that doesn't just happen magically. folks want to make investments when they know what the rules of the road are. the rules of the road are consistent and to make sure competitive marketplace. cooper's law is important, but so is competition. and i'm not sure that just the department of justice in an industry this fast paced would be able to do it. on the other hand, i don't want the regulation to be -- you want them to as my old boss would say, you want one that's steering, not rowing. the runners are running and someone else is making sure when the gun goes off, nobody's cheating. and somebody, you know, the stopwatch at the end of the race. those are the kind of rules government should play, but no rules for the fcc. i'd have to catch -- we want to give him enough to do to justify that salary. okay.

>> i wanted to pick up what larry said, which is communications is special and different and part of it is because it promotes an exchange of ideas and conversation. we've had a spirited conversation here, but we would now like you to join. so for anyone who has a question, if you just identify yourself and also indicate, i want to get as many questions as possible. please frame whatever you're going to say as a question rather than a speech or commentary or anything else. and we have a couple of people from brookings who will have microphones. and i will identify the people who will be called on and then we'll proceed from there. >> so like jeopardy has to be in a form of a question? >> you bet. exactly. >> what's in the form of a question, stewart. >> okay. first question. >> you've answered every -- oh, there we go. >> right over here. >> thank you very much for this program, and thank you for the comments so far.

my question is -- sorry. i have been in cyber security and telecommunications for all of my professional life. what are your thoughts on the role the federal communications commission should be playing in cyber security for the general consumer? as you know, dhs has that role for critical infrastructure the 16 sectors. but i don't know of any agency that really has the responsibility for cyber security for the general consumer. >> excellent question. >> that's a great question. >> it is a great question. >> i'll be brief. first of all, the fcc does ha have -- actually the creation of a new bureau, which i voted for. chairman kevin martin, the homeland security bureau. but after 9/11 and also hurricane katrina, it became

very apparent that fcc needed at least a formalized coordinating body between other government agencies, federal, state and local as well as industry and consumers to help facilitate, public safety and homeland security issues. by the way, the fcc manages the spectrum for public safety. governmental but not what the department of commerce does. so, my personal view is that while the fcc can provide sort of a backup singer role to cyber security to advise agencies on how things work, et cetera, that there are a lot of government agencies already in the cyber security space. and it's not, still in my view, not very well coordinated. and we have some big holes. and some day, i think there will be a cyber security pearl harbor, whether it's from a nation state or just a lone wolf. so, i'm not sure the fcc is

really equipped, it's not big enough. doesn't have that sort of expertise, probably dhs, in my view, would be the best place for that. that was part of its job when it was chartered after 9/11. but i don't think the fcc should have a lead dog role in that but certainly should be part of the broader chorus to help with it. >> i would think there is a portion that has to be at the fcc because they do have subject matter expertise. i serve on some energy boards, we do need a coordinated effort, across government on cyber security because we get millions of pings a day, folks trying to come to our network of our most critical infrastructure. whether it's water, bridges, transportation, telecommunications. and no one agency can handle that, not even for consumers. to rob's point, we need to be vigilant. if you know as much as he knows and i know about what's happening in terms of pings, you don't sleep well at night

wondering what may happen. >> can i ask you a question? to use the word, the four-letter word everybody's using in washington, do we need a czar in this area? >> you asking him or me? >> both of you. >> i'll shy away from the term czar. you do need someone with the accountability and the responsibility. and if that's the coordination of a lot of different agencies and d.o.d. and dhs and the intelligence agency. there's a lot of government agencies involved. so who is in charge, who has accountability? >> no one is now. >> right. exactly. >> i wouldn't call it a czar. >> having -- in 2000, we had dick clark for the y2k issues. and he's an interesting personality. did a great job making sure everybody was focused 24 hours a dayen o keeping us up -- >> that's while producing american bandstand. >> and new year's eve. >> i don't know it would be a

bad idea either. i know a little bit too much. and it does -- you're only as strong as your weakest point. some can't make the investment to steel up against hundreds of thousands of pings. people are pinging into our networks to figure out how to get in and get out. they're not trying, just doing reconnaissance. and they know a lot more about our networks than we want them to know. and we need to be vigilant. >> yes. right over here. >> i'm brian fung with the "washington post." this is interesting. got a couple of questions, actually. very short. i was talking to someone yesterday who was telling me that one of the big reasons why the telecon act re-write happened in '96 was because, you know, there was concerns with the conditions attached to the a

at&t consent decree back in the '80s. and second question, for commissioner mcdowell, you know, are there things, we talked a lot about how there was a failure to predict a lot of things that, you know, technologically took place. were there things during your tenure that you feel like you missed or failed to predict? >> i'll take the first part of your question on at&t. no question, that was one force among many. because when we were -- larry and i were meeting. this cable telco thing was also a big deal. all right. that was a big driver. and that was independent of the desire for at&t for clarity. and also the operating companies. but it's clear that the telephone industry, as larry said, the biggest driver in the '96 act was trying to make a long distance market competitive which now, today is antiquated. that was a major force, but cable/telco was big. >> and everybody, it was a perfect storm.

because everybody needed something. you had the cable/telco, cable wanting, long distance on telco side. cable telco, broadcasters, other things happening in the '92 cable act were incorporated into this thing. you have consumers that were worried about whether it was going to be anarchy or how were we going to be protected? everybody wanted something and it was really the perfect time to try legislation. but even in the perfect legislation, bob and i met with our colleagues from 1993 until 1996 every tuesday morning for 90 minutes for 40 weeks a year. it took us three weeks to get that bill through and 90 minutes of the vice president of the united states time, every tuesday morning. and that's what it took to get that kind of a bill through, even with everybody kind of wanting it. there were lots of pieces, but there was no player who didn't get something that they thought would be benefit. now, at the end of the day, they all benefitted some and some folks benefitted in ways they never assumed they would. none of us saw the

reconsolidation of the bills. none of us saw how important wireless would be. none of us saw that the internet would go from, i think when we started the process, 2 million people online when we started o to -- at 56k, to when we got finished, 2 million people on the internet in 1993, by -- 100 million, globally, not just the united states. we couldn't see all that. so there was a lot of cut and paste for people's own economic benefit. and at the end of the day, the american people benefitted because we got most of it right. >> and just to do a little historical prequel, the '96 act started in 1978. and so there was really an 18-year process that began at the point where larry and bob and a number of these colleagues began to meet every day about this. in 1978, from the san diego district in california announced that he wanted to do an attic to basement re-write of the 1934

act. and so, as the congressman was the chairman of the subcommittee and he announced this as a top legislative priority. he then got the carter administration to agree to support and work with him, and what started it was the series of what we'll call option papers. so these are large books, now, you can access online which essentially laid out a variety of different options for rewriting the act. but the main goal there was to do a really top to bottom re-write as we've talked about today, most of what's been done since 1934 has been relatively piecemeal. certainly in 1996 is the most comprehensive re-write of the act. it clearly doesn't still qualify as this attic to basement type of legislation. so one of the questions going forward is whether or not a new

telecom act or communications act would it be an attic to basement approach? more of a tweaking approach, would it have some of the elements and the principles that we talked about that were in the telecom act of 1996. >> second part. >> real quick. so i think the commission, well, i was there for seven years, and so functionally under three chairs, two presidents, and it was a very interesting time and different dynamics to see. i think the commission in general didn't see the need for more spectrum, what the need would be. i think that was something. and also the virtues of some unlicensed use of spectrum. i favor exclusive use licenses overall. but unlicensed wireless carriers can find they can offload congestion there. also, though, spectrum policy in general failed to see at first

the flexible use policies. users of spectrum go ahead and use it for whatever you want provided there's no harmful interference. and that's the prime directive for you "star trek" fans, no harmful interference to others unless an unlicensed user. sometimes you do need it. now over the past few years, we found some satellite spectrum is good. that could also be used for terrestial broad band. you know, overprescribing in general, in trying to engineer markets as a general matter happens a lot at the fcc. and then markets work around that.

like i said earlier, we don't know what innovations don't come to mark. something almost impossible to measure due to a government policy. so there's a lot there, happy to talk to you more about it offline if you'd like. >> one thing making me crazy is spectrum sharing. there's an assumption that spectrum sharing works together. and it's difficult to make it work. you have this innovation band that everybody talks about, and 60% of the markets, can't use the innovation band, and the spectrum sharing is not working. we don't have the technology's not ready yet, the market's not ready yet. and it's holding back innovation. if we could get -- we need to get more focus on what the federal government -- i've been saying for six years that we need a real inventory of spectrum uses. and even if you have to make some of it black box and folks of a certain clearance now, you need to know who is using it and have a sense of whether or not

there are better and higher uses. we have had an abysmal effort at clearing spectrum. in terms of making folks really focus. what's interesting is, from what i hear in the street, the defense department is better than most of the other federal agencies, which is also state department, transportation department, faa, whole bunch of folks in there getting that information from them is a very, very difficult process. and, you know, as a guy who used to run that office, i know where some of the bodies are buried. keep trying to tell folks, you need to get the spectrum on inventory. and no one will force that spectrum inventory. congress hasn't forced it. the white house hasn't forced it. industry hasn't been able to get them to do it. and i can't for the life of me talking about a $1 trillion plus opportunity -- >> you know where jimmy hoffa is buried? >> don't know that. >> every time cruise does his dance. no. >> that's right here.

