how does it come together someone who doesn't understand? >> can i just respond quickly to what bill -- bill is correct that you don't need the same money for apprenticeship as you would for, let's say, a government funding program where the whole cost of the slot falls on them. however, we do need a lot more than what we do put them. there are two people in indiana coordinating, trying to market the program, trying to provide tech support systems, trying to expand that program. two people in the whole state. and yet when we see many reports by employers, they can't find really quality machinist, for example. they can find quality welders. and part of it is their own fault that they're not doing the training. but part of it is a government coordinating function. i'm not saying that we should

put in billions of dollars in the office of apprenticeship. but 25 million is trivial. and it doesn't provide that kind of marketing and technical assistance that you need to expand the program. and federal leadership is very important in this area. again, in other countries they have managed at very low levels, just like us, to expand dramatically. we do need to expand the number. an aggregate demand of course is part of it. but there's also another part, which is that we have been expanding growth, but it isn't as employment intensive as it could have been. and we are still having these vacancies in many skilled areas, which are perfect for apprenticeship. finally, one other thing about trendy is that it provides a way of upgrading jobs that otherwise might be relatively low skilled.

but again, this takes leadership. it can't be done by any individual company. it has to be a coordinating function and we have to put much more into it. >> i just listed a couple things. absolutely they're still, we have a lot of jobs, people in need of work. we do a fair amount of job training and work with people. and we have people calling us for jobs. the skill sets of the people we have, there is a gap, and that gap ranges from everything from people going into our city colleges here who can't do basic math. or have basic computer skill issues. and you all know this and understand, but let me just say, so if you go to work at a wal-mart adding entry-level job, at some point if you going to go up in those jobs you have to know how to work a computer. and you have to know how to fill

out things on a computer, and you have to have some fundamental, just to get a job at the wal-mart project of some fundamental basic math skills that many of our young people don't have. so again, in our city colleges are working hard, from the public school are working hard on the. but it is, it is really important that we continue to focus. we can't fix the job problem, particularly not for our people, ever people don't have the skills for the jobs. and so we better be focusing on making sure that they are skilled. so i can't -- the other piece is entrepreneurship and rewarding small business and particularly minority small businesses, and having them grow. so let me just give you one statistic from the urban league's report. so, the average number, the average higher that minority businesses have, african-american businesses have is about nine employees.

when those businesses grow over $1 million in the average number of employees per business grows to 20, sorry, 42, right? so from nine to 42. so if you grow those businesses and they have the capacity to grow just beyond small one to two to four business and lawyers, they will hire and they largely hire minorities. and so again, the way you focus on that is to have accountability. we don't have sufficient accountability. people get away with tremendous amount of thanks. recently in illinois, the hispanic caucus got the state to pass a bill that says that for every state dollar spent, that is spent, they have to report how many hispanics were hired. we don't have that for african-americans. and i'll tell you, and it will not surprise you to know that the hispanic numbers are higher. so if you look at the construction program, the

hispanic employees are hired because they have to report it. i just think as legislatures, we people are advocates have to think but how do we push that accountability, for the dollars we are spending, right, because we are spending some. >> been and i apologize for how horrible i sound. yesterday i sounded perfect. this morning, not so much so i truly apologize. >> let me agree with what, much of what you just said. the question often though to me becomes where do you start? i mean, when you are wrestling with dropout rates in many places beyond 50%, that you're dealing with young african-american male, more than 50% in lots of school districts do not graduate from high school, do not graduate.

simply do not. so how do we get them dish i think there's a lot of reasons for. i think one of the reasons of course is that they don't come in contact with very many african-american male teachers doing -- during the early years of educational development. i was at a school k., all african-american students, not one black man in the whole place. not one. so i submit that many young african-american voice, by the time they get to get third or fourth grade, they've already decided that education is a female thing, it's a girl thing. and they kind of copout right then and there, never to catch up again.

and never to have the opportunities. it's tough remediating adults at the city colleges. >> exactly. >> i mean, teach how to read if they are 30 years old, and can't read. i know how tough it is because i used to do it. as a matter of fact, that's how i got involved in politics. i was teaching ged at one of the urban progress centers, and that led to some other kind of things. it is tough, and we've got to find a place to start, in many instances, then build upon that and keep it moving. because if we don't, you know, this cycle just gets repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated. >> i just want to say that i

think we do want to keep the focus on the lack of job growth. training is necessary. we have to have people trained. and we need people educated. but we need jobs for them. so, in particular we look at the megan jobs act, the crisis among them people in this nation is intense, and we need them employed more than anything else. it was unbelievable that we could've had the senate reject the president's offer in our pathways to work to make sure that we would have youth employment. we hired over 350,000 young people in this country when we had summer jobs under the recovery act. congress said no to that opportunity for us to get them connected to the labor market is creating many of these crises that we're seeing today, that you talked about, when you go to neighborhoods. we have to get them connected as quickly and as best we can, and that has to be done, congress than davis talked about this, we

can't wait for that money to trickle down to their neighborhoods because the neighbors don't have very much money and in any way. it's not going to trickle down. that's why the president called for erect subsidize hiring of young people. so we can get to the answer. we can skip ahead. we can get to the point we want to get to. so, i don't, i don't want us to downplay the need for training. we need it to we spent over a billion dollars on job training in the recovery and disproportionately because of the formula and eligibility standards. that money went to african-americans, over 30% of those who got served for african-americans, well above the% in the population. and in some programs its 50%, 70%, and in chocolate it's even higher. so i mean, it's not that we don't see the need for the training, but most important we can't lose the presence vision, we need jobs. when the people hired.

and this congress than davis said we can't wait for other results. we can't wait for the private sector. we can't wait for someone else to do it. that's why we have not go into jobs act let youth employment. >> the youth employment issue, i mean, the youth employment issue if you look at the cystic secure systems to for african-americans at that, statistics for youth are astronomical. so i absolutely agree with that. we did a summit say last year on youth employment at the numbers will be something on the order of like 70% of advocate american males won't have a job can you do don't have a job in the summer, and you wonder why they're running around. and don't disagree with that. and absolutely that is important. to answer your question, congressman davis, i agree, it is overwhelming. so i think we can only look at what is working. and support those programs. and hold people accountable.

you know, and really, you know, we can't continue to tolerate unacceptable schools for our children. we can't. [applause] >> it is just because those consequences are huge and we have to support the efforts to approve them what they're doing the career academies. we're not going to fix it. it's going to take time, but what i think we are highlighting is that trend, that trend isn't in place where we ought to be panicked. i am panicked when i hear these numbers. i am panicked for our people because if we don't change that trend, we are, we are losing, we are abandoning a huge number of people who will not, when you create those jobs, we will not be able to get hired for them. so if they are created and we be hired for them, they are pointless. they will not help our, the urban communities. so you're right. totally agree with you.

we need jobs but we also need entrepreneurs who will build and higher jobs and then put things back in our community. i don't disagree with anything anyone is saying. >> the president of since he came into office, has been looking at how we move our economy along. in terms of getting people back to work right away, but also in planning for the future. and i think also there's an opportunity, you know, the world is sort of moving towards green jobs and clean energy jobs, and this is not just relevant for other people. it's relevant for our whole country. there are 130 million homes in the united states, most of which could use some upgrade in energy savings, that will put people to work right away, save people money. 130 million homes. there are billions of square feet of commercial real estate.

we just announced, the president just announced a $2 billion private sector, to billion dollars federal commitment to upgrading the energy performance of commercial buildings. and are on to renew his in the area of green jobs and in clean energy jobs that the institutions that help to prepare people for those and to find and to match people up, have to recognize the opportunities there, we see in community colleges, department of labor support to the recovery act, $509 in green jobs training in community colleges across the country. but there are jobs there not and will be jobs there in the future if you look in infrastructure, for example, whether its utilities, water or energy utilities. workforce is, they're all about to retire. the retirement projections in utility industry are within the

next five years, enormous number of people are going to retire. and to make sure there are people who can take those, which are good, good, good jobs. unit, ready, trained, well educated. those are things we all have to be working on a. >> i don't think would have discussion about people being unable to not talk about the schools. iphone should help children party for years, and you can't have a first, second, third grader don't have a dream. they want to be something there and sometimes they are getting around, trying to get around some issues. they give it up. and so is this something that legislators in mission can do to make sure that we are ready to take those jobs when they are that will? >> i think there is, especially as it relates to schools. i make a plea for my colleagues who are legislators to really use the position of being an

elected official to help organize, to really motivate. i mean, i've look at summit approaches that we're going through schools during the last 40 years, so i just hate to look. i mean, every year there's a new something that's going to work. i haven't seen much of it working in the places where i have been. but i am convinced that if you can motivate, stimulate, and activate a community to say that education is vitally important to us, and to put every effort behind that concept, that they can. were as a community itself believes that education is going to make a difference for them. were as young people believe that it's going to make the difference for them.

i think that will be more effective than any test score, analysis, he reconstitution of schools, any closing down schools, if you can get people to believe that it's going to work for them. i believe that it will work. and i really didn't arrive at that just kind of looking up. i actually read something in an education digest about maybe 35, 40 years ago, that a fellow in st. louis, dr. shepherd, the school district which at that time was supposed to be the worst district, the lowest performing district in st. louis, missouri. and he became known as the pied piper of education. went around and challenge everybody that he could challenge. and his test scores went up and

all of the other things, they all went out. and the school district began to perform in a way. and so i have been sold on that notion ever since i read that, about 40 years ago. just don't seem to get it going. >> i think i want to add, particularly for this audience that is your life, is they know, they are struggling with their state budgets, and their struggle with how they're going to maintain the investment in education. why the president, in response to all of the cutbacks we have been seeing in state and local employment, we generated 3 million plus jobs in the private sector, but we continue to lose jobs in state and local employment. we can't lose teachers. if were going to make sure that our kids have a fair chance, and that's what in the jobs act we said let's save this teacher jobs. that's why the president put the

money to. and, of course, we got the answer from the other side of the, oh, you don't need to say teachers jobs. this audience can help us. they need to be talking to their u.s. senators and saying, do you understand what our state budget looks like? they need to sit on the committees with you to figure out where the money is going to come to say those jobs. and if the federal government isn't going to help you do it, those u.s. senators need to figure out what they're going to get the money for you. a have to answer and be held accountable as you struggle to make sure you could keep teachers in front of her kids and that the schools don't be -- we cannot train kids in the 21st century with computer labs, with chemistry labs, physics labs from the 20th and 19th century. some of them from 18th century. so, if we don't modernize our schools and keep our children competitive, there's no way we can be moving forward. so that portion of what the president put in the jobs act, to make sure we can modernize

our schools, to make sure we can keep teachers in the classroom and worrying about the bus line and who's on the bus line, instead of on the unemployment line, that's vital to making sure that we can keep our investment that we already have. >> you were talking about, you know, that these apprenticeship programs and open for people who need welders and it's all about coordination. well, i can go find people for the progress, you know what i mean? getting the people in the programs into the jobs is like redtape. >> we we don't have enough apprenticeship programs, first of all. and that's part of the problem of the private sector but it's partly, as i mentioned, the problem of a very tiny number of people marketing and coordinating, developing these programs but as i said, in south carolina with had a relatively modest investment, they managed to double the number of

openings. so we need to do that. in terms of education though, you have to remember that the amount we have been spending per student has been going up over the last couple of decades. quite substantially in real terms. so yes, you know, maybe we shouldn't, we should continue to have that increase. but i do think organizations danish organization is very vital. here in chicago there is a program which is a very interesting example of what, some of what i'm talking about. a whole number of manufacturers, 40-60 manufacturers have said we need people. we're not getting getting the right people. and they help create a high school, a public high school, and open high school. they are in the starting phase of things. but they are teaching high level machining, they are teaching

things where, when a student gets out of that program, they have what's called national institute manufacturing skills, metalworking skills. credentials prevent go directly into jobs paying 40, 50, $60,000. including some of these companies, small companies, our interest in developing a core of people who ultimately run the program, run the company thing because these are small companies. so here is an example of a place where there's an emphasis on real careers, high quality careers, high wage careers. but most of our educational system is what i called the academic only system. and what we are doing now is even expand on that, so that students have to take almost all academic courses to get through high school, career and technical it has been downplay

downplayed. and even, in some places it's not that great. so it needs to improve. but we can't come it seems to me, do only put all of our eggs in academic only basket. now, as far as the current jobs thing, and i agreed that we need direct job creation, especially among youth. i think we would be better off not restricting it to the summer initiative but more year-round initiatives, where people are in it for quite a while. but if you look at the total amount of money in the jobs plan, it's like $460 billion, $450 billion. the estimate, it will create about 1.7 million jobs. that's a massive amount of money per job. it's like over $200,000 per job.

and surely we could have a lot more that would be much more efficiently targeted than that $450 billion. perhaps that price tag was one reason why it wasn't quite as well received on the hill. i mean, i realize partially as to why it wasn't well received as well. but this is a lot of money, and at a time where deficits are a big issue. so i think it's very important, very targeted to try to work on combining jobs and skills. there's a big difference between a stand-alone training program and apprenticeship program. in an apprenticeship program you are an employee. you have a job. you are earning money right then. you are not waiting until after you complete, and then maybe try to find a job. you are in a job, and the people that are training you are using

the modern equipment. it's much better, in my view, to use this agreement at the worksite themselves as opposed to trying to replicate all of that in a school setting. there's a lot of things that you can only learn by being at work. that are a huge number of skills that employers say they need, they need people to communicate, who know how to take orders, and also be created, who know how to ask questions. they know how to get along with other people. they know how to solve problems. all of these, they know how to show up. they demonstrate their responsibilities. after that job they have proved enough so that they can get a viable and strong recommendation for the next position. all of those things can only happen in workplaces themselves. and that's why to be a stand-alone training approach is not nearly as valuable as trying

to embed in a combination of workplace learning and school-based learning. and as i said, other countries do a far more, far better job in virtually every country, every advanced country they are expanding apprenticeship training very substantially. we are putting much more of her emphasis on community colleges. god bless them. they are okay. but they are not as good subsidy to i want to cry two things bob said. first, the jobs number was our number for direct impact, not for the macroeconomic impact. and i think you will recall, if you look at the projections that came out of independent economist, not from those in the administration when you look at mark zandi and others, that the job impact is much bigger than that. second, the youth employment program in the jobs act isn't

just summer employment. there is a component of the summer employment, but there is a component for year-round employment, and we raised the age to 24 because the difficulty that kids are having in finding jobs isn't just the dropouts. we have kids were finishing college who are having a difficult time making that initial connection. so yes, that's why we have as year-round and we did raise the age so we could get more kids involved. but the president jobs act is going to generate many more jobs, and independent economist have pointed that out. this was, still is, the only engine running, the only proposal on the table to get jobs created. apprenticeships are great, but apprenticeships are jobs. and until we create jobs, as wonderful as that model is, we are not getting people into jobs. we are behind in getting our kids into the construction apprenticeships and getting them through the programs because we

don't have enough construction jobs right now. so if you go to many other companies that have apprenticeships, they are having a hard time getting kids place. it's important that it's vital. is a really wonderful model, but, but as wonderful as it is, as wonderful as it is, if we don't get the jobs and a bishop is a job and if we don't do the jobs we don't get to the apprenticeships. it cost money and have to convince people that you must make investment if you're going to get a return. often all it takes is my neighborhood school. either three or four blocks from. i visit it all the time. i know how much money it cost to run it, and i know how people always crying that there are no resources, nobody wants to pay taxes. everybody wanted us to go to heaven but nobody. [laughter] >> i mean, i love these things

that work, but we've got to be able to put them in place to actually have it done. so that this can make use one of the big problems though is the coordination, and even in that sense. >> being able to coordinate with industry in such a way that i've got an appointment to take people out to melrose park right now, do just what you're talking about, getting it done. but bill, we could, for example, have a tax credit to expand apprenticeships. so for example, we could have included a tax credit of, say, six, $7000 per expanding apprenticeship, expanded the

print issue. and that would have provided much more incentives that some of the other elements. i agree that many of the elements with many of the elements of the president jobs plan, but i think, you know, apprenticeships are not going to happen just on the basis of general demand. okay? it takes and leadership, as a mentioned. and when we saw in south carolina, south carolina, and effort to provide a tax credit for friendship, a thousand dollars, plus, plus the people in the market which is very important, okay? it's not something that is self implemented, as you said. it needs a coordination, and we need people to help provide that effort for these lawyers. see which occupation, had to make sure those occupational standards are high, how to make,

how does it work with the schools, which the related instruction. .. to be competitive. we have to return to being the number one country when it comes to college educated people. we have fallen from that

standard. we can't achieve the standard without addressing what do we do with adult and adult learners. so we ended up this model with community colleges, but it is really to get everyone in the united states, everyone we can reach into a whole ladder, so we can find is there a certificate of skill we can get you, that will get you to an associate's degree, get you on the ladder to a bachelor's degree. because we know, we keep hearing from the chicago urban league here that in the long run, we need to position people for competitiveness at an even higher level. so i think that this program that we have with the community colleges is a different vision of where people need to end up to be. and, and, -- >> but they don't graduate. they don't graduate. >> in large part, but the community college grant is directly addressed to getting them to graduate. >> they don't graduate

because there is no jobs, because the jobs are not there for them to go into. and i don't know, bob why they're mutually exclusive. in chicago they're partnering the city colleges is partnering with employers to train people in a college program for, that they're working with -- then go work. they're doing one for example, with rush hospital where they're training nurses. they're not, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. the idea is, the problem with the community colleges as they have been structured and what the president's program in part was funding to help them develop programs for, to train people and give them credentialals for the work that is out there. >> exactly. >> that is the gap. people don't finish because they see no future. they also don't finish when they come in by the way, they're not ready, right? and so they're failing. and what happens to our young people when they, you know, like any of us, right? you go into an environment and you're failing and

you're behind and there is no support for you, what do you do? you give up. we see that across our -- i want to circle back to something that congressman said was so important. that is the question, something i think you all can do, look, because when we talk about holding people accountable, it is not just the institutions. it is not just the government, it is our own community. i was at a community meeting -- [applause] apparently at a school on the south side that is going to get turned around. there were more security people at this meeting that there were parents. one of the parents at the meeting talked about how hard she has been trying to get the parents to come out to work with them at the meeting. here's the difference. let me tell you something. these are hard days. we all have them. at this same meeting this parent was talking about the the school doesn't have

sufficient books for their kids. which just makes me crazy, particularly as a member of the school board. we'll fix that but the point is, parents don't come to meeting in school where the kids don't have the books to learn. i don't know, that would annoy me as a parent, right? we would be up in the school and they need to be there. we accept the fact that our kids are being undereducated. we to stop that. you have to go back -- [applause] because on the north side of the city of chicago, those parents don't accept that. right? they don't accept that. and their kids have books and so, as long as we continue to not engage and not fight and say, we will not accept this, we will, it will be given to us. and so i think the point he made and what we can do as we and what we're flying hard to do at the league is to say to parents, your

child has a right to an education. my parents fought for me to have an education and their parents fought for them to have an education. our kids parents need us to be fighting for them. >> you know, i think what dr. david said when you talk about education and just working with young people, they're getting around a lot of things. sometimes that is their parent. their parent sometimes is in the way of their education. a parent who works too much or can't be available in the same way a lot of issues around middle class life-style. you take home the books, you do your work, your mother signs the form and you go home. the little kids frustrated they didn't have their forms. they didn't have their books. they didn't -- i don't know like you said, how you can, kind of judged equally and they're getting around so much to just get to where they are. i think education is part of it. i would like to kind of switch the focus and talk a little bit about job diversification and how it affects the economy and importance of it.

i grew up in columbus, indiana. cummins engine factory, fortune 500 company. everybody worked for in the plants or in the office. in the '90s i was on leadership boards because we tried to look at a way as manufacturing was going away what can we do. one of the things was community college to expand programs to retrain employees. what are some of the things that we tan do when we talk about job diversification in the economy? how important is that? is that exaggerated or is it really important? >> i think there are concepts like microlending. i think there are things like small business, like, for example. i actually have on monday, a business development fair. at malcolm x, community college. one of these community colleges that we're engaged with and, you know, there

are programs where individuals, since you don't have the big manufacturing plants, you don't have the big places where there are assembly lines, individuals can start their own businesses. i mean, cottage industry-type businesses. that can in fact grow. i am impressed with microlending, tremendously. i mean it's people, have been raving about what it's done in india. but i think we can do some of it right here. people can sell things. they can transport things. they can do all kinds of things where they're not necessarily going to get rich. but they can earn a living. i mean they can have a job, if they create their own job, and work it. then i think that is certainly something that can be done.

and i think it's being done more and more. i'm very high on it. >> right. in the jobs act there is a role that those in the room can play. i alluded to it before. we talked about modernizing the unemployment insurance system. how people interact not only being unemployed but getting an unememployment check. there are eight states that currently allow people getting an unemployment check to become entrepreneurs and to continue to get an unemployment check while they are entrepeneurs. we feel, we studied them and we put the model program in the president's act. that's there not because you need that authority. you can do this right now.xd what you would get, if the president got theu act passed was the money to help shore up your unemployment insurance systems, which as all of you know are owe a lot of money from the

federal government right now because they are, they don't have enough in their trust funds. but you have that authority right now. you can on your own mirror that model legislation that we have in the america's jobs act in order to make unemployment plo insurance available to those who are willing to be entrepreneurs and who want to put in some equity and learning entrepreneural skills. but i do want us to not lose one of the major ways in which we fought poverty in the 1960s and that is to understand, you know, some people have throwing around the term, those are good jobs. secretary solis has charged the department of labor, it is good jobs for everyone. that doesn't mean we'll necessarily change your job but every job deserves to be a good job. so until we get serious about enforcing our labor standards, until we get back

to understanding that people have to be treated fairly on the job, we've kind of given up on these kind of notions. we've given up on the idea that some people deserve to be paid fairly. we've decided, we'll train them out of those jobs. you will still have somebody doing that job. so until we get serious about that, the president has made a big investment in getting our enforcement staff back up to where it was at 2000 so we can have the people to monitor our workforces and stop the degradation of the types of things we see taking place to low-wage workers. having their wages stolen. wage theft is a huge problem. increasing employment, developing companies, is not something separate from the decent jobs. and we have to not lose vision that all jobs have dignity and all jobs therefore should be treated with some decency.

