to the first public event here in 2012. we had about 70 last year, so i expect to invite any feedback in your future. a lot of longtime colleagues, also terrific to see any faces. it's a real understatement to say that bipartisanship is going to be a challenging state of the next several months. so we are happy to have many friends as we can get. today's discussion is about leadership and i'm really thrilled to have tom daschle and trent lott with it he adapted a vital role in creating and shaping or cure the bipartisan policy satchel over the last five years. they also know about the leading a divided government and i think we will hear terrific stories about that very shortly.

i want to situate the series on leadership belittled the broader context of what we do here at the bpc. there are really three dimensions to the challenge that we face. the first is policy were. too often we find when you have polarized issues with long-standing kind of challenge, people get stuck in deep grooves of dermatology, very little meaningful subsidy engagements and we strive to bring together very diverse groups of experts to work on not just sensitive solution, but also pragmatic solution and whether it's our health or project or energy or work on dad and national security housing. in every case to bring the other policy experts at the political engagements and try to put together proposals that can be meaningfully embraced in 2013. a second after we work done is to try to address the core institutions of our democracy. it's terrific to have katherine

and dan gleeson who have been cochairing this effort. i think to state the obvious, many structures and traditions have come to rely on to solve our tough challenges are really under tremendous strain right now. enter that project we have a series of forums and research in the tvs that will hopefully give us some of that they are. and finally, we are here to talk about leadership. open they come in the problems they face democracy are not acts of god. they are not natural disasters. they are fundamentally human problems created by people that ultimately have to be solved by people. if we look back to history of moments where he faced up to magnitude of problems were looking at today, you can always find inspired leadership. it's also a bit of a cliché to say we need better leadership. it's like we need to educate the public. we will really try to understand what are some of the forces and actions that are replicable that could be brought back into the

conversation today. ultimately we hope that we can help to motivate a virtuous cycle that will enable the country to start to really address what i think we all realize are tremendously pressing problems. very grateful to have the support of the henry foundation and john koppelman here today. 2012 is in fact the 100th anniversary of senator jackson for. he has a profound legacy of leadership on stimulating public discourse in advancing bipartisan efforts. and so we are really pleased to be a little affiliate with you. there are some books on the senator's life better in the assay table, which we encourage you to look to. as i reflect and century marks, i want to know we will be honoring a century of service in tribute to the 100 years of public service that two of our founders, senator dole and aker has given to this country and that will happen march 21 at louisville criminal to learn

more about that. so with that, let me welcome john. thank you again for your support and ask you to introduce their speakers. >> thank you, jason for partnering with us. laura clifton, our executive to her and myself joined with jason in welcoming you to this discussion. the henry m. jackson foundation was founded over 30 years ago after the untimely death of senator henry m. jackson. and it was founded to help us continue the legacy of his good work. and the foundation and how does one the core mission, or pursuing continued bipartisanship and civil dialogue in the congress. and so, it is on this occasion as jason said of the centennial of scoops first that we are so

pleased to be partnering with the bipartisan policy center and disgustingness imports and challenging issue. we have obviously a very distinguished panel of two former senate majority leaders who knew all about bipartisanship and who followed in that spirit that senator jackson exemplified here to scoop was in the congress for over 44 years. and he was done for his ability to solve problems by working with people on both sides of the aisle. the fact that he cut across the aisle and work with his republican colleagues is considered to be one of the keys to his influence and his extraordinary legislative success. many, many important pieces of legislation. authored or co-authored or sponsored by the senator.

senator -- one of his key supporters, one of his great allies is just licensure as a member secretary energy and secretary of defense. he says scoop reached out across the ideal shoe and cover different design and build coalitions. and he did this with extraordinary stability, even with his irascible colleagues. and that is how you become the great legislator. i had the good fortune to work for him in the 60s and 70s and it was an extraordinary time of stability and huge accomplishments in the congress. so i told senator lott and senator daschle that this discussion gives us some hope that we can at some point in the not-too-distant future to that kind of legislative stability and cooperation. now, as part of our interest in

sharing scoop's extraordinary legacy, the foundation has produced a book called the nature of leadership, excerpts from an exemplary statesman. and the object of this book was to capture through the words and reflections of some of those who knew scoop last, the qualities that he exemplified, quality such as in hagerty and vision, determination, honesty, scholarship and openness. those are essential qualities of any effect as leader. and so, we ask you to take a look at this book. i like to tell people there's lots of pictures and big print. so it is safe fast and fun read. take these with you. they are out on the table. give them to your friends, give them to the young leaders who hopefully can see this as the kind of leadership that they want to aspire to.

but those qualities should apply to today's theaters as well, not just a future leaders, that today's leaders. i think we hear the word demand all the time. we should not demand. we should insist that today's leaders follow the spirit of bipartisanship that scoop was known for, that senator daschle was known for that senator lott was known for her. so, this is also, if you don't want to carry your briefcase you can download from our website. it's a wonderful little piece. let's may now proceed to introduce former senate majority leaders tom daschle and trent lott. most of you know them better than i., know our biographies so i won't go into great detail on that. a couple very interesting points that i did not know was that

senator lott is only one of the hand follows peep hole who has held a lack of leadership positions in both the house and the senate. and senator daschle, we know, one of the longest-serving majority leaders in the senate, but i thought it was remarkable that he is the only senate majority leader as i understand it who served out once, but twice as majority leader and minority leader. so talk about two men who knew the need for bipartisanship, trent lott and daschle. as a thank you for being part of the bipartisan policy center jackson foundation today. with no further ado, i think senator daschle, are you going to lead off? great, thank you. [applause]

>> john, thank you for that generous introduction and more importantly thank you and the foundation urbina's partner in our project. i look forward to reading the book, but as a young staff person had the opportunity, the good fortune to see senator jackson in action and to see the degree to which he epitomized the qualities that we hope we can talk about today. his leadership, his extraordinary leadership to find comity with his colleagues, prioritization of bipartisanship is historic and we are very, very grateful that he continues to inspire us today with his teeth and with his words. there are others that i also would want to call attention to for their present today. and my gratitude of them for being here, former colleagues chuck robb, dan glickman,

charlie stenholm. it's a real pleasure to have them with us as well. i'm always inspired from the lessons of leadership of our american heroes of the past. john quincy adams once said that if your actions inspire others to dream more, to learn more, to do more, to become more, then you are a leader. i think that definition describes those features, even those in congress. lincoln had a lot to say about leadership. he once said nearly all men can

stand adversity. if you want to test a man's deer, get empowered. i think there's so much truth to that found of what leadership is all about. find out about a man or women by giving them power. well, it is a real pleasure for me once again to share this diet so it's a very, very special friend, trent lott. pni shared tyler and the united states senate for many years. and while they had to powerful positions, we endured great adversity as well. i am not sure whether it was power or adversity that defined the matter in which we learned, but we had to deal with the

first impeachment and over 100 years, 9/11 and, the anthrax attack, the first 50/50 senate in u.s. history. clearly, and historic very, very challenging time. and while leaders can all be aptly described with adam's definition, i think there is a big distinction between an executive leader and of legislative leader. a legislative leader barely makes a unilateral decision like an. he has far less ability to execute a decision. even more true of the senate leader perhaps than a leader in the house of representatives who has as a result of the rulemaking and processes and

procedures, far greater economy of making decisions and senate leaders to. but the senate was designed to give each senator remarkable autonomy and authority. our former colleague george mitchell used as a man that he didn't lead a caucus. he negotiated with 57 and dependent contractors. a majority leader it seems to me has four primary rolls. first, he must set the agenda and consultation with the other leadership as well as the caucus. he must manage the legislative body again and consultation with at least the other leader. he must be the central person in the senate and speaker work. and he must provide leadership to his caucus.

those four rules are very, very critical regardless of circumstance, regardless of the makeup of the senate at any one time and regardless of roles they think a leader must first in four must always remember the state of japan and to reflect the concerns, interests, values of his stay. every senator brings his own experiences and personalities to the role of leadership. and i believe that it is always a function of the time within which a leader ascends to the majority leadership role that take tape to a certain extent what that agenda is. in my case when i was elected leader in 1994, there was a sentence within our caucus that we needed to build to improve

inclusion, to create more opportunities for members to have a role in the decision-making and agenda setting process. there was a far greater need for outreach. i ran for majority leader. we lost the majority in 1994 and i was selected as minority leader. and so, the senseless we had to reach out to a constituent groups and the rest of the country in a more effective way. this was as i said that mid-1990s when technology was just beginning to become even paramount to the way the numbers communicated and saw their -- their roles with regard to the opportunity to project to their constituencies. and so can't put a real emphasis on to knowledge we are a creed of the technology committee and the studio and putting the emphasis on the internet in ways

that have never been done before. to a large extent, circumstances dictated many of those priorities. regardless of agenda, priorities, experience or any other fat tears, seems to be a modern-day legislative leader as he or she attempts to constructively leave his caucus, a face with a number of challenges that transcend party, transcend almost any other aspect of senate life. one of those whose fund-raising. there's an extraordinary pressure on every member to raise money these days and as a result the time to stand and preoccupation with funds received becomes an even greater challenge as we attempt to manage the senate.

the airplane. the airplane in my view is one of the single biggest factors in the way the senate conducts its business today. because he is is so easy for people to these towns, they do. really quite regularly on thursday to assess tuesday's giving us virtually nothing order from a full when state to conduct a lot of the senate business. that presents serious challenges with regard to the extraordinary agenda that we face. the media, the logs and the extra very hyperbolic way with which so much of what the senate does is reported today is another challenge that we still have yet to grapple with successfully. and unfortunately, partly because of the way elections are held today, polarization has become so much a part of the senate and not to do something they think we we all have to acknowledge and address.

some qualities of leadership transcend these times. and as i said, i take inspiration from people who have proven themselves to be visionary leaders that we have needed so badly at times, and theater first and foremost perhaps must have a strong intercom base. i like what churchill said about that. he said it is sometimes said leadership should keep their gears to the ground. all i can say is that the nation will find that hard to look up to leaders who are detect within that ungainly position. secondly, leaders must know their fathers. lincoln had created sites in that regard. he said leadership is staying a little ahead of those who are

led, but not too far ahead or uses contact with them. third, a leader must be able to persevere. i've always liked the quote that an invincible determination can accomplish almost any game and therein lies the distinction between great men and little man. and finally, a leader must listen. dean ross probably said it best. the best way to persuade these with your hearers. a good leader is always pointing. i learned a good deal for my friends, trent lott as i did for my colleagues who are here today. i mentioned some of that. dave mccurdy, chad of course i didn't mention earlier, but i appreciate the lessons in leadership he brought to work every day. i learned a lot from my friend,

trent lott. if you haven't read it, i strongly would urge you to read herding cats because it is a reflection of how one meter lead in these times of adversity and turbulence. we did a lot of cat herding them very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about leadership today. [applause] >> thank you for being of this morning in thank you for your comments and our friendship and one that continues to grow and develop as the years go by. i must warn you in it than that as tom has rd indicated, we became not only, you know, companions and let it difficult

time and leaders, both minority and majority, but we got to be really truly good friends. if you're looking for partisanship, you won't find it here. i want to thank you, john and the henry foundation. it's hard to believe he put a hundred years old for sponsoring this event on leadership. it is something i've thought an awful lot about when i was in the congress and cents. and i talk to young people he could read about leadership. we have a leadership you to cheat at the university of mississippi. tom has been made and i did come to realize over the years that leadership is not some and you just are born with the visceral pain. it's also something you can learn. you can learn from others. if you study history and the leadership of men and women, you can learn a lot at stake makes that will help you as a leader. these are difficult times

obviously and everybody is trying to figure out how do we do something about the more bipartisan and getting things done. and so that is why it's so pleased to be a part of the center. jason does a great job. tom daschle and george mitchell, bob dole, howard baker found that this is the touche and i think it is at a time when we really needed it and i think you're doing great work, whether it's in housing and anna g in leadership. so many areas. didn't click that is working here in a regular basis. our good friend pete domenici is here. i think it is really needed now here more than matter perhaps at what point the way to getting some solutions to problems. it's not just about bipartisanship. how do you get an energy bill? kaibito tax reform? real faults about how you want to achieve the metrics and i'm

delighted to be a part of the bipartisan policy center. i will quote lincoln or adams, but i will quote john stennis, my predecessor in the senate. he was known as the conscience of the senate. and so, i figured out early on would be a good idea for me to go talk to and copying a senator in the job of the senator. one of the things he said to me at the very beginning wise, you know, i hope you really think about how you develop as a senator. a number of people that come to the senate wrote, but most of them just swell. i see the historian of the bear probably reported as one of his favorite reports. that is something we have to think about as senators. when he retired and went to mississippi state university and sat down with him.

