. and then, of course, mayor bloomberg goes and blames new york violent crime on the state of virginia anyway. which is where i now live. i can't win. i keep moving from place to place it actually, i can win because they keep moving to places that have lower crime rates than new york city. it's weird how that works. so how do we push back against this quick because it's not just about gun control. you know, i talk about mayor bloomberg. it's about the soda bands. it's about your salt intake. it's about making sure that you don't get diabetes but it's about the ipod. it's about control. it's not about gun control. it may be about fun control but i think mostly it's just about control. and every time the nanny --

navigating fancy. have a lot of other terms like coercive paternalism is a new one. i like that one. that's fancy. we also have nudging which just sounds, it sounds nice, right? they are not pushing or poking me. they just giving me a nice little nudge. at the end of the day it's the same thing. they want to restrict your sphere of liberty. they want to tell you these choices that used to be able to make are now off limits to you. and the reasoning behind all of this seems so suspect to me. when it comes to gun control is because, well, we really need to go after your rights, somehow it will go down to criminals don't repent -- commit violent crimes. when it comes to bloomberg soda bans, apparently the number one way to fight diabetes is to tell people that you can't have a 20-ounce soda in a restaurant or theater, but you can get a big gulp at 7-11. i didn't know. this is weird.

and in new york, after a 20-ounce coca-cola is a real problem. but if you pour a couple ounces about call into, you are good to go. it's legal. which means this is new york legal. so -- here's to you, mike. [applause] and ultimately, you know, we are pushing back against these attitudes. we are pushing back with a lawsuit. we are pushing back with a phone calls were legislative and even if they don't take them. we are pushing back by electing elected officials and supporting elected officials who actually do listen to us. but we are also pushing back by being grown-ups and by being okay at it, by having hundreds of people show up at a range and shoot thousands of shotgun

shells, and everybody is okay. and now we are enjoying cigars and drinks and we will all get home safely tonight, right? because, because we can control our lives. we can manage our lives. it's not too difficult. we are not perfect, right? we may eat a little too much dessert every now and then, may not be able to kick that one bad habit like smoking cigarettes, whatever. but we're a heck of a lot more capable that our government gives us credit for, aren't we? [applause] >> [inaudible] >> well, we are, i think we are more capable that our government, but, you know, i've got to say if that's the attitude, which got to put our money where our mouth is. we need more capable people running for office if we're upset about this, you know?

>> [inaudible] >> how many candidates are in your? do we have any candidates? there we go. thank you, guys. [applause] >> i will say, i honestly debated long and hard about running for mayor of my tiny newtown, it's not new but it is new to me, and i decided i would fail. i've lived there for seven months. i wouldn't vote for a guy who's lived there for seven months. four years from now, i'm going to run for mayor. that's my plan right now. and maybe we will reform. >> [inaudible] >> it's in virginia. i don't want to say right now, but thanks. that's all right. in four years -- it's okay. why would i give the bloomberg's consoles for years to repair the battle space in a tiny little town less than 1000 people? he can buy them all off by them. no, no, no.

>> [inaudible] >> in the meantime, we can keep doing things like this. we can keep, we can take the range for the first time, and show them, look, all of these scary horrifying stories that you've heard about firearms, your action responsible enough. you can do this. i'll show you. it's safe. you can do this. and in a lot of other ways we are pushing back as well. in new york city we are pushing back, gosh, with food trucks around the country. we are pushing back because we want to be capable, and we know we're capable. we know we are competent, and they hate it when the competence we are making our own bacon. make your own bourbon and making our own beer. we are making our own bullets. how many other the worst cannot think of? we are making bustiers perhaps and selling them. >> [inaudible]

>> i'm not, you understand, but someone probably does. we are pushing ourselves and we're learning that we can do these things. we didn't think we could do before. a lot of us are doing this work. we are bill clinton in the suburbs. i've a friend who is learning the blow had and she loves it and it's awesome and i think it's fantastic be with people, with chickens in new york city, put them in diapers. i'm weirded out about that, quite honestly. [laughter] just because i have chickens now and i know how much they like to wander. so the thought of diapering them all kind of weirded me out. but whatever, it's okay. you don't tell me what to do with my guns, i won't tell you what to do with your chickens. i'm a live and let live kind of guy on that. we are pushing not just as us but we are pushing back at these measures, and we need to. because the role of government as i understand, granted i am a

bum can, ma but the role of government as i understand it is to help us, to create a more perfect union. if you go back to the dax it's to help ensure -- declaration of independence, our rights of life, and of liberty and of the pursuit of happiness. when we pursue happiness it means we're going after it, right? it's out there, and we're going after it. and get now, right, there's no guarantee we will get it but it's our right to pursue it. and right now what we have is this army like running behind is trying to catch up to us so they can body check us out with a way. i didn't mean to nudge you quite so hard. and knock us off our path, knock us off our goal. all, you want to be a farmer? well, we're not going to let you sell raw milk. oh, you want to be a gun on a?

we will not let you own a magazine over 15 rounds. oh, and you want to be imam or a dad. we will start telling you that your kids really aren't yours, right? they belong to all of us. it's a weirded by the way. they never can get my kids when they're freaking out or throwing a temper tantrum. they are all mine them. you in this room are an inspiration to all of us. because each and everyone of you are pursuing your own individual happiness. and yet, together, i know this is a loaded term, you have stood your ground, and she turned around and use stopped. you put out your hands, and you said no, don't come any closer. i've got this. we all need to be able to do this. we all need to take time to do

this because this is happening all around the country. how are we doing on time? re: good? -- aren't we good? there's one of the component, competence and now drives a nanny state crazy because they want us to be little man babies and little woman babies, incapable of helping ourselves. they want to be able to diaper us like the diaper chickens. so we have competence, and we have self control. again, thousands of shells shot here, lots of drinks being consumed, everyone is behaving themselves, so far. john. we're watching. self-control is the antidote to other people wanting controls. because if we are exercising self-control, we don't need their help, right?

a few months after i moved to the farm, my wife and i -- did you ever see the show american bankers? so we were at like this total american picke pick a place. there was this great woman and her husband and, therefore, buildings full of stuff. big big stuff. so of course i walk away with this. this little book that are found for a buck. it's called the american citizens handbook. it's fascinating. this was published by the national education association in 1951. let me tell you, things have changed quite a bit. since 1951. [laughter] a lot of things i think they would have a problem with india, including this piece that was written in 1916, and it's called the code of the good american. this was, this was a book that was designed for high school students, middle school students, but the code of the

good american is citizens were good americans, and by the way, is in that piece will make a nanny state grange. cringe. citizens are good. >> and stride to be, strong and useful. worthy of their nation. how many people think this nation is unworthy of us these days, on the other side? ..

>> i will control my actions. i will be careful and encyst in doing right. we used to teach this. we used to teach this in schools, teach this to our kids. now we don't. we have to learn self-control. that's the thing. the more you do it, the better you get. if our kids are not learning it in the school, we got to make sure we're teaching it. by the way, even if you as a grownup don't think you have self-control, you can always try. i realize about a year ago like, man, i'm fat! i had a moment like, wow, i'm fatter than what i look at myself in the mirror and think, oh, i look good. no, i look fat. [laughter] you know, so, i started

exercising self-control and i said maybe i don't need the cookies or have a donut for breakfast, and it was the weirdest thing, i lost weight. [laughter] it was crazy. i department need to do a paleo diet, but just had to exercise self-control and watch how much stuff i shoved in my mouth. the thing is, they want to make it sound like self-control is hard and impossible, and that's why we need them; right? because we can't do it on our own. even if we can't do it on our own, doesn't mean we need mayor bloomberg; right? we have each other. we have all kinds of organizations to help us with our competence, with our self-control. we have the nra. we have the independence institute. we have -- maybe the first time this happened on c-span here -- no, i'm stopping here. we have the jive, a website that

features a lot of beautiful women and cool things, but this community, the people who go to the website have started helping others, the chive charity within hours that people say, hey, look, there's a family here, there's a little kid with medical bills, what can you do? two hours later, $6,000 or $8,000 -- $60,000 was raised across the country, not because their government told them to or demanded they do this, but because they like to, because it's fun. it is fun to be a responsible adult. it's good to be a responsible adult. again, i think all of us as individuals pursuing our own individual happiness, coming together in groups like this to have each other's back, this is how we win.

please keep fighting. please keep pushing. don't be nudged. thank you. [applause] >> tell you what, i'll ask dave to come here, and sheriff cooke, if you want to join us. we got time for probably just a few questions. [applause] that, by the way, is sexy. chicks dig it. [cheers and applause] in the meantime, we got a microphone right over here if anybody has a question and stand up, and we'll -- let's start here. sir? >> the attorney general made these new accommodations for the bill, but what will stop him from resending all the things that clarify that bill and go back to where it started from?

>> nothing. that's why we argue that these issues, which we talked about, are maybe temporarily taken care of, but they are not resolved, and why we ultimately need the federal district court to issue a permanent injunction against that language. >> next question. way in the back, sir? stand up and speak up. >> i just want to make sure that i didn't break any laws today because on the range i borrowed a shotgun a couple times. [laughter] shotguns, but could you exude on that a little bit? [laughter] >> the shall sheriff's right th, take care of him. [laughter] >> don't give my name out! [laughter] >> bill, bill! [laughter] the requirement for background checks on temporary transfers of magazines does have sensible exemptions in it, and one is transfers at a shooting range.

>> i'll meet you in the parking lot. we'll take care of that. [laughter] right here, sir, stand up. sir. >> in the new law, what is the status of belt fed weapons? >> belt-fed? >> like machine guns? it has not changed them at all. they are highly regulated and legal to possess in colorado as long as one complies with the very strict federal licensing requirements. >> if you could put yours back in your pants, please. [laughter] next question. sir? >> do you think that there's going to be strict scrutiny for the laws? >> well, it does call for legal conclusion, so yeah. [laughter] [inaudible]

[laughter] that's one of the issues that will be briefed on about what the standard of review is, whether it's a interimmediate scrutiny against strict scrutiny versus what we argue at least applies on the magazine issue, simply a categorical prohibition. i mean, if the government outlawed a particular religion, you wouldn't resolve the case under strict scrutiny but they is a government's actions categorically prohibit by the first amendment. we argue bans on commonly possessed arms typically used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, prohibition is categorically outlawed by the second amendment, but that's -- we'll get that in court. >> seth mcdonald; right? >> and elliot. >> yeah. >> see the rest of 24 at -- this at c-span.org. live now to a discussion on the significance of including turkey within the transatlantic free trade area. this is hosted by the brookings institution, and it's live on c-span2.

>> i'm delighted to see so many people turning out here. there's action and work again in good washington, d.c. mode. we have a very interesting event today on turkey and the transatlantic trade investment partnership, a mouthful. i had to practice that several times in the elevator on the way down the stairs, not to trip myself up over ttip, maybe not the best, but it's one that gained a lot of scrutiny and attention around town, which is testament to how there are so many of you turning out today. we, today, are going to take a look at the transatlantic trade investments partnership from the angle from the world of turkey. our colleague came out, kemal kirisci, the director of the

central and u.s. turkey project. i got a report, looks like most of you who wanted to get a copy of of turkey's interest in o potential role in the transatlantic trade negotiations, and for those of you, just in case, if you didn't get a copy, you can download this from the brookings website, and plus, i know from coming in the office today, there's boxes of it sitting around so if you didn't get a copy, get in touch with us so we can get one out to you again. kemal is launching the report today, talking to us about some of his conclusions from having spent several months now looking at turkey's interest in the negotiations and how this is likely to unfold and the challenges this will pose, not just for europe and the united states, but for turkey itself and by implications for some of the other countries, very interested to see how the trade deal between europe and united states may unfold. we're also very much delighted

to have our neighbor and colleague who is one of the u.s.' leading experts on economic and trade topics, a director of economic program next door as carnegie. they will give a brief overview of the report, which you all have, and they give some comments based on his work on the issue, and they both open it up to you for more of a discussion and also the questions. i would like to thank our colleagues in the turkish industry and business association, we have u.s. representatives sitting here in the front row, for their support for this project and work they have been doing on this topic. as you imagine, there's a lot of people interested in the report, so we hope that this will be of

use of people elsewhere as they address this question. without further adieu, handing it to you, and i look forward to the interaction with all of you who have come today. thank you very much. >> well, thank you, fiona. i was not sure whether we were going to do this from standing on the stage, sitting on the stage, or standing at the stage. well, i'd like to thank you for joining us this afternoon. ttip is a topic i became exposed to or encountered as soon as i arrived at brookings earlier in the year in january. i can't say i had heard it before, but it was a topic that evolved to be one close to my heart, so i feel very committed to the topic, and uri is

delighted to join us because he'll try to bring me down to earth on solid grounding. july was an interesting month because the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, first round of negotiation took place, and in the same month, also took place the 18th ground of the transatlantic transpacific partnership negotiations. now, when you put the two together on the basis of the 2012 statistics, they constitute just under two-thirds of the world's gdp, the growth domestic product, and at the same time, a little bit under 50% of the world's trade. i think when you put the two figures together, one can begin to understand why turkey is very

much interested in joining, in finding a way in participating in ttip. what i also come to observe soon after i was interested in the topic is that government bureaucracy and the business world appear to be on the same wavelength on this topic. the prime minister himself, his recent personal letters to obama, the minister of foreign affairs when he received the counterpart, john kerry in march, this was a topic he also brought up, and in the meantime, major turkish business associations from atop the union of chamber of commerces to representative who is are here too expressed interest in

turkey's participation in ttip. i believe out there amongst government pure -- bureaucracy and government circles, there is, if i dare to say, intuitive feel why this is important in terms of turkey's feature economy performance, and all this is happening against the following background, that here is turkey who has been part of the western economic order since really the very beginning, since the period when imf, world bank, all started. furthermore, it's also taking place against the background of turkey becoming a trading state. you may have heard that once churchill at the house of commons when he pulled up his watch, people from the floor

were yelling at him saying that you need a calendar, a calendar, not a watch, but i'll doubt i'll perform at his level here. [laughter] the -- in the last 20-30 years, the turkish economy has been transformed dramatically and trade came to play a very important role. i'll return to the issue, but we have also entered since january, since i took an interest in this topic, a terrible time, both in turkey's region. in terms of the middle east, i need not go into the details of it, but also in terms of turkey itself, and many would agree that turkey has -- turkey's democracy has taken an important dent, and that there are the early signs of economic difficulties in the horizon building up. part of the background is also

that turkey is in a very important geography there. i believe that it's in a geography where two forms of government, what we could call the transatlantic form of government that relies on democracy, liberal democracy, free markets, and human rights, and on the other hand, there's the government model that is more that puts more emphasis at best what they call sovereign democracy and states involvement in capitalism one way or the other. what i'd like to say in the coming -- in the remaining time, is what is at stake here? why is turkey, keen, go in more details of it, and what of the u.s. and e.u. responses, and they are not exciting so far,

what should be done, and what are the opportunities there? few very quick words about the transpacific partnership and ttip itself. very similar simplistic -- simplisticically again, these two exercises are trying to pick up where they failed, to deepen liberalization of world trade with what they call a wto class agenda, not just removal of tariffs, but addressing nontariff barriers, harmonize room to deal with investments, public procurement, labor rules, and much more importantly, particularly for the u.s.. harmonizing rules that govern intellectual property. in the words of one expert in the area, this is an attempt to

create a new trade rule book for the coming case, if not the century, and it aims -- both aim to achieve job and growth, job creation and growth much more interestingly what the european commissioner responsible for trade called the tipping point strategy. in a way, get a number of like-minded countries together that constitute an important part of the world trade, and that begin all the rules in a way to compel others to come on board if they want to benefit from the more open and liberalized markets. robert, the undersecretary of state, also made references alluding to ttip as an economic nato, the notion that if the u.s. is strong, the e.u. is going to be stronger, and e.u.

is strong, the u.s. is going to be stronger in international relations as large, and i can't help but not think that remind me of the period immediately after the period of the second world war. let's say a few words about where turkey stands these days. i believe turkey in the last two, three decades has gone through a massive economic transformation. we actually had an event in the spring here that looked at this phenomena here at brookings. in 1979 -- 75 when i was still a junior student at university in istanbul, turkey's foreign trade was just a mere $6 billion. in 2012 last year, this had gone up to $390 billion, a huge change, and maybe the best way of capturing what otherwise are

vague statistics is back in 1975, foreign trade, foreign trade corresponded to just about 9% of turkey's gdp. today, it corresponds to 50% of turkey's gdp, and i think this should give you a rough idea of the significance of foreign trade as far as turkey's contemporary recent economic performance is. what is the background? customs union is critical that came into operation in 1996, and in terms of ttip, what is significant here is that tour incorporated 55% of the european union rules that govern the market. for all intensive purposes, turkey is part of the internal market there. even though the european union's

place in turkey's overall foreign trade has fallen from 47 to 49% in the late 1990s, early 2000s to about 38% today, the e.u. is still the largest partner of turkey as far as foreign trade goes, and through the interviews i made, i came to realize how businesses in turkey are trying to give priority to what they call the one, one and a half percent profit they are going to make with business in the european union to 80-100% profit elsewhere in the world. most of the direct investment that come to turkey, 75%, comes from the european union, and about 65% of turkish investment abroad goes to the european

union as well. this is also a period in the neighborhood in economic terms increases significantly. this has important implications for ttip. i won't go in details for time, but thirdly, we direct this through the tirkish government, the prime minister as well as the foreign minister. by the late 2000s, there was a clear vision about what he wanted to achieve in the middle east in terms of regional immigration. he had a vision in the middle east where it would be like in europe, free movement of goods and people from the most eastern city to the atlantic ocean; however, that, as you are aware, has, at times, sounded.

lastly, with obama coming to power and the famous visit in the early stage of his first term, the model partnership would launch one of its important legs being improving economic relations, and in that context, the frame work for economic and commercial cooperation was set up. what is it that is at stake? this is where impact -- that is study of what the impact of ttip will be on countries participating in ttip and on third countries comes up. these are still in the preliminary stage. there are some that are in the pipeline and whose results are expected about the end of this

year. ttip will impact differently, of course, whether you're part of it or outside it. when you look at these studies and i must admit that some of these studies are being challenged and questioned, but that's what is, at the moment, available, turkey's going to be one of the losers. it is almost cut and dry, and the loss is going to correspond to roughly $20 billion, and that is a balance of trade that occurs between turkey bilaterally or occurred in 2012 between turkey and the united states. this is not surprising. it has a lot to do with the customs union and the way in which the customs union has been

formulated. i believe we'll reflect on that. what happens with the cues -- customs union is every time the european union signs a free trade agreement with a third country, is automatically binds turkey which means that turkey has to lower its customs tariff and open up its markets to the third country wherever it may be, and in the case of ttip, it would be the united states. whereas the third country is not obligated to open up its markets. instead, turkey has to engage the third country in an effort to negotiate its parallels treaty. i realize that some of you this might be a funny deal there, but we can always go back into the details of it.

most of the free trade agreements that the e.u. had signed was one with relatively smaller economies. however, as the e.u. began to engage bigger and bigger economies, and as turkey began to have difficulties in persuading these countries to come to the negotiating table ranging from algeria, mexico, south africa, and more recently, the e.u. started negotiations with india, japan, and a number of other important countries, alarm bells began to ring in turkey with respect to the particular arrangement of the customs union. what does that mean? what does it mean if ttip comes into effect in terms of you have u.s.-turkish relations? first of all, turkey runs an

$8.5 bill trade deficit with the united states means that trade deficit is clearly going to increase because american companies are going to have a freer access to turkish markets while the companies continue to face similar restrictions. furthermore, ttip is going to lead to also trade diversion. that is turkish companies are going to find that there are, for example, european companies as a result of ttip, but also south koreans is as a result of a south korean u.s. free trade agreement, and then members of tpd, they have easier access to the u.s. markets and turkish companies are going to be squeezed out, so the outcome, greater trade deficit for turkey

madeleine albright and steven hadley last year with foreign relations published an interesting and rich record on turkish-american relations saying this is the kind of problem that would fuel already high levels of anti-americanism in turkey. one impact study that i made references to actually calculated that turkey would be moving 95,000 places of employment as a result of ttip. you are, of course, welcome to challenge those statistics there, but it does suggest that had could lead to unemployment while generating employment within the u.s. and e.u.. similar outcomes would be observed in the case of turkey's relations, trade relations, with the european union. turkey runs a large deficit.