>> i know miss zopp has another engagement that you have to leave. your assistant was telling me you have to go. thank you so much for coming. do you have any last words or anything you like to say? >> i like to touch on your diversification question. just to remind people about the importance of congressman davis was talking about the importance of small businesses and entrepreneurship and continue to support that. that is where that innovation comes from. also that's ultimately a huge important part of our economy where we can not only create jobs but then hopefully reinvestment in our community. just to give you an example one of the programs we have the urban league we have a job development program that includes a apprenticeship program where we develop contractors so they can expand their businesses and those contractors are highering people out of our apprenticeship program. and that is of course the idea, right? so we're working to do that

more with our entrepreneurship center. we can help the businesses grow and then train, push, help the people that are coming in our doors looking for work, push them to our entrepreneurs. so, you know, that is innovation, is what small businesses drive. that is what is going to help grow and diversify businesses. to the extent you have opportunity and support, small businesses i encourage you to think about it because it is really important. generally the economy, particularly the minority community, i'm really sorry that i have to leave but thank you. >> we have to go as well. so thank you. do you have anything you need to say? [applause] >> just i also want to kind of take a step back again talk about the jobs act. we've been having a very good discussion about things, very specific things that will help move things along but right now what we have in washington is absolute paralysis. that the president has put forward a plan that has incentives for employers to hire, that has relief for families.

that has dollars for training, that makes investment in areas you can put people back to work right away, whether it is making sure that states can continue to, you know, not have to lay off teachers and keep teachers in the classroom, or investing in our infrastructure, investing in upgrading our schools and we've been, the president has been talking about this now nonstop for, since the, you know, since the end of the summer and we've seen very little action. and so, the time is now for us as a country to get serious about, you know, ideas. these are ideas that have had bipartisan support in the past. that one of the things the president said when he was making his decisions about what to include and if we're, you know, just kind of sit on our hand, then, we can continue to have these discussions and see nothing happen. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for joining us. we'll take a couple of questions from the audience. if you go to the mics in the

middle of the aisles we'll take a couple of questions. we'll start with you. >> start with me? is this on? >> is it on? >> first got one question but mostly a statement. representative ernie hewitt, state of connecticut. the professor, what is the name again? >> lerman. >> lerman. >> lerman. >> leerm man. i, probably while i was sitting here heard you mention the word, leadership about five times. >> yeah. >> and personally my opinion i probably can get more people in the room to agree with me, that the jobs act is some serious leadership. just bringing it forth and going throughout the country trying to propose it is serious leadership. so i think the president has taken some leadership on that issue. a question. you're right, apprenticeship, jobs, you have to get the job before you can get the apprenticeship. we have a class of young

adults out there right now that goes to prison, they get out of prison for low-level drug offenses, nonviolent crimes, and we know, everybody in this room knows, when they come back to the street, they are forced to check a box on the upper left-hand corner of that application. if they check that box in the firm tiff, they're not going to get the job and therefore never make it to the apprenticeship process. if they check no, and they tell a lie, they're going to lose their job. just want to know what thoughts you have on that? thank you. >> i have to say, we've just been told we have to wrap. i'm sorry. just got to a wrap on that. can, maybe we can talk afterward but we got a thing that we had to wrap. we started a little late. so, sorry. i was just told --

[inaudible] >> okay. okay. well, i would like to thank the panelists. maybe we could get together and talk aft ward or whatever. thank you all for being here. [applause] thank you very much. thank you for the audience. sorry about that. [inaudible conversations]

>> with the new hampshire primary only four days away, we're taking a look at primary victory and concession speeches from years past. today, we'll take you back to january 27th, 2004 to hear speeches from john kerry and howard dean. senator kerry won that primary, 38-26% over the former vermont governor. see that event starting 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. then later today, texas congressman ron paul holds a town hall meeting in durham, new hampshire. he finished third in iowa and looks to the voters in new hampshire to help him continue his campaign. that event starts 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. after it's over we'll take your phone calls and comments.

>> appreciate your help. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i know this was a long meeting. good to see you. thanks for your question. oh thank you so much. >> nice to meet you. thank you. >> c-span's road to the white house coverage of politics takes you on the campaign trail with the candidates. >> great to see you. >> thanks for being here. we appreciate that. >> are you going to get past the stalemate with congress? >> watch c-span's coverage of the new hampshire primary on c-span television and on our website, c-span.org. ♪ .

>> last month, educators, journalists and politicians were honored at "the washington post" leaders award. this year's awardees, new jersey governor chris christie and fdic chairman, sheila bair. held at ford's theater, this is an hour and a half. >> let's begin by talking about how you win the confidence of the public.

you know, sheila bair, you during the financial crisis it was quite an important part of your job to make millions of people feel confident in the banks. >> yes. i think that's right. i think, you know, when i became chairman of the fdic, the late build seidman, chaired the agency through the s&l debacle came by to see me. he said the agency is about public confidence. to maintain public confidence you have to be interact with the media. you have to be out there explaining what you're doing and why you're doing. if people lost confidence with the w fdic we would be in the soup. on the flip side it is not happy job to deal with failing banks. getting out there explaining what we're doing, why we're doing it. it is really key. bank regulators are not as always open as they should be. i think it is positive. once people understand what you're doing they will support you on it. >> i'm going to talk more about instilling confidence but, governor, you know, to

get any of your initiatives passed, right you need the public to be on your side. in fact some people say that you, you're kind of governed by youtube because you go right to the people, right? kind of right over the heads of some of the usual suspects at times. how do you get millions of people to follow you? have confidence in you? >> you know, i think it is telling them the truth. and, i think it is just, kind of a sad commentary where our politics is today that, you know, i'm this guy from new jersey getting all this attention and all i'm really doing what i promised what i would do during the campaign and calling it as i see them and it has gotten all this attention. i will tell you in the beginning it was really kind of disorienting. you know, what's the big deal? i didn't quite get it but as we've gone further and further into it what i understand, and what have come to understand now is that the folks in my state and across the country are

starving for people to tell them the truth, even really hard and ugly truth they don't necessarily enjoy hearing. and so i think the way you get people to follow you is that way. and you know, style is part of it too. i mean, you know, doesn't hurt to be entertaining every once in a while in anything that you do and i think that is part of it as well. and but doing it in a way that is intentionally trying to be entertaining. >> you were saying you know why is this guy from new jersey getting attention, he is telling the truth? are other elected officials not trel telling the truth? >> sure. [laughter] >> you want to name anybody in particular? [laughter] >> we only have 20 minutes. [laughter] >> that is the entertainment portion. >> of course people aren't telling the truth. they haven't been telling us the truth for years. so that is why we get in this position. if someone told you the truth, listen, here is what we're going to do.

we're completely overspend the resources of our country. we'll run up $15 trillion in debt. states will do things proportionally the same way. we're going to put enormous strain on our financial civil and we're going to cause a lack of confidence in our society that will lead people to be really fearful for america's future. i don't think anybody is voting for that guy, you know? but that's what they did. as they were doing it. now they put all kind of different, you know, bells and whistles around it and made it look nice but in the end that's what they did and that's what they were doing over the course of time, both parties. so, yeah, there is lots of people haven't told the truth. and believe me, it is no fun to come into a situation like i came into in new jersey where a week into my job my chief of staff, my treasurer came down to the office after i had been assured by governor corzine the fiscal year 10 budget would be fine and last six

months. they said if you don't impound $2 billion in spending next two weeks we won't meet payroll for section period in march. new jersey is second richest state per capita in america and we were not going to meet payroll. it is no fun to stand up and say i'm cutting $600 million from education. >> what do other governors need to do that you're doing? you're able to get the deficit under control and still be popular. so what do you tell the other governors out there? >> i mean i think it's about doing the hard things quickly. but that is an old political axiom. it is nothing i invented. when you're in the beginning of your term you have the maximum amount of political clout. you just have been elected and so folks are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on some of these things. and so your task is, the conflict politically is, with a lot of people, they said, gosh i'm so popular right now, i do these things my numbers will go down and i like my numbers where they are. so i'm not going to do this.

so i will do later. >> right. sheila, you weren't too worried about being popular. >> no. >> how do you deal with criticism and enemies in the public eye? >> well, i think -- >> wall street is not happy about some of the -- >> yeah. throughout the crisis it bothered me that people tried to personalize these issues. there were some philosophical disagreements. we were tough. we needed to be tough. yet everything we did was to achieve the objective the mission, the public mission. it wasn't gratuitous trying to get in fights with people, not at all. i do think, and i like i say, as much as we tried to engage with the media, and i think successfully and be open and direct and youtube and other vehicles which are really good -- >> does it bother you when you see people criticizing you? >> sure. it would bother anybody but i guess the main criticism was that i was doing my job. that i was too focused on

fdiic. if i wasn't focused on fdic we would have been in the soup. point taken but i'm very proud of what we did. i think that is part of leadership too. you don't necessarily make friends. same way governor christie said. >> wall street you felt like you weren't protecting depositers? >> we weren't looking for fights but there were mistakes made there. there were some managers that should have been held accountable that were not. so i think that is speaking the truth and there were also some very well-managed banks. i think one of the unfortunate things about the bailout everybody got tainted with a broad brush. >> people say you look for fights in new jersey, is that fair? >> new jersey, come on. people look for fights in new jersey [laughing] >> you know. listen, i fight the fights worth fighting. i'm not looking for fights but there is lots of problems out there. >> do the critics bother you? >> listen, you know what happens i think over time?

the answer is yes, succinctly but it's a little more nuanced than that. i think what happens over time is you just develop a better ability to deal with it internally. so let's say in my first couple weeks as governor, if i got a really skrathing editorial, it would -- scathing editorial, it would bother me all day maybe into the evening next morning i wake up think about it. now two years in, i get a scathing editorial, it bothers me for an hour and go next. you develop a little bit of shell. the popularity thing, thing that strikes me i think of all the problems, my mom when i was a teenager gave me this advice, and turned out to be a great advice. if you have the choice being respected and being loved always taking respected. if they respect you love may come. but love without respect will be fleeting. of course she was talking about women but [laughing] but i think it applies

equally to politics. >> did your parents give you any advice that you can tell us? [laughter] about men or anything really? >> well, my parents were traditional, i'm from the midwest but lots of friends in new jersey too. so we had, they had traditional values. they were both depression era, products of the depression. my mother grew up in the dust bowl and had really tough stories to share about abject poverty, and it just, it sticks in those memories. that really instills basic notions of thrift and hard work and playing by the rules and accountability and america is a great country and you should profit if you do the right things. if you do the wrong things you should take the losses. those were values i carried and still carry with me and i think they serve me well. >> a few questions for governor christie and then i will come back to sheila.

given experience of heavily democratic state and you're republican what advice can you share with those bickering with great partisan fervor on capitol hill? >> well, done a little bit of this lately i think. listen, i thinkc in our form of government, that there is leadership to resolve bickering among the legislative branch government we're going to resolve this. >> now you recently said about our executive, you called him a bystander, right? . . president obama's

presidential style? >> when i left last night my communications director said please, governor, don't make any news. [laughter] >> can i have tomorrow off. l[laughter] >> that was very bad advice. >> here's my issue, my main issue with the president -- put aside whatever philosophical differences i have with the president, and there are many, but there are some places where

we agree, on his education reform where we have a lot of common ground but my main critique and problem with the president is is that i don't think he has the first idea of using executive power. and turning the stimulus package over to congress and let them deal with it and the health care thing dragged on as long as it did. and became a hodgepodge of a whole bunch of different ideas. >> maybe a couple of concrete things that he could do? >> you got to be there. the fact that he's been completely absent from this debt and deficit conversation from me. we keep hearing the president had a plan for $4 trillion for deficit reduction, no one has seen it. it's not down on paper anywhere. he whispered to boehner and boehner brought it back and it got denied. he did his part.

the fact of the matter is, for you to lead, you have to be there and you have to take risk. every time i get together with democrats in new jersey, i'm at risk. politically. >> do you think the president doesn't take enough risk? >> certainly not. and certainly not on things that are uncomfortable. i mean, was there risk involved with trying to kill osama bin laden, absolutely. does he deserve great credit to make the decision to do that yes, he does. but let's face it the downside risk was relatively minimal even if it had gone poorly the american people would have said you know what? worth a try trying to get this guy. and so that's a -- that's a decision he made that was a difficult decision but a relatively risk-free decision on the back end. people might have criticized -- >> people might disagree with that. when it comes to it, a lot of people were urging to you run for president. it's a tough job. if the president was here, he would have some things to say.

when you were running for president, you said -- before that, you had said leadership is about doing the big things. >> yeah. >> but why not go for this big thing? >> well, you see it's two different things. what i was talking about is the big things are the big issues. and the fact is, that running for president is at the core an essential personal decision. you have to feel in here, i believe, that you are absolutely ready and that it's something you must do. if you don't feel that, i don't believe you have the right to ask money for people for their money and vote and i believe you have to do both in running president. no one knows other than me whether i feel absolutely ready to take on that very difficult job you just mentioned. and if i don't feel it if here, then i have no business just because i see a political opportunity -- i'm not a dummy. i saw the opportunity. the fact is, though, i said this to a group of students at princeton. you should never run for president because you say to yourself, i know i can win.

i hope i'm ready. >> do you think you'll feel it in here later? >> i might have indigestion later. i don't know. [laughter] >> i don't know what i'll feel later. what i'm focused on, you know, is doing my job. and, you know, this is another bit of advice that my mom gave me, you know, 'cause she saw that i was an ambitious kid, pretty young and she said to me all the time, christopher, she called me christopher, if you named your kid chris christie, you would do anything than chris christie, christopher do the job in front of you as well you can do then the future will take care of itself. >> and then i'll move to sheila after this, of the republican candidates, who would be the best steward of the economy? [laughter] >> listen, i endorsed governor romney. i'm not going to break news today. i think ron paul would be great on the economy.

[laughter] >> maybe you could break news who would be the worst steward of the economy. >> no, i don't think so. [laughter] >> let's just say this, that when i look at the stage during one of these debates, of the republicans standing up there, it is really clear to me that the best qualified person and the best person to have a chance to beat president obama next november is governor romney. it's crystal-clear to me. that doesn't mean that i agree with governor romney on everything that he says or stands for. and if we're looking for the perfect candidate before we support someone, we better just look in the mirror and stop there, right? we're the only person that we agree with 100% of the time. [laughter] >> so i'm not looking for the perfect guy, but i believe of the candidates being offered, he is the best alternative for our country's future and he's the best alternative for my party to

select to have a legitimate chance to take on the president next november. >> okay. sheila? you had a hard job during a hard time and i want to ask you during that time what was the hardest decision you had to make? >> oh, i think definitely the bailouts in september and october of 2008. i think we didn't have much information. and they were quite generous in their terms, obviously, but the problem when you're in a crisis situation you don't have a lot of information and you're doing more with less and that's the decision-making metric that people use but, you know, we took a tremendous exposure at the fdic. i still -- it saddens me greatly the kind of political disaffection and outrage and resentment that the bailouts created. and so i try not to look back but i think going forward we should be working very hard to structure financial system where that never, ever has to happen

again. and i do worry that i think some of our priorities are fading as time -- >> what is the biggest change that needs to happen so this doesn't occur again? >> well, i think the banks need to be able to fail. the large financial -- ensure banks there's a resolution -- bankruption-like mechanism in dealing with fdic-insured banks. the problem is we didn't have tools for the pieces of the organization outside of the bank and the holding company where most of the risk was taking as well as nonbanks like aig. going forward dodd-frank does authorize the use of these same type of resolution tools for these financial entities and it is a bankruptcy-type process on the shareholders and creditors and there's losses above that it's assessed on the industry. the taxpayer doesn't pay anything. >> so in the future you think it shouldn't be this too big to fail? >> it should not be but i think the market needs to understand that because market perception drives it. the market keeps thinking they will get bide out if we buy

their debt or invest their equity they will keep feeding and fueling major growth in the major institutions. big is not necessarily bad in and of itself but that should be driven by market forces not by implied government subsidies from the view that you're going to get bailed out if this large institution fails. i think the tools are there but the regulatory will to use them needs to be there. i think some of these large banks need to have structural changes to make sure they can be resolved in a crisis in a way that's orderly. and efficient. and i think from a safety and sound perspective some of them are really too big to manage. they are quite disorganized. there are thousands of entities. they are not going to want to do that. it's going to be expensive and it's going to take a lot of regulatory courage and leadership to follow through and make those things happen. >> just because i see we don't have a whole lot of time i wanted to -- i think a lot of us are interested in kind of the

daily habits of very busy successful people. so can each of you tell me, you know, kind of what's the secret here? do you skip certain tests. are you on the treadmill at 5:00 in the morning to get focused and energy? [laughter] >> mary, how did you find out my secret. [laughter] >> yeah, i skip the treadmill part. [laughter] >> everything else i do. you know, i think it's -- for me at least it's every day i'm right to put one foot in front of the other and keep my mind clear on what my priorities are. and for me, those are doing my job while also trying to be a good husband and a good father. and at times, those are really difficult things to reconcile.

