thursday morning we are in cheyenne, wyoming for the next stop on the c-span bus 50 capitals tour. the wyoming governor will be our guest on the bus during washington journal starting at 9:45 eastern. now a conversation from the george w. bush presidential center in dallas about the 2008 financial crisis. we will hear from three officials involved in the crisis. former treasury secretary henry paulson, former federal reserve bernanke and former counselor of economic advisor edward lazear. >> i want to thank president bush and laura bush for inviting us to be here today. you know, we have heard from -- the lunch we had with the women was just amazing. daniel's story, second to none. mrs. bush, thank you very much. then we heard from dr. chan. the compassion is just off the

charts. keeping with that theme, i think a good wall street panel and the compassion we have is exactly what we need to do right now. [laughter] anyway, i want to thank president and mrs. bush very much for having us here today. we are going to talk about a couple different things, and talk about the economy. it affects everything from top to bottom, when everyone is speaking out here at the bush bush institute -- at the bush institute. the economy has an effect on everything. c sdifferent than 5013 or things of that nature. let's talk about the global economy. how would you sum it up? i will start with mr. chairman, i can't call a mr. secretary i

, have to call him hank. then i will talk with eddie. let's talk about the global economy. do think it is on a sustainable trajectory? >> we are in a good phase. we have the most synchronized growth going on since we have -- that we have seen since the financial crisis. the united states is in a strong phase. europe has picked up, japan has picked up. china had a good first quarter. it has been pretty steady. emerging markets. until now there has been a sum on -- some on some off phenomenon. now it has been more synchronized. over the longer term, there are great questions. whether trade and globalization can be sustained. what about technical change? we will have a big social impact as well. demographics are an issue. not only in the united states and europe, but even in emerging markets. china. it is going to take some new innovation, some further trade and development, some new

processes and products to get -- to keep the economy is growing. -- economies growing. right now, the global economy is in a good state. terrence: hank? >> i don't want to repeat what ben said. i think you nailed it. he got it right. the only thing i would add is i spent a lot of time with business. when i talk with ceos of global companies, i have had a number of them say they can't think back over the last 10, 15 years, when they have seen anything as attractive as they are looking at right now, because over parts that all parts of the world or most parts seem to be firing on all cylinders. and a so it is a terrifically positive environment. but the sorts of things i worry about, that then didn't mention, the did not ben mention are not just rising

protectionism, but higher levels of government debt around the world. if and when -- when there is a downturn, because there will be a downturn, policymakers will not have as much macroeconomic flexibility in terms of lowering interest rates or fiscal stimulus. there is plenty of potential challenges. right now, it looks pretty darn good. >> eddie, how about your take on the global economy? edward: i certainly agree that we are in a good place right now. the one thing i would say is that what we are looking at right now is not what we will see in the future. there will definitely be change. if we think about the economy is -- economies right now in the world that are growing most rapidly, obviously china continues to grow come even though its growth rate has fallen off where it was at the peak. india is still growing at a high rate. those economies, which of course, represent the largest populations in the world, will slow down. at the same time, other

economies are going to pick up. for example, if we look at parts of the world that we think of as not having grown very rapidly in the past, like africa, are now seeing pretty significant growth. for example, countries like tanzania and ethiopia have growth rates of around 10%. we are going to be looking at a world that looks different, even one or two decades out from now from the one we see today. the one thing hank issued some cautions, and i will issue some as well, one of the things we know, at least from people who have studied growth and looked at what are the components that feed into higher growth rates around the world. there tend to be a number of factors. three of which are most important. education, have to have high levels of education. rule of law. and individual freedom would be the second. the third would be having an open economy, and in particular, an interest and attention to

markets in general. those are essentially political issues, in terms of whether we can count on those things being sustained in the future. president bush always said i was not allowed to talk about politics. so i will not give you a prediction. those are the factors we need to be thinking about for the future. terrence: wonderful. hank, you talked a moment ago about protectionism. that will lead me into the topic here. we see nationalism and populism manifesting in different ways around the world. whether it is the brexit situation, elections, the united states or abroad there seems to , be a very populist viewpoint that is coming out of the elections and decisions being made. do these developments pose a serious threat to the global economy? i will also ask this of you mr. chairman. >> of course they do. as i look at it, more broadly, i