>> i'm an intern here, actually. i want to thank you for coming. i had a question about the app economy. extremely unregulated at this point. a recent article said nearly 40% of those working in the valley thought there was a large bubble in that part of the economy. and with apps like uber and respective industries of transit and hotels, a large area that needs some sort of regulation or at least some sort of action. i wondered if the -- what role the fcc might have in that or other agencies. thanks. >> i'll be really quick. so, you know, the great thing about the app economy there are kids in grade school writing apps. and great ideas being formulated right now.

there'll be some brand that will become ubiquitous. people are predicting there's a bubble, there might be certain companies that have a limited life span based on their business plan. and i'm not going to comment specifically on those. i think that will continue to be very dynamic part of the worldwide economy that brings untold consumer benefits and all sorts of things we can't imagine right now. and i'm very, very excited and bullish and optimistic. >> and i would agree with that and i don't see a role for regulation. >> and we can all say the same thing. the concept, that keeps me up more than cyber security does. that is a profoundly bad idea. >> and no legal authority to do so. >> exactly. >> bad idea. >> i want to talk about the courts, they've been lurking in all of this. usually legislation and particularly what the fcc does

gets reviewed by the courts. and so i'd be interested in your viewpoints. obviously what we've seen in recent years and i know rob can tell us from the inside is a great sensitivity in terms of whether or not a commission decision will be appealed, what happens after the appeal. one question is, is there a different balance struck in terms of how courts review this right now. in fact, the court's review under a different act called the administrative procedure act, 1946. which applies to all independent regulatory agencies and essentially says that the agency needs to act in a way that is not arbitrary capricious or not otherwise in accordance with law. that's the appellate standard that's applied now.

but it is applied across the board through this other piece of legislation. there's no magic, you could have a new communications act, which essentially says we will have a new standard for appellate review in this particular area. so i'd be interested to know a little bit about the balance between the courts and the particular sensitivity, obviously, that the commission has to courts potentially overturning what the commission does. >> and i'll try to be brief. excellent question, by the way. so, it's part of our democratic system. you know, we have three branches of government. one can argue the independent administrative agencies and we can argue the constitutionality of that. but that's for the next brookings event. but so you have the legislation regulation litigation cycle. and it seems all lawyered up, by the way, this is an argument against -- or before the fact regulation, as well because of the time that takes.

but it is all part of due process. if you have to distill the apa to two words, it's due process. was there due process given and abuse of discretion by whatever agency. and that's very, very important. because these administrative agencies, look, i was an unelected washington bureaucrat. i'm a recovering unelected washington bureaucrat. but i can't be removed unless through impeachment by the senate and that's never happened at the fcc. so, you can be called before congress and yelled at. they could -- congress can limit your funding, but it is easy in a way for the fcc to go off its congressional tether. for it to be unbounded. for there to be no fence around the fcc's authority. and that becomes oligarchical. do you want that? is that democratic? so you need court review occasionally or all the time maybe to put the fcc or other

agencies, executive branches, as well, back in their boxes, and because the authority really lies, should lie under our constitution in the hands of the directly elected representatives of the american people. and that's congress and the president. and that's why when we make new law, congress passes a bill, president signs it or vetoes it or congress overrides that veto. it's an important part, it can be frustrating. as a commissioner, as i was writing, or either writing concurrences or dissents, i was mindful that somebody was going to appeal this no matter what we do. let's help the law clerks understand what's going on here. so it's part of -- it's part of the process. >> i know bob has to leave in a couple of minutes. i wanted to at least pose a question we could all talk about before bob departs, which is picking up on what larry's talking about, the perfect storm that helped create the '96 act.

in the future, if we do have a new re-write, some revision of the communications act, why do you think the elements of that perfect storm might look like? what forces might drive legislation in this area? >> well, i know we don't want to utter this magic word net neutrality, but i've got to. there's scenario in which people advocating net neutrality don't get satisfied in any, way, shape or form. i'm not predicting anything about what the fcc is going to say. even if the fcc agrees with the crowd that there ought to be a special title and be regulated, that's going to be challenged in court. and/or, the fcc's going to have to decide whether or not to allow what's called paid prioritization or faster service. even as a common carrier, for

example, you can still have reasonable discrimination. and you can imagine the broadband companies that can be on the losing side of this decision going to the fcc and petitioning them and saying, hey, wait a minute, it's reasonable for us to charge a higher rate to netflix that has 30% more traffic on the internet than anyone else. one scenario is, we don't have satisfaction over the net neutrality. and that becomes a political movement, and the people would go to congress and say woo e'vet to fix the act somehow. and once there is at least one train moving in that direction, other people can then jump on and add their own things and you get a re-write of the act. that's one scenario. another scenario, suppose republicans take over congress. >> yeah. >> the senate. >> the senate. >> that's right. the other one. all right. so they get the senate and obviously they don't have the presidency. but imagine a scenario when they win the presidency in 2016 and they've got both houses of

congress. and, by the way, i'm not a republican, all right. even though i've advocating a skinny fcc. and in a sort of one-party rule kind of government 2016, maybe that becomes something that the republicans push because there's no one to -- so you imagine some scenarios that could do this and i'm just teeing it up for my colleagues here and they can probably give you more scenarios. >> so i'll start -- and i think we're pretty close to a place where people -- i'm not necessarily as far along the fcc line. but i think the process needs to step up. you have mergers that sit there for years and it's wasteful to have this amount of time. folks are a little tired of that. we've got to figure out what is the right regulatory model for the internet? and i hope it'll be as minimal as possible. i think what we do in the united states has huge impact.

that will look at overly regulatory model here and look at way to leapfrog or boot strap themselves into internet policy we don't want them getting into. i think you've got some real issues with regard to spectrum. all of those issues are trillion dollar issues. we have a massive issue with regard to universal service. our universal service, system we have now has to be rethought and reconfigured and want to make sure everybody in this country has access. think about a network, 5g telecommunications. we went from 56k to the average person getting 10, 12, in the united states, i'm getting 100 at home. that's a leap going from 10 to a gig. that's an even bigger leap. and one of the things we need to see in terms of the investments in the markets, lots of players who have lots of interest in seeing us get this right. we want a faster fcc, a smoother fcc, an fcc that is the silos

that we looked at before in an analog world. you tell me who is a broadcaster, a cablecaster, telco, and tell me who has what roles and does it make sense to have them silo into a different bureau at the fcc. all of those areas need to be re-thunk. we will think about reforming the fcc. with regard to silos, but also keeping first principles. what's the fcc there for? to promote competition for the benefit of consumers and people sometimes competitors confused. it's competition, not competitors. advocating for competition will benefit consumers. all of us have access and the benefits, making them as secure as they can and redundant as possibly can. those are the kinds of benchmarks, diversity, access to network. really should be all about. if we have those kind of

discussions. i say take the whole act. what would we do? what would the act look like if we're starting fresh, how we should start the process. 8:00 i know we'll never get a complete, you know, re-thinking of it. but i think from the want part of me, what do we want this to look like. and let's figure out the political process to get as close to that nirvana as possible. >> thank you. >> the last word and then i'll reserve the last word for myself. >> sure. so i think that the original question was, what has to happen in order for there to be a re-write? >> well, with elements -- >> well, i think for the interested parties, there has to be at a minimum nothing to lose as they enter that process for them to support legislation and a maximum, something for them to gain. and that's going to be very, very difficult as you pointed out. it was a multi-year, multi-decade, '78's the longest

i've heard. i always marked it from 1984 from the -- with the breakup of at at&t. but we can go back to 1978, certainly. took years for that, highly complex. and that was not a fundamental re-write of the '34 act. it is this foundation, a bedrock foundation for all the subsequent acts that larry mentioned, you mentioned were built upon. cable acts, satellite acts. everything. it's all been built on top of the 1934 act. so if you want to dig up that foundation, that's going to take a lot of work. there's a lot for different industries and parties to lose bill doing that. there's the devil you know and the devil you don't know. if you're an industry player. in a way it's better to have the certainty of the law so you know how to build around it or live with it somehow rather than a new law which then goes through

that legislation litigation cycle i talked about. so if -- a, you've got to pass the bill and signed into law, that can take years. b, it's got to be litigated because fcc or somebody's going to start implementing it. if you can think in terms of consumers, i always like to start thinking about consumers, what are they benefitting from today? where the future's going, nobody can predict. i think we've all agreed. but so what's going on today and how do you address systemic market failure. i hope that would be part of the conversation. i think the fuel for rewrite would be federal speck truck, there's a lot of agreement in terms of federal government needs to relink wish its spectrum. carrots and sticks.