>> do you not need much sleep? >> i can get by on four or five hours of sleep a night. >> how about you sheila? >> i need a sleep. i forgot what it was like to get eight hours of sleep every night and it's been happening for the past several months now and it's been wonderful. what governor christie said about breaking it down doing it step-by-step, doing it in front of you, so many people fail because doing the jobs in front of them they are looking in their next career move. >> so tighten the focus about -- >> absolutely. not treadmills but long walks at night with my husband and our dogs. >> not in the morning? >> that was the only time. we got our flashlights out and 11:00 at night we were out there but we got our walks in pretty much every day. >> i'm the daughter of irish grants and so i'm very interested -- you have both irish and sicilian ancestry. does that affect your style in any way? >> yeah. [laughter]

>> dominates my style. listen, i say this all the time, my mom passed away about seven years ago. she was the sicilian and my father is still alive. 78 years old. he's gregarious, wonderful, great humored irishman. but to understand my style this is what you need to understand my father is a wonderful guy and incredibly successful in his career. in our house my father was a passenger merely in the automobile of life. you have a sicilian mother, she drives the car. [laughter] >> and you'll notice all the different things are coming from my mother. not that my father didn't have great advice. he just couldn't get it in. [laughter] >> are you driving the car or is your wife driving the car now. [laughter] >> honey, if you're watching out there, no, listen, i think the interesting thing about our relationship is my wife is a really successful business person on her own. and so we really are, you know,

copilots. >> good answer. >> yeah. [laughter] >> i'm blunt but not stupid, mary. [laughter] >> in this television age there's been a lot of attention to what people look like. and a lot of people have said that it's a bit unfair for women in the public eye. for instance, hillary clinton, they talk about her hair and what she's wearing. >> right. >> and other secretaries of state who were not women, they didn't chat about that. >> yes, that's true. >> what do you think about that? >> it's amazing -- i've seen kind and not so kind comments about my appearance on the web and there's this wonderful internet, vogue contacted us and they were doing a power women thing and so they came and they did this photo shoot and i was thrilled at first and it took forever and this is enough after two hours. so but, you know, it was exciting. and they called back later and said well, we're not going to run it. we'll put it on the website. and well, you put us through all this and thanks but no thanks.

and then there were all these blogs saying i wasn't attractive enough to be in vogue. and so, you know, okay, but why is that relevant? why does that matter? and the unkindness of it, i think women do put up with that more than men do. >> we kind of have some of this before. when there are people talking about the idea of me running for president, you had columnists in this newspaper writing that somebody who's overweight can't possibly be president. >> what did you think of that? >> it's idiotic because what these guys got eugene robertson and michael collins wrote about because he's overweight that means he's undisciplined. it is just one of those last remaining vestiges of prejudice and stupidity in our society that you would draw that direct line between those things. i think it's very possible we've seen great leaders in our past who are extraordinary disciplined in a whole bunch of

things that may be undisciplined in one thing or unable to deal with certain parts. it doesn't mean that you're undisciplined. and i think that attention that comes -- no matter what the physical appearance issue is, is just a shorthand for people who maybe have another agenda but who say, okay, well, i can't really say what i really think so let me just call him fat, you know -- >> but do you think we're starting to get over that? >> no. i mean, this just happened a month ago. [laughter] >> so if we're starting it, it just happened in the last 30 days. when you have people who are allegedly respected columnists who use -- i heard nicholas christophe say this pricey bit of real estate that you have either the "new york times" or "the washington post" to talk about whether or not because i'm overweight, i can govern is just so silly. >> does being overweight affect you in any way? >> do you know how it affects me? it affects me, damn, i wish i wasn't overweight and i will go

through fits and starts of losing weight, gaining weight. i go through things that millions and millions of other americans deal with, but i'm working on 4, five hours of sleep eight night. i don't think anybody in new jersey -- there are many people who have lots have lots of criticism who he's not energetic enough, he looks a little lethat thissic to me. [laughter] >> nobody says that. and so the issue is whether it's vogue, geez, sheila is not up to vogue, or eugene robinson i can't be president if i'm too fat. if you take a step back and look at it, it's so ridiculous. whatever she decided to wear for her vogue layout have to do with whether she's an effective manager of the fdic and is helping our country avert, you know, financial crisis? or what i'm doing as governor of new jersey or potentially as president of the united states. and so i think, you know, we all have to understand that we need

to confront those prejudices 'cause those are just two examples and there's plenty of others that we still hold as a society and when we have people who are supposed to be opinion leaders, thought-shapers writing op-ed pages -- >> what should they write -- what are the key things for an effective leader? what would you put at the top of the list? >> i think -- i think -- >> not appearance. appearance is down here. >> being truthful, facing reality and telling people what the truth is, what the problems are, but also having an executable plan to deal with it. and i think people want to be -- i think you proved it. you know, people want honesty. they understand we got serious problems and there have to be tough choices but, unfortunately, the leadership in washington -- they just don't want to own up to that. and i agree -- i don't know why any of them are taking government money to be paid because they're not doing their jobs. and that's what they were elected to do. >> you're talking about congress? >> i'm talking about everyone. i think there's just been a

systemic failure in our decision-making apparatus in washington. >> what do they need to do to get the system working again. >> the frustrating thing the solutions on our skal problems are not that hold. i think bowles simpson plan laid them out. the solution is not hard. it's just deciding to do it, articulating to people why we have to do it and getting on with it. but the people just lack that courage and willingness to confront this head on. and, you know -- i worked for bob dole during the early '80s in the senate. we had real leaders then. people who had a responsibility to govern would take some risk about not being re-elected or whatever or not getting their juicy lobbying job when they leave because they had jobs to do that was right for the country. >> what would you put on top of the list. >> i wouldn't agree with much of what sheila said. it's time for people to belly up to the bar. you want to have these jobs. you want to have these titles then do something to earn them,

rather than just to figure out how to maneuver yourself to get re-elected. to me, that's the most reprehensible thing of what is going on in washington right now is it's so transparent. i mean, you know, you have both sides in their -- in their deep corners yelling at each other. you have a president who's standing by and saying, well, yeah, what do you want me to do about it. they're arguing, it's terrible. >> so, again, top of the list for effective leadership? what do you need? >> you need honesty. you need a vision for where you want to lead people and you need the ability and the character to articulate it regardless of the cost. >> and we'll leave it there. thank you so much. [applause]

>> well, that was fun. we have more to come. i'm going to introduce now the moderator of the next panel steven pearlstine. he's a pulitzer prize columnist for the "washington post" and he's also the founder of the onleadership website, the premier went in america and he's the robinson professor of public international affairs at george mason university. steve perlstine. [applause] >> and steve is going to introduce the panel to you, if he comes. did we lose steve? he's getting mic'd. >> maybe i'll cozy up here and ask you a few questions.

this panel is going to be talking appropriately about ideas and innovation. >> sorry, i'm late. i had to get a mic. good morning, everybody. my mic is a little messy here. michael, you had a big weekend here? sitting at home reading, did you? >> yes. i watched football. [laughter] >> so kennedy center, i think of people like me, old. we like our beethoven fifth we're thrilled with a rogers and hammer stein revival and what about your basic customers and donors are pretty conservator

and set in their ways. >> an edsel which was designed by ford. it was the first car that was designed by focus groups. ford held focus groups all over america and they said which is the steering wheel you like best, which is the fin you like the best and the wheels you like and they made the edsel based on all that input and they couldn't sell one of them and that's always been sort of the guiding principle for me and the work we create which is most people -- if you ask them what's the greatest arts experience they ever had it would totally surprise them. it wasn't cats, phantom of the opera, swan lake and the real challenge is to create work that you believe is excellent and wonderful and interesting. i use an example of festival of arab culture we did two years ago at the kennedy center. it was considered very risky. there was not one performer who any of our standard audience had heard of before and we ended up selling over 90% of the tickets

to it because the audience really got engaged by the work. and if you do good marketing and if you do good programming, you really do open up this disparate people and that's to me is what's leading an arts organization about. >> you probably run into this in all your consulting work with the other organizations, do the leaders of these organizations have to be willing to give up a declining part of their base business now in order to get new business? and do you have to get them comfortable with that or not accept that proposition? >> i think of myself as a portfolio manager, really. i'm doing all different kinds of lake. in the case it was very large it was two performances a year and so i have a very large portfolio to play with. but what i think of is how do i create work that's going to appeal to many different constituencies and some of the work is more visible than others but in total we're really addressing i hope a very broad range of people. >> how does this smaller arts

organization do that? do they have to give up something in order to get something more? >> they have to start from mission. it all starts from mission. and, you know, i always say it's really easy to run a corporation because it's in the words "for profit" it's very clear what you're there for. in the arts world we're not-for-profit. we only know what we're not for. and the first -- [laughter] >> the first job of running a not-for-profit is to be extremely clear what you're trying to do and then do that. so you don't have to appeal to everyone. you don't have to do this work and not that work. you say what is my organization about and who am i trying to serve? if you're in a very large organization like the kennedy center then you're trying to serve a very, very broad population. but if i'm running a much smaller organization and i have in my life a one choreography art and the coal is not to please everyone. it's to please everyone that will be set up to your aesthetic as well. >> one final question about the

arts organizations that you consult with, is it true or not true that there's a sort of innovation gene which we associate with creative artists and there's the management gene which, you know, gets the bills paid and is very disciplined about how an organization is run, do you find -- you have to find someone to run these things who have done both? or how -- are they in conflict with each other? >> they can be in conflict with each other if they're not done well. i believe that my work is as creative as the work of a composer or the work of a choreography. but i know part of my work is to create a little space in my organization where those who are making art have the room to be messy. i call it the messiness ghetto where you can create that, let it happen, not try and regulate it but put it into context of a much broader organization that does have to function like a business. >> thank you. so let's go to our late bloomer

here. >> so you're sitting at google and someone says, hey, jared, it would be really great you know for our results if you could come up with a solution for a terrorist extremism. i mention that because you had this conference in dublin. tell us a little bit about terrorist extremists. tell us how you came up with that idea. how in god's name did you come up with that idea? >> well, to start with, for context -- i thought this was a fun idea i've been thinking about why young people join violent extremist organizations for a long time. and before i started at google, when i was talking to them about the job and potentially coming there, one of things i was adamant about, i think google is a unique convener and i think we should bring together as many former violent extremists as we possibly can think of from around the world, former gang

members, former violent religious extremists, former violent nationalistic extremists and fascistic extremists all left and speaking out against the organizations they used to be part of. and so as you correctly did ask why on earth would they want to do that? why on earth would, you know -- whenever i would tell people that we were thinking about doing this, they would always say i hope the police are coming. i hope there's going to be a lot of security and that kind of lends itself nicely to what you could imagine some of the fears would be. but to me the idea was very simple. it's based on really two assumptions. everybody is always asking where the voices against violent extremism are. we hear so many people espousing violence, the counter-movements and they're out there. and there's lots of forums out there and nobody has bothered to organize them because it's risky. it isn't necessarily the first thing that comes to mind when you think of q2 revenue. but there's a personal reason why i wanted to do it as well which is after i got kicked out

of iran in 2005, i decided to spend a bunch of time in lebanon and syria and iraq and i interviewed a fair number of hezbollah extremists and extremists on the syria and iraq borders as well and i asked them why they joined and they would give me some religious and ideal and when i trace their socialization path it had nothing to do with ideology but much simpler grievances and to actually prove that is actually look across multiple context and so i started traveling to central america to interview gang members. i started traveling to colombia to talk to form farc and i was shocked with the similarities across them. >> and what similarities? >> it's amazing how much of them and how much of the sort of root causes centered around this idea of isolation, alienation, broken homes, being picked on at

school, not having alternatives, you know, every young person experiences something happening that leads them to feel isolated and alienated but when you asked them who helped them through it and they talked about how they couldn't go home because they had a broken family or how they met somebody by chance on the street who took them to this mosque and they played football with these kids who started taking him to this back alley madrassas and i think the most important proscription from what we learn by bringing these 84 former violent extremists together from 40 different countries was none of them on their path to violent extremism ever met a former member of the group that they ended up joining. so a former -- i'm sorry, hezbollah, never met somebody who had left -- i'm sorry, hezbollah and become disenchanted with the organization. and so we're missing an opportunity to leverage these credible voices to plant the seed of doubt at these at risk

communities and it's that sea of doubt which all these said it just been there. if someone wouldn't have given them a reason not to join, initially there was a fade of resistance and they exhausted their options and this is the direction that they ended up going up in. it's quite extraordinary. >> in our conversation before when we're talking, it just struck me that you had this knack for taking a problem which most people try to address through the front door and just reframing it in a way and looking at it in a different way which changes it completely. that something, you know -- is a discipline of yours or just comes naturally? >> i wish it was that sophisticated. it's really, you know -- it's just, i guess, kind of the natural way that i think about problems. i look for problems in the world that, you know, don't fall in an obvious philanthropic box, don't follow in a obvious box. it's a less radicalization and

failed states. the problem needs to be reframed in ways that account for technology because technology has an empowerment and empowers people for good and for ill and we need to understand how it's changing and complicating these challenges. and then the second is i always believe that any challenge out there, there's some sort of combination of people that are particularly interesting that have never been in a room together talking about that problem. and so that's what led me to want to bring all these formers together. i should mention we had a dozen victims of terrorism and violent extremism as well. but nobody had ever sort of brought formers from all these different context from the gangs to the religious extremists in one place. and i found in talking to them that until they actually spoke with one another, they themselves didn't even understand why they had joined these organizations. that it was a set of revelations even for them. >> how did counterterrorism experts look at what you do?

do they say, well, that's very nice, we have to find out who these people are and either kill them or put them in jail? >> look, if everybody agreed with what we were trying to do, there would be no point in doing it. i have a very simple philosophy don't pursue ideas with obvious conclusions. and if you're not creating waves, you're not sort of pushing the envelope. and if you're creating too many waves you're probably unnecessarily pissing people off and so i like to kind of find the right balance but, of course, everybody is not going to agree but i look at convening as a form of art and it's fitting that we're on the same panel in that sense and what's the most insulting thing you can do to a painting. walk by and not notice it. either cheer for it or spit on it but don't walk by it without noticing and i think convening is the same way. conferences are a dime a dozen. meetings are a dime a dozen. if you want to get people debating you need to, you know, in some respects convene in a way that's provocative. and, you know, be somewhat polarizing in a way that's

constructive. get people to, you know, sort of debate whether it's a terrible idea, whether it's a good idea. i don't care. as long as they're talking about it. we all know -- nobody has figured out the answer to how you stop people from joining violent organizations and i'm certainly willing to try. and it's interesting google as a company has become successful by organizing data and making it available and making it useful. and our success as a technology company is what put us in a position to be able to organize a different form of data which is human perspectives and that's what we tried to do with this. >> what's your next project the do think tank? >> we're looking at something doing something similar around illicit networks so organized crime, narco networks, human trafficking, you know, all of these issues are hugely important. and, you know, even though all these different illicit networks look -- may look different on the surface he use very similar tactics and i'm curious to explore whether or not transparency and technology can actually be used as a powerful

vehicle for exposing illicit networks. i believe that, you know, the need to remain secret and the need to remain asymmetric is their biggest vulnerability in a world ridden with technology. >> give an example, how transparency might work. >> it would strike me it's pretty hard for a human trafficking ring to function successfully if everybody knows where the safe houses are, where the money's moving, where the corrupt police precinct is these are all hypothesis i'm not an expert on human trafficking but there's people in different sectors and people who have trafficked and people who worked on the law enforcement side if you put them in one room can get pretty damn creative about how to think about this problem and then throw engineers and technology experts in there who may not understand these issues but certainly understand how tools can be used to identify -- address some of the problems framed by the real experts and you have yourself quite a set of

solutions. >> let's talk about the change -- the remarkable change you did at the university. when i think of innovation of i think of transformational change. higher education is not the first thing that comes to mind. [laughter] >> really? >> how is it that, you know, you're able to -- it strikes me one of the truisms of leadership if you want to make a small change, it's very hard. and the only way you can make a small change is to make a big change. you've changed the culture totally at your university. how do you do that? how do you sort of ignore the usual advice, saying you got to walk before you run. you got to do small things before you can do big things. how do you -- how do you get over that somehow? >> great question, steve. first of all, i keep saying this

and people think i'm simply trying to be humble, i don't think leadership is about one person doing that. i think it's about a group of people who can think critically about a vision of an institution. and i got incredible colleagues who are talking about these issues all the time and the big question and innovation gets at one of the questions that you ask. the big question is, who do we want to be as a public university serving working class, middle class kids? well, as my colleagues were talking, i was thinking -- one big source of pride last year when i walked into the kennedy center because my students are there performing a production, being one of the top with the american college festival. these are kids from all kinds of racial backgrounds performing at the kennedy center, the biggest day of their lives. incredible. and then i'm thinking about -- when we think about gangs in other countries, we started 25

years ago the choice program in our shriver center thinking about first time offenders. we bring poor kids first time offenders mainly boys, boys of color, poor white kids hundreds and supervise them 24 hours seven days a week when i listen to jared why did they get in trouble the same kind of issues the lack of family support, the need for connections and what comes through we need years ago we needed to knock the boundaries, the walls around the university down and focus on real life problems and issues, all right, from academic achievement, gap issues, problems with violence to finding ways of connecting with major institutions. and so how do you do that?

you bring people together and you have conversations. you can't make people do anything. people have to have the same values. they have to believe it. >> so many presidents of so many universities have said, you know, i try to do that. >> right >> and there's just this resistance -- institutional resistance to any kind of change. >> right. >> can you imagine getting the faculty of a college or university together and say, hey, i got a great idea. let's bring hundreds of first time offenders and supervise them 24 hours a day. i can that's going to get a big vote out of the faculty. >> but identify got, you know -- my campus was started in the '60s so the founding people were rebellious to start with. they just were. and many are still are. they're great. whether they're in languages, and secondly we have always believed we needed -- we had a responsibility for the larger community, all right? my boss -- when i first went to unbc was adam lowinsky and he

believed in these issues of antipoverty and it was an amazing time to think about how we could help children in different ways. now, the key is this, to bring about change, you don't need everybody. you just need some people who get the passion, who get that fever. they want to make a difference. >> uh-huh. >> who can begin to talk about it and can experiment and that's for us innovation is about not changing everything dramatically at once. you try something and you see what works. and you build on that. for us it's everything from resigning courses in psychology and chemistry to starting a program for minority kids to see what they can do. and believing that it's possible to change the world. when we started our efforts with the program, i could not find one predominantly white university in the country that could say it was graduating 10 or 15 black kids a year who had gone to get ph.d.s in science. not one. it's not time. it will take more and more

generations. well, my colleagues were saying, let's see what we can do. my colleagues are not black. i mean, most people in science are not minorities. we know that. >> let's take that very specific goal. how did you do that? >> first of all, a philanthropist in our area said i want to do something about the issue of black males. everything i see about black males on tv is negative except basketball. what can we do about that? and i said, we have this challenge of trying to get more kids who can succeed in science. black kids -- when you got chinese and russian and all kinds of students on campus, black kids from baltimore or from dc can't begin to compare. >> how do you do it? >> let's start with a group. let's find the best kids and let's see what it takes for them to succeed. >> okay. so wait a minute. let me stop you find them in maryland? >> we started in maryland. now they're from all over the country. >> you literally have to go out and identify them and recruit them? >> and what we said was, we want to prepare students not just to make it in science. we want to prepare the leaders

for american science. we want to prepare people who are going to be american leaders in science in the world. so where would these kids have gone if they didn't go to you? >> several of them -- they'd been accepted to mit. they had been accepted to great places. great places. >> what can we do. give me the pitch. >> yeah, yeah. i might go to mit and i might go to university maryland, baltimore county. >> right. >> give me the pitch. >> let's be honest about it. people tend to think about private institutions if somebody is really good. you know, they don't think about public universities except with a few exceptions and what we said was this, we're going to build community among these students. we're going to teach them to have a sense of self. we're going to talk not just about science but about the broad issues because the best scientists often will be well-educated, liberally educated people. i mean, they are musicians and artists and they can talk about ethical issues. we're not talking about a narrow education and you can get that at the universities but the point was this.

we want to focus on the challenge of students of color not having done well in science and we're going to figure out -- this is going to an experiment. you're going to be part of an experiment, already? you're going to be the pioneers. these other institutions are wonderful, mit to stanford but this is what we want to say to the country, this is what you need to do to produce students who can excel anywhere. >> what's the next important thing that you needed to do that was different than what you did before. >> first of all, it takes scientists to produce scientists. what does that mean. people in computer scientists involved with the students. hands-on experiences. similarly, you got to have it so it's not cutthroat. that they can work not only with each other but learn to work with all kinds of people. not just people of color because my environment has people from 100 different countries. learn how kids come from china work. learn how people from india work. let's understand how they go

about in studying and how they work. what makes umbc special is that we have so many students who are from other countries or their parents are from other countries and make no mistake about it, students who have not been in this country as long as tend to be more disciplined, more focused, and much harder working. let me give you an example. i'll have two kids who are nigerian americans. one student grew up in montgomery county right outside of washington and went to high school in montgomery county. great school system. another student started off in montgomery county and went back to lagos the boarding school. the one kid will say what's up doc. and the kid from nigeria, good morning, sir. how far do i need to jump and the attitude i'm ready to work hard. and the willingness to work hard and understanding how hard people around the world work will make a difference for america. >> i've just become a college professor. >> right. >> so i have a question for you. how do you get students to say i want to work hard?

[laughter] >> tell me about that. >> well, first of all, well, first of all, you have to show a for the work itself. i get goose bumps doing math problems, i always have. but i get goose bumps with ts elliott. a lust for learning. we have to make it clear that nothing more significant in our lives than education. where would any of us be if we hadn't gotten an education. secondly, we have to create a structure that allows students to work together and to want to be smart. in american culture, in american culture, we don't teach children to want to be smart. we want to think about ideas. it's cool you're over google ideas. it's a fascinating idea, the thought of it, you're thinking about things and so creating that culture on campus. if you come to my campus you'll see students from all backgrounds, international diversity, domestic diversity, they'll be working together. we mix it up. we say get beyond your comfort zone and whether they're talking

about serious theater or talking about the science, they're focused on that work. it's the passion we have to have. >> i hear the footsteps behind that tells us that we're finished. thank you all for coming. that was great. [applause] >> and congratulations. [applause] >> thank you, steve. that was great. that was great. thank you. >> and to lead our next discussion, let me introduce david gergen, he's the professor of public service and he's the director of the center for public leadership at the harvard kennedy school. many of you have also seen him on cnn where he's a political analyst. he's been an advisor to four presidents and he's written about these experiences in his book "eyewitness to power: the essence of leadership." david gergen. [applause]

>> have a seat and we'll bring your panel out right now. >> i think you've been introduced to these two gentlemen before. [applause] >> thank you both very much for coming here today. you know, you two i think are distinguished not only because you're wonderful leaders within the american context but you're also world leaders. you really have become world citizens. i'd like to begin by asking a little bit about two of you individually and about how you got here. but then move on to talk about the world in which we find ourselves and what lessons we can learn about leadership in this broader context. let's first start -- you know, each of you was born to circumstances that would have

suggested your chances of being here today were not high. you were born on a farm in oregon. and you were born in egypt between alexandera and rosetta which i just learned is the east to alexandria none obvious paths to a noble prize and not an obvious path to pulitzer prizes. in both cases it seems to me you started in one place but then you somehow developed this drive, this inner fire to do something more in the world to make a difference in the world. and it's been my observation if you look at the biographies of many world leaders, it starts with some sort of fire. it starts with a desire for change. to make a difference. where does that inner fire come from? how did it awaken?