see the global economy, the world changing faster than our ability to govern it. when i look at individual economies, i think the modern economies pose challenges that our policies are not responding to. the key is, how do you develop policies that work in today's modern world? this is ultimately a political decision. it is a decision that authoritarian governments are dealing with, china, and so on. their present policies will not -- are not going to work in the future. they will need to keep changing them. of course, our western democracies have these problems. we have big groups of people that feel disaffected by the pace of change. they have been left behind. so we have -- this is where populism comes from, nativism, nationalism.

the challenge really is a political challenge. it's a chicken or egg. the political situation is created by unhappy disaffected people, and then of course, that creates a political system -- political systems that make it hard to respond with a right policy response. in many ways, political issues are economic issues and vice a versa. those are the enemies. that is one of the biggest risks facing the west. >> mr. chairman? ben: the integration of the global economy, the expansion of trade, the expansion of human movement, will not be reversed. this is pretty much here to stay. on the margin, it can be affected with political resistance and populist and nativist policies.

that can be costly. it can slow growth. it can disrupt markets. we have seen how markets have responded to some of the discussions of trade wars, for example. i agree with hank. i think the premise is if you want people to accept change, you want people to accept the tremendous dynamism that the -- a global economy has, you have to help them adapt to change. you have to make it less scary. i think there is a case for helping people adapt, whether it is through allowing them to get their skills they need, or helping them to move from one area to the other where the jobs are. i think -- for a self -- from a self preservation perspective, if we want to preserve the dynamism of the global economy, you have to have people except that dynamism. >> let me follow up with you. do you think education and training would help as a relates -- it relates to some of these

populist trends we are seeing? henry: i am always in favor of education and training, since that is what i sell. [laughter] going back to the points that were made by ben and hank, i think those are right on. there is no doubt that education and training helps. but education and training, remember, is a long-run investment. it's not a short run investment. the reason for that is if we were to reform all of our schools along the lines of what dr. chan was talking about and the last session and we were tremendously successful, you are still talking about that happening a generation later. it takes time for that to move its way into the economy. one thing we can be thinking about, and i know this sounds counter to what the current -- to some of the current rhetoric. we can start bringing more people in have the skills and educations in the kinds of -- and the kinds of training but

we need. -- that we need. one of the things that shows up in the research on immigration and entrepreneurship is immigrants tend to be very entrepreneurial. we know that. they are on most twice as entrepreneurial as the nativeborn population. there are things we can do that will at least facilitate some of these transitions in the short run. those are political kinds of considerations. it is easier said than done. but there are things we should be thinking about. >> some of the things you can do have better short run payoff if they help of transitions. if you help retrain how people move, if you have apprenticeships, technical training of various kinds. there are some things you can -- patches you can do. clearly, you want to try to address the long run issues of appropriate skills for the workforce and so on. >> hank, you talked earlier about china. you had mentioned it. let's talk about china. you initiated the u.s. china

strategic economic dialogue. that was an early effort by the u.s. to persuade chinese government to reduce their role in the chinese economy and more fully embrace global markets. a couple questions. how do you think that is going? and then i will follow-up with two more. henry: how do i think the dialogue is going? or china? >> both. henry: i will make one point that i think most people in this room understand. when we look at the century, i believe more than anything else, how the u.s. figures about to deal with the rising china, and how china and the u.s. feel with each other, is going to be the factor that more than anything else shapes the geopolitical landscape we have in the 21st century. when we deal with china we have to remember we are not dealing with the same china we dealt with even four or five years ago.

