for monroe who has played so well. ward finally finds alexa deluzio and great defense there by north carolina. >>deb: back to backstops by north carolina with their defense. >>mike: good pass to chay shegog. she has four, second half points. >>deb: the first time in a long time i have seen cetera degraffenreid turn around and show some emotion. >>mike: florida state had a 19 point lead in the second half and now sliced to ten. here come the tar heels. cetera degraffenreid just blows by ward.

>>deb: that's a terrible miss. >>mike: ward feeds alexa deluzio and the tar heels defense there. cetera degraffenreid knocked it out of bounds. the momentum has shifted to the tar heels. >>deb: let's see if florida state can have a possession with poise. >>mike: clayton, last touch by bravard and a defensive stop for north carolina. there's clayton that was rookie of the week last week. and monroe coming back. monroe a great game on the board and six points in the second half. >>deb: that's a terrible feed into the post. north carolina can't take a rim now offensely. you can't take a shot and

you have to read the defense. >>mike: ward knocked it out-of-bounds. ward, the junior from montgomery alabama has played fairly steady in the game. >>deb: she understands why taking care of the board is important. >>mike: chay shegog traveled and had two defenders on her. >>deb: what sylvia hatchell has said to to her team is we are playing an matchup zone and going in the offensive end. >>mike: here is alexa deluzio off balanced and hits it. >>deb: what a tough shot by the

freshman under duress. >>mike: rebound. she has it. the red shirt freshman making a huge difference on the last couple of possessions. >>deb: watch the fade away over the outstretched hand of chay shegog. i like the toughness in that rookie. wide open. >>mike: was a pass. >>deb: wide open. >>mike: chay shegog did not score in the first half has six now. and back to a 10-point game. ward.

florida statezu$z!d

she is too quick. >>mike: 648 to go. hold oh, things are heating up

in

the images from haiti are heart-breaking-- homes, hospitals, and schools destroyed; families searching for loved ones; parents trying to feed their children. but we can all do something. we can help the american red cross as it delivers the food, water, and medicine that can save lives. donate $10 by texting "haiti" to 9-0-9-9-9. visit redcross.org

or call 1-800-red-cross. thanks for your help. the tar heels. >>mike: the last north carolina lead was 6-4. the score was tied at 8 and florida state was up 19 here in the second half, debbie. >>deb: they are fast and then there is north carolina fast. they are playing at their ownirn definition, when they rach it up a notch, you can't contain them are committed to scoring in their transition game. their guards are just simply faster. >>mike: north carolina shooting 60% in the second half. look at the transition north carolina basketball. 80 plus points a game, 4th in

the nation in scoring. >>mike: a three to tie it. here is the freshman, ruffin-pratt. lucas had to force that shot up and look at lucas hustle unable to get there. >>deb: excellent defensive possession by florida state. you force north carolina deep into shot clock and you force them to here is clayton and with the elbow. and here come the tar heels again. >>deb: monroe3fñ?ñ? can go frome

bounce from there. >>mike: monroe not in the game right now but she will not be on the bench for long. turn around from chay shegog, my goodness, half. chay shegog the sophomore is having 14 points all in this half. >>deb: from the post. >>mike: a one point game as bravard and monroe get set to come back. lucas coming up with a steal. and florida state takes it right back. there is hunnicutt. ward for three. what a big shot by courtney ward! >>deb: great skill and transition by ward. return to the season as the best 3 point shooter by percentage in the league. >>mike: chay shegog good post

defense. it will

showing sig-t e. ge

>>mike: the importance of these games these are the teams with duke in the standings and the winnings will have a big leg up trying to catch the blue devils. >>deb: north carolina will get a chance to play them twice. that is why it is important. if you want to win the acc season for florida state you need to win this game tonight. >>mike: jacinta monroe to the line. >>deb: remember florida state the last two seasons have been the best road team in the acc. they didn't play at duke or north carolina or at maryland. that's something to keep in mind. >>mike: how impressive that every time north carolina has

gotten within one, florida state has had an answer. 14 points now for jacinta monroe. >>deb: part of the reason they have been so good on the road is guard play. making the right decisions when the game is on the line. >>mike: not a good decision that time. >>deb: lucas has to have a good decision for north carolina. >>mike: here is gray. courtney ward asking for a screen. she goes the other way. to bravard. what a nice play! >>deb: that's the kind of play i'm talking about out of a guard. she rejects the screen and goes baseline. >>mike: fooled everybody. lucas has it blocked by monroe. the tough shot blocker in the

league comes through. here is ward. florida state on a run! just when you thought the seminals might follow, debbie, we are seeing poise and character out of the ladies from tallahassee. ba is that right, she will call for the screen. she will tell monroe, come on out, set it and then she will reject it and go baseline. watch cetera degraffenreid. she draws two on the disk north carolina late on the back side. terrific read by courtney ward and monroe blocks it and keeps it in play and puts it inward's hand. the best turnover play ir the last three years. >>mike: north carolina cut it to one, 66-65. this play led by courtney ward.

the seminals have scored 6 unanswered points. just over two minutes left. >>deb: florida state could get a shot here -- >>mike: lucas and hunnicutt who has been a huge story off of the bench. >>deb: just the play everybody in the league wants to get a 2 point opportunity off of. italee lucas had a good look. north carolina needs a shot. >>mike: hunnicutt. wide open is gray. that's a two pointer put on the line but it's a huge bucket. >>deb: i'm telling you italee lucas couldn't get out to contest. >>mike: gray there and lucas answers with a three. >>deb: not too tired on the offensive end, i guess. >>mike: no way. >>deb: north carolina has got to

get a turnover. >>mike: monroe has been the story for florida state. gray is in double figures is fouled and if that's on lucas, that's the 5th and italy lucas will leave the game with 102 left. >>deb: will you get tired things start to break down and she is fatigued. that's not the person that carolina wanted to go out of the game. >>mike: lucas leaves with 20 points. very good offensive effort here tonight. things will be tough for north carolina now without her floor and angel gray to the

free-throw line. bravard offensive rebound and one. for the second

words."

commissionner, your story begins december 6, 1948. born right in the foothills of north carolina. what was it like for you growing up? >> we, north wilkesboro is a great little town to grow up in. i had a terrific family, great supportive parents. three older brother, one four years older than me, one 12 years older than me, one 16 years older than me. i think i might have been a mistake, i'm not sure. i don't know if i was planned but i was glad to be there. you know, from a family standpoint, i was just really, really blessed because i had so much support around and such good role models, too, even after my father died. carl, my who is still living, still lives in north at

davidson. jim went to duke on a football scholarship, and he had a great career there, and going to see him play really influenced me. >> your older brother, ws fna onh >>vas actually his ddle name. this was in the late '60s and early '70s which was very pop. that's when i was playing football in chapel hill. but bill was a terrific person. and we were very close and unfortunately we lost him to lymphoma in 2000. and we bone marrow transplant in which i was his donor. and it looked like that would

work for a while and it did for a while, but unfortunately, not long enough. i'll always carry him in my heart. >> our guest is johnny swofford. in the north carolina game, he connected with three touchdown passes. north carolina, 38-22 win. you've got quite a family. where is johnny sitting? johnny, stand up and take a bow, would you, please? >> was little brother john ever able to carry a tune? >> no, no. in fact, i trie bathroom and asked me to stop singing in the shower, that it was insulting to the music world.

, and my brothers were so influential on the -- but outside of the family, coach hoffman. i think this is probably true with a lot of people that come through the sports world. a lot of guys have a high school coach that played an influence on them. a lot of influence on what i could accomplish and become. taught us as a team how to love each other, commit to each other and how to play and win as a unit. unit. he did a marvelous job of that.

traese abat ye up fd no you likerici dget at eat. om ttch leed yogspa fon youngr taki yous, ly ifeelit. then'ties, theysics ft thk on. estroyed; families searching for loved ones; parents trying to feed their children. but we can all do something. we can help the american red cross as it delivers the food, water, and medicine that can save lives. donate $10 by texting "haiti" to 9-0-9-9-9. visit redcross.org or call 1-800-red-cross. thanks for your help.