>> first of all, i should say where i grew up in oregon is truly god's country and it's not manifestly that job happiness is just as high as sheep and cherry farmers. >> sheep and cherry, sheep and cherry farm? [laughter] >> we had a cherry orchard and we still have -- my mom is still on the farm growing cherries so please eat lots of cherry pies. [laughter] >> and then sheep which serve largely to feet the local coyotes, i'm afraid. [laughter] >> you know, i think what my parents also were academics in portland. and so they gave me a window into a larger world. >> they were at the university there?

>> yes. and we were beyond commuting range. we were in a very ruler area that was farm-based but through my parents i did have this window on the world. they were very socially engaged. they never kind of told me, you know, what to do or care about things, but they modeled behavior that i think i absorbed. it's one of the reasons that i'm very focused on education as a lever for change because i didn't so much get it at my school but i certainly got it at home. >> and from oregon, you went off to harvard? >> i went off to harvard. i told my roommates that i had my deer rifle under my bed and they were very nervous for the first four months until they realized i was kidding. >> why harvard? >> i never visited the harvard campus when i applied or before i arrived. but partly really because of my parents.

i was aware of stanford and so i thought during high school i'll apply to stanford and then when i was actually applying i thought well, i can't just apply to one college so what's another college that i've heard, well, harvard and applied and to my astonishment i got in and then i spent time working on a farm in france and arrived straight from the farm in france at harvard with a bunch of work clothes and i think raised a lot of eyebrows in harvard square when i arrived. [laughter] >> again, when did you sort of catch fire? was it then or when you went on the road to oxford or where was it in the process that you sort of just developed this kind of drive that you have? i mean, you traveled incessantly and at great risk? >> i think that it was in many

ways in high school. the high school that i went to wasn't a great high school by conventional standards. but it was a small school where the teachers, you know, genuinely really cared about kids. it was a small school. we had about 75 kids in the class. it was very possible to feel like you could bring about change. and bill drayen and work on social engineering that during adolescence that they can bring power and change and that was sense in high school about whether where i first got the bug of journalism and it was exciting to be writing articles for the school paper for a local county paper, through student government. it was this sense that you, you know, even though you were 15 years old, you could bring about change. and that was hugely exciting. and i think that lit the fires. >> so it wasn't just about learning about the world. you could actually -- through the learning you could bring

change, through journalism you could do that? you already had that sense? >> yeah, i think the international part of this really came much later. the sense of wanting to be a change maker, yeah, i think that really originated in high school with this perception that there are levers that one can bring about change with and it might well have been domestic but the "new york times" sent me off to asia and that kind of awakened a lot of international issues. >> when you won the first pulitzer at tiananmen square. >> tiananmen square. >> and that may have awakened you with the tensions. >> in asia you could not help -- the reason i became engaged in human trafficking was a trip to cambodia where -- i mean, i

certainly new intellectual that child prostitution existed and then got to a little town where these girls who had been kidnapped were being imprisoned and their virginity was being auctioned off. and it was -- it was just slavery. and there was no other way to describe it. if they tried to run away, the police would have grabbed them and handed them right back to the traffickers. and, you know, when you see that, it's hard just to you can with a away from that and move on to other subjects. >> how do you think of your yourself now, your role, your mission in life? >> it really is in a sense try to make people spill their coffee in the morning. we in journalism i think are big power is a stability to help project issues on the agenda. and so i look for issues that are important, that if people were more aware of them, it would matter. it would make a difference.

people will hold political leaders' feet to the fire to try to make a difference. we can embarrass leaders and so i look for those kinds of issues. and try to project them. and i also frankly look for issues where -- since i tend to be fairly liberal i think i have quite little influence over conservatives. they're just going to often discount me. where i take a conservative view, then liberals will hear me out. and so i look for those issues where i take a somewhat counterintuitive stand. >> right >> and in those cases one can have some influence. >> although it is true that evangelicals -- rick warren the pastor cares deeply about poverty as do you. >> absolutely. >> and the two of you might find common ground there. >> absolutely. one of the things that i have periodically written is that, you know, on issues like trafficking, for example, we're

only going to make progress if the secular left works with the religious right. and they both agree and both do great work on issues like trafficking, like aids, and -- but because of this deep gulf of suspicion between them, they don't cooperate as much as they should. and liberals and democrats haven't given nearly enough credit to president bush on aid on aids work. i'm a huge critic of the bush administration on aids he did fantastically the best part of his legacy. he seems to be defining his post-presidency on aids and that is something we should saluting. >> childhood in egypt coming here at the age of 23, how were your fires lit? how did you become this sort of driving force that you've become? >> i think in my case it's much more less, what was driving my generation in my generation in

egypt, education system in egypt was excellent at the time. >> it was excellent? >> it was excellent. and i went to university of alexandria, for example. i received very good education there. and the country as a whole was dreaming at the time. >> give us is sense of what those years were? what years were they? >> this was in the '60s >> '60s? >> yeah. and the campaign was dreaming. it was during nasr's time and nasr wants to build high dam and make the cities and the like. and so as a boy growing up in egypt, we were dreaming. that's number 1. and number 2 we were receiving very good education. i, for example, had a scholarship. in egypt, in public it's free. got a university of a graduate if you are among the top students in the university.

so it was a wonderful atmosphere around you to make you think. my whole ambition at the time was to acquire knowledge really. to be a university professor. at the university of alexandria. and so that was really sort of -- not to go harvard at the time or any of that, but i did work hard for it. i had the passion for knowledge and that's what i -- >> where did you find that? where did that come from? was it just innate? >> to be honest with you, i think it's something that we are born with somewhat. i think it gets shaped and polished by teachers, by our parents, by the environment we are in. but i think -- i think most people i know who reach somewhere have something in them innate to allow them to dream perhaps more than others or to

have this passion for what they do. and so my passion really at the time was limited to acquiring knowledge at the best possible way. coming to the united states was the same thing. this was after the '67 war. and relations in united states was not that great. and i was very fortunate that i received a fellowship from the university of pennsylvania. and i came again to receive my ph.d. because i had a university position at the university of alexander to be a professor there. but as i always say the american magnet turned on and i decided to stay here, went to earthquake about berkley and then after that i received the offer from harvard to be an assistant professor which was much easier than "the washington post" op-ed. [laughter] >> but then caltech give me a

great opportunity that i just couldn't think of turning down and i stayed here. >> i don't want to have too long of a detour but were the immigration at that time more inviting for you, the immigration system than it would be today? >> when i compare it to what we have right now -- when i tried to hire a post doctoral fellow at caltech, even from europe, not to say the middle east, middle east would be extremely complicated, but even from europe, it would take us is long, long time to try to get visas and screening and the like. during my time, the university that you apply to will almost guarantee for you a green card so they will apply on your behalf in order to attract the minds into the united states. >> so the doctors of the future

may go somewhere else, may stay somewhere else? >> i think we are already beginning to see that. for example, even my students now who came from taiwan and south korea and china are returning back in a big number actually, more than 50% are returning back to their jobs. but i don't want to mix the two. in other words, it is important for the united states to have its own security and screen very well. but on the other hand, we cannot in the name of the security close the doors to really the best people in the world who are trying to come to the united states. >> right. let's go on with your own journey then. so you came and you really had a passion for knowledge and you became a scientist. and you went on to significant discoveries. but there was -- but there was at some point a transition from being a scientist to being a world citizen and playing this

international role caring about education, diplomacy, and the like. can you help us understand that? >> yeah, i think it's perhaps because i was trying to sort of intergrate the two world of the have's and the have not's. >> right. >> i came from a country which has a great civilization and had glories in the past but in the modern time, it was a developing country and still is a developing country. on the other hand, i came to the most advanced country in the world. so being a citizen and working in both environments, i was trying to understand the problems and the values of both systems.

warsaw you in that capacity >> i think, you know, in my case, for example, people, especially after, they think that i planned everything on a piece of paper and i knew that i would get there. and it just doesn't work this way. and i always say that if you really keep thinking about getting, you won't. you would not get a nobel prize, but i think if you just, as you pointed out, if you just go with it and if you develop your own passion and work hard and you are focused, i think their is a

chance. so -- >> so many questions i would love to ask you. what do you think we should be learning as americans from the world about leading? we have our own perspective, but i find students from different countries have a very different perspective on what it's all about. >> from the eds education. one of the things, the u.s. pioneered mass education. rear one of the first countries to have almost universal literacy. the first venture to start high schools. you're one of the first interest have widespread tertiary education. there has been some good academic work to suggest that one of the reasons why the u.s. became economically preeminent, the work of economists like the recasts and eddie goldman was that country's daily education better and we did mass education

better. since the 1970's we have stalled other countries, especially in asia, the confucius' about half -- surpassed us. i see that passion for education and their way of using education as a lever for change. it seems to me whether written about the york, washington, or whether we're talking about egypt or tanzania, education is the best escalator out of poverty and for change and that here in this country are escalators are lots of broken. >> i think that people think that the american trademark in the world is the cinema and the coca-cola and the starbucks. i recently wrote an op-ed in the financial times about this. if you look at the numbers, the number one thing that the world admirers about the united states is the education and science.

the number one thing. almost 70 percent of the population. and so we are not utilizing it. i think that was part of the idea president obama of using science and diplomacy. i was in on what to the middle east. really utilizing it effectively in our foreign policy. >> you are just leaving here tonight and tomorrow for egypt. >> right after here. >> right after here. will make sure you get the flight. are the two of you, there have been some second thoughts about what is going on with the arabs bring and whether it is turning into winter are not. are the two of you optimistic about the future of the heiress bring? but the near-term and long-term? >> we were just talking about this.

i have an op-ed today at the "washington post" -- but not at the westin post. [laughter] >> said the message has gone through. >> in texas the los angeles times, and the dew point out that i am very optimistic. i think quite frankly the media is not seeing it perhaps the way nick and i would see it. if you know that sense the pharaoh's days in egypt that the president or the leader of the country can stay forever, and now we have the first constitutional change that the president termed will only be four years. that by itself to be is a major step forward or leap forward. if there would be all kinds of problems. the islamists situation the people talk about, quite frankly i am as concerned as people like

to make it. in this country we have extreme-right groups, republicans, democrats, but if you have a truly genuine democratic system you can change so i think it is not the right trajectory. >> so the turnout for the islamists in egypt is not been discouraging to you? >> no. because if you have more than 60 percent of the egyptian people coming into the poll and trying to elect the parliament, clearly the islamists in general have done much more in the previous regime. fox -- this is a very important point. if the majority of them were not corrupt. the people look up to them at this point in time. in the coming parliament as you have, people lose. >> i am not quite as optimistic.

i was troubled by the philosophy . they seem to want about a quarter of the boat. surprise me. much more worried. but at the end of the day : and, you know, at the end of the day the present system of being led by dictators was unsustainable. it is easily female genital mutilation with the mubarak government actually did provide leaders and really discourage it. more democratic. they have more. so there isn't really any alternative to having popular rule, and in this country there are plenty of decisions by voters that i disagree with profoundly. the same ball pitcher with egypt continues to recommend other countries, and i think the point

is often made is important. one of the real things is that they have stood up often quite courageously against corruption, a charity, and they have never really has to deliver electricity to all major water runs out of pipes. that is often a much harder challenge, and if they don't deliver on that then the cycle will change. >> let me ask you one last question. one of the scene -- teams and your common, it referred back to something gerry collins said earlier. 52 percent of the population is 30 era under. that sucks up the importance of windy, but as a leader. you have put this. in your columns you come down on the emerging leaders, the young leaders around the world, that they have become the great hope for the future. he seemed to have all lot of, both respect and growing confidence in the possibilities of the younger generation if

it's coming up. >> i'm a huge fan of gender generations and what they're doing. i think about -- always been activists and create a better world. my generation, when we were active we ought to try to do things that work kind of symbolic. we marched against bad things. often did not actually accomplish all that much. i think that today people, today's kids are much more likely to go out and start some initiative instead of going out and denouncing a literacy, they're more likely to sponsor a particular school in a particular refugee camp somewhere. it also the global problems. but that is going to be transformational. and i think more and more by and coming to sympathize with the idea of this particular, specific changes. i, you know, i think that one --

i mean, i am very sympathetic to the occupy movement, and i think the issue of economic inequality is absolutely essential, but i think it's also important for young people tough match that kind of effort to change the global system with mentoring young kids, with teetering on the side, and that is also an important lever for bringing about change, one that may be we in the media and in society don't adequately acknowledge. >> a big cq. the last word about the under generation. >> well, i think, actually, we are seeing in the world at large a real serious problem with education, and i have followed this and a benefit from mixed columns. but we should recognize that even in this country we have problems. we have serious problems in this

country about education, especially in public schools. it is a marvel for me to see that in the country that is leading the world by science and technology comes for the majority of the gdp of this country. biggest incentive fund to science and the united states. so we really have to work hard to transform, even in the united states. >> we thank you both for being here to. we thank you for your -- we thank you for your leadership. [applause] >> thank you very, very much. [applause] and thank you all in the audience for giving us our monday morning. thank you to the music duo, the right touch. if you would like to see photos from today's forum and share them with their friends, you can like washington post live on

facebook, and very shortly in a matter of hours the editing team will have video highlights from the discussions, and that will be found at "washington post" live dot com. and now i would like to introduce the director of this historic theater to make a very brief, closing remarks. paul leads the 04 seeded -- theatre society which along with producing great theater and seeks to explore the leadership of abraham lincoln had many, many people see as a model of exceptional leadership. please welcome paul pedro. ♪ >> thank you, mary. ford's theatre is pleased to be part of today's program, recognizing top american leaders. the collaborative creative efforts to build momentum for the causes that they believe in parallel the efforts of abraham lincoln. the man his presidency and legacy we celebrate. today's honorees have

demonstrated an extraordinary capacity for creating a shared sense of purpose. so, too, did abraham lincoln, who during what was arguably the most divided era and our nation's history maintained the union and united the country. during his life this theater brought relief and inspiration to president lincoln. it has offered similar respite to american leaders and the last 40-plus years since it reopened as a theater in 1968. today's awards and conversations help celebrate an exciting time. and during 2012 we will complete a project begun five years ago with the opening of our center for education and leadership. located across the street from the theater. three events and partnerships like the one on display today as well as the new exhibits, plays, seminars, and programs for students and teachers of all ages, we can truly explore and honor abraham lincoln's legacy of leadership.

a legacy which resonates even today in the words and actions of leaders across the country and around the world. in january, ford's theatre will offer nest -- necessary sacrifices, and world premiere to celebrate the new center. it displays leadership at its most challenging her to leaders, abraham lincoln, and frederick douglass, who pushed one another to envision and in shape and america that embodies the declaration that all men are created equal. the audience will be inspired by the humanity of these two men, and by their understanding of what they must do, the roles they must play to change the country and set an example for the world. when the new center opens, it will provide space for our education initiatives, which encourages audiences and especially young people to consider what changes they wish to see in the world and to express their visions eloquently . through our in and out of school programs, teachers and students

develop their capacity 44 of all kinds. our leadership seminar for adult learners and historical examples to consider how best to lead today. our speak like that president and teachers fellow programs create opportunities for teachers and students in washington and around the country using videoconferencing technology to find a variety of ways to lead. i encourage all of you to return to ford's theatre and to join us in celebrating a great american leader who was influenced and continues to influence some many. finally, it has this the pleasure to host this event this morning, and we look forward to continuing this partner with the washington post. thank you very much for coming, and have a great morning. [applause] ♪ >> with the new hampshire primary only four days away, we are taking a look at primary victory and concession speeches from years past. today we will take you back to

january 27th, 2004, to hear speeches from john kerry and howard dean. senator kerrey won that primary 38-26 percent of the former vermont governor. see that starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. and then later today, texas congressman ron paul holds a town hall meeting in durham, new hampshire. he finished third in iowa and now looks to the voters in new hampshire to help him continue his campaign. that event starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. after it is over we will take your phone calls and comments. >> because i did not speak and i did not get really a window into my life, i had become a kind of an evil cartoonist and did not help myself with wearing and had coming out of my police and courts. but i have become kind of a villain, and i wanted to show people, i am not an evil person.

a regular person who did things that were wrong, but i don't have a tail or horns. i grew up like everybody else. >> this weekend on c-span2 book tv, power and corruption on capitol hill. once the most influential lobbyist in washington, jack abramoff was convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy in 2006. his story saturday night at 10:00 eastern. also, when gonzales and joseph taurine on the role segregation plays in the way news reported sunday at 2:00 p.m. and gregory publishing marjorie ross on what it takes to be a successful female publisher and author. book tv every weekend. >> i know president obama came to office talking about procurement reform. everybody lanes on the military to neck down, and people leave out the one part that is going to make a difference, which is lawmakers. you know, go ahead and lose hundreds of jobs in your

district, but that is how that falls, and that is where it always stops. >> had editor of military dot com, for -- word carol provides members with news, information, and support. we will discuss how american tax dollars were spent by the defense department and currents procedures at:00 eastern on c-span is q&a. >> next, a discussion on national innovation policy was university of colorado law school dean phil weiser he spent the last two years in washington, first torching 45 working for the antitrust division and later as the white house technology and innovation adviser. he recently spoke to students and community members about this experience working for the white house. this is an hour and 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> all rights. if i could have your attention.

tonight is a special homecoming for me that brad had requested. we have done a series of these. usually it is me interviewing brad on different topics. we had some great discussions not knowing how they would go. brad said, so, when you come out from washington i need to turn the tables on you, and then i said, all right. all is fair game. unstuck by giving a little bit of a presentation so that i can get out, you know, some of my thoughts and then let him have at me. we are going to be on c-span, or so we are told, which has a few implications for you all. there is a chance he will be on tv. if you deeply objects to that and want to remain anonymous and not have your face on tv set in the back of the room bind the camera. however, if you are in front of the room then it is all fair game. also, your questions, to make

sure they can be heard, we ask you to fill out these cars that people will collect in the aisles and then bring them up to brad said that he can ask questions that he hasn't questions that you have. two other introductory notes. first, we have a lot of sponsors for silicon flatlines two have been very generous. this committee has continued to grow. i cannot thank you all enough for that. you are different firms and companies are listed, and we thank you all so much. those of you out here and your firm or company is not listed in you want to be a sponsor, there's always room for more. finally, i don't know how she does it, but and has put together a set of programs for this fall that continues to raise the bar. there is lots to come back for. please don't be a stranger. i am personally looking for to all of these events. next monday if you want to you can see brad burned all interview brad felled in our

entrepreneurs on plug series. so, this is mr. weiser goes to washington. i have been there before, so i kind of is getting into. there is definitely something powerful about if you are asked to serve your government. it is hard to say no. it was hard for my wife to agree to say yes because she knew how disruptive it would be to pick up our family for two years. her first reaction was, who does this? to just picks up the family? we get to washington and there are all sorts of people. they leave their lives, whenever there were doing, and to work in the government. that is what we did for the last two years. i am going to focus on the last 15 months in the white house. more recent in my mind and a little bit more noteworthy. nine months before that allows the department of justice which is most interesting the captured by npr, which referred to me as the top cop on agriculture.