we are dealing with a china that is much more assertive. we are dealing with a china that is, in many ways, a strategic competitor. it's an economic competitor. we don't have to shy away from admitting that or saying that. it's a china that has got the capacity and the reach to advance its own interest in long-standing spheres of united states influence. that is the perspective of which we need to look at china. i think the most important thing that we need to do is to not be afraid of competition. to recognize that despite the competition, china, the u.s., have many shared interest. we are not going to solve

everything from climate change to we could go on and on. we need to figure out how to find common ground at the same time that we compete. that is number one. number two, i think we need to number two, i think we need to work with our allies. i will talk about something that is near and dear to my heart, which is china opening up economically. these current tensions come from the fact that for the last 10 years, china has been very slow to open up. they haven't provided a level playing field for u.s. companies to compete. it's not right and it is creating problems. we would be much more successful in our efforts if we worked with our allies in japan and europe and around the world. if we had assertive agenda in asia.

if we were joining the tpp. we missed that opportunity but we can still join the tpp so we have a positive agenda in asia. i think the third thing i would say is the onus is on us to raise our own game. to fix our economic problems at home. to be strong economically, militarily, and diplomatically. because i think the chinese, like any other people, respect strength. again, the thing that makes me most uncomfortable is so many people today, as they look at china, what they see is an entrenched communist party. they see a more statist economic system. they see a more assertive china. they don't like it. i don't like it, as an american. it exists. we need to figure out how to deal with it.

many people have gone from saying, gee, china is not moving to become a democracy like us. i never expected them to become a liberal democracy, or western liberals abroad. we certainly don't need to view them as an enemy because we can't afford another cold war. >> i will go off script because i have experience of investing over there. it seems like a lot of american companies have invested through china throughout the years. we all have to because they dangle a population carrot that makes people's teeth rattle. at the same time, i don't know many people who have been successful their economically as a u.s. company. henry: i would disagree with you there. there are many -- >> we lost money. [laughter] henry: many global companies are making a lot of money in china.

but, you are right in saying we haven't seen the structural reforms we need to level the playing field. it has become harder to do business there rather than easier to do business in china. that is what the world is crying for. you are starting to hear about reciprocity from europe and the u.s. i think the biggest risk i see is this, europeans, obviously americans, are going to say, why should we keep our markets open for china if they are not going to open their markets for us? where that would lead us would be leading us to have big parts of the global economy closed, cut off from trade and investment, which would be a bad thing for both of our countries. again, that is a risk i see. i think it's important we push

china to open its markets. >> do you see them becoming more responsible as a global power? henry: i want to also say that we can't lose sight of the fact that the economic relationship with the u.s. and china positively benefits us and america even today. people in their wallets and their homes and businesses, i could go through many ways. do i see them becoming what? what was your question? become more globally responsible economically to the rest of us? becoming more responsible on the economic global marketplace? henry: listen, i think the proof is going to be in the pudding. you have a leader right now in xi jinping, who has consolidated great power. he has got his team in place. he has got a very strong economic team. the positive is the potential that he now has the power to get

things done and pursue reforms that are in all of our interests. what we are going to see right now, whether they open up. in china, the reformers, the pseudo-reformers want to open up to private sector companies in china to compete with the state owned enterprises. the real reformers want to open up to foreign competition. i think we are going to learn a lot over the next couple of years. it will be easier. the reformers can get the job done easier if they are pushed to get the job done. that is more effective than on a multilateral basis than on a bilateral basis. >> thank you. let me go back to more u.s. centric questions on the economy. eddie, i will address this to you and the secretary and then mr. chairman, i will follow-up with i we look at different things are done when we talk about the global economy, you gave earlier comments. when you look at the u.s. economy, as a standalone economy, everything is so

intertwined globally. you heard what the secretary said about china. i think we are still entwined with them as well. is our economy going to be sustainable at these levels where we are looking at record high equities, record low rates, and is there something that will give here that is going to hurt us? edward: i would focus on a couple points. first of all, we are in a productivity slowdown. that's a problem. it something that has to be reversed. the question as to why we are in a productivity slowdown, we have not quite answered yet. i would certainly point to some of the things we have talked about. one would be human capital. improvements there. essentially, more market-based policies.