i said he thought such a fantastic career. added some insurance state and country. and looking for your best pieces of advice. but what should i say to do quite he thought about it a few minutes and he said well, i would tvt pieces of advice. number one, by your house, don't rent. they never bought a house. they rented for 40 years. that was good advice. we take them up on and i was a long time the only equity i have in my portfolio. the other thing is travel. don't just go back and forth to mississippi. see the country and see the world. he was chairman of the appropriations committee and president pro tem of the senate and he never let the carton in the united states. he said if you go and meet with world leaders, you'll learn from and you have a better name as a senator of foreign policy, which shall be intimately involved in

because of treaties and confirmations and that was great advice. i take his advice and did that. even though those are sometimes referred to the junkets. very simple things, the great advice. tom and i did develop a great relationship and part of it was to talk to each other. i didn't have any problem crossing the aisle and going to talk to tom. i didn't mind coming in the back door to his office when i did something or had made him mad about some way i have not told them what we were planning on doing. have a cat that grew up in. he does the same thing. i remember him coming and sitting with me in my office and frankly pouring out his heart doesn't think he was with. we had a hotline. i defund sitting on my desk and when it rang, i knew was tom

daschle because we also found out, no offense at dawn and other staff members are here come some time you needed to get around your staff, who would do a federal walking and tackling to keep us from talking directly. and so we had that. i'm more than one occasion he would call me or i would call him a nice talk to him that morning at 9/11. when i realized we were all under attack. he was senate majority leader and i picked up the phone to say hey, tom, i think we better get out of here. about that time, my door burst open and we were gone and send a very interesting day the rest of that day, one that we will never forget. since he was so good i'm promoting my book, i'm going to promote my book come a time like no other. he talked about all of the challenges we had as leaders.

you know, when they think about the journey to leadership, it is not some and you need to. these house and senate members are former various, they will remember and recall all of this, but i served 16 hours in the house. the house is a tendency to make a partisan warrior, particularly if you're a minority. i never had the opportunity to go back ports in the house like i did in the senate. when i came to the senate i had been to the republican whip in the house for eight years and has a pretty snarly partisan republican and sat in the background not quite ready for primetime but dan coats and connie mack, conrad burns and my buddy jeff jeffreys. we sat back there and grumbled about what a ridiculous place it was. i find that the parliamentarian said i don't understand. i found my life understanding the rules.

as a southern tradition. he who knows the rules controls the body. as the secret to southern leadership. as a staff member with the democratic chairman. i used the rules of the house and my partisan warfare. when i got the senate i kept trying to figure out the rules. so finally i went to the parliamentarian inside a gated. what are the rules here? during the two rules of the senate. one, it is a josh chin and the other is unanimous consent. and as bob dole and george mitchell get you excited enough, you'll agree to anything. i thought maybe that was a little oversimplification, but i found over the years there is a lot to it. and i told my son is here this morning with me, a few months in the senate, i'm either going to leave this place or change this place. so i took my options open and then i decided maybe i should try to change it.

one of the ways we did that was to try to apply common sense in this place that. i had people give me a hard time some times because of the things we did. we would have dinners for spouses. we had no claim he became secretary of defense to write a poem. i wrote a note patricia. at about.com you may be asked to rate the code to trisha. and we had the singing senators. we were pathetic, but the whole idea was to keep jim jeffords with us and to loosen up the senate a little bit. we try to make the quartet bipartisan. one time we had the same as barbara boxer and tom daschle the problem with -- was the senate. they couldn't harbin ice. that's why they were killed before the senate for the first time in history and then others

were killed before the senate. we honored sean connery. i asked my wife is my knees look as good as john and she didn't even laugh. the whole idea was to get us to laugh at each other a little bit and enjoyed each other a little bit to loosen up a little bit. but the most important aim was human relationships and contacts. to be respect of your colleagues. i found out very quickly i could keep that attitude and get nothing done or find a way to go across the aisle and work together and get them things done here that is the journey to being a leader. you go through the process and one day you wake up they look, i am here to try to make a difference and therefore i am going to find a way to work with the democrats secretary of agriculture. i am going to be fair and honest as i can with everybody. i'm going to find a way to get bipartisan things.

and of course a lot of it depends on personalities. the time we were there it was tom and me. it was a challenge and was an opportunity, too. the way we cut tax reform and budget and welfare reform and save trinket water and portability of insurance as we work to find a way to get a solution. i remember i went to mississippi one time he gave his speech to the rotary club there and talked about how i had worked with ted kennedy on the ide eight. education for children with disabilities program. didn't get too mushy response of the crowd, but when i got through one of the old curmudgeon's always sits in the back of the room at the redrick club. he came up and said congressman he said senator, that was a good speech, but the part about kennedy, don't say that nowhere. so you get a little flack for

that, so it was a great time. it was a difficult time and that's one reason why we became such friend when we were through what we did together, sort of like when you leave together you define. but times have changed and the personalities have changed. tom touched on some of them. it's the 24/7 news media coverage. people want to leave and go back home. they leave their families back home. tom and i didn't do that. tricia was here and i helped an awful lot. i don't think you can be a good senator or congressman if you don't work on monday. if you try and get on a plane and your joy with constituents, that's when you plan the week. if you wait until tuesday, the week is half over before you get anything done. i also realize after a while that the worst thing that happened every week was that tuesday conferences and caucuses would cause a difference.

we could enter through what feels to have lunch together in rio is, no fire. democrats cannot all fired up with the same attitude. quite often, and i would wait until we actually tried to get back to serious business and then invited to combat down. so the time is that they are flying in and out of town. the news coverage in media if he makes a mistake he four days. so that is a big part of the problem. i do believe it will change. i think the majority leader position as the toughest leadership position in the city and i am saying that is not a partisan gain. the president has the whole administration. the speaker has the rules committee. the majority leader in the senate has only the power of persuasion and respect for the

position. it is one of leadership or you have certainly for the republicans very few rewards and no sticks. and at least on the democratic side have something to say who got on committees. i tried to manipulate the system i confess. you start with the most senior person in the stakes. that is a very challenging position. making it even more import make it on that side. but we see now is the gridlock and politics is the time when i look at the next generation of leaders, house and senate i do believe will be different. i hope it will be better, but i think it will be different. for one thing, they are going to get the message, a pox on both

of your houses. the favorable rating is about as low as it's ever been. the highest reading in the senate has ever been? i can't remember the numbers, maybe 72% approval. after 9/11 between that date in the end of that year, the american people saw the congress, particularly the senate, working together, trying to do the right thing for the country and it was not always easy. remember one time as the conference having a hard time with phil graham and i'm not going all my over there. thomas and his conference and a step down in called him on a cell phone and he answered it in the hall. i said you know tom, we've got problems here. let's do it now. let's go to the floor and called the filipino is dead that day. both of our congress is saying

nay. i would tell you what the bill does, but you should not gotten that done. [laughter] but that is called leadership when you are willing to step up. tom mentioned the 50/50 senate. that would almost cost me my job. i negotiated a deal with tom and i conference that was too good of a deal for tom. i think we did the right thing. we shared the 50/50 in the committee. so i think you need to do more of that. and i believe the american people will demand that we begin to make changes and find some way to make so many of these things than partisan. the national energy policy? we might disagree over by a metal stuff of alternative fuels, but we can work that out. that's infrastructure is good for the country, good for everybody. that was in a partisan thing. i admit we have earmarked to

help lubricate the process. and i hope we'll find a way to come back to that. the majority leader position is a challenge that is a great honor. it is a position that we enjoy and we switch back and forth to times and we never missed a beat. even after impeachment. i remember when this all over we met in the center aisle and she can't be fulfilled with that the constitution required. we did our job. both of us were criticized along the way. the next week we're back in business. on thursday, bill clinton called about a bill and never mentioned that we adjusted through. that's the way it should be. that is called leadership. [applause] >> i'm john fortier, director of democracy project here at this policy center.

miro is twofold. i'm here to hawks summer are books that they've are and hot. and secondly, to need a little discussion with the senators before we open it up to the audience further questions. first, much of the henry jackson foundation, the nature of leadership and now that the internet is an business economics and finance online. trent lott unlike the other time, the 107th congress in the two years that changed congress forever, senator daschle. i bring the specs have been partly the last book because my first question is to put you back in a moment of time in the year 2001. senator daschle mentioned some things that happened of course it began with the bush v. gore began with the bush v. gore election of a president. it had election of a president. it had a 50/50 senate and the impending negotiations we had over power, the switch of parties and finally 9/11. and i think several of those.

they are very different and you're both in the ring at the same time. you can say something about how you came to an agreement and sharing power and with the challenges were doing that and what the senate was after the switch of power. finally the extraordinary time that your 9/11. would not recommend it as a model for tragedy to bring us all together, but what was that like to be leader of those times? >> i think i would describe it as difficult professional challenge i've ever tasted in my life. you realize the stakes were very, very high. our country was under duress, both politically as well as a national security point of view. they were deep divisions with regard to how we ought to. it really true all of the

emotions that one might expect and require their best ability to first listen to the different approaches of many name being proposed. and really tried to be as innovative as he possibly could. and ultimately, i think you have to show some strength. this is what we're going to have to do is persuade others to join you in doing it. and so, he required everything that one would expect a think as leaders, but i think only history and time will judge whether we did it right. i looked back with great pride and satisfaction with how we did it. but others might disagree. at the end of the day, i think we accomplished what we really felt we needed to do with all of the things he mentioned. and the one you didn't the anthrax attack at my office a month later. there was just an extra airtime. the one thing i would say is that almost everyone made the

speech in one way or another that they were no longer republicans or democrats. they were americans. everybody felt the need to rise to the occasion. i don't know what it is about americans in crisis, at least in that kind of a crisis. we are facing other crises with that said the determination to be an american first doesn't seem to be as evident. but in this case, you know, i remember singing, god bless america, on the steps of the capitol and just reaching down and grabbing hands on both sides. i looked and i was holding tom delay's hand next to me. i'm thinking, this is a first. [laughter] but we did it because we are all americans and crisis to a certain extent elicited that kind of response.