>> swofford again will be the man with the ball. back and throws complete to blanchard for a touchdown in the corner of the end zone. >> you did wind up choosing north carolina chapel hill. what made you choose carolina? >> the combination of academics and athletics. and the fact that it was here

in the state. it was a long process, actually. the last two schools i came down to were georgia tech and carolina. and coach bobby dodd was in his last season. and what turned out to be his last season at georgia tech while i was a senior in high school. and georgia tech went to the orange bowl that year and lost to florida. and a coup of weeks after ince's staff at it was a very tough decision

i -- my freshman year i had some injury problems. this is when we had freshman daem ta teams, but played. my sophomore started the first five games of

my junior year at quarterback, and one afternoon against south carolina threw three interceptions and coach dooley decided if i liked defensive backs that well i could become one of them. and i literally went from starting at quarterback one week to two weeks later, starting at safety. and we got progressively better each year. and my senior year, i played less than i played the entire time i was at carolina but was part of an acc championship team. so i saw from it a lot of different angles. and i think that has been good for me. and i think it gave me looking back on it, a lot of empathy for back on it, a lot of empathy for athletes.

! me! ut. i toit. i tothe efor outh. co ale refot call yoa beng mx! theionsme! tahim,. i d, ieir foulwhen boun te'thrne, e. ce galex coac gol.

>> we've been nornt this league. there have only been three commissioners and all three of them have been of similar kind. would you be interested if the opportunity ever presented itself in being the acc sports commissioner? >> well, i don't know. that's a hypothetical. i'm so happy here at north carolina. if opportunity were there, it's something you would certainly have to think about.

>> only the fourth acc commissioner. how did that process take place? >> well, i had been in the job in carolina for 17 years as the athletic director and really wasn't looking for anywhere to go. make that move. and then when gene corrigan decided to step down, i had several people in the league suggest to me that it would be a good thing to think about. next move. >> i'm delighted to introduce the next commissioner of the atlantic coast conference, john swofford.

>> i know the conference really well. to me there's nothing better in college athletics than the athletic coast conference. so i felt it was a natural next step. the beauty of this is it give mess an opportunity to take a step professionally that i very much want to take and to do it in a conference that i have a great love for and respect for. the way i look at it is i'm just sort of expanding. >> expanding the acc from nine to 12 in 2003. bringing in virginia tech, boston college and of course, miami. what was process that went into the expansion? with. >> we took our time with it and we were absolutely convinced, at least the super majority of people in our league were

absolutely convinced that the futu future would be very difficult for us as a conference as a nine-member conference. it worked out well from a marketing standpoint, from a cohesive standpoint. the new schools coming in with the nine that were there are here, it's been a seamless transition almost. they totally bought into the culture of the acc. >> 97 men and women's teams in

the national championships per year. it's pretty darn good. >> it is. and that's a as a result of the coaches and the commitment they make to the schools. our league is a league of generally pretty broad-based programs. and we've g g gnationally competitive teams. what we try to have and i think what we do have in a lot of our sports is -- if you're good enough to win an acc championship, you're good enough to win the national championship. >> the bcs, how has that worked out, the bowl championship series in your mind? >> what the bcs has tried to do is pretty simplistic actually. match the number one and number

two national championship game while maintaining the tradition in the bowls. it's been successful in doing that. ofge footbin eexnf t me never been healthier. attendance has gone up, television ratings have gone up. interest level. i don't think there's any question that assistance has gone up on national basis. >> you've accomplished so much already, but what's left that john swofford would like to

accompli accomplish? >> that's a good question. i think the definite answer to that is what's left is to continue to give the atlantic coast conference every ounce of my capabilities from a leadership standpoint and what's required of this job. if you love what you're doing, where you're doing it and the people you're doing it with, you don't think a lot about what might t a t'eramw.

pla t yo, it tim for sult of tecomeen ecti conddant is. [cheering plau tht att is katie higg [cheering plau an youcomien . ok, e go... beccgar!

[cheand se] ♪t maeren ayou ful.♪ ♪s thside inesgh t♪

student or a business person has a tourist about to be easy, not hard to get a visa. we currently have a system it's pretty easy to speak in the country legally but fairly hard to get here illegally. it doesn't make sense to me. i don't understand the model we are currently using it that needs to be fixed. the other thing is how we deal with employment and i believe -- and again some of you may not be comfortable with this, we inevitably are going to end up with a guest worker program. i think the guest worker program has to be legal. i would tell source it to american express, visa or mastercard because i don't think the federal government can implement it. [applause] and then i wouldn't focus on the person who's an undocumented worker who happens to be here. i would focus on the employers

and say to the employers economic penalty for not obeying fall is going to be horrendous but that only works if you have a guest worker program so that the employer has an easy reliable and legal way been able to deal with it so if you raise a good question on taxes on p.m. for an option at the present time i think it's hard to replace the income tax like my friend john linder and kneal boards have a great book on the fair tax and i'm confident we could have a long discussion on that. i think it is very hard to get to for a variety of reasons. i think the interim best step is to have an optional flat tax where you can keep the current complicated code or having one page alternative that is extraordinarily simple. you decide which one is better and you can do either. a number of places now adopt that. [applause] >> good morning. my name is bald and by running for congress in the first

congressional district against carol shea porter. my question is this -- [applause] >> let me ask first of all will you fill out his form -- youtube should get together. >> i assure you. but one of the things i'm running on is the whole notion we've got to get the government out of the provision of goods and services that government is really bad at this and we need to move this to the private sector and this whole concept is known as public-private partnership which is an american invention. something we seem to have forgotten after world war ii. the rest of the world has increased it to an extraordinary extent but i'm curious as to your perspective why america for got this notion and how we get it back and what do you see as the input demint sophos getting public-private partnership to get the government out of provision of goods and services whereby we can get much smaller government, lower taxes and much better

services. thank you. >> i think that you're point is well made and i believe both in the maximum degree of getting as you had put it public-private partnerships. i also believe the maximum trying to get power out of washington back home some people who have to live with consequences of their decisions are involved in making them and both of them are very important changes. what you have had though for a large part since 1932 has been the steady increase of three large bureaucracies in which more and more power went to washington, more power into public employee unions and the vested interest were all making things more and more government. i think we are at the end of that cycle because it simply doesn't work and it's grown too expensive and the pressure of the world market is way to make us become more competitive that is why i wanted to talk with all of you about how you could use the modern media because the fact is you are in a position now where we are going to -- the pressure of the world market competition on the one hand and

the enormous expense of government on the other are going to force us into these kind of ideas, force us back into reinventing public-private partnership and force us into importing citizens rather than bureaucrats and force us to then make things more local rather than run out of washington, d.c.. and the question is going to be how rapidly across the country in our 50 states can we find citizen inventors who can help invent the replacement models that enable us to go through the kind of change but i think your point is extraordinarily well made. >> thank you very much for coming here today. i just wanted to ask one question about the key party patriots. i've been to a number of these defense and basically the tea party patriots are for limited government and allowing people to make their own decisions basically and free markets, and there's a great deal of positive energy out there in this

movement. how do you picture forming a coalition say of republicans, libertarians, tea party people to regain trust in government? because that is an issue that comes a bet tea party functions. people don't really, the wonder if there's a difference between either party and a contract with america put out there specifics people could hold on to as a goal. what you recommended giving to engage this energy and well with those goals be? >> that is a very good question. let me say first of all i think the two-party movement overall has been a very positive thing. [applause] i think the republicans had deeply disappointed fiscal

conservatives, although i ron ackley if you look at the amount of money republicans were spending in 2006 the year they were fired from the majority and the amount that pelosi and reid spent in the three years since they took over i'm not sure the voters of the outcome they wanted, but the certainly were sending a signal they felt very deeply in 06 and in 08 and now they discovered the democrats got the wrong message and thought of as a vote for bigger government when actually i think it was for smaller government and people were angry that government was too big not because they thought it was too small. so i encourage the tea party movement and i think i'm going to be speaking at a tea party event april 15th and i have encouraged all of the republican members of congress to find a key party and april 15th because it is such a natural day for people to get together and talk about taxes and a way that is fairly personal unless your secretary geithner. [laughter] [applause] in which case you may not be actually aware that is going on.