we have over the past i would say, decade, moved away from market-based policies. i think the world has shown us those are the most successful for growing the economy. i want to come back to one of the things hank said which is, at the very beginning, he said, one of the things we have to worry about is the debt. i think there is no doubt that if i were going to focus on the big policy issue that is going to face us over the next 20 years, it definitely has to be the debt. i'm talking about the united states right now. if you look at cbo congressional budget office numbers, you project two decades, what you're talking about is running a deficit of 10% per year. in order to close that gap, we would have to increase taxes across the board, not just taxes on the rich by about 50%. if we were to increase taxes by 50%, that would have absolutely devastating effects on economic growth and activity. those are the problems. there are some good things that we have going for us. let me end on a somewhat more optimistic note.

the united states has outgrown our g7 neighbors for a long period of time and have done so for three reasons. the first, we work hard. if you look at the average hours of work among americans versus our g7 friends and competitors, we work, for example, we work 1100 hrs. in italy, it is less than 800 hours. that is true across the board. the second thing we do is we actually have low taxes, despite the fact that we think our taxes are too high. they are quite low relative to the rest of the developed economies. if you look at france, it's 45%, for us, it's 25% of the economy. the third, this is important, is that we do a very good job of integrating our immigrants. while that sounds backward given the current rhetoric, one of the ways to see that is if you look at the unemployment rate among

immigrants versus unemployment rates among the nativeborn population, in every g7 country, except for the united states, the unemployment rates are higher for immigrants than it is among the nativeborn population. in germany, it's almost doubled. in the u.s., immigrants actually have lower unemployment rates the nativeborn populations. that is not the only measure of integration, but it does give you an indication that our immigrants are here to work and they are actually successful at getting jobs. terrence: thank you. do you want to add to that? ben: i have nothing to add. that was perfect. >> the beauty of being up your with all the smart guys. ben: i will add one thing. despite all that, i would say this. i don't think our democracy is going to work. i don't think our political system is going to work, unless we figure out how to have growth be more inclusive. we can't leave so many people behind. we have still big numbers of working age people not working.

given the opioid problem, given high levels of incarceration, and given income disparity, i don't think that we are going to be able to continue to fix our political system unless we figure out how to deal with that. that is part and parcel with the debt, we will have to deal with the debt. i would also be more optimistic -- i think the debt is a huge problem. but i don't think we need to fix it with taxes. i think you can use things like means testing and other things to deal with our biggest problems in terms of health care and social security. terrence: thank you. mr. chairman, we will get into our world, talk about markets. you look at all the recent volatility which is something i deal with everyday. the fluctuations we are seeing in the global markets today.

do you see this path continuing on the volatility because of maybe what i outlined earlier, low rates, high valuations? ben: hank and i remember in 2008, we are not impressed by the amount of volatility we are getting here. [laughter] ben: it is not much different from normal right now. equity markets and other asset prices have gone up quite a bit. there are three reasons for that. one, earnings have been strong. the economy has been growing. earnings have been solid. capital income shares have been rising. tax rates have been cut. all of that is generating more profits for firms. that is positive for equities. second reason, interest rates are low. that is not just a fed thing. that seems to be a long-term issue.

the 30 year bond yield is 3%. the markets think low interest rates are here for a long time. we can debate why that is so you will low interest rates, that means future dividends and profits get discounted at lower rates. unless that changes radically, that will continue to be a for asset prices. the third one is risk premiums. risk premiums are relatively low. they are not crazy low. but they are historically on the low side. meaning for the last years, people have been increasingly willing to take risk and impress for yields in this environment. indeed, in 2017 when these risk premiums were low, it was puzzling because it seemed that despite the fact that we have an uncertain world, we have uncertainties about our political situation, it seemed markets were kind of complacent about that. what we have seen in the last few months is more

acknowledgment that there is uncertainty about where this recovery is going, uncertainty about international trade, uncertainty about geopolitical issues. we have seen concerns about north korea and iran, etc. it is not all that surprising to see more volatility, more caution on the part of investors. that is what we have seen. it is quite moderate. hank and i are totally blase about the level of volatility we have seen the last few months. [laughter] terrence: let's talk about -- you talked about valuations and asset prices which is hard to refute because that is the fact of where the market is trading. let's say that doesn't happen. are you confident that the fed has the tools it needs to respond to future downturns in the market? how do you look at that with the people that succeeded you today? >> what are you talking about? if the fed is not in the business of stock prices.