that deficit will continue to expand, and american companies compete with a better deal in competing with tushish companies as well as the companies of countries with which the e.u. has been signing these free trade agreements. hence, it's no wonder we have ministers. i will choose not to name the name of these ministers, who have been using, unfortunately, denigrating language towards the european union, and i think this is very much a function of frustration and grievance that has been felt towards the way the customs union is operating and the way the e.u. is responding to these grievances to the extent that i'm sure you heard our prime minister's back sometime in january, revealing at a tv program that he would

like to take turkey out of the european union into the shanghai corporation organization. i call it our prime minister having a shanghai mood of life. would turkey actually leave the european union? it's probably very, very doubtful. however, the greechtions are there, and the grievances are getting larger and larger and more and more intense. what's the cost to the e.u. on to the u.s. of these? leaving turkey outside ttip or some similar arrangement is going to make is very difficult for turkey to maintain its growth hate that attracted so much attention and praise internationally. it will mean loss of jobs, but it will also mean loss of jobs for the neighborhood for the

very reason i cited earlier on, that the neighborhood has a growing part in turkey's economy and foreign trade. migration pressures will increase. turkey compared to 20 years ago has moved from immigration to integration country. people from the neighborhood are coming to turkey and going slowly elsewhere towards the european union, and i doubt i would be wrong, but i also say they run the risk of turkey being less stable and democratic. in conclusion of turkey is the other side, and i need not stress how mechanisms work in the other direction. what can be done in this respect? there's a number of scenarios to follow. the one that the government,

turkish bureaucracy and business world through february, march, april, and may pushed very hard was the inclusion of turkey into the ttip negotiations themselves. however, that did not materialize, and it would be unrealistic to expect that turkey would be invited to the negotiating table for a string of reasons that we could maybe go back into in the q&a session. the bet that turkey constructed from the e.u. and the u.s. vis-a-vis ttip was the promise to be informed about ttip's negotiations, and where they are getting it, and as you might imagine, the word of the e.u. in turkey does not carry much

credibility. the second idea is this notion that ttip could be concluded in such a manner and there's few of them that have custom's union with the union or negotiating for full membership would be admitted, or the door would be kept open. that one is also not a highly likely avenue that will materialize. a third idea advocated in the context of ttip, called docking, the idea you reach an agreement that leaves the door open to third countries who might want to join these partnership in a way to apply for membership. we will get -- see if this will be the case too.

however, we have to bear in mind in this case if docking was made available with ttip, turkey's membership would have to go through congressional approval process and negative attitudes it would generate. larsly, there's the possibility of turkey and u.s. negotiating free trade agreement. actually, the reference to the albright and hadley report i made references to came up with the idea and called this

turkish-american partnership. however, that idea could not be pursued because of the way in which the customs union works in the other way around, that turkey cannot negotiate free trade agreements with the third country unless that third country has a free trade agreement with the european union. because the u.s. did not have such agreement with the e.u., this idea of albright and hadley could not really be put in practice even if there was political will behind it. the idea of a u.s.-turkey fda was brought up by the prime minister when he came to visit washington, d.c. in may and has also been brought up by the deputy prime minister; however, it doesn't seem to have gainedded much traction in the u.s. for a string of reasons

stretching from the fact that the u.s., the u.s. trade representatives have already heavy agenda in front of them, and i also heard excuses of turkey's democracy problems being brought up as well as congressional politics. what turkey has at best managed to extract from the american side so far is whether disappointed diplomats call yet another committee, and this committee that has been set up has been set up at least at the cabinet level, ministers of economy, that is the usdr as well as turk irk counterpart will be engaged. i am somewhat optimistic because i see the turkish officials, the bureaucrats at least, on the ministry of the economy side

being domestic about it as they consider this as an avenue that could eventually lead to something like the high level working groups that have been set up when they first embark on the part of the ttip. what is critical in this last scenario is that there should be a bottom up pressure building up, especially from the american side and american businesses. my concluding remarks before i turn the floor to you, turkey has massively transformed. it is the size of the economy corresponding to the sixth largest economy in the european union, and if you add russia, it makes it the 7th largest in

europe and 17th in the world. from my point of view, it's much more important when one talks about turkey's engagement in ttip is that when you exclude russia and iran in turkey's neighborhood and with neighborhood, i also mean countries across from the black sea, is that turkey's gdp corresponds to the total of all those other countries excluding russia and iran. now, that is significant when turkey engaging the countries economically as well. one needs to bear this in mind as well. they received a lot of praise, but this is changing real fast in the last year or so. turkey's commitment to the transatlantic alliance or

community is increasingly being questionedded as well. the ttip is one way in which this could be regenerated, and it could also be just the e.u. in terms of jobs and growth to the united states in terms of jobs and growth to turkey in terms of jobs and growth, but also to the neighborhood to every single country in the area stretching from arian mania, all the way around the neighborhood itself, and there i'd like to conclude with the remarks of stuart who reflected on ttip earlier in the year arguing that the ttips, if successful, would be a mechanism that is going to

help form of governments around the world comparedded to the alternative one. turkey is on the fence, strait ling both countries, which we way he goes is going to be very critical in terms of which form of government prevails in the neighborhood and beyond. for turkey, it's very critical if our prime minister really believes that he wants to see turkey as the 10th largest economy in 2023. thank you for bearing with me and they are going to take me apart now. there you go. [applause] >> thank you. i'm certainly not going to take him apart, although i disagree with him in one of two areas, and, in fact, i wanted to congratulate him for having

prepared a very good comprehensive balance report that is a good read on our subject so i strongly recommend that you carefully examine what he has written. i'll make one main point. before that, let me say as a premise that trade agreements should be looked at as two dimensional chest at the top layer and less important is trade. at the bottom layer and more important is the politics, and these trade arrangements are very much motivatedded by politics, just about anyone, geostrategic corporations, any one of them to consider, but i like to keep some separation between the political discussion

and the economic discussion, and because i'm an economist, i'm going to focus on the economic implications of the current set up for turkey, and i will listen obligingly to those who correct me from the political dimension. which i recognize is important. i basically take the view that the current arrangement, customs union with the european union, is a costly arrangement for turkey, and one that it becomes increasingly more costly, and i would advocate on economic grounds that the arrangement be recon figured into a free trade arrangement enabling turkey to

negotiate with third parties including the united states, and i believe that one can be very much favorable to turkey eventually joining the european union be but against the current setup of the customs union. that's the main point i want to make, and let me give you three arguments to support that point. the first is that the world has changed. the global environment has been a lot less propitious for the customs union that turkey has with european union as currently con figured. not only, of course, prospects for e.u. session dimmed into the indefinite future, that being made a lot more problematic by the enormous problems, challenges that the e.u. faces

internally, its own eurocrisis and significant developments crisis within turkey are well known. not only have those prospects receded into the indefinite future, but perhaps, as important a development is that we have a completely changing picture of world trade in my book, i look forward 25 years, 35 years, you take all that with a pinch of salt, but what i talk about is [laughter] happening. twenty five to 30 years from now, the largest economies in the world will be developing countries, and none of the european countries will be part of that select group.

only the united states will be. the powers in developing countries of the g20 that today represent a third of world trade of 35% will represent something like 7 0% of world trade within a generation. just as important is the fact that these are the countries where actually the biggest trade barriers exist today. the highest rate barriers in the world are not in the united states or germany. at the highest rate barriers of the world are in india, brazil, to a lesser degree, in china, and they are in a number of other very rapidly growing developing countries. those are the objects of trade policy of today, and trade

policy for the future. that's where the peak, the growing markets are, and where the barriers have to come down. they have been coming down. this has been reflected in a major direction of trade direction including the case of turkey, by the way, where the share of exports going to the european union have fallen very martedly in the course of the last 15-20 years, and the share going to the united states is weak and declining over the last 515 do 20 years, and the growth markets for 13 # are in the developing world. these economies, of course, and i'm talking about with the exception of these economies

excluded from ttip. even if turkey was part of ttip, it would not affect its capacity in a significant way to improve the export performance to these very rapidly growing shirred market. that's one argument. the second argument is that as already pointed out, the establishment of ttip and to an extent the establishment of ttp, not the establishment, but the negotiation, and event success which may or may not happen of these negotiations can significantly raise the cost of turkey for the customs arrangement, and, in fact, incentives on the e.u. and the united states to correct the

problem are all wrong. incementives don't exist. somebody who followed trade negotiations for a long time, you, you know, i empathize with what was said, but, you know, the idea that you go to the u.s. congress saying to them, really, we have to lower the barriers for turkey to export to us, a big economy, unskilled labor that are competitive, ect., ect., and then they ask, well, what are we getting in return? they say, oh, no, we get nothing in return because we got everything already through the negotiation with the political union. that does not work the the incentives for the united states are not there to do this free

trade agreement with turkey if they agreed, and similarly, incentives for the e.u. to change the arrangement are absent. in fact, the e.u. negotiates, of which i know personally, go, and happily go to usgr and give away, give away commerce access to the juicy fast growing large turkish markets without demanding anything in return from the americans for turkey, just demanding things in return for themselves. this is a trade negotiator's dream to be able to do that so it's actually a win-win for the united states and the european union to maintain the status quo on the customs union with turkey and negotiating processes.

meanwhile, as mentioned, with these negotiations, turkey stands to suffer erosion of preferences in the e.u. and create diversion in the united states and the same would apply if there's government procurement, access in the united states and potentially european union as well. the regulations negotiations are less problem mattic for turkey because, you know, shifting regulations by definition, well, for the most part, are not discriminatory. it's a choice to face whether they want to adopt the regulations or not, and it might actually benefit from doing so. another important element here is that ttip are going to cause very likely a big bush globally

to competitive liberalization. the countries that are left out and there's a large number of them and very important countries are going to feel a lot of pressure to themselves and to not just turkey feeling the pressure, but they are going to feel the pressure to enter into trade agreements with the european union, with the united states, and with each other. turkey will, in effect, not be able to do that. now, in theory, they can do that; right? as long as there's agreement with the european union when the european union is not negotiating, but the european union is not going to give approval other than perhaps in marginal tastes, and once the negotiations are embarked upon with the european union, there's little in terms of turkey, just that the united states, the

same, applies for india, the same applies for brazil, ect., ect., so turkey is stuck in this changing world in terms of a very, very important part of the policies which is fraid policy. the third and last point i want to make in support of the idea that the customs union arrangement has become dysfunctional and can be improved upon by moving towards a free trade arrangement, is mexico. i'll use the example of mexico. it's an interesting example for turkey partly because it's a country more or less in the similar income. back in 1994, two years before turkey had a custom's union with the european union, back in

1994, mexico negotiated nafta's free trade agreement with the united states and canada, which, as a free trade agreement does, makes it completely free to make -- to negotiate with third parties. well, you know, they did not do dmas rowsly free trade at all. in fact; if you look at the trade intensity of mexico, mexico trade grew relative to gdp much faster than that of turkey and other comparable countries like brazil, for example.

you don't have to have a customses union, and they were able to negotiate a large number of negotiations, but the quality of mexico's free trade agreements with much better than that of turkey because mexico has been able to negotiate an agreement with the european union whereas turkey has not negotiated an agreement with the united states. mexico negotiated agreements with nafta and with the pacific alliance, and now with the ttip. they have negotiating free trade agreements with japan, and negotiating a number of other very large trade agreements. one of the effects of this is

mexico can probably manage greater global change, the global networks of productions which do not listen in the last several decades in part because if you put news in mexico, you not only have access to the u.s. and canadian market, but people see mexico as a base of which you can export all over the world. you can import easily all over the world as well. i think mexico's been helped in that way. mexico did not do as well on growth as turkey has, but it has done much better on macroeconomic stability and balance of payments, and ironically, since a big

objectsive of the customs union is to create this closer links with europe, if you look at at those depending on migration, remit trances in turkey are down in recent years. they are a small feature of the economy. mexico does not have -- is not part of the, you know, political arrangement so to speak with the united states. remittances in mexico are a very important feature of the country. that's what i wanted to say. i wanted to challenge a little bit the conventional wisdom of which i associate with the secular middle class in turkey, with whom i share many, many sympathies, ect., and i'm a big believer in the european union

and in the need to move in that direction, and i wanted to bring out the costs, which is significant costs. and talk about this in different con techs, thank you. pltz >> thank you. [applause] >> we're having a technical problem. we're not havingny microphones here. all right, okay. i'll bring the discussion to the floor.

uri clearly set it as the scene goes, the notion of questioning the customs union and replacing it with a free trade agreement. however, it is an issue that has been coming up in turkey and has been discussed, don'ts, -- debated, maybe not as extensive as uri might advise or would want to see it take place. the challenge here, i think, is results from the fact they take a very economic trade oriented per specttive looking at the union and turkey's relations with the european union, literally, the political dimension is very critical which is why i put this occupation there in an effort to take a cut, a shortcut.

now, as i listen to you, i was trying to say what would be the most cleverest way of responding to this, and i couldn't help, and i mean no offense here, but couldn't help but know whether mexico is not a very good example to choose to question and all observations made as far as trade policy and trade relations go, and i'd like to point out that trade experts -- not a trade expert are going to have to look at the enact that some of the countries including mexico and south korea and now

including japan and most soon some other countries who could keep the cake and eat it at the same time with turkey are kicking and yelling to the negotiatings table. .. something interesting may actually be unfolding. and closing the bracket. when i look at mexico, and i'm

not an expert on mexico. i only look at mexico through the "washington post" and what is debated here, although turkey has been having serious problems in the last couple of months with respect to the performance of its democracy, at least there's not the kind of insecurity and instability that reins in the northern part of mexico bordering the united states when it comes to drug trafficking and kidnapping of people, smuggling of migrants, et cetera. i'm just wondering whether we may be able to establish a relationship there between the difference of free trade agreement and an agreement like what should be coming with a lyrical package, or was coming

with a political package there. in the case of mexico, in some ways i'm wondering whether, whether a high level of mexican is not also a reflection of the mexican economy is not performing at the level that it should, to be able to employ their own people. the turkish economy relies on it because in the '60s, '70s, partly in 80s, too, the turkish people had to go to europe to be able to live, living and then ship the remnants to turkey. where as these days we'll see how long this is going to last. these days most turkish labor space in the country, or goes into the neighborhood with turkish companies to work on

construction projects, et cetera. and again, here, if time would allow us i would be able to publish a link between the customs union and this particular development. my last response, uri, to you is i agree that there's a major transformation that is taking place. however, when i look at turkey and i look at turkey historically and the way in which from my point of view, and there you can turn around and point the finger at me as a member of the secular middle class, elite in turkey, i see a major historical connection that has been there for centuries, and one cannot just wash one's hands of it. and it's there on turkey.

and when i talk to business people, including business people that may not directly be associated with what you call as the secular middle class, they do give importance to the rule of wall. and through transparency and accountability. and the last two months since the departure event and the way in which the government has come hard on some of the big businesses in turkey, noises have been coming out from those business circles, too. i think in turkey, successful business circles, there is this craving for the rule of law, for a level field it and as far as i can see, for the time being that level playing field and the rule of law is very close to associated with the european

union. and i see ttip come at a time when the link to the european union is weakening is that they could again reinvigorate the primacy of the rule of law. but this is all from a political perspective, uri. let's turn to the floor and start taking some questions and comments. and let me remind you, the booking custom your talk about custom union. dimension your name and maybe the institution that you're associated with. and the remind us there may be others who might also want to ask questions and comments. >> should we take two or three speak with you are the boss.

yes, it -- >> i was very interested when you unpack the consequences of the custom union's, working out seemingly a bit of a bad deal for turkey the way the trade patterns are developed. how serious are turkey's ruling class about renegotiating or just pulling out from the customs union. and what would be the political consequences of turkey withdrawing from the union? >> kathy, let's take a second and a third question, right next to you, kathy. >> thank you very much for your presentation. there's two questions. one is, japan is preceding a

joint study with turkey. but also as you mentioned we have started a devotion between eu. so what do you wish to happen between japan, turkey negotiation? i think a situation is very similar to the u.s. turkey situation. i would like to have indications from you. and second one is, i heard -- [inaudible] turkey is willing to join the attack against syria. if it happens, will it have economic partnership between u.s. and turkey? >> there was one more in the front here, and then we will come back -- no. uri, go ahead, please. >> [inaudible] >> i think the first question

was -- [talking over each other] >> i feel you may be altogether very better balanced and objective and his response, and i can get a more biased one. >> so the first question was how serious is the turkish ruling class are getting out of the customs union? the answer is i don't know. and icom you know, what i will say is that based on economic evidence from which i would like to put forward, i think there's a very serious argument for looking at it, whether they're ready to do it, whether politically they can do it, no doubt. these are international treaties, and unraveling them, including by the way, [inaudible] countries that have negotiated with the european union and since, free trade

agreements since turkey signed on, these would have to be enough. so this is a complicated, a very complicated push. but nevertheless, i retain my point. you know, the arguments are very strong. there was a second part of the question but i can't remember what it was. >> legal consequences. >> the political consequences. i think it's not clear to me that the political consequences would be that significant in the context. it's not like anybody saying that turkey is going to accede to the european union in 10 years, 15 years or 20 years. number one. number two, as i said, i think it's a very sweet deal for the european union.

and turkey is sort of unwittingly, because this is supposed to be a temporary arrangement, maneuver itself into a very difficult corner now. from the point of view of the european union, it has turkey in its back pocket as i said, it can give away the turkish market without asking anything in return for turkey. just asking a return for itself. so turkey pulling out of the customs union technically could actually improve the negotiating position on turkey, these are the a session in the long-term. because they can say, you know, over the next 10 years, 15 years we will join the customs union and you're going to get the benefit of a bigger area in which, when you're conducting

international trade negotiation. right now they have all of those benefits, but they're not taking any of the cost. >> thanks, uri. i partly agree with uri's remarks there, but i should mention that this is, we have entered the treated in turkey where the customs union issue and the grievances about it, beside the grievances concerning the broader eu turkish relationship is growing. and through the grapevine, we hear that the world bank has been commissioned to study the customs union -- >> they have. >> and we have yet to see the report, and i -- once the report comes out, this debate in turkey might liven up. however, i would like to

underline this. the customs union i think is very much sort of, prove of a lack of another time functional part dependency. that part dependency for some might go back to 1959 when, together with greece, turkey, applied to the european economy community to have an association relationship that culminated in the 1963 treaty, which is being celebrated this year. there's much to celebrate about it. and that treaty, you know, you mentioned conduit a very important point how these international treaties buying the countries with each other come and undoing them is a very difficult exercise. so the tree in the way bound the two sides to follow a certain

path. and when the customs union was signed in the mid 1990s, one need to remember the context as well. it was seen as a critical step, a transitional respect towards turkey's eventual membership to the european union. the world, in the meantime, has changed significantly. i think oath on the eu side and on the turkey side. there are those who recognize the minuses and the pluses of this relationship. and i feel that increasingly there's going to be a new move. my personal opinion on this is that there's going to be a move toward improving the customs union towards restructuring at rather than replacing it with completely, with a newer arrangement. restructuring it may be for the reason that a technical reason

called, uri site, might be an easier exercise and tearing it apart. tearing it apart and throwing it away in the context of today's turkish domestic politics would really be setting the cat amongst the pigeons. i mean, turkey is already polarized society, and i can imagine how all kinds of dreadful scenarios would be raised -- would be read into such an exercise. the same could be said about the eu side. i mean, in the european union, yes, the public opinion by and large wants to keep turkey at arms length. but when you engage business circles, when you engage non-government, when you engage part of the civil society, the perspective is a different one that things are not cut and dried. in that context, one reservation

-- observation i would like to make him even though uri and i mentioned that the place of european trade with the european union in turkey's overall trade has been proportionally been falling, turkey's trade with the eu continues to grow. and i've looked at the statistics for the first seven months of this year. and trade with the european union of turkey has been increasing. at the time when trade with the u.s. has jumped. and the one with the middle east is in disarray. with some countries is increasing. with others it is collapsing. apu is dead -- the eu is dead for all these weaknesses, and i like the remark about the sweet deal and having turkey in the back pocket. the european union market still remains an important market for

businesses that may come from a tradition only come from a tradition much closer to the values of this current government. the point about japan. yes, i have also just found out that turkey and japan has agreed on report that now has to be accepted on the japanese side and on the turkish side. the common report on opening negotiation for a free trade agreement is agreed upon, and then negotiations will start. now, i suspect if it comes to the point as they have, that these negotiations are actually going to take place. this year yo again issue, i thik that deserves an event on its own. all i can say is that the crisis in syria is impacting on turkey

politically, and economically. turkey's trade with the middle east is being impacted. the way in which the egyptian crisis is unfolding, or rather the turkish government's response to the egyptian crisis is unfolding, may further undermine turkey's economic relations with the middle east, and the departing ambassador of egypt made it quite clear that this may actually be the outcome. now, if turkey, i listened to the deputy prime minister yesterday when he came out from the cabinet meeting and list of the different scenarios, and my reading is that even though some members of the government, including the prime minister is keen to see some kind of an intervention in the middle east.

