pounds in the process. it's a very sensible process of asking the question what should be part of government and properly accountable for this house and what doesn't need to be done and, therefore, can be team away. and as i say, it will save billions of pounds and a very good thing, too. >> henry smith. >> thank you, very much, mr. speaker. will the prime minister join me in congratulating the league of friends on helping secure a new mammogram machine for that hospitals? can the prime minister explain the way we can have better cancer services in this country. >> i'm grateful for my right honorable friend's question. and members right across this house support the league of friends and their constituencies to raise money for their hospitals to do extraordinary things in terms of equipment and services. and it's a good moment to all those who take part. today we are making an announcement about a new cancer plan that aims to save another 5,000 lives every year by the end of this parliament. this is all about the early diagnosis that we need in the

nhs but i have to say to the honorable gentleman we wouldn't be able to do it if we hadn't as a coalition government to protect spending that's completely opposed by the party opposite. >> order. 10-minute rule motion. point of order. >> mr. speaker, the house has been -- >> here on c-span2, we'll leave the british house of commons now as they move on to other legislative business. you've been watching prime minister's question time aired live wednesdays at 7:00 am eastern while parliament is in session. you can see this week's question time again sunday night 9 eastern.

juan williams talked children about his life in journalism and in new york. speaking at the washington center for internships and academic seminars, mr. williams also shared his thoughts about the tone of political discourse in the country. this is an hour. >> it's my pleasure this morning as faculty director for this wonderful seminar event on politics in the media to introduce our next guest who is juan williams. juan is a special correspondent and contributor for fox news. a regular panelist on fox news sunday. he's the anchor at fox news for

weekend coverage. he has a distinguished record as a journalist and a columnist here in washington and nationwide. in 1999 to 2010, juan was a senior news analyst for national public radio, a rather interesting and public departure not too long ago and he may or may not wish to refer to that today. you are certainly free to ask your questions. juan has received high acclaim for a series of documentaries. he's the author of a bestselling book -- two bestselling books q-"the prize, civil rights years from 1954 to 1965" and also -- i can't read my own writing here. "thurgood marshall: american

revolutionary." he also has authored the television series this year in faith stories from the african-american religious experience and that was in 19 -- or 2003. and juan is still very much involved in the journalistic enterprises involving racial relations in the hundreds and it's a privilege to introduce him now as our speaker here in the washington center. juan? [applause] >> good morning to all of you and welcome to washington to have a discussion about politics in the media. it seems to be the right moment with all the consterniation with all the vitriol you can get from media and conservative media in

the aftermath aftermath of the shooting of gabrielle giffords in arizona. and this is where we have so much to talk about i hesitate to do any introduction but just go simply to your questions. it seems preferable. i will ask that you just give me a second to tell you who i am so you have a sense of who you're talking to. steve, this was a nice introduction. but i think many of you know no doubt want to be journalists, no matter -- you come to this program, an expression of your interest in national politics and the way national politics has done. i think of that 9-year-old girl who went to congressman giffords session out in arizona. in some ways i think, you know, it's just a reminder how fortunate we are to have this experience and that you are at this moment in your lives. i remember when i came to washington at about your age.

i came as an intern for the "washington post." now that was such a plum assignment. it may seem to you, well, gee, you were really blessed and had good fortune. there was no question that i was blessed but what is also true is that i was a kid whose mom used to bring them newspapers off the subway in brooklyn and she was a working in the garment district in lower manhattan and the businessmen would leave their newspapers and at that time new york would have i guess almost seven daily newspapers and they would leave them on the subway seats and then -- as they got towards lower manhattan you could also find newspapers from new jersey. so she had a bunch of newspapers and in those days i would go through them. i was a huge new york mets fan i

would read the different sports writers and i would, you know, this guy, i don't think he got in the locker room. i don't think he did a very good job. this guy was very descriptive. goodness gracious i think this guy is arguing with his wife or drunk because he didn't get the key moment in the game. he didn't really know what happened. i would compare the columnists. boy, wouldn't it be great to be a sports writer. you get to not only go to the game but get inside the game and help people understand the game and then you start going forward especially in the tabloids and you start looking at cultural issues in american life. books and movies and plays and then you go even toward the front of the newspaper and you discover there's politics going on. there's politics and money and power and influence and certain people get their trash picked up and certain people get to send their children to good schools and certain people have police protection and certain people are viewed as being the subjects

of police protection. so i thought to myself, you know, the real sport here is not on the back pages of these tabloids. the real game is going on in the front and the real game in american life is about politics. the real game is one that people oftentimes don't see. don't understand don't appreciate and i'm very interested in this game. who get the winning ticket in american life is often distracted by american politics even when we're distracted by movies, books and american events. well, i became it is editor of my junior high school paper and the editor of my high school paper. and when i went to college i was so afraid of the academic competition at haverford i really didn't do much with the newspaper my freshman year but i applied for an internship that summer at the philadelphia bulletin. the evening bulletin was the

biggest newspaper in philadelphia. i forgot to mention one thing which is while i was in high school, i also did some writing for a local newspaper that never covered black people and so i would go out to naacp meetings or neighborhood organization meetings and i would send in little stories and much to my delight -- and i mean delight, you have no idea they would run me the stories and give me a by line. i had eclipsed my time as a newspaper writer professional if you will and as a editor of my high school paper and i had recommendations and i sent them in to this newspaper, the evening bulletin and was thrilled when i got the internship. and when i showed up for that internship having completed my freshman year in secured housing on campus so i could continue to live there cheaply, i remember

signatures with a bunch of the interns and the man who was then the managing editor, a man named sam boyle and he came in and talked to us and fixed his stare on me and then asked me to come outside and said, how old are you? and i said i was just about 19 years old. and he said this program is for seniors and graduate students. and then he disappeared and came back with the file, my application he said you didn't put your picture or your age on this application. why is that? i said well, i don't know. i guess i didn't have a picture. and he said well, you know, this is not -- and i'll always remember this, this is not a babysitting operation. this is an internship and he asked me to leave. so i went back to campus and i remember telling people, you know, it's over i'll have to go back to new york, to brooklyn. and several calls were made and a deal was struck where i would get to be an intern at the evening bulletin for two weeks and that would be my experience