the fed is in the business of maintaining a stable economy. that means trying to make sure the financial system broadly remains stable, which is what we try to do in response to the crisis of 2008. under normal circumstances, that means trying to keep unemployment and inflation close to the fed's targets. right now, those things are about as close to target as they have been in many years. the inflation rate is about 2%, which is the feds' inflation target. unemployment is about 4%, which is as low as it has been for some time. for the moment, the fed is on target. concern, which hank alluded to, is what happens the next time there is an economic downturn? forget stocks. suppose there is an economic downturn for whatever reason. i think there is concern there. because the debt deficit are high, the flexibility of fiscal policy

to respond to a downturn is less than what it would otherwise be. that puts burden on the fed to respond. the fed is also in a world when even when interest rates are close to their neutral non-stimulative level, they are quite low historically. the fed thinks the federal funds rate will be around 3%. once things are back to a normal balanced situation. that does not give the fed much room to cut the next time there is a slow down. that is an issue. the fed does have other tools. it can use forward guidance, it can make promises that will keep rates low for a long time. it used asset purchases properly known as quantitative easing, pretty successfully in the last few years. seems to be unwinding without too much difficulty. there are additional tools. the fed can look at other strategies like changing the way targets inflation for example, that could have impact on the ability to respond to a slowdown. i think it's an issue. it is not clear that if we had a deep recession, that monetary

and fiscal policy would be as effective in responding as might have been the case in the past. terrence: that brings me to another question. as a guy who runs a public company, one thing investors can't stand is when you give guidance and you miss it. they will punish you. very badly. it appears the fed gave a lot of guidance throughout the years and maybe didn't follow through. one thing the market hates is uncertainty. it hates uncertainty when the government gives guidance on the government doesn't follow through. what do you say to people that when you are trying to give comfort, you are almost giving guidance but then you don't follow through with it? whether it was keeping rates at historic lows because you could, or you gave guidance and got unemployment down, but it didn't happen. the market seemed like it was getting frustrated with the fed to some extent. >> i don't agree with any of that.

[laughter] >> i would not expect you to. ben: there are two kinds of guidance. this is more technical. there are two kinds of guidance where one is saying, here is what is going to happen. and you make a forecast -- this is not like s&p 500 firms where they know that the profit will be and they can maneuver it around. we did that when we said we would not raise interest rates at least until unemployment got down to 6.5%. we would not raise interest rates at least until we got to the year 2014. when the fed made promises like that, it has never failed. it has always met the promises. you have to distinguish between a forecast which says, this is

our best guess, versus this is what we promise to do and a lay -- only rarely does the fed make an unconditional promise. when it does, it is always followed through. terrence: i think that is one of the reasons why the fed is so scrutinized. every word means potentially something different. it is sitting in the job which was difficult for you to do. ben: 25 years ago, the fed would not even tell people when they changed interest rates. they were totally opaque and mysterious. now the fed is much more open. of course, that sometimes means they make -- forecasts don't come true. hank is getting ready to respond to this. [laughter] henry: i want to defend you better than you can. [laughter] henry: it's harder for you to say because this country, from the third quarter of 2009, grew and started growing better than 2% while we delivered.

the courage it took and the unusual extraordinary macroeconomic policy -- look at where the united states of america is. i cannot agree more with ben in saying that the fed said they were going to do something, a lot of people criticized them and said there are all these risks and you should not be doing this monetary policy. look at the risk. now look at where we are. let me tell you, he was right. he did a superb -- and the fed did a superb job of saying a were going to do something, doing what they said they were going to do, and being right. [laughter] [applause] >> i don't think i'm getting invited back. we doing ok? these guys are getting mad at me. i'm glad they are out of office.