[applause] but i think that -- i also urge the tea party movement if they are in an area where they can't elect a republican in the general election the ought to actively reach out and try to find democrats to run who share their values and districts tattersall the lead democrat said that in the primaries began to get real representation of an alternative to a big government union dominated left wing model, and i think that what frankly dramatically change the democratic caucus if people began winning -- of tea party candidates began winning as democratic primaries are on the country. so i am for the tea party people been bipartisan and being out there actively on both sides. i am also for them holding people accountable. the question is very important. but i said to the republicans yesterday was i think it would be very hard for them to adopt as a rule the question to the conference committees will be open to the public and the c-span will be allowed to cover

them. i said however if you a lot of that when you are in the minority you have a profound obligation to do it when you're in the majority because with the country doesn't want is more cynical dishonesty from its politicians. and so i think that part of the job of a citizen movement and part of the opportunity that you have and steward is to be thinking about and be a model for the rest of the country to learn from and work from, how can you have a dialogue conversation with your political leaders, how can you bring the whole community in the conversation and then how can you monitor them and make sure they actually keep their word? and part of the answer to that is to beat people as you say to people i understand you don't want to do what i want you to do. therefore i am not going to loan you power anymore. and i will give you time to come home and think about it. and i think frankly there are times in america where defeating a generation of incumbents is a useful way to begin to change

how people think. [applause] said mcconaughy and greg. i have a radical proposition. i don't know if it may be too radical for everyone in this room, but i have and clap if you agree, i have a proposition for mabey and contract for america to help fix it, right? how about we follow the constitution? the contract for america. mccain-feingold, congress shall make no law that should have a period at the end of that but shall make no law we speech and goes on and on. and it is reinvigorating the conversation about the constitution. >> i think it is a terrific thing to get people to look once again at both the declaration of independence and the constitution. i recently read an awful to try

men's souls which is a novel about george washington crossing the delaware on christmas night 1976 in a snowstorm at a time when the american revolution was a major collapse and we were down to less than one out of every thousand americans. he only had 2500 men left. one-third of his army didn't have boots and have wrecked their feet burlap bags and on the march my mile march in a snowstorm on an icy road they left a trail of blood to arrive early in the morning and supplies and defeat the german professional army captured 800 germans of the loss of one american and two weeks later because of the victory washington had 15,000 volunteers and drove the british out of new jersey and saved the revolution. i tell you that story because washington thought of as divine intervention. the snowstorm was so enormous

even though the army was four hours late getting to trenton there were no german guards out because it was inconceivable anybody would march in the snow storm. and washington said on a number of occasions they would never have gotten away from work one across the river if the huge fault hadn't can at this exact moment to protect them from the royal navy. and again he said was divine providence. when the british surrendered, washington's first order calls for a day of thanksgiving to give thanks to the divine providence whose intervention has made it possible for us to be american. that was the mind-set of the people who wrote the constitution. the constitution was designed to limit the government, not to limit the people. the purpose -- [applause] >> the purpose of organizations like s.t.e.w.a.r.d. i believe is

to create a new conversation to rebuild the community to allow us to take back our government and restore it to constitutional rule and limit those who have power within the bounds of the system that our founding fathers gave and that will mean smaller government, more humble government, government that listens more than and lectures and government that serves more than it commands and that is a fundamental dramatic change from the way the government has evolved every level in this country in the last generation. i only have time for one last question. i believe you get to be the last question unless it is really hard. [laughter] >> to my question my biggest concern is i don't see a response from the republican party to the one message people are trying to get across stop spending. that's just it.

it's not that complicated. and i don't hear the echo if you will of the contract with america, but how about abolishing the epa and osha. it's not that you need for the 76 somebody had -- was polluting the land with ever you want, there's nothing wrong with that. the growth of government is all in the bureaucratic -- talk about jobs. you can't do a job because between osha and the epa and god knows what, and i don't hear that from the republicans, and i think that's why people are arguably upset with republicans as well as the democrats, and i agree with the open process but somehow the republicans have got to give some reason to vote for them. >> that is a fair comment, let me just say -- [applause]

when i became speaker we have as part of the contract with america the constitutional provision for a balanced budget and we got a constitutional majority in the house with democrats and republicans voted for and we fell one vote short in the senate's and we said in a provision you had seven years to get to a balanced budget and so after it got within one vote we had a clear majority and huge majority in the house, 66 votes in the senate, and we had a meeting one night with congressman dick armey and bob livingston and bill archer and we sat down and said all right what if we just pretend the amendment passed and we go ahead and balance the budget in seven years? and we all looked at each other

and we spend about three hours talking it through and decide it purely as an act of citizenship this wasn't part of the contract we just go ahead and balance the budget. [applause] and to the point you made, if you look at all of the pattern of spending in modern america, during the four years i was speaker we had the lowest increase in government spending and putting the entitlements since calvin coolidge in the 1920's and we had a very simple -- we actually cut taxes while abolishing the budget, the opposite of the presidents model. frankly if you raise taxes they just spend more and we did the opposite. and what we did was very straightforward. i will close this but i think it's an example of communication. every wednesday night we had dinner with 15 or 12 ceos of big companies and say to them we want to balance the federal budget and that is a two or $300 billion a year change to

meet the standard of the biggest company of america this was an enormous undertaking. and i would say in your experience as a manager what is the key to the large skill change? the history rules interesting again and again it came up. the first rule was set very big goals with a very short deadlines. the second rule was still like it like crazy because you need lots and lots of people trying to get it done. the third was don't let any experts in the room because they will just tell you what you can't do. now john case it to his credit and i have hope he will be the next governor of ohio but he was an extraordinary chairman and leader of balancing the budget and we did largely what you talked about. we didn't have the kind of majority and this is why did you have to think of replacements not just reform and not just repealed. what is the right kind of epa to replace the current mess?

we want some kind of occupational safety. maybe it should be the state level, maybe it should be federal over to implemented by the states that we have to invent replacements because and i will tell you i am a theodore republican. i like the idea everywhere i go i can drink water and not worry whether or not she's clean. that is a function of having a government that says you have to have clean water everywhere in the country so i'm not prepared to say okay i don't mind if we eliminate the clean water act because after all my grandchildren can sue if i drink that water and die. i don't find that an acceptable model is we've got to figure out what are the replacement pieces that are more effective, less expensive, get the job done better and faster and then replace the bureaucracies. when we did in the 90's we control spending, we reformed welfare, we reformed medicare. the net effect was by the time we were done we balanced the budget for four straight years, we paid off $405 billion in

federal debt and we did it while we were cutting taxes for the first time in 16 years. i think that kind of management can get it done. thank you very, very much. [applause] >> thank you so much for coming here today, mr. speaker. you led us to victory in 1994 and we need your expertise now more than ever. we would like to give you a gift. this is from the family of another great conservative leader, our own former governor nels thompson. >> he was a great leader. [applause] he was a great conservative leader who understood the virtues of limited government and lower spending. i just want to point out for

anybody out there on tv land this is the hampshire maple syrup. [applause] thank you very much. >> former house speaker newt gingrich in new hampshire. tomorrow president obama is scheduled to attend a town hall meeting on jobs and of the economy of new hampshire ♪ subcommittee

some members of congress attended the annual world economic forum in switzerland. they discuss the global implications of the obama administration legislative agenda and areas such as health care from energy and the environment. this is about one hour. >> welcome, everybody. i am mike.