and i was grateful but at the end of the two-week period and nobody be the word being the jerk i am i came back the next monday. and nobody ever said a word. and i was there the whole summer and they paid me and then they invited me to work two days a week during the school year. and then the next summer i was there again. and then the following summer, the "wall street journal" was then opened by the dow jones company and dow jones had something called the dow jones newspaper fund. and they sponsored internships at the "providence journal" and i went back to the journal. and i was having a great time and i was doing good stories but they said that they would not hire me permanently which was a great disappointment to me. they wanted people who were more midcareer in terms of journalism and i got to tell you, all of you are so interested in media and journalism, and it thrills

me that you're here. what you should know back then it was like, well -- it's unbelievable how many young people wanted to go into journalism. and they didn't want to be tv stars so it wasn't about that. no, they wanted to be, i guess, movie stars. they said to be more like hoffman and redford, you know, because those guys had played woodward and bernstein in the movie "all the presidents men" so everybody wanted to be a investigative journalist and everybody wanted to bring the president down and, you know, everybody wanted to reveal corruption and scandal and all that and so it was the career of choice and i was not being given the opportunity to stay at the bulletin and i got my applications out and got two internships. one at the "philadelphia enquirer" and one at the "washington post" and since i thought well, internship is going to end in 2.5 months months and it will look better

on my restaurant my and off i came to this town to washington, d.c. and i worked at night police and i went to work at 7:00 pm and get off at 7:00 in the morning. covered rapes, muggings, murders, the kind of thing that goes on in a city usually at night. it results in small little items that end up hidden inside the metro section of the newspaper. by being persistent one of the things i did was i came in early. and i must tell you most of my competitors in that internship were people from ivy league high school, harvard, they were members of the ivy league newspapers and the one difference between us i sensed they were extremely bright and capable writers but the big difference was -- i had worked at newspapers before and i knew the kind of staffing cycles that took place and i realized the people who would make decision business whether or not to keep me, hire me et cetera were people who worked in the

daytime. and that being assigned at night meant i didn't get much face time with them so i would come in at 9:00 in the morning. and i would essentially work the day shift and i would write today, you know, with the portends of snow and i would write a feature store and i would write something about and pretty soon they came to know who i was, to rely on me and expect that i was coming in, in the daytime and would be surprised that i was there at night. and i'll tell you my favorite story from that period was that one saturday night at about 2:00 if the morning, i was down at the police station and i heard on the police radio box there that they had a barricade situation. and the barricade situation was actually not far from here but in northwest around 3rd and k. and i didn't know how to drive being from brooklyn, new york. i always took the bus and the subway. which was a disadvantage

although i had a expense account to pick up the cab but remember i looked -- well, nothing like this. i looked like a skinny black kid with a big afro, right? and i'm dealing with white cops for the most part -- i mean, almost exclusively. so essentially i looked like a dandelion, right? and i don't look like one of these guys and so they always -- they're like giving me a hard time about anything that i had to do. but on this middle of this night, the detective says if you want to ride with me, come on. and we were riding down the street and we come to this intersection and it's the most incredible sight. there are people there who are the tallest people you've ever seen. there are people the shortest people you've ever seen and the fattest people you've ever seen you've ever seen and people the skinniest people you've ever seen and there are people who are just gorgeous and people who are hideous and i'm thinking this is an odd sight.

and on top of it they're all naked. and people are coming from nearby buildings and stores and bringing them blankets and sheets and even paper bags to cover up with. the detective and i are looking at each other, the cops on the scene come over and from what i can pick up from the conversation, this place is a whore house and it's saturday night and two or three gunman are inside the building, one is now outside of the building. and what's happened was they were are now -- rousting people inside and some people have fled through the fire stairs on the back of the building and those are the people who are down on the street and so then i eventually get over to the policeman in blue and i say what an odd group, don't you think?

and he said ringling brothers from in town and these are people from the circus and not only that they are guys from the naval base and the marine barracks over here and so this is -- those are the buff guys by the way. and some of the women are the women who are working here and some of them are the beauties from the circus. and it's the most amazing sight. so anyway, i call in and, of course, it's now about 2:30, almost 3:00 in the morning and i'm told we're not going to get this even in the final edition. but we're going to send -- we want you to do it for the monday paper. and they didn't even have a photograph to send at that time. so what happened was there was no photographer from the paper. there's no tv so i end up writing a very descriptive story about what happened in the barricade situation early sunday morning or late saturday night, however you want to describe it for the monday paper and, of

course, everybody in town is going to be attracted to a story about sex, crime, guns and it was a real big hit on that monday morning. stories like that can get you in a position where they will offer you a job at the end of an internship and they offered me a two-year internship at the end of the one year they offered me a job at the paper and i stayed at the paper for about 20 years. so covering everything from local government, the mayor's office, the and city hall to the district to the white house. and in the midst of that wrote several books. steve mentioned some of them eyes on the prize, the american civil rights years, thurgood marshall the biography of the first american supreme court justice. books about african-american religion thus far and stories about people who have been in the change hispanics, the

disabled and my soul looks back in wonder and my last book was sort of a polemic about what's going on in terms of black america called enough. so i think i'm going to stop that there. i will mention that i've been involved in some controversies. steve touched on it about being fired from national public radio for comments i made on a fox show, "the o'reilly factor" about muslims and if i see people dressed in muslim garb getting on a plane and i was told i violated journalistic standards by revealing that feeling and i think it was unjustified but nonetheless it led to my firing and it had tremendous repercussions not only in terms of my life and my career but in terms of national public radio. so i think having said that, steve, i think it's a good time to open the door to interaction