may be syria, beyond just punishing assad for using chemical weapons. it doesn't look like turkey is going to go and do it out on its own. and i think they are very well aware of its economic consequences, not to mention political ones. >> another round. we have a little bit more time. we have 10 more minutes. café, the lady in the back. yes, right there. i am the trade council here and we have a shtick several issues came out and we know each other. i will just make a small comment especially uri's presentation. i think you think i would say here is that eu's policy and it's a case for the u.s. as with

other trading partners. we're negotiating with or even with his report of turkey entering into a negotiation with the partners we're negotiating. it has worked i believe in the case of korea, where i don't know what is your assessment, that turkey did same free trade agreement soon after our agreement when into force. you may want to talk about that. and, obviously, with the way negotiations work, seems automatic. but from day one turkey would have -- things take time and issued a time span of several turkey would conduct its negotiations. so that's just a clarification from our side. i had a question comes doing away from controversies about what is the best path. in terms of the level of ambition that you see in u.s. free trade agreement, and eu free trade agreement. to what extent do you feel turkey is ready --.net so beyond

terrorists, looking at intellectual properties, regulatory assets, [inaudible] to what extent are the issues that would be difficult for turkey regardless of the support of large part of the turkish business community? thank you. >> yes, this woman here right in the front. >> you know, i'm trying to, like think of ways in which turkey might be able to think beyond, out of the box in a sense that perhaps maybe, other provisions that you know of within nafta that communicant if turkey were to strengthen its ties with mexico, but somehow in axis into

the american market because of a third party intervention, a third party playing a role in perhaps helping turkey, not necessarily wean itself off the customs union, the ways to think beyond just a conventional means of, you know, you know, zero-sum ways of thinking about this issue. >> one more question. and then we will turn -- we may be able to have -- yeah, i think this is, we are running out of time. >> thank you so much for the report. i think the discussion has departed from the constructive part of ttip turkey. from a turkish point of view, ttip is an era of cooperation between turkey and the united states. and as we have seen recent visit of the prime minister, it is

illegal on both parts to go ahead. and i think there's also real political support for the. and for the customs union, customs union is not something that turkey -- [inaudible]. it served its purpose for turkish trade and expenses of trade with european union. so, i mean, maybe we should -- ttip as an era of cooperation between turkey and the west rather than seeing it as an area of risks and challenges. thank you. >> thanks. uri, would you be able to answer that question? because i feel i'm -- >> well, so, i haven't looked at the turkey korea deal, and i suppose i should have been

preparing for this, but my point should not be seen as you cannot negotiate any trade agreement with, with countries that have already negotiated with the european union. turkey will find it's impossible. i'm not saying that. but it is the quality of the agreement. what is contained in the agreement? that really matters. why would the united states, and i'm really, you know, repeating what was written in the report, why would the united states on economic grounds, maybe political insecurity issues, and those may overwhelm everything. but on economic grounds, being a congress that is very hard-nosed

about these issues, why does the european union negotiate this day with united states and the united states has full access, jenna, according to the ttip to the turkish market. what interest does the united states have to give turkey access? so it's a question about the quality of the agreement, not necessarily whether any type of agreement can be negotiated. i'm sure there are issues. there are always issues that are rated for issues behind the border issues, et cetera, et cetera, which are very specific. and country specific that are not actually the province of trade or the european union combat of decisions made at the country level which can be included in the agreement. but they were going to be secondary. there was a second part to the

question. i kept the number one cause. >> the extent to which turkey might be ready for -- >> that is probably more for kemal, but my sense is that, you know, my reading is that turkey has done a lot in terms of taking on the competition policy, et cetera, et cetera, all the statistics about a very large part of commercial law basically conforming to the eu model. however, you would want to define it. would want to define that. so my guess is that turkey would be ready to go the additional mile in this regard. but maybe kemal has a better sense. >> you have seen an example of

how the european union through the commission can sweep forth. i believe they were very good there, but let me make a couple of very quick observations. i think the reason lies mexico, japan, south korea are behaving to use uri's line of thinking, in an irrational way -- >> economically. >> yes, in the sense they have this access to the turkish market, but they are accepting, come to the negotiating table and negotiate parallel free trade agreement with turkey. it's a puzzle. it deserves to be studied. and answer may be to your question about thinking out of the box.

may come out of such a study. i can only speculate on it. i would like to give some credit to the institution whose member -- i think they're putting pressure on it, at the second factor which is related to the first one is the factor that the turkish economy has become an important economy. in its region and beyond it as well. when i was listening to uri's point about why on earth should the congress decided geopolitical strategic and security reasons, be that at his make a you know, why would the congress the interest of? i think they would be impressed -- interested in it because of not only the investments that would come to the united states from turkish companies, which is already happening, and i

recognize that this is not going to make a major impact on a huge economy like the united states, but it may well make a difference when it comes to localities. to localities within braces states around the union. so the domestic politics of that goodwill impact itself on the congress. secondly, the body that i made reference to that was set up in 2009 has been working very hard towards encouraging projects that the two sides, together, can't embark on in turkey's neighborhood. so there are american companies who clearly see that with turkish companies they can work in the neighborhood and did business. and that translates itself back into employment and jobs here in the united states. so we need to look at two

factors there. the way in which the turkish economy has grown, and sizes beginning to attract attention and impact on players, not necessarily just states, but players in the wider sense of the word, their calculus, and the second one is the way in which, maybe political, geostrategic and practice play into it as well. my last remark is that it's very interesting that if the turkish economy has come to where it is and it's beginning to impact on players calculus, you may challenge me on this, uri, and we will see what the world bank report will say. i think it is at least partly a function of the customs union.

and a function of the fact that turkey has cooperated eu legislation, and by incorporating eu legislation it has made its production more competitive and more interesting to third countries, too. even african countries who are trading with turkey when they are importing from turkey, they are saying, on the imports are what we are importing up to the standards of the european union? they don't want to be shortchanged in any way. so customs union contribution needs to be recognized there. and one last remark is that i need to be fair. the grievances are not one directional. there are grievances that are coming from the eu side towards turkey, and the fact that the eu has grievances towards turkey,

as far as the functioning of the customs union goes, i think it's making the european union think twice of the idea that they have turkey in the back pocket your that to be able to address and resolve those grievances they have, the city turkey, they're going to have to, to the negotiating table and address turkey's grievances, too. and i believe that there are internal forces from within the european union that is seeking such negotiations there. ..

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the brookings institution wrapping up the event looking at trade relations between the u.s. and turkey. if you missed any of the event. a reminder you can watch it any time on our website,

c-span.org. right now on capitol hill, the senate foreign relations committee is hearing testimony from secretary of state john kerry. defense secretary, check hagel, and martin dempsey. about authorizing the use of military force in syria in response to the assad's regime use of chemical weapons. you can watch this hearing which got underway at 2:30 eastern live now on c-span. and tomorrow house counter part on the foreign affairs committee will get their turn to question secretary kerry and hagel during a house hearing which is scheduled for noon eastern. watch live coverage tomorrow over on c-span. president obama today also getting involved in the syria discussions. this morning inviting congressional leaders to the white house. following the hour-long meeting the republican and democratic

house leaders spoke briefly with reporters. here is a look. >> good morning to all of you. the use of chemical weapons is a barbarous act. it's pretty clear to me that the united nations is unable to take action. nato not likely to take action. the united states, for our entire history, stood up for democracy and freedom for people around the world. the use of these weapons has to be responded to, and only the united states has the capability and the captain to stop assad and warn others around the world this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated. i appreciate the president reaching out to me and my colleagues in the congress over the past couple of week. i appreciate the president asking the congress to support

him in this action. it's something that the united states as a country needs to do. i'm going to support the president's call of action. i believe my colleagues should support this call for action. we have enemies around the world that need to understand we're not going tolerate this type of behavior. we also have allies around the world and allies in the region who also need to know that america will be there and stand up when necessary. thank you all. you're absolutely right. there's work to be done. it's not a question of would be, it's a question of discussing with our members hearing their views. some won't ever be comfortable. i myself from a humanitarian standpoint think that waiting for the u.n. and waiting for putin, the convoy of reacting to use of weapons of the chemical weapons by assad is a luxury we

cannot afford. i have to go. thank you very much. [inaudible] >> compare it to the holocaust? >> no. >> i want to remind you what some of you have written and saying the president not going forward when the congress has not approved when it's taken up the issue. i remind you in 1999, president clinton brought us all together similar to this meeting here, but over a period of time to talk about going in to the ball kins. and the vote was 213 to 213. 187 republicans voted no 180 democrats voted no. about thirty on each side,

something like that went in a different way than the majority of the party. that was when the planes were ready to go. you know what happened there. i don't think the congressional authorization is necessary. i think it's a good thing. i hope we can achieve it. i hope we can feel confidence on the evidence, the intention -- intelligence the national interest at stake that we have a good conversation to have with our members. watch all of today's reaction from members of congress at our website. all this weekend prime time we're bringing you encore presentation of q & a. tonight at 7:00 eastern our interview with kerry nelson, president of the american association of university professors on his book, no university is an island. he also discusses the social, political, and culture forces undermining academic freedom. then tonight at 8:00 eastern it's booktv. beginning with charles on his

work. science doesn't tell us what to do. it tells us and we have to make choices about that. one of the implications of simon's line of argument that is the earth is changing. we the society can change and adapt in many ways. and of course, we don't know that is necessarily the case with the climate problem. it may be something we can adapt to, but if you take that idea

that societies can adapt. it leaves us with the question of even if we can adapt is it a world we want to live in with the extreme heat, the drought, the sea level rise. some things we care are about endangered by the change. we have a choice about this. can human inquestion knewty save the planet? sunday night at 9:00 on after words. part of booktv this weekend on c-span 2. and the book club is back this month with "this town." two parties and funeral plus plenty of valet parking. read the book and see what other viewers are saying on our facebook page and on twitter. next a look at the benefits and risks of using missiles capable of striking targets anywhere in the world. including their effectivenesses including reaching chemical

weapons stockpile. hosting earlier today. it's an hour and fifteen minutes. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. my name is george perkovich. i'm the slpt of studies here at the carnegie endowment. it's my pleasure to welcome you back to school after summer. first tuesday after labor day, it's a tribute to the topic, i guess, and james' scholarship that so many of you have turned out on the first day back in to the new year. it gives me a special pleasure to introduce james, and moderate the discussion that will follow

after his presentation. i think the book is available outside the silver bullet is a model of citizenship and careful analysis. when you read it, i think you'll find that it's by far the most exhaustive public treatment of the topic, which is basically goes yopped the label. but looking at possible conventional capabilities that the u.s. could consider developing and analyzing from a perspective. looking at trade-offs in a way that is much more detailed and careful than exists in the public domain. what i esspecially admire about it and what i think you will too

when you read it is that james is looking at it in kind of an open-minded way. he's not making an argument for our against the concept or particular applications. but actually looking at the different options that have been proposed and kind of describing what would technically be required and what technology does exist. when you finish, i think, being exposed to a very careful and rigorous analysis, which probably won't be due to a clear conclusion one way or the other. but will give you a sense of the important trade-off involved. the additional information that would be necessary to make a sound decision. to my mind that's what excellent analysts should do for you. those are the kinds of tours on

which they should take you through the topic. through great pride that i personally and the institution is associated with this. it really is an excellent piece of work. i will not delay us longer from james and his presentation of the basic outline of the report. i should say james is a senior associate here at carnegie. he brings a not unique in the sense that his predecessors throughout in strategic affairs who have a scientific background. he's a physicist from cambridge university. a scientific technical capacity. for the last number of years has been working on arms com and

strategic issue. the blend of technical capacity kind of historical analysis and strategic understanding, i think also helps inform this report in ways that are very important. james, let me turn it over to you and we'll have a discussion. >> thank you, george. the huge number of people who i should thank for help in the report. i'm not going list everybody now. through organizations -- flu organizations that contributed funding to the report. and so my genuine thanks to the macarthur foundation who provided support for the project. and also the -- foundation and the carnegie corporation of new york. let me start. i'm going try to talk for forty minute or so.

then i look forward to having a conversation with you. let me start by talking about why now. is now the right time to be discussing conventional global strikes? and it in fact an anniversary this year. it's ten years since the u.s. military issued a so-called mission statement. that's a statement in which they identified the need for new capability. in this case, high precision conventional weapons capability of striking targets around the globe within, quote, minutes or hours. ever since the statement was issued it's ban former policy to acquire these capabilities. we had a national debate -- i wasn't living in the united states in the mid 2000 when the national debate took place. but in the mid 2000 there was a national debate about conventional global strike.

it was triggered by the decision of the bush administration to seek funding from congress. to take nuclear warheads off -- which are the sea-based legacy u.s. deterrent. and replace them with conventional weapons. and that started a lively -- what high level actually national debate. a number of congressman and congresswoman took part in the debate. back then the issue was something called warhead am bee giewty. the concern was russia and probably china in the future would see the launch of one of these weapons and mistake it for nuclear weapon and launch nuclear response. now, since the mid 2000s, a tremendous amount has changed. there has been -- now with a decade of research and development in different

technologies from those considered by the bush administration in 2006, 2007. the focus of threat detection for military planners within the u.s. has chairng -- changed. the mid 2000s shortly after the september 11th attack terrorism was perhaps the primary focus. today the u.s.' threat perception is moving back to state-sponsored threat. chinese anti-access denial capability. the spread of nuclear weapon, the spread of antisatellite weapons. the fiscal environment has also changed radically since the mid 2000s. many of these new technologies that are being discussed are more expensive than the conventional system was. it's coming at the time of severe downward pressure on the defense budget. so for all of those reasons, changes in technology, changes in the fiscal environment. changes in the nature of the threat. and most importantly, because

the obama administration has indicated that it wishes to actually move from research development to acquisition to actually buy one of the systems in the not too distant future, it seems to me it's worth examining the whole concept of global strike. now let me to tell you to start with what the report is not. it's something that george already mentioned. this report is not an argument for or against acquiring conventional global strike. it's not an argument for or against any conventional global strike system. what it aims to do is raise a series of issues haven't had adequate consideration. and almost all of the recommendations it makes are processed oriented. that is to say it's about making suggestions about how the u.s. can get this decision right.

and let me start by pointing out what the national academy said in the report with mandated by congress back in 2008. the initial academy endorsed the idea of the conventional modification. but what it said is that any longer term more versatile option will be a far more expensive national investment than the committee believes must be put to the broader context of the nation strategic strike policy and national security strategy. end quote. all of those systems the west is considering today are exactly those more expensive, longer term, more versatile options. and what i think is missing from the debate about conventional for global strike is the big picture of the nation's strategic strike policy and national security strategy. what i want to do today is highlight four key issues i think are missing from the debate. first, a lack of clarity about

the role for the weapons. second, a lack of discussion about the military benefit and weaknesses of conventional prompt global strike system. first is the nonprompt alternative. thirdly, a lack of attention being paid to enabling capabilities. that is a stuff that actually makes the weapons work. and fourthly, the four range of international ramifications. before i do that, let me comment very briefly on the technology. the goal of conventional prorcht global strike is usually described as a developed in high precision conventional weapons capable of reaching a target anywhere in the world within one hour. that description often repeated is an increasingly inaccurate description of the technology under development. in the most recent budget request by the president, funding for the one global range

system under development was very, very heavily reduced. the focus of the program is on regional systems but not global systems. there's three basic technologies. you can find out more in the report. let me highlight the approaches. grow can take a missile, replace the development you want. stake conventional warhead on top, and this goes for a -- trajectory to space back down again. and it's a very, very end of the flight when it reenters the atmosphere you can add a pair -- that can steer it on to the target.

capable gliding twenty times the speed of sound in the upper atmosphere. they would be launched by rocket and gliders potentially of thousand of kilometers purely under their own state. and the third is a hyper tonic cruise missile. they kind of -- they have air are dynamic lift. they are powered throughout the flight. they are faster. it's a bureaucratically set. it's a different funding stream. it's different people. it's a similar goal. finally, i'm not going talk about it today. i have it in report. the russia and china are both very interested in the technologies with themselves and are developing them as well. so firstly, of the four points i want to make today, firstly,

will -- there is a lack of clarity about the possible role of global strike. there are four different ideas publicly offered by u.s. officials about what the technology could be used for. nirs is the counter nuclear mission. this is essentially denying a knew proliferater, not russia or china. a new proliferation, the ability to use it nuclear arsenal. going after other country's nuclear weapons. secondly, countering antisatellite capabilities. this is a mission that is neighbor not exclusively but largely focused on china. thirdly, defense -- that is countering advanced defensive systems generally known as anti-access denial capability. this mission is mostly about

china but by no means exclusively about china. finally, the counterterrorism mission. the basic have not made any decisions about what the weapons would be used for. and this is a problem in my mind. because all of these different missions have quite different requirements. one weapon can't necessarily serve all the different missions. one distinction that hasn't been made, but i think is critical is the difference between promptness and surprise. promptness in getting a weapon from me to the target very quickly. surprise is the target not knowing the weapon is on the way until it's too late to do anything about it. and it's neither a necessary or

a sufficient cother a necessaryr a sufficient condition. and it's neither a necessary or a sufficient condition. let me explain that a little bit more. a weapon could take hours to get to the target. but could surprise an adversary. a fast weapon even if it moves very quickly and takes an hour to cross the long distance if an adversary can detect it, it might not be good enough surprise. promptness and surprise are two conceptually accept preps. and the distinction hasn't been made. and this distinction is important. let say the united becomes where china is about to attack the u.s. satellite. in that surprise, in that scenario, surprise could be critical. sorry. the u.s. decides china is about to start attacking u.s. sat slight and the u.s. wants to presemp i --

preemptively. in that scenario surprise would be critical. if china decided that, you know, china knew u.s. weapons were on the way. it might use the antisatellite capabilities before the u.s. could knock them out. surprise would be critical. promptnd wouldn't be critical. so whether or not weapons took one hour to reach their target or eight hours to reach the target wouldn't be so important. the counter point, consider that north korea used nuclear weapons and the u.s. wants to stop north korea from using anymore. promptness would be critical in the scenario. you're reducing the time the u.s. weapons took from eight hours to one hour could save a lot of lives. but north korea would surely be

expecting an immediate u.s. response. so it would be very, very hard to get surprise in that circumstance. also the defense would be different. china would have incredibly strong defense and might be difficult to penetrate. north korea would be softer. the range of weapons longer in china than north korea. for these reasons, you know, these distinctions between missions tend to be lost when officials and analysts talk about in very abstract terms using conventional prorch global strike to threaten high value, highly defended fleeting target. dpircht missions have different requirements. that's the place where a strategic acquisition process should start from. the kind of recommendation that -- are that the department of defense is not already doing so, should adopt a scenario based

approach to conventional profit global strike acquisition. there was senior officials in the bush administration who said we are thinking about this in abstract capabilities terms. and we don't think it's helpful to think about specific scenarios. any congress should don't push the administration on articulating what the military rash tell me for the weapons are. second point i want to make is different conventional prorcht global strike weapons are not always equally good way of achieving the same military. they have disstingtive strength and weapons. which weapon is best depends on the scenario. whret me make it a bit more concrete for you. one of the challenges, one of the reasons why the u.s. is

interesting -- is to defeat advance defenses such as air and missile defenses. there's also dps denial. where they try to stop the weapons receiving gps signals. that's something i discuss in the report, i'm not going to discuss today. now, one thing you have -- is try to do is the very important high value target. might be protected with advanced air and missile defenses. trying to defend large area with air and missile defenses is going to be very hard. trying to defend localized high value target is more plausible. with the weapons travel fast, they don't necessarily travel fast enough to make life the point defense very -- only in 1998 the national

academy -- sorry 1998 the national academy were saying that hyper tonic cruise missile would be vulnerable to point deive -- deafens. the glide system, the hyper tonic gliders i've been talking about they start at high velocity. after traveling through the atmosphere at, you know, thousand of kilometers, they slow down. and typically they might arrive at their target at the speed of a medium range bra -- ballistic missile. are they are not easy they are not unimaginably difficult either. ease specially over the time scale we have to think about here with the procurement. twenty or thirty years. point defense is, again, that kind of speed is not so daunting. by contrast, you know,

interwould -- against the advance defense. however, these kinds of weapons are vulnerable to other counter measures. i mentioned some missions requires a surprise. one way anniversary to mitigate surprise by early warning radar. for instance, russia or china have. baaballistic missiles are particularly easy to detect where as the glide weapons are harder to detect early with early warning radar. so depending on which counter measure potential adopt, some conventional prorch global strike system investigate some counter measure that can be ineffective against others. and the weapons one scenario can be weakest in another scenario.

we don't just need to compare different weapons conventional global strike weapon against one another. we also need to compare them against non-profit alternative. and the key is often stealth technology. it's often a good way of abiding advanced early warning system. and penetrating advanced early defense. i certainly don't have the clarence to know to make even an educate guest about whether other the next twenty or thirty years stealth or speed will be the best way of penetrating advanced defenses. i think this is a critical issue that needs to be taken in to account in internal analysis. you know, at the time when there was more money available, i think it was more tenable to say that all different military

options, all different alternative ways sold in the same problem should be investigated. at the time of austerity, i think it's necessary to prioritize the option that carries the least risk of failing to fulfill military -- none of these options have those. the question is comparing risks. and so one thing that i suggest that the department of defense do, is analyze the relative effectivenesses of conventional prompt global strike or alternative for the missions. the crucial part of the analysis. as a weapon, a nonprompt weapons are less expensive you can bring a lot more nonprompt weapons to bear against any particular target. third issue i want to talk about today enabling capabilities.