[laughter] i was the point person on agriculture competition policy at the doj. you'd be better off playing brad was happy when they ask me to come work in the national icon council. what innovation policy 101 is about, of the -- and entrepreneurship, wireless broadbent, an innovation and national priorities last december in a little-noticed speech president obama use the following phrase, we are now facing our generation's sputnik moment. many people are not students of history, meaning they did not understand what the last generations at one moment was. there was a time in the late 1950's when the soviet union looked to be beating as in the space race.

that is of an existential fear that the soviets were going to be ahead of us. they were first aerospace and the sense that they had the sputnik. it was a man or unmanned? unmanned in space. that was a scary thought that we have not done that, and they had. that led to a national consensus, a commitment to invest in science and technology 1950's levels of r&d from the united states as a high water mark in our nation's history, both public and private. we are facing a lower levels of r&d spending which is coming to use the term i first heard from brad, see : for tomorrows innovations. the amount of innovation that has happened because of 1960's and 1970's basic research and development of the internet is one of the greatest contributions to wealth creation probably in the world history.

but for that spot that moment we would not be riding on that platform. similar areas in history, the transcontinental railroad give rise to huge industrial growth, interstate highway systems comex -- eccentric. president obama had earlier in the fall of 2009 in explaining the recovery act as having a pro investment mentality offered the following perspective on innovation policy. this was updated in a report around the state of the union with the concept of the sputnik moment was developed using the concept of out innovating, out educating, and of building the world. the court is the building blocks for innovation. r&d is essential, basics seed corn. without a commitment to research and development the types of innovations we have seen would not happen. there is also a critical need for an educated workforce. that means a couple of things. we need topflight k-12

universities, and people come from other countries who are educated here. we want to find a way to keep them here and not have them be sent back home where they may start companies abroad. we also need physical and i t infrastructure to support a 21st century economy. that includes, for example, wireless spectrum, which i will talk about. market based innovation, the american system is unique from the very disco. think transcontinental railroad, telephone and telegram. the government did not take this view, we are going to build an infrastructure products and services. we will facilitate private sector deployment and development of those products and services. and that is part of what had made this country great in terms of its entrepreneurial spirit and risk-taking. it is not a shame to fail. it's a shame not to try. now, the entrepreneurial system

needs some basic rule of law values. obviously protecting property rights and contract law is a key value. it also needs to have the right competitive ecosystem. so enroute, for example, the monopolization problem was a concern that came. in other industries monopolization concerns happened. at&t most recently. the breakup. that is all about preserving open, competitive markets. finally, the government can catalyze the national. clean energy is one that is talked a lot about. educational technology, healthcare, and space. so, the commitment to figuring out strategies to drive innovation policy was embodied in, my other places, the america competes act, the original compete acted after a report which was rising and above the

gathering storm, i think is the name of it. the concern was that our country is falling behind in science technology. the american peace act calls for an investment in r&d, and the structure and education. the second american peace act established an advisory body, members standing -- shown here. unlike some people, i promise that was not strategic placement on my part to the above the highest-ranking official. others incurred -- include qualcomm, are levenson. there is going to be up meeting in boulder coming up soon in the conference for having on september 203rd. part of it is talking abut innovation policy. entrepreneur ship. so, as i said, innovation, allowing the seed corn technological development is essential, but the really exciting economic growth, job development happens when entrepreneurs built country --

companies around these ideas. so, there is something called national entrepreneurs day. we have a get together in washington, myself and steve case and in to these jokers, that u.s. chief technology officer who will be with us here in november to launch something that i will talk about and a little bit called start of colorado. the reason he follows me on twitter is because of red bell. brad recent post double by twitter followers. thank you for that. what is interesting about entrepreneurs, if you go talk to them they will have ideas, and it is not an easy relationship. the government had to help entrepreneurs. one of the key lessons is humility. obviously government cannot manage and planets memorial development, despite some aspirations of government officials to think that they might. if you listen you can come up with some helpful strategies, so here is one example that came from this open forum.

lots of people selling web enabled services around the world might be worried that they're breaking the law. the department of congress has a specific technical assistance unit to help those entrepreneurs . the challenges, how does that message get out? that challenge was set up, and we're able to connect the people. this effort of start-up colorado , start of america, which was launched after national entrepreneurs state involved a series of road shows. here is brad and i here in boulder, and we were joking, not sure. i think brad had been marking that much value to come out of government discussions about entrepreneurship. and, you know, it is a yet to be tested whether this effort around startup america and -- can yield a value. there is a huge institutional disconnected challenge because government has not been set up oriented to listen, i doubt,

support entrepreneurs. the speed at which government operates is very different. this is not a small challenge. one thing that is happening, and i was able to plan my one white house balked post, was noticing entrepreneurial communities. and this is an emerging policy agenda around innovation clusters. it's not at all settled. how to understand them, support them. one concept that i laid here was, there's a lot to learn from boulder. now, there are some ways that the government does support entrepreneurs that are worth the appreciating. one is government has a lot of data that it can liberate to allow entrepreneurs to create companies around that help consumers and create economic growth. one such data set was for 01 plants where they're is a report

done within the department of their vile companies as to what administrative fees their employees pay. it turns out these can be extraordinary. and in order to bring them down, this company gives people insight into how bare feet compares with others, enables people to save money. i'm pretty sure the business model is not free and they try to take account of how much money is saved. this company took off after obama took office because of the open government commitment where the view is now if you can liberate data in machine readable form, do it. before these reports were only available in paper form. they had to scan them very carefully and try to migrate into a usable data set. the date is now available electronically to anyone who asks. president obama here visiting in the silicon valley after the state of the union looking for

ways in which the government can help to support innovation and promote private sector job growth. as i said earlier, this is a problem easier described in taken on. one way that government plays a crucial role in infrastructure, spectrum is what you might call our invisible superstructure. we have a legacy problem in the united states. a lot of businesses and governments to have their customer relationship management systems or employee benefits software that goes back to the 1960's as legacy problems because sometimes they still have systems built on cobol then they have to keep people around to understand how the use it. the government's legacy problem is unallocated spectrum when it up the best uses spectrum was over the air broadcast tv. 300 megahertz of spectrum allocated to over their broadcast tv. that's more than any other country in the world.

we made the decision to double down. in fact, probably triple down to support you ags stations. those are the ones that were on the other part of the dial, for those of you my age and older. your people that will be a meaningless concept, but think channel 14 to 50. and most communities don't have a lot of programming. those that do, lot of it is actually because you did a must carry right to be carried under care will system or on satellite systems, and 90 percent of the u.s. gets their tv through those connections. meanwhile, wired and wireless broadband is an emerging infrastructure. here is a map showing where it is in the u.s. and where it is not. one challenge that i have written about in the paper was how do we transition from spectrum given to over the air broadcasters to wireless broadband. interesting back story, i wrote

that paper from jason herman, who was then director of the hamilton project. went on to be a deputy director to larry summers of the national economic council, and when he called me up with the justice department to talk about spectrum i'd give him some ideas. help make this real. so after consulting with the number of people i said i have to do this. like a said, it was a great experience. this is where we are accorded to cisco. global i teach traffic, and what is interesting and worth noting is the wi-fi ip traffic. that is a spectrum that is unlicensed. so one of the great experiments and interesting case studies was in 1985 they said there is this bandit spectrum used for heavy machinery. so-called junk spectrum. what if we let people use low-power applications and not regulate it. and they had a very deregulatory

chairman. at the time it appealed to him. sure. let's allow that. years later the technology for wi-fi was developed, and that was a test bed band. it has become a revolutionary technology that it is fair to say save at&t with the iphone. at&t went from viewing on lyses spectrum with great suspicion to gray support because about half of the total traffic on the wireless networks, think iphone users, is on wi-fi networks. if you wonder why your iphone as are so darn aggressive about asking you every moment in time to go on any network around, it's to get around the bend with challenge that the cellular networks have a larger area. they're less efficient in terms of the spectrum concert. and it is a valuable part of our wireless ecosystem.

and so the challenge is making more spectrum available so that mobilizing traffic as well as for the wi-fi traffic. now, i came to the national economic council. larry summers was talking to me about this and try to understand, can this be right? if we free up spectrum from the broadcasters by giving the broadcasters money to essentially give up their spectrum rights the government can't kissed -- the government can take a cut of that money, and users are better off because they have less congestion on these networks. that sounds like a win-win-win. the government is better off because of revenue. and consumers are better off. the economy is better off. there is job growth associated. that is a, you know, four times over when, and this would not be an easy initiative to pull off, but it is important to do, and here is where there is the

mantra about public action and private investment. it's the type of public action that catalyzes public investment with the government planning and coordination role. for those who don't fully understand, believe me. i have some people in washington is a why couldn't we let the broadcasters, you know, lease out their spectrum to wireless broadband? broadcasters think high-power transmission, cellular networks are more compressed. lower powered. you can't put low-power right next to high-powered. that's like oil and water because you're challenging interference problems. you need to zone the spectrum so that you can have a light use next to each other. it's much more efficient, and that is the role of government. so, larry summers lays out this idea, the spectrum initiative. the six months later after the state of the union the president puts a little more meat on those bones about how the mission will take root.

he does is going to market michigan in the upper peninsula where he opens his speech by saying, were not just here because it's beautiful. and for those who have never been, it is beautiful. the people are nice and the people are actually really nice. it's because the northern michigan university set of, call it advanced wi-fi, while max network. that gives the students access to distance learning over these networks. it is a demonstration of what can happen with put wireless broadband. i got to go on this trip. is it -- chair of the council of economic advisers. i've never, -- traveled business class. air force one for having seen business class is much better. [laughter] i did get to take, some souvenirs for my kids. it was an experience of a lifetime.

there is carl levin. for those who don't know, it's common that senators and congressmen will travel with the president when he goes on air force one along with aids like myself. senator levine, mostly interested in talking about the war in afghanistan. the chair of the arms services committee, and it was touch and that he had no personal agenda and was just concerned about the war. he also wanted the president to autograph some books for his grand kids. here we are. the president although demonstration. here is the wireless innovation initiative about the involuntary spectrum auctions. the spectrum that is also being used by the government. investing money to spur the rollout of course she nationwide building a network for public safety so that public safety can have advanced uses of wireless connectivity.

historically public safety has lived, if you will, around 99 this technology much more advanced. and finally innovation and r&d, seed corn for future investments finally i some of. government, the open date is more generally involve with open innovation. government does not have all the answers. there are lots of developers who deal with data in in areas like transportation, government solutions. they can take that data and develop it in interesting ways. one of the things they have done in my mind exceptionally well, but more importantly it is called up for a challenge where a certain amount of money and recognition. we are very fortunate tonight because one of their call i would say, shining stars was a usda help the kids act which is

something the first lady's taken a great interest and. is kerrey here? karen founded a company, and she put in her own money, her own effort to develop an application to help kids eat better. for those of you not familiar with childhood obesity, you should be afraid, very afraid. the statistics a terrifying, and the impact on our health care system is also terrifying. we can and should use technology to help kids make better choices this is something you should have on your iphone. it is something we are lucky to have come a native of just living here? welcome having you as one of our own. congratulations to you. a round of applause. [applause] one other important challenge that we as a nation have to

destroy it is how we use our energy. my predecessor who passed away recently can put us all to shame in terms of his energy conservation lifestyle. i think there is a huge of virginities by giving consumers more information about their energy use. one of the textile companies, energy is focused. we as a nation have a challenge because infrastructure is built up by utilities whose economic incentive is not generally been to save energy. they get paid more when they sell more, so turning that around is a regulatory challenge. the technology to use energy more efficiently, sometimes this margaret, is still emerging. one of the great leaders, i don't know if ten is here tonight, another great entrepreneur in our community, engaging technology to enable this margaret framework. another event which i did not put in their is joining the

vice-president about innovation policy -- where he actually shutting out, developing great technology, but exporting and abroad, which is one of the obvious benefits of if you're an innovator you get to sell to the world. empowering consumers with disinformation is a big challenge and can make the grade more resistant. and brazilian. so when we keep spurring energy innovation as a country it's an open question. the budget pressures that we have are true. we have a long-term fiscal challenge that is scary, but we also have a long-term renovation challahs of we should be scared of. this was some of the recommendations that you can see, energy innovation, not clear where we will end up. r&d has been one of the very exciting efforts to spur and feed emerging technologies and clean energy that can really give rise to next-generation breakthroughs. building on the basic model.

and another opportunity in this area would be educational technology. this is and that that we have not cracked. a very depressing article in last sunday's times about whether or not these technologies are succeeding. can we, again, see the technology, the concept was an art for education to help spell this effort. finally, this is that thank you that everyone in the white house gets. the president, i can say, i have seen firsthand, loves kids, great with kids. stepping on his foot the whole time. and when my boss tried to it talk to the president of some deny it worked on, the president said i have business here, meaning talking to my children. they had a blast, and it really was the experience of a lifetime. now is the fun part where brad gets to follow up, and you do as well. you all should have your cards.

>> i will take a short introduction before we get started. for those of you that have questions, school your question and legible handwriting. okay. now i'm on. sorry about that. so for those of you that have cards, set them up to the front of the room. is somebody going to grab that? okay. gravid and bring it up. second, preston paton, who is a good friend of bill's, very interested in seeing fill with this because you're tired of having filled not have blond hair. it that's good. you look good. you a kind of like jason. [laughter] that was an inside joke for

those of you have seen my partners. >> you'll find it. >> so we will go on for about a half-hour, and then a round of questions. we will stop, and if we don't we will go until we get tired. first question, which i have been asked to ask you is boxers or briefs? >> boxes. >> get that out of the way. >> was a very? >> it is a choice. thanks. >> describe a typical day. >> i am not sure i had a typical day. the first challenge, you can easily go all day and the in meetings stacked up. one of the challenges is being mindful about what meetings to take. and that takes some affirmative effort on your part to make sure you have lots of different people. i met with consumer groups an entrepreneur's. there's a phrase that delta's

loves. the feature does not have a lot. and soho one challenge that anyone serving in government hands is how do you make sure that the affirmation and perspective you're getting our wide ranging. one huge swath that i would always want to make time for his meeting with outside people who are across a range of different people. and when i would do so i would try to be as transparent as possible with all of them so that they can give me effective information. number two, internally and the white house where you coordinate some people could say the white house is like a many congress. you have a domestic policy council that pretends to -- that tends to do things in a certain way. in national security staff reviews things through a certain lines and policy accountable for environmental quality. for example, smart read, it's conceivable that all five of those areas could have different perspectives on the same

emerging technology, and you need to spend time to get to know them. i will say, one of my big lessons has motivated most of what i did and how much relationships mattered. i was fortunate to have a lot of those going in and developed more wallow was in government. finally, the white house can only be as effective of how much it catalyzed -- works with other parts of the government. and also, in these areas, many people agencies might be doing their own thing. so the part of energy would have a huge interest, but the department of defense, military bases are looking at technology. the national find -- science technology. the department of commerce is developing standards. so i have to meet with them. the would have to figure out to balance these different meetings, and then manage your look live sketch upon a now, reid, and right in order to be effective and keep moving along differ initiatives. i'm not sure they ever lent themselves into easy and obvious

boxes, but they were sort of in-laws of these different types. >> you gave two or three examples of ideas that sort of germinated. you sort of summarize the policies as ideas. obviously there was a past. >> walk us through what that path might look like including some texture about all the kind of people involved on the front end of the process. >> a great question. let me spar with margaret as an example. i will have to say, and thank you all because i could not have done this job without the ten years i have here. in so many different ways, but you would be surprised how much a silicon flatirons conference is to as -- translatable to the white house. first of all, being able to call something out as bs or not is important, and having

relationships of people over years for you have a gun used to saying, come on, the real. that enabled me to cut to the chase and a shoot, and it is really important if you can cut through the rhetoric you never get something done. for some people in the world policy toward good at reading they're talking points, but you will never make progress if you're just talking to each other's talking points. you need to get a level of discipline and rigor and understand where the challenges are. as margaret, i mentioned it's one of our challenges. the utility has had a business model and a set of incentives and a set of technologies that were built on a certain set of promises. energy was very plentiful, and we did not worry. second premise might be the people can't, what, or shouldn't manage have a real gem policy? we a started some of these here.

is there an average into the thrust of ram. going to investing in catalyzing made all the more important to call out, particularly for the state said most and power this area. most of the utilities are regulated not by the federal government but by state utility commissions. what you're getting at, which is important to explain is what is the policy process. what people often don't really appreciate is you can't just get the president to give a speech on x or issue a report on why and have it be done, you know, like a business plan by a entrepreneurs on startup weekend. it's very different. so you need to start by getting the people in the room, many of whom have different perspectives and say, can we start working on

principles together and literally if it is a document, let's say, the report, you have to build consensus. we did establish one under the offices. and then we give her. >> reporter: to get all the agencies to clear it. and then it's ready for release. it -- we did go ahead and issue their report in a row of which was turned out to be the last was in washington. it was an effort to frame the discussion and move the policy for. and then one challenges that you don't necessarily did clear milestones. okay, we have done it, because it's an ongoing journey. the goal i would say is often, can you shape the debate to my friend the debate in terms that move in the right direction. the wireless spectrum faces

another one. that one, people said to me at the time, that's a nice academic idea. it will never happen. the president might have said that actually. i thought, okay, i'm an academic. when four times over, but looked at this the second wait a minute. looking for a pro renovation policies. this to generate revenue at a time when we need more government revenue. can we make this happen? literally we talk to all sorts of people who were involved. larry summers and that we go to talk to us senator jay rockefeller, chair of the commerce committee saying we are thinking and acting this, what do you think? we would get its share of the house energy commerce committee. the broadcaster. and we would help to shape what we saw as a policy strategy. and when we rolled it out we did not rule it out with all the details worked out. this is an interesting part of the story. many times policy needs to

evolve. you start by putting something in the ground and making progress. the first-ever was the featured buyer of larry summers. then senator rockefeller introduced a bill which passed 21-4 from the senate commerce committee. the policy evolves over time, and you can see constant principles. the latest iteration is being discussed now because it would create money that would help deal with our long-term fiscal situation. so there is this path of the policy process, massive overhead, this great "says it takes both passion and perspective. he says it's a slow boarding of hard wars. if you're able to the stay at it it's not going to happen overnight, and i was there long enough to see a lot of things make some progress. someone said to me, it's hard to know what will be most important because ten years from now when i look back and say this thing

have worked on nanotechnology could have made a huge difference. i never would have guessed today that that was the now work on that made the biggest impact. >> you just on a little bit in that park, interaction with congress. i know your lens to some degree from where you weren't in the white house. what was the interaction with congress? at what level? and what kind of -- what kind of expectation did you have about this? >> so i have never worked in congress. and i and largely have that as the branch that i least -- least bergsten. so i kind of get the judiciary and work for years and the executive branch. congress is still somewhat of a mystery. i will say, in my time in the

white house i was impressed with some of the people who worked with two are on capitol hill, impressed by how much they care about ideas, impressed by how much they knew what they did know. our ability to work productively was one of the things i really cherish. i also, maybe this helps, a student of the constitution. article one comes 04 article to, so it's a symbolic gesture, but i never ask for them to come to me. i go to them. i try to the extraordinarily diligent cover returning phone calls come e-mails. and they were extraordinarily interested in hearing what we had to say. we tried to brief congress. i think that often is what kids sometimes people into trouble. if she told us we could have told you x, y, nc. my not have done that way. i think there was nothing have

worked on where i ever got that sort of call. i was lucky. also the issues i was on war less -- low-profile. that was generally something that larry summers would do. i would go along to brief them. but a lot of the work, as you probably know, goes to the staff level to really develop the details. so that was something, of the things i would have expected, did not necessarily to expect to work with congress, but i did send it -- spend a bit of my time, a particularly the spectrum issue because that had to go to congress, working with them and then also working with other people who were going to be talking to congress. if someone has concerns you better listen to them because if you don't it will talk to congress. what about these concerns? you better have a good answer. >> somebody from year. it looks like the policy makers and legislators are making decisions on issues they don't really understand.

steve find this to be true? >> i wouldn't say i agree with that. at think there is generally a reasonable humility and caution about technology in policy. it is very hard because it is moving quickly and its complex. so it does require people to take the time to understand it. there are a lot of people in the government to do that in ways that were largely under appreciated. there people in the government, some of our work but that the department of homeland security. he's now going to be the chief information security officer at sony. someone who knows cyber security, and authority -- an authority in the field to understood those issues. i was able to work closely on that. i've would put him up against anyone in the private sector. now, it does not mean it is easy to know what to do. two different questions. one is, you know the field, the

technology. you know what to do about it. i would say that people did know in the field. i would say it's often, these and not easy issues to understand what to do. people's levels of tolerance for government risk-taking is often low. and so you have this in a conservative orientation which is understandable, but is also someone ought to a technology policy. so it's another example. state public utility commissions are among the most conservative entities in the governmental actor ecosystem, and here they are aiding in technology innovation policy overseeing smart groups. they're ready terrified, and they want to learn. one of the challenges of the federal government is to use its greater resources to help educate state regulators so they can make informed decisions. ..