our task is to try to give a global perspective on the legislative agenda this year in the united states. as far as i know this is the only panel at davos focus on legislative agenda in any one country. so for the talk about the changing, no doubt it is changing, there's still something specifically important about what happens in the united states and what happens in congress. and of course when i used to live here in europe and before when i had the job as editor of the herald tribune europeans used to ask when do i get to vote in american elections and i used to tell them that's fine with me. i'm happy to have you vote but there's a number of county commissioners and not the united states but i haven't ordered to the senate about that but i don't imagine that will happen anytime soon but at least to convert to the end of the panel if you would like on the views of the various voices you are about to hear. now the framers of the united

states constitution when they invented the u.s. government it was an invention. envision the united states congress has the first branch of government, the place where the issues and pressures and demands of society come together and be a result or not. it doesn't work as efficiently as some people might wish it worked but it probably works about the way the imagined it would come and the congress certainly remains the crossroads of the american political system. and i don't know about all of you on this panel and how you feel about your jobs. but when i covered congress for an english-language newspaper on the east coast of the guide states it was one of the most interesting jobs i ever had. we are very likely to lead kentucky today to have five distinguished reticulate and in my experience very straightforward members of congress and we have a number of vital issues to discuss, regulation of the financial sector, the economy, climate change, healthcare, we only have an hour and we will try to get it quickly but before we get to any specific issues, i want to

begin by asking each of you to speak for just a minute or two and the larger question that hangs over the discussion of this panel and it is unclear for on an davos and frankly the entire world in general. tip o'neill the former speaker of the house famously used to say all politics is local by which i think he meant no politics can succeed unless the political leader is deeply cognizant and closely bonded to the needs and demands of the people who gave him his job. but in the world of global issues and all politics the local? what is an american leader's responsibility to the rest of the world? and specifically how do you integrate global pressures and global issues into your own political needs? why don't we start immediately on my left which is a seating chart, not a political statement, with the senator from south carolina? >> in case anybody didn't get

that. [laughter] welcome every bill in congress is a jobs bill as your job. now, i come from our state with beautiful challenges but what we give you an example about the reality of the world which we live and as a global economy if there were in effect on job anywhere in america your fear is your job isn't going to be a sore by the local economy so trying to find ways to translate a national trade policies and a global economy with people who are facing the downside of the world in which we live and i think what i try to do is let folks know the truth as i see it that i can't build a wall around south carolina when it comes to the influence of china and india and the global economy but i

sure as hell can fight for you and i think the chinese are manipulating their currencies. they may be tawes and commodities because they have certain advantages but i think politicians need to translate people back home the realities of the global economy but not intellectually, emotionally to be a so what i try to do is talk about the world we live in in real terms but let folks know free trade is part of the global the economy but so is fair trade and they seem to trust me with the idea that i've got someone up there who will understand the world economy but they haven't forgotten about me. and today he believed a forgotten about them is the day you lose your job and that is the way it should be. >> representative ed markey of massachusetts. >> if you take energy as an issue in massachusetts, the reality is that half of the trade deficit of the united

states is importing oil so people understand that, and the understand that as a result we need policies that deal with that issue and a policy in a state that has no oil, has no gas, has no coal goes to creating new jobs in a renewable energy, the efficiency economy, new electric vehicles, all of it which can be invented out of mit, harvard, all of the university's. the same thing is true in the biotech sector and you can go down. so a lot of this is positioning massachusetts in a global economy. the country itself only has 3% of the population for the 24 -- 21st century. we have to decide where we are going to position ourselves in

the economy such a large extent it is in this innovation economy is coming up with ideas creating the products and selling them across the planet so there is to be all of these new quote energy companies that are coming along the line much less like all the telecom companies and internet companies of the 1990's this constant read generation of new ideas is the source of new employment which than it leads to higher realistic rates, real-estate prices etc. that helps fuel the school system that's a threat. so it's constantly repeating what it is this going on in the world to what it is we need to do in the policy setting that will help the lives of those of regular people. >> representative brian baird, democrat of the state of washington. >> think tip o'neill was right but i want to put it into context. if you ever feel you were there as a representative to serve the

people we like did you you will lose that job pretty quickly as lindsey said. at the same time there is a real risk, and that is that one uses the global issues in a sense of demagoguery in one direction or another and thereby loses the nuance and the realities and the complexities of it, and it is tempting i think at times on both sides with one interest group or another to grasp the rather simple and visceral issues or eccentric that and the copay look of the other issues that are pressing, and that can easily distort policies of the delicate balances as start your constituents and try to speak with honesty of the complexity of global issues even if that sometimes as at odds with one or another support or opposition group and even if he will take some flak for that because you've got to simultaneously care for the people who got you here but also carried a much broader level including the national and international level

and that's not always easy. .. for example, we are trying to establish the state of maine as the world leader in the development of deep water,

offshore wind energy, and people in my state are excited about that, and they understand very well the global implications, because they know that somewhere in the world, deep water offshore wind energy is going to take off and why not have it be the state of may that is the leader? similarly, since we are in the midst of two wars, people in my state, where we have a very high level of veterans among our population, and a high level of those who are serving, particularly national guard members, those issues are still very much on people's minds. so, i don't see it as an either/or choice, but certainly as brian said, anyone who does not understand where one's first obligation lies quickly becomes

a former member of congress. >> representative barney frank, democrat of massachusetts. >> i want to challenge a little bit the premise, not you saying it but the general approach is, how do you avoid being some parochial politician who distorts good technocratic policy because of your constituents? and i think in fact that in a number of broad issues and let me start with trach hamar constituents or right in the technocrats were wrong. there's a great british political philosopher, and his theory of democracy was one of the arrogance for democracy was only the people who wear the shoes they wear the pants. our constituents have known where they pinched. interbraid many of us, and i know this is true of us in new england and south carolina, we have been begging the financial establishment, literally begging them for years, please do something to alleviate the distress caused by trade.

we were trade trade is win-win. and it is often between countries but you see decisions are made within countries and there was a refusal tide knowledge the pain that was being inflicted on some, and overall gain in gdp and a change in the distribution and for us, since we are better off with high and stuff to the lower and people being hurt and the result of them not listening to us is the trade is now dead in america. you couldn't get a trade bill through congress. you could if they would have begun to work with us and generally alleviate things. secondly, i am trying very hard to do financial regulation in a coordinated way, but as between the experts, the business community and economists and my constituents who were suspicious, they were right in the experts were wrong about what the banks were doing. i have the guts to tell you to the extent the constituents in my district thought this derivative stuff was

contributing, they were more right than not and i will say this and i have one advantage in the area of my greatest legislative responsibility. financial legislation clearly quoc bridges synergist and the parochial sense because we want to put in tough rules and the can't have tough rules in one country and though lyndon might have been able to put socialism in one country but tough bank regulation in one country is not going to happen because we will lose people aware think the constituency is ready and it may go counter to the received wisdom, and that is we hear a lot about people saying oh, america, the dollar should not be their reserve currency in the world. i will set that aside. the pentagon should not be the reserve military in the world. i am tired of the spending hundreds of billion dollars so no one has to do much militarily. we are anitere bull pined. we have a deficit to reduce and we have needs that to be met short terms in terms of job