whether or not weapons have the desired effect of the target. from the point of your enabling capabilities, perhapses the single most challenging target out there are mobile target are mobile missiles. many potential targets for conventional prompt global strike are mobile. almost all nuclear arm ballistic missile the potential target for conventional prompt global strike can move. china's antiballistic are

antimobile. some of u china's antisatellite weapons are antimobile. they are not missiles and they're a different issue associated with them. no u, it's no coincidence that it's investing very heavily in mobile capability. precisely because they are extremely hard to kill. the united states discovered this in the 1991 gulf war against iraq when the u.s. did something great. attempting to hunt down iraqi mobile. in 1,460 against mobile related targets, the united states achieved a grand total of zero confirmed kills. that is how difficult these targets are. now, u.s. capabilities to attack mobile missiles has improved immeasurably since then. or very significantly, let's say.

and today the most effective means of the u.s. would have of a tracking mobile missile locating and tracking them would be through aircraft. manned and unmanned operating from within the -- the drair -- radar-based airport is a good camp. uav may play a role in this. it doesn't make much sense to use to aircraft operating from within the theater to provide targeting information to very long range weapons. because if aircraft can survive in the theater, you know, if they can beat whatever air defenses there are, why not just outfit those aircraft with missiles?

they would be more effective at hunting down the mobile targets. and it would be a lot cheaper than developing con -- conventional prompt global strike. the existing u.s. surveillance capability capabilities for hunting down the target are not very suitable for targeting data for conventional prompt global strike. the surveillance system that would make lot of sense for con -- conventional would be space-based radar. if aircraft could not survive in the theater, because they were being shot down, and the u.s. had a globe spanning array of space base radar that are capable of locating mobile target from a distance, that would make a lot of sense. they have some at the moment. they're not enough to provide

continuous coverage. over the past fifteen years there's been acquisition plans to develop the spanning constellation. every one of these have been canceled, and the cost of these satellites or constellation in perhaps an order of magnitude more than the cost of cpgs weapons, and -- that is an example a clear decision in existing enabling capability. and the government accountability office, for instance, called upon the pentagon to conduct a study in enabling capabilityies the pentagon issued a nonconcurrent, which is where you can concur with the recommendation and explain why you're not going it or doing it in a completely different way than the one suggested. and i so i worry that enabling capabilities are being left out of the acquisition process.

the fourth issue i want to talk about today is the international ramifications. sorry. one last thing on enabling capability. i think it's a good area for the congressional involvement. i think the con with costed plan to fill the gaps. and it needs to happen before the acquisition. the finally issue i want to flag up today is missing the full range of international ramifications about conventional prorcht global strike. one international ramification has attracted all of the attention so far. as a reminder --

china did not have advanced early warning capabilities. if it were to develop it and conventional prompt global strike have an take on china, it seems to be me that's the scenario of ambiguity would be a particular problem. is how do you convince russia that a strike on the third country like iran was a nuclear strike with russia. that's the easy case. the hard case is how you dream -- deal with strikes on the where the strike is on the third country.

it's on the country with the advanced early warning capability like russia or more likely china. with that said, there are benefits and risk to conventional prompt global strike that aren't being discussed at the moment. up with of these risks elaine talked about with -- with an analyst the secretary of defense. one thing she pointed out is that the systems, which are highly maneuverable, unlike the baa ballistic missile. when it's launched, you know where it's going to land. or at least at the end of the -- highly maneuverable systems to an extent hyper --

hypersonic have ambiguity about where they land. cunning observing them can't know where they're going to land because they are maneuverable. it creates a risk that the united states is -- russia or the future china. think it's the strike. and that could arise that's a problem whether or not the observing state correctly identified the weapon as conventional rather than nuclear. another problem is target ambiguity. which is uncertainty about whether the united states is aiming for a conventional target or a nuclear target. the best example of this is chinese command and control, which has been identified as a possible target for cpgs. china is believed to have a shared command and control system for its conventional baa left side --

ballistic missile and the nuke are armed missile. in a deep crisis or war over taiwan, the united states attacks the command and control system for if the purpose of denying china. beijing may think that the u.s. is going after its nuclear weapons. and trying to deny china command and control of the nuclear arsenal. that could be highly probable. there's the classic of crisis. if china or russia or another state believes that conventional prompt global strike could take out their strategic weapons by which, i mean, not just nuclear weapons with the antisatellite weapons. they could have an incentive to use the weapons first. on the other end of the scale, i think there are genuinely

persuasive arguments. why it couldn't which may lead them. in short, they're the paradoxes here, if you might. conventional prompt global strike may warless likely, but should war occur, it could make escalation much harder to control. if you look at the white house report on prompt global strike sent to congress, if the classification of the new start, only one risk would mention

warhead ambiguity. i think the congress should be asking the administration for a report on the full range of risks of conventional prompt global strike. now in terms of reducing the risk, mitigating these risks, the obama administration has stressed unilateral measure of risk reduction. and in particular, it's made a big deal about -- the system don't have ballistic trajectory. so an adverse i are, potential adversey could tell they weren't a nuclear armed ballistic missile. i think the argument is correct as far as it goes. but there are other risks with the systems. you know, one risk that i already discussed is the trajectory is unpredictable. another risk is the trajectory

is unobservable after it. if you're russia or china after developing early warning capabilities, satellite -- early warning capability, you will see the launch of the weapons. the kind of boosters used to launch the glide weapons or exactly the kind of boosters that satellite based early warning is optimized to detect. but what then happens is the boost glide vehicle can fly not much lower than the ballistic missile, in fact they fly underneath early warning radar. so what you see is not a traject -- is not a weapon flying in a -- what you see is nothing at all. for you detect the launch and then you don't tenth annual -- detect the flight of the

vehicle. it's flying underneath early warning radar. it's not at all clear to me that this is significantly less risky risk weapons that have pray deductly trajectory and observable trajectory because they fly very high and could be detected by early warning radar throughout the whole time. in fact, there's clearly no conventional prorcht global strike that is ideal. none that has every attribute you the president to have. the trade-off is inevitable. they have not been adequately explored in my opinion. so i conclude that a much more effective way of reducing the risk the unilateral technical measure is cooperative confidence.

some risks can be mitigated with the confidence building. the risk associated with deciding to do strike on china. a very, very -- some risks can be mitigated. let me make three very, very brief points here about cooperative confidence building. first, russia and china are not primarily worried about warhead ambiguity missions. their primary concern is about the survivability of their forces. that's probably the most important area for confidence building. and not purely or primarily focused on conventional prompt global strike. i think confidence building has to be cob done --

not narrowly done. i think a lot can be done with narrowly focused confidence building measures. inspection over rush is a and china can be confident. they don't have nuclear warhead. launch notification, data exchange, declaration joint, and a huge amount that can be done here. i think there's a strong argument for making conventional -- all conventional prompt global strike. the future arms control treaty. i'm not going discuss that too much. what i would say is again there are very, very trade-offs here between particular systems.

congress take particular concern about basing conventional -- on the ohio class submarine that are used to carry nuclear weapons, and are used to carry missiles as well as in the modified form. but there's one huge advantage of global strike weapons on the submarines. which is they are already part of an arms control regime. very easy to com the higher class submarines. if you base the global strike weapon on the submarine or the issue you have a big advantage they're not located with the nuclear weapons. but the big disadvantage that the navy is going to be -- so again there are very, very, very trade-offs here. i'm looking forward to have a conversation with you on these questions. let me make one remarking in

conclusion. which is it's a difficult decision whether to apply conventional prompt global strike and which systems to acquire. i don't know whether i, you know, i kind of genuinely agnostic about the program. if you are not agnostic i doubt i changed your mind today. that wasn't my goal. my goal is troy to convince you that the full range of relevant issues are not being adequately discussed at the moment. and i hope that that is the one thing i have been able to persuade of you. it's a much bigger or complex decision than the one issue of warhead ambiguity which dominated the debate to date. anyway, thank you for your attention. i look forward to having a conversation. [applause] >> thank you, james. that was a terrific summary. you should still read the report

but he amazed it welt. what we're going do now is ask those of you who have a question, raise your hand. we have colleagues who will bring a microphone to you. then i would ask you to identify yourself so that the colleagues in the audience and james will know the gentleman on the end there. right there. >> my name is -- [inaudible] my question is very simple. where can -- [inaudible] >> i didn't understand your question. >> okay. -- [inaudible] chemical weapons? >> yes. [inaudible] she's asking the relevance of not going straightet to problem

of chemical weapons. both administrations have sometimes talked about a counter w -- conventional prompt global strike. not just going after another's nuclear weapon but going after chemical and biological weapons as well. that hasn't been talked about much. i don't find that terribly persuasive role for exactly the reasons that the obama administration at least public discussions is not considering hitting chemical stockpiles in syria. if you start hitting chemical stockpile you can disperse the stockpile. and i think the problem would be even truer than conventional probably global strike with other conventional weapons. because with conventional global

-- we talk about a smaller capability. you will be bearing less ordinance against the target. if you want to go after biological weapons or chemical weapons, and i'm not saying it's a good or bad idea. i'm talking purely in technical terms. if you want to go after the target you want to use a lot to destroy much of the material that you could. and generally regarded being dispersed inevitably. you want to use as much explosive as you could. and conventional global strike is not the weapon system to do that. and i know it's topical at the moment. i don't really see ppgf weapons ten years down the line having a role to play in the syria-type situation. >> steve brown with the american security project in washington, d.c. my question is related to this

lady's question. part of the impetus for conventional global strike at least implicitily if not explicitly to be consistent with president obama and the administration's desire to reduce the role of nuke rather weapons for strategic tasks. not only for tactical and lesser than strategic text even for deterrence, even for nuclear deterrence. and this shows up in the president's new guide -- on nuclear employment to the u.s. military in which the military is enjoined to pilot more attention to conventional strategic operations and also to discard counter value targeting namely against populations

centers. and reemphasize counter force targeting. it's all embedded in this basic orientation of reducing the role of nuclear weapons. does it come up in your own analysis or conversations with people who are pushing for this particular weapon? >> sure. there's a series of deep questions there. i certainly don't have a change to get to all of that. does the conceptual history of the program. does the obama administration want to replace nuclear weapons with conventional weapons. let me say a couple of words briefly about that. you know, i encourage you to look at the report. it has the questions in more depth. dock reinal statement are extremely cryptic. i often think reading chinese, for instance.

the personal who analyzes tells it more than what the chinese is thinking on any particular issue. and the statements that have been made about reducing the nuclear weapons with conventional weapons can be done in a lot of different ways. my understanding from trying to reach the statements holistically and trying to speaking to people, is when general cartwright was chairman of strategic command and vice chairman he was clearly very much in favor of substituting nuclear for conventional weapons. con vengal weapons -- >> we knew what you meant. [laughter] and, you know, he was very

interested deeper reduction by conventional substitution. i think he was an isolated voice on that question. i think what the obama administration is interested in today is two things. firstly, is scenarios of which the use of nuclear weapons would not be credible. which is not scenarios in both counter force exchange with russia. it iran and north korea and antisatellite weapons. developed in nuclear alternatives that the president is presenting with a nuclear oops and a conventional option. and can choose which one to have. and my interpretation of the line that conventional weapon nuclear weapon cannot substitute for conventional weapon is that there is still going to be nuclear plans there than just the choice of nuclear or presented to the president.

those will be scenarios in which the use of nuclear weapons might lack credibility. they are not scenario to help you draw down massively. secondly, if the u.s. retains conventional dominance then it doesn't have to have nuclear -- against losing conventional superiority it could have a role to play insofar as it could defeat chinese anti-access capability. that's probably not going to allow the u.s. to draw down nuclear numbers very much. that interpretation of what all of these different statements mean. there's one section in the paper that i collect. but as i said, you know, these are cryptic. they can be interpreted in lots of different ways. >> the gentleman in the back behind the camera there.

>> thank you, george. justin anderson. i wonder if i could press back a little on your first recommendation on scenarios analysis. the reason why is it a curred to me as you were speaking if we had scenario-based cruise missile a generation ago we might not have the cruise missile. at that time the many of the scenarios later used were considered. and also there were within the defense establishment who said the came thing be done better or cheaper and quite a debate. so i wonder if you could explain a little further why scenario's based assessment especially given the scenario we don't consider lead have to consider a new capability of some kind to explain your logic behind why we should engage in that sort of an

assessment with the capability-based assessment for considering like the -- >> thanks. >> sure. i think we could get to a deep philosophical base about scenario-based capabilities based assessment. let me briefly argue two things. there's kind of two arguments that i painted today. first is the different mission have quite different weapon requirements associated with them. going after the hill in afghanistan has different requirement than chinese antisatellite capability. and second the weapons are all different from one another. they have different strength and different weaknesses. those two things taken together imply to me that if you don't look at the in a scenario based

way, there's a high-risk of buying very expensive weapons that are not found to be very useful. because they just don't have the capabilities of dealing with the specific scenarios in which you want to use them. can you push the scenario-based assessment too far? of course you can. but i think at the time of political austerity, focusing resources on the threat you think most likely to aride and on the most effective way of identifying -- of combating those threats is the most strategic way forward. let me just give a very brief shoutout, because, you know, another paper that i think kind of makes this point very el qept -- eloquently. he wrote a fantastic paper about u.s. conventional superiority, and implications for

disarmament. and very interesting section in that paper discussing technologically driven programs versus strategically driven driven program. i also give a shoutout to dennis in his question as well. >> thank you, james. the gentleman right here. >> james, thank you. two technical questions. >> introduce yourself. >> james tank. >> i thought you said james, thanks. >> sorry. two technical questions. one, you pointed out a wide range of missions. do you say something about the demand -- not using conventional warhead. two, can you say something about what state of state-of-the-art is and you assume you can't use gps? >> i think two great and very important questions. accurately it depends critically what the target is.

and how hard that target is. now there are different kinds of conventional warheads you think conventional prorcht global strike weapons. if you are talking about for instance going after -- you probably go after that with what is called flesh. these are metal fragments a little bit of a explowsive in. as the weapon comes in, the explosive explodes and disperses the fragments over the area. i have done some calculations approximate calculations in which under a very optimistic set of scenario, i think you might be able to destroy a mobile missile within a radius of 100 meters. that's optimistic. i think that is a right order of magnitude. of course, your target location era, whether you can detect it within 100 merits is a question. on the other end, if you are

going after -- [inaudible] and a small underground target you might just have, you know, two, three, and doesn't sensitively targeted. second issue that was raised in gps denial, all of the candid cpgs weapon system rely on the navigation. creating the possibility, this is a much, much bigger issue than suggesting pgs. what happens if a jammed gps signal? you kind have twoinging ative -- alternative. the first is integrate a navigation system. it's what you use in nuclear armed ballistic missile. it doesn't need external. it's not accurate enough for conventional prorch global strike. it might be accurate enough to take over at the end of the flight.

.. also something called targeted instability. the temporal stability of the target. thus how do you train the terminal guidance system to recognize the target? again this is one of those

issues that the options that are available out there in the public domain are very hard to assess the backup guidances. >> this relates to the enabling question you talked about earlier, background enabling capabilities that will be required. >> gps is a classic example of enabling capability. >> jennifer here in that order and then we will go back to the people in the back. >> thank you very much. jennifer mcafee. you mentioned at the beginning that russia was interested in this but i mean from what i have understood russia uses it along with missile defense and a number of other things as to why they don't want to do further arms control at the moment. i wonder if you could explain that a little more? >> go ahead and take that. >> okay. my point in the beginning was

russia appears primarily interested in hypersonic cruise missiles. urging russia to develop cruise missiles. he even talks about hypersonic bomber but that is more than a serious plan. the russian sheep of the general staff recently and for the first time to my knowledge was first publicly mentioned about developing glide systems. conventional glide systems. russia has been interested in nuclear applications for a while. i wasn't implying that the cruise -- was uninterested in further arms control. i think they were exactly right that russia -- it's hard to convince russia right now for a range of issues. the fundamental issue is just u.s. russia relations are pretty poor.

ballistic missile defense is the number one russia issue and the number two issue is conventional strategic capabilities. and conventional strategic in the russian terminology incorporates more than just conventional global strikes. so i think this will be a big issue and arms control if it starts. i think there are arms control solutions here. the interesting thing will be if russia does us -- will it want to limits its own system of arms control because it would have to agree to limit both systems on either side. i talk a lot about arms control in the peace but right now i've got to be honest the prospects are not around the u.s. russia

controls are extremely -- right now so i think i will hold off right now until all of the details thereof. >> you just to elaborate, when you say the greater challenge then russia will be china in terms of kind of addressing or reassuring chinese concerns and maintaining stability with china because in many ways the capabilities and missions that are envisioned here are threatening to china in ways that they are not so threatening to russia. >> that's exactly right. they are more interested in the russian angle. the pentagon has meant not made doctrinal decisions as far as what cpgs will be used for but two of the possible missions are very china focused. china's nuclear forces are much

smaller than russia's nuclear forces and much less survivable and the chinese are a hell of a lot more serious about developing this technologtechnolog y than the russians are. the antiship ballistic missile is a cpgs like system. it's a terminally guided ballistic missile designed to go after u.s. aircraft carriers and other enabled targets. if you read and i know it's not called chinese military power anymore. the annual report on military and security developments in the people's republic of china. that's assessed unambiguously for the first time. i gave you a piece of that in previous reports.

it's a very valuable thing to pursue. there's also a much greater possibilipossibili ty of instability rising in china and the russian scenarios. >> yes maam? >> i'm audrey from george mason university. following your argument that we should have more scenario-based kind of thinking about cpgs i don't understand the scenario under which it would be useful against nonstate terrorists. every terrorist organization that can do the united states harm has learned under this glare of attack of drums as well as special operations that they should not gather together in one place and they should be careful about how they communicate and a big problem when it comes to counterterrorism has been a of good information where -- more than a of means so had a cpgs help us in any way whatsoever with respect to counterterrorism? >> it's a great question. the national academy of museums

imagine a highly reliable source telling us that a key terrorist will be at such and such a place in half an hour and he's only going to be there for an hour. we need a weapon that is capable of getting to wherever that terrorist is within an hour and a half. so it's where you have the magic nuggets of intelligence that comes along and needs acting on it immediately. i think reading the report people are skeptical of this rationale. i do say directly information acquisition for terrorist attacks have been slow and gradual and you know the fact that the number one terrorist was killed with boots on the ground suggest that we may have strategic war efforts. on the other hand you can't know

what is going to happen. it's possible a scenario will arise so my policy suggestion is this. why don't all of the u.s. involved in counterterrorism go back through their records and find out if there is any historical occasions in which the united states would have been able to kill a key terrorist if it had fast enough weapons. and if you know there are classified examples of that and you can go to the predator and here are three examples in the last 10 years where we had these capabilities we would have been able to get a high-ranking terrorist. that is pretty significant and if the counterterrorism agencies can't identify any such examples that is pretty significant too. unquestionably there are real challenges in verifying that and

even if this magic nuggets did arrive you have to verify and you have to verify the target and you have to do the collateral damage assessments. again it's a really differ can can -- difficult position and very different capabilities to track down disbursement itself. >> you right there and next to the gentleman with the beard a few rows back. >> edward levine. >> you are a gadfly retired senate staff. >> whatever. if i understand correctly the conventional wisdom about a prompt global strike, essentially because of its expense i wonder whether you

found any indication that if we developed one or another system there might be a possibility of economies of scale which like the example of the cruise missile would make it something other than a -- system. i also wonder whether a reasonable justification for at least slow development is simply to maintain technology dominance even if you are never really going to find something that works well enough to field it and finally, i wonder whether interesting comparisons could he made to a generation ago when people thought about bombs. >> wherewith i plan that went

on? >> economies of scale, developing a small conventional global strike capability might be relatively cheap where relatively means only a few billion dollars for the following reason. if you use retired nuclear missiles mx peacekeeper, whatever you have the expensive of the cpgs system already made. at that point it only comes down to fabricating the glider or whatever so you could get to tens of systems relatively cheaply. there are pros and cons in using existing delivery systems that i discussed in the paper. if you want to go to a bigger

deployment you have to design a missile then all of a sudden the price jumps significantly. at that point though the economies of scale start to kick in. 100 weapons if you have to build in a new missile is going to be very expensive for a weapon. 1000 weapons, don't expect anyone doing something that large for the time being but 1000 weapons you will have huge economies of scale. the price of weapons will go down very significantly. i haven't actually -- i have never heard anyone say and an issue i raised in the paper which is understanding that technology is a good reason to keep research and development efforts and i agree. i am not sure there is a decisive argument.

during the cold war that some glorious time during the late 70's people started getting worried about the idea of putting nuclear warheads into a fractional orbit. it would get into the orbit and go partway around the world and move move on to the target and it would be a way of evading the u.s. early warning system. by approaching from a direction that wasn't -- covered by radar. it would have been banned for a period of time by salt to the strategic arms limitation two which never entered into force and nuclear arms is arguably banned. it is an argument -- it depends

on how you interpret particular words and i'm not going to go into it now. cpgs would not be falling under this space treaty for two reasons clearly. firstly because it's not nuclear as conventional and it deals with weapons of mass destruction and secondly because unless these things go very very fast close to 7900 meters per second which is almost velocity can't i think you can argue -- and orbit store the differences in the cps cps -- cpgs systems now. you will get a chance to talk about it publicly. >> now that you have i'm not sorry i missed the whole thing. another question? thank you for raising your hand. i forgot.