>> maybe i can explain a little bit about telling a few stories. i think a lot of the solution is for congress and senators to do more things together, both parties. the day that i was let did majority leader bob dole, we elected our leadership team with don nickles and connie mack, bill graham, mitch mcconnell as i recall. the first thing we did a site called taman said tom, can we come to your office and meet with the leaders? euratom sophistry betook the republican leadership team and went to tom's office and said a prayer together. to give his guide and to pray for our country. that was our first at what we had our leadership teams together. the next thing is i think, you know, the day of 9/11, we wind up in a conference somewhere in west virginia or virginia. i was never quite sure where we

were, tom. when the helicopter together with tom and harry reid and others have gone different ways to get there. they were the rest of the day, altogether talking to our respective conferences. they were here and wherever they are in a cavern that and that was that popular 13. where are you guys? we are over here any bug her. we will fill see you later. i talked to jake cheney a couple times and then a sudden a day, we like to go back. some helicopters. he said no. i didn't appreciate that very much, but he basically said no, we don't know if it's safe yet. later on he said the helicopters on the way. we went around to the front and tom's boat, denny hastert spoke and none come extemporaneously it wasn't planned at all. we sang god bless america. that kind of day and those kinds

of emotions. when tom and i flew together right over where we could look into the pentagon literally on fire. and then, in other examples -- well, the anthrax issue. after that happened come you can imagine how that affects you, too. we had staff people exposed to it. it was tom's office, pat leahy's office. we met together, republicans and democrats in the dining room and the capitol talking about the threat, what does that, how to do with it in everything. i guarantee there is no partisanship. we're trying to figure out what to do with the situation. the other one that is a little later one of favorite one. i called tom christmas after the house had voted for another sick to my stomach thinking about what would have to go through and not knowing how to do it because it had been done in a long time. so i called tom and said we've got a little problem here. we've got to figure out how we are going to do this. he said i agree. we asked joe lieberman and slade

gordon to get together and try to help plan a way to deal with this. they came up with a magnificent plan, which my conference immediately stabbed in the throat and throughout the window. i had to start over. i didn't know what we were going to do. we came up with an idea we would meet in the old senate chamber and we would begin by having danny akaka opened with prayer. we were that senator byrd to give his sister perspective of what we're about to do. and then, we open it up for discussion to figure out how we're going to proceed? we really did how we would go forward. i can't remember exactly the order, but phil graham got up and gave an impassioned pitch of course to move forward with impeachment to get it to actually remove it from office i'm sure. and ted kennedy got up and gave an impassioned speech. then when we listen to it, it sounded like they were coming to an agreement.

i remember connie mack nodded at me we basically said, if dead. we have a deal. we have an agreement. as graham kennedy agreement. we left the chamber and had this great agreement. tama to the press gallery and had a joint press conference. and then we said, what was the agreement? [laughter] i said, we've got to put this as some sort of writing. so we put in my conference room -- i guess kennedy was in the room. i post lakeport and there've been very few others who are really thoughtful numbers and they put something on paper it would have forward. i am not sure to this day what we actually agreed to psg remember that? >> i remember that we didn't. i don't remember what it was we did. [laughter] but that's leadership. there was a moment that everyone knew would have a constitutional challenge and we had to do it. we did a how to proceed.

if you had kennedy and graham saying what sounded like an agreement, good, that's it. and we said that was it and we went forward with it. now, i still get criticism to this day. people say you could have removed him from office if he really wanted to do it. but my favorite job, actually in congress is not theater. it was way up. with in-house and with in the senate twice. minority and majority was about 10 years between the two. i counted the votes. he was never going to be removed. so we have to do is figure out how we could do it, comply with their constitutional responsibilities, but do it in the way the american people thought we had done the right thing the best they could without embarrassing the institutions. i think we got that done, tom. >> you know, trent has taught us a couple of times now that at those times of greatest crisis,

we came together. we came together in the old senate chamber during impeachment as we were beginning to figure out what we're going to do. we actually came together. we came together right after and tracks in the senate dining room. the reason we picked the senate dining room as it was the only room large enough for both caucuses could be together. i think there is a message there. the consistency with which we found our need to come together around christ as brought us together and we were successful as a result of the fact that we did. you via maize at how rarely the two caucuses come together. i mean, if i had one regret today is that we didn't do that at times when you're in a crisis, we didn't find what times we came together. he also said something else that is exactly right. you know, caucuses and conference meetings become at rallies. you are out there. you threaten me. you're just really pumped up and you can't wait to sink your

teeth into the other guys. you know, and that kind of emotional fervor really have a profound effect on the way the senate operates. so, if i could do one thing over, it would be to find ways to bring the caucuses together more frequently, to be together, especially now when sa said the airplane brings us to a circumstance where it is so rare that we are ever together anymore. so it just seems we have to be doing more of that and not waiting for a crisis to trigger the next meeting and the senate dining room for the old senate chamber. >> let me ask you a senate institutional question. it has many distinct features, but one is a supermajority requirement, differs from the house. that has been under great challenge recently, specially as they become more polarized in the houses were able to pass things in the senate is seen as

a robot. can you say something about the challenges that the leader with a supermajority requirement in many cases? and sakic, what do you see in the feature? whether the senate is going to be under fire for this, given the polarized nature of politics. is that something will see the featurette with that survived? >> i'm a little schizophrenic about that. first of all, i was frustrated many times with the unique features of the senate, the power of the individual senators, the whole. tom and i try to make some changes on that a couple times. we had written agreements and try to change some. my worst one was the ruling holds. and by the way, would hold his face and those for nomination by democrats at the time as republicans. i would get one senator and find out who it was and get him to pull off an infinity also put a hold on it. so, i don't think you should take that away, but i do think

that there should be some requirements connected with that. the supermajority -- i would change that, but again, i'm out of that comes back i think the leadership. i remember the first time i filled the tree, tom was irate and save. but it was not unprecedented. it'd been done before and i was trying to get something done. tom and him have 100 or so and so i just though that the tree where they could offer any more minutes. tom returned the favor as the years went by [laughter] but we didn't do that much. everything that tends to frustrate or block or tie up the senate is done more and more and more often. i do think that they need to back away from that a little bit. i said something a while ago with what they've heard a few murmurs of the room.

i do think the earmark should come back. maybe because at one point they actually reach the level of print support. i could never be number one, but i was number two. i don't think the congress should give up the power, but i do think it got out of control. too much, too many, too many people involved. it needed to be a process. when i first went to congress you had to have an authorizing committee, look at it with the core engineering project. you had to get it out there as a venue to go get an earmark. i do think there is a place in the need for that, but there needs to be reformed, needs to be a definable process you go through and then allow that to happen under different circumstances or better circumstances. but there are some things that need to be addressed. tom and i have talked about this. i think we need to take a whole week at the confirmation process and we ought to do it now, before the next election.

it doesn't make difference whether it's a democrat or republican. they need to have their appointments confirmed in nice to be somewhere sensible process. we're losing many good men and women. i'm not going to the meat grinder. i've got a job here. and to the credit of the leaders and to lamar alexander and chuck schumer, dated tape 230 some denominations that were just lower-level agency things that have to go through the confirmation process, take them on at the confirmation process. so there are some reforms that clearly should be considered. the senate is unique. and i guess one of my problems, but maybe one of the big sister and another 50 years, i was and is to to show us. i didn't like it when we attacked the house of representatives and try to tear down. i like that. this was supposed to be a great institution to represent people.

if you attack it every day, that's not good. same thing with the senate. the unique taste and i wouldn't take the uniqueness of way. but i do think it's not good for the leadership in not good for the country when it's always been attacked or torn down by people inside the institution. i think most of his colleagues here know that tom and i didn't do that. we try to make it better, not words. >> i just couldn't agree more radically with what trent just that. i would add just one thing and that is that there is a reason why we only have one cloture vote on the 20th of 30s and 40s for congress. unless congress had 100 to cloture votes. the reason we went from one to 102 is wave we changed the way filibusters are addressed in one of two days. one of the name of reform and expediting the work of the senate. we started a process that we call dual tracking, where we

sent a bill aside and take up another bill. and while that sounded logical, and it is logical in so many ways, what it did was make the filibuster much less painful. it made it much more accessible. well, we'll put the bill aside and maybe come back to it. and then we triple track to quadruple tracked and quintupled track. for while they were set in a repost of what the subject to filibuster that of filibuster that we set aside. but he was in the name of reform that we started to do that. but the unintended consequence was that filibusters then became much more palatable. the other big difference is they no longer required members to hold the floor. if you don't have to hold the floor, you don't have to really pay the price. and you know, used to be cots were brought out during the night. you had to sleep on cots and you really have to suffer. well, we don't suffer anymore.

there's nothing painful about a filibuster. we just push it aside. you don't have to hold the floor. because we made them so easy and so routine and so procedural, they have to note the frequency at him like anything you've ever seen in the history. i do know that lucy to be changed to much is packed this. around the rose regard to god. i would think that if something both leaders today had to look at. >> one will ever change and ensure mitch mcconnell would like to hear me say this with hairy latest minority leader like it, but i've always had a problem with filibuster the motion to proceed. it's the filibuster even taken up the bill. it defies a little bit of common sense there. now, it is part of the dilatory process if you want to block a bill or if you want to tie you up as fun as you can say they can't get to the next bill.

that's part of the process. but you know, again talking about the importance of leadership, i remember in 1996, right after i took him into office, ted kennedy was blocking going to conference. one senator can block a senate bill that is passed from going to conference. and i don't know if i'd ever seen that before and as i read about it. i kept telling elizabeth letchworth, who was before us, we've got to stop this. and she says you can't. i said what do you mean you can't quite she said it would take seven days. you know, it will demand that they read the bill. you'll have to have all these hurdles you have to get over. and i said, let's do it. she looked at me incredulously and said you can't do that. i said yeah, we're going to. let them read the bill. so i went down to the dining room and started having a meal. about 20 minutes until 9:00 i

got the message that kennedy decided we did have to read the bill. ..

what is the role of the senate majority leader or minority leader in working with presidents, especially given this and it's often key role in being the final place where a legislative compromise is crafted? >> i have to tell one of my favorite stories to that question. i just got elected, and as was with so many of my races, get elected by one vote. check was that one vote. but i've really look back with great satisfaction at how well the carcass came together so quickly, what i remember being invited that afternoon to come

down and meet with president clinton. and so i thought, well, and going to go ask senator byrd for his advice on what i should say to president clinton has the leader now for the very first time on the basis of one vote. and so i went in and asked senator byrd is a vice. he thought about a for a minute. and then he just said, utah and one thing, utah and you're going to work with him, not for him. and i have always remember that. i think that is exactly the role of a leader. you work with a person, you never worked for him. there are times that presidents would like to forget that. there -- they actually think that the leader of your party is obviously working for you, but that is that always the case. you are co-equal branches. your co-equal leaders in many respects, and you are the leader of one of those branches, and the things you ought to the

represent that to reflect that in your actions and your words and your relationship with the president. >> i have many stories that i could tell of the experiences as a whip in the house meeting with reagan and, of course, tom and i have practiced almost weekly with george w. bush after september 11th for months. i remember them so distinctly because he always wanted us there at 7:00, and i hated, but we were always there on time, and he would tell us what was going on raw the world. it was very interesting, but i have to confess, in terms miles on my face and their relationship had with clinton, it was actually more interesting because i mean, he was engaged. he would call you all hours of the latter-day. he did his homework. because of the senate's unique role, particularly like on nominations entreaties, i remember i went through the

crucible of the chemical weapons treaty where i was, again, getting hammered internally, but i finally concluded it was the right thing to do for the country and had to figure out a way to get it done. you know, clinton would really engaged on a 1-on-1 basis. i remember reagan would meet with the republican leadership every tuesday morning. i think it was 930. maybe it was nine. sometimes it was the leadership of both parties. most times it was just republicans. i do think that the majority leader does have, in effect, a co-equal will the president. he/she has a leadership position which is critical in the whole process. i think he needs to be able to be our cities to be able to be honest with the president of the united states of what the options are. the problem is, if you're too honest with the president of the united states, of either party your own party will be the one that is level to cut your

throat. i have experience that, too. if i have one piece of address for majority leaders, i agree with tom. remember, you have to roll. you have, you know -- you have to work with the president, but i also have the supplies for the president's. meet with the leaders regularly, weekly on a personal basis, not just groups. i used to, you know, plead with president bush to get harry reid to come down and set out on that back portico and looked out over the washington monument and think about the roles that they had and what a great thing america is and what they can do. have a drink. then i realized, i guess these you will have a drink. [laughter] of course terry, you know, a mormon. bush is a teetotaler. so then never met like that and they just goes to show how little lubrication can be helpful. if those two have had a drink no telling what would have gone gun -- done.

[laughter] >> go here. if you could have stand to the stand up and identify yourself. >> hello. the executive director of the henry jackson's stand it -- foundation. we are so glad to be a part of this forum today with the bipartisan policy center. thank you so much for these revealing remarks. so many aspects of leadership that you talk about are intangible, but i remember senator jackson was known for a his, obviously, his policy views, but over the years on some important policy issues his views evolved. he was not afraid to a minute. he was someone who wanted to learn both from history and from colleagues and other intellectuals and policy people's. do you think that is possible today? that is civilly in central part of reaching compromise in a bipartisan manner. the think it is possible? are people too afraid of being referred to as the poppers?

thank you. >> i think it is possible. it back, that is partly what the bbc is designed to do. try to find ways which to bring people to an evolution on issues you know, always from a polarized position more to a position that would accommodate common ground. you know, and i think you have to address issues today with an open mind. you have to, obviously, do what churchill said. you cannot keep your your to the ground and simply vote whenever the wind may dictate, but at the same time i think you have to find a recognition about the importance of good governance. good governance requires finding common ground. but evolution is harder today. finding that consensus is harder today because we are so much more polarized debate and we have been some time. pretty much harder, but people can still do it.