stimulation and quality of life. the only way we can do that in my judgment as to begin to substantially reduce americans' military commitments worldwide. you can cut the defense budget and maintain those commitments and i know what is fine to happen. i am going to be told this is isolation etc.. i think a number of americans are skeptical of the extent to which we are so heavily engaged in protecting of a buddy from everything, even though we can't do it effectively so i would just say the public, the public is not simply a reality that we have to deal with. it is often a very good measure of whether policies are ultimately right or wrong. >> which i think princess directly to the first issue i would like to grapple with. davos says many of you have been coming here for many years no, his eyes and a place where warring parties came together to try to solve their differences to make peace. we had mandela hansher ron perez and yasser arafat in today we

retreated to the global banking industry and barney frank. [laughter] chairman frank, chairman of the house committee that deals with these regulatory financial issues. tell us what you told the bankers this morning and what they told you and whether what they told you makes any difference. >> yes and no. those in the financial-- one point we are making because we are talking about financial institutions. goldman sachs may decide next week not to be a bank that there will be no less, that will not get them regulation so that was a great point to the extent the large financial institutions tell us we should regulate, to the extent that takes that the need for regulation on in willing to work with us to make proposals about how best to do it, that will work well. i will give an example in this is evolving today. the question of banning proprietary trading by banks and in this case technical banks which we are quinn to go ahead within which paul volcker talked about. the committee that i chair--

many suggestions being made by mark karney of the canadian bank and others, the notion is that you get proprietary trading not so much by a sharp line but by a volume of more or less, because there's a certain amount that has to be done to keep things going so the answer is, i believe that the major financial institutions understand regulation is coming. that is their interest to give us the kind of the advice we need so we can do it in the best way in the best way includes a tough way but a smart way and the other good thing is there i think a strong movement and it would help today. the european union, the united kingdom, japan, the candidate and u.s. work in the financial economy, working together. i think this has been very helpful and tougher regulation is coming and can be done thoughtfully, and it will be done in a way-- there is no overall sovereignty nobody to

impose a bank tax. you don't need to have all and all one because there's no sovereignty to impose it from above but it will be done in a coordinated manner so that you won't have this regulatory arbitrage of people in our country saying we are being put at a disadvantage so i'm not encouraged on that one and i said on that one, for me, the interest of my local constituents and the tough regulations, sufficiently coordinated so it doesn't create those regulatory arbitrage is. >> before we move into this issue senator graham, senator collins this is a republican view that will become an important factor in this? >> i introduced regulatory reform bill a year ago. i spent five years in state government overseeing their regulation of banks, insurance, securities, licensing boards, a whole host of serious, and i believe we did have a complete

failure of regulation. i think part of it was that the tools board in place but i think part of it was that the regulators, as barney has implied, did not use tools that they did have. i believe that the most important regulatory reform that we could implement however, would be a board of regulators, a council of regulators that would be responsible for identifying systemic risk to our system, and identifying regulatory black holes. inevitably, the matter how skilled the reform legislation may be, there will be a new risky product or a process that will emerge, and we need a regulatory system that is flexible enough to spot the influence of derivatives that

fell through the cracks that for regulated neither as a banking product nor as an insurance product. >> if i could finish one quick point. so, because i know i am yielding to barney is like. [laughter] >> she is not even in the house. [laughter] >> people say the house and the senate don't know each other. >> just to pick this up, to answer your question, republicans as well as democrats agree that the system failed and that we need regulatory reform. whether we will be able to come together in the end, i hope so. >> i just wanted to point out that the council that senator collins asked force cindy-- the only thing i would say, we also empower the regulators to do the new stuff because not only evasive projects, there are people know very smart highly paid people figuring out the next loophole and we did give the regulators we hope enough to

be able to deal with so i just wanted to agree completely. >> first i will be coming to you and the audience surely for questions so if you have a question, tried to signal. i believe we have some microphones. yes, we have microphones. we will get to to them and continue up here for a little while. the second piece of housekeeping parliamentary rules are not in effect. feel free to jump in. you guys have to live with each other so you can decide the rules. in terms of another global issue that clearly is both very timely and in some ways raises the same kind of challenges the financial regulation issues and that is climate change. president obama in his speech to the congress on wednesday night said that nuclear power and offshore drilling have to be part of an overall climate change, overall energy policy and energy policy designed to reduce carbon emissions. that was widely seen as a concession to use a let me start with congressman markey to say

you have long been an opponent of nuclear power although also a proponent of clean energy and curbing of carbon news. is this a concession that now has to be made in order to achieve a climate change protocol that will work? >> well, the bill that passed the house, the waxman-markey bill, action was endorsed by the nuclear energy institute, the nuclear industry of the united states. when you put a cap on carbon, when you are moving towards low-carbon economy, that benefits the nuclear industry. they are a no carbon source of electrical generating capacity. in addition we also had a green bank of $75 billion that they have nuclear industry could apply to for low-interest loans and new nuclear technologies. in addition, as you know, the ban on drilling off the coast line of the united states was lifted two years ago so there is no ban right now.

and, so in addition to the edison electric institute endorsing the bill, in addition to many of the major industries in america endorsing the bill, steelworkers, aluminum workers, communication workers and others we have tried to build a coalition that will be able to sustain the question of whether not we are helping or hurting american industry. over on the senate side, lyndsey is leading the effort to construct the coalition that can get 60 votes over there. and he is doing a brilliant job working with john kerry and senator lieberman to accomplish that goal. and, so we are actually looking forward to him as the leader, completing the legislation over there and he and i have been talking all along, and we had a couple of good conversations today, towards the final completion of legislation, but i

don't think the whole wholes are inconsistent. to protect the american economy, because the global leader in new energy technologies, reduce the amount of pollution by 2% per year over the next 40 years or so, we'll backing imported oil and protecting the public health of our country, and i think we agree on the larger goals. we can sit down and work out the details and accomplished all of that because it cannot happen if we do not have bipartisan support and business support for the legislation so i'm looking forward actually to working with them. >> senator graham is a falling into place for important legislation? the number one, susan collins is on i thank a cap-and-dividend bill. she has been involved in global climate change long before i came along. i never voted for in legislation yet. the reason i jumped in is

because i see a wonderful opportunity to do a couple of noble things. america is running out of time to solve a lot of her problems, and 70% of our oil comes from overseas and a lot of it comes from people who are using the money for bet purposes. and, that resonates at home so i am talking in south carolina where all politics is local, now is an opportunity to break our dependence on foreign oil and nuclear power, were the most pronuclear stayed in the nation. we have more nuclear power per capita than any state in the nation. >> holcombe south carolina is this not like france? >> we love france. come to france, come from france and spend money in south carolina. i make a joke at the french expense and they probably make some that mind, but it is not really, it makes the point. what percentage of the french power comes from the nuclear industry?

82. surely we can be as bold as the french. everybody laughs. i am here to publicly think of the french government and the french nuclear industry to proving to people in south carolina and other places that nuclear power has a responsible place in power production. you really can't replace these coal-fired plants with wind and solar. nuclear is part of the climate change solution, and from my point of view, if you want to create jobs in america, energy independence guys, i think you wahler krate is building the transmission lines, building nuclear power plants and redesigning our cars, homes and office buildings to be more energy-efficient. that is where america is going to create jobs. without the magic opportunity here to create jobs, become energy independent nds clean up the air, the reason we are talking about the president's speech, because it was different. the truth is the nuclear peace in the bill is not going to get

60 votes but i do appreciate what he said here today. the president did something that no democrat has done before or any other president quite frankly. he talked about nuclear power, offshore drilling and clean air in that order. that is where america is that. and he said, you can disagree with me about the phenomenon of global warming, and everybody on our side pretty much does. i do believe that greenhouse gases are contributing to the heating of the earth. how much i don't know, but he said why don't you join with me to provide the next generation of americans cleaner air and pure water and in the process let's create jobs? that to me resonates. the president, i appreciate what he did. he made our ability to put a bill together much more likely in the state of the union speech and i appreciate what he did. it was a significant change.