>> stuart montgomery for the center from -- for united security. you mention correctly that the unpredictability of these weapons could enhance deterrence but when you enhance deterrence you also enhance risk and there is a need to mitigate this risk. namely things like arms control but more importantly inspection stations etc. but how much of this risk is actually created off of how the u.s. targets these weapons and namely you mention command-and-control anti-satellite weapons and air and missile defenses and to an adversary that would seem that there is a larger campaign coming especially when we look at suppression campaigns against treaty systems in the pacific. >> yeah i think that's exactly right. firstly, i think u.s. targeting policy is only going to have a limited effect on adversary or nonadversary. no one is arguing for the use of

these weapons against russia. russia thinks that it's all about russia so frankly whatever the u.s. says about how it targets these systems and the historical norm is actually very different but if the u.s. was to publish target doctrine the assumption would be that it was all made up. so you know that is the first issue. the second issue is you know let's imagine the u.s. uses the cpgs weapon against iran and russia to detects the launch and seas at coming roughly in russia's direction. again because the system would be unpredictable and unobservable, russia would only have the u.s. to go on about where the target was. so, in the final analysis there is no risk-free option with any

of these. not developing cpgs is not risk-free. there are risks associated with not doing it and are there are risks associated with doing it. my goal with this project is not to in any grand conclusion but to break that analysis up and to highlight all of the different areas of risk. associated with both preceding and not receiving and then let other way how that goes together. i thought that was the biggest service that could provide in writing that report. >> any other's? okay well then again let me thank you all for coming and ask you again to think james for providing the text which i hope you all read that occasions this event. [applause]

naacp president and jealous spoke about racial profiling. new york city stop-and-frisk

policy in the trayvon martin case. from the national press club, this is an hour. >> our speaker today is benjamin todd todd jealous hugh f-35 became the youngest president and ceo of the national association for the advancement of people. the mixed-race kid from pacific growth california jealous group in a family always challenged by the issue of race but according to an interview his grandparents face opticals dating back to slavery. his mother help desegregate her high school in baltimore join sit-ins at lunch counters in virginia at his father told him what it was like to be -- and getting worked over by the police who saw him as a race traitor. as a kid mr. jealous recalls being at a discount store with a black friend of noticing a white lady peeking through the pegboard to make sure they were not stealing anything. ben jealous has led a long career in it and smelled of his advocacy but did you know that he could at one time qualify for

membership of the national press club? reliable of course he once tried to hand in investigative reporting in jackson mississippi mississippi -- jackson mississippi at a historic late african-american newspaper. mr. jealous is the executive director of the national newspaper publishers association which represents african-american focused on an operated newspapers. it may have been the his advocacy challenge of how he courted his wife as a young organizer nric city in the struggle to keep her and win her over with very little money and a new job in d.c.. he succeeded however and the couple has two young children. at the court of what he is speaking about today yesterday marked the 15th anniversary of the 1963 march on washington. five decades since the reverend martin luther king martin luther king spoke. the nation had its first black president but faces serious issues are the african-american people including mass

incarceration double-digit unemployment ballot of suppression and youth violence. the killing of trayvon martin brought that racial concerns to the front pages. the questions remained at the end of -- naacp like longtime organizations is the challenge of tackling these issues the naacp and the seniors has been criticized in the punditry circuit during gauging and symbolic challenges rather than being a louder out in front voice on issues such as the killing of an australian baseball player or the alleged beating of a world war ii veteran. just this week robert woodson told the republican national committee luncheon that the welfare of black americans -- everybody has come out immigrants women environmentalists. you never hear him talk about conditions of oppressinoppressin g poor blacks and poor people in general. with these issues lay before him

please welcome the national -- to the national press club the ceo ben jealous. [applause] speak to my friend at the rnc i would encourage him to listen to what we talk about. with that i would like to say thank you for that great welcome and thank you all for being here. i didn't think anybody was going to be here. what an honor to be invited. they want me the day after labor day weekend talking to the cameras. but, this is great and it's a great honor. somebody who started up their career, started out their adult years as a reporter in jackson mississippi this is just a great

humbling honor. i'm pleased today to be here with people who really have helped make me who i am and to support me in this work carried my wife leah, julian bond who has been one of my heroes since i was a small child. [applause] pam horowitz. the great members of the naacp staff including eddie. who is leading the charge in our work to secure voting rights across this country. i am thankful to jeff ballou and irene wright. welcome to the press club and asking me to be here today and to ms. cook and the press club staff. 50 years after the march on

washington it becomes ever more clear the role that the media played and frankly continues to play an important our conversation about race and often being the conscience of our country. we are grateful to "the new york times" for the role they have played in challenging the stop-and-frisk regime in new york city. today i really want to single out a man who has been my cocaptain at the naacp national staff for the last five years roger fan. rogers the chief operating officer and last year you might recall there were a lot of questions in deeds throughout 2011 and 2012. what black votes turn out to the polls and with less men turn out to the polls in particular? roger fan was a man with that plan and he got it done in an incredible way and i just want to say thanks to roger. we are also joined by my

president of the maryland naacp who has racked up a most impressive sybarite string of victories in the country in the past year. gerald stansbury was the man who was on point as we moved black voters in support of marriage equality and the d.r.e.a.m. act and took the lead in extending voting rights and standing restrictions on guns and sensible gun safety reform and true we in abolishing the death penalty last year and created the campaign started by frederick douglass so thank you very much. [applause] this afternoon i'm going to talk about racial profiling that i also want to preview the press release that will go out this afternoon. the naacp five years ago when i started the national operation had been in tough times and

frankly a lot of yuval reported on it. i had a conversation with "the baltimore sun", "the baltimore sun"'s leadership informing the other day and i said where the reporters to cover the naacp? when i came here five years ago you had reporters who cover the naacp everything that happened. where are they? he said well i said there is no bad news any more right? we have been in the black five years in a row. we have increased revenues 10 to 29% of most importantimportantly we have gotten serious about organizing people nationally and a powerful way. we are the largest on line on mobile at the ballot box. we have more the 1.43 million organizing on line and cell phones. the largest outside of the obama campaign. and we moved more than 1 million new and unlikely voters to the polls as far as activists are concerned we have more than

1.2 million organize voters. that is how we do our own work and that is what gives us the power to do what you you have seen us as to whether in maryland or new york city where we have worked with a broad range of groups to push mayor bloomberg, force mayor bloomberg to stop what is the largest local racial profiling program in the entire nation. we just produced a veto proof majority the second time in a row. the first time to override his vetoes and we did that because we are organizing and we are building big broad audacious coalitions of people and the march on washington which i referred to as the grand alliance and we are winning. today i want to talk however about the history because we in

this country frankly as a young country have no excuse not to know our own history and when we forget our history we repeat our history. we do so at a great price. specifically i want to talk to you today about the last century or so of our national -- racial profiling. raise your hand if you remember that dc-7. keep it up if you were living here during that summer. so was i. you might recall just have disorienting it was and how you were told if you go to the box store near the beltway please don't walk in a straight line to the front door. you need to sig said when you go to the front door and if you are pumping gas don't stand still. keep your head moving while you pump gas. you got insight into what

everybody's personal theme song was. now they often have music playing at the gas pump but we didn't have flat screens in music playing at the gas pump 13 years ago. there was this cacophony of people pumping gas. but we did it because we were scared and the police couldn't tell us who was doing this. our neighbors kept dying and so eventually the police felt compelled to put up a profile. a profile, racial profile and a police profile is out there when you don't have a description. the absence of the suspect specifically. the way that profile works is they start with the probable and they go to the possible. they start with antisocial. they are killing people. probably military trained.

they are shooting at great distances with precision. check. probably traveling alone or in small groups. if they were in a big group we probably would have found them by now. probably mail. probably quite. and the police got good and said the killings were happening at rush hour where there was maximum traffic on the beltway and so there was pressure on the police to be efficient so they were starting everyone coming home picking up their kids are coming into in to work in the morning. and so i'm sitting there at the water cooler and a friend walks in it he says. ben: the most disorienting thing today. i was driving in to this long trip to work and the shooting happened and the dragnet is put

up in the next thing i know i'm on the side of the road and i have my hands up and i looked to my left and it's all white guys like me. i looked to my right and it's all guys like me. i said you were racially profiled. come to lunch and we can talk about it. in the midst of this i was in the safest place he could possibly be. saturday night there hadn't been any shootings that morning or that evening. i was in the city far from the beltway at comedy club. dave who is my godfather son every now and then he will call out to you from stage. we were in college and i was known as his bodyguard. i was the big guy who smiled and stood behind him. there was a little bit of rapport we had in the middle of his routine he yelled out ben.

i figured it out. when all the dust clears the d.c. snipers will figure out. why dave? probably because they are taking off the weekend. dave chapelle said that not the president of the naacp. but here's the crazy thing. in dave's twisted comedic mind he was starting at behavior and making his way towards race and the police who had my friend on the side of the road and all these white guys starting with race and working their way towards me. our neighbors kept on -- and then they arrest them. chief flu said at that press conference we stopped them 10 times. 10 times before we found the

gun. they looked to my friends trunk and they looked in a lot of white men's trunks. they stopped to black men one of them wearing a military jacket with his name on it who smelled of -- when you are psychotic you lose track of things. you are bathing once a week at the silver spring line. antisocial military check, check and you inject race into the equation go on through. raise your hand if you remember that daniel heat well. it happened at the same time. i was writing a report on racial profiling in the midst of the d.c. sniper attempts.

and nathaniel heat wall was a student in a small college in a raleigh north carolina. he was commuting back and forth to dwi frequently on a small plane. one day he goes through security and he has a lox cutter in his backpack and he notices it goes right through. this was before tsa is set up in the informal years years when guys who look like me vaguely i don't know puerto rican, air. i'm not sure what you you are but put your hands up. we are going to search you. i got checked every time. a friend of mine said chief lobbyist in aa cp every time i ask ask why the ask why they

search me they say it's random. nathaniel heatwall good friends that tactic is to end his lox cutter goes through. he said that is weird. i had a box cutter in here. eventually nathaniel heatwall would go want to take lox cutter's and modeling body that on the x-ray looks like a plastic explosive. through security onto multiple flights put them into vanities in the bathroom and said blog bags where they stayed for four to six weeks and on september 15, 2003 he wrote an e-mail tip tsi saying this is what you have never done. you have never found the box cutters. this is where you can find them. they had x-rays but apparently they were more focused on what nathaniel looked like because guys who look like me we couldn't even get through.

we couldn't get through the metal detector. nathaniel was able to bring suspicious looking objects in. you look at these cases than you think to yourself maybe that is just how we are. maybe we are just hardwired that way. maybe grace -- race and gender will always affect their ability to discern what is really dangerous. and then you remember squeaky fromm. raise your hand if you remember squeaky fromm. for 200 plus years the secret service of the united states and its predecessors had a very similar protocol. look at everybody in the crowd but searched the men. the killers are the men.

squeaky fromm took a shot at gerald ford. how long do you think it took them to change 20 years of protocol? whose life did they say when they did? george h.w. bush. because about 20 years later a woman showed up at one of his rallies with a pistol in her purse and they were doing something for the last 20 years that they hadn't done for 200 years before that. they were checking purses too and they found it. so then you say to yourself maybe what we need, maybe what we need is a racial squeaky fromm. and so you start searching through the history books and you find out we had one. in 19 -- raise your hand if you remember who was president a4 theodore roosevelt. no one remembers. if you guys can't but thank you.

everybody remembers theodore roosevelt. most people forget when theodore roosevelt came into the administration he was vice president and he was somewhat -- who is this guy, good this show boat guy fighting wars in cuba? what elevated him so rapidly was that he he was vice president with a very popular president mckinley. president mckinley was working the rope line and a man standing at point-blank range at the rope line prompted olive into the president's stomach and before he could squeeze off a second round and man in the crowd tackled him and the role it glance to the side and grazed him. now i have done presidential advance and works with secret service mapping out the event

and setting up the rope line and watching them do their thing and apparently the only thing that has changed over the years as technology. the protocol is basically been the same. you search everybody coming too close proximity and now we use metal detectors. back then they would do it by hand. you might imagine that the secret service agent in charge of the exposition was pretty perturbed with the guy in charge critique came right over and he said how did this happen and? you were supposed to search everybody had to tell. this guy walks for your checkpoint with a gun in his hand. hidden in a crudely -- cast. how did this happen? well loss he looked like any other mechanic and the guy had it him arm and we did not want to hurt him. it wasn't even a cast. it was an gauze and cotton

bandage. he said boss i think he had a decoy. he'd pause for a second. it was a profile at the time for potential assassins of western leaders based on the fact that eastern european anarchist had killed a number of leaders throughout europe and warned leaders in the west that they would be next. and the profile was that a person with the ethnic physical racial component would be tall and with exotic facial hair. so when he said this guy of look like he was out for a day for fair -- [inaudible] so they said back to the story boss i think he had a decoy. what do you mean? right behind and them there was a tall man about 6 feet 4 inches

who had a long mustache. exotic facial hair. by all means fan out and find him and come back. we have good news and we have that news. the good news is we found that tall swarthy men with the long mustache. what is the bad news? how do i say this? that's constable jim parker a retired constable who tackled the assailant before our boys could get there. now it's not as if the board and didn't know who jim parker was the day after. newspapers were very much -- he would run the same story morning and evening until it stopped selling. the president was surviving and there was an update on the president every day and a little sidebar about the man who saved the president. a week later perhaps from bad health care president mckinley

died and big jim parker faded into our distant memory. in other words he had our racial squeaky fromm. we had our heads up that racial profiling distracts dangerously, so dangerous he that if you inject race and ethnicity that is otherwise based on behavior sometimes as the president of the united states himself. grace is our issue. gender we are able to do with. squeaky from, boom we saved george h.w. bush. race raise, we are stuck. we knew 100 years before the d.c. snipers.

they got him on the tenth. racial profiles were problematic the question is what can we do about it? we need to keep doing what we had done in new york city where we pass the community safety act with real teeth because what is a failure for national security is a failure for neighborhood security as well. we need to focus on people's behavior and not on the risks. the op-ed from "the new york times" last summer said there was a man who was a police officer working a neighborhood and he had a black and latino neighborhoods and the specifics suspect description of the rape suspect and he came across for young ladies black latino young lady sitting on a stoop and he said to them have you seen this guy? they said no and then he stopped and for us to them.

my grandfathgrandfath er was a probation officer and lump for smith for 30 years. law enforcement is not that different from anything else. if you do one thing you are not doing something else that you had better be doing the right thing. if you decide to stop and check these four girls who have a joint in their pocket you are no longer looking for a rape suspect and that is why new york city is sub par according to john jay university in solving homicides. partly because they distract from their line officers too much. two, we have got to be aggressive in our country about doing everything we can to stamp out discrimination. we have to have a frank conversation. we have two good back to testing and be clear to the young people that and they are wrestling with it.

ucla did another but one from devolve page at princeton said it's easier for a young white male with a felony conviction history to find a job than a black males similarly educated with no convictions. the white guy with a rap sheet has an easier time. we have to dig into that. we have got to be clear about it and we need to stop pretending that racism is a thing of the past. the most important thing is we have to be willing to open our hearts and shift our mindset. i will close on this. years ago i was in south-central los angeles for the tenth anniversary of the rodney king violence. the person speaking just before

me was the honorable jack kemp. jack was on fire that day. jack talked about our kids, our kids and clearly talking about the kids in the schools in the neighborhood. there was an older black woman sitting next to me waiting to go out after me and she said ben, where is he from? i said that as jack kemp. i know who he is. where is he from? he ran as a republican for president. i know what he did boy. answer my question. where is he from? i said maam, i don't know but i think it -- i don't think it's central to your question. she said i didn't think so. whose kids is he talking about? i said maam i think they are all our children because we are all americans and their all american

children. and she said, and then she thought about it. that is what we need to think about. try it for a week. try describing a child that you read about in a newspaper or wrote about just to your family without using all the adjectives. see how hard it is and see how ingrained it is to dehumanize. something that came into the world that was perfect a child, before we get around to what the story actually was. thank you so much. it's an honor to be here and i would be happy to take questions. god bless. [applause] >> given what you said about racial profiling a question or want to know if we set aside the world debates does racial profiling have any utility in

national security or even a local neighborhood security system? >> that is really my understanding was the questions were written before the speech was that i hope that my speech got to that point. racial profiling is problematic. racial profiling is unconstitutional and that should be the end of the conversation. racial profiling is an ineffective law enforcement perspective. there is something in my background in my grandfather's work and his influence on me. my back round is in criminology. there is this notion theory called the carnival theory and it explains basically how terrible things happen when a well-funded network is involved. it can be a drug shipment date it can be a dirty bomb and what they say is we have a network that has resources whether it's human or financial.

ultimately they can get a number of people who appear very differently to accept the mission and before they go and deliver the actual package they use decoys to go through a stop and that is why it's not surprising josé padilla or the shoe bomber or the young jewish american convert to islam spokesperson, that we see this diversity in the actual folks who carry the message or carry the weapon. so we have to understand that if you use a racial profile you were giving the enemy a formula for success. >> on the same subject next same subject eric city police commissioner ray kelly says the beneficiaries of stop-and-frisk are overwhelmingly members of minority groups.

he says without that policy in place quote people who live in minority communities are more likely to be homicide victims in the future. what is your response? >> ray kelly, remember what he used to say. what he said about a decade ago that taking credit for a drop in crime was like taking credit for and it clips of the moon or when he referred to stop-and-frisk as dubious tough on crime tactics. ray kelly simply put was against stop-and-frisk before he was for it. >> julian bond his art guest in audience bases voter i.d. laws are rolling back civil rights laws because they are targeting blacks and other minorities. do you agree? >> yeah, i do. [laughter] see what are some of the biggest

challenges he faced navigating reform of racial profiling practices? >> probably you know the best -- biggest obstacle i have faced has been in new york city and the willingness of mayor bloomberg to resort to scare tactics and i really hope at some point he will look into his heart and apologize for what he has done. there is no statistical evidence to backup back up his claims that people will die. what he has chosen to do is select demagogues who have chosen to do it in history to strike fear in the hearts of people to force them to go in their direction rather than wrestle with the facts. when you look at the facts there is a homicide in new york city peaks during the dinkins administration and falls through the giuliani administration. it goes from 2400 down to well under 1000.

and then it continues to fall during the bloomberg at of administration over the next few years. three-quarters of the drop in homicides occurred before 2002 and the second the massive increase in stop-and-frisk happened after 2002. there during the bloomberg administration crime falls by 29%. at the same time in los angeles it fell by 59% while they were fighting racial profiling. there is no statistical evidence from mayor bloomberg's claims. his resorting to scare tactics was a shame because he was the mayor of the largest city in the country, because he is one of the wealthiest men in the city, because he is one of our few true media moguls. for all those reason he bears a significant responsibility to stick to the truth and in this case he deviated in ways that slandered an entire generation of new york city's children and it's just unacceptable.

