more seriously to allow for the kind of support in the united states that we saw, for instance, when we established relations. if an increasingly the same senators and congressmen who came to see me in the 1990s, urging us to establish diplomatic relations and many of the same people who come to me today and say look vietnam means to do more. the recurring problems on issues of how various minorities are treated, religious freedoms and the like and this is a persistent point we have made. we have the strategic discussions with them. i think would like to do more of course. vietnam is eminently aware of this position in asia, his relationship with china and i think our desire would be to have the strategic interaction that would be transparent and

open them to build on larger trust and confidence in asia in general. >> i'm going to move to taiwan which just had an election. president moss surprise people that carry the election fairly handily. what is your read on him locations that have been realized to and the defeat his opponent who was perhaps the most much less amenable to cooperative cross straits relations and possibly pushing for independence? ..

we would like to see taiwan take some of the necessary steps and other issues that the election is over that will allow us to have the kind of flourishing economic relationship the we have with many other countries in the asian-pacific region. and so you know, i think there are some unofficial base that we can do and in the current environment we look forward to a dialogue and hearing more about what their goals and ambitions are for the second term. >> what is the administration's

thinking on current and future measures to satisfy taiwan's self-defense requirements under the taiwan relations act? >> well, having been in a job like this you understand that there is of rhode answer to this, which i will give. the taiwan relations act of which is an incredibly important piece of legislation an example of legislative diplomatic leadership that is judge very clearly what the challenges are to maintain peace and stability in the western pacific and our own right the success of presidents and administrations have done. evaluate the demonstration and provide the appropriate defensive capabilities to taiwan. i believe that that has been the case of previous of ministrations, and that is certainly the case in the obama administration and we will continue to follow that quite clearly. we don't talk about them in

public but we understand very clearly the set of circumstances . >> let me put a little bit further north to north korea where we have just seen the passing of kim jong-il the succession apparently of the young son, kim jong-un. and yesterday, i believe you met with japanese and korean south korean counterparts and called for the resumption of 6-party talks. what is your sense of the prospect for progress on 6-party talks? >> well, look. the secretary and the president late last year appointed glyn davies as our north korea -- he really speaks directly to these issues on a daily basis. i would simply say that right now we are in the closest possible consultation with south korea, japan working closely with china to try to get a sense of what is taking place in terms

of the succession the potential policy priorities of the new government. it is still early. i think we have made very clear our preparation to have a different kind of relationship with north korea, if they are prepared to take the necessary steps on nonproliferation and other issues that will lama only for an improvement in relations between the united states and north korea but most importantly as a first-ever the release of between 03 and south korea, which we think is absolutely essential as the gateway any more fundamental the engagement, and we would like to see a return to the 6-party talks. and we will pursue diplomacy accordingly with our interlocutors in lockstep with south korea and japan.

there is a comment by the older brother which is supported by example it -- japanese journalists that says kim jong-un will just be a figurehead.

the collapse of the economy is within sight but reforms also invite dangerous for the regime. granted he is not the authoritative spokesman of the north korean elite. i would like to ask you what should the united states foreign policy community think that they have not been thinking about in terms of this group this elite the stunning situation what tools, what approaches, what signals might give us -- send a better signal to influence the situation and move it toward a safer peninsula? >> well, for obvious reasons i'm not