and to say that i'm hoping that all of will have great success and i hope we use this period to answer questions that are on your mind about what it is to practice journalism in washington here at the start of the 21st century. [applause] >> if you have a question, go ahead. there's a microphone. >> go ahead. >> i'm ryan from the university of st. thomas. having interviewed a budget of different presidents what are some similarities and differences you've noticed between them? like kind of personality maybe or just mannerisms and things like that you maybe noticed in your interviews? >> you know, it's hard to discern any pattern when you

meet a president other than you are stunned at being there in person with the president. i just went over to the christmas party, and this would be last month, and i had my son with me. and my son had not yet met president obama and his first reaction was much as i just described to you to say that he was, oh, my god he's a real person. he's not just a picture or the image on tv. he's a real guy standing there. but the thing about meeting a president and i guess i've met them all now from reagan on is that you don't know them as human beings but as my son experienced it, oh, my gosh that's the president and there's a certain sense he takes the air out of the room. that it's overwhelming to think that's the president of the united states. in the case of president reagan, for example, what i was struck

by was how warm and attentive he was. that he really focused on me. and that in terms of discussion he had all these aides and they have all these aides buzzing around but with president reagan you felt like, you know, newscast someone you would want to know and want to be with and thrust and stories around washington obviously become also a factor in the way that you relate to someone as the president because there's so many people who tell stories about the president and in his case, you know, even people who were political antagonists would say he was a great drinking buddy and could swap lives and tell terrific stories and there was a sense about he was great company. and then the whole notion about, you know, reading cue cards and not being that smart because it was a joke. he played on it and it wasn't something he stayed away and if you come forward like with

president bush the first president bush, again what was striking was his background. all he had done from being a pilot to being the cia director. again, his intellect -- and the range of his experience in the sense that this is someone who really was a leader just leaped out at you. that this was sort of the best of america is my sense of him. that this was someone who you would automatically pick as your class president without a doubt. and if you come forward to that with bill clinton it was much more of a different generation, much more of a young man who was -- i'm always captured by the idea he as a young man at georgetown university was already thinking about how he could become student body president, how he could move up, you know, helping other students unpack so he would get he to

know them and their parents and just sort of insinuate into their lives and he was extremely smart and not as -- not as much of a reserved figure if you will as the first president bush. but much more out there, friendly, sort of the hail fellow well met-type attitude and if you come forward to that to george w. bush, again, what struck me there what a nice person. in other words, this is the guy who's working really hard at this job. someone who is really disciplined about his life. someone who put his own life on a certain track and understands who his dad has been and the opportunities he's had and absolutely feels blessed to be in this position and fortunate.

and say working really hard at it and trying to do his best in obviously a difficult situation with 9/11 and with president obama what always strikes me is that no matter what the question, what the topic of discussion, whether we're having lunch or you're watching him in a press conference or it's in a receiving line, here's someone who can have a discussion about any issue and know more than anybody in the room and be totally conversant to people who are expert on the topic. just kind of an amazing range of intellectual bandwidth. just terrific. and so -- and obviously what strikes you he's not white. he's the first one i met who's not white. i mean, those things strike me but i don't know if there's any commonality. i think they are all leaders but they all have different characteristics that i would identify as leadership characteristics. good morning.

>> my name is hillary brown. i'm from san francisco state university. my question is that now the republicans took over the house, would there be any media coverage when it comes to race relations? >> i didn't understand that last question. will there -- >> yeah, now that the republicans have taken the house historically like they took over the wealthy classes and all that stuff, would there be media conference about race relations. >> oh, sure. i mean, i think for the republicans one of the challenges is that, you know, they have been exclusively white in the congress until just now, until this 112th session. you had two black members elected, still stat, south carolina and allen west from florida. and that's a breakthrough for them. you would have to go back to jc

watts -- i'm forgetting frank's first name. there was a congressman from connecticut. so it's been a while since we've seen anybody black in the republican ranks around -- on capitol hill. and the challenge for republicans is also the need to expand that party going forward because the country's demographics are shifting so quickly. not just in terms of african-americans. i don't think that they're going to making a lot of inroads there but do think they have some chance with hispanics although that chance is diminishing given the party's stand on immigration and immigration issues. so this is a critical issue race and the republicans. and sometimes one that journalists either assume well, there's not going to be much motion on that front, not much

change or there's an occasional piece that points out what a dire situation it is. but i think there's a reluctance to talk about because it could easily be translated that the republicans are the white party and the democrats are the party of the people of color in the united states. i would also make the case that if you look at major issues like health care reform, tax cut extensions, you could say the republicans have become the party of the older generation in america and democrats are the party of younger people in america. you can see this in terms of president obama's approval ratings. he has, i think, most white americans disapprove of his performance in office and most americans of color of why we're approving his performance in office. you look at health care reform bill, tremendous support among democrats, tremendous opposition among republicans and then you boil it away and you say well, who are the republicans and who are the democrats and again, you

come back in one -- from one perspective to a racial prism in which you say, look, of people of color and people of lower income are in support of health care reform, older people, white people are not supportive of this health care bill. so there's race that plays on so many of these issues, it's a very touchy issue obviously. people are very discomforted by the discussion even but it's a reality and i hope you'll be able to find that coverage. >> hi. my name is kathleen. and i go to the university of san diego. and i was wondering how have you seen journalism change over the years and in terms of the quality of journalism and where do you think that's going? >> well, this is -- you know, for me i came as '76 as an intern as i told you and i've been here more than 30 years and theories a little bit of a forrest gump, you're so young i

don't know if you've seen that movie. .. you're still young. i don't know if you saw that movie. but there's a fourth come quality to this because when i was coming along, as they told you, i was working initially for an afternoon newspaper. what they don't exist in the united states anywhere. so now you think about it coming forward. you think about the declining number of morning newspapers in the declining size and quality of disney's papers in the united states, the whole crisis in terms of the newspaper industry. and then you come forward in time and there was the advent of cable news in the early 80s. cnn and the like. and of course the 1990 and the gulf war, everything was focused on cable news and the idea of a 24 hours news cycle that was constant it would take each of the same animals fed them the morning paper was an afterthought because you know everything because he sought the

night before and you come forward from that and talk about the internet. now you are not just talking about the internet, blogs and popularity of bloggers and now you're talking about all the rest. if you throw in to this also the fact that cn and which was initially the brand name in cable news is known number 3 far behind fox news and msn b.c. gives you a sense of how often does have changed the landscape. another way i think of this is it was last year that walter cronkite died. i think to myself when i was a kid growing up how much i admired walter cronkite. a little black kid in brooklyn and i always thought that guy is really good. i liked listening to him, his telling of the news of the day.