>> switching back to subject you talked about earlier in your speech in terms of a petition regarding the trayvon martin case and the naacp's efforts where does the naacp stand and has there have been any progress moving towards a civil suit? >> for the civil suit that is a decision of the family and he is the attorney who is involved in that. we have been pushing for civil rights charges against mr. zimmerman. for instance after the rodney king case and some of the other instances. the doj is doing exactly what should be doing which is taking their time in making sure they put it together. some of the facts in front of them, i think it was witness number nine. the witness who was the member of george zimmerman's own family who called and days after and said that her family member of

george zimmerman she believed acted in a way that was racially motivated and he had said racist things before and she also said he had committed crimes against her when she was a child. things that come up are those young boys who lived in that gated community with him who said that they believed he targeted them because of race. the pattern of calls that he made over the years. we don't think you have to say the word to trigger civil rights charges and in this case we have recently delivered 1.7 million signatures did doj from a range of people in this country who feel the same way with another 219 from color of change. >> staying with us for a minute what specifically is the naacp doing to address the "stand your ground" law's that are popping up or are established in several states? >> we are focused -- and this

century the reality is that the primary tool of civil rights efficacy in the last century was primarily federal litigation because of evolution and because of a lot of things. it primarily state legislation. ..

with that said, the role of cases is often to galvanize millions of old and disproportionately commit particular generations. it detects an older friend, every now and then they might slip and say kill when naming martin. my generation, this generations has been baptized like other generations. blitzer about that visit us often times the most horrible cases at the cave leads to a great cause. and so people come into the movement. they come into the struggle because they're outraged over a case of someone they identify with, but they stand because whenever together we can get a lot of great things done on that issue and other issues. >> turning to politics a little

bit, why do you think so many republicans in state legislatures have enacted voter i.d. laws? and is that turning black voters away from the republican party to the point where they may never come back? >> i don't claim any special knowledge into the minds or hearts of men. i go by what they say. gop leader in pennsylvania made it very clear that he was pushing voter i.d. to skew the vote in favor of that romney and obsessively all future republican candidates. what we know is that voter i.d. disproportionately impacts young people of all colors and peple of colors of all races to the disproportionate poor and are more likely to their frequently or have been out of date i.d. are not own a car or feel they don't get a drivers license or so forth.

the other question to the rnc, like mr. bond, i grew up in a family with a great sense of history. part of the history is a deep appreciation for the party of lincoln on the role he played historically. my daughter is named for peter g market who was born a slave is the first class of blacks in the virginia house of delegates as my grandfather's great-grandfather and she could've been named for my grandmother's grandmother. they were both republicans. the republican party is a proud legacy when it comes to civil rights. they made a barking about 40 years ago with this campaign and they are now being called to beckon for it because our country is becoming majority people of color and many to ask themselves, can they survive without barking? or do they need to go back to their deeper roots?

when i look at republican governors out there, you have to make it. if you put the different claims together of the great gop civil rights agenda, yet alabama pushing for early childhood education. georgia tech says. virginia what they believe in second chances, whether played that were voting and so on. unfortunately, the party isn't there yet. but i believe that a fair country continues to evolve in a way that brings us closer to the vision frederick douglass laid out when he said, give me a couple more seconds. he said the composite nationality is off to paraphrase but close to verbatim that every country has a destiny and its destiny is based his character as characters design habits at its best in the spurs. character is influenced by geography and our geography is

unique. reported by two oceans that connect this to every country on the planet and two borders cannot destination themselves. our destiny, based on our care are, based on that geography is the most perfect example of human unity of the world ever seen. i was yesterday's republican party. if that becomes tomorrow's, they could have a very good century. if it does not, if they stay stuck where bobby jindal says they are stuck, their party will fall apart. >> speaking of bother to republican senators but for passage of the 1964 civil rights bill. no republicans for president yesterday at the 50th anniversary. given what you just told us, what does that say about the focus on the republican party? >> i would've liked to seen republican speakers and i do

believe there are methods that could have been brought. but in most heartened by was the message that sense it's been delivered to a republican gathering in recent days over at the rnc headquarters to restore the voting rights act. i'm heartened by the signals that majority leader cantor has sent that he may be going to support the same thing. and i am hopeful that mr. boehner will look into his heart and more importantly the eyes of john lewis and recognize on this one and a recent tradition we don't put anything forward unless the majority of the party is in alignment. in this case, it might be worth it to the disputed rule and what the majority of the u.s. congress have its voice heard because we believe in the time comes for a vote, the majority will be prepared to restore section four of the voting rights act. >> if you're to pick up a

newspaper 50 years ago today, you would've found dr. king's i have a dream speech on page 15. either "the associated press" version of the story. what would you say is the most striking a similar situation today with the news media missing the big story because it's considered with an angle based on preconceived notions? >> that's a good question. you know, i think that how we talk about our young people generally, how we talk about our young people generally, how we talk about are young people of color in particular, and the naacp and organizations that nurtures and translates young people into leaders with great success in those communities. i'm always struck by how even when it comes to our young people, our media too often is guided by rules at best we

should only apply to adults only focus on the negative. the focus on the violence, focus on the sex, focus on all those things that are in the process we encourage ourselves to be afraid of her children. if there's a story we are missing, you look at the dream defenders in florida. you look at the young people in the movement in north carolina. you look at the geniuses in our programs at the mathematical whiz is who when the mass component of the olympics to put in her convention and realize there's leadership in power and genius in our young people that we ignore too often we fail therefore to act -- acknowledge and encourage and we have a vested interest. >> congressman lewis is classified as speaker of the march of washington in 1963. julian bond today.

who would you say are among the next generation of civil rights leaders? >> cheese, you're going to get me disinvited to a whole bunch of holiday parties. you know, what i would say is, you know, there are people in states across this country who are doing incredible work for the national media should pay attention to. if you cover criminal justice, you should know dr. jan s. korea, head of criminal justice coalition because last year she passed, working with the naacp and the tea party legislators to support both together 12 progressive criminal justice reform bills on the right wing. so effective that texas is going to shut down its first prison number. they shouldn't take such effort for reverend barber of north carolina to become well-known.

he's been leaving people there and coming together to great success for a decade or more. you should know adoring no be, president of the florida state conference naacp who last year when the sheriff showed up, the tuesday after 13 days to try try to put her people and representative rock the vote and others in jail because the new laws that if you had your voter registration forms out more than 48 hours community going to jail or paying a fine. many other groups said were not going to take this risk. she took a risk anyway and let her group and registering more than 120,000 new voters who we know voted about 93% for the president and only 60,000 votes. there's a bald brothers the big cat in a wheelchair who is responsible that.

the stories in the states right now when it comes to the change of our country and the heroes are in the state of the people we know nationally. they were unbearably be doing great work. people like the young people that gerald is streaming. these are folks running transformative it trees. people stood up when they said we cannot win in maryland they said we can. >> president bill clinton said yesterday admonished the assembled yesterday at the march to stop whining about the political gridlock in washington because it's nothing new. while legislative goals of the naacp pursuing which could garner bipartisan support? >> voting rights, voting rights, voting rights. voting rights, voting rights, voting rights could not be sensenbrenner and signals will not be when it comes republican. as do the actions of the governor of michigan last year

when he vetoed a voter i.d. bill. there is a story largely vast and governor mike, when he takes a big dent comedy central banner for my cursor to people voting in virginia by real power in the nonviolent offenders by 200,000 to vote. the criminal justice reform is a big untold bipartisan story. there's been some recent fascination with crime and they're doing great work and there's a flipside to that as you might imagine, which is the community working with them in states across the country to get these reforms through. and whether it's rick perry in texas to a society's' bills or governor deal in georgia has played a more active role, a decade from now we will have tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, millions of families are grateful because these very large prison systems

are aggressively redesigned in a way that will result in the most dangerous people being imprisoned, but other folks like nonviolent drug offenders to every study suggests seven times more effective dollar for dollar crises we have been in preparation will be in rehab and not at present and their kids won't be in foster care and be accelerated towards prison themselves. >> that'll bifurcate this question a little bit. there's been criticism punditry circuit about the naacp not speaking out when there are black on white crime such as the young man -- a black man to beat up a world war ii veteran allegedly in washington state. what do you say to that criticism? and also to be concerned the naacp has fractured -- as a fracture goal because there's so many issues at immigration or or other issues are also pursuing. >> first, i would say that case

had been fairly recently and from what we can tell people were arrested quickly and it's not clear evidence that there is a racial motivation. the national is often criticized for being slow on case is because we let them take their pace at the local local local and from the nationalist tarzan structure. we are criticized for not moving fast enough on trayvon martin as well. but we take our time. because somebody killed him and he wasn't put in jail. that person's only few members said race wasn't in fact. trust me, if those factors coming in now, like that where i play in the washington case and we took our appropriate time, we would speak out in the same way. we have stood up and we do stand a one way people are the target of hate crimes often because they are al gpt. we in many places are just, if

you outcome of civil rights organization rooted in the black community. we are the only civil rights community. we jump in the matthew shepard hate crimes bill as an example about our wide concern. that concern, the breadth of our concern is from the very beginning. let's be clear. the word not black in 1909. the board colored today. oftentimes all the colors were, too. they became synonymous for some people. for people like debbie beta boy, there is a distinction. w. would be devoid walked into an naacp and says we have to change our name. if you've ever been involved in the voluntary organization, one of them is not change your name. at the time my name is the national association and w.e.b.

dubois said in effect, our mission is broader than not. our mission is to return the system is a on top and everybody else on the bottom. do you think that either one, india, who wrote to me she was involved in the continent of africa. i wish he was white supremacists. the name of the new organization as the national association for the basement of colored people. he wanted to lift everybody else to. frederick douglass about 50 years earlier said if you believe majorities matter and i believe they do, four fifths of the world is colored. he wasn't talking about black folk. he was talking about every other color. that's where we start. where will kids was on fire when people try to slander going into the 1963 march on washington.

it motivated him, slandering because he was gay to churn out that many more basses. we got them in the civil rights act, pushing through the voting rights act. we also get rid of the europe only preference, part of the coalition that we are all together. we got rid of the europe only preference for immigration to this country. we have always been for sensible comprehensive immigration reform. the new naacp is nothing but a renaissance of the old naacp. the multiracial date the sound was already have in outlook and yet feel by the anger and experience that specific oppression of black people in our society generates and the

good that it theories in your soul, that in order to have friends you got to be a friend in a democracy in order to manufacture have a lot of friends. >> thank you you were almost out of time. the last question a couple housekeeping matters. adventure match or better upcoming events and speakers. september 7th, national press club will host the 16th annual whenefs the press club key from institute's diversity scholarships. tony horton could p90 x and eric gonzalez nbc reporter. for more information, go to www.press.org. on september 10th, dr. thomas friedman to madrid for the center for disease and control and prevention. on september 17, mary fallin governor about a home and i shared national governors association. november 11th, walt effinger, president and ceo of the charles schwab corporation.

before i asked last question come i would a 2% mr. jealous at the national press club traditional bug. >> thank you. [applause] >> this will go right next the ones i've stolen from face the nation on "meet the press." >> of dr. king or invest today, beyond the obvious of having the first nations by president, what one thing do you think dr. king would be proud of? >> on this particular today, dr. king would be very proud that today and dozens of cities across this country, hundreds of job sites, thousands of people, primarily young people walked out demanding that they receive more than $7.25 per hour. you can survive and $7.25. you can work 50 to 60 hours a week and still qualify for assistance. dr. king and his heart understood that even with all

the other isms that we deal with, then they must be having too many heights against the poor in this country is what ruins us most broadly. and his last campaign, the poor people's campaign that he never quite finished, he intended to go to jail for years after massive civil disobedience, to wake us up, to send full tolerance we have for the suffering of our fellow hard-working citizens in this country. if you haven't listened to the voices of those people walking out of this across this country, i encourage you to go online and to listen. they are aspiring for all of us who like myself have benefited because someone in their family way back helped form a union and

wages went up in generations and into college a result. they are those people for generations and they are the ones who made sure that are trying to variability to pay the rent to make sure that our country isn't just made more equitable for the top down, but the bottom up as well. [applause] >> thank you, mr. jealous. [applause] >> thank you, mr. jealous pitt and also to thank the staff and put in the journalism institute in broadcasting for organizing today's event. here's a reminder to buy more information about the national press club on a website. if you'd like a copy of today's program, check out our website at www.press.work. thank you. we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> dan hofmeister's former

president of the shell oil company. he's the author of why we hate oil companies that now is president of citizens for affordable energy. thank you for being with us. one of the headlines getting attention this morning from the hill newspaper from the richmond times dispatch an interview, president assad did with a french newspaper, warning that the risk of a wider war that the u.s. attack syria and so the obvious question, if that happens, the impact on oil prices. >> guest: well, if this spreads, if the u.s. attack syria and syria and its allies decide that they are going to teach the u.s. a lesson and they're going to interpose there will if they attack, for example israel, there's no question that israel will defend his love. whether it defends itself by attacking hezbollah in the region or syria in the region or expensive attack even all the way to remain, which of course backs syria through this whole process. we could find ourselves an

incredible turmoil. they could pull in jordan, poland lebanon. suddenly you have a whole range of ability affect you in the entirety of the region. one of the things the world depends upon this consistent oil supply, consistent supply of energy that always takes care of daily needs. if you had this much disruption in the middle east, its unprecedented comes so no one knows what the consequences may be. >> on the hill.com comes a statement by president assad that the region is a powder keg that could erupt. >> guest: there's no question. the whole israeli-palestinian issue. the inability of the parties to come together. the reluctance of different neighbors to try to intervene and of course if the arab spring, which we've seen going on now for two and a half years. some declare it over again in

thatsei is not a stretch for democracy, but there were entrenchment of tyranny or authoritarianism have so many see now in egypt. the whole region? the fundamental institutions that can deliver the kind of predictable piece that much of the rest of the world depends upon. >> host: we are looking at a map of the region by syria in the foreground who are its allies. who else backs syria in all this? >> guest: wisteria has very few friends and it's partially because assad, syria was always a unique carp out in the region, which fight israel or egypt in previous wars, but i wasted aside, stood alone. so it doesn't have a lot of friends other than an a hole she has seen me arrangement that cuts across the middle east, where the shia arc, which is now building from iran to iraq to syria, perhaps to egypt, perhaps

further. this shia versus sunni issue defines much of the middle east, except that you have the à la ways in syria who are not part of that. there are different sect altogether. the minority out of weights have been running, not particular friend said this shia's or the sunnis. jalisco i know you just got back from grape to end the headline in the u.k., franking faces opposition among safety and a photograph of some of those demonstrators against tracking moved away by the british police. what do you find over there? was your reaction? >> guest: environmentalism takes on a different type nation in europe than it does in the united states. although all environmentalists aspire to a much cleaner world, there is the vehemence among environment list in europe and hitting the u.k., which i think

is remarkable to most americans. for example, in the gml site, the genetically modified crops that we take for granted in the u.s., we used to gml corn and other products, soybeans, et cetera. gml products are prohibited in the u.k. and in europe and in the course of fighting gm must come to start farmers fields. we haven't seen farmers fields being destroyed. now that it comes to fracturing, the u.k. leadership has done a poor job of the industry as well as the government in preparing its population to the eventuality of fracturing, largely depending on anticipated shortages of natural gas in the u.k., the fact they've been talking about lights out in the u.k. for the last three of four years by 2016 because of the last of power generation capability for old coal plants and nuclear plants. do they assume too much that fracturing would be simply

accept it without educating the public, without positioning this opportunity for the u.k., which is a huge opportunity, just as in the united states. and so, the public is really not well informed. the u.s. is far better informed about fracturing, even though we still have our issues and our pockets of misunderstanding in the united states. >> host: to explain the two sides outlined in today's washington saying that fracturing could fundamentally change britain's economy and britons dependent on foreign oil. you have on the other side as you indicated that civil disobedience by those opponents and one small town in england, which is about 2000 residents, but has become a focal point in the franking debate. >> host: the irony is that as a touring neighborhood. the members of parliament tend to be conservative. cameron is a tory, a

conservative. you have people in the majority party, and the coalition in the u.k. running the coalition that are pro-franking while constituents are demonstrating anti-franking behavior. it's not a pleasant scene at all. but the prime minister is correct in the same way we have these huge pockets of prosperity in the united states because of natural resource development, including fracking for natural gas and oil. the u.k. could experience the same. people confuse the dirtiness, the messiness of the drilling site are the ultimate production of a gas or oil, whatever it may be. when you construct a brand-new building, a tall high-rise building, you've got a mess on your hands to look at while it's under construction. ..

just as we see a building go up that is messy we occupy the building and to get down and put a park on top of it, done. >> host: let's take a step back. we talked about fracking. what is it, how far down do you go and what are you drilling for? >> guest: fracking is a technology. what happens when you drill a well? let's start with a vertical well, like a stroll straight

down. at a certain point where the oil formation with a natural gas formation access in the geology, 2000, 3,000, five of the fbi data, you want to break up the earth to relieve the rocks of the molecules of natural gas or oil. it's been sitting there for hundreds of millions of years in some cases. so you built pipes that can exploit with a device, a small explosion larger than a firecracker but smaller than the bomb. so you exploded this device and it goes out words on both sides of the pipe. it cracks the formation of the rocks, which contains those molecules of oil or natural gas. you then put pressurized water, sandwiches called 81 propent. you prop open the cracks so the molecule's of oil come rolling out.

where the molecules come out you remove the water and take it out and treated to do the copy you don't want to bury it or somehow you dispose of it in ways that state regulations require you to clean up the water and then you can produce the natural gas for the oil coming up the pike. the other is horizontal fracking, when you go down vertically in the been the the pipe underground over along the period you bend the pack and come out another five for 10,000 feet, 2 miles under the surface navy 5,000 feet down to the geology to eight you explode the pipe to break open the rock you send down the water and the stand to profit open and there are some chemicals they object to which are designed to lubricate the sand. if you take that out with all of the nasty stuff that comes from the earth within it is whether

it might be giving it might be sulfur or mercury or other heavy metal and treat that water. again you don't put that into the public water system or put it on the ground. you contain it, clean it or bury it all according to the state regulations then you extract once the water is out. for a long time to come that is the process. >> host: our guest worked in a number of positions with general electric and allied signal and is the former president and ceo of shell oil company and now the president of citizens for affordable energy to get as we talk about energy issues and the middle east and other drilling matters eric is joining from wilmington delaware. good morning. >> caller: >> host: good morning. >> caller: good morning. hard to doing? >> host: fine, thank you. please go ahead. >> caller: my question is the

u.s. dollar is the world currency and oil is bought with u.s. dollars. the reason why we will never be we'll independent is because the oil didn't buy oil in u.s. dollars a would collapse the dollar. that's why we are dependent on the middle east because they are the ones that control the oil and also helps us because they invest money in the country when we buy the oil and also we can print more money. i will just get off the line and hear your comments. >> guest: i'm not sure that we would see a collapse of the dollar. it may drop initially for a period of time but as an economy is much larger in the export market from the u.s. to the rest of the world as much bigger than most people realize and while there may be a bit i don't think there would be a collapse. there would be a selection of a bushel basket of a different currencies to try to set a

standard. but actually it is to the u.s. advantage currently that the dollar is the currency of choice, is the global standard, and i think the strength of our economy will contain that for a long time to come. it's the choice of other countries to use the dollar. it's not a requirement. so the dollar has withstood for a century all of the various aspects that have been thrown at the u.s. that have come out on the other side in fairly good shape. i think some of leased doesn't ultimately control for the world of it is a major factor. it is opec which goes beyond the middle east to include countries like nigeria and venezuela and indonesia are part of that whole process as well. >> host: the price of crude oil per barrel back in december it was over 91 and now it is just about $110.

>> guest: it is a huge price americans are paying for imported oil because of the failure of the united states to come to grips with its own energy policy over the last 40 or 50 years. whether you blame the current administration or the seven or eight administrations, the american economy is at the mercy of the forces beyond the united states for no good reason other than our own unwillingness to develop our own energy policy for the country that is essentially uses all sorts of energy which takes up off of the oil monopoly which exists today. and it's that topic in u.s. should be discussing intensively we are the victims of an oil monopoly in terms of transportation fuel that we could shift away from. we could break the bond of opec

on the country's economy once and for all if we would have the kind of discussion that needs to take place and scholars looking at alternative forms for transportation not the least of which is introducing natural gas both as a liquid and as a gas form, as a transportation fuel so that zero allele is not the only product people have to choose from when they go to the gasoline station. >> host: the gentleman says are the fossil fuels contributing to global warming? >> guest: i think they have been for the last 150 years. fossil fuels do put back co2 into the atmosphere which had been buried under the earth. i don't think anyone in the industry denies that the fossilization of the earth ads to the co2 content of the environment. the question then becomes what do you do about it? do you continue to freeze them

not using alternative forms of energy? do you try to clean up the fossil fuels in ways you can capture this you to and put it back in the air? there hasn't been a faeroe examination of the u.s. energy sources in ways the public could get a grip on how much opportunity we have to read instead we've had a competition. we've had an adversarial competition in the country between those that advocate renewable fuels exclusively, those who continue to advocate fuel almost exclusively and the fact that the to our adversaries why can't we have the best interest of the nation kind of discussion in which we can actually come to grips with a balanced energy plant going forward that grows the capability and the increasing use of renewables while we look

at ways of reducing the carbon intensity of the fossil fuel. there is no such thing as a light switch that turns off the fossil fuel and turns on a renewable fuel at the foot of a switch and we americans are very inclined with the switch idea let's go from here to there. you can't. i've been on podiums and speeches with environmentalists who say we should be met defeat could eliminate all coal by 2025. that is just a fundamental impossibility in this country because what replaces it? what part of the country wants to the volunteer for the blackouts that would occur in the worst times of the year by virtue of shutting down without an alternative plan. but they are so antihydrocarbon they just say shut it off as if there is a switch. there is no switch. and we have to have a plan we are the world's largest economy. and we rely upon affordable energy to sustain that the

economy over the decades where we have been the world's largest economy. and when you look ahead, the past is the predictor of the future. and because we have had a huge hydrocarbon base with the co2 emissions if we are going to get off that base, then we better have a long-term plan, short and long term planning and we have had eight presidents promising us an energy strategy to become independent since nixon to obama triet all of them have failed. we have had 20 converses promise the same thing. they won't fail to the the so why is to begin the discussion and work with other groups like the national energy security council like citizens -- the name will come to me in a moment. but the freedom foundation and the energy alliance some of these groups along with are trying to bring the conversation to the american people because

frankly the politics of energy is destroying america's energy independence efforts because the politics of energy stirrer the adversarial part so to speak so that those on one side of the initio refused to talk to those on the other side and nothing gets done. >> host: the head of shell oil in 2005 and in 2007 jim is joining from north carolina on the independent line. good morning. >> guest: thank you for taking my call. if you let me finish i'm going to try to be very brief but this is something the american people need to know and it's important to our economy. the price coming down on gas is right there in front of our face the american oil belongs to the american people. why should we allow -- i and a

stand would be on the dollar down but we could control the use the way that we had with bp because we know what we have there and we want to take a shortcut and stuff like that. it is a shame that big companies, the oil that we journal we have enough to run the station but they put it on the market. all they have to do is sell it to the american people, take the profit out of the wheel. it's too much. it's too important for the country. this is what we did in the war and everything if more companies -- i notice more of them are asking for the rate. they go out and they buy this and they discovered oil and put a cap on it. they don't put any oil when the market so the prices go up and then they turn these drilling rights they don't have to drill. all we are doing is selling away the future of our kids from

selling away the future of our country. not only the american companies that do have foreign companies coming. >> guest: that's an important set of issues being raised but i start with a fundamental point we do not have enough oil with oil alone to fuel the mean of the u.s. economy. we never produced more than 10 million barrels a day going back to the 70's and the 1980's we are currently producing 7.5 million barrels a day come 7.2i should say. and we use a team a big gap between 18 million that we consume and the 7.2 million barrels a day that we produce. if we turn everybody loose to go drill as much oil as possible i think with all the risks and costs and the environmental issues that are raised, we might

get back to ten. oil is a removable and a transported resources where the world depends upon the flow and the u.s. needs to be a part of that flow. where we could become energy independent to the caller's point is the conversion of the natural gas through the transportation fuel substituting for the imported oil and yes we have as much natural gas as we would ever need between canada, the united states and mexico we could become energy independent from america with the full development of resources that in canada, mexico and the full development of natural gas resources particularly in the u.s. but also canada and including alaska to the we could convert that natural gas into fuel for transportation for trucks, trains, buses and ms

compressed natural gas or liquid natural gas we could convert that natural gas to methanol just like ethanol and mix it with gasoline and sixth flex tool engines in the car. we have the technology on the road today and the capacity to produce more natural gas. we know how to make methanol we can make the two together and become a all happen over the next decade where we wouldn't need iraqi oil as the caller said or from any other part of the world we wouldn't be at the mercy who want to set prices not for the market place that the demand supply relationship for the ordeal around the world and we would also create millions of american jobs in the process and create billions of new tax revenue for the government. this is the argument the u.s.