>> i'm going to come to the audience in a moment but before i do-- >> one brief thought on that. you know a lot of the discussion has been, the lack of passage in the bill has cap-and-trade. i am rather skeptical that they are going to pass a cap-and-trade build for the congress. i could be wrong but i think is pretty improbable. that doesn't mean however that the u.s. can't be seen as an active player in reducing co2. many local communities are already doing a tremendous job. many businesses are. i to say that because i think is really important that we not caste cap-and-trade ess they sine qua non, that we can't get there if we don't pass it. there are other alternatives but he gann other nontax none additional expenditures because if somebody were to say the benchmark is by the end of this year have we gotten passed into

law an energy bill that includes a cap-and-trade provision, i would take that bet against any day right now. maybe eddin lyndsey will surprise me and i hope they will perhaps but that would be my read. >> anyone else on that subject? i am going to come to the audience but before i do i want to read a question that was sent into was, as many of you may know, the world economic forum and "associated press" and facebook have been working together to try to let people around the world see and hear about it and we solicited questions for the panel. one came from a photographer, as he points at a small businessman hever phil massachusetts. is that in either of your district? favor bill. >> who did he vote for? >> he asks us, what role that the battle between democrats and republicans not supporting each other place in the downfall of

the economy? wise each party only focused on their own agenda despite the impact might have on the americans? maybe we could start with congressman baird. you have an ounce to retirement. >> well there's no question in my mind there's too much partisan divide. at his ben unfortunately exacerbated by the new media, not reduced. i think a great shame. people are going to their own choice of radio or television in their own choice of the internet bloggers and instead of actually listening to what the other side does, they are listening only to people we agree with and it is a destructive process. on top of that to be perfectly blunt both party leadership, literary lot of democrats out of conference committees and the democrats not been much better. we of and had great partners on the republican side that we are going to have to get past that. we are contact desir let's start with the points of agreement. if you take the health care bill or the energy bill my own

perspective, obviously differs from fuld stir up my own perspective would be rather than crafting very large packages, we start with small pointed me say what do we agree on an danley build from there because i think people really want to see a sexually get something done. and if you take something as important as energy and as important as health care to say well we passed it with a one-vote majority or with one vote from the other side, when it affects all americans, yes you may pass into law but you have the sort of visceral legitimacy of your general public and if you don't i think you have a problem. >> let me ask one further question on this, to the question of what will lavont happen this year. >> republicans and the senate race in massachusetts last week, senator graham and senator collins and 39 collins the crucial vote on basically everything that matters in the senate. is that political change both in terms of both counties in the

senate or just in terms of the impact of this have on political thinking in the united states. does that make it more likely are less likely there will be things happening in congress this year? >> i will tell you, the difference between 60 and 59 is enormous. i think the worst thing that could happen to any majority is that 60 votes. because you are responsible for everything. you have got no one to blame but yourself. so i am glad scott is coming because he is going to give us a chance to start over on health care and get a more rational solution. everybody can tell you what they think about massachusetts election. i think it was just like, wow. i never saw that one coming. but now, every republican is potentially the 60 afloat, said the democratic colleagues can say, is there not one of you anywhere over there that would help us do ab or c? i think it will create a sense

of opportunity that wasn't there before, because democrats are going to be required now more to look for that person or group of people. they were burned by the partisan approach to health care. they are not stupid. they are very smarts of a don't want to go down that road and have they partisan cap-and-trade fight, so i think the long run it is going to help and for my party's pointed you, we don't believe we are the party of no and i don't believe that. we had better prove that. >> congressman frank breakfast in the financial area it won't make any real difference because senator dodd to think it's been one of the most frankly unfairly criticized political leaders and has been doing a very good job working with his republican counterparts in the senate and a number of people, senator gregg for example, it was not running again but there was always going to be a degree of bipartisanship. i think frankly, in the house it

was more partisan on financial regulation but i think there's a stronger ideological stream in the house of people who said-- in the senate if it been more for negotiated effort, so i do not think this will make any difference. i expect the senate to be putting a bill out in march. there will be some differences over consumers who will be pushing for more but it will not i thank, i expect the president to be signing a pretty good financial reform package sometime this spring. >> center collins, the democrats of always hoped there would be a vote for health care anyway. >> they did, that is true. [laughter] let me make two points however in response to your question. i have a different take on scott brown then most of my colleagues. i am ecstatic to have another republican from new england in the republican caucus. and one who might believe will

be a more moderate voice. i think that is good for the republican party. i think it is good for new england. i think it is good for our country. the second point i want to make is, i believe the election of scott brown gives the president permission to reach out more to republicans, because he can tell the left he has to now. so, i am actually optimistic that it may allow us to proceed on bills that we otherwise would not have. on health care, there is a bipartisan health care bill to be had. there are several provisions in the senate bill that have widespread support. why don't we sit down and enact those provisions? small business tax credits,

widespread support, and it would help reduce the number of uninsured americans. the purchase of insurance across state lines. small business pooling. there are many provisions where we could come together. i think the biggest mistake that was made with the health care bill is there is an insufficient focus on costs. it is the high cost of health care, the exploding cost of health care that is the biggest problem, and had that been the focus of the bill, i believe we would have produced better legislation. instead it was an afterthought. >> congressman marquee. >> in energy and climate legislation, there was never a day when it was a question of 60 votes. all democrats. in the senate. it was always going to beat lindsay graham, susan collins and other republicans with whom

we are going to have to work. many issues are ideological and many others are regional and practical, so you have to divide the question into different categories in terms of how the senate works and financial services and climate in energy. >> people have taken health care as in modeled everything but it was really an out liar. >> it might have been a catalyst that we did not have a debate in massachusetts about energy policy in the last month or about how to regulate wall street or the other 100 dishes we could go down, then of which raised so i think at the end of the day, we all realize that we have to work in a bipartisan fashion, and in answer to your question that came in from that gentleman, the reason that we kind of drove the price of a barrel of oil up to $144 a barrel amongst other things was a failure to regulate

derivatives and the failure to regulate international markets and secondly, that the congress on a bipartisan basis could not pass laws to increase the fuel economy standards of the vehicles which we drive, so that we went from 20% imported oil in 1970 up to 60% imported oil as of two years ago. so, that was bipartisan, and this thing thing was true in terms of the absence of regulation in the financial marketplace. so the lot of the problems that were caused in our economy were related to energy and financial policies, but it wasn't because democrats or republicans were fighting each other. tubeless because some democrats and some republicans had more guts and some democrats and republicans had to maintain policies and the book and then when you come back as a result to solve the problem is going to take democrats and republicans in each one of these areas to identify the area and put in

place to prevent the policies that will prevent a recurrence and each one of those areas. >> that is exactly right but there are lot of things that are attractive. some of the of the things that are attractive are banning the preexisting condition rules and some other things. the problem is it is hard to do that unless you broaden the base. to other issues though. what is cost control and senator cones is right we ought to do something about cost control because cost control was a classic issue in which everyone was in favor of cost control in general and every particular measure becomes controversial. pass a bill that says we reduce health care costs by x% it would be anonymous. there is the single way we could do that and the only the thing i would say about costa's sisson i understand cost is a problem. i'm going to be mr. one no on this. if we hadn't fought the war in iraq, which has done more harm than good and spend a trillion dollars on that mistaken policy would not be worrying about a whole lot of things we are worried about now including how

to pay for health care and until we address the mass of over investment in worldwide military activity that i think has done more harm than good will not have the resources for the government to do anything we ought to do. >> let me take one element of this cost control asian and back to the partisan issue. there were in the house bill number of cost control measures. among them were things like best practices panels that would tell us where the most effective medicine is, where you get the best thing for the buck. that became translated to that we were going to deny you coverage in the name of the government for good the idea that you provide people in the life-- and of life counseling so they can make a decision about how, with their doctor, how to deal with the end of life decisions became panels. it became a dishonest partisan exercise, not a serious intellectual exercise about how we solve the problem. it was symptomatic of the partisanship and not for the good of the country and that was