they are regulating me right now. throwing a hammer at me. anyway. i told you i would get a rise out of them. mr. secretary, since you told me to call you hank, you were the first to call attention to the increasing gap between the richest and poorest in the united states. how do you believe that gap has contributed to the partisan politics, if at all? edward: i think this group has answered that. even when i was at goldman sachs in 2006, i was fascinating and disturbed by income disparity. not just in the u.s., but all over the world. i really do believe for our political system to work, in a longer-term, there has to be -- it is difficult to work with that level of disparity. obviously, it is a significant issue.

it is one that predated the financial crisis. there are all kinds of structural issues that were causing it. i think automation and technology are having a major impact. i'm not going to argue against that. technology is doing a wonderful job of helping a lot of people rise out of poverty. it has got great potential. but i firmly believe in the united states of america right now is killing more jobs than it is creating. and automation is really putting pressure on wages. and i think this poses a huge challenge. and i would just want to say one other thing. i actually wish i said it at the beginning, how honored and privileged i was to work for president bush. he was the best boss i ever had.

to me, ben mentioned the financial crisis, the leadership and support he showed, particularly then, is something i am grateful for. one of the things i was grateful for when i came to treasury, he encouraged me to build relations with democrats and republicans, and to really take a bipartisan approach. he was very supportive. i remember when i gave that speech and i talked about income disparity. there were a few people in the white house staff that did not like it. the president loved it. he understood the real problem exists there. terrence: one of my favorite lines is from my dear friend, i know he is here somewhere, he said, there was never a president but did not get up every morning with the intention only to do what is in the best interest of the american people. to me, that is saying a lot. [applause] that is the way it should be. i would hope our current administration would take a closer look at the way president

bush conducted himself for the american people. again, off script, here i go, sorry. real quick, you have done a lot with the labor market and workforce development. what are your thoughts on the idea of the skills gap in leaving workers behind? i have a follow-up on that. you can talk about the skills gap. >> that is closely related to the discussion you were just having about income equality. one of the things we know is if we look at the earnings distribution in the united states, and if we look at the educational system as it relates to the earnings distribution, one of the things we see his -- is education does pretty well for the top third of our earners. it does reasonably well for the next six. the bottom half, we are not talking about the poor, that we are usually thinking about is something like the lowest 20% or 30%. it is actually in the united states, it has been half, the bottom half that has not done well.

the question is, why? i would say, maybe we don't have it quite right in terms of our training. one of the things president bush pushed when we were all in the government was better systems for vocational training. perhaps through the community colleges. there is some evidence that there might be some payoff to that. if you compare, for example, the united states to germany, one of the things you find is our high school graduates earn about 70% of the average wage in the population, whereas in germany, vocational graduates earn about 90%. we know that those systems, while they are not right for everybody, seem to do a lot better for certain parts of our population. i know, again, dr. chan was talking about schools in east palo alto, where i live, in

silicon valley, we have schools where you have half the kids were on the academic track, and then the other half who are not. those kids who are not on the academic track are getting something that is essentially watered-down academics. instead of taking these ap courses that she was talking about, getting calculus when you are in your second year of high school, they are hoping to get these kids to algebra by their final year of high school. most of those skills are not going to be useful to them when they are in the labor force. unfortunately, we have not focused enough on training people to do something that is actually productive when they are in the labor force. by the way, most of the jobs we are talking about, even in the german system are service jobs. terrence: i know our time is getting short. they told me i had 45 minutes.

i told them i take that long to clear my throat. anyway, i have a final question. all of you can comment. i want to get your thoughts on where we go from here. i speak to a lot of students at the university. it's one of the things i really enjoy doing. we talk about real life examples. i grew up on the streets. i feel like i have the credibility to do this. i have twin teenage boys. i'm 59, my kids are 15. math doesn't work well so we can see how that is going. married 26 years. same woman. children are our future. it appears they will be inheriting a lot of different issues from our generations and others. i'm curious on what your thoughts are for the next generation? of leaders and kids today and when you talk -- i will start with you and maybe mr. secretary and mr. chairman, you can wrap up? >> i'm very optimistic. i view it as a privilege to use to teach at stanford. the students i have are unbelievably talented people.