deadlines and such. and that could be the fuel and the glue for an act. but that, at the same time, that idea could spin off on its own. as we saw this with a spectrum act of 2012, big bipartisan support for that. as well as the dtv act. so it's all possible, but very, very difficult and uphill battle. >> well, as we blow out the candles on the 80th birthday cake, my wish in blowing out the candles is that the conversation continues. and obviously, i think as we've illustrated today, this will be a continuing conversation. hopefully, a good part of that conversation will take place here at brookings. i'd like to thank our wonderful, wonderful panelists -- everyone who has been here today. thank you so much. >> i just want to make sure you all know that any comments i made were purely mine, did not

reflect any organizations, any clients i've had, personally have or have lost over the last nine minutes. >> ditto. >> that would apply to everyone else. thank you so much.

tonight on c-span 3, washington journal's interview with the university of minnesota president eric kalor. part of our series of on universities in the big 10 conference. that'll be a portion of this year's conference, selected from the annual convention and views on progressive politics from the campaign for america's future. you can see it all beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. c-span's 2014 is bringing you more than 100 debates this election season. you can see three of them tonight. 8:00 p.m. eastern, the debate for the 11th congressional district for representative michael grimm and his democratic challenger. then at 9:00, another new york house debate with democratic congressman shawn maloney.

illinois republican incumbent rodney davis and democratic challenger debate for the state's 13th district seat. see these debates beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. >> c-span's 2015 student cam competition is underway. this nationwide competition for middle and high school students will award 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a 5-7 minute documentary on the topic, the three branches and you. go to studentcam.org for more information. grab a camera and get started today. >> former neurosurgeon spoke at the national press club back in may. including the national debt, the health care law and his political prospects. dr. carson spends most of his

time as a conservative kp commentator. he came in third at the conservative political action conference. this is about an hour. >> i'm an adjunct professor at the school of public affairs. committed to our profession's future through our programming with events such as this while fostering a free press. for more information, please visit our website at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i'd like to welcome our speaker and those of you attending today's event.

tables include guests who are club members. if you hear applause in our audience, i note members of the general public are attending, it's not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. i'd also like to welcome our c-span and public radio. after our guest speech concludes, we'll have a question and answer period, i'll ask as many questions as time permits. now it's time to introduce our head table guests, i'd like each of you to stand briefly as your name is announced. from your right. director of the missouri journalism washington program. fredericka dunn travel writer for the jamestown post journal in new york city. new york state. michelle vu, christian post.

doris margolas, and co-organizer of today's luncheon. co-author of two books with her husband who is our guest speaker today and co-founder of the carson scholars fund. reporter, "usa today," former national press club president and vice chair of the speaker's committee. skipping over our speaker for a minute, president, artistically speaking and organizer of today's event, thank you so much, maryilou. >> kelly wright, editor, "washington post," and kirby wilber, executive director of the national journalism center.

although well known in his field, he was a pediatric brain surgeon, he was not on the political radar until his keynote speech at last year's national prayer breakfast. with president obama also on the day yus, he also spoke about the lack of education, tax system, health care. he proposed a personal health savings account for everyone and approached quite different from the affordable care act. some view the speech of the president. it caught the eye of conservatives and led dr. carson to the national stage and a weekly column in the "washington times." and now, some are encouraging

him to run for the republican presidential nomination. while his views on social issues fit comfortably in the gop's right wing, he also advocates pragmatism. note the following from his column last week. and i quote, if conservatives are going to win in 2014 and 2016 and preserve the environment of freedom to which we have grown accustomed, it'll be necessary to learn how to prioritize issues. the executive branch remains in the hands of those with secular progressive ideas in 2016 and two or three more supreme court justices with similar leanings are appointed, conservative social ideas will become

anathema to the prevailing powers who will use every tool available to them to silence such opposition, unquote. born into poverty and raised in inner city detroit, dr. carson graduated from high school with honors, received a degree in psychology from yale and earned a medical degree at the university of michigan. at age 33, dr. carson became the youngest doctor ever to head a major division at john hopkins hospital. he's the author of several books and with his wife, the creat creatcreator, together the creator of a scholarship program for children in grades 4 to 11. dr. carson's prayer breakfast speech formed a backbone of his newest book, "one nation: what we can all do to save america's future." a topic he will address today. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in a warm welcome to the national prez club for dr.

benjamin carson. >> thank you. thank you so much. candy and i are absolutely honored to be here. and i'm going to tell you at the end of the talk why i think the press is so important. and what their role is in a free society. first of all, let me tell you that i am so grateful i was born in this country, which is still a land of dreams. . and my dream as a youngster was to be a doctor. you know, i loved anything that had to do with medicine. all that stuff. man, i couldn't get enough of that. i even like going to the

doctor's office. so it tells you that i was a bit of a strange kid. but, you know, there were a lot of problems along the way. you know, my parents got divorced early on. my mother discovered that the man she had married when she was 13 years old was a bigamist. and, you know, that resulted in a divorce. she only had a third grade education. . and the job of raising two young sons all by herself in the inner city. but the key thing about my mother and the thing she passed on to us that i think was so important is she refused to be a victim. and she refused to allow us to be victims. and, you know, she just said whatever the situation is, i will deal with it. and that's what she told us to do. and there wasn't enough money ever she would get in a car, take us out to the country,

knock on a farmer's door and say can we pick four bushels of your corn or apples or beans? . they always liked that deal. and she would bring this stuff home and can it. and buy two patches and put it on there and people would be saying where did you get those pants? i need some like that. and she was -- she would stretch every penny, nickel, dime, save everything. drive a car until it would not make a noise again. then go out and buy a new car and people would be saying, how can that woman afford a new car? what is she doing? she must be selling drugs or her body or something. but you know, she was just thrifty. she understood economics. in fact, i'm certain if she was secretary of treasury, we would not be in a deficit situation right now.

but, you know, fortunately, you know, i was -- i was able to benefit from her wisdom because she worked as a domestic, cleaning other people's houses. leaving at 5:00 in the morning, getting back after midnight day after day. she worked so hard because she didn't want to be on welfare. she noticed anybody on welfare generally did not come off of it. and she occasionally had to accept food stamps, but it was rare. and she just felt that she needed to be an independent soul. and i was a horrible student and she was the one that made me start reading books, and my brother also. i must say, i didn't like the idea, she came home, turned the tv off and said you're going to read two books from the library and submit to me two book reports. which she couldn't read and we didn't know that. she'd put check marks and

highlights, we thought she was reading. but there i was stuck in the house reading books and everybody else was having a great deal of fun. i just hated it. and some people say, why did you do it? your mother wasn't there. she was out working. she would've known if you didn't do it. and back in those days, you had to do what your parents told you. there was no social psychologist saying let the kid express themselves. you just had to do what you were supposed to do. as i started reading those books, an interesting thing occurred, i really had a transformation of who i was. started reading about people of great accomplishment. and i began to understand who it was that was responsible for my life. and it was me. not somebody else. not the environment, not some circumstance. and i used to hate poverty. but as i read more and more about people, poverty didn't

bother me anymore, because i knew i couldn't change it. i knew it was within my own power to change it. and i developed the can do attitude that really has had a profound effect on my entire career. ask if i listened to so many people, so many aspects of my neurosurgical career, i would not be standing here talking to you today. i encourage people to utilize those gifts and think in a creative manner and think about what you can do, not what you can't do. there's so many negative people that you encounter. i did poorly on the first set of comprehensive exams. i was sent to see my counselor. he said you seem like an intelligent young man. i bet there are a lot of things you can do outside of medicine. and he tried to convince me to drop out of medical school.