i don't think of him as a liberal or white or democrat or republican. i think that is a trust worthy, good news man. i am not sure that would work in this political environment. in this political environment people seem to want to know if the host is liberal or conservative. they want to know about their personality and their views. that is what drives the top-rated prime-time cable programming in the country. even if you swing back over to something like the nightly news. and declining ratings for all three big networks in terms of the nightly news broadcasts, those audiences tend to skew much older. people there are trying to become more personality. they try to do more feature

presentation. the whole notion of focus on hard news, a small window of 22 minutes out of a half-hour is gone because they are trying to hold the review were's attention in a way that is quite different from anything i would have seen when i was your age. when i was in your position -- also i think the quality of writing about politics was much different. i was inspired by teddy white's writing about the making of the president in 1960, a series of books taking you behind-the-scenes so you understood who was really pulling the strings behind the choice of a political candidate and to advance that political candidate and you come forward from that and get something like the best and brightest about policymakers in american diplomacy and the war effort in vietnam and the mistakes they made and the assumptions that

lead to president johnson to decide he could not stand for reelection and then you get into books like we talked about where i mentioned would word and bernstein on watergate, getting behind the scenes. these books let my imagination as far as what you can do with washington journalism and how to help people understand national politics, a game in which real flesh and blood people with real flaws that strikes at play and take away the idea that these are larger than life people who you could never touch. in all those ways journalism has changed. the biggest change is 24-hour news cycle, constant attention, small issues that get blown up, there is less in the way of substantive debate event takes place around here. more info way of political polarization. i know lots of people disagree with me about this. i had a conversation with donald

rumsfeld the crystal secretary of defense, you here in the 60s, when there were riots in the streets and and racial anger over the war in vietnam and all the rest, that is political polarization of a different kind. the political polarization you see today where there's a clear policy of obstructionism employed, versus very little talk across party lines, very little of the debate on big issues because everyone is afraid they will lose face and not be able to win a primary election makes for a second kind of political paralysis or polarization that i think is uniquely characteristic in my mind of my time in washington. >> i am from a endeavour university. with the shift in congress there's talk of having to scale back on the education program. i was curious about your opinion having written on problems in

the public-school system particularly d.c. what you thought the first step should be taken into remedying these problems and the budget cutbacks and thoughts in general. >> i don't know exactly the details of the cutbacks they're thinking about with regard to education. the big challenge right now is whether they're going to reauthorize what remains of no child left behind now called race to the top under the obama administration. congressman john boehner was one of the leading forces behind the creation of no child left behind and now as speaker has an opportunity to put republicans in the advanced guard of making sure that kind of attention to improving the quality of public education continues in the united states. but the very issue you highlighted here this morning, one of budget cuts includes

discussion of education because people essaying that is discretionary spending and their argument especially from the conservative point of view about the legitimacy of the federal government being involved with local schools at all. why is the federal government having anything to say? from my perspective if you are asking my opinion, i think the federal government needs to help with standards. is one of the great opportunities of america and promises of america that every child has a chance to succeed, you have a chance to move a platter of upward mobility. is key to our social stability and political stability that everyone believes that -- i don't know if it is still true that people believe they can become president but you can succeed, you can have a dream in this country. you can't do that without education. if there are certain places whereby accident of birth you find yourself born into a community with low standards, low quality schools. that is a prescription for

disaster and if it is a case that you are a minority or come from a single-parent family that the presumption is you won't succeed and there is not the investment in you to give you the chance to demonstrate that you want to be a good student and have those opportunities that sends a signal that we have become a very different society than the one we have been historically. to me this is critical and i hope people taking out the budget act would realize you can't cut the route because if you do, the people who would become the leaders, people who would keep the american dream of flame will not be there. this is a critical issue going forward as we look at this new congress and the change that has taken place in terms of political control of congress and the ability of that republican majority to do business with president obama

and democrats. >> what event sticks out her was your favorite to report on? >> that is tough. i have been around a while. i would say the book i wrote on justice marshall stands out for me in the sense -- remember wanting to talk to him so much and he was reluctant to talk to me. he had been described in several books about the supreme court in a negative way, as a buffoon, someone who came in late and left early, someone who was not intellectually of the caliber to deserve to be on the supreme court. he just couldn't stand the press. and it was just by serendipity

that he finally agreed to do a book with someone else and that fell through and finally at the urgings of his law clerks and his family, agreed he should talk to somebody for the end of his career and i had been sending messages asking for that for long time. so i got a call. is a funny story how i got that call because the call came to washington post. i wasn't at my desk. this was in the 1980s and the phone rang to the receptionist who was the friend of mine who knew i had been trying to reach justice marshall. so when justice marshall's voice came on the phone and said this is justice marshall of the supreme court, i would like to talk to juan williams her response was yeah right, i bet you are thurgood marshall. i don't have time to play

around. who is this. he says this is justice marshall and she said i'm sick of you and hung up on him. but the thing about it, you may end up being on the supreme court or president of the united states, you don't have to put up with that kind of foolishness when you reach that level of american life so he called back to the publisher of the paper and she took his call and then they found the editor and the reporter and said so sorry. we did know it was really you and all that. and to get it to go there and to meet him was like meeting someone who was living history because it was the end of his career. clearly this was someone as president johnson said before was on the supreme court was going to be in the history books for what he had done in brown versus board of education but here he was as a supreme court justice involved in so many major rulings from pentagon papers to roe v. wade.