>> de roadie's well? do you become a partisan warrior are all about your own position and prevailing in the wake @booktv winning or do you grow and mature and learn? i would like to say this is a republican form of government. your elected by the people, come to washington, study issues, led the details, come and vote on the behalf. it is not my referenda. and i used to ask myself, you know, everybody always referred to the statesman. i had a few people that i really thought they were statement. jackson was one of those. one of the areas where i changed was the area where jackson was always a leader. you know, he really lived up to the vandenberg phrase. politics ends at the water's edge. and he was very much, you know, a leader. he fought when it came to foreign policy, an area where i changed. i came from the house for our

was, you know, congressman whip, but i was protectionist basically, reflecting mike, i guess, bringing. the son of a blue-collar shipyard worker. my state. then i get to the senate. whether you like better not you're involved in foreign policy and start meeting with world leaders, kings and queens and presidents and prime ministers. you have to be involved. and i wound up being very much a free trader. i vote for the free-trade agreement that we voted on in the senate. i have never voted for a foreign relations appropriations bill in the house in my entire 16 years. i voted for everyone but one when i was in the senate. you know, you are supposed to learn. i still consider myself a very solid conservative, but in my last year the senate this society gave me their teddy bears -- teddy roosevelt award, a beautiful gun, which my son thinks he is going to get, but i'm going to give it to my

grandson instead. they give you know, level me moderate. i gotta been set, i don't know exactly when i became a moderate, but if that has what had happened to the ag said the monitor with pride. i am so thrilled with it -- so those of the very conservative, but i am also practiced. more than anything else i am an optimist. i believe that you can get things done in america, you can't get things done in the senate, and if you have to moderate your position, tom and i used to do that. there were times when we were actually would say to each other in effect, we got the vote. we're going to whip you, but this is something we can do to maybe modulate this a little bit wary ruby's year to go down with you and your team more me and my team? i remember one time john mccain was blocking a bill that involve tom.

i had to track down. i said, this is the bill from tom daschle, really important to tom. you can't do that to the democratic leader. he said, okay. we got it done. tom was my friend from then on. [laughter] >> that is where it all started. >> we have a question right here. the microphone. if you could identify yourself. >> el colton with the hill this paper. i just want to get your thoughts on president obama's region to appointments of richard scored ray in the apartment to the nlrb during a 2-day break in between pro-forma sessions. demonstrations argues that they are a sham sessions. was that -- were those justified under the constitution? >> you may find a difference here.

>> i think the president is entirely justified. for two reasons. one, because, as was said earlier, we're making it harder and harder and harder for nominees to go through this incredibly laborious and painful and time-consuming process, and there is no end. it gets worse by the year. and so that alone seems to me to be a factor in where do you draw the line. the second part of it is that constitutionally as i understand it there is not any clear direction with regard to what is a real session, but these are bogus sessions. we know that. it does violate, to a certain extent certainly past precedents , but that is that the first time president has been altered in the course of doing the right thing. alternately add think we have to, as was said earlier, addressed the home of many process. short of that, because you had

to institutions that the truly could not function without these nominees -- this was not just a nomination. this had to do with whether these agencies could even function, and i think in the name of creating enough virginity for the agencies to do what they were, by law, required to do, he had no choice. >> i guess the courts will decide. i think it was wrong. i think maybe there is a good chance the courts will rule the way. amtrak jar rubber who perfected the technique of having these pro-forma sessions. i don't think i did that. i think terry actually really remember it -- turned it into a fine art. these to have the struggles. my chief of staff. when we would have these sessions, there be hundreds of nominees, and we woodworker the

list. it would go through and say to clinton's people and the congressional relations people tell look, you can go ahead and do these hundred or so, but these six we have a problem. this one in particular if you do with the rueful blowoff. and for the most part we get most of what we needed to get done that way. i remember one time he did do one where he said don't do that and he did it and all hell broke loose. it caused bad feelings, but i do -- there is a reason for that. i do think advise and consent, i would be interested in what senator byrd, now he would react to what happened here. the senate does have a role. if the senate is abusing the rules call warheads should sit down and say, look, how can we improve this process. but the main thing that i would say about it is get away from the constitution, the people, the personnel that are involved.

it does really exacerbate the ranks between the president and the congress and senate leaders when they do that. and we need to think through it. i think you're working on a project in this area. we need to make it a bipartisan project to help the leaders of the will to deal with this confirmation process problem. >> well, the senate has a tradition of unlimited debate. we have strong rules here and unfortunately we're at the end of our time. i would like to think very much senators trent lott and tom daschle for their time. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> coming up next on c-span2, new york times columnist tom friedman on u.s. competitiveness , elected u.s. foreign policy with the assistant secretary of state for east asian affairs. and british prime minister david cameron on free-market capitalism. tomorrow, president to candid it's newt gingrich and ron paul will speak at the seven republican conference in charleston, south carolina. live road to the white house coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> road to the white house coverage says the events leading up to the saturday primary. >> the obama administration standout of the policy that said that in her program she cannot

teach abstinence as a preferable way of avoiding out-of-wedlock birth, and she can't talk about marriage. she can't talk about marriage as any other than an alternative lifestyle that is no better or worse than any other lifestyle. my question is, why? >> when the president adopts a stimulus package of hundreds of billions of dollars a notice is read and then discovers to his great surprise two years later as he himself put it that the shovel-ready jobs or not show already in the stimulus fails the leaves as $800 billion deeper in debt, at some point he has to take responsibility. that was his plan, his proposal, and it failed. >> and as candid it's made with voters to get their message out. [inaudible conversations]

>> and after the polls close we will show you the results from south carolina along with candid is peaches and your phone calls. >> the u.s. conference of mayors is holding its annual winter meeting in washington this week. today they heard from "new york times" columnist tom friedman discussing his latest book titled this used to be s about america's position in the world. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> and -- i'm very pleased to introduce our next speaker, tom friedman became the foreign affairs columnist for the new york times in 1995.

in 2002 he was awarded the pulitzer prize for distinguished commentary. his third pulitzer for the new york times. he has written a word-winning books, many of you remember the world is flat, a brief history of the 20 per century that received the golden financial business book of the year award. hot, flat, and crowded was published in 2008, and his sixth and most recent book i recommend to everyone of you. it is called "this used to be us", how america fell behind in the world we invented, and how we can come back. it was co-ridden with michael mandelbaum. last september i had an opporunity to see tom had a book

signing, a question and answer. as it, you have to come to the conference. he is called for a green revolution accomplished for investment in our city infrastructure, and his promoting network urban hubs. we know about those. as i stated yesterday, with the release of our latest mature economy report, american cities are the engines of america's economic future. so at a time when our nation's mayors are working to promote a bipartisan agenda and job creation, there is no more fitting speaker for us to hear. please join me in welcoming tom friedman. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you very much. think all of you for having me. i was at your conference a couple of years ago and this is a great tree in their virginity, and i am looking for to being back here this morning.

we will take about the next 40 minutes about the book "that used to be us." how we can come back. whenever we share with people the title of our book of the first question they always have this, does it have a happy ending. we tell everybody that it does. we just don't know whether it is fiction and nonfiction. and that is really the challenge before us today. can i get a glass of water? now, one of the things you might be naturally wanted to ask is, how did to guys, a foreign affairs columnist for the new york times and michael author, professor michael mandelbaum, the chair professors average investor relations at john hopkins, how did we end up writing a book about domestic american politics? in the answer is very simple and i think relevant for your discussion here. we're old friends, friends for 20 years, happen to be neighbors in bethesda, maryland. we talked every day, and we noticed something.

we start every day talking about the world, but we noticed lately that we ended every conversation talking about america. and it was evident to us very quickly that america, its fate, feature, vigor, and vitality, was actually the biggest foreign policy issue in the world because if we don't have a strong and sound domestic base in the economy there is no way that we can play the role that we need to play in the world and that the world wants to play. michael and i both american nationalist. we believe america makes a lot of mistakes. we always have, but on a net basis, we play an enormous the constructive role in the world. we are the temple that holds up the global system. if that temple buckles or phrase your kids will just grow up in a different america, they will grow up in a fundamentally different world. in that was really what motivated us to write this book. if there is the fear we have, it is built around a lot of movie scenes.

one of them -- one of them is an old classic, really captures our concerns about the future. orson welles, 1958 film touch of evil. you may remember the scene, a movie about murder, kidnapping, conspiracy, corruption, and the town of a mexican-american border. a crooked cop who tries to frame his mexican counterpart for murder. at one. these troubles -- stumbles into a brothel and finds himself a fight with a fortune teller with cards spread out in front of for a -- front of her. read my future. you have not got any, she replies. your future is all used up. well, it was certainly that fear which is one of the things that motivated his book. we do not believe our future is all used up, but we do believe we are at a critical juncture in this country. we need to step up and do it now, not in 2013, to teefourteen

or 2020. let me share with you, if i could, just for a few minutes -- is there a been going right? do you know what that is from? is the light. okay. this was to make sure it was not me. [laughter] that they share with you i could this for a couple of minutes the very first few pages of this book from the opening chapter, which is called, if you see something say something. this is a book about america that begins in china. september 2010, i attended the world economic forum summer conference. five years earlier getting their end of the three and a half hour car ride from beijing to a pollutes democratic chinese version of detroit. things had changed. now you had to get to the beijing sells well playstation, an ultramodern flying saucer of a building with glass walls and

an oval roof covered with 3,246 solar panels. you buy a ticket from an electronic kiosks offering choices and chinese and english and board a world-class high-speed train that goes right to another room become a modern transition in downtown. said to be the fastest in the world when it began operating in 2008, the chinese bullet train covers 72 miles in 29 minutes. the conference itself took place in the convention center, a massive, beautifully appointed structure, the like of which exists in a few american cities. as if it was not expensive and of the conference is co-sponsored and give some hopeful facts. they said that the convention center had a total floor area of two and a half million square feet and that construction of the convention center started on september 15, 2009, and was completed in may 2010. reading those lines i almost started walking around my hotel room county on my fingers,

september, october, november, december, january. that is eight and half months. returning home to maryland from that trip by was describing and how quickly it was built to my co-author, at one point and interrupted. excuse me. have you been to our subway stop the leak? we both are from bethesda, maryland and often use the washington metro. i have just been at the bethesda station in new exactly what she was talking about. the two escalator's there had been under repair for nearly six months. while the one was being fixed, the other was closed. at rush hour this was creating a huge mess. everyone tried to get on and off the platform had to squeeze single file up one. it sometimes took to investigate of the station. a sign of a closed escalator said that repairs were part of a massive escalator modernization project. what was taking this modernization project so long.

reinvestigated. a spokeswoman said the repairs are scheduled to take about six months and are on schedule. mechanics need to invest 12 weeks to fix each escalator. a simple comparison made a startling point. china has a construction group that took 32 weeks to build a world-class convention center from the ground up, including two giant escalators in every corner, and it was taking the washington metro crew 24 weeks to repair to tiny escalators of 21 steps each. we searched a little further, and found that on november 14th 2010 the washington post read a letter to the editor who wrote, as someone who has written for more than 30 years i can think of an easier way to assess the health of the escalators. for decades they rinse thoroughly and efficiently, but over the last several years of the escalators are running, aging or dull fitting parts are generated terrific noise is a sound to me like a tyrannosaur's rex trapped in the tarpit screeching its dying scream.

the "we found most disturbing came from the maryland community news from a regular natural writer who said my impression standing on line there is that people have sort of gotten used to it. people have sort of gun used to it. indeed, that sense of resignation, that sense of how things are in america today, the sense that america's best days are behind it and china's best days are ahead of it has become the subject and subtext of water cooler, a dinner party, grocery line, and custer recalled -- conversational across our country. do we buy the idea that pronounce the 19th century, america the 20th, and china will inevitably raise supreme and the 21st? no, we do not and we have written this book to explain why no american should resign and more self to that view.