security council for affordable energy foundation are making to the american people. it's a common sense solution and we can achieve that kind of economic growth and that kind of government revenue and energy independence if we could just get the politicians to talk to each a quick follow-up and i want to get the president's agenda but one of our viewers saying john hofmeister we had a problem with a deep water blowout protection. how do we address fracking water contamination? >> i think it has been much research and it's very clear that some bad judgments were made. otherwise we would never have seen that. those bad judgment made by human beings to be the was the earth that was unpredictable and that a judgment made with regard to that unpredictability to be with regard to fracking and the protection of water resources it's a critical issue and the industry knows full well that it does not protect ground water it

will not be allowed to frack. we can construct the well and when you use the cement around it and you have all of these risks mitigation stand precautions built into the technology that you are using, they have yet to identify the site and i think that is good news for the american people to rely on. the stories of gas leaking into the wells are no doubt true but natural gas occurs in many places around the nation in the earth and so natural gas has been a factor in the ground water for as long as we have been drilling wells in this country. so the industry has a responsibility to drill according to the technologies

and the licensed permit requirements according to the regulations and if there are operators that refuse to follow and that are so sloppy or cost oriented that they cut corners they should simply be shut down. they should tell them get out of here we are not going to tolerate the miss performance, your lack of integrity or of your unwillingness to follow the regulations as they exist. the industry would applaud because they don't want to see the opportunity to develop the natural resources spoiled by a sloppy operator that they care so little. >> host: it includes c-span radio heard on fm here in the baltimore washington hearing and nationwide channel 119. steve is joining from virginia. good morning to you, sir. are you with us?

we will try one more time for steve. we will go to middle ten. please go ahead please. >> you know you will talk about the fracking. did you know that there's two kinds of fracking? i just had a drill and they used nitrogen. it isoizontal they went 9 degrees for every 100 then you went out another 4500 feet and they used nitrogen so there was no hydraulics stuff used. it was clean and there were no problems with that. that is a lot better to take a better way to do it i guess because it is more expensive but

people don't want to use that. >> guest: make an excellent point and i'm glad you brought that up. thank you. what we have is multiple sets of tests going on to move towards what we call waterless fracking because water is a precious resource that has to be drawn from the well and cleaned and if there are other sources whether it is nitrogen as in the case of the call or whether it is rocket fuel, air, there are a number of process he's been tested and a number of different materials and different ways of doing the fracking. it's never satisfied. it's like the air industry pursuing what could be. so when you have issues with one type of technology then you begin looking at other possibilities and that is what is happening here. i'm glad to hear the was a

success using nitrogen but the tough thing goes on and the epa is involved with at a profit of the interior is involved in the state regulators and per members are involved and none of this is being done without conscious responsibility to the public interest because the industry can't operate. we call what the license to operate. you can't get a license to operate if you can't satisfy the public need for safety. >> host: the keystone mix el pipeline is passed on that and other energy issues. >> i put forward all of the energy strategy that the energy strategy must be about more than just producing more oil. it's got to be building more than one pipeline. i know there's been a lot of controversy around the proposal to build the pipeline that would

carry oil from the tar sands back from the refineries in the gulf and the state department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal and that is how it has always been done. but i want to be clear that allowing the keystone pipeline to be built recall years finding that doing so would be in the nation's interest. and our national interest would be served only if this project doesn't significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon solution. the net effect of the side line intact -- in pact on the planet will be absolutely critical determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. it's relevant. >> host: over three months ago the president including texas el

pipeline. >> guest: he is entitled to his view. i happen to fundamentally disagree with the observations and with his suggested conclusions that come from that. this is a president and that has talked about infrastructure building in this country and has spoken about middle class jobs in this country but the president does not acknowledge that there are over 200,000 miles of pipeline in the country carrying oil or other petroleum liquids. on the area where the pipeline as proposed they have now moved it aside. but even on this aquifer today there are over 20,000 miles of pipeline existing. with respect to the carbon reduction the president cannot tell canada but it can or cannot

do with respect to the oil development. we could prohibit it from coming to this country but then we would choose. the player is patronizing of his political supporters. of those that pay for the reelection are getting payback from the president and the current opposition to the keystone pipeline. the nation needs it because the need input to the oil to get through the day every day. canada is going to produce its loyal to whatever global market will accept it. i talked to the oil minister in canada and other officials. they are going to produce that. nothing the united states does other than go to the war with canada to stop them from developing the resources would cause the canadians not to

produce the oil so it's not clear to get produced. the consequence for the globe is regardless of what the u.s. does to be by talked about the need to the carbonize but we aren't going to overnight. the only offer it on petroleum. are we going to use the canadian oil, american oil? i frankly would prefer canadian and american oil and mexican oil. so the president is making much ado about something he has ultimately proposed for the economy. middle class jobs to build a pipeline which is infrastructure not just serving canada but also america's needs so the american refineries can receive that allele to make petrochemicals and gasoline and lubricants and america for americans. people have said why don't they build the refineries in canada to refine canadian oil when we

have spare capacity in the u.s. by getting that the u.s. refineries? people say it's going to be exported. no it's not. it's simply not giving it people can say whatever they want to say. that doesn't make it true. i find contract shell oil to to get to the refineries to produce that product for the american market pleases. will some get exported? perhaps if there is a surplus supply. petroleum products have to be consumed in a certain life span. they go bad but he could export because the u.s. doesn't need it. so there is a natural movement of product just like green or corn should we not export wheat and corn? of course we are going to export wheat and corn because it benefits the farmers and u.s. refiners' by exporting the products after the u.s. market is served and the u.s. market would be well served by building the keystone exfil pipeline with all of the president's

patronizing and once we get past all of that we can get on with creating jobs and having more affordable and local north american oil instead of open. >> host: she's the president of citizens for american energy to the you can log onto citizensforamericanenergy.org for more information to the it is the safety of the water in america's heartland. let's go to paul joining in la hoya california. republican wind to get good morning to deposit >> caller: good morning mr. hofmeister to get my question is china. to the of land suitable for fracking and the technology in china clacks >> guest: the answer to the first question is yes the have the geological formation that demonstrates a huge quantity of natural gas with the geology of

china. they purchased from some of the companies that are currently fracking in the united states as well as developing their own technologies. there is no question that china is motivated to develop its own natural resources and not become victimized like the u.s. by the monopoly on oil. so china is already turning coal into methane or i'm sorry mess hall for the transportation purposes. already using biofuels as we are but the consequence of china developing its own natural resources is to take care of their needs and they have a plan to do that. the u.s. could do the same except they don't have a plan to do that. that's why we are trying to get the congress and the white house to come together on a plan for the future energy to get >> host: this is from dena who says why not tell them the truth

he is a 100% lobbyist. are you a lobbyist? >> guest: i am not a registered lobbyist to the assistance for affordable energy take no money. nothing could yet no money from the energy producing companies that is in the charter and the board of directors prohibits at. we are supported by the consumer money. what i am speaking to is truth to the american economy, truth to the american consumer of energy keeping in mind that the u.s. is the world's largest consumer of energy and the writer may want to see energy still on affordable we create a society have and have not that's not what we stand for we stand for affordable energy for all americans from all walks of life. ..

>> caller: people are suffering and government is taking all the money. is putin just say no to the relevance to the stage or what is involved with russia today? >> guest: well, russia is a natural resource bounty for the world. it's a natural resource exporter of many different kind of natural resources, but it's also a very much state-controlled economy. and so the state meaning putin, meaning the central government,

determines what resources will be produced, where, when, and how. and so it's hardly a free market, anyone who signs a contract to do business in russia does it under the term of the russian nation, and bureaucrats and national figures, politicians really don't -- are not necessarily the best business people, and they're very interested in themselves and they're own national pursuit. and so russia has failed miserably over the decades in developing the economy, the natural resource economy. i think it's likely to continue. russia weakens itself by having a state-controlled system, in my opinion. >> host: john, thank you very being with us on c-span. on the next "washington journal" we'll look at president obama's approach syria and the international reaction to his decision to seek congressional approval for use of military force. our guest is danielle with the

american enterprise substitute. the executive director of the national employment law project will discuss the group effort on the behalf of low-wage workers and effort to raise the minimum wage. we'll be joined by nina eastton senior editor and columnist. it was about the fallout after a ceo caught the chinese military systemic hacking and surveillance of u.s. companies. washington journal is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. ♪ ♪ this week on q q & a author cary nelson discusses "no university is an island." a defense of academic freedom. he's the president of the american association of university professors.

c-span: professor nelson, what is the american association of university professors? >> guest: well, it's a very disting wished and not quite ancient organization that was established in 1915. coming up on the 100th anniversary, which is a big thing for us. it was established as an organization to articulate principle for the prof or souate and monitor conduct of universities around the country. we are the organization that defines tenure in the united states. we're the organization decades later that -- student right in the united states. and we represent all academic disciplines, and it's a very serious enterprise through the only possible bringing together people from all fields across the country. c-span: how long have you been the president? how did you get there? >> guest: i'm in the beginning of my sixth year.

term limited. i won't be president anymore. i came here. i'm an english professor by training, modern poetry, actually. but in part out of experience. in the beginning of 1970 higher education began to be under a lot of financial stress. i realized that many of my students were not getting jobs, not getting good jobs, at least. there was a lot of stress in the profession. i began to feel that just being a poetry specialist wasn't enough. i had to begin to address issues that affected higher education generally. so i began to write about higher education, and began to publish bookers on it. still publishing about poetry but not just poetry. and some people active in the aep for a long time said maybe you ought to come around and see what the organization can do. and i, you know, have been very impressed by the quality of work we produce. we are relentlessly devoted to

perfection, and that's been a place where i can be active in a much more -- a broader scene. just to give you an example, last year when bp -- british petroleum began to issue contracts to faculty members and students after the gulf oil spill, we were concerned that they were issuing contracts that said that the results of research had to be -- could be kept secret by the company for three years. the federal standards for a company keeping research secret is two months. so two months versus three years. we thought that was a furious -- of academic freedom. i issued some statements about it, and those statements were picked up by 30,000 different media outlets around the world. they were translated to russian, finish, china. i could see the print american association of university professors.

so this is really has been an opportunity to reach out to people across the country and around the world about issues that i think are important. c-span: how long have you been at the university of illinois? >> guest: i sometimes say just after the civil war. it's actually almost 1970. c-span: where did you go to gorped -- undergraduate? >> guest: ohio. it was a wonderful school not only a progressive school. you went to school half the year and worked half the year. even though i was in ohio i spent six months as an assistant teacher at the fifth grade school in harlem. i worked in office in new york, i was worked in a hospital for three months here in washington, d.c. and actually. the school where you got academic training and sent to the world to discover what work is. one of the things i discovered i couldn't take orders from anybody. i couldn't show up from 2k09 5:00.

i had to be under my own control. c-span: where do you get your ph.d.? >> guest: university of rod chester. c-span: what? your name came up in our last q & a. it was a book which we have here. i want run a clip from her interview and get you to respond to it. >> the head of the american association of university professors was asked to comment on my book by inside higher ed a few week ago. i think he said that it left him speechless. so i -- i was happy to take credit for that. i think he was very, very angry, and particularly, i think, what most professor disagree with in that book is my argument about tenure's connection to academic freedom. c-span: talking about you, professor. >> guest: speechless is

perhaps a slight misidentification of my difficult standard. i wasn't angry. i musted a -- admit i was somewhat sardonic in response to the book. for one thing, tenure has to be understood as part of a system. in my own recent book, i call it part of the, you know, three-legged stool. tenure, academic freedom, and shared govern mans. you can't understand tenure, which is partial job security unless you see how it relates to those other things. i mean, she makes the argument in many things the faculty members teach they don't need academic freedom. you can teach calculus without saying anything controversial. i won't judge that. i know, that tenure creates an atmosphere on campus where people can speak freely. not just in their teaching, but also in terms of university govern mans. if you don't like a proposal

makes you have to be able to speak freely about it. administrators should be able to do that as well. that shared govern mans speech is part of what academic freedom you don't have the expertise of the faculty available to you. you don't have speak courageously and you don't have what makes american higher education great. tenure, of course, is, you know, in many institutions disappearing. and, you know, the most -- fact about tenure is one thing in the aup revealed in 2005 we pointed out in 1975 two thirds of americans faculty members in college and university were tenure or eligible for tenure. thirty years later the figures had complactly flipped. two third were no longer eligible and only one-third were. now at our best schools, harvard

not about to give up tenure. the university of illinois is not about to give up tenure. many schoolses are hiring part-time faculty who don't have tenure. that's, you know, tenure is not disappearing across the country. but the percentage of faculty members who have tenure is vastly reduced, that's beginning to change higher education. c-span: i want to run another clip from -- she talks about your position meaning the aaup and get you to respond. >> guest: sure. >> there are basically professors of cooking who now have, you know, professors of nutritional studies who have tenure now. and, you know, when press someone at the aaup or professor who is, you know, towing the party line will say we need someone to have tenure in security studies so they can, you know, talk about immigration even though it's controversial. and someone in nutritional

stoidz need to say something controversial about obesity. it could go on indefinitely. there's no limit to a number of controversial things that need protection. in my opinion, i think the bound of academic freedom have just gotten -- have just been pushed too far. >> guest: that leaves that me close to speechless. nutrition studies seems to me a perfect example of why tenure is necessary. how many programs in nutritional studies are supported by grants from food producing companies? and how many faculty members, if they speak out against the practice of the companies are going have their jobs threatened if their department and universities are getting a lot of money from that company nutritional studies is an area that involves the corporate enterprise in the united states. large companies make food products. some of the food products are not terribly healthy for people. we looked at food products sold

to children that cause obesity and end up causing diabetes late in life. they are political matters, they require forthright speech from faculty members. there are many corporations that invest in higher education. not all are ideal corporations, obviously, you know, the most striking example the tobacco company that paid for faculty research and supported research and universities for many decades, and i happen to be pretty much convinced tobacco is injurious to your health. university faculty members cannot have their job security threatened if they're honest about the tairntle the product represent. c-span: howrch do -- how often do you see a member of the academic prof or so ya play to the money? in other words, the research money is there if you write the right things and draw the right

conclusions. >> guest: well, i think most human beings ration what they do. if i look back at the '50s and '60s faculty members were testifying in congress that tobacco wasn't harmful to your health. i suppose it's possible they believed it. it's difficult for me to imagine it. perhapses they did. there's a deeper way though the faculty members are now pressed to speak for the money and sort of go for the money. that's because -- my own feeling that academic freedom that a faculty member should be able to pursue the research that he or she believes is most important that will do the most good for the country. whether it's the research that a given corporation wants to fund

or not. so money has become more and more powerful in higher education, certainly in public education as state allocation to public higher education have over thirty years gradually been eaten away. c-span: how do the tenure process work for you? >> guest: well, -- [laughter] it was perhaps a little more elaborate for me than most. i came up for tenure three times before i got it. the second time my department had said that i should be fired and his reason was for insubordination. and i said that the claim was correct but the punishment was incorrect. i got tenure the following year, and what it's meant for me is that i could speak freely. that's been my tendency anyway. i have often taken issue with things that my own institution

has done. some administrators don't like me very much. others think that when i disagree with my own institution it's probably because i care about it. i care what its future is. i care what it's doing. tenure has given me the freedom to speak freely. it's given me the freedom to challenge my students, which is really essential. i mean, i teach some courses that students find upsetting they have to work carefully with them to be able to enable them to deal with the material. the course on the holocaust regularly, and it places a lot of strain on students, and tenure has let me work hard to bring out the best in those students and challenge them. give me the job protection i need to do that. >> do you think you would still have a job at the university of illinois if you didn't have tenure? >> guest: well, i gave it up a

few years ago. c-span: gave what up? >> guest: tenure. c-span: you did? >> guest: yes. c-span: how does work? >> guest: well, it was partly what i decided i wanted to teach less so i could do more national work like for the aaup, and it's enabled know do a lot of traveling here and abroad. speak at the lot of campuses. speak to a lot of people. this semester, for example, i was scheduled to teach but i just won't. my travel schedule is past the point i often get home one day and leave the next. so i decided to give it up so i would have to teach less. it's introduced me to the unhappily to the world in which you -- at the end of year and find out whether you're going get it. i can't say that i enjoy that part of it. i think i would have done the same thing all over again. but it's not been without

unpleasantness. you lose -- you become more vulnerable. i have experienced some of that vulnerability. there's no question about it. c-span: in this book, your book, which was 2010, no university is an island. you take on the aaup. american association of university professor. you take on the university of illinois. where you make your living. you take on -- you take on academic the administrators. why? >> what does it come from you n you that you have this approach take on folk like this? >> guest: well, taking on the aaup comes out of tremendous love for the organization. i've been in the leadership for sixteen years actually. and i i stress throughout the book i think i think the aaup is central to the future of higher education. i wanted to be everything it can

be. and sometimes it fails. you know, it's failed most dramatically during world world war i after the historic statement when it supported the notion that criticize the draft during world war i was unacceptable. faculty members shouldn't have that kind of freedom. and i think some of us -- i wasn't around then some are haunted by the era. we failed during the mccarthy period. we didn't do investigation of unjust firing of faculty members. i think that the leadership of the organization was afraid to fight senator mccarthy. eventually we decided to go back and do the investigations. they have a missed step over time and part of my -- what i think this is important is to admit that. and then figure out how you can do better. at the same time as i, you know, try to identify the organization's faults, i have

tried to say how it can be better. in term of my young campus, the world of higher education has changed. there's more pressure on faculties members to bring money in. like so many campuses across the united, for many years, i think key administrators have the approach that every discipline should be as good as it could be. excellence across the board. and i deeply believe in that. in fact, worked closely with many administrators who were absolutely terrific. but we're not seeing across the united states that same commitment to all academic discipline. the humanity are threatened. they bring in money and mainly one form. student tuition. they don't bring in grant, they don't bring in corporate contracts. and so we're seeing some humanities programs closed around the country. the aaup gets basically a

complaint about the humanity or social science department being closed once a week. that's about the rate which they're coming in. so we're very, you know, we're very worried about that trend. and i have seen in my own institution less support for some key humanities discipline. i guess i'm remembering for the days we wanted to do everything terrifically well. c-span: what do you think of the billions of dollars that goes from the taxpayers through the federal government to the research universities in the united states? >> guest: well, first of all, there is certainly a lot of press including the -- who decries the amount of research that universities do the cold reality is that the whemming majority -- 10% of the universities in the united states have major

research commitment. some are large institutions, but in term of numbers of institutions, it's only about 10%. many faculty members teach full-time. that's really all they do. but the system as whole depends upon the research that limited number of people do that keep disciplines current. that correct historical errors, i have seen so many historical errors corrected in my own discipline. literary studies i know i'll never really know the field completely. the field gets reborn and redover -- discovered and documents are discovered in archives that no one knew about. i have found, you know, literary texts in people's attics in people's studies, in, you know, in file cabinets of writers who died. history gets rewritten all the time. even in the humanities, and you need that research to keep fields current and everyone benefits from it. so the small number of people

who do research help the work that everyone does. i think a federal investment in it is part behalf makes this country a leading force in so many areas of life. c-span: where in the united states did you grow up? >> guest: actually in philadelphia. in the center of philadelphia at first, then we moved to buck's county to a suburb. there were -- when i grew up there were sheep and horses in a field behind my house. last time i returned to the area, that was a parking lot for a supermarket. s it was a great place to grow up. i had a terrific high school education. a huge high school. 5,000 students. the college preps classes had high standards. i had do 30 to 50-type papers. you were allowed three spelling errors. i might have difficulty enforce

the rule now. c-span: what did your parents do? >> guest: my father was a salesman but also an activist. he was active in the antinuclear movement. and my last year in high school i actually was on the mall here in washington to hear martin luther king's "i have a dream" speech. i had a, you know, i heard -- as part of the antinuclear movement i heard -- thomas at the end of his life famous socialist huge gangling man in the '80s it seemed as though his body was hung together with bailing wire. staggered up to the podium and incredibly powerful voice came out. i think i was inspired by the antinuclear speakers they heard. the civil rights speakers that i heard. early on in my life. that's article strong part of my

upbringing. you know on the knock on -- what is your reaction to that? well, if you got university of illinois and you visit the business college or visit the college of engineering, a fair percentage of them vote democratic, but to call them on the left, i think would be a stretch. even in my own department, of english, there are certainly colleagues that voted for ronald reagan and voted for george bush. and made no secret of it. even in what is probably counted the most progressive discipline around, it's not universally on the left. in any case, what people need to understand is that people's political identification, the faculty members, identification that say the democratic or republican party doesn't necessarily say much about what they do in the classroom.