just a great storyteller. for me this was an amazing experience. i would go up and visit with him once a week for six months ended became a long magazine article and a book. i will always remember that experience. there are so many. are remember being with president reagan on the golf course in agusta, georgia, when the marine corps barracks was attacked. kind of scattering craziness that attended that foment in life. i remember -- i could go on. the point is these things come and go and sometimes at the moment there front-page, top of the screaming headlines, 24-hour coverage and then of course vote woodworking to the past.

in washington, the response, way we have seen the response this weekend, can be quite compelling and absorbent for you as a news person but then you move on to the next story. had is why i think the book stick out in my mind. i remember someone said newspapers -- you throw out the newspaper the next day, from other news magazines the next week. tv and radio tend to be ephemeral. they're gone. they don't stick with you. but books stick around. >> we have been talking a lot about media bias this past weekend i was curious if you tend to been politically one where the other depending on the network you are working with at that time. >> no. one of the difficulties i have is being in the middle. it has also been a blessing. defect is before they fired me i

work for and b are for ten years. so they saw value in what i was able to bring to their experience and i have been working for fox for 14 years so they see value in what i bring to their viewers. obviously i work for the washington post, cnn, i could go on. the idea is in terms of my training. when i was your age, what i was training to do was to be able to tell a story in a compelling, accurate fashion. i didn't care who you were. it is like if you -- we have a plumbing problem in the building to dido think he would say and i want a democrat or a liberal or a conservative or black person or hispanic or white or a man or woman. just get me somebody to fix the plumbing and get him here now. it is like that. i was trained to do the work.

i can do you the story, collect the information, hopefully get to the right people, hopefully do it quicker than my competition and when you read the story they later, say that is the better tale. and learned more from that than i did from the competition. that is what i was trained to do. the earlier question about the changes i have seen, platform my present that information on changed. i never thought you go from an afternoon paper to a morning paper and then go from newspaper to tv and radio. i never thought i would be doing tv and radio. or you go from different formats like afternoon talk show host at npr and then doing something like sitting in for prime-time cable host like bill o'reilly. it is a different platform. but the same skills in terms of the journalistic professional

tennis is can you identify the heart of this story, can you bring information to the floor that helps people have a better understanding of the dynamics that created the story and where the story is going so you are helping them to messy the broader perspective. to me it is not about -- i am a democrat. is not about whether ryan liberal or conservative. the pens on the issue you are talking to me about. there are certain people i notice in the black community who say you are pretty conservative and icy winds that? you are tough on things like out of wedlock birth or high dropout rates for you don't like the content of rap music especially when they use the n word and talking about women--and i say that is true. if that is the way you want to see it that is fine. then you say i am big on gun control. other than the district of

columbia. i don't like all these young people, especially gained vendors with guns. that is a threat to me and my family. i have a very acute sensitivity to the idea of everyone having a gun. everyone in the country might have that sensitivity after what happened in arizona this weekend. or issues like gay marriage. civil unions or gays serving in the military. i tend to be live and let live. so depends on the issue. i don't fit into a neat boxlike that but i must say in the current media environment there's a great advantage. there are people who advertise themselves specifically has been a voice for liberals or a force for conservatives and one of the big changes is the audience for news in the country seems to have an appetite to say i just want to hear somebody who will reaffirm my pre-existing

political positions and tell the other guy what a jerk he is and look silly and make fun and mock the other side. people like their new is delivered now in that way. that is different but i don't fit in that box. i haven't changed to make myself identify one way or another. sometimes i might aggravate the audience at fox and is evident that i aggravated some people at npr. but that is what you get. >> my question is in light of the recent departure from and be our, the shooting in tucson and the great divide in american politics, how do you see america's ability to respectfully disagree with one another and just be ok with that, just be friends? what role does the media have in trying to bridge that divide? >> it plays a little bit on the

last question we had. i mentioned earlier that one of the characteristics of the american president, for the most part that when you meet them they are people you feel you can talk to. i don't care what your political affiliation might be, you don't come in and say that guy doesn't deserve to be here. you might question their intellect in some cases if they're not the smartest guy but in terms of their commitment to american progress and their love of country and their belief that america really is a blessed place there's no question. in moments like that you say a lot of this political fragmentation and polarization and hyperbolic vitriol that attends the political process starts to boil away and you have a very clear view of what is

really important as embodied in a president or any of the political leaders once you get away from the rhetoric. to me it is regrettable without a doubt that you have people who simply take one line or another without a willingness to acknowledge when the other side makes a good point. i think debate is essential. and strong debate and strong voices and sharp points are wonderful. that is good stuff. that is in keeping with the american tradition and if you go back in terms of american history to even the founding of our country and look things like the federalist papers you understand that the founding fathers for of their rebellion against the british were also pretty rebellious on an interview abases with each other about what our country would be and the direction it was going. obviously we had a civil war in

this country. so we know internal division. this is in our first. but for the average american trying to make sense of the political system and trying to understand what is in the best interests of the country right now, the tendency is to simply say i am red states or blue state, i am a or b. that is a simple minded and does not serve them well in terms of news consumers, doesn't serve the political process well. the consequence is we go from the cycle where we saw a swing towards democrat and then in 2008 when it was another huge swing towards domestic debt--democrat and now we see a swing towards republican, so you see this vacillation in terms of the political process and the

undercurrent tends to be wild discontent with both sides. people just don't like politics. they think politicians are corrupt, they're all about money or simple-minded or just crave and sort of people so there is a disrespect for politicians. and therefore for the political process. i must tell you i think the world of the political process and the world of our congress and our institutions and i think they have been so important in terms of the world and world progress. so the idea that most people think i know exactly what is right and i'm on the left for the right side or in the case of your generation all these politicians are a bunch of clowns and john stuart and steven colbert just reveal how silly and stupid these people are. i think to myself this is not helpful in terms of developing