lamentable. >> the worst distortion on the right, as brian has said, was the death penalty. the worst distortion on the left was saying that the single-payer system would be free. there was distortion on both sides. >> this single-payer thing and i am a supporter of it-- [laughter] that dropped out. that was not a factor. that was discarded. those of us over fort understood we did not have the votes. the death panel unfortunately, that terrible distortion affected votes. >> we have time we will return to some of the questions. who has the microphone? i have a question right up here. >> mike johnson from the united

states with an investment management firm. some of the talk here has been on the supreme court decision that authorizes corporations and other institutions to be able to spend money on their issues, free-speech issues. that looks as if from the outside it could really complicate your job. because, it means that you are going to have to appeal not only for money for your campaigns but that you are going to be faced with some very big bucks, advertising and taking issue with some of the things that you think ought to be done. is there anything, if i am right, and if you do believe that is going to complicate your job, is there anything congress can do to change that supreme court decision or would it require a change in the constitution? >> congressman baird do you want to start? >> if i could make one change in the united states congress, it would be this, ban all political fund-raising and provide matching public funds to anybody

to exceed a limited number of signatures for could just think about to come to run in the competitive district, which i have done seven times you have to raise $2 million of the two years for good works out to $20,000 every single week and to go down to the republican headquarters in the democratic headquarters to see people who want to be setting policy. instead they are tied to telephones begging complete strangers sometimes to give the money and it's terrible inefficient return on your time and investment. it takes away your time and raises questions about whether not you are voting on principle or for financial reasons and doing away with that would set our foreign policy street, it would be the single best change but you have to amend the constitution to achieve it. >> first of all, i think it is a terrible decision and part of a terrible set of decisions and also by the way critics sample of radical activism by ideological judges, striking

down dozens and dozens of state laws and national laws. the conservatives say we don't want the courts interfering with the popular will. remember this total hypocrisy because what they did in that decision was to strike down well over 100 years of lost by every jurisdiction in america. secondly, free speech exists almost nowhere in the world except in the u.s. according to them because they define the right to get money to candidates and contribute for free speech. i don't think that is rational. the only time there for free speech is when it ain't free because it's when it needs money. finally, there are some things, the change here was they could come and not always but they have for some time been able to spend money on their shoes and this allows them to give to candidates. i think you can see democracy drum. the final answer, i guess there is something that falls within the jurisdiction of the committee i chair. we do have jurisdiction over

corporations for the supreme court on the contrary, dodd-- god did not create corporations. they are not in doubt by their creator with inalienable rights. we are that kreger and we can alienate some of those rights if we do it in a fair way. [laughter] we are now studying what can be done, consistent with the supreme court decision, to make them go public, to let the shareholders-- there are ways in which a that the corporation to take effect and i've spoken to speaker pelosi, we will be legislating to set rules on what corporations can do given were bound by the supreme court. >> senator graham, the exception for this was it was good for your team. >> i was disappointed in the decision but i have the little different take about it. i don't think justice kennedy is a judicial activist. it was the fifth vote here. corporations in the eyes of the court, have free-speech rights when it comes to political

advertising, that the court believes mccain-feingold unfairly restricted. i believe that public policy in america is going to be in for a brief awakening. it is hard enough right now to get democrats and republicans to work together. bernie and i, we disagree on a lot of things. barney, i would say moveon.org did a great disservice to this country by trying to run joe lieberman out of the democratic party because he dared to agree with president bush on the war. i would dare say that things are going to come out, because i have stepped up. trying to find some common ground on immigration and climate change, and at the end of the day the big problem facing america is not the lack of funding by other nations within the military and barney is right, nato needs to contribute more to their military, to take some pressure off of us, but our problems

ladies and gentlemen our entitlement spending. our budget is locked down now with social security and medicare and medicaid bills that are quite frankly unsustainable. and if you try to solve these problems, the power of special-interest groups your against whatever solution you put on the table as got exponentially greater. can you imagine writing the united states constitution in today's environment? ben franklin is about to sell out. and it is all over the radio and it is all over the tv, so the power of money and the ability to find consensus on the hard things has gotten greater and i'm not sure that is going to help america make these very hard decisions. and i worry about this decision. >> they could not have gotten the constitution renegotiated on c-span. >> i say here, that corporations

don't want to be hated for the most part as well. they have had many ways over many years to pour more money into the political process, if they wanted to, and they have chosen not to and that is most corporations in america. to cross that line and all of a sudden decide that as a corporation i want to defeat lindsay graham in south carolina and those corporations are in san francisco, boston and new york city could very well be the single biggest thing you can do for lindsay graham to guarantee his election because he will make a huge issue out of that because of this issue of transparency, the changes that we can make in the rules, which i think both lindsay graham and barney frank might ultimately wind up agreeing on is that i would like to know where that money is coming from going into south carolina or the opposite, from oklahoma and texas and south carolina coming into massachusetts because as soon as people find out about it you can take all the money you want in

the morgan uptick in the more they are trying to influence the election, the better off you are going to be doing with a much more modest amount of money so this could be a reverse takedown aspect of this politically and corporations have to be careful about it because they can wind up with black guys that come back to haunt them on many other issues, as they go forward. so it is a lot like the world that the internet plays. now where you can raise tens and millions of dollars within a week. that is a revolution, and it has to be handled by both parties. pact moneim was considered to be a reform in the 1970's, and all of the reformers say we need more pac money in the debris will make it transparent and by the 1990's farmers were calling for a ban on pac money. what excursive is on the political system so ultimately transparency is the single best way to deal with perhaps maybe the only constitutional way that we can deal with it but

ultimately you would be surprised in the hands of a bold politicians how effectively that can be used to disarm what looks like to be an overwhelming upon it. >> we are downtier last five minutes and i will take a question of the here. >> hi, i am from sausalito. i am one of 600 young leaders out of the world economic forum and last night, president calderon was convincingness to become public servants, to try and become politicians. a report that was released last night by the global leaders found that less than 5% of us hold public office, but yet 75% of us want to enter public office and many of the reasons that i have been brought up today that stop this from wanting to get into politics. i will mention to young global leaders as well as calderon.

rajiv shafi was now leading the mission for rebuilding in haiti, but also the ann jones and the van jones effect that pretty much put the nail in the coffin for most social entrepreneurs and businessmen and businesswomen from wanting to end u.s. politics. as opposed to other politics so i would like to hear from the panel their thoughts, that you could do to bring business leaders, social entrepreneurs and nonprofit leaders into the realm and the hell with calls of government? >> senator collins. >> your country needs to. it really is that simple. look, despite the tremendous frustrations that each and everyone of us have experienced in public life, the fact is that there are few areas that you can go into that also gives you more

satisfaction. menu bright ava that addresses a real problem, it is a wonderful feeling. it is an opportunity to make a difference, and i don't mean to sound corny or naïve about the difficulties, but you really should go for it, because there are very few ways, perhaps teaching is another way, that you can have such an impact on the society in which you live in truly help to make life better. so, despite the frustrations, despite the shortcomings, i really hope that you will enter public service and i say that having no idea what your views are. >> congressman baird and then congressman frank. >> i am retiring at the end of this year but it is after 15

years. it is a crowded field. >> not that far from sausalito. >> if you get a good corporation tabak cube-- the carpetbagger thing-- [laughter] it is the single greatest honor or privilege of my entire life to serve in the u.s. congress and there's a wonderful book called washington's crossing which talks about the revolutionary war and the challenges washington and our army faced in an incredibly difficult time. people literally walked with no emission knowing they had a high likelihood of getting a bayonet in the stomach and they took it and they did it because they had a vision of a greater country than what had existed on arf prior to that. and they achieved it but the achieved it in an extraordinary cost in yes you know it is unpleasant to be targeted. most of us have been and believe me there are some difficult times in this job but what susan said is right, at the end of the day the ability to serve in an elective office, somebody has got to make decisions for your