the two of us are not pessimists. we're optimists, we are frustrated. to frustrated optimists. the title of his opening chapter , if you see something say something, you know where that is from, the mantra of the department of homeland security that plays over and over on loudspeakers and bus stations and trains stations in all of your cities. we have seen and heard something , and millions of americans have, too. but we have seen is hiding in plain sight. we see something that poses a greater threat to our national security and well-being than anything that allocated does to my country with enormous potential falling into the worst sort of decline, a slow decline, as this low enough for us to not drop everything and altogether as a country and fix what needs fixing. this book is our way of saying something about what is wrong, why things have gone wrong, and rican and must do to make the right. the main argument of that book

is that we face four great challenges. let me give to them. the first is a perceptual challenged. how we start our day in america. if there is one thing i have learned strolling around the world is that successful companies, successful cities command successful countries start their day every day with a very simple question is, what world in my living in. what world my living in? the biggest trends in this world, the policies i need to put in place to take advantage of those trends, and to nurture all of the potential from them. that is not how we start our day in this country. restart our day in this country with their two biggest parties taking a large crowbar and asking how they can stick it in the wheel of the other party in order to win the 24 hour news cycle. part of doing the research for this book are visited singapore. something and economists said to

me that start in my mind. we live in a past up with no doors and no windows. every change in the direction of the wind. every change in temperature. living in a brick house with central heating. you seem to feel nothing. that house is developing some cracks, and that leads to the other challenges that we face. the first, and i believe most important challenge we face is adapting our country and work force and children in cities to the biggest thing happening in the world today, the thing that we should be talking about most, the merger of globalization and the itc revolution which is changing everything. of will talk drug that in detail because this huge work force and education challenge. the of the challenges we face here, you're very familiar, debt and deficit.

that nexus of issues of entitlement and how we manage for the next generation, and the third -- of zurich, the fourth challenge is energy in climate, how we power the future of an american middle-class and rising global middle-class is without tipping this world into disruptive minor change. so those of the four big challenges. and we look at the world, how we manage debt and deficit and how we manage our energy needs in a world of rising middle-class. let's go back to the merger of globalization and nike, which i believe is the biggest thing happening in the world today. if we were not in a sub prime crisis or post sub prime crisis, if we were not in a 9/11 error, it would be all we would be talking about. easily what has happened is in the last decade we have gone from the connected world to a hyper connected world. and this move from connected to hyper connected is really changing everything. now, the simplest way i can

explain it to you, in 2004 of seven working on a book called the world is flat that came out in 2005. that was about the world getting connected. and as set down with michael to write this book one of the first things i did was go back to the first edition. i opened it up to the index. i looked under f. facebook was not in it. when i was out there saying, the world this last, we are all connected, facebook did not exist. twitter was still a sound, the cloud was still in this guy, force he was a parking place, clinton was a prison, application is what you sent to college, and for most people fifth step was a typo. [applause] all of that -- i love doing that can i do that again? [laughter]

all of that happened after i said the world is flat. and that is what has taken as from connected type connected. i said tomorrow, we have connected boston in bangalore in india. we have not connected boston, bangalore, and series c. a town 90 miles to the interior with 90,000 people which, pinkston web-enable smart phones is on the great with your kids and mine. when i wrote "the world is flat" i said to we connected detroit in damascus. the trip to damascus, and tehran. where is there a? oh, that is the dusty syrian border town of the syrian-jordanian border with the syrian uprising began which they have been pumping out cellphone camera, text, and videos so much so that we have been able to watch this syrian uprising live

there have been every international news organization in closing out -- including elton zero. that is what happens when you go from connected to have connected i love when i travel to look for small items in the newspapers and the tell you often wonderful and revealing things. in october 2010i was in india reing the hindu times over breakfast. ran into a small new site. they said that the nepali telecommunications firm had just started providing third-generation mobile network service at the summit of mount everest. the story said this will allow thousands of climbers and tractors who had flown the region every year access to high-speed internet and video calls using their mellophones. can you imagine how many phone calls are being made every day now from the mount -- the top of mt. everest to begin tomorrow, you'll never guess or i am

calling from. okay. that is connected diaper connected. but we see it in other ways as well. davenport iowa. well, nearby davenport, as central town. the great liberal arts school. last year there reported that almost 9% the applications came from china. 9% to a 43 percent had a perfect 800. that is going from connected to a hyper connected world. so the old days when, you know, basically we had our little nice chinese exchange students. no, your kids today who want to go are competing head-to-head listings from p.s. 21 a

shanghai. that is the difference of a connected to a hyper connected world. what does all this basically means? welcome wallace looked at what it means for the work force and then what it means for education what it means for the work force is basically this is the whole world were a single math class to join in a hyper connected world the whole global curve, remember, you were great enough to curve, the whole global curve is risen. basically every employer has access to more cheap automation, chips and -- to suffer, cheaper robotics, and most important, cheap genius than ever before. a wonderful article in the atlantic. there is a quote that struck me. someone talking about automated, and processing plan. two employees, men in the dog.

the man is there to feed the dog in that started to keep the man with and the machines. that is basically what is going on today in more and more factories in a hyper connected world. historically our work force was segmented into three categories. not a routine work. we all want to be non routine. writers and singers and pilots and engineers and scientists and professors. that is people who do work that cannot be described by an algorithm and therefore cannot be outsourced, automated, or digitized easily, if not all. y'all want your kids to be doing not routine work. then there is routine work. routine work is being crushed. finally there is not routine work. the person who has to do their

work face-to-face in a specific locale. it will depend on the overall health of your city in the economy. the biggest thing that happened as we move from connected to hyper connected is what happens to non routine work. now, the non routine work, the way we train people for that, you hear a lot of this and the education reform movement, we want people to do critical thinking and problem solving. that is the essence of not routine work. something in machinery but cannot do. basically, what happens very sadly as we move from a connected to a hyperkinetic world is it is not enough anymore to been on routine work. you know have to do creative not routine work. you cannot just show up. so we have a chapter in the book that tries to explain this. that chapter is called help

wanted. we interviewed for generic employers in the hyper connected world. one high-and white-collar, the head of the national law reform -- law firm, nixon peabody, we interviewed the head of their washington office, low and the white collar, a blue-collar firm , and the world's biggest green color firm, the united states army. the chief of the education forum. here is what is really interesting. they're all looking for this employee. they're all looking for an employee who can do critical thinking and problem solving in order to get an interview. oh, yes. critical thinking and problem solving no is considered just, you know, retain. what every employer is really looking for now is someone who can not only do their job, but inventing and reinvent their job as they're doing it.

because the piece of change, they cannot simply know what is dahlia basically on the shop floor and the interface between the technology and the customer, if you don't have employees who cannot only do their job in mid and reinvented job as they're doing it you're going to ever real problem. there are companies they now do quarterly reviews of their employees, team leaders. very simple. they may be doing in a year five product cycles. the cat wait until the end of the year to find out they have a bad team leader. it will mess for product cycles. they're now doing team leader reviews every quarter. there read the cutting edge of something that is not go away. let's go ahead jeff left, the head of the nixon peabody washington office. he asks -- happens to be a

family friend. started this conversation in 2007. that's when i first started thinking about this. lehman brothers says just melted down. i said, what is happening? way off. good story on? will lay off lawyers. i said, that's interesting. in the law firm, who gets laid off first? lasted, first of? he said to not anymore. we can't afford that. what is happening is that when we have a lot of work during a credible and we handed that non-routine work to our non- treaty lawyers and they did a routine, non-routine way into the packed everything was fine. today this to do it in a new routine, not routinely, they're the ones who are getting less go. the was your keeping, he said, the lawyers to give justice system we can do this will work in a new way. we can do this non routine work in a truly non routine way, or we can be totally new work in a new way. rita interview in the book.

very interesting. one of the first things they said, we just hired a chief innovation officer. how many law firms to you know have a chief innovation officer? in fact, every firm today whether it's the new york times, the law firm, or an accounting firm will have to have a chief innovation officer to keep up but this pace of change. really interesting for me was our interview with the head of that recall a firm. he is general martin dempsey. he has since become our senior military commander in this country. at the time he was head of the u.s. army education corporation, but what is really interesting about him is general martin dempsey was the commander of the first armored division took baghdad from some insane in 2003. he was the commander who took bad -- baghdad. here is the story he told us in the book. he was promoted as the head as such, america's middle east military command.

in that post he went out to afghanistan and visit a far-flung base near the hindu kush that was commanded by a u.s. army capt. is that a couple hours sitting with the captain hearing about his job. he realized after a couple of hours that captain had access to more firepower and could access more tactical and national intelligence then he, general martin dempsey, could, when he took baguette from saddam hussein five years earlier. that is how much it changed in the move from a connected to hyper connected world. one of the first things he did when he took over the army education core was begin to revamp completely army education because how we choose that and promote that and strain that has to become fundamentally different. one of the first things he introduced to me give you an iphone the day you show but duquesne. after three weeks they may ask you to download the application will your drill instructor sits on the front row and has you

teach the course. because you better be created under team, not just another team. i know, very easy for you to say, mr. new york times columnist. let me tell you about my world. i inherited -- begin the foreign affairs columnist in january january 1995, just down the street here at the washington bureau of the new york times. i inherited james ruston's office when i took this job. what a thrill. one of the great columnists and editors of the new york times in the 60's and 70's. i suspect mr. rustin use to come to the office back in the 60's and 70's and started by saying, i wonder what my seven competitors are going to write today. by the way, he knew all seven. i do the same thing. i come to the office every morning and ask, i wonder what

my 70 million defenders are reuter right today. [laughter] 70 million competitors. i was just in india month ago. i did a story. the sunday column went up by 8:00 p.m. sunday night. of a and 11:00 p.m. sunday night someone in india had posted a stress test of the entire ipad and all the results in the comments section of my column. in the old days -- i became a foreign correspondent for the new york times in 1982. i was in beirut. in those days it took the new york times six weeks literally to get to beirut. i could read would ever wanted. maybe someone would call. all long distance, stretchy phone want to what do you see what he wrote about you? who? tom friedman.

friedman? what did he write? and then the line would go dead. now you write about a $35 ipad and somebody posts a stress test from india four hours later. if you don't think that doesn't keep me on my toes, well, you're not paying attention. and that leads to the last chapter in this education section. it is called average is over. end, friends, that is the world we live in el. average is officially over. because basically your boss now has access to so much more above average talent, sulfur, automation, robotics that everyone know needs to find their extra. what is that unique value contribution that you can make because that is what every one of your boss' is going to be asking. what is your extra? everyone's extra is different. steve jobs' next year was inventing the iphone and

ipad. maybe someone else's is that there were to a nursing home and have the ability to put a smile on the face of your elderly parents, and every time you come to that nursing-home you say, oh, i want sue to deal with my mom. how much more do i have to pay? everybody, i believe, is of average at some time, but everyone has to find their extra because woody allen, 90 percent of life is just showing up, it's officially over. if you just show up now for your job, just me, there is a machine, robot, a cheap labor, or cheap genius or a software system waiting to eat your job. there will stay in texas that all you ever get is all you ever got chemical you ever get is all you ever get -- if all you ever do is all you have ever done in dahlia ever get is all you ever got is also not applicable. dahlia ever do is all you've ever done, all you ever get will not be all you've ever gotten.

you will be below average. and there is nothing really down there anymore. bethesda md. fifty years ago the biggest employer in baltimore was bethlehem steel company. you could get a job to the job of high-school, join the union can have a job, and cal career, buy more goods, have a yard, two kids and the stock and retire with dignity and grace and live a great life and go to will organs and we can see. today it is basically gone. the biggest employer this johns hopkins university medical center. they do not let you cut the grass at johns hopkins without a be a. that shift, okay, is what is going on in every city in the country. so we have to educational challenges right now. we need to bring our bottom to our average so much faster.