people who understand how difficult it is to become a successful politician, to make an important debate in point, to make that point in a way that is persuasive so your fellow americans can hear you and appreciate the importance of what you are trying to say. that is the core of democracy. i wouldn't sell it cheap. you can obviously get lots of laughs. i don't mean to bring you guys down but it is a serious process worthy of your consideration. i am pleased that all of the made the trip here to washington today to treat this subject with some care. >> good morning. my question is you have seen a lot of advancement from newspapers to tv and internet. which changes do you see in the way we report in is in ten years? >> there is a huge change coming. it has taken me a long time to

appreciate it but clearly news is migrating to the internet. that is where people will get their news from. for all the worry about what is going on with newspapers or the major nightly news broadcasts, the reality is now that the news has -- if you are looking for breaking news people don't go to the major networks. they go to cable news. and even more so from what we are starting to see, people are going to the internet. if you think about how people get their news off of the internet they get them from major news brands but then they quickly go on the blogs, going to do some research and reporting on their own to find out what is behind the news. in that sense it is more

interactive, more available but also becomes much more slanted, because there are fewer gatekeepers in terms of standards and editors saying this is information that is confirmed, that we are short of. in this environment if you have a presidential assassination like 1963, he wouldn't have the country glued to walter cronkite saying he is getting the news and it is confirmed. instead you would have people plugging into various web sites for blondes and picking up bits and pieces. some people believing what they are reading and others not. other people saying i saw something and not knowing if it was added. i don't know if you are concerned about the case that something comes across the internet and turns out it has been sliced to make it appear to be something it was not. that is where we are going. no question we are going to the

internet for news. not all equality of that news product, but how it will be delivered and the economics behind it. who pays for that? is good news for example about a piece of legislation on capitol hill if it is related to the drug industry come from the pharmaceutical industry that has economic interest in how that legislation is handled and reporting on it in great detail for themselves and their clients as opposed to coming from a general interest news organization that is covering it for the entire public. that is the difference in tone. it will be harder to identify exactly the bias behind the person who has put this information into the computer. in that sense but ifs will play a bigger role because it will

convey trust but the question is what is behind the brand because we're not sure how news will be faithful. >> i am a student at the university of san diego. is the future of vitriolic dangerous issue that should be addressed or is it just proves pointing figures? >> it is an important issue because it impacts the political process. if you can't talk to your congressman or congresswoman without a gun on the table between the two of you i don't think that is a good situation. you have to have free-flowing disagreement, you have to be able to say thank you for standing up on an important piece of legislation and people are striving to be our political leaders are not going to be so anxious to get in that position if they feel it is the ok corral out there.

or anybody facing an opinion or tries to make a point that people who disagree feel it is okay to physically attack, that violence is called for. who wants that for themselves or their family? it is a big issue. can you attach that 2 of deron laughpr, there is a knee-jerk instinct by some on the left to say he was inspired by some vitriol but there's no clear connection. what is clear at this moment is that he was a mentally disturbed person. >> time for one more question. >> my question for you is over the past year a lot seems to have happened politically. is there any single piece of legislation that you thought was

a surprise or unexpected that pasteur didn't pass and what were your viewpoints on that? >> i was surprised that the dream act did not pass. that was a chance for everyone to say we understand how difficult the issue of immigration is but when it comes to young people who came to this country because their parents brought them it wasn't a matter of their own actions. these didn't break any laws. they came with their mom and dad. young people completing school or serving in the military, these are people who i think our salt of the earth bread-and-butter of our future. we have to find a way to give them a half to citizenship. but the opposition is so strong on this issue, vitriol plays into it. the demonization of illegal

immigrants, anxiety over the amount of immigration taking place in the country is so high right now that it has prevented congress from dealing with this major issue. you can talk about added security at the border but we have put more security in place than ever before. you can talk about added strain on the social safety net of hospital, schools and all the rest. but for the most part -- or you could talk about drug dealing and illegal activity. for the most part if you look at people who are immigrants in this country historically clearly immigrants have been a blessing but even in the current moment you have to say immigrants had so much in terms of the work force and revitalization of neighborhoods that were in the k and the rest. if you even go to the high end of our employment market you

find companies that are growing in terms of the high-tech industry or pharmaceutical industry are trying to get talented, indicated people to add to our economic activity and add jobs so you get people from the highest end of the business leadership community saying we need immigration reform. but somehow congress is unable to act and even unable to act when it came to the dream act and that was a huge disappointment. it has been a pleasure and i want to thank you for coming and thanks for listening. [applause] >> we have a gift as well. >> treasury secretary timothy geithner will be speaking at the johns hopkins university school of advanced international studies in washington. his remarks focus on u.s./china economic future and what to

expect from chinese president's visit. >> we have a special event today. timothy geithner, to this country, will speak to us on u.s./china economic relations. the subject as all of you know is great importance to most countries and to the world. in the absence of justice einhorn who is watching this event from italy, head of our china studies department david langton who is watching from korea, in the international school. i have been asked to introduce the secretary and serve as moderator during the question and answer session. i teach courses on china's economy at the school. since timothy geithner is well known to all of you are can keep

my introductory commentary very short. he played a prominent role in national and international economics and finance for many years. he has always had special interest in east asia. he was sworn in as 75th secretary of the treasury on 26 january 2009 in the middle of a deep recession. i don't need to remind you. there are very few challenges that have not been thrown at him since that time. he worked in the treasury department earlier from 88 to 2001. under two secretaries, robert rubin and lawrence summers. the last two years as undersecretary for international affairs. after that he became director of the policy department at the imf and was appointed to the new

york fed in 2003 as its ninth president and ceo. he got his be a in government studies from dartmouth and his am a in national economics and east asian studies from this school. he lived in china and japan and studied both languages. finally before i invite him to the podium, may i remind you to put yourself phones on silent. [applause] >> i spent two years of my life here long time ago studying the chinese and japanese economics, didn't in joy the economics that much. i played quite a lot of pull in the basement. i don't know if there is a pool