>> and probably any evidence i would get coffee and need somebody there. but again, it's important to know me, i mixed up my -- i had a rotation system. caribou, also cozy across the street where we spent many hours. cozy. there was a starbucks. probably the least popular and then for lunch, if allowed to go to lunch down the street take good casual dining. i would recommend. so there's the top four in the rotation. >> which when did you miss the most? >> in boulder?

i would take an air and chipotle are probably personal favorite. and more chipotle in d.c. but it was further away. but just before i left they put a panera in. >> progress. progress in washington. on the same lines of the meeting, how you allocate time, et cetera. just a percentage, what percentage of time did you know in advance? >> a great question. i've only had, so i took, i took virtually effort every single meeting anyone asked me. and was only one meeting that was a complete waste of time. i met with someone who wanted to network. it was the worst networking me i have read. for all the students in the room, don't network with any remote purpose whatsoever. i just want to get to talk to you. and i'm like i don't see my family enough. so why would i'll talk to random

person? this person by the way, sad thing was he started to hang out in caribou coffee every morning. hanging around. that was the only time that was like a total waste of time to almost always there was something of value. another thing by the way that is good about it at caribou is you can always leave when you want to. you can kind be a little more aggressive about cutting it short. bob dole taught me that. bob dole was quoted in your times, so much said, well. it's awesome how you would always go to other officer and talk to them. that show such respect for the. he said no, i can get up and leave anytime i want. [laughter] >> we saw at least two pictures of you with president obama. describe your first meeting. >> the first time i met him was actually here in boulder during, you know, he gave a talk.

and the people may not realize, heidi and my wife, he's more physically intimidating president than you might realize. he somewhat tall, a very firm handshake, definitely a rusty voice. so maybe it's the fact that his present help her i would say you know, he's an incredibly, like you see with kids, playful, kind, sweet person. but i would say, you know, i was much more anticipated than with joe biden who has like this to the smile, all in any much more engaging disarmingly almost. >> an entrepreneur in the audience said i'm concerned about the patent were for some it doesn't plan to develop technology, holds a patent for an idea i came up with. he doesn't ask the question to go on with it but he's concerned about it. do you have any sense that there

is any real change happening? i know there's patent reform going on. i have a point of you about it but i'm curious as to what your view of, is congress really doing something substantive here? or are they going to pass something that isn't usually kicking the can down the road, saying we passed is down the road but it doesn't have an xp? two problems. it was one of the highlights, larry is so smart and he gets to the heart of but it was like justice ginsburg, where someone is just, doesn't know the field but you can talk to them and their general sense is a good that it's as if they understand it really well. so the first problem is in the patent office. given the patent office is in innovation policy, you would think it is a crown jewel of government. it is treated in a way with respect and support so that it does its job extremely effectively. if you thought that you would be

deadly wrong. instead quite the opposite. they were people appointed to head it who have understanding of technology or patents whatsoever but i'm a former congress been looking for a job. regular times where the revenues that it gets from fees that people are paying to get patents were filed away from the office to do other things, thereby leaving the office understands so they have a backlog of patents. and, finally, there's the technology itself at the patent office use which was nothing short of a disaster, the beginning of the administered and people could file electronically. they would have to print them out and we enter them into a different system. so, first problem which is a real problem, called mckenzie meets the patent office. can we enable our patent system in the office to operate more effectively. by that i mean issuing higher quality patents. that's one of the core problems of the system. issuing them quicker, making a decision.

enabling people to review the decisions more quickly and cheaply. the leadership is set up to do a very good job on those issues. there's a second set of issues that are not unrelated. i will call it the patent litigation mess. for those who haven't seen the diagram of all the smart phone patent wars, be nervous, it's scary. and for those who haven't read, the phenomenon of nonpracticing filing cases, it is hard to square with anything we might call useful progress. for those who missed the npr story on that it's really good. now, question, how much will the administration do with that problem? the first problem less that patent cheaper review, help solve the second, which will be somewhat, but given the

magnitude of the challenge, it's only somewhat, how else can we get there, there are a few different things i know. one is something the pto is focused on. you can enforce, particularly in software, and i.t., the written description and enablement requirement, so you're not supposed be able to file a patent that is a process for something that might invent someday. that's not what the patent system was meant to be. you're supposed to actually have to have invented it, described and enable it put in practice and in u.k. patent. if you did enforce that requirement, which the patent office finally for the first time a year ago has now guidance to exams to enforce that requirement, you can get rid of and metaphors a lot of patents that should never have been granted which are, as brad said, able to be used strategically in litigation, and that are not about inventions. said that is a promising tool.

i think we all should be nervous about this problem because if we don't make progress on it it's going to continue to be a tax on innovation, not a spur to innovation. >> you should -- you should a picture of obama, president obama meeting with a bunch of folks in silicon valley. in the picture i saw senator byrd and eric schmidt, steve jobs was at the dinner. and the former ceo of yahoo! was at the dinner. i think dick from twitter was at that dinner. art levinson was at the dinner. was there any sense of any feedback, that sort of cycle back through around innovation, innovation policy that came out of that particular meeting? any sense that meetings like that had real impact, other than sort of the obvious? >> i think the impact i would say, and we take it for granted, get used what we have come

having a president interest at the level of the emerging technology trends that we have is a new thing. i don't remember of the president, for example, gore as a vice president, but obama as the president has a deep interest in technology understanding it, understanding what makes technologies great, what will the government please. so i don't know how closely related to what come but in one of the topics of the day was high skilled immigration. that the president's position has gotten i think pretty clearly behind started these as one of the instruments that can help free us from what strikes you as one of the most crazy policies, boxes we've painted ourselves into, which is like a said, having great minds come here, get educated come want to stay, build companies but be forced to go home.

that is a part of a jobs agenda that is creating jobs at no cost to the government. yesterday good bit about that from some people, and i think that influences his thinking. and more generally, it's good like my experience, a different level. i think the problem that we all should be conscious of is washington is a bubble and it takes discipline to get out of that bubble and get broader perspectives, whether you the president, the director of the economic council or a staff on economic council. >> so one, you talk about smart grid a little bit to talk about arpa-e and policy around government investment and smart grid energy technology, et cetera. d.o.e. has a big program around that. part of the original stimulus. there's a company recently in the last week that went bankrupt called solyndra, which i think

they raise half a billion dollars from the government, a loan guarantee. denizen of half a billion dollars with a private equity, venture type investment. do you have the sense that something like solyndra will have impact going forward on how these types of investments are made? you know, the gap between what the house once, the president wants, the agencies what. and boom boom. and we are already in this position would investments in those sorts of things is so small relative to expense and waste and other things. are these neutral positives or negatives or how do they play at? >> is a negative in the following sense. the power of a negative talking point sometimes is so much more -- i would have ever guessed that someone could have said a long champion republican proposal would give people information about choices of end-of-life care.

the republicans had long proposed that the put in the budget. if that were to be put into a health care reform bill i would have guessed that would give rise to the talking point that obama made. and then have a major impact on the discourse. so this talking point then become the government is throwing away money on losing company. that's what this program is. that could define, even those program by the is a different low in guarantee program, and a different purpose, there is sometimes in the world of talking points a lack of rigor. and it's sometimes hard to control the narrative once it gets out of control. so every part challenge, something that vice president biden, when he gets talking, was time to get to is how do we frame the narrative around in investing in innovation that can have some of the same impact on the narrative and discourse the way, sputnik moment, of the way

yesterday did. because one thing that is probably true, go back to the 1960s investment in basic research or even applied research, and point to failures. now, if you let those failures define all program, like you have some failures. but you can't let that define you. look, the whole portfolio and the darpa portfolio, if you look at darpa over the entire history and you said it every single investment darpa made was a total waste of money, except for the internet, i think darpa would probably still, unbelievable stupid thing to have done just because of his critical work on the internet. so i don't know how to deal is overall profiled in its loan guarantees, going to realize self innovation. i don't know enough to have a view. but it's quite possible that to

do that portfolio over a period of years you will say wow, they were able to change how we use transformers in the electric grid in a way that made them much more effective, cheaper to create, create advanced manufacturing here in the u.s., and that sure, there's a lot of energy wasted but that one investment was so viable, it's great we did it. it would be great to have that perspective and a discussion, and judge on that merit as opposed to the ability which happens all the time. take out one fact and try to define it by that to make you made me think of something i read. allen sloan wrote a very disheartening peace. i think with this week's fortune, about both republicans and democrats i and communicatin in the white house and congress. essentially the communication mess underlying all of the broader mass. and he gave a number of examples. one of them was kind of exactly that point around t.a.r.p., which is a positive message

around t.a.r.p. is it looks like t.a.r.p. it will end up making money. and it's so varied in the discussions about the bailout dynamic that was so negative, versus sort of how it actually played out. >> it is a challenge, and i had limited involvement so i don't know how this was a frustration. but i think some very high percentage of americans believe that t.a.r.p. and testing this were the same. they don't differentiate the two of them. they kind of run together. i think a very limited number of americans know that a huge portion of the stimulus, the recovery act, was tax cuts that obama's cut taxes like 52 times. so i don't quite know, you know, what people caricature of the statements is, but like you say, it ends up very unfairly painted like the statements was wasting money on bank bailouts. wait a minute, it wasn't just,

that was t.a.r.p., and t.a.r.p. didn't end up costing money. but, unfortunately, sometimes these narratives get set and they get repeated. it is hard to turn around when the challenges for policymakers is you can create a narrative that makes sense to people they understand the ultimate the policy will not be sustainable. so we originally were scheduled to go to 7:30 p.m. i would be game everyone else is game to go for 50 minutes. does anyone object to that? >> i'm fine. >> if you get bored, just leave. [laughter] you won't be attending in one. especially the people on c-span. watching you leave. [laughter] you mention it here, the set of america trip. you were here, we were both involved in it. there's a breakout session for the after, a big part of this is

actually sort of real engagement with people that had come to talk about things. this happened in eight cities. has there been any out actually came out of that? has been any real follow-up? pictures the challenge of the way government works, when you leave, you really leave. so, the honest answer is i don't know. the idea, you get all these ideas, have been found in both to the present that was going to go in, but also going to feed into this larger innovation policy process. the process which will include this meeting in boulder and this conference here, at the end of the there'll be a report to congress on innovation policy. so i think when i was here i tried to make a point, judge whether they got it by that

policy proposals to congress in the end of the year. there may well be things the president's speech, like he's giving a tonight, to talk about job creation and entrepreneurship that emerge from this process. part of this challenge and policymakers is different streams of information come in and sometimes different ideas get reinforce in different concepts. so i do know that people were hurt, the ideas were developed. i don't know exactly what the status is and what we will see emerge on the other end. >> talking about impact, when you think that your time in d.c., including your time as the top cop in agriculture which i just love saying, maybe i'll get a farm bill named after you. [laughter] >> and maybe we could do like you have to buy it and all the money could go -- >> okay. >> we'll see. if you get too much market power

they would come and tell you. >> it doesn't work that way. it make sure corn grow faster by the copper. [laughter] >> when you think about your efforts, what was the thing you think from today, not 10 years from now but today, the thing you did that was the most impactful? >> i do think the initiative, if it happens is an unbelievable achievement that i am thrilled to have played a part in. the levels of benefit that could come from that, so i don't know exactly how much we as a country benefit by getting more spectrum out to enable the so-called 2g technology to happen. initially there was one, in the '90s there were new license the came out that within all digital networks. the value and job creation in this country and wireless that took off in the '90s was

because you get more spectrum out there. the best spectrum that wireless broadband folks want is in this band, like 600 megahertz band or 700 megahertz band. the reason that at&t and verizon are good shape to offer their 4g services, because they bought the spectrum as 700 megahertz. so t-mobile, sprint, whoever, they are salivating to get the spectrum at 600 megahertz. and by the way, att and verizon have enough spectrum with what they bought even to demand. so what can happen in the ecosystem with more spectrum is a key point, one. a key point number two, on the public safety, public safety officials say are operating with yesterdays technology to make the transition to today's technology and public safety is going to take a massive coordinator effort. part of the challenge of public safety, for example, is that every single jurisdiction has

made on purchasing decisions. so can you imagine federal express as a federated set of distinct entities, each of them decide on their own i.t. equipment and communications technology? a, they wouldn't operate together which has been a key problem. and they would not have economies to skip if they would not meet the cutting edge of technology. that's what public safety is. and so the benefit to public safety if we could do this right is also a number. then if you are able to do support in wireless, this is another area where the u.s. can be a leader, has been a leader. also great benefit to you. so i would say, and there's some personal interest because that was the whole issue about being there. but i would say that's a particular significant effort. i don't know how much i can be comfortable yet because we just got one committee in one house of congress that was able to get behind on a bipartisan basis but it took a lot of people to do that, folks on kay bailey

hutchison staff, rockefeller staff, easy to work with smh. we will see where that is, that leadership can b be a very big deal. >> i know that you're pretty tuned in to the sort of education workforce, stem, k-12 stuff of which obviously has sort of broad reaching implications. and the questioner specifically is what is being done to promote the rise of the number of women in the stem. but i brought it. do you have a sense -- is lussier by the way? lucy is the founder of the national center for women and information technology they are doing unbelievable work on this very issue of women in s.t.e.m. within the have been underrepresented. among almost all professions now, law, medicine, business,

women outnumbered men. technical and engineering computer science still very much the opposite. deck thanks for the commercial. [laughter] that was for me, think you. but this year's question is, do you have a sense that both the white house and congress really understand the issue here and the severity of the issue going back to the seedcorn construct and sort of our next-generation? i know a lot of kids that are, you know, nephews, cousins, friends, et cetera that are graduating from college, and if they don't have a technical degree they are not running to the situation of 10% unemployment. they run into a 50% unemployment situation. there are just no jobs for those kids. what as the decisive tactical kids are almost fully employed because there's such an imbalance between supply and demand is that well understood?

>> the second property is people don't get to college. college educated folks are 4.6% unemployment. but other parts of population that are not educated is much, much higher. so, this for me as perhaps the most terrifying issue which is education in general, are we doing enough, and i will say the race to the top effort also came out of the recovery act made huge impact in some of the broad education reform. there's a lot that needs be done on educational technology for several. a lot of jurisdictions, they had to purchase textbooks. they can't purchase ipads and applications, or other means of teaching kids. the other challenge here, and can we create role models? because i think if everyone wants to grow to be about school

prayer, that's great. but it's not going to have. president obama had the first ever signs here in the white house. he had a blast. do more this. so there's this whole effort of public private partnership called educate and innovate about getting companies to commit to supporting s.t.e.m. 100,000 new teachers in s.t.e.m. so, i am worried about this. i think one of the challenges we have right now is building a national consensus around these ideas. something where people really matter in terms of developing awareness and a constituency, because kids don't have a lot of quality education. when the challenges, health care is a good example, we haven't totally cracked the code on how to do that with the challenges come again to create experiments to try to see what works and then scale that up.

>> have a social media policy? >> that's a great question. the true answer is we don't know. right? there's a great quote i think henry kissinger asked what do you think of the french revolution? his response was it's too early to tell. [laughter] >> the other part of the question was how can it shape policy? >> the first is, this point about building, understanding and a narrative around innovation is certainly something where it matters to get people engaged and informed. i will say those who haven't seen the work that brad has done, the effort around start of these was a social media grassroot driven effort that has gotten traction and gotten attention. so, you should not underestimate the importance of that and the ability of social media to create, support. part of what was viable there,

getting back to the public discussion is the narrative is so powerful, creates jobs, no cost to the budget, and we are essentially eating our seed corn but if you develop high quality entrepreneurship, make them leave and strike up a culture that just strikes people as crazy. why would we do that? you are able to tap into that and get that out of. so i think as a tool of mobilization, education, we turn to the dark side. i talked about the talking point. you can use talking points and social media, right? limited number of characters. that can undermine the discourse because if you think about it when you have a newspaper can give a certain amount of information. when you watch the evening broadcast walter cronkite, less information. if you go to twitter, even less. so there is a dark psyche which is people are only getting information sources that are

compressed. it may not elevate the debate but it may compress it, and i sure hope we don't go that direction in the last couple of questions. i realize i should've asked this earlier but i think it's a useful one because i don't know the answer to it. what power does the national economic council really have? >> so, first off, this is a very important question. will see that runs through any policy process that gives to the president has to go through a policy council. domestic policy council. so we're talking criminal justice policy, for example, they would run the policy process on behalf of the president. gun policy, for example. if we're talking about national security policy, what are we going to do on libya? the national security council runs that policy. if you're talking about the economy, so for example, we are concerned about unemployment or

we are concerned about technology, or we're concerned about the financial markets, the national economic household rundstedt. and what is not fully appreciated is how thinly staffed the national economic council is. there were about 12 people like myself who were point people on the policy very, financial services, health care, labor and employment, et cetera. and if there was a set of issues in your area, you were in charge of it and he was your responsibility to watch it for the president. that has both proactive go and mention a number of initiatives we talked about, smart grid, spectrum. it had we acted. such and such issue just came up in congress or is being report on, what should the president say about a? we have to brief the president and the account will. so the power of the bully pulpit, what the president says on issue is informed by his counsel, and the administration

position on a given issue, private security, spectrum, what have you, issued by the national economic council. >> other than the president, who is the most inspiring leader you worked with, and why? what was powerful and inspiring about that person? >> first, it's a really important question because it runs against some of the caricatures in larry summers. and the reason is larry cared so much about the purity and rigor of ideas. and as an academic like myself that was for me a wonderful floor to be in, which is a forum on principle. what larry cared about was testing ideas. he didn't want the administration to do stupid things, and so if you came up with an idea, spectrum for example, he wanted to kick the tires on it and make it better. so we worked on this innovation policy report that came out. when we breathed very odd, larry said you know, this report isn't

as good as the frontiers of science. it was probably the best government report that has ever been written. so that was placed summer's stand. now, of course, the negative side of that i that was inspiring, some people thought was frustrated if that is your standard, you will never issued any post ever on any policy issue because on one person person got there. but for me that was inspiring because that's what we should be achieving. that's a we should be shooting for, and it was terrific to have someone who had that vision of excellence. >> homestretch, what was your favorite restaurant? >> so, there is -- >> not fast food. >> there is a place not far from the white house called founding farmers, a fun play on words, which, you know, if you go to politology in denver, no, it's a

more fancy version of that. that would be on my list if we did go their. >> another on my list is nora, which is i'm not sure i compared to around year. it's fixed extremely find a restaurant. >> founding farmers and nora. last question, what do you miss most about voter? >> the people. and i will say the culture here, i said in a blog post from you on the welcome people here are ready for success. in washington that is not the case at all. [laughter] in it well, on behalf of all the people here, welcome back. we are delighted to have you, and thank you. [applause] we do have a request for those

joining us for the reception. for those who are not students can we please -- they really do want you as role models and mentors. thank you. thanks everybody for coming. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> because i didn't speak and i didn't get really a window into my life, i had become kind of an evil cartoon.

and i did help myself with wearing a hat coming out of my plea. at court. but i've become kind of a villain. and i wanted to show people i'm a regular person. i do things that were wrong, but i don't have a kilt or horns. i grew up like everybody else. >> this weekend on afterwards on c-span2's booktv, power and corruption on capitol hill. ones the most influential lobbyist in washington, jack abramoff was convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy in 2006. he is a story saturday night at 10 eastern. also, juan gonzález on the role of segregation played in the way news was reported sunday at 2 p.m. marjory ross i would take to be a successful female publisher and author. sunday at 11:15 p.m. tv every weekend on c-span2. that i do president obama came

into office, talk about reform, so everybody leaned on the defense industry and the military from the neck down. and people leave out the one part that's going to make a difference which is the lawmakers. you know, go ahead and lose hundreds of jobs and in your just a. that's how that falls. that's where it always stops. but as editor of military.com, ward carroll provides members with news information and support. sunday he will discuss how american tax dollars are spent on the defense department and current procurement procedures at eight eastern and pacific. >> a discussion on margaret thatcher with author and historian amanda foreman. she wrote an article recently about the former british prime minister for "newsweek" and was a guest on "washington journal" last month. this is 40 minutes. >> host: this is our last segment of the day and this is our weekly spotlight on magazine. the cover story of "newsweek" this week is about margaret thatcher. you can see that meryl streep is

addressed as margaret thatcher. iron lady opens this weekend. is the movie trailer. >> one simply has to maximize. the leader you could be. >> i want authority. i want conviction. >> no, no, no. >> i've decided to run. didn't are you saying you want to be prime minister? >> me, the children, we can all go to hell. >> where there is discourse, they will bring harmony. >> host: and now joining us from our new york studio is author of the "newsweek" cover story, historian amanda foreman.

ms. foreman, why is your article in "newsweek" entitled the new thatcher era? why is she back in popularity, or back in? tracking the "newsweek" team felt very strongly that the issues that helped to bring thatcher down, ironically, are the very same issues that confronting europe today. so most important of all is the question of european integration. as you know, the euro is sinking as a desperate attempt to keep it afloat among the countries called pigs, portugal, ireland, spain and greece. and the proposal is for a european super state where there will be complete fiscal integration. that is the very topic that margaret thatcher put a stake in the ground on. and she said that greater fiscal and political integration would

lead to a sporadic undemocratic, low enterprise, high unemployment entity where individual countries would not be allowed to control their own destiny because they would not be able to set their interest rates. they would not be able to set their own currency exchange. and she fought against that and lost. that's why the party kicked her out. and now have the same arguments again post it and that was in 1990, and that was the issue, but great britain did not join the euro, did it? >> guest: no, it did not. and fortunately so. but they're still a very strong pro-euro, pro-european wing in the country, and it is divided between the conservatives who are now in power, coalition with the liberal democrats and also in labor. but they are not the dominant wing.

so you have this ongoing fight between these two sides over whether britain should be quote part of europe are whether britain should stand to the side and be in europe but not of europe. >> host: what will margaret thatcher is 11 years as prime minister be most remembered for, or 12 years? >> guest: oh, she-- when she came into power, the relationship between the people, parliament and the trade unions have become completely inverted, and it was the trade unions who were in effect running the country. and she arrived just after that and something called the winter of discontent, where the 157 unions in the country had gone on strike of one after another and often at the same time. so during that winter of 1979,

bodies did not go buried, the trains did not run. there was no cheating but there was no electricity. there was no garbage collection. if you were sick, depending on which area you live in, you might find itself not accepted at hospital to argue were taken to hospital, your sheets would not to change. you would not get there. another hospital you may not receive the medicine she needed because the trucking unions roster. in some cities, the north of england, it was accident into the kind of stalingrad. it was a a city under siege. no cargoes were allowed to be unloaded. there was rationing in stores. farm animals starved because the feed could be transported to them. the country was in chaos. so the first thing she did, it wasn't immediate, it took a while, was that she inverted the power of the union, she stopped the unions having the right to strike that will without doubt.