country and somebody's got to make decisions for the world and we desperately need people to step forward and hopefully when you do, learned from our mistakes. step forward and say i will do it differently. there will be awful moments but there will be moments that are sublime when you say i stood for something and that made the difference. >> viewpoints, one very practical. the problem is people think about running for the senate or for the u.s. house, but they are very important jobs at the local and state level. there are state legislators. any of the certainly at and i started in the state legislature entry level jobs are very important. you worked in the city council, work is a county clerk in the first thing i would say to people licea huh you may find it is easier than you think to know people and a local level and you don't need money at that level so look to the entry level job and the part is if you do weldon

knows, most of us who are in the u.s. house and the u.s. and it started out in other jobs. there are some exceptions but that is where we started. secondly, there is this trade-off and people need to understand. is with lindsay and others said said today. we have two parallel universes, conservatives, liberals on the internet and the dilemma is that people think that everybody agrees with them, because all that they hear is reinforcing so when some of us try to work out compromises we are accused of each rank unnecessarily because they all believe us when we say we don't have the majority for single-payer. i wish we did. people lonely talk to other people don't understand that and there are a lot of people out there who want you to compromise and i don't doubt that but none of my telephones, because whenever hear from them. we hear from the people who are most energized. the reason i said that is the hope people will come in, but there is a little bit of a

sacrifice. getting into our-- you will accomplish more but you lose what i accuse one commentator of any debate of being able to luxuriate the purity of your arrow balance. [laughter] that is a tradeoff we think four is making that people should be aware of is out there. >> the last word for congressman-- >> political expert is really an oxymoron. it is a contradiction in terms like jumbo shrimp carboniferous vegetarian. there is no such thing as a congressional expert. you are all sitting out here on all the issues that you are all experts in but we are experts and one thing and that is politics. that is what we are dedicated to. and the van jones incident is a good example of something that should not be taken as something that is widespread.

he was appointed. and, he got caught up in the controversy, and he had to leave his job. but, there are tens of thousands of people all across america who dedicate their lives to appointed government service, and if we don't have the best and brightest few except those tens of thousands of jobs, then it undermines the overall ability for our country to ensure that we stay number one in the world in our opinion of looking over our shoulders at number two, three and four in the world. if you are talking not about appointing which is the van jones example and talking about elective politics most people lose. most people who run ultimately loose, and some of you have to be willing, before you are ready to when you have to sit at home and say, am i ready to lose lxmi ready to have my mother know that their plan for something and i lost even though i have

never given a wrong answer since kindergarten. that is a big step to cross and and politics you also have to be willing to hear people say you could not have said something as stupid as what i just heard, and then have the gumption to come right back at them. and come to fight every day for the things they believe in. but at the end of the day, we all feel it is worth it. in my district, the american revolution began in 1775, in lexington. they were kind of ticked off that the government, and they were saying no taxation without representation. they were talking about taking. they were talking about a president. they were talking about a prime minister. they wanted their own member of parliament in the british wouldn't give it to them. they were willing to fight over that. the least we should be able to do is have the best and brightest of this generation saying they are willing to serve

in appointed positions. they are willing to run for office in order to maintain that level of commitment to excellence is maintained. very rarely achieve. it is an elusive quality but it should be what we are trying to accomplish. nco i would urge everyone of those people who last night thought about and then dismissed public service in any of its forms as being worthy of their talents, to reconsider, because whatever parliaments exist out there will not be solved unless those very people in that room are willing at some point in their lives to make a commitment to serving at some level. s barney said from select none through planning board up to congress or senator, because that is the only way that ultimately the work of all the people in every country are going to come is going to be accomplished.

>> can i just add one caveat, something we will all agree on that when you decide to run again somebody other than us. [laughter] >> and of course if you do seek public office and do really well you might get invited to a panel. davos. my thanks to all of you very much. [applause]

>> president of the national congress of american indians, jefferson keel, give his annual state of the indian nations address. he called for more federal aid for reservations and greater authority for tried to use their lands. this is an hour.

[speaking in native tongue] good morning, my name is jacqueline pata and amnesic it director of the national congress of american indians, the oldest and largest indian organization in the united states. welcome distinguished guests here in washington d.c. and those listening and watching across the country to the 2010 state of the indian nations address. i would like to thank native voice one and native american calling as well as the tribal and public radio stations across the country for airing today's address. with us today are some distinguished and honored guests, please allow me to introduce some of them. we have earthrise president, first vice president from the mission indians and ron allen

from jamestown, the chairman of jamestown. bill martin the president of my tribe, the central council of indians, matthew what soft ramzi -- bandwidth pottawattamie indians, don of arnold on our board also from the scotts valley band of indians. irene cushwa with the huge indian tribe, r.g. lynch from the-- karen watts, councilwoman on, for the cherokee nation. we of the former chairman who also serves on our board from the indian nation and larry townsend here with us today. bill from the cots tried and david his it's on our board with the rest of the ones i was listing from standing rock reservation. we have filled from the indian tribe and we have councilman eugene whitebird from leach

lake. in addition we have and very honored to be able to have the assistant secretary for the departments of interior for indian affairs, larry and his team that is with him. we have the executive director, pete homer, the director of the native business association, ronde bossart from the corporate for national service, floyd pits from red cross and intercross from the native american tribal historic preservation office and i'm sure there of many others in the audience that i did not catch but i want to give you a flavor of some of the people who have joined us for this moment to be able to hear president jefferson keel get this fur state of the union address. with that and i would like to introduce and it is my pleasure to introduce the president of the national congress of american indians, president jefferson keel. presidents keel was elected to

his third term as governor for the chickasaw nation in oklahoma and previously served two terms as the first vice president for copresident keel is firmly committed to the service of indian country and actively support self-reliance for his people. president keel believes in the policy of helping our people to honor the public service and he himself has served, is serving as a retired u.s. army officer and had 20 years of active duty service. ladies and gentlemen, please help me introduce the president of the national congress of american indians, jefferson keel. [applause] >> thank you, thank you jackie. [applause] thank you. thank you. thank you.

[speaking in native tongue] i am honored to be here this morning to give my first state of the union phoenicians address indian people, tribal leaders, members of the administration, members of the 111 congress, congressional staff, indian organizations, friends, family and all of those watching or listening across the country, today andean nations are proud of the growing recognition we have long sought, recognition of the nation to nation relationship between indian tribes in the united states. we are partners and fellow citizens and our bond. our bond is demonstrated in the history and our culture and incheon by the large number of american natives who served in the united states military.

indian nations are proud to contribute to the strength and diversity of america. in that spirit, i am pleased to report that the state that the indian nation are strong and we are growing stronger every day. at the same time, we have much work to do. and now is the time to take action. our great hope is that next year will be like this past year, one of achievement and the combination of much work that has extended over years and in some cases decades. indian nations are sovereign nations and always have been however and our recent history it has only been since the 1970's that the federal government has come to recognize the sovereignty in a meaningful way. many tribes though still seek federal recognition. a fair and timely process for consideration of that recognition is critical today.

federal policy of tribal self-determination as unleased a creative energies of our people and today more and more tribes are full-service governments, taking responsibility for education, health, police, courts, the vitality of their natural resources and fostering an environment for economic development. but now we need to take the next steps toward the evolution of tribal self government, particularly in land management, job creation, lawn enforcement, taxation and revamping our programs and services to create a healthy environment for our children. these changes will be of historic proportions. especially for how we govern, how we sustain our culture and most importantly