he said you're not cut out for medicine and you've got to make yourself and everybody else miserable and we can help you get into another discipline. seemed like a kind thing, but it wasn't. it went back to my apartment, started contemplating, and said, lord, help me figure this out. what kind of courses do you struggle in? what kind of courses do you do well in. >> i did well in courses where i did a lot of reading. so i made an executive decision to skip the lectures and spend that time reading. and the rest of medical school was a snap after that. and i remember going back to my medical school some years later as the commencement speaker, and i was -- -- i was looking for that counselor. because i was going to tell him

he wasn't cut out to be a counselor. because, you know, there are so many people that are negative, negative, negative that can tell you what's wrong with something and why something can't be done. and that's such a big problem in our society today. you know, i must make a disclaimer. and that disclaimer is that i am not politically correct. and i don't like political correctness. and i totally refuse to submit to political correctness. and actually derive a great deal of pleasure watching the left wing as they, you know, try to dissect everything i say, you know, and -- did he say nazi? he didn't say nazi, no, he did not. you know.

which i did say it and, you know, very appropriate context. i said most of those people in nazi germany did not believe in what hitler was doing. but did they open their mouths? no. and what happened? and what does happen? when people don't open their mouths? and when they don't stand up for what they believe in. because freedom is not free. and nevertheless, i just find it so amusing, you know, the other day i said that the v.a. scandal was a gift from god. and, of course, any thinking person knows that what i'm saying is that the revelation of what happens when you create layers and layers of bureaucrats between people creates this kind of problem. and it's a good thing that something happened that will show even the most partisan person what to expect when you

take health care and put it in the hands of the government. but, of course, the left wing says carson says god wants veterans to die. it's -- it's -- it would be comical if it weren't so sad. that's where our nation has gone. it's like we have a bunch of grown up third graders, you know. they call people names, trying to divide people. and this is what i see as one of the biggest problems in our society today. you know, the reason that canadikandi and i wrote "one nation" is to illustrate to people that we, the american people, are not each other's enemies. the enemies are those people who are trying to drive a wedge in every little crack they can find to create, you know, racial w s wars, gender wars, income wars,

age wars, any kind of war that you can present. those guys are against you. they're keeping you from whatever. and it's so silly, but this stuff is straight out of -- one of his rules for radicals, don't have a conversation. you know, and political correctness is the key way to keep people from having a conversation. throws this blanket over your conversation. you can't say that. you can't talk about that. you can't think that. says who? isn't this still america? it was the last time i looked. huh? and what we really need to start doing, all of us. when you're watching the news or you're reading a newspaper or a magazine, get a piece of paper out. and write on the top of it so

that you can put little check marks under it, objective journalism in one column, smear campaign on the other side. and just listen to it. and check it off. and what you will find is that there's certain columnists, certain pundits, who never actually address the real issue at hand. they go off on some tangent. they start calling people names. they start trying to demonize folks. and you never quite get to the actual issue at hand. and it's one of the reasons that it's so important that our populists become educated again, they become informed again. the founders of our nation said our freedom and our system of government is based upon a

well-informed and educated populace. and if they ever become anything other than that, the nature of the country will change. why? because people would not have the wherewithal to analyze what they're hearing. and they could be very easily led. just like sheep to the slaughter. by slick politicians and dishonest media. this is what we are dealing with. this is what is in the process of destroying our nation. now, i know what the left wing -- [ applause ] i know what the left wing will say. they will say, carson said the american people are too stupid to know anything. because that's the only way that they know how to report. they don't actually know how to report the right kinds of things. but i think we have to start calling them out on all of this silliness. and i think it is so important

that we hold the press to a higher standard. they can't do what they do -- [ applause ] [ applause ] because -- a free and vibrant society applause ] [ applause ] because -- a free and vibrant socie [ applause ] because -- a free and vibrant society [ applause ] because -- a free and vibrant socie [ applause ] because -- a free and vibrant socie is dependent upon a free truth. a press that is free to tell the truth, be objective, and not choose sides. because when the press chooses sides they give license to the side that they chose to ignore the law, to ignore the constitution, to do anything they want and not be called into question for it. and when that happens, the freedoms in a society disappear. that is a law of the press. you can go back throughout history and read about it. and at some point, members of

the press, just like members of political parties, have to stop and say, you know what? my loyalty is not to this party or that party. my loyalty is to america. that's what's going to make the difference. and we have to stop making issues into partisan issues. i mean, look at our national debt. $17.5 trillion, moving rapidly toward $18 trillion. do you know how much money that is? if you tried to pay that back at $1 billion a day, i mean, that's a lot of money, $1 billion. it would take you 47 years. you know, that's a ridiculous amount -- the only reason we can do it is because our dollar is

the reserve currency of the world. what if it wasn't? if it may not be forever because that's a status that usually goes to the number one economic power in the world, which we have been since the 1870s, and will not be by the end of this year. because of our incredibly sluggish growth. and why do we have such sluggish growth? because we have asinine economic policies. you think about this. think about this. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. and we sit here and we complain about companies doing business overseas. that indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of what capitalism is. people don't go into business to support the government. they go into business to make money.

so a wise government creates an environment that is conducive to business. not one that drives it out and then blames them and demonizes them. that doesn't make any sense. a wise government has a tax structure that is truly fair. not one that oppresses people. and i will soon be coming out with some principles of taxation. one of which is, no american should have to pay more than 37% of what they earn in taxes. and i'm talking about all taxes. i'm talking about federal, state, local, all taxes. 37%. that's more than one-third of what you make. i think that's reasonable. now, we can make it 42% for those who make over $1 million, just so that the left wing can be satisfied that somebody's getting messed up.

but, you know -- but, i mean, anybody who's paying more than 50% of what they make in all taxes, that disincentivizes people. what we need to recognize is when you incentivize people and you get people working hard and you get people creating businesses it creates a much bigger pot. in fact, the government will wind up with a lot more money, not with less money. but we have to get people to understand that. not people who think that you take the money from this group and if you give to it this group, then that will be fair. and by the way, this group doesn't even pay any fair income tax but they should have a say in what this group pays. how does that sound fair? that's not fair at all. proportionality. that's what's fair. you make a lot, you pay a lot. you make a little, you pay a little. you make $10 billion, you pay $1

billion. the wonderful thing about our nation in a system like that, the guy who paid $1 billion and the guy who paid $1 have the same rights. that's what america is about. we're not about dividing people and up creating class envy. in fact if you go back and you look at at neomarxist literature what do they say, what do they emphasize? the importance of class envy, that you can never let it rest. have you noticed anybody who does that in our society? i'm not mentioning any names. but i'm telling you. it's rampant. and this is what we've got to stop. and we've got to become compassionate. when i talk about compassionate, we have to think about the next generation. i grew up in detroit. so i'm very sensitive to this. detroit was once the wealthiest city in america. and now it's the largest bankruptcy. and what happened? people kept kicking the can down the road. they refused to accept responsibility for what was going on.

some people say it was the unions. and yes, they played a big role in it, but unions do what unions do. i mean, they will gladly strangle the goose that laid the golden egg, just give me that egg right now, i don't care about anything else in the future. but the big three automakers had very smart executives. and i blame them just as much because they knew that if they kept conceding to the demands of the unions, that one day the price would have to be paid. but they also knew that by that time, they would have long disappeared in their golden parachutes and it would not be their problem. and this is exactly what we are doing today in this nation. we have no regard whatsoever for the people who come behind us. we just want ours right now. it is incredibly selfish, it is unamerican, and we have to stop it. we just can't do it.

and why do i rail so much against the affordable care act? well, i wouldn't rail against it if it was the affordable care act. but it's the unaffordable care act. the fact of the -- the real reason, it's not because of the rollout and all the computer glitches and the prevary cases that surrounded it being passed. it's not about the increasing premiums and the inefficiency and the bureaucracy. it's about the fact that we are taking the most important thing that a person has, their health and their health care, and we're putting it under the hands of bureaucrats and government. how can you give away your most important asset to the government? because they can control your most important asset, it is not long before they can control everything else. and i want you to go read what saul levinsky and what vladamir

lenin said about that. i think people need to educate themselves. so that you know what's going on. so that you know what the agenda is. so that you know how to combat it. if you won't know that if you don't educate yourself in terms of what's going on in our society. and i think it's also incredibly important that when we gain control again -- when i say we, i'm not talking about any particular political party. i'm talking about people with common sense. when we gain control again -- [ applause ][ applause ] what we have to remember is that we are not going to treat the secular progressives the way that they treated us. we are going to govern based on the constitution of the united states of america.