table there anymore but it is a great place and i admire what jessica and her colleagues have built. i am biased but this is one of the preeminent institutions in the united states engaged in one of the most important challenges in public policy education to help americans understand the world and the role we play in it. this is important because we can effectively pursue our interests as a nation unless we understand the objectives and capabilities of other nations. president obama will host president hu at the white house. this takes place at a time of important transition for the world economy, and for the american economy. global economy is emerging from the financial crisis but the crisis left lasting scars that will take years to repair and left a growing gap between the growth trajectories of the

developed economies and rapidly growing emerging economies. many major economies are confronted with the challenge of rebuilding after a crisis, many of the emerging economies are at the early stage of what should be a long period of rapid economic growth with rising in comes creating growing demand for resources and investment capital. the growth of the united states stands somewhere between these two divergent paths. we are lucky to grow at half the rate of the major emerging economies but twice the rate of europe and japan. these growth dynamics' will change the balance in the world economy forcing changes in the architecture of the trade and financial systems. in this new global context china's principal economic challenges are how to manage the next stage in the transition from a state dominated developing economy dependent on

external demand and external technology to a more market-oriented economy with growth powered by domestic demand and innovation. i want to talk about the implications of these changes for our economic relations with china and u.s. economic policy. china presents the enormous opportunities for the united states and world but its size, the speed of its ascent and policies are growing source of concern both here and in countries around the world. to put those concerns in context i want to state some fundamental propositions about our economic relationship. first, the economic relationship between the united states and china provides tremendous benefit to both our nations. even though we compete in many areas our economic strength are largely complementary. china faces a very complicated set of challenges as it transitions more toward a market

economy but it is in our interest and the world's interest that china manage these challenges successfully. third proposition. our priorities in this economic relationship from the exchange rate to protection of natural property to reflect changes that are fundamentally in china's interest. ultimately china will need to make these changes to promote long-term prosperity. the fourth and final proposition, the prosperity of americans depends overwhelmingly on the economic policies we pursue to strengthened american competitiveness. even as we work for further reforms in china we need to understand our strength as a nation will depend not on choices made by china's leaders but on the choices we make here at home. over the last few decades china has emerged as a major economic

force. growth was the least by china's economic reforms and a growing labour force and one of history's great migrations from factories. china's growth was made possible by the actress china enjoyed to the market's, investments and technology of the united states and other major economies. the open multilateral trading system with its balance of rules and responsibilities was built with the leadership of the united states decades before china opened up to the rest of the world and opportunities created by that system were fundamental to china's economic sense and remain vital to china's ability to continue to grow. china needs the united states but the united states benefits substantially from a rapidly growing economic relationship with china. the benefit to the relationship are hard to capture in any one specific but remember this. the united states is on track to export more than $100 billion of

goods and servicess to china this year. our exports are growing at quite the rate of growth of exports of the rest of the world. these exports support hundreds of thousands of jobs across the nation in all sectors from high technology to soybeans bleaker still aircraft, automobiles, forklift and financial services. we have a great deal invested in each other's success. in our economic relationship with china we focus on two principal objectives -- the first is to expand opportunities for you as company's to export and sell in the chinese market. this requires a more level playing field to compete with china's companies. courage shifted domestic

consumption. as part of this china's exchange needs to strengthen in response to market forces. i want to provide a quick review of some of our concerns. the extent of progress we have achieved as we see it in each of these areas. first, on the broader competitive landscape in china, we face in that market, the commanding heights of the chinese economy and financials are still overwhelmingly dominated by the government. workers are able to take range of preferences and subsidies. operate behind trade to give them a competitive advantage relative to u.s. and other foreign firms and workers. they get access to low-cost land and energy. they enjoy a preference in terms of access to government contracts. the electrical properties widespread in china across many industries and the chinese

government has introduced a range of new policies to encourage innovation in china designed to favored chinese technology over foreign technology including the enormous government market. where these practices violate china's international commitments we are active in using and continue to use the remedies available under u s trade law to protect our interests. china has been gradually moving to address these concerns. the government recently launched the new enforcement efforts to combat the theft of intellectual property to force chinese companies to pay for the intellectual property they use. the chinese leadership has committed to expand opportunities and access to government procurement contracts. the government is committed not to discriminate against u.s. companies that operate in china and we welcome these commitments. data to address all our concerns that there is something we can build on and we will continue to

press the chinese commitments. in china's interest, government domination limits the chinese economy to prevent the private sector from contributing to growth for full potential. you can't contribute if you don't protect intellectual property. alongside the reforms i mentioned, are we move definitively away from export driven growth model of the last few decades to model driven by electric consumption. this recognizes that china is too large relative to the world economy to continue to rely on foreign demand to grow and the government has adopted a comprehensive program of reforms to rebalance the economy and shift growth to domestic demand. this requires reforms to increase public spending, minimum-wages and investment and

services, for individuals and companies. and specters that drove initial decades of growth. it is already having a major impact on the shape of chinese growth and providing increased opportunities for american companies. domestic demand is contributing more to growth and u.s. exports are growing more rapidly. it is important to recognize china closely manages the exchange rate. that restrict capital to move in and out of the company. these policies have the effect of keeping the currency undervalued. they have substantial costs on a flexible exchange rates with substantial loss of

competitiveness against china. it will run the risk of domestic acceleration as you have for already seen. and a damaging rise in asset prices. sustaining undervalued currency will undermine china's efforts to go towards consumption and higher value production. since june of 2010 when the chinese authorities announced they would resume the reform of their exchange-rate regime, they allowed the currency to appreciate by only 3% against a $1 nominal terms. this is a pace of 6% year in nominal terms. the real rate of appreciation is significantly faster because inflation in china is much higher than in the united states and is the real rate of

depreciation that matters for the incentives for how what they purchase, what they invest. we believe it is in china's interest to allow the currency to appreciate more rapidly in response to market forces because china will do so. because the alternative would be too costly for china and china's relations with the rest of the world. these are the main priorities. let me tell you what china's are. china's objectives are focused in the economic area in the following core priorities. china wants more access far as to u.s. high-technology products. china wants to see greater investment opportunities in the united states. china would like to be accorded the same terms and actress to the market that other major market economies enjoyed. we are willing to make progress on these issues. it is important to recognize that our ability to do so will depend on how much progress we