the right to picketing, the right to have sympathy strikes for matters unrelated to their own industry. the second thing that she did was that she floated the pound. in 1979 exchange controls and you could on take certain amounts of sterling out of the country. and she opened that up. the third thing she did was that she created what we call the big bank exceed the regulated the london financial centers in the city of london. and that created the huge wealth and power that exists in the city of london today. finally, she released the power of the entrepreneurial spirit in britain. you have to remember is before she came to power, the country was a socialist state. so for example, if you wanted to get a telephone line, he had to make an appointment with telecom. it could take you anywhere six

months to a year and a half to get a telephone line put into your house. if you wanted to get dish another was asked directly so you had to physically go get the phone number from the store assistant and then go home, then call and wait for your appointment. that could take several months. she did away with all these regulations. and you now have a country which is as wealthy and as profitable as any other, wherein in those days britain was done as a third world country first world prices post a amanda foreman is our guest but she is a historian and author, and we're going to be talking about margaret thatcher and her tenure as prime minister, 1979-1990, of great britain and her influence as ms. foreman has already started talking about. here is picture from the "newsweek" cover story that

amanda foreman wrote. here is margaret thatcher with her best political ally, ronald reagan. the numbers are on the screen. you can go ahead and start diving in if you have questions about margaret thatcher that you like to ask amanda foreman. we begin taking your calls in just a minute. what was the importance of the relationship with ronald reagan? >> guest: oh, thatcher's relationship with reagan i think is one of the greatest the finding relationships of the late '20s century. they understood each other totally. and they support each other totally. and they shared a vision of an enterprise society, where every man and every woman has the right to rise, the right to better themselves, and that government should not be redistributing wealth. government should be creating a level playing field where anybody could create wealth for themselves.

and they also had a vision, of a democratic society spread throughout the world and they wanted to see the end of the soviet union. and between them they forge this remarkable coalition that brought in mikhail gorbachev as a third negotiating partner, and ended the cold war. and for that reason alone, reagan and thatcher will be remembered. >> host: amanda foreman, did margaret thatcher talk to you for this cover story in "newsweek"? >> guest: unfortunately lady thatcher is unable to give interviews and is very rarely seen in public since his 2003, she's had a series of strokes that have incapacitated her short-term memory. so although she is very clear on things that happened in the past, she has difficulty having

sort of a normal day-to-day conversation with people. >> host: since she left the prime minister ship in 1990, what kind of a staff does she have? >> guest: well, the staff is now bound down. when she started off in 1990, this, don't forget, this is a woman of tremendous energy, and a desire to be useful, to be doing things. she was able to establish -- assemble an efficient set picture is very involved in politics. for example, she was one of the first and only voices to call for allied intervention in serbia. then she was joined by madeleine albright and the. very strong and very important in any that humanitarian disaster. but as she got older and stop giving lectures, obviously a

staff wound down. and recently just a few months ago it was announced that her office was closing completely. so she no longer has any staff at all, except for care. >> host: her daughter is very active with her, correct? >> guest: well, both her children live abroad, and so i think the film perhaps makes that relationship out to be possibly more than it is. not to say that she is estranged from her children, but lady thatcher deafened has a very close call supporters and friends, loyal friends who do go around to see her and check on her and keep her company. >> host: where do her children have? >> guest: well, my understanding is that they like to keep their location quiet. >> host: okay. is the cover star has a picture

of meryl streep of course dressed as margaret thatcher. did meryl streep speak with you about this? aspect yet she did. >> guest: yes, she did. we had some hilarious times talking about margaret thatcher, because meryl streep had great access to a lot of lady thatcher's former colleagues, and they opened up to her in a way that they might not always opened up to a journalist or even a historian, like myself. and so they gave a sort of anecdote that they probably reserved for late after dinner drinks. and so for example, one of them told them that when ever they saw lady thatcher take up her handbag and put on the table, their heart just sank like a stone, because the handbag, which was originally a symbol of

ridicule and of weakness, became to thatcher herself of strength and power. you never knew quite what was in the, what notes should take it or what research she had done the night before. so she would land them with some kind of's inner. and they wouldn't be able to answer and then they would look foolish. >> host: amanda foreman, was margaret thatcher personally popular or was it her policies that were popular? >> guest: they say that lady thatcher was never really a people person. if you would compare her to bill clinton, for example, clinton famously has a kind of aura and magnetism, and so anyone who has ever met him and shaking his hand has always said that they just felt that that one second, just them and him in the room and they were lifted up and had this incredible experience.

lady thatcher was not like that. her own father once said, famously, margaret is 99.5% passive. the other half percent, she could perhaps be a little bit warmer. and that was her own father who said that. so she was very brisk. she was all business. i think that what started out as somebody who just, you know, like to be doing things, she wasn't a particularly sensitive soul, but she entered an arena where you are being knocked down all day long by critics, my colleagues, by the parliamentary sessions, and she developed this test asked her to deal with this. and if you look at anybody who is being continuously kept under attack, that will change their character.

so become tougher, more aggressive, ready to attack. that's the mechanisms that they used to protect themselves, end up becoming the full person. they squash everything else. so no, she wasn't that popular by the end. she was like a kind of raging, fighting machine. and nobody likes a raging, fighting machine, but that's what gets things that. >> host: amanda foreman is a historian with a doctorate from oxford. her most recent book is this, the world on fire, britain's crucial role in the american civil war. this book just came out in 2011. it once or local and also made several notable ended the year list. and by the way, amanda foreman has been covered by booktv. you can watch her at the tv, just type her name into the search engine and one of the booktv note. this weekend, book notes, encore

book notes program interviewed margaret thatcher when her biography cannot come her autobiography came out in 1995 or 96 i believe. that will we aired this weekend, 6 p.m. on saturday on book tv on c-span2. gerry in phoenix, arizona, things are holding if jour on with historian amanda foreman. >> caller: good morning, good morning amanda. actually i'm from california by occurred in phoenix right now visiting. i which is like to say i am 44 years old. i'm a trade labour union is. i'm a democrat to get back i more democrat than most democrats i like to see. if i was in britain are the a labor party member beyond. call me comrade. anyway, i would just like to say i remember very well for margaret thatcher in the reagan era, and i was over at some friends who thought ronald reagan was a great present to i don't remember that at all. i remember ronald reagan destroyed jobs and to get jobs

overseas and margaret thatcher ending best pals, and are taking on labour, taking on, destroying standards in britain and england trying to free market, capitalize the conservatives all over the world, and reagan doing the same thing here, killing steel, killing labour, deregulation, gillibrand. we lost then and, we lost lots of airlines. >> host: we got the idea. let's get a response from a story in amanda foreman. >> guest: one of the criticisms that has been, that was leveled against the conservative government at least was that when they went into power in 1979, they had a plan that was based around monetarism. and monetarism, the way at least the conservatives understood it to be was a theory that came out of chicago that said that you stop inflation from rising, you need to shrink the money supply.

and attached to that was the idea that government needs to be smaller, it needed to deregulate. and what they did not prepare for it though, as your question points out, is that when you shrink the money supply and you stop government subsidies for aiding industry, whether it is steal or manufacturing, you need of some kind kind of safety net. and what the conservatives failed to do was they failed to prepare for the great social distress that followed once these industries that were aiding went to the wall. and there was a time when over 3 million people in britain, small country of under 60 million, were unemployed. and that was a rise over two and a half million people in only two years.

and it was great social unrest. i think if you would ask any of these politicians today would they have done anything differently, they would all say we should have had some kind of safety net in place. and they would also perhaps add that they didn't know what their policies were going to produce, because nobody had ever tried them before. but as all these things, you can come up with an explanation for why things happened and what went wrong. it doesn't always excuse what happens. >> host: shelby township, michigan, year on with amanda foreman. the topic is newsweek's cover story about margaret thatcher. lynn is gone. sorry about that. we will move on to independence missouri. go ahead, sean. >> caller: hi, amanda. i was curious as to what you thought about margaret thatcher's anti-european

integration with the european union, and with nigel barraging out in the european union, really trying to push the anti-european movement like, where do you think they are going? to you think that they will win the next general election? >> host: amanda foreman? >> guest: right. there's absolutely no chance whatsoever for the u.k. i.t., the united kingdom in the pennant party having any impact whatsoever. in the next election, just to small. a single issue party. single issue parties just do not have a chance in british elections. that isn't to say that they can't take votes away from, for example, the conservative party. possibly other parties, but

mostly the conservative party which might aid the conservatives opponents. but the issue itself, what britain should be doing with the european union is a hot button topic. and for years and years and years the so-called eurosceptics, the journalists, critics, thinkers, politicians who argued that the kind of integration that brussels was calling for would end up producing an unholy mess, were ignored and laughed at it and yet now these very critics are being seen as profits. so the question now is, what's going to happen, is there going to be a european six state, or perhaps just 10, 12, or 16 countries, and then a european outer ring. so for example, you would put it in american terms, you would have the united states and europe, and then you have these

outliers like guam, for example, it and the outliers would be britain, poland, hungary, romania, some of these lesser european countries. >> host: this tweet from peter hibbard, sounds like ms. foreman is an unabashed thatcher supporter. is this true? >> guest: that's a very interesting question. when i began the piece, i didn't actually know that much about thatcher. and i hadn't really thought about her in 20 years. and when she was in power, i was a teenager, and i just saw this rather foxy middle-aged lady with a rather awful voice he would go on and on about things. and i instinctively recoiled from her, and didn't come again,

had never thought about her. when i began researching this piece, the first thing that struck me was that she is a feminist icon, and that the things i have achieved in my life, the achievements that i see my female friends and quinces and colleagues achieving, are inextricably dashing inextricably linked with her groundbreaking success in politics, that we believe in ourselves, because she believed in herself. and "the mirror" fact that a woman was at the top, but very tippy top, confirmed to me that i could do anything. it was a something that i thought about but it wasn't something that i write about because there was a woman at the top. so if you were to say, am i a supporter of margaret thatcher, yes, i am. i am not a complete political supporter of every policy she ever did, but i embrace her as a

feminist icon. >> host: philadelphia, patrick, you're on with historian amanda foreman. the topic is margaret thatcher. >> caller: i wonder if ms. foreman's article covers the brutal and illegal occupation of northern ireland while thatcher was in power? there's a cover, a number of catholics were sent to prison based on falsified information while she was in power. and what about the 13 peaceful marches that were shot to death on bloody sunday in northern ireland while she was in power? are you just nothing but flattery for her? i think she is an evil woman and does not deserve to be given any kind of good status on this thing. >> guest: could you confirm for me that date of bloody sunday? i thought that was in the early '70s. ..

which was certainly, for me in my lifetime, one of the great moments of reconciliation and to see a british monarch accept responsibility and ask forgiveness for what has been several hundred years of misery and missed opportunities to do the right thing. so, although every government

makes mistakes, i think that the good friday agreement was profound and historic. >> host: amanda foreman, what happened on october 12, 1984, the ira bombing? >> guest: yes, so lady thatcher's own relationship with northern ireland politics began with the murder of one of the mcwerther twins, a man named ross mcarthur who had in 1974 put up a bounty, i think it was 25,000 pounds, he would pay to anyone who would provide information for ira terrorist activities. and a week later he was shot dead on his doorstep so she knew that people who spoke out

against the ira were marked people. five years later the politician who is responsible for her campaign and one of her great mentors was blown up in his car, and after that she received 24-hour protection from scotland yard. now you go a few years for words, and, as you mentioned, the 12th of october, 1983, the conservatives were having the party conference in brighton, and a bomb was placed two floors below her room. it was not placed exactly in the right spot, and although it killed three people and injured 17 others it did not kill either hurt or her husband's. it was, i think, actually, one of the defining moments in her life. there is definitely a before and after thatcher.

and the confidence that uc before reagan turned into a kind of super aggressiveness and defensiveness after. it, perhaps, actually affected her more than she realized. >> host: and bloody sunday was january 30th, 1972. margaret thatcher came into the prime ministership in 1979. matthew in miami, you are on with the story and amanda foreman. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. you can't -- talked about a concept of wings in our party. in the u.s. we have seen at this of bowman of certain wings, libertarian, rockefeller, isolationist-laden wings. almost trucks me that is a way of cutting down a party. i was wondering if you could talk about when thatcher comes into power there are wings of the conservative party and hachuring build them to get things done or was there public disavowal meant of the wings

within her own party? >> one of the most interesting aspects about the early years of thatcher's prime ministership was that she was the head of a party, and yet her own -- igilence] -- to put just anyone in her cabinet. it has to babe senior members of her elected party. and if they don't like you and you don't like them, well, you are sort of stuck with them.f so she had put together a cabinet where the majorityut tor actually supported the policiese of the previous leader, edwardh leade and they were against monetarism they thought it was divisive. they believed in somethingieved called a big society, what they called one nation toryism, and they thought that her policies were dangerous and would

actually lead to the unrest tha it did lead to, but then there r was a small wing of what we now call thatcher writes. and so during the first 2-3. years, what you could see where these rebellions. see for example, she would try tobe. introduce policy, and then one of her cabinet members would lead parts of it to the pressrsw before it had been properly formulated so that the resulting outcry and outrage would lead to its complete destruction. or, for example, and -- duringy party conferences there would be unattributed leaks or unattributed crystals which nois one could point a finger to who said it, but it would make the rounds. one of the things that she hadoe s do was to find a way to dismiss the or get other peopleo to freeze them out.

so it was like a cork. it is like a kind of turkish or constantinople court in the turkisentury. a byzantine way of stalling out and losing the leaders of power. >> host: this is an e-mail from a viewer. have you seen the upcoming movie? if so, what are your comments? >> guest: i have seen the upcoming movie, and i have never seen such an extraordinarye upmi performance as meryl streep gives of lady thatcher. suc it is absolutely preternatural how she got her voice and parent, and it is great fun to watch because of that. is eat whether or not people in this ot country will feel all that comfortable watching the decline of thatcher, the film does make quite a lot of the thatcher in her current state, suffering

from a mental decline. decline and if you were to turn that around and have a film about reagan shuffling around in his pajamas looking unshaven at his ranch house, i'm not sure that well.go down all that well. >> host: what is the current opinion of margaret thatcher in great britain? what is the current mood? >> guest: the current opinion, well, i think that the film actually has prompted a massive rethink of lady thatcher. those people, i think, shared my opinion, someone who had been in power 20 years ago. she was a big, towering figure,a but it was like an out-of-control sherman tank and was policy and allowed and just seemed to create more discontent and anything else. and this film has reminded us that she was also a greatgreat i feminist pioneer who changed the face of the world in terms ofers

what was possible for women to achieve and that she ended the cold war. those are two things whichngs at somehow i know i had managed to hoe ne. >> host: next call for amanda foreman. we have about ten minutes left. norman, oklahoma. go ahead, robert.estions >> caller: a couple of questions. what was her take regarding alternative medicine and its second, how would she compareth ideologically to david cameron? >> guest: well, as to the first question i am afraid i don't know what her stance was on that. she was a tremendously practica. woman. i suspect that she would accept anything that worked and wouldad reject anything that didn't.din. as to the second, she seems to have had a lukewarm relationship with the current prime ministert

she did not embrace them the way the she embraced her other her member -- ministers, former leaders of the tory party. at the same time she was not as disappointed in him as she was for immediate successor, john major.tece i think that prime minister cameron is a sort of perfect example of the new tory, someone who embraces the free enterprise wing of the tory party but also reaches back to the 01-nation idea of a caring, what he calls big society. >> host: new carrollton,st maryland.: go ahead. >> caller: my question for amanda, what would you describe as the margaret thatcher policy toward africa? from my understanding all the days she was in power she did not promote any thing that would

advance africa.a. she supported mandela to remain in prison and died in prison. so if you had to ask margarettor thatcher any question today, what would you ask her? and how do you think an era where a black man is president of the united states of america. guest:t: thank you. >> guest: well, that is a very interesting question. obviously to different aspects.. the aspects you just brought up about having an african-american president will be something that would absolutely have to let her .er she very much believe in thehabl isncept of the right to rise. ane would say that her whole political life was about freeing social constraints on individuals so that they can have the tools to make anything of themselves.

so she would be absolutely be lu delighted to have the opportunity to meet president obama.a. her attitude to africa was verye much, i think, shaped by her pre war, pre second world war upper end. she had a somewhat paternalistic attitude toward africa.asot c she was not convinced thatafrica african states were models of o brevity, anti-corruption, andti free-market policy.et and so she tended to dismiss the entire continent as a basket case. and her ministers certainly had to really try to convince hero that nelson mandela was not aota terrorist, but, in fact,ac fighting for freedom. once she understood that and opened up her bankers to thehe situation in south africa she did come on board.

but she tended to be more interested and have her views more colored by, for example, what was going on in zimbabwe or, for example, she was very concerned about what happened to the ugandan asians who were expelled from uganda. obviously they all ended up -- most of them ended up in britain. she tends to see that bad rather than the good. >> host: amanda foreman, do you follow american politics close enough to have any thought on how margaret thatcher was viewed -- would you the current republican race for president? >> guest: she would probably embrace someone like mitt romney she priced competence above all com. she said that she was in thepe business of getting things done. and of all the candidates, mitta

romney has both a government and business background. he is a free enterprise promoter , like she was. she would probably have felt shd most comfortable with romney. >> host: amanda foreman, november 1990, what was her last like, our last day of prime minister? in uest: well, in november november 1990 she faced what was essentially a coup d'etat byess members of her own party. finally this split over europe drove the two wings to go to wae with one another, and this timeh it was the pro european wing that one. there was a leader -- leadership challenge against her, and shea. failed to win enough votes to shevent a second round. she was persuaded by her cabine to resign. she did not want to resign.

she called each of her cabinet members and one by one expectino that her formidable persona andr her handbag would be enough to intimidate them, only to have each cabinet member say, look, v personally support you, but i advise you to resign today.pe after she had that advice 19 times she called upper private sector -- secretary in tears and said they deserted me. she spent the night writing her resignation speech, apparently in tears. the other wing, the euro sceptic ing sent delegations to dining street to try to persuade herios not to resign. three of them sat outside her office door waiting for to comeg out after midnight so that theyt they ctry to persuade arab, but she had made upper mind. >> s host: and here she is -- >> guest: the next morning she

had to get to the palace, give her resignation to the queen, and then she had to walk into the house of commons for one final debate. one of the people close to her said it was the bravest thing adat they had ever seen anybody ever do because she went into the being wall. >> host: is this the beginning of a new book, this cover story in newsweek for you? is >> guest: well, funny enough it is the germ. the i am going to write a new book called the world made by women, worit is a social history of women from cleopatra to margaret thatcher's. >> host: amanda foreman to root the cover story in this week's newsweek on margaret thatcher has been our guest. >> live at 7:00 p.m. eastern ron paul host a town hall meeting in new hampshire. the event takes place at the university of new hampshire memorial union building. we will bring that to you live at seven eastern on our companion at work, c-span. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> si spans road to the white house coverage of politics take you on the campaign trail. [inaudible conversations] watched the coverage of the new hampshire primary on television and on our website, c-span.org. >> next, author richard brookhiser explains why he considers james madison the

father of american politics. the historian was a guest on "washington journal" last month. this is 40 minutes. >> well, every wednesday in the last hour in the "washingtonn journal" we like to feature of reason magazine articles. mage r today richard brookhiser is joining us to talk about his tcent peace and american history magazine on james madison's political legacy. here is the peace, the sick short shy father of the constitution, james madison was also determined ambitious conniving father of american politics and, in fact, richard brookhiser writes that the well read deep thinker was the father of american politics, political parties, partisan media, hardball tactics -- hardball attacks, slogans and sound bites. he either invited them are knew there were coming. for better or worse, his fingerprints are all over the

institutions and ground rules of politics as we know it. mr. brookhiser, that's a lot a statement about james madison.ut >> guest: well, heat -- you know, i just read a book about him. going into that before i startea i knew that he was the father of the constitution. we all know that. he was called that in his lifetime. t the story that i uncovered or the percentages is what a creative and determined deliticians was. he was released ahead of the curve among all the other founding fathers at foreseeing the way american politics would go and helping to push it in go inirection. >> host: you write in thisat american history piece, madison suddenly transported to a 2011 peak the candidate coffee or shown a shocking campaign twitter feed, he more than any other founder, would take it all

in stride. he saw it coming more than 200 years ago. >> guest: well, one thing that t impressed me about him particular leave was his ability to learn to do things that did not come naturally to him that were useful politically. this was a man who was very shyh painfully shy.hy he's not a good speaker. he had a very low voice, softoft voice. ene person described it as croaking, so it was not exactly pleasant. and yet when he had to go head-to-head with patrick henry to ratify the constitution, madison of course supported it in henry opposed it. he took him on in debate overos six weeks in richmond, and he began. madison was not a journalist alexander hamilton was a born journalist. w he did it when he was a teenagen and all of his life. yet, when hamilton decided that the constitution needs a a p--

propaganda campaign in the new ople newspapers, one of the people he turns to is his then friend congressman james madiso and madison steps up to the pla plate and rights 29 of -- 289 of the 809th federalist papers. he did these public performing things which are so essential nd some -- become so essential. >> host: what was jameswh madison's republican party?s >> guest: this was the party to oppose the policies of the pt washington administration thatis he and thomas jefferson did not like. and this was mostly -- domestically it was alexander hamilton's financial program. po hamilton, the former merchant fr clerk born in the west indies thinks he is bringing the unitei states into a new financial world. he is establishing american prosperity and paying off our debts from the revolutionary war. madison and jefferson, they are virginia planters.

they don't like this new world.n they don't understand a lot of r it.do ey t think hamilton is just enriching his wall street browning's.all and new york banker. so they want to slow that down. they want to roll that back. the other big dividing issue is foreign-policy. washington is inaugurated fored the first time in april 1789.19 the best deal falls in july of 1789, and so the frenchtion revolution begins, and 25 years of world war follow from that, mostly between britain and brance. so we are of the country on thee edge of the superpower brawl. who do we support? d of the federalists, they tend to incline more toward britain. their main trading partner.briti rtdison and jefferson who are republicans see a sister republic. a fellow revolutionary state.sh that is another flashpoint.

ho >> host: mr. brookhiser, when did the terms republican and the federalist start to get regular toe? did they? r e hathese times that we have taken? >> guest: they were terms thatth the people themselves used. madison began calling his own party the republican party iny 1792 i, and he does that in the newspaper. he is writing as a congressman. a newspaper that he has helpeder set up, which is called the national gazette. this was the party organ of the republican party, and it is a new thing in american journali m and american politics. we had newspapers of the route the colonial. , more per capita than any other country in the world. and a lot of these newspapers wrote about political issues. but, with the emergence of the e national political party for the

first time we also have at te we national political newspaper to support that party. >> host: who was phili freneau. >> guest: he went to college with james madison. they both went to princeton. his wife took it down were turned. he was a ship's captain. he did journalism, wrote poetryn not on the upward trajectory, but in 1791 madison introduces him to thomas jefferson who is the secretary of state. jefferson gives him essentially a no-show job in the state department.ow he makes him a clerk translator and telson you have enough time to do anything else that youe tt wish.wish. now, what he and madison whichto tend to do was to edit any newspaper in philadelphia which was then the nation's capitaldet which was going to be called the national gazette. madison cells prescriptions for it in virginia, and the first

issue comes out on halloween on hal very soon this newsploaper is hammering out alexander hamilton, and even president washington to eve the point where and one cabinett meeting washington speaks of that rascal for no, because it gets under his skin. >> host: we are going to put the numbers up on the screen ife you would like to participate.nf we have a chance to just kind of step away from day-to-dayut the politics and talk with historian richard brookhiser about james l madison high, his new book out this year. we covered him on book tv and you can once that whole o presentation on c-span.org, but in american history magazine, the december issue -- and we'll show you the cover. mr. brookhiser has written about james madison. it is not an expert from the book, but it is more of a -- kind of a political look at james madison. what first got you fascinated or why did you decide to write aeo book about james madison?