that is the three hours, reading to our riding, and arithmetic. if you do not have a high-school degree that allows you access to post secondary education without much remediation or any and all there is basically nothing down there that would give you an average life style, but at the same time we need to raise our average to the global average so much faster. that is about creativity, collaboration, and communication in how we nurture those in our young people. we have this simultaneous dual education. how do we lean into this world? have two daughters in there mid- twenties, and i can only tell you what i tell them. i am an old fuddy-duddy. i am so lucky. when i graduated college in 1978, graduated from graduate school. i got to find a job. what i tell my girls is, you will have to invent a job. it may not be your first job, but to keep that first job you

will have to invent and reinvented job in this hyper connected world. how do you lean into this world? i have three pieces apparently advised that we offer in the book -- excuse me, one second. the first is, things like and immigrants. the second is, things like an artist and. the third is, think like a waitress at perkins pancake house in minneapolis. my favorite restaurant. as. how does the immigrant think? the elegant thinks i just showed up here in washington d.c. there is no legacy place waiting for me at georgetown or howard university. i'd better figure out what is going on in this city, or the other attendees are, and pursue them with a note in it -- more energy, bigger, and consistency than anybody else. we're all new ambergris a hipper connected world.

second, think like an artist's hand. this is an idea from the harvard labor economist. that person in the middle ages who made every item one off. what is the best artists as to? there were so proud of this their work that they carve their initials and date. they brought something extra. do your job every day as if you would be ready and desirous of carving your initials into it at the end of the day. take pride in what you do. that will be your extra. think like a waitress. i was working on this book he read was home in minneapolis, home town, having breakfast on a sunday morning with my best friends. seven a.m. to my order three

buttermilk pancakes and scrambled eggs. order three burro pancakes and fruit. after 15 minutes the waitress came back, but are to place down and also said was, i gave you extra effort. she got a 50 percent tip from us. the waitress did not control much, but she controlled the fruit little. [laughter] that was her extra. she was doing what she was thinking on to really. you want to lean into diaper connected world, think like an immigrant's of the hungry, think like an artist's intimate take pride, and things like a waitress, always think of charlie. somewhere in all that you will find your extra because average is officially over. we all now lives in paris and dealers fictional lake for all the men are strong, the women are beautiful, and the children are above average.

so that is basically its diaper connected world. i've won't do with debt, deficit, and climate. less talk for a few minutes before we get to q&a. out of we get here? had to begin here? our political system is broken. it is broken for a lot of reason . the gerrymandering of political districts. it is broken because of the way the media has been fragmented, and most of all because money and politics are completely out of control. our congress, i am not at all reluctant to say, has become a forum for legalized bribery. that is exactly what it is. until we get over that the political system is broken. one of my favorite quotes in this book is from mike murphy,

the political consultants to work with mccain. makes a very wise political adviser. told the interesting story. when he was just kidding started he had a friend in the business. i think what negative campaign. people often ask why did burger king never attacked mcdonald's. why did burger king never taken out ads say mcdonald's hamburgers have maggots in them? he said very simple answer. first rule of advertising, never killed the category. never kill the category. friends, we have killed the category of politics in this country, just when we need it the most. that is what has gone on. that is the first big problem. second, we have had a fundamental value decline in this country. we have gone for my greatest

generation that believed in saving to a baby boomer generation that is a lot of good things, but unfortunately also believed in borrowing and spending. we have gone from a generation that believed in sustainable values, values that sustain, releases its, communities, families, businesses where you were to sustainable to a generation that believed in sustainable values and doing what the situation allows. if all you want is to buy it in $800,000 house and you can only certain brendan income and the only had the you have is your delta sky miles car, no problem. if the situation allows it to do that i will adjust to it. that is the decline we have come to. the most important thing we need to understand, and this is why

our book has a backward looking title, but a forward looking theme is that we have within our history and our laws and our society all the resources to make this work. we did not give here by accident. we did not become the world's richest country, most respected country by accident. we got here because we actually had a formula for success. we outlined it. it is a very simple, 5-part formula that dates back to hamilton and was nurtured and interest by every president since. five key parts. one that we always educated our people up to and beyond whether the technology was. so when it was the cotton gin we made sure everyone had universal primary education. what was the factory we make sure everyone at universal secondary education. now it is a supercomputer we need to make sure everyone has universal post-secondary education for. we educate our people up to and

beyond what of the technology was the victim if the most. we have the world's most open immigration policy in the last half century, if not more. we invited then the world's most energetic and talented immigrants when they came here and started new companies and lit a fire of constant fire under our society. third, we have the world's best infrastructure, roads, airports, interstates, highways that the whole world cup. fourth, we have the best rules to all rules and regulations for capital formation to incentivize risks taking into provincial recklessness. leslie, we had the most government-funded research. pushing up the boundaries of science and gimmicks in biology so are venture-capital lists to pluck off the best -- best flowers and makers of all these new companies. that was our five part formula for success. it was the essence of the world's greatest public private partnership.

whenever i here people stand up and say, i was just one lonely guy, i did all of this on my own, i say, you didn't do diddly on their own. okay. what you did you did not build those roads. he did not set up those courts, establish the rule of law, build this telecommunications system. you did nothing on your own. we did it thanks to a great public-private partnership for each one sector of the other. well, look where we are today. -- [applause] thank you. well, let's just do a little check on our formula for success today. education, according to the test for our 15-year olds in math and reading comprehension are now in the middle of the pact with slovenia and argentina, wonderful, and -- countries don't and never really considered our peer competitors. innovation, well, if he was the republican debate, who could put up more electric fences to put our people out. that was the message. go away.

if you happen to come here and did it agree, ticket degree and get the hell out of here. okay. .. that looks like an ekg heading for a heart attack. so think about it, friends. we are not happy about it. i was taught about how we are

exceptional obama doesn't say were were exceptional enough. you get to carry around all your life. you are your batting average in right now we are adding about 216. that's the real truth. because if you look at our five par for the first success, every one of them is heading down. what do we do about it? it seems to me very simple. we need a hybrid politics because we need to do three things at once. we need to cut spending because we have made promises to the next generation we cannot possibly keep, particularly in health care. second, we need to raise revenue because they cannot cut and shut our social safety net because there is no capitalism without safety net. believe me, capitalism is the hurdle, type system. one thing i understand his capitalism is about greater discussion.

lastly, we need to invest. we need to invest in our airports and roads and all those elements of reform success. so our problem right now is very simple. our problem right now is that we need to do three things that do not correspond to the stated agenda because we need to cut, we need to tax and we need to invest. we need a hybrid politics. and i am still hoping that this election will not be an attempt for republicans to demonize president obama as a kenyan socialist cover for democrats to demonize mitt romney as the accents of a rapacious capitalists and to see which one can win by 50.00's heroes 01%, with no mandate to do what we need to do. we need a president who wins

this election to meet with the following mandate. one is a plan, short-term plan to invest in major infrastructure projects. i'm not saying this for your benefit. never one of our cities to upgrade our infrastructure and to invest in post secondary education for more of our young people. we can borrow that money today at 2%. that's an investment which we need. we need to couple that in my view with the simpson bowles plan or its equivalent or long-term spending cuts to get our fiscal house in order. and by the way, if you don't pair the two together, you never get bipartisan support for either one. or, we need a plan that is fair. rich have to pay more. it had a comfortable two decades, but everybody has to pay something. we are all in this together. and lastly, we need a plan

that's aspirational. it's not just about balancing the budget. i didn't sign-up for tax day. i signed up for the fourth of july. this is the fourth of july country. come to people and tell them you have a great plan were short team fixing our infrastructure, for long-term fixing the deficit is going to be fair and aspirational. i tell you, that person is going to be the next president of the united states. i think the country so far ahead of our politics now. they are dying for someone to be bold in that way. radically responsible, radically reshoot mary and radically honest. if we have a campaign that's about smearing each other, i tell you, stash of money under the mattress. if we have a campaign of two competing visions of how we actually fixed this country, put every dollar you have in the stock exchange because it's going to go up by thousands of

points. the press lets them play right now and that's certainly what i'm watching for her. although mason the sameness. i began by saying i am a frustrated optimist. by now you are entitled to ask, mr. friedman, we get the frustration. we're from timestamp to miss him? shrugs. i use a lot of drugs. [laughter] no, nobody tweets that. that's a joke. my optimism comes very simply from being a reporter and having traveled around this country to me several books now. the one thing that keeps me an optimist about america is that this country is still full of people, thank god, who just didn't get the word. they didn't get the word that were decline. they didn't get the word that germany is our lunch and they go

out and start stuff and take steps and repair stuff to. thank god. want to be an optimist about america, stand in your head. the country look so much better from the bottom up in the top down. i started my book entry into or up in connecticut near new haven. set in the presence of this, first talk i gave at the boat. he said with your quinnipiac university. we just started another school. i said you just started the new medical school in the middle of a recession? to shoot at the word? no, they didn't get the word. one of my favorite quotes in this book is from a marine colonel from iraq when he ask you why does search they they said mr. friedman, we were too to quit. this country is still full of people too to quit thank god. in my last book i got to travel over the country to the energy environment and energy innovation. i and every talk with people coming up to me and giving me

their business cards of all their energy ats. i mean, amazing stuff. mr. friedman, i can turn a turbine. i heard the craziest status and i'd go back to my room at the end of the day and empty my pockets in my hotel room of business cards from all these innovative rock stars. i did business cards, but they really exciting in their own way has got to tell you. but what they tell you is the country is alive. it is so alive, which is what i've always said if i could try picture of america, it would be a picture of the space shuttle taking off. all that incredible thrust coming from below, that's us. if all those innovators, all the people down there who didn't get the word. unfortunately, our booster rocket, washington d.c. and the five-part formula is cracked and leaking energy and the pilots and the cop made are fighting over the flight plan.

so great that we can achieve escape blossoms. we can't get to where we need to go even though there's all that is coming from below and that's why we have to fix the booster rocket and we need to get the patterns to stop fighting over the flight plan. [applause] that's why france, as i said, we have a lovely children from china and india and the lava coming from brazil. the theme of this book is not about any of those countries. the theme of this book is about everything am advocating we've done before. everything am talking about comes out of a formula for success is 200 years old. we need to create our own. the country we need to rediscover his america. that used to be yes and it can be again. thank you very much. [applause] thank you.

[applause] thank you. >> you know, tom, i read your column religiously. i have read the world is flat and that used to be us. i have seen you in an audience on a number of occasions now quietly. you didn't know i was fair. i could tell you every time i hear him, but wisdom that comes out of his mouth, the press stands about what america needs to do and how we need to do it is i think the affirmation of that is the standing ovation you just got. so i saw a man mayoress

mesmerized by your comments. let me say something really quickly and i hope that you'll get a copy of our common sense -- will get you a copy of her common sense jobs agenda. one of the things the mayors have been talking about last year when we put together our stability accord after the tragic shooting of gabrielle giffords, this organization has been calling on the congress to reach across the aisle. many of us -- in fact i spoke to that yesterday has said that since symbols as a template for what we need to do. we need to make investments in infrastructure and we put a plan together not just to get behind the surface transportation bill, but america trust password and they will put up or local money. you incentivize localities to do that? bonus for money, will pay you back. it doesn't go against the type.

we can create a million jobs, just with america fast-forward one. across the board, this organization -- my acclamation by the way over the last three years has taken a position in support of comprehensive immigration reform. both areas. we'll give it to them. [inaudible] [laughter] and by the way, this common sense jobs agenda we went to democratic and republican think tanks. we didn't just come you know, this is a bipartisan organization. we said, what if people supported over the last 50 years have had bipartisan support? these are some of the initiatives that we were told we get bipartisan support? and virtually none have been approved by this congress. i want to thank you. i opened it up to you. i have about 10 minutes, maybe