and we're not going to have special favors. we're going to have only one special interest group and that's the american people. i'm talking about all the american people. the downdrtrodden in our countr have been abused so much over the last several decades by so-called do-gooders who have made them into a dependent class. we don't want a dependent class, we want everybody, we want the 47% to ascend to the highest levels possible. we have to put the right programs in place. we have to look at things like what mohammad unis, who won the nobel prize for his theory on microeconomics and has lifted millions of people out of poverty in pakistan, in india, those things will work right here in america. we are responsible for putting those things together. because all of us, no matter

what our socioeconomic class and status, we're all in the same boat. if part of the boat sinks the rest of it's going down too. we have to recognize that that is the reason that we are called the united states of america. thank you. >> okay, we want to begin the questions. please be seated so we can -- we want to use every minute possible to ask dr. carson questions and to hear his responses. dr. carson, were you surprised by the attention you received following the 2013 national prayer breakfast? why do you think you struck such a chord? >> yeah, i didn't expect it to be quite to that level. i knew something special was

going to happen when i was asked to do it. because i had spoken 16 years earlier at the prayer breakfast when president clinton was there. and i didn't think anybody ever did it twice. and i asked and they said, one person has and that's billy graham. well, i knew i was in pretty good company and i figured the good lord had something he wanted me to say. and i didn't know what it was until the morning of the prayer breakfast. and i knew it struck a chord but i didn't expect it to be so deep and abiding. and what has happened is that all of those people who have given up on america are starting to think that maybe they're not the only ones who feel that way. maybe there is some logic and some common sense. maybe there is hope. and that's what i represent to a lot of people. i think there are a lot of people who could represent that same thing. and i'm very much hoping that one of those people will come along soon, you know, who really

understands the constitution, who understands freedom, what true freedom is all about, who understands how to empower people, who understands economics and the importance of taking the heavy foot of government off the neck of business and industry, and who understands that this is, in fact, a judeo christian nation with real values. >> political pundits have defined you as a conservative, particularly following the prayer breakfast. how would you define yourself politically? >> that's easy. i consider myself logical. and, you know, as far as i'm concerned, common sense should be in both parties. that's why it's called common sense. so, you know, you look at something that has been

politicized. you know, like benghazi. now, what's the big issue there? the big issue, as far as i'm concerned, is that we are telling our troops that if you get into a difficult situation, you're on your own. we're not coming to help you. even though we have always had your back, we no longer have your back if you get in trouble. and we're also saying that, you know, we don't care if we put you in a place where we can't protect you. these are horrible messages. these are not partisan messages, these are something that should outrage every one of us. every one of us should want to get to the bottom of that. but you have one group saying, no, no, we've asked all the questions, it's okay, forget about it. how did we get to that place in our nation? so because i want to know the answers to that, because i want to know the answers to what happened with the irs abuse of government, which affects

everybody, i don't think that necessarily makes me a conservative. i think that makes me an american who understands america and what freedom really is. >> if this is, as you just said, a judeo christian country, how would you govern to include those who are not jewish or christian? >> the same way that we always have. everybody's free to do whatever they want to do. and to try to impose one's religious beliefs upon someone else is absolutely not what we should be doing. but we also need to understand that that goes in both directions. and, you know, someone who is an atheist doesn't have a right to tell somebody who isn't an atheist what they can or cannot do or what they can or cannot say. so we have to be fair but it has

to be fair in both directions. >> are you now registered with any of the political national parties? if not, will you? >> i am and have been for many years a registered independent. i have experienced both parties. i have been a democrat. i mean, quite a flaming liberal democrat. and i have been a republican. quite a very conservative republican. and now i'm an independent. i have voted for people in all different parties. in fact, i don't really even like the party system. i would be in favor of a new law that said, people's party affiliation cannot be on the ballot. and therefore you would actually have to know who the person was and what you were voting for. that would make a big difference.

>> politics in this country is terribly polarized. is there room for someone who won't toe the line for either party? >> i think we have to make room. you know, we have to remember -- and this is so essential if our nation is to survive as the pinnacle nation of the world that we are americans first. not that we are democrats, not that we are republicans. not that we are independents. this is destroying us. a wise man, name of jesus christ, once said, a house divided against itself cannot stand. it never has stood. it never will stand. we are an exceptional nation.

there's some people who try to make you believe that we're not. but just think about all of those people who preceded you. think about the nathan hales of the world, a teenage rebel, spy, caught, ready to be executed. he says, my only regret is that i have but one life to give for my nation. think about all of those troops stepping over their dead comrades. normandy. being mowed down by the hundreds. not fearing for themselves. but fighting for you. changing the course of the world. those are the people who preceded us, who cared about us. and the question is, do we care about those who are coming after us? and if we do we have to manifest the same kind of courage.

>> you are sometimes described as a tea party favorite. but is there a formal organization that could be defined as a tea party? what does it mean to be a tea party favorite? >> well, i hope it means being a favorite of ordinary americans who feel that they have a right to say of what goes on in their country. and the reason that they've been demonized by so many is because there has formed an elite group who feels that they are the ones who get to say what everybody else does and that this is a country that is for of and by the government. the tea party is saying, no, no, no. it's for of and by the becampeo. and they're not a formal, organized group. they're you, you, you, me, anybody who cares about freedom

in this nation. we love to label people but they're just ordinary americans who want to have a say. >> from where do you expect to draw the mest supporst supporto? >> honestly, i don't care. and i'm serious. as long as i have the support of god. that's what matters to me. i think that one of the reasons that this nation rose to the pinnacle of the world so fast, faster than anybody in the history of the world, is because we live by godly principles. of loving your fellow man. of caring about your neighbor.

of developing your god-given talents to the utmost. to become value of people around you. of having values and principles that govern your life. and if we can regain that, then we truly will have one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> what steps have you taken toward a presidential run in 2016? >> i have taken no steps towards such a thing. and i got to tell you, i do not wish that job upon anybody.

including myself. have you noticed how people age when they get into that thing? i mean, after a long and arduous career of neuro surgery, i was l looking forward to learning how to play the organ and playing golf and learning new languages. i bought all these rosetta stones, you know. but it appears to me that perhaps god has a different plan for me. you know, i -- [ applause ] i don't know what those plans are right now. it's to continue to go around trying to wake our nation up and

help the people to realize that our strength is in our unity. and we need to stop fighting each other. and we need to pool our collective resources. we have a lot of intellect. and we're very innovative people. and if we just stop this "may way or the highway" stuff and work together we really can be an effective force and we need to recognize that if we go off the world scene as the pinnacle nation, we will be replaced by somebody else. and the likelihood that they will be as benign as we are is extremely unlikely. just go back and read your history books about what the world was like before we became the pinnacle power. >> you say -- [ applause ]. you say you are concerned about partisan politics gumming up the governing process.[ applause ]. you say you are concerned about partisan politics gumming up the governing process. your views seem very much to the right. can you cite any example of liberal or progressive views you support?

>> i can cite many evidences of comm commonsense things that i advocate. and that's what i advocate. i don't advocate for what's conservative or for what's liberal. i advocate for what makes sense. and what makes sense for our entire nation. now, if that tends to be looked at as conservative, and maybe people should note that in their own lives. >> a few medical-related or health care-related questions. you have been highly critical of obamacare. how would you fix the health care system in this country? >> i'm glad you asked that question. key thing for me is to make sure that the most important thing you have, your health care, is in your own hands. so there are a number of ways that i would fix it.

but the linchpin is health savings accounts. because you have control of that yourself. we have a number of different ways that they can be funded. bear in mind we already spend more than twice as much per capita on health care in this nation as the next closest nation in the world. so it's not a matter of putting resources in, it's a matter of using them the right way. give everybody a health savings account the day they are born and then keep it until the day they die. and you have control over that. you sprain your ankle? you need an x-ray? comes out of your hsa. need a physical exam for a new general? hsa. birth control pills? hsa. no hobby lobby issues. very few things are coming out of your catastrophic or bridge insurance. the costs of that will plummet. you make it cumulative. in other words, if you don't use it, you don't lose it. it keeps accumulating. since you have it from the time

of birth and it's accumulating each year and the vast majority of the people aren't using substantial amounts of it well into adulthood, they're accumulating enormous amounts of money. the other kicker is you allow people to shift money within their health savings account within their family. so say the father's $500 short, the mother can give $500 out of hers or the son or the grandmother or anybody in the family. every family becomes its even insurance -- own insurance company with no middleman. incredible amount of flexibility. other things aren't handled that way. american legacy pac, go to that website and you can read all about it. more things are coming out each week. and i've been trying to encourage congress that they need to start looking at some alternatives. because the fact of the matter is, anybody who knows much about economics knows that the current

system that is law now, i will admit, is unsustainable. it just won't work. so what will eventually happen after it collapses is people will say, well, let's just have a single-payer system. and -- but we are being proactive. we're coming out with things that everybody will be able to understand and will be able to see for themselves. all the numbers are being worked out. that it's much less expensive, give you control, and when you control it then it brings the whole medical system into the free market. that's how you control costs. that's how you control quality. >> do you think the obama administration is handling the va crisis seriously enough? why or why not? >> no.