it was true when i talked at university of chicago and of course, these are elite schools. i am not quite as pessimistic about the young generation. i think while there may be something wrong with kids today, there may be something wrong with us as well. in terms of the way we treat them. i guess i would still push opportunities. i think one of the things we see is our students are moving in directions where the opportunities are available. as long as we create an environment that those opportunities will continue to exist, we will have students doing the right thing. that said, i will issue one caution. i do think that we have become a

little more closed minded in academia than we were in the past. that is probably not the students. students are always -- they always think they have the truth. look at the three of us, we are bald. it means we went to school during the vietnam war times. you are a little younger, ben, sorry. terrence: don't get him mad. ben: class of 68. edward: there was no more tumultuous time than that. the difference was where we thought we knew everything, there were people that pushed back. that was true among the faculty, among the media, and intelligentsia. i think right now, the one thing i would say we have to worry about is that those other three groups are not pushing back perhaps as hard as they should. terrence: thank you. mr. secretary, then mr. chairman. henry: i think, if we are optimistic, it has to come from the young people. all the issues we talked about today were about whether it is the national debt or whether it is our political system, or some of the issues we didn't talk about like climate change and environmental risks. these are generational equity.

the thing that concerns me the most about our country is it is older people that are involved in the political system in there being very selfish because we're not investing in the young. if you run a company, what you do is you are always looking for young talent and you are investing in young people. we as a nation are under-investing in our young people. i am really, really impressed by the young people i see on the campuses. if i had a caution, it would be the same one ed raised. i will say it blunter. i see so much political correctness so much talking , about people safe spaces, worrying about hurting someone's feelings, i also see a lack of patriotism. if we are going to meet the challenges we need to make, it is going to take a greater sense of patriotism from young people. again, the energy, the ability you see from young people, is tremendous.

that is really our future. >> mr. chairman? ben: i think there's a lot of noise but a lot of things going on underneath which is a very strong country. very diverse country. an example, what has happened -- this is texas, so what happened in energy. 40 years ago, we were worried about running out of oil. now of course, north america is self-sufficient. there is a lot of ability to adapt. there is a lot of ability to make progress. i do think there is a challenge which is putting aside a social issues which are important. i think the progress on artificial intelligence, which could make huge changes in our economy very quickly at some point, is going to be challenging to our political and social structure. some people are probably going to find themselves redundant in a traditional economic sense.

how are they going to adopt? others will have tremendous opportunities based on these new technologies. i think that technology, which is just beginning to become relevant to the economy, is going to create big social and economic challenges in the next 25 years. terrence: we ran three or five minutes long here. i know i have to write a check to the bush institute for being penalized for the length of time. [laughter] terrence: that's my fault. how about a nice round of applause? [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] our live coverage later this afternoon includes president trump speaking at the teacher of the year reception. you can see that live at 4:30 p.m. eastern on c-span and at

6:30 p.m. eastern, a conversation on the future of conservatism and the rub hostedn conservative magazine and the heritage foundation. , conversation with supreme court justices clarence thomas and stephen breyer from the library of congress. justice thomas talking about his life and career and justice breyer offering insights on the work of the supreme court. >> what made you choose law? fact is the forest gump of -- it is the forest gump effect. i was going to be a priest. when you have a vocation. the belief is god is calling you. that is the only dream i ever had was to be a priest. i do not think it ever leaves you. when i went to holy cross i was in a tailspin. i was looking for the next call. what am i called to do?

i decided god would call me to go to savannah and help out. one way to do that was to be in law. >> business is business and personal relations are different. enough, we for some reason had a chinese fortune cookie. >> is that i decided? decided?t how you >> it said bitter and course words are the sign of a week a weak- the sign of cause. my wife is nodding. nosehinese fortune cookie and i think people in the supreme court take the advice. conversations with stephen breyer and clarence thomas

tonight at 8:00 tonight on c-span. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme and public policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. the head of the justice department's executive office for immigration review spoke recently about his agency's mission, what it is doing to address the backlog of cases in the immigration court system. from the center for immigration studies, this is one hour. good morning. on behalf of the center, i want to welcome you to the natial