i mean, what is it -- if and engineer votes democratic or republican does it matter does it affect classroom behavior? c-span: let me ask you this. if you are a tenure professor, like you were. and you go 0 in the classroom should that professor have a right to say anything they want to say and profittize for any cause they want to profittize for? >> guest: if a faculty member keeps interpret -- interrupting a class with political statements that are not appropriate to the subject, he or she shouldn't do it. the key is are they appropriate? you know, aaup did a wonderful statement that i worked on called freedom in the classroom in 2007. what we tried to argue there is that when someone is in a classroom, they should be able to make any connections that come up. any comparisons, any contrasts that are related to the subject matter. not just faculty members but students need to be to be think

creatively. make connection, draw comparison. and those connection and comparison could be in different historical periods. they could be in different subject matter. and they can also be political. if they're relevant to what you're talking about. i would also make one -- exception. there are times in american life when things happen that faculty member and students have to talk about. the morning after september 11th by late in that morning classes were canceled across the united. but if you were teaching at 8:00 a.m. class after september 11th. it might well still have been meeting, and a lot of those classes were willing to taunt chemistry or biology or english or anything else. something had happened of a political nature and disastrous nature they had to talk about. same thing happened when martin luther king died. i know, people in the sciences

who said the next day, you know, i'm not going talk about chemistry today. i can't talk about anything else except the assassination of martin luther king. i think when really catastrophic events happen, in the world a faculty member or the students need to be able to set aside the official course subject matter and confront something that has affected them so deeply. i did actually meet a faculty member very elderly faculty member who said the day after pearl harbor my philosophy class didn't talk about pearl harbor. i said that's academic freedom. you choose not to mention pearl harbor. i suspect that there are a lot of classes the day -- it was before my time. i suspect there were a lot of classes that set aside their subject and talked about an event that was overwhelming.

so i think those are the two things. bankruptcies by historical events that are just -- that basically that force all of us to confront them and classroom thinking that makes connections and comparisons sometimes with very different subjects. sometimes with very different periods. >> naomi -- i asked her about the business of academic and publishing. let's watch a short clip and get your reaction to this. >>, i mean, i don't know, you know, when the last time, you know, you picked up a kind of an academic publicly indication was. even harvard university press, i think recently said that, you know, the average circulation of one of their, you know, one of their academic publications is 250 books. so when you consider that -- a lot of those books are actually purchased automatically by libraries, and, you know, that's harvard university

press. when you think about all of the smaller university presses throughout that are having a circulation even simultaneouser -- smaller than that. the expense of the books, you know, academic libraries speak about it to me. students complain too. so to me, you know, somebody wrote a paper recently where they said that the academic publication industry was driven by the producers and not the consumers. and, you know, i think that say it is all. academic publishing, book publishing is in a crisis. when i joined the -- when i published my first book in 1973 i was an unknown faculty member. i could count on it selling 2,000 copies in libraries on in the united states. i sell a few more. i can only guarantee it will sell 250 as she says. one of the thing that is happening as a result is that more academic publishing are moving online.

i almost never look at the academic journal library anymore. i access them online. i do it from my own house. kind of convenient. i think the industry is responding to those reduced fails. but mind you that's those reduced sales reflect lower budget for library. some is by technology. miley briers has a-- -- miley i tile them up. libraries had to put a lot of money to the online resources. they are extraordinary. they could make it possible to do research that was inconceivable even ten years ago that is meant less money to put

in to buying books. so libraries are sharing books more. you know, our libraries send out books to a lot of libraries around the country. 250 copies doesn't mean that only 250 people see them or only 250 libraries see them. the library loan is now the law of the land. of course, many small libraries simply survive that way. but, you know, it does the academics -- economic of publishing is threatened by the reduced fails. it's -- the fact that the sales are reduced doesn't mean that none of the books are being read. c-span: the knock on academia. higher education from the book "faculty lounge" you're paying too much for probably what you're getting. professors publish to a narrow audience and don't teach in the classroom. that tenure means no matter how bad you are you get to keep your job. and most professors are

liberals. i guess sciltd you why do you think the conservatives almost universally think this way. you hear it all the time. is there nothing there in the argument? >> guest: i have seen a lot of tenured faculty members lose their job for a variety ofen ares. i have seen quite a few tenured faculty members be taken out of the classroom and assigned to administrative duties. if your students complain about your teaching, and you're tenured you are endangered. if the students are satisfied. the tenure protects you. the most dangerous thing is have a series of student complaints and even in my own institution, i've seen a number of faculty members. they have to receive due process that a faculty committee has to review the case and take some time. but in the end, if it's, you know, if they receive due process and they're judged not to be performing they end up

doing something else. c-span: who determines whether or not a professor is pulled out of a university? and -- percentages aren't very high on tenure other than people lose their job. >> guest: no, the percentages aren't high. i can come up with the years i have been at illinois a doesn't people in my own department. i can see their faces. the percentages may not be high. the human reality is real. some of them were removed for offenses. the standard model is that a committee of their peers judges the evidence they have to have a chance to respond. they have to be able to confront their accusers in a process like that may take six or nine months. and it may take some period of month like that to be they are row and fair. but tenured faculty members do lose their job. the other thing i think, you know, this is a kind of not widely acknowledged fact.

in 1950 and 1960 there were enough candidates for faculty jobs. there were more job than faculty member. hiring could hardly be collective. as we got to 1979 and 1970 there began to be vastly more candidates for a job than there were jobs. i mean, i have been on searches where we had a -- candidates for one job. so for forty years, hiring has been able to be very selective. i would say when i arrived in illinois in 1970, 25% ever my colleagues were not first-rate. we had a merit system for e slearls and frankly i benefited from the merit system. i took money from sally and jill and phyllis and bob they didn't qualify for merit. but i did. now we have about sixty faculty

members in the did want. we have done the hiring system is brutal. the competition is brutal. and when we come to do a merit review, every single faculty member is her story use. we had, i think, bad teachers in the early 1970s because of a hiring pattern in the '50s and '60s. most folks are dead, and the ones that aren't dead have been, you know, they don't teach past for fifty years. they're gone. so i think the quality of the tenured have actually increased over my time in the profession. and, you know, i hate to say it. it's increased because the competition for a few jobs is could hardly be more intense. sphwhran how many professors are there in the united? >> guest: about 300,000. c-span: how many belong? >> guest: it's just over a million. c-span: how many belong to the

aaup? >> guest: a lot fewer than we want. about 48,000. >> you write in your book a few years ago it was about 100,000. >> guest: yeah. c-span: sphwhapped >> guest: i think there a couple of things that happened. one, the nature of faculty identity and commitment changed. those people who used to join the aa ushering p joined out of the broad commitment to the profession. people beginning in the 1970ings game much more strongly committed to their academic discipline than to the profession as a whole. they paid their dues to the academic discipline, and that seemed like enough. it wasn't enough. they should have joined us as well. we have remained an organize with a great deem of influence despite the smaller numbers. i think we're going push for more moip development. c-span: what does cost to

belong? >> guest: as of this june we have progressive dues system based on salary. i think it starts at $45 to $48 ,000. if you are earning $60 ,000 or less you're not going to pay more than $50 or $60 a year to be a member. if you're earning close to $200,000 a year, then you're going pay $200 a year in dues. it's a graduated progressive system. c-span: what would you say from your knowledge of the average salary for a college professor that is a full professor and has been in it for twenty five years? >> guest: well, you know, it's almost an meaningless figure. we do the calculations, but the -- first is you have to distinguish between it's a research one institution. you have to look at the feel. i mean, starting salary for an english professor around the country is probably under $60 ,000. just under $60 ,000. where in some places unfortunately, $50,000 or

$40,000. a starlting salary for the beginning business professor may be $152 ,000. it may be twice as much. so the average salary doesn't tell us much. first of all, you need to differentiate between institutions and then you need to look at different disciplineses to see how the salvation armies play themselves out. my view is -- are now con ten jentd. i've been interviewing those faculty member for twenty five years. intlan what does that mean? >> guest: they are hired semester by semester. or year by year. they have no way of knowing whether they'll have a job next year. and many of whom, in my view, are earning less than minimum wage. so really two-thirds of the is learning less than identified ,000 a year. many of them less than $30,000 a year.

on those part-time or nonrenewed guarantee appointment. a lot of professor is not exactly comfortable. i meet faculty members who teach who have no health care. they have no investment in a retirement system. they live pretty rough lives. that's more the story of higher education these days than the high paid faculty member of corporate grant and corporate consult assistantship. that's a really small percentage that is doing that well. c-span: why has due wigs gone up so much ahead of inflation? >> guest: first of all, more than half of the undergraduates in the united states are at community colleges. and they're paying about $30 a credit. now, there are some families first generation families for whom that even that is a stretch. and need help.

you have to admit that more than half of the undergraduates in the united states are paying pretty low tuition. many state institutions, although tuition has certainly risen. it's still $5,000 a year or less. that's another group where tuition isn't high. tuition is obscenely high at the the leet school. i mean, if harvard university would have charge nod tuition, and simply take the money out of its endowment, it's endowment would still grow. free tuition they still have more money at the bank at the end of the year than before. why is tuition in the lead school so high? part because they can. in part because there's an identification of excellence with paying for it. this is a country where people believe they pay a lot for something.

it's valuable. most students do not overpay for tuition, but certainly a significant subset pay far more than they should. part of it is, i think, that a lot of schools spend money on things they shouldn't spend money on. they build buildings they don't need. they hire more administrators than they need. the growth and the number of administrators, the percentage growth has vastly exceeded the growth in the number of teachers. i think institutions, college and universities should put their money at the teaching and some money to research. not it in to administration. and not in to unnecessary building. those two things unnecessary growth and administrators and unnecessary capital projects have effected the growth of tuition at those institutions that scum to that. now there are wonderful liberal arts colleges where administrators don't earn half a million dollars.

or a million dollar or more. and where the football coach doesn't earn $4 or $5 million. or a lot of liberal arts college where the president earns $200 author $250,000. there are places that are committed to not overpaying people. i another mire that rather than letting salaries rise to an unacceptable point. but it's, you know, by and large administrator salaries unnecessary building, those two things have had played a really unfair role in tuition prices in many institutions. c-span: so when you are act as president. are you president of the american association of the university of professors? do they pay you? >> guest: no. i mean, they pay me to release from the courses that i would ordinarily teach. c-span: you don't get a salvation army for being president? >> guest: no. it's an elected volunteer position.

c-span: what have you learned? you have been president since 2006. what have you learned that you didn't know before? what surprised you in this experience? >> guest: i think more than anything else. the huge diversity of colleges and universities in the united states. i visited quite a few before i became president but, you know, when you're visiting, you know, thirty or more a year, and you're going all across the country, i mean, i've been to small religious schools where the character of campus life is just wildly different. i've been to historically flat colleges and universities where the campus or campus life and campus concerns are very different. i visited community colleges across the country. private colleges, public institutions. the diversity of higher education in america is i.t. great strength. you don't find it in other

countries in the world. it also means that, you know, that some faculty members work under conditions they really shouldn't suffer. so, you know, i've seen campus where shared govern mans is not good or academic freedom is in jeopardy. and, you know, i talk -- obviously i teach at the school where academic freedom is really not jeopardized except in certain very narrow ways. i've been to many -- where free speech doesn't obtain. c-span: can you give us an example? >> guest: i usually don't name one. c-span: you get to the middle of the controversy sometimes. >> guest: yes. some is coming up. c-span: let me mention one you say in the book. you got arrested at new york university when you first started out. why did it happen? gla >> guest: yes. a great day. the graduate student at new york

university had filed for union representation and they were represented by the united autoworkers. they negotiated a contract and then the national labor relations board, which covers private institutions but not public institutions it's political character changed under a public administration. and they changed their position, said that graduate students were not -- could not be guaranteed the right to vote for a union. so the nyu president wriewl union recognition. that's pretty unusual when you have recognized the union, so you negotiated a contract with them. then you withdraw it. that was a protest on washington square in new york, and i was taken to a paddy wagon by a couple of new york policeman who said keep up the good work. of course, new york policeman

are also organized in a union. so they applauded what we had done. which was i thought a great -- that was the part of the experience that really sort of mattered to me. graduate students at the place like nyu they can't negotiate their working conditions individually. faculty members at nyu can go in and bargain with the department head, bargain with the dean, if graduate students feel that they are not earning a living wage, if they feel they're a dangerous working conditions in the lab. all they can really do is have a union negotiate better working conditions for them. so it's particularly important for them to be able to organize if they want to. and i've had i've been involved in the graduate school union movement for twenty five years. i believe it's a cause. i believe that they should earn an office they're teaching to be able to get by. the graduate students in my department have the same teaching the faculty members

do. so they don't earn what a faculty member does. whatever the living wage is in the area, they ought to earn that for their work. and in some places in country they don't. and i think, you know, graduate students who work in a lab need to have a third party be able to negotiate grievances about hours and be able to negotiate so the lab conditions are safe. the union can do that for graduate student. c-span: let's go back to the perception on the part of some parents. they spend lots of money to send a kid to college. ..

>> guest: i have audited a lot of classes that graduate assistant teachers are teaching. the law department has a good training program for law students. the first year they teach -- their classes are visited a lot of a get a lot of feet back and i have seen some really terrific teaching. one of my graduate students who just got a job in wisconsin for this fall, every time i leave town on a trip i ask her to take over the class. i know she is going to teach it probably better than i do. she is awfully good. i think there is a lot of very committed and very passionate teaching by graduate students. say you are teaching introductory math for you are

teaching composition conquer their a lot of faculty members that really can't do that with enthusiasm for 30 years. the graduate student hasn't just only talk for a year but often teaches those beginning courses with great passion and commitment. they struggle with their teaching philosophy. they think hard about their assignments so i think there's some good teaching that is done by graduate students. i have more problem with the kind of teaching that it's almost impossible to do well. that is teaching by part-time faculty who teach three or four or five or six courses in different universities all across the city. they have no office space. they meet their students next to their car in the office is their trunk. people who go from campus to campus and don't have enough time to meet with their students. they may be teaching so much

that they don't have enough time to keep up with their field. that is teaching that i have a problem with but what happens there is that the circumstances of their work prevent them from doing a first-rate job. in order to earn enough to live there or part-time faculty members in the united states like that with ph.d.s earning $1500 of course. i interviewed people in new york who were earning $1500 of course i asked a reporter from "the new york times", i said how much does it take to live there and earn that's? if you are going to go from campus to campus all day long what are the odds you can do that job well? i think the reduction in the number of full-time faculty members is something that american parents should be angry about.

if their teachers are exploited they may not be getting their money's worth. c-span: a quick question about tenure, talking about these adjunct teachers. can you get tenure without a ph.d.? >> guest: you can't get tenure without a terminal degree. if you are an artist it might be an m.a.. in fields where the ph.d. is the standard terminal degree the answer would be no but a creative writer could get tenure without a ph.d. but that's not expected. c-span: when naomi riley was here we talked the bout the transparency or there of in the tenure process. >> professoriat is not among the more requested bodies in my opinion in this country and there's there is not a lot of examination of what goes on if you want to talk about bioethics or talk about government efforts but there's not a lot of talk

about what goes on in the academy and the ethics of that so i think the of transparency in the tenure process is one of the biggest problems. >> guest: well i think we need more transparency. the first thing it needs is more transparency about its financing. faculty members and staff members should know how every dollar on campuses spent. the budget should not be secret. audits on statement should not be secret. c-span: at every school? why? >> guest: higher education is a community. every campus is a community and everyone should be part of of the process in the decision-making. i have seen schools facing budget cuts that let students and cafeteria workers, faculty members and administrators all have input into how to deal with financial problems. they come unified as a community as a result where everyone has an investment in what goes on on

campus. that is the first of transparency. i don't know that faculty members are in a less inclined to reflect on their lives and on their work than any other american. faculty members obsessively reflect on what their students are doing and evaluate their student success. i evaluate my students for a year. the best evaluation is by ph.d. students 10 years after graduate -- after they graduate and i look back on the work they have done and the careers they have had. i ask myself how can i see it has helped shape and bring out the best that they can do? faculty members teach freshman courses and then when they see those freshmen graduate as seniors they look at their senior projects and they say how much of the course they got at the start of their time enabled them to do with well four years

later. i think faculty members reflect on their own success or failure are great deal. what they don't do is reflect on their institutions missions and goals as much as they should. they need to often think more about the overall purpose of the institution. are they on board with the institutions goals? that is the kind of reflection that i think we need a lot more. c-span: so if you all of a sudden got yourself and the presidents office of the university, how would you feel about tenure then? >> guest: . c-span: let me add a few more things. you become president just like you did with the aaup. i mean you have a whole chapter in here where you want to clean out all the dead wood and compete. but there you go into the presidents office and you say i want to do the same thing with 10% of the professors that are

worthless. >> guest: i don't find a lot of dead wood anymore. i really did in the 1970s and whether was dead wood or just people who were not excellent, page is pretty much didn't appear. i just don't think it's a serious problem anymore. what i do know and what i would know as the president is one of the things tenure does it gives people the possibility of devoting themselves with an institution for their whole life i see people just so thoroughly dedicated to the life of an institution that that is almost a calling and a cause beyond an occupation. without tenure, you just wouldn't see that kind of commitment. as a university president i would want people who can give 110% of 120% at 150%. i see a lot of that in without job security and without some

guarantee lifetime appointment after a probationary period and with regular reviews i don't think people would commit themselves as wholeheartedly as they do. i think tenure is what makes american campuses places where passionate controversial debate goes on. c-span: should the same rule apply to other faculties of our society like a corporation? >> guest: well i think there are some other kinds of work that deserve greater job security. if i were to pick one example of another kind of job that i think deserves greater job security it would actually be investigative reporting. american newspapers are losing large numbers of investigative reporters. they have to do work that is very critical of powerful

interests in the country and i would like to feel more comfortable that they couldn't be fired because they take somebody off. that is one example i think where some form of decreased job security, not necessarily tenure but something tenure like would benefit the country. c-span: how much of those investigative reporters ticking off their bosses is the reason for fewer and fewer investigative reporters? >> guest: if large-scale advertisers are angry at the kinds of stories a reporter is doing i think it really puts them at risk. c-span: if it became a problem they could change the venue and tell them they have to report on something else. >> you have to know what priorities newspaper said you know. obviously rupert or doc had an

influence on the character of american news coverage and reporting and that is not likely investigative reporting. it's putting the stories of hollywood stars and other things front and center rather than what is happening in the world. that doesn't include on line publications but i still think i don't count myself an expert at reporting. if i had to come up with an occupation beyond teaching were some kind of job security might be helpful that is one i would take. free press is essential to a democracy. what i can say is that, were not in california are we? when i meet faculty members who have no job security i often

meet faculty members who are afraid of being frank. i meet faculty members who say to me i was going to teach this book but i thought some of my students might get angry about it. i'd thought their parents might get angry about it. i want a semester by semester appointment. i will don't know if i will have a job next semester. c-span: we will have to shut it down. it's necessary at this stage to explain to the audience that in the last couple of minutes were a little unusual. on the date this was recorded august 23, we had an earthquake and that is why you heard the room moving around and then we vacated the studio and everyone vacated the buildings in washington. now we are back and we only have three minutes left in the interview. have you ever been an earthquake before? >> guest: no, early seismic changes affecting the landscape

but i've never been there when they actually physically to place. c-span: if you don't think we said anything in the interview to cause at? >> guest: it could be something someone said in washington d.c.. c-span: we have been talking about your book and also naomi riley spoke on tenure and academic freedom. your book is "no university is an island". at this stage in your career and after you have been the head of the american association -- for some reason i'm having trouble saying university. professor since 2006 where do you think it's all going to go based on watching your career up until now? what is ahead? >> guest: well i am worried that the trend that are unmistakable in education are not good. in