i think that any type of system that places a large number of bureaucrats between the people and their care is a bad system. did they mean well? yes. have i worked in va facilities? yes. are there many wonderful people there who have dedicated their lives to taking care of our veterans? absolutely. but there's a lot of bureaucracy there. and it needs to be fixed. and people need to be held accountable. that's one of the problems that i have with this administration. you know, you have to hold people accountable. you know, in the bible, in the book of proverbs, it says, if a ruler hearkens to lies all his servants are wicked. and basically what that means, if you don't hold people accountable, people will observe that and pretty soon they'll say, well, i can get away with that too, i can do this. so, yes, there needs to be accountability. and as long as i'm talking about

accountability, it's hard to have accountability when you have a government that is so large that nobody can even comprehend where all the problems are. it tells us that we need to reduce the government. i talk in the book about how to do that in a compassionate way. by attrition. we have thousands of government workers that retire every year. let them go. and if we need to -- more workers in this particular area we can shift somebody from another area. within five years you've got a lean and trim and efficient government. we have to create efficiencies as we go. but these are not difficult things to do and they're not things that have to be mean to anybody. again, we use our collective intellect, our collective common sense, and start thinking about how we improve ourselves. how we improve our government. and stop pointing fingers at each other. you'll notice that i never say horrible things about the president. i may say horrible things about his policies.

but i don't say horrible things about him or about anybody, for that fact, because why get in the mud and act like third graders when we have such big problems to solve? >> why did you decide to retire as a neurosurgeon, a very successful one? are there other doctors out there who can do or want to do what you did? >> it's very simple. somebody told me that neurosurgeons die early. and i didn't believe it so i wrote down the name of the last ten neurosurgeons i knew who died. calculated the average age of death. and it was 61. so i said, if i'm still alive, i will retire when i'm 61. and i did. >> can you give us more details about the carson scholars fund and the recipients of the money

from that fund? >> well, you know, ken and i noticed many years ago when we would go massachusetts schools we would see all these trophy. all-state basketball, all-state wrestling, all-state this, that and the other. quarterback was the big man on campus. what about the academic superstar? what did they get? little national honor society pin? pat on the head? there, there, little nerd. you know? nobody really cared that much about them. and at the same time we were aware of a survey, international survey, looking at the ability of eighth grade equivalence to solve so-called complex math and science problems. and we came in number 21 out of 22. well, that was really quite alarming. so we said, we've got to do something about this. so we started giving out scholar awards to children starting in the fourth grade. from the fourth to the eleventh grade. from all backgrounds.

who achieve at the highest academic levels and demonstrated humanitarian qualities. that they cared about other people. because we're trying to develop future leaders. we need people who are not just smart but people who actually care about others. and 1996, we started with 25 scholars. and now we've given out over 6,200 scholars in all 50 states. and we also have a reading room component to it. we put reading rooms all over the country. and they're fascinating places that no little kid would pass up. we put them in all kinds of places but we particularly target title 1 schools where a lot of kids come from homes with no books. they go to a school with no librarian. those are the ones who drop out. to their detriment and to detriment of sew sate. so they get points for the amount of time they spend in reading rooms. they're decorated, incredibly fancy places, talk to my wife about it afterwards. she goes to almost all the reading room openings all over

the country. and they get points and they can trade them in for prizes. in the beginning they do it for the prizes but it doesn't take long before that shows up in their academic performance. and if you get a kid to the point where he enjoys reading, the likelihood of him dropping out is almost zero. and these are the kinds of things that we need to start thinking about. anybody wants to get involved, carsonscholars.org. thank you. >> you have -- turning to another subject, you have said some weapons should be banned but you've also said that the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. can you explain in more detail how you feel about guns and what do you think this country's gun policy should be? >> once again, i'm glad you asked that question. yeah, i think there's some weapons that probably are not appropriate. like tanks. i'm not sure that people should

have a rocket launcher in their bedroom. but, you know, conventional weapons? i don't have any problem with. the sec amendment is an essential part of our constitution. it's there for a reason. because it would give the populace the ability to assist the military in case of a foreign invasion. but more importantly, it's there because if we ever have a rogue government that wants to dominate the people, the people will have the ability to defend themselves. we must always protect that right. however, however, what i have said, which some people have misinterpreted, is that in places where there's a lot of crime with assault weapons, that keeping the second amendment on the table and always protecting it, we should be able to engage in conversations about it.

what can we agree on that doesn't violate the second amendment but that provides some degree of protection for our citizens? unless we can talk about these kinds of things we will never succeed with these kinds of things. and one of the things that i have been somewhat critical, particularly conservatives, is they sometimes have these litmus tests. and they say, you know, the person has to believe this. and i just can't deal with them otherwise, i'm taking my marbles and i'm going home. that is such an infantile attitude. and what people have to realize is sometimes you have to be able to prioritize. i think about the story of esther in the bible. you know, she, you know, was jewish. she sort of kept that hidden. and she ended up marrying the king of the group that was oppressing her people.

and there was some people who knew that she was jewish and they thought that was horrible. how could she subjugate her values and principles like that? but she had a bigger picture in mind. and because of her position as queen, she was able to save all of her people. and we have to understand that concept. be it guns, be it abortion, be it any number of things. people have to be in position, the right people, people who have common sense, people who value life, people who value freedom. but if they're never in position, they will never be able to do anything about those things. >> we are almost out of time. but before asking the last question we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first of all, i like to remind you about our upcoming events and speakers. on june 11th we will have

hollywood writer/director m. night shamalayan who will discuss his offscreen campaign to close america's education achievement gap. august 1 -- we'll have other speakers in the interim, august 1 we have confirmation we'll have the president of the republic of congo who will discuss peace, security, and stability of the central african region and oil investments in his country. now i'd like to present our cup -- we'd like to present our guest with the traditional national press club mug, and dr. carson, if you make multiple visits you get multiple cups and maybe that will be the case. >> thank you very much. >> our final question. what is your favorite book that is not the bible or one of your own books?

>> i'm going to tickle you with this. it was the first book that i ever read. it was called "chip the dam builder." it was about a beaver. it was really what started me on my journey of reading. i mean, this beaver was so wise. and he made those birch barks seem so tasty i wanted to eat one myself. but it really sort of got my imagination stimulated. and i read every animal book in the public library, then i went to the downtown branch, i read all the animal books. then i started reading about plants. then i started reading about rocks. because we lived near the railroad tracks and what is there along the railroad tracks? rocks. pretty soon i could identify any rock, tell you how it was

formed, where it came from. still in the fifth grade at that time, i was the dummy, that's what they called me. one day the teacher came in, held up a big black shiny rock, can anybody tell us what this is? i waited for one of the smart kids to raise their hand, nobody did. i waited for one of the dumb kids to raise their hand. i raised my hand. everybody turned around. they looked, they couldn't believe, carson's got his hand up, this is going to be good. the teacher called on me. and i said, mr. jake, that's ob said obsidian. there was silence in the room. it sounded good. he said, that's right, it is obsidian. obsidian is formed after volcanic eruption. everybody was staring at me. and you know, bunt i was the most amazed person in the room because it dawned on me in that moment that i was no dummy. and that the reason i knew those answers is because i was reading those books. and from that point forward, you couldn't get a book out of my

hand. my mother would say, benjamin, put the book down and eat your food. it didn't matter. and it completely transformed my life. and that's the reason that we're so passionate about getting our young people to read now and to value education. because that is what will save our nation. thank you. >> i'd like -- we're running out of time. i'd like to remind everybody to remain seated as soon as possible we can get dr. carson to the holman lounge where we'll be pleased to sign copies of his new book co-authored with his wife and there are still copies available outside in the ballroom corridor. i'd also like to thank national press club staff, including the

journalism institute and broadcast center action for organizing today's event. also, if you'd like to get a copy of today's program or to get more information about the national press club, please check out our website at press.org. thank you all for being here today. thank you again, dr. carson. we're adjourned. tonight on c-span3, washington journal's interview with university of minnesota president eric kaylor. that will be followed by a portion of this year's netroots nation conference, selections from the communist party usa national convention, and views on progressive politics from the campaign for america's future. that starts tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span3. with the 2014 election less than two weeks away, our campaign debate coverage continues. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on