15. i think there's going to be a few questions here. i like to ask mayors, by the way you stand up and give your name. >> please. where you from? >> mayor chandigarh from regime, wisconsin. >> with great tasting water, which are not drinking right now. i know. >> you made a comment that it's important, which as he sat happily get that? had we get politicians that? i'm going ask you to do something. you obviously have been on sunday morning tv shows. you are someone who is obviously well read. and i will read to argue that when i seen you on sunday morning tv shows initially of congress are senators thayer, one of the most dynamic sunday morning shows was when mayor nutter was on. it was dynamic because while a

the congressmen and senators were going back with ping-pong, our mayor brought the issue back. to logic, reality and getting it done mentality. when they are in the field legros i was on a sunday morning tv show, it is going back to the heart of the issues, but the reality is they are very subtle. so what we see every day in the media is the ping-pong back and forth between congress and republican government. so i guess my question to you is, when do you get these guys back on the tv so we can start hearing the reality of what is going on every day, talk about answers to the questions because the fact is they have them. and that is what the country needs to hear. that's how we start bringing it back. >> is a very important question. murphree dewdney david gregory, host of nbc to answer because i'm just a columnist for "the new york times" and don't have control of any sunday morning

shows good your point is a very important one. those sent to become so screwed if you almost know what everyone is going to say. and having mayors talked about the commonsense agenda i think be very valuable and important. of course he got the old story on tv looks for conflict are your thoughts drives dr. dre's dealership and there's no question about that. but if you make things interesting, i think you can keep viewers. i'll take your point and pass it along to you thank you very much. >> mina micheli welsh economy of university city research is a st. louis suburb. in a previous life i was in the meeting included tenures abc network in washington as well. i'd like to ask your opinion of what responsibility the media has played in this changing world. we yesterday heard a very good report on this in public opinion on a variety of issues, all of

which is in the public domain, most of which has not been focused upon by our national media and local media. our media seems to allow candidate particularly to say whatever they want about anything as fact when in fact the facts do not exist. i think this happens locally and nationally. >> good, good question. i always have to start by saying, i'm not here to represent the media. i only represent itself. i represent my column in "the new york times." what strikes me about the web is that all i can move faster on the web than ever before. mark twain is supposed to have said twice around the world before you listed your shoes. he wasn't talking about the web. talking about the telegraph. here's what's changed.

there's politicized now i'm the "washington post" has a dedicated column that glenn reynolds who i look at it every day to check facts after every debate. i have even noticed to be the republican candidates are quoting the fact checkers now against each other. and so, give the media a little too fair. i think sometimes we react understandably. someone says something that goes all over the world. and don't see actually how good and how immediate a lot of the country is. i think that's quite healthy. that's a real problem for you and for me. but that is -- the web is extremely good at current doing things as quickly and as well as that disseminates them, so thank you. please.

i'm sorry, she had a mic i look over here. >> i have the mic. [laughter] i am from fremont, california. i have a first-generation immigrant to this country 15 years ago. >> from? >> ecuador, india. my name is an e-mail address and shared >> you are the mayor fremont? >> ask him and the mayor fremont. i take my aerobatic every year and in the land of little she compared to an 8-year-old in bangalore. and yet when i come back to my community at a local level, all of the mayors here can relate to the silos created between cities, school districts and the lack of communication. besides the plan to take over the school districts, which you suggest in terms of us working together and created an infrastructure not just for higher education, but for a basic fundamental education for our kids? >> wow, that is such a big

question, but it's a very one. when we think about a lot. my wife is the chairman of the board and read the charter or disclosure in washington d.c. in my data to teach for america and be seen as a teacher in the school system. so we talk about this a lot. i'm happy to brag, but i'm telling you is a subject near and dear to our heart. it is how they look generally at all of our problems, which is what does america today we think fundamentally as with laughter ability to act collectively in all the problems we face require collective action. he cannot face the education problem without collect election where there goes the debt and deficit problem. the fundamental thing with losses of the ability to act collectively. our view that education is very simple. we actually cofounded the colorado teacher reform bill, which we think is a really good

bill that worked collaboratively with the teachers union and won the approval of one of the teachers unions, you know, for their reform and is one not searchingly puts teachers under review, but does it in a fairway and collaborative collaborative way. so there is no question a great teacher can make a huge difference in a young person's life. we know that. a bad teacher for several years can make a hugely destructive difference a week to address that fall on commercial or they did a wonderful job here in washington pioneer in that. i think people are finding all different ways to go down that route but i really feel that. but we think it takes more than that. we think it takes a village. yes, we need better teachers. secondly, we need better parents. [applause] parents who take an active interest every day. i did a column a couple months

ago. there is the people who conducts the pizza exam for the oecd. they did a study underneath the exam with 15,000 kids. they actually went and interviewed their parents. they found parents who did as little a nicer son or daughter what did you do in school today or as little as 40 you reading or working on, let alone by the time you're homer can stay on top of that, those kids perform so much better 10 years later. we need better parents. i'm going to be honest. we need better mayors. breeding mares to travel travel around the world and look not to lower the education standards in their districts so more kids can falsely achieve certain levels, but actually raise them. we need mayors to go to shanghai and say if you understand that your kid wants to get into grenell now, who are they competing with?

they're not competing with the kids in claremont or sacramento. they compete now with a global audience. we need better theaters. we need better neighbors. we need neighbors who are ready to pay education taxes to support local schools with it if kids are not. because without that, i don't have to tell you pay the school pay for the new prison. there is a direct line between failure of local schools and predicting prison population. so we need better neighbors, better business leaders. leaders also taken in choosing a rating schools around them. don't say i can't get it here. and lastly, we need better students. okay, we talking about the age of who sent 40,000 text messages a month and was wondering why she was getting c's and b's. if you sent 40,000 text messages a month and are coming to school ready to learn and understand just what a hyperkinetic give an hypercompetitive world you are

in were averages over, you're going to be roadkill and there's no two ways about it. i said when i wrote the world is flat my parents used to say to me, tom, finish your dinner. people in china and india are starving. i say girls, finish her homework because people in china and india are starving for your jobs. if kids don't know that they're going to find it. our kids are too stressed out and johnny and susie suzy need to be on face the enemy of wrestling practice in the play. look, we want to have a rich and diverse experience. i don't want my kids to be stressed out. but i'll tell you that stress is. stress is not understanding the four anaximander bus. that will be stressed. so we need to face up your thoughts widely like the tiger balm. there's only one thing. we talk about.

the boat. i'll tell you about the tiger mom. she ain't a blog. there are millions and millions of tiger bombs out there. i'm sure you're one of them. so that is their view and education. thank you. >> may ippolito -- mayor pulido. earlier you talked about how sometimes been too to click and be a real asset. i believe we are all too to quit as mayors. we're in touch with our communities than they often don't get it now. i see go up there, you see people all the time of great projects are making a difference. two questions for you. in california would get part of the old highway 66 on their actually is a café called the roadkill café on the highway now because you've got highway 40.

if we are not careful we'll be on the wrong highway ourselves and that is part of what you're talking about. the other portion you can allude to a bit is the earlier you mentioned if you kill the category, then you kill everything. i think we as mayors have not killed the category and that is a big difference. could we in any way to something in the area such that maybe others could begin to stop killing the category because that really undermines their efforts. >> is a really important question. we have a chapter in the book on the subject. it's called shock therapy. we think the system needs a shot. by the way, it's going to get a shock from the market, mother nature or the middle, one of those places. we are going to get a shock if we keep going along at this. i hope it isn't the market or mother nature because i will be brutal and messy. the chapter is about a third party. i believe in incentives.

life is about incentives really. move to cheese, move the mouse. don't move the cheese, the mouse doesn't move. i don't know if we'll see an emergence of a third party. there's a lot of talk around about it. i go back and forth myself whether i want it. it seems to me someone rent tomorrow, a responsible person on this kind of centrist ticket that i've talked about and showed their 40% to 50% of the country that believes in not, that would be a huge piece of cheese that i think would have taken great out of by our politicians. let's remember teddy roosevelt did this in 1912, had a huge impact on progressive reform after him. george wallace did in 1968 and had a huge negative impact after him and ross perot did in 1992. ross perot made bill clinton a deficit producer.

so down at the income of the elevator wasn't going all the way to the top. yet, ross perot must remember 120% of the vote almost. shows you how americans are really hungry a thing. i think if president obama -- the president said i'm going to shuck off all of this, go home. i am going to run and radically responsible, radically bold, radically revisionary campaign. one thing democrats to use republicans are impossible in trying to stop everything. i'm not going to change whether it's sure not. there's a lot of truth, but we can debate that later. my frustration is that all may be true in congress, but the administration has never gone to the people. these people are blocking me. i actually go to the people with a real plan. i'm going to keep going to them. i will call up since then her

bowls or whoever the republicans voted in st. louis and girls, we're going to go all across this country until every american why we need a grand bargain, why it's good for us, what it will contain, why start, what is the solution. if you did that for a month, i i think the congress would get the message, you know. that is my frustration. i know there is gridlock here. but what do we do? do we sit back and say and initiate for 50.0001 by turning bain capital into a four letter word? levesque races somebody wins by 50.0001 and has no mandate. so we are back in the same suit. if we are back in the same suit, you know, we sometimes forget -- we kind of tossed his country around like it is a football. it is not a football. it's actually a forever say a good you can drop it, you can

break it. i really don't want to be the generation that is known for not having had the responsibility to pass on the american dream to the next generation, but that is right where we are headed. so we've got time for one more. >> thank you. there's been a lot of talk recently, some of the major companies have made significant gains and increase their bottom line by outsourcing a lot of their work. recently, a number of companies announced they are bringing some of the work back. president obama announced the certain senate to create more peninsular steam environment. what is your view on that? >> i have it done any sort of full-blown study of it, but i hear it's going on. i still think there's a lot of outsourcing. the thing you have to understand if i were to do it on the world

is flat, this is what it would be about. if we go from a connected to hyper connected world, outsourcing is over. there is no more out and there is no more aim. basically we are entering an age with a little sticker on your computer should say, made in the world because more and more things are made in america, made in china, they're actually made in the world. the whole idea of the next word is really so 20th century. if you look at all these products, how do we think about that made in the world? certainly want to be part of the supply chain. hopefully the high-end manufacturing side of that. but what we really want to aspire to as the country is not just made in america. but what part of that. but we want to aspire to is imagined in america. we want to be the place where

things are imagined and orchestrated. they've done a study of the ipod. i do have the figures exactly right, but if the ipod made 1 dollar, basically 10 cents into china and 90 cents went to california and the shareholders of apple could either because it is where products are imagined and where that global supply is orchestrated and how it is orchestrated as for the best jobs will be. and so, we have to get out of the whole outsourcing name because if you talk to global manufacturers, they live in a world now where they will go wherever the talent is and make him go. so you do not have to be curt carlson of sri stanford research institute. either they come units. on your iphone. they invented it. courage has a saying, you don't

want to be best in class -- when i have a project at apple company there should be a phone that talks back to you. adults they can you the best in my company do this. give me best in class because he wants to be in the same class of people? out best in the world. so what curt carlson does when he gets a project, he literally goes inside, who is the best in the world now? i see that in my business. i got a real clear politics when i want to read about the world. i can read the best columns in the world. things will be made in the world. the whole idea of developed and developing countries is 20th century. i think we go in the world of hae is an ally he is, high imagination enabling countries of and the imagination enabling countries. we are the highest imagination enabling country in the world and what's it that way because that's where products are imagined and orchestrated with a big projects are. either by the way, in cupertino,

not everyone works are apple but the caterers and the lawyers and the service people, you know, there is going to be a lot of jobs, many of them decent, good jobs for everybody down the line, as long as we are at the cutting edge of that sphere. so basically i see this in countries. with the high imagination countries understand is basically the single most important comparative advantage you can have as a country now is the ability to do this, spark ideas. if i've got this now, i can go to delta in taiwan and do this. ali baba will give me a chinese manufacturer or gentoo seattle, amazon.com, gentle damascus on a delivery go to france.com and look at someone to do with design a logo from its 95 and

craigslist will give me my account. they are all now come except this. but we want is a country full of people doing that basically. the more people are doing a come of the more we get part of the manufacturing only get part of the orchestration. but the goal now has to not just be made in america. i don't want to throw that overboard, we want that. the real aspiration has to be imagined in america. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> if you have a saudi prince who is part of the royal family in saudi arabia, who is effectively but one of the largest news franchises in the world, you have to look at whether his motives?