see from china. as china reduces the role of the state and local economy, performs policies that discriminate against u.s. companies, remove subsidies and preferences for domestic firms and technology and allow the exchange rate to reflect market forces we will make more progress on china's objectives. in any discussion of china is important for americans to understand the solutions to our challenges arrest first and foremost with policies in washington, not those in beijing. fundamentally number of jobs we create the pace of growth and income of americans depend on the results of choices we make in the united states, not the choices of other countries. in our effort to rebuild and put more americans back to work we have to make sure we are making investments and reforms that will be essential to our capacity to grow in the future. as countries like china, india,

brazil, grow and expand, won the american workers and companies to play a major role in that growth. we want to see a substantial part of that growing demand that is going to come outside the united states that by those produced in the united states that are fuelled by investment in the united states. if we are successful in doing that we will be much stronger as a nation but to be successful meeting that challenge there are things we need to do here. we need to invest in research and development, we need to invest more in education reform. we need to invest in public infrastructure and create stronger incentives for investment in the united states by americans and foreign companies. we have to be more forceful and effective in floating american exports and restore fiscal

responsibility. restoring fiscal responsibility is going to require the government to spend less and spend more wisely so we can afford to make the investments that are critical to the future of growth that require tax reform that produces a system more simple and fair, encourages growth and investment to restore fiscal sustainability. these are our challenges. not just an economic imperative but national security imperative because our strength as a nation depends on the ability of our political system to move quickly enough to put in place solutions to our long-term problems. our economy as a country has been our openness to ideas and talent, our capacity to innovate, excellence in higher education, willingness to invest public resources strategically and scientific research and discovery and political will to confront challenges with speed and wisdom and force. if we preserve and build on those strengths and if china successfully continues on its path to a more open, modern

market economy than both our countries and the world economy will be in a stronger position. the president recently said we should feel confident about our ability to compete but we are going to have to step up our game. china's rise offers us the opportunity of dramatic growth and demand for things americans create and produce but it will also force us to raise our game. we should welcome both the opportunity and the challenge. i would be happy to take your questions. [applause] >> thank you, mr. secretary. we now have about 20 or 25 minutes for questions and answers. because the event is taking place in a school i would like to give priority to students,

alums and faculty members. to whom i may i give the floor? would you please wait for the microphone, introduce yourself, your name and affiliation and one question very brief. >> thank you for the excellent speech. actually your speech about china is -- it makes issues left theories. >> excellent question. i don't usually complement the new york times but they had two very important stories that explain this better than i can do. when you think about competitiveness and the affects

in the exchange-rate you need to look at inflation and the move in the exchange rate. you see inflation accelerating, running much higher rate than in the united states and that rate of inflation combined with a change in the exchange rate that affects competitiveness, and if you look at the amount the exchange rate has moved and the relative lack federation of chinese inflation the last six months or so, is appreciating to the rate of 10% a year. if that appreciation was sustained over time, it would make a substantial difference in correcting a major distortion of the chinese and global economy. we are probably at the end of the first quarter to use -- we are in the end of the second inning to use a sports comparison. it is changing. it has to happen. the fundamental forces that are pushing chinese productivity

growth and pushing inflation higher will bring about the necessary adjustment in exchange rates. >> do you have many students who would like to ask questions? we are trying to give priority. >> my name is alex. i am a graduate student. my question to bcu with regard to capture controls. even the large amount of liquidity in the international economy, emerging markets start to point to controls especially brazil for example. it appears to me there has been an ideological change after 2008, especially the imf publishing papers about the orthodox approach.

i would like to know how the united states sees the use of capital controls by the emerging markets. >> it is important what is driving this influence. there are two fundamental sources of work. one is the world perceives likely to be growing at a more rapid rate in the future. that is a good thing for those countries that reflect a lot of confidence in their relative growth prospects. the other force driving this is consequence of china's exchange regime. china still runs a close capital account. tightly managing the link of currency to dollar. a lot of forces that run more flexible regimes push currencies up with the chinese currency. and domestic inflation to come -- you are right to say there is a new wave of experimentation

going on with risks that come from those lows. they can be -- a whole different set of measures. the most important thing to do with that is to make sure those flows don't end up financing too much leverage in the financial system with an unsustainable growth in credit. that is a provincial challenge and mandible challenge, the asian and the emerging crisis. i am not troubled by the new experimentation. china does too reducing the extent to which china's policies are related to the challenge.

>> before i go to the next question i need to come to a few points. >> you are welcome to correct me. >> china embarked on an important set of reforms. to loosen the controls in china to make it easier for countries to use its currency. those reforms are going to happen. they will accelerate transition to a more market-oriented exchange which is a good thing too. if you look at china's intentions, a difficult debate about what the right pace of reform is, we're doing in terms

of nominal cases, the controls that exist with currency out of china. >> the key dimensions where china has to change its economic policy to arrive at a more balanced and harmonious international economic situation. you are very forthright for the u.s. economy. among the chinese leadership or need for these changes, to embark upon these policies. what is the quality of your dialogue? >> there's a lot of support in china for basic imperatives they face and rebalancing and very active debate in china and

competition in china over what the right case is for those reforms. as china goes through this political transition over the next year or so, in some way having an effect of slowing the pace of reform. reducing a bit of caution among leadership. if you look at what china has done, they run a remarkably effective, incredibly ambitious set of economic reforms with a clear long-term strategy that has been enormously beneficial to the global economy as a whole. recognize for them to continue on that path they have to change fundamentally. look at what the chinese leadership has said, there's a lot of awareness.

we have a very good understanding of our interest in the economic side. very good understanding of concerns that we each have, good relationship and huge amount of admiration for the vice premier who leads these efforts in china and has made an enormous difference in things that matter to us. but faces a lot of opposition in china. as you know of anybody in this case. i really think overtime china has no choice but to move what they believe is in their interests in their economic challenges and china needs to recognize that. please let ..