c-span the new york 11th district debate between candidates representative michael grimm and dominic r.reccia jr. at 8:00 on c-span2 the florida governor's debate with governor rick scott and former governor charlie crist. at 8:30 on c-span it's the illinois 10th district debate with representative brad schneider and former representative bob dole. followed at 9:00 by the new york 18th district debate with representative sean patrick maloney and nan haworth. at 10:00 the illinois 13th district debate with representative rodney davis and ann calaas. thursday night live at 8:00 eastern the iowa 4th district debate between representative steven king and jim mauer. more than 100 debates for the control of congress. now "washington journal's" interview with michigan state university president lieu anna simon. she talks about priorities for the university and higher

education moving forward. it's part of our special series on universities in the big 10 conference . this is 35 minutes. has >> c-span bus has been on a toul of the big ten colleges across h the country for the past few weeks.th and along the way here on the a, washington journal, we have beer talking with university ty presidents about higher education issues. this morning the c-span bus is on the campus ofg, michigan state university, in east lansing, michigan, joining us aboard the bus, is lou anna simon. thank you very much for being with us. let me get started right away with the challenges that you see in higher education. g >> good morning, and it's a >> beautiful day in east lansing d and so the promise i think for the value of higher education is bright as the day. i'm a first-generation college student so i understand the value of higher education for hl creating a -- not simply aen jo but a terrific life. and one of our challenges is o

always to be sure that we work in a way to be as cost effectivk and relevant as possible so we make people's dreams bigger. dra that means that we have to be able to not only be at the forward edge of innovation and discovery but also be able to be translate that discovery into the lives of our students. >> how are you doing that, affordability for students, when it comes to tuition, room and board, et cetera? >> if you think about michigan state, about 75% of our students are actually very middle class, families of $125,000 or less. and our number of students who . leave with educational an department is about 46%, which is well below the average for the state and well below the national average.out and it's about one year's full cost of attendance with our division being about $14,000 for in-state students. so we have to be sure that we do everything we can to reduce cosv and one of our platforms to be h

high-performing organization, not simply a cost-cutting ly a organization. and at the same time we need toi produce enormous value for our students when they leave valu michigan state at graduation and also throughout their lifetime. so we'rehrou focused on value. >> president simon, how difficult has that been given this headline from may that that michigan higher education budget cuts, some of the deepest in the nation since 2008. overall michigan's higher ion education spending declined 28% after 2008. >> it's been an extraordinarily difficult task. if you look at the period between 2001-02 and now and do the combination of tuition and state appropriations, actually for us that's only grown $ca65 total over inflation that entie period. that's required us to be extraordinarily innovative. unfortunately the burden has been shifted a bit as business

leaders from michigan and otherr have pointed out to students and their families.ts so we're really pleased that our educational debt rate, our default rates, are actually well below the national average.ate at the same time we've picked up additional financial aid for ou students, including the state program to make michigan state o as successful as possible across the class. but at the same time we've had . to grow value which means you de have to make difficult priority h decisions. because our students deserve thr best. and that'sio whaiotns they come >> how much of your time is spent negotiating with the federal government, the state o governments, talking to them h about budgets and how much of your time is it fund-raising and trying to raise money from private donations? >> well, michigan state was very late in the game. our legendary present john iden hannah believes that we should p keep our public heart and not an raise ad lot of private dollars. so we're about two generations d behind in i fund-raising even rn

though our endowment's about $1.5 billion now, very low in the big ten but still substantial, and we're going to be launching a capital campaign. so it's taking more and more of our time. but the story is the m same. it's about value. the and about creating the opportunities for students across the class to be extraordinarily successful. when we talk to people we try to be genuineex about our aspirati and also genuine about the thing wet needto to do to be better e every day. >> there's a story from "the detroit news" in mid-september o that msu joins alliance to helpe low-income first-generation students, that you will be among 11 public universities across 1 the nation that will be part ofe a collaborative effort to ensurl that these low-income and first-generation college first students earn degrees.ol what will you be doing?leing?ok >> well, first of all, michigan state going into this project was, if you look at u.s. news uk reports, one of the institutions of our size and caliber that u

actually had a plus number in terms of predicted and graduation rates for our lowest-income students. but we need to be better.west because the i biggest loss to oe society is actually students wh come to universities and don't u succeed. so we believe that every student who's admitted to michigan statc can succeed. sure and we're using our neighborhooc concept, a way of integrating the fabric of the classroom and out of class experiences in new and innovative ways to provide the incentives and the support for students, including using big data. so our pilot last year showed a 20% increase in the persistence rates of our lowest-income ates students already are achieving r at a higher rate than nationally. so it's a commitment to the future. a very land grand r commitment. >> we're talking about affordability and accessibility of higher education among other higher education issues with lou anna simon, president of the

michigan state university. we wantou to get our viewers involved in the conversation. you don't have to have any relationship to msu, but we wan, to hear your questions, concerns about higher education.r so students 202-585-3880. parents 202-585-3881. educators 202-585-3882.and mich michigan resident twots nt 02-585-3833. a column in sh""the washington post"" from charles lang, college priorities adrift. what he writes in here is that college universities and colleges and universities are all taking part in a trend toward competing for enrollment based on student amenities.ing whether lazypa rivers or elabore dining facilities.enroll as omef late 2012, 92 schools h0 embarked on 157 recreational capital projects at a total cost of $1.7 billion.

just one question. is this the best use of scarce e resources given that these facilities are ultimately underwritten by tuition and by federal and state taxpayer rces. funding and that colleges are supposed to be you know, at educational students., be, you educational students. be you kn educational students. >> since i haven't seen the entire article, let me comment.g our research recently came out o with the finding that students who gained in a healthier tyle, lifestyle, which includes ise a exercise, actually were more successful in the classroom. but there is a balance. we have not embarked on a major recreational project. we have included exercise facilities in the residence halls as part of our hall renovations. but it is to sort of put those together. for us it's not about using amenities to attract students, it's about using what we're calling the t-shaped person, the

outcomes of education, to attract students which part of that is to make sure they have a healthy lifestyle.stud so we have two big initiatives right now on student success. we talked about that a bit s earlier. and onss healthy lifestyles whih is not simply about exercise ort fancy things, it's about developing a lifestyle through college that will make you ng a successful in life. and we think those things fit eo togetheru very, very well. >> lou anna simon, do you feel pressure as the president of msu to attract a better student or more students to the university with these type of amenities? because a lot of your competition is doing it. >> right now we're not a part o' the common application, so when you apply to michigan state you have to make out a separate application. our applications are growing, we believe, because we're focused on the value of an education, not simplyti the experiences yo have on the campus but your but success when you leave michigan state and the fact that you're part of a network of spartans e

for life to support you. and we believe that parents andt students do understand that value and our efforts to appreciate the value of their degree over time really makes a recruitment. the not some specific sort of googad that is the latest fad.t we're sort of the persistent, er consistent way of looking at of value, particularly with all the students from middle class families that we have. our slogan in 1880 as a pioneer land grant was, good enough for the proudestest and open to thef poorest with a connection of the theoretical and the practical, and that's the motto we use today. under the rubric of empow uring students across socioeconomic class. >> we were showing our viewerso the msu website.th right there on the forefront is an argument for why college is h worth and it why kids should be going to college. to why is that right there when you

go to msu's website?hat >> because we know that a numbe, of families, particularly if you're from michigan and have experienced i'd say the epicenter of the recession, andc you know with families who werea educated and had a very, very t, difficult time, we have to be clear about what we believe is important for the future and why we believe we're a good value. just about 's not accessibility for us. it's about value.us, and making sure that we're doint everything we can to enhance the value of our education and our r degree for our students. and it's right there. people can analyze it. an you can go to our website and ei depending on whong you are and your family circumstances you can actually figure out what t ' it's going to cost you to come o to michigan state university. that transparency is very important. a case for o make value. >> all right. let's hear from stanley, a party in west borrow, massachusetts.

you're up first, go ahead, stanley. >> caller: i'm ready. >> okay. >> caller: we do home calling. we did for five generations. do on everything. from machine shop, welding, the whole thing all the way.ne i became a nuclear engineer without going to college. companies give courses when thee get somebody that they know they can train to do a new field coming out that's out. and there's a book on tv which i bought that they do the whole family. the harding family.an and the name of the book is "the brainy bunch." and they do exactly what we do,t except we sent the kids to public school to prevent --prev >>en stanley, let me jump in.e j can you get to your point or ?on question here >> caller: oh. oh, in switzerland they don't test h people in any school. germany, schools get out at noon. out and you have to be able to make what you design.ve to they don't teach that anymore.