>> it was a little underdone. of all the founding fathers we have had a lot about washington. obviously we always have a lotae about jefferson. abo hamilton, even john adams, butvn there seems to be a bit of a hole with james madison. a but the one thing that tippedltd me, tilted me was a morning in august 1814 when madison is president of the united states and in his second term. is the war of 1812 his been going w on for two years. word comes to the capitol that the british are, indeed, going o to attack washington d.c. att they have landed in maryland. it looked like they were goingd de aaltimore, but they made a left turn marching north andchin were coming to the capital. t and what president madison doest that morning is he saddles up the horse, his own whores. horse his own horse goes lane, so he

must are somebody else's.e, the he borrows a set up pistols, and this short ailing 63-year-old man who has never heard a shotgn fired in anger, the least military person you could l imagine, he rides out with the rest of his cabinet to maryland, which is where the british are going to have to come if theyhei come into the district from the east to see the beginning of eae that battle the fate of the capital. i thought that is pretty impressive. i would of expected washington to do that, and redaction, but madison did it, too. i thought that was pretty gutsy. host: according to one of our twitter followers, this is the day of george washington's death. do not know if that is true or not, but i trust him. let's go to calls for richard

brookhiser on james madison. stephen from connecticut. caller: listening to your stories, i love the dolly madison story where she is running through the white house telling servants to pack up all of our work before the british burned the place to the ground. i have heard a lot that james madison was more the founder of the democratic party, the modern party. what is his take on how he relates to the modern party? the current democratic party is james madison's republican party. it -- he kept in the republican party from the 70 90/80 20's, and then they call themselves the democratic party, which still exist. the oldest political party in the world except for the tories in britain.

it changed a constituency many times over the years. at has gone from southern slave- owning planters to modern multi- cultural list. it has changed a lot of the policies. the one element of continuity is a fear of a certain kind of rich people, which both madison and jefferson had. these were hamilton's banker friends. they did not like them, did not understand them. these were also the creditors in planters. that is something i think is woven into the dna of their party, which was first republicans, but then has been democrats to this day. host: any contemporary political arguments you could compare to the madison-hamilton arguments of 200 plus years ago?

guest: the military. jefferson and madison feared war. there was a war scare in the late 79 these that look like we france that lookwi like we were going to go to war. this is when they passed the alien act and the sedition act, and national sedition law. jefferson and madison thought these measures. ironically, madison when he became president he asked congress to declare war against great britain. politicians resume the war of all -- role of war making

politician. he did that only after he exhausted all other options. he tried a trade embargo to try to control britain's actions that was a disastrous failure. so madison throughout option after option and tried it and did not work, so finely he asked in june of 1812, he asked congress to declare war. it is quite narrow in the senate and little bigger in the house. america went into the war with great reluctance. host: next call comes from a combined rouge. -- baton rouge. caller: i feel like i should be calling in on the bed rest line instead. i have enjoyed your books.

guest: he always had girlfriends. caller: that peg leg will do it every time. i was wondering if you could address a little bit about the evolution in two parties. it iiate it infiduciary rates me today says there should not be parties, and everybody has a different view on that, and monroe -- excuse me, madison, jefferson, washington, all against parties, but they were -- especially jefferson and madison, the fathers of the party system in america. could you address that for me? >> guest: sure. the founders had a notion that they, themselves, might be above partisan struggle. i mean, they were historically minded enough to know that factions would always appear, and madison writes about them in the federalist papers, and he sort of has the tone of the

scientists handling germs in a laboratory. he has the gloves on looking at these factions. you know, they are dirty things. they are always going to be there, but they are dangerous, and yet, they very soon set up the first two party system in american history, which is madison and jefferson's republicans, and then the federalists with washington, hamilton, and john adams, and madison is really the first of them to understand that factions are not necessarily bad things, but that these can be forces, a party can be a force to accomplish necessary things, and in mad madison's mind, that is inclining towards france and foreign policy and resisting alexander hamilton's financial plans and schemes, but these are important goals to james madison. how do you accomplish that? you have to accomplish that with political action and

interrepublic, that means a national party, and so he gets over his early reluctance to have such things to endorse such things, and he becomes a founder of a party himself. >> host: what was his relationship and early encounters with monroe? >> guest: well, monroe is seven years younger than madison, and madison is eight years younger than goferson. they all succeed each other to get into the white house issue and there's a moment at the end of jefferson's second term when it looks like madison, the youngest of the three,ments to jump ahead of james madison, his elder in this line up and become president before he does, and so

one of madison's task, madison is jefferson's secretary of state, is he has to figure out politically how to shove monroe aside. how does he kill them? he'll kill him gently for one election cycle and then make nice with him again because you don't want a feud in your home state. the way madison does this, it's a nice study in politics. it's not personal destruction. he didn't want to destroy him, but just shove him aside, and after he'd win, oh, i'll bring you back. >> host: he ran against him for congress too. >> guest: oh, early on, way back. monroe opposes the constitution. he's a virginian like patrick henry and george mason who thinks the constitution is too strong, too much, too far, and so he opposes it, and madison

gerrymanders a congressional district for him to run in, mostly counties that opposed the constitution in the virginia ratifying fight, and he also imposes a residency requirement, which is actually unconstitutional, but it's not challenged and overturned for years. when he's running, he has to run in this unfriendly district, and the enemy they found for him is his acquaintance, sometimes friend, james monroe, and they go out it. this is one of madison's first experiences of public debate, and i said early that this was something he didn't like doing, but they had a series of debates, and one was in front of a german lutheran church and it was snowing. they thought it was pias to

conduct a debate inside the church, so they stood in front of it. they went on for a long time. it was snowing and cold, and then madison road home back 12 miles, and he got frostbites on his nose that he bore the marks of all his lifings but that's what you have to do to beat james monroe, and so he did it. >> host: then he debated monroe before congregations when madison was an old man and recalled the lutheran church with a nest of germans whose notes might turn the scale. service was performed, and then they had music with two fiddles. they are remarkably fond of music, talking about the lutheran. next call for richard brookhiser from lancaster, you're on the air. >> caller: i was wondering how

madison felt about the way the native americans were treated. plus, another quick point, we should have a call in on voting about illegal immigration. >> guest: well, native americans, james madison, i'm afraid, didn't give a lot of thought to them to the extent he thought about them. they were enemiesment one of the reasons for declaring war on britain in 1812 is he calls it warfare renewed by the savages, and who he's talking about is a shawnee leader in what is now indiana. it was a very capable leader and diplomat reaching out to i indians that's as far south as mississippi and alabama, working with the british in canada, saw the threat the united states posed to the indian nations, and he wanted to bottle us up and

block us, and he came pretty close to doing it. he lost some battles, and he's finally killed at a battle called the battle of the tems, which was in ontario, and after the war of 1812 when united states and britain negotiate a peace treaty, britain abandons their indian allies and leaves them to their pate. >> host: if madison were alive today, which party would he go to? >> guest: i can't go that far. i go to 1860. let's say he lived to be 109 years old, and the country is splitting apart on the issue of slavery, which is something he foresaw and feared. >> host: was he a slave owner? >> guest: he was a slave owner. he lives long enough to see the fight of the admitting of missouri into the country in

1820 and lives to see the nullification process with south carolina and the battle over the tariff, so he sees what could be coming, and so i consider the four candidates who ran in 1860. he would not have voted for lincoln because lincoln was running on a platform of restricting the expansion of slavery into the tear roirs. madmadison didn't think there was a constitutional power to do that. he would not have voted for john b brokenridge, the southerner because he was all one rule. he might have voted for steven douglas, the northern democrat because he was a jacksonian, and he had good relations with andrew jackson as president, and madison lived to see that, but i think he would have voted for john bowel, the candidate of the union party from tennessee. this was a party that wanted the

union to be maintained and everybody just shut up about slavery, and he carried virginia, kentucky, and tennessee, and his running mate was a man named edward everett who published an article when he's expressing alarm of the recessionists, and i think that's how madison would have voted. now, he finished fourth in the popular vote so what would madison have done? i can't imagine he would have succeeded. even though lincoln, the victor, would not have been his way of handling things, he was such a strong unionist, and one of the last things he writes, it's a little piece that he wanted published, and it was called "advise to my country," and the point he makes is anyone who preaches this union should be treated like pandora with her box open or like the serpent

creeping into paradise, so that was his great fear. >> host: were he an henry clay friends or acquaintances? >> guest: they were. he goes to a reception and says everybody loves mrs. madison, and she says that's because mrs. madison loves everybody, and that's kind of virginia air kissing a little bit, but it was also true. i mean, she would rather like you than dislike you, and that's why she was such a great hostess. >> host: a tweet says dolly lived through two wars, 12 presidents, and watched america become the first modern democracy. >> guest: yes, she did. she was at the lang at the cornerstone of the washington monument. she and elisa hamilton,

alexander hamilton's widow, they brought these two old ladies who lived in washington, and they were -- >> host: what year was that? >> guest: 1852, i think. >> host: next call from here in work. earnest, you're on the air. >> caller: am i talking to mr. richard brookhiser on the tv? >> host: yes. >> caller: i want to ask you one question. did the madison's state of time determine that madison take oath of office and in turn allow for him to take office and then -- what type of office did he take when he was president? >> guest: what sort of oath of office? >> caller: yes, i want to know whether it was a pledge, what's the difference between a pledge and oath of office? >> guest: he took an oath,

it's the form in the constitution. now, it does allow you to say -- most presidents, maybe all of them said i swear. it does allow you to say affirm. they put that in there in case a quaker became president, and quakers can cannot swear oaths, but madison was not a quaker, and he used the form in the constitution. >> host: women's work usa tweets have guests explained further in 1875 madison wrote his memorial against religious assessments. >> guest: yes, one of madison 's lifelong principles -- he moves armed on a lot of -- around a lot of things in his long life, some things never, and one of those is religious liberty. this is actually the first issue that got him into politics before the revolutionary war. it was the persecution of baptists in virginia.

he was not a babetist, but -- baptist, but baptists were being very roughly treated in colonial virginia. there's a story of one baptist thrown into the cull pepper county jail and said when i tried to preach the words of my dear redeemer through the bars of a cell, someone threw water in my face. this was rough, nasty stuff that enraged madison, just enraged him, and this was a lifelong principle of his. he did not want the state of virginia to support religion in any way or to have any sorts of restrictions on the exercise of it, and the virginia declaration of right, he changed the language, and this is in 17 # 76 when -- 1776 when he's 25 years old. the original language of george mason was for toller ration of

religion, and he changed it saying, no, it's free exercise because toleration implies someone who tolerates, and that means it's like the gift we're giving you. madison says, no, it's a right. change it to free exercise. what the tweeter specifically referred to,1785, this is when the prince. s of the declaration of right, the bill of rights of the state of virginia were finally enacted into law, and this was a law that thomas jefferson had actually proposed in 1779. it hadn't caught on them. jefferson is now in paris as a diplomat, so madison is the guy in the virginia legislature making this happen and making this realm, and after it does get signed into law, he writes jefferson in paris and says i flatter myself that we finally ended attempts to control the human mind. >> host: richard brookhiser, this tweet for you.

was wondering what madison would think about the patriot act taking away our fourth amendment rights. >> guest: what would madison think? his conduct as president in wartime was pretty hands off, and i know he was asked my several people to pass a national sedition law by his own attorney general, by a congressman who he put on the supreme court, a man named joseph story, a great justice, and they both suggested they needed a national sedition law, and he didn't do it. that could be a guide to his conduct now. >> host: what years was he president? >> guest: elected in 1808 and then re-elected in 1812. he leaves office in march of 1817. jefferson proceeded him and

james monroe succeeded him because they got that little virginian thing working. >> host: how many books have you written about the american revolution period? >> guest: oh, i think this is my -- this is my fifth biography. i've written about george washington, alexander hamilton, john adams and his descendents, and i revisited washington a couple times writing a book called "what would the founders do" and that's about all of this. this is my fifth biography. >> host: go to booktv.org and you with watch his presentations on his books, and booktv covered him for most of his books. he's a columnist and an editor at national review magazine. you've been with them for a long time. >> guest: oh, yes, yes, since 1977.

>> host: nebraska, steve, thank you for holding. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. i also am a writer of american history, particularly the revolutionary period. the thing i know about james madison is he secretaried the writing of the constitution. he brokered between fighting sides, and, in fact, you really have to give 25% of the constitution that we ended up with to james madison. would you agree? >> guest: that's a little high. look, madison did not get the constitution he exactly wanted, and, in fact, he writes a letter to jefferson as they wrap up deliberations in philadelphia in september of 1787, and it's a little downcast. i mean, he's telling his best friend and writing it in cipher, you know, in code so prying eyes can't read it, but he's making

complaints about the document they just finished. that was not unique to him. nobody got exactly the constitution he wanted. everybody in philadelphia and everybody involved in the ratification to date lost on something or other, but enough people agree that a change had to be made and the document that came from philadelphia was good enough, and one thing that's very impressive about madison is when he loses a fight, he never sulks, or if he sulks, he never just sulks. he always thinks what do i do next? where do i go from here? maybe this is not a total loss. maybe i have to rethink, but he's always thinking how do i go on and proceed, and that's what he did with philadelphia and the constitution. >> host: did he play hardball? >> guest: you didn't want to be in his path.

the history of the early republic is littered with the bodies of people who stood in his way. i'll talk about one class of them. it's new yorkers because this first republican party is based on an alliance of virginia and new york, and -- but it's more complicated than that because the great virginians, they have to find new york allies, and then they have to make sure they always stay in the number two slot, so if any of the new yorkers get too ambitious, they have to find ways to shuffle them off the stage, and there's a list ever people. robert livingston, eric burr, george clinton, jefferson's second vice president after he's gotten rid of eric, and also madison's first vice president, dewit clinton, the nephew of george clinton who ran for

governor in 1812. you know, go down the list, and they are good at finding these guys and then getting rid of them. >> host: in your american magazine history piece, you write madison's most important contribution may have been figuring out how to make politics workday in, day out. he was the first founding father to understand the importance of public opinion and that marked a new stage in his thinking. >> public opinion was a new phrase at the end of the 18th century. it's hard to imagine that, but it was a new concept that had been first used in france in french. madison is one of the first people in the english speaking world to use the phrase "public opinion," and he writes essays for this newspaper he helped found, the national gazette where he talks about public opinion and he says there should be one empire of reason over the whole country, and every citizen

must be the sental over the rights of every other citizen. now, what's new about this is that someone like george washington, of course, believed in popular rule, but to him, that happened at election time. you know, the people would vote, and then the people who got elected would do their jobs, until the next election when they were removed from office or re-elected, and so for him it's a waif thing that goes up and down, and madison says, no, it's 24/7 going on all the time, and it should go on all the time. the people always have to be watching what is going on in the nation's capitol, what is going on with their representatives. they have to let the representatives know what they think, and the representatives also have to address them, address the people. now, also the representatives try to ma manipulate the

people. madison doesn't come right out and say that, but that's going on, too. he really grasps this world of 24/7 -- i mean, we find it very fatiguing; right? because it's just like, all the time, but madison is saying, no, this is what has to happen. it's the only way the people can be sure they are protecting their rights. >> host: last call comes from nashville, tennessee, go ahead, joe. >> caller: my question is what was madison's take on the slavery at the time? >> guest: slavery, that's bad. there's nothing inspiring there. he does not free any slaves in his will. slavery is an issue he doesn't want to see on the table. he feels it's a distraction from other things that are more important to him. he doesn't want to face it. he doesn't want to address it. the best you can say is that he is a unionist all his life, and

the way it will work out is that his sense of the union solves the problem of slavery, but in terms and thoughts about slavery, madison is less inspiring, less useful to us than alexander hamilton, than george washington who freed all the slaves in his will, and even thomas jefferson who at least agonized about it. >> host: just to follow that up, freelancer tweets in which presidents owned slaves? >> guest: madison -- all the virginians, john tyler did -- >> host: the two adams no? >> guest: the two adams no. van buren may have as a young man and may have given them up later. i'm not sure about that. >> host: all right. this tweet from jim hines, in its totality, madison's

presidency pretty much a failure. war of 1812 not necessary at all. >> guest: well, look, the resolution of the war of 1812 is status quo an sigh. that's what they decided. nothing changes. the borders of the united states and canada remain the same, some of the issues that madison raised like impressment of sailors and british trade restrictions were left off the table so you could certainly say it had no resolve. i think the result was an issue of national self-respect. united states was a nation nobody had to pay attention to that a nation that even great britain had to give consideration to. psychologically, it was a second war of independence. >> host: richard brookhiser writes in american history madison, james madison, father of politics, father of the constitution, politics is a spirit that animates the legal

blueprint and grease that makes the machine run, political argument and elections is how americans express their fears, ideas, and how things get resolved even as new conflicts alive. this is his article in "american history" magazine. can people find this article on your website? >> guest: they'll find my book. >> host: which is on james madison as well. historynet.com if you want to read the article from american history. as always, we appreciate you chatting with our viewers.

[inaudible conversations] >> thanks for the questions. thank you so much. >> thank you for coming. glad to meet you. nice to meet you. thank you.

>> c-span's road to the white house coverage of politics takes you on the campaign trail with the candidates. >> how are you? >> good. >> appreciate that. >> how will you pass this bill -- >> watch c-span's coverage of the primary on c-span television and on c-span.org. ♪ >> on wednesday, the state department announced the newly established the counterterrorism bureau. next, we hear from state department counterterrorism chairman on the importance of fighting terrorism globally. this is 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. before we do the daily briefing, we have a special briefing today on the next stage of implementation of secretary

clinton's quadriennial diplomacy and development review. the establishment in the state department of a bureau of counterterrorism. as you know, we've had an office under ambassador dan benjamin, and it's now about to become a full on bureau, and more to tell you about that is ambassador daniel benjamin. >> well, thank you very much, and thank you for coming today. today, the state department is pleased to announce the establishment of the bureau counterterrorism fulfilling one of the key recommendations of the quadriennial diplomacy and development review which was concluded in december of 2010. we believe that this change will strengthen the state department's ability to carry out the mission around the world. my office and the department have been taking on aing