>> i think there is an argument should be made that should have to register as a foreign agent given the blueprints and its corporate structure. >> now, you look at u.s. foreign policy in asia. secretary of state, curt kurt campbell spoke at the center in washington about relations with china and taiwan. he said the u.s. is seeking to resume the six party talks with north korea about its nuclear program. this is an hour 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the stimson center in the first adjustment of the chairman's forum of 2012.

and the chairman of simpson. please show me in welcoming our guest from the assistant secretary of state for asian and pacific affairs,.or kurt campbell. [applause] this is a very auspicious way for a program to begin the year. dr. campbell is a highly accomplished foreign-policy expert. as you know, before he entered government this time, he cofounded and was ceo of the ink tank, center for a new american security and truly distinguish itself in a short time period were envious. he was director of the aspen strategy group on the chairman of the editorial board of washington quarterly, previously founder of the strategic advisory firm. he was a senior vice president at csi s. entire harvard at kennedy school at csi. he previously served with distinction as deputy assistant secretary for asia in the clinton administration and previously worked in the white

house and the treasury department and was an officer in the united states navy, and author, truly an expert on the subject. i have another particular regard. i'm an old-school guy. i like assistant secretary of state who are masters of their domain, who are truly experts in their subject, was foreign-policy gravitas from our strategic thinkers and principal advisers to secretary of state and president on their subject. dr. campbell fulfills that though and then some. i'd like to start. i'm delighted to have you here. i will do my best to go through issues, starting with the pivot to asia and ending with china was allowed in between. i'll move quickly enough to leave room for your questions. we'll intermingle i guess questions of media questions and so i will ask for one or the other and we have to make the best use of the hour. to start,.or campbell, thank you for coming. i want to ask you that the

administration spivey to asia. secretary clinton wrote an article of the of the president went to asia 10 days. the word of it was acted by secretary of defense is clearly a signal. my first question is a bit of a trick question. the word that implies thinking where you fight are pushing off away from where you are towards somewhere else. so at a time in the middle east is arguably just beginning to read the first chapter of its future, i understand we are drawing down interventions in afghanistan and iraq and when a plan to move troops to asia. there's much more to it than that. what is the message to the middle east? who are involved in this whole process. every disinvest in the middle east? are reducing strategic interests? i think it's important to start there. >> first of all, can i think layne who has been an old friend for many, many years in a very much the invitation.

the stimson center has done terrific work in many arenas under allen's leadership, who has been a good friend and very innovative thinker on many subjects for decades and has put together a great team. i work with you, ellen romberg and many others, so it's great to be a simpson and i really appreciate the opportunity. let me first say that i think what the president, secretary of state, secretary of defense and all other u.s. officials have tried to indicate is in many respects, much of the history of the 21st century is going to be written in the asian pacific region, the place of the fastest growing economies, extraordinary economic dynamism, very real challenges of non-proliferation, climate change, trained national issues come historical rivalries and the united states has a desire, a bipartisan desire to

play deepening wrote in the asia-pacific region. but senior officials have also indicated as we have extraordinary robust interests. not just in the middle east and south asia, but europe as well. i think the intention of what the administration has tried to say is we indeed want to step up our game. but within the context in an endearing manner of bipartisan engagement, but in no way walkaway from our engagements elsewhere. and so, one of the things we'll be doing over the course of the next year is if you look at our dialer, for instance between united states and europe, we have robust discussions on on almost every issue, on the moniker of, afghanistan, iraq

and the like. but one of the few issues have not talked much about his asia. in fact what we want is to ensure that i speak together engage asia communities in europe that we work more closely together in designing commercial and strategic and political strategies that are hopefully going to rebound in our favors. >> let me ask you about alliances and friendships. we have five treaty allies and i wanted to just ask you, what will be different about the management of those alliances and friends like singapore and others who are very important to the united states in its security policy? >> well, i've had the honor and privilege to people and to serve in asia for a few decades. in the 1990s, one of the things we often found when we traveled, senior officials as criticism about the united states here and there.

one of the things that is interesting about this current. it's in every capital we visited, most asian ask for more american attention, time and focus, whether that's on economic or commercial, political or strategic side. so it is a very welcome arena for american activism and we are grateful for that. so i think what she's seen over the course of the last couple years is not a particular country focus. right, we haven't focused on one country and not others. using for instance after 25 years with remarkably little engagement, we have a much more robust relationship with new zealand. that has been fascinating, working very closely with the emerging countries in the g20 like south korea, indonesia, vietnam is playing a much more

important role with regard to its economic impeachments. we have a thriving friendship with a number of other countries. singapore as you mentioned, taiwan, all the countries in northeast asia and also a recognize how important it is to have a strong, durable, project the relationship between the united states and china. that is what the country and region expected depend on going forward. >> i'm going to go from south to north you like to talk about one treaty, thailand, which had an election last year, sister of the former theater. i'm curious as to what the exit tatian is basically on the security side. the pacific command has always looked to thailand for a lot of useful roles as a treaty ally.

what do you think the tenor of the u.s. alliance will be going forward onto the new leadership? >> let me say one of the things we want a much a success. ging lauck won a very strong majority in her election. she almost immediately has faced some of the most difficult imaginable challenges of historic, almost biblical proportions have buffeted her and her young government. we've had a chance to visit. the secretary has had good meetings with her. she had a chance to have some very intense interactions with the president, which we conveyed our determination to support magistrate on terms of the crisis in its immediate aftermath, but the longer-term agriculture and sanitation in the lake. thailand is an extraordinarily important treaty ally.

it serves merely as the link and much of our comic dvd with the middle east and you find much military capability that traverses tybee says. but as importantly, thailand has been a convening country in terms of our multilateral exercises and other engagements in the regional forum. i think that cooperation if anything has grown. what we've seen throughout southeast asia is a deepening a political ties, but also security ties have kept up almost other all the militaries of southeast asia want to trade more, interact when the united states. so when the attack about the shift to asia, it is not simply reapportion enforcers from the middle east and south asia to asia per se. it is also about diversifying

our engagements in asia more generally. we have a number of bases and facilities in northeast asia. are looking to do more in southeast asia. the president announced that he was in australia and parts and determination to have marines trained and stationed in northern australia. it is also the case in terms of operational concepts, the linkage between the indian ocean and pacific and how to design strategies, operations and training routine that reflect these new strategic realities is really the challenge of the next phase of american strategic thinking. >> interesting. and that same region of course, one country -- one oteri with the we've had almost no contact with burma and extraordinary developments have occurred with the sushi and being released

from house arrest, forming a party, sort of the democratization process. she herself was asked whether the power behind the leader, the military still running things. i guess i would ask for your outlet. do you think the democratization process is substantial? is it real? does it portend in strategic terms any difference in the way burmah interacts with southeast asia, with the united states and our interests? >> i think it's a great question. since august last year we have seen very substantial changes along the path. many of us have laid out historically have been addressed or are being addressed the government. you may know that senator mcconnell, mccain and lieberman have all just been in or have left burma in the last

several hours the last few days. all of them have issued statements welcoming the steps that have taken place. i'll have indicated they are encouraged by the progress on the ground and that indicating the united states must be prepared to respond, but also more work needs to be done. if you look at some of the things that have taken place, first to release a sushi decision to contact in the april 1st elections and to register and participate as an widely recognized and supported. there are a series of efforts underway inside the country to attempt to deal with what is really the most pressing set of challenges associated with just horrible ethnic violence that we are watching closely some of the nascent cease-fires and i have a

are emerging, still too early to tell, but at least be a despair. we are very clear about our expectation of ending certainly tear you ties between north korea and vermont. we have received assurance is in this regard. it doesn't end there. there have been a number of other legislative steps to find to improve the quality of civic life inside the country. i think some important steps associated with the role of the legislator. so even as we regarded the election that brought the president and 92 powered as illegitimate, we see a number of things taking place in the current atmosphere that are welcoming to be encouraged. the secretary had a good visit.

in december. unsung sushi welcomed warmly or approach that we were doing it just about right and has indicated it's time to take steps to respond. we've indicated we will take our -- we will fully reestablish diplomatic engagement by sending an ambassador there. and we are deeply involved in serious, almost regular dialogue with the authorities. with the authorities. there is still. there is still an enormous amount that is troubling, but they are also very encouraging sign that have to be recognized in half to be regarded. the united states is trying to up that line, both acknowledging, supporting reform but also indicating authorities to be done. one of the benefit since link is

a member of the word of opposition, one of the most important things about asia policy is for generations it is generally been bipartisan. the general foundations and tenets of american strategy are greatly appreciated on both sides of the political aisle. you see that playing out in burma, a dialect matches between republicans and democrats, but between the executive and legislative branches over the course of the last couple of decades. in many respects to most of our major policy initiatives were designed and implemented and the legislative range. there will need to be a partnership in place as we go forward. i am personally encouraged anything this is one of the most dramatic developments than secretary clinton and others have indicated in global politics today. we will do what we can to

support it and encourage it to work with many voices inside the country. >> after so many decades of no movement, it really is a dramatic, historic change. let me turn to a country that is listed among the emerging powers along with china, and yet did namely indonesia a very strategically important country which our australian allies are focused on. we've had a pronounced legislatively, restrictions and issues in the past. in general terms, what is the outlook? what part of the pivot to asia will indonesia see bilaterally are multilaterally? >> well, i think indonesia like almost all countries in asia will come a stronger deeper american engagement. storyline has shifted from a few years ago in which primary concerns were about whether the united states would draw or be focused at all anisha. the big storyline questions that

are asked now are, will this level of engagement be sustained? that is a hard question, but it's a better question previous to be honest. i believe americans appreciate opportunities and challenges of asia and its inquiry to up to the challenge. what indonesia is primarily interested in bizarre institutional commitments. so we have as you know joined east asia summit. we are strongly supporting regional gathering of defense ministers. we are actively participating in a working groups of the regional forum. we are attempt team to reinvigorate important institutions that have economic roles like aipac and also ensuring the economic strategies linked to these larger institutions as a whole. indonesia wants bastien to be a centerpiece of how we are

engaging. we've appointed ambassador and we were close with them on every issue, whether it's questions associated with climate change, indonesia is a huge player in global climate negotiations on issues relating to maritime security of which indonesia has played a key in an crucial role. we have a comprehensive partnership in which it is not as as some things. we have a whole host of commercial, educational, scientific people to people changes. but it is really developed deeper ties between the united states and indonesia over the course of the last several years. indonesia is starting to play a role not as the leader in aussie on, but a role in its own right in the g20 and we welcome that, support it and i'm very

optimistic that if you had to make a list of those countries that were important to united states, that the united states did not fully appreciate important, indonesia would be high on that list. i hope that this engagement will start to change that there will be a wider recognition of how important role-plays atchison south east asia, but asia as a whole. >> a longtime close friend of the united states, the philippines also enjoyed a visit from the senatorial delegation. what is your assessment of sort of the security situation of the philippine, type of engagement we've had with an urgency. senators senators called for been attempted for the arms request. people for a long time to put the philippine economy would catch fire and move forward. what is your assessment? >> look, i am very bullish on

the philippine. it is hard not to be guided and impress by president aquino. he thinks he has six stumbled an extraordinarily able team. foreign ministry, defense ministry, many bureaucracies and agents these designed to combat corruption. he has been determined to ensure those prep sizer followed. you are beginning to see uptick in growth in the philippines. so i think we have established a new institutional affiliation called the partnership for growth in which the participant for asia is the philippines and that has to direct and substantial resources to them in the fight against corruption. i think as you indicated we have cooperated closely with them again beneath the radar screen for a decade on challenges that

are best described almost as counterinsurgency and other aspects of dealing with disruptive local forces. the next phase of our engagement will be more in terms of how the united states and philippine forces can work together, how we can train more regularly, how we can support maritime domain awareness and deep in across-the-board engagement for a whole host of reasons. i think everything we've seen to date has been quite impressive actually. the meeting that the two leaders have been baldly, i think the two countries laid a road map of road map of areas we wanted to work together over the course of the next several months.

>> u.s. vietnam relations their various worried. we have reached a point where there seems to be a new generation, quite a bit more potential. i guess my question is, how far, how fast and will there be some sense of this coming at the expense of china's happiness? >> well, we have made clear our desire to have a strong relationship with vietnam. they are part of the transpacific partnership. we have had regular high-level engagement. it is clear the vietnamese would like to do more with the united states and i think we would as well. we have indicated that really what has prevented that kind of rapid development of bilateral ties, and hope for our continuing human rights issues inside the country than argue have to be addressed