>> okay, so what's your point, stanley? >> caller: oh, i just try to -- it's hard to explain unless you read that book. ain >> okay. lou anna simon, are we doing education right in this country compared to other countries? >> well, i think that as a land grant university we were founded to blend the theoretical and the practical in ways that studentss would leave michigan state as t-shaped people with the capacity to do the kinds of f things that stanley was talking about.ey and we need to do that in very large numbers to propel the economy forward.e number and michigan state, any omy fo university, is not right for everyone. and that's why we have to have choices. i agree withwh stanley that we s have a number of jobs in americf that require high skill but may not necessarily be something that isso amenable to an educatn at michigan state or similar aah institutions. that's why we have to have h av

choice. but ialso also believe home g schooling can work out effectively for some families but it requires great discipline. stanley was a as part of a family that was very successful. he sent his kids to public ent s schools. an td we just happen to have tho best model for america and i think the landand grant universt concept that came out of abraha lincoln is one that's very important for the future.that' >> joe in annapolis, a parent there good morning, joe. >> caller: yes, good morning. thanks for taking my call. i would like to ask about the admission process. the admission criteria. as i'm sure your guest is aware, recently the supreme court in fisher versus texas ruled that universities could continue to use race as an admissions to criteria but had to, for the first time, demonstrate, prove to a court that they used the nt least offensive in terms of nsi constitutional rights manner to do that. and that they have to not just t

take their word for it as sort of the case that involved the of university o tf michigan and thn university of michigan law michg school case left it. so now there's a new mechanism s asm, i think most people understand in that the university has to demonstrate as they've used a nonoffensive to the constitution process to use race.so my personal experience with my son's undergraduate acceptance e is that the schools will never tell you that. but it's a relatively new court mandate. and i'd like to see if your i o guest would offer a specific response to that question. how do they use race? d >> well, michigan passed a ballot initiative that prohibits michigan universities from using race in admissions. and so we are, even though the . university of michigan case was part of the discussion, of th university of texas case, because it's a supreme court case, subsequent to that there was a michigan ballot

proposition. so we useal a very holistic admissions process that looks ad academic credentials, strength of curriculum, community credeni engagement. because we believe that studentl who are the most successful through college are multi-dimensional. but in michigan, racmue is not factor in our admissions proces given the proposal.s, given >> next to pat lost an educator in michigan. pat, good morning to you. >> caller: hello, thank you for c-span. i'm retired.you i taught kindergarten in a public school. and i find it really amazing that you're a racial professor t to students that michigan states is 17-1. when i taught kindergarten i would have 27 to 285 or 6-year-olds. and that's just a comment i wanted to make. thank you. >> well, i think that we've worked very hard to assure that our students have a world-classe

experience, and faculty to studentfacu ratio is important o that element. but we also remember it's not t simply about what happens in thn classroom, our students are t's gained in research, study abroad, internships, ade var that ratio does reflect our capacity to provide this ovide multidimensional set of experiences that we believe produces an effective college graduate. >> how many professors are tenured at michigan state university, and how many professors do you have that are adjunct status? >> well, we have about 2,000 roughly faculty who are in the d tenure system, and another 1,500 or so that in are in a variety of appointment statuses that are not adjunct. for example, we're using ph.d. o prepared faculty members to teach writing, which is very

unusual. they are a most -- and we have some folks who are on research appointments. >> steve's next in new york, a parent up there.i cal sciee, you u're on the air.b >> caller: hey, how are you? thank you for having me. i was curous about your i'm and i'm curious where michigan state is in that area.ou political science programs are a far left leaning -- they embracr socialism, and i'm curious where michigan state is in that area. and do you guys police your political science people and you know make sure that there's an equal balance? because conservatives have a tough time in colleges up theres nowadays.nowada >> well, steve, i think that we, have a political science department that has a worldwide track record of trying to look at issues from a variety of perspectives because you have to

know a variety of perspectives t in order to have your own, but we have a very prestige you college. you have to begin reading the federalist papers as part of your educational experience. >> good morning, leslie, you'rea a parent, what are your concerns with higher education? >> caller: well, i am so grateful that michigan state university's tuition hasn't gona out of this world. i am a graduate of michigan .raduatniversity >> leslie, can i ask you what did you pay when you went therey >> caller: i don't remember. i paid tuition because it was cheaper and my dad paid room and board. i actually worked my way through college when i was there. i just don't remember what per credit costs were.n't ips about that. >> that's okay. >> caller:wer i wanted to let t wonderful president of michigan state university know that ied

graduateded from james madison college within michigan state and it was hard.in but i learned a lot. l i wish iea would have studied a more. if there's any kids listening out there, study more in college. you'll be happier later in lifel i regret some of the wasted time i had there. but that's my own issue.me of thank you very much this morning. bye-bye now. >> beverly thank you very much d and academic rigor is something that is a partnership between students and faculty and james madison dews represent that.in and right now she commented that she worked through college and about 60% to 70% of our students would report that we work. we're still a very middle class upper mobility kind of place er with a world class education.

>> edward on twitter states i hate that out of state students pay double, he thinks it's ridiculous, why is that? >> because the theory is that the state is making an at investment to support the cost of education for its residents and as a result of that, out of state students then are part of the differential between the state and tuition. >> how many out of state y students do you have versus inuo state? >> we're very unusual in the bi ten because our undergraduate education, in terms of out of state students achkd actually we're leaving about 60 -- we tee felt that we need to be that engine of opportunity that world class education from michigan residents, particularly if you think about the economy in michigan, so we have stayed true to our mission, but we do need state stinlts because it provides a positive education and students to have be part of a global society. >> and foreign students? do you have a figure on that? >> we have about 178 foreign international clients that began back in the 1880s actually with the first student from japan and we began our development work in china and actually in the 1980sd with the rice famine and michigan state had the first sow dean of international studies in 1957 because people at that time believed that north for michigan to be successful, we had to have

an international perspective. >> we're talking with lou anna n simon, she's president of michigan state university. famin we have been interviewing university presidents across the big ten, we will go next to suzanne in pennsylvania, a in parent there, susan, go ahead.e >> caller: thank you cspan for taking my call, i appreciate your program because you give us so much information.re where are these kids? it's wonderful that they're going to get a good education,

where are they going to work?od their mothers and fathers are , out of work for so long.their my son has had a good educationk but he owes over $60,000 in goo government loans, when are they going to discount the loans that the older people that took these programs are going to get any help? >> okay, we'll leave it there? t lou anna simon? >> i share your concern about the high interest rates for somf of these old loan programs achkd in fact in a conversation with business leaders from michigan yesterday as a part of our higher education workforce development, talent developmentn strategy, we need more voices to worry about the large loan interest rates that are a part of the repayment cycle.e as i said earlier, about 46% ofa our students leave with nt

educational debt, that average is about $25,000. i and our loan default rate ask e, very low, got 5.7%, even thoughn many, many of our students are from michigan and have had verye difficult financial circumstances over the last tene years, but this is an investment in the future if we can drop those interest rates a bit. >> "the washington post" reporting this northern that tha government says that student loan default nationwide has ude dropped, has dipped, but they say the figure is still too high. lou anna simon, after your graduate your students, how many of them are staying in the state of michigan and getting employment as the engine of opportunity as you say, what -- is it difficult for these

students to say there and finding employment given the state of the economy after the m recession? >> in the period of the recession, when there was such h dislocation of workers in in michigan, the number of our r students who had employment in n michigan dropped, but if you f look at over top employers right now, it's quicken loans, the auto companies, michigan based m companies, we have obviously a very large agri food foot print that's obviously strong in michigan and we're working very hard around the state for students to see detroit as an opportunity for the future, a really cool city to be in and y being on the ground fwloor of the pine years of the resurgenct of detroit and we're getting ty more and more student who is want to stay in the state. we have about ten minutes left here with president lou anna simon of michigan state university. we have some phone lines open, so we encourage students to call in.

let me go to eric who's a michigan resident, and armada, is it, eric? >> armada. >> caller: i'm a parent of two ? children, one just graduated to the and the other one is come oc us. i'm wondering if i send my child to michigan state, will they ge the education needed to create a business not become some lackeyo for somebody else? wo >> well, if you look at the nd recent report from the university research co-door in y michigan, michigan state and university of michigan, you'll see that we have produced many entrepreneurs over our lifetime. there's a formal entrepreneur kt ship program, your son or daughter could go to the hatch t and get support with their michg business ideas, we have a new l place called the hive in the residence hall where anybody can go and think about starting ur businesses. entrep we have a media sand box if yo you're interested in sort of the

gaming technology, those are really organic now as part of our neighborhoods, and very, very important for the future. >> miami, florida, gene, a parent there, hi, gene i.mpr: >> caller: good -- how are you? very good. this message is to dr. simpson, i met her in miami with john saxon from nyu and she gave a nu very good presentation while we were in miami. i am -- i'm very interested in michigan state and i know you a have an agricultural program. is there any support that your school will do with haiti or doo anything with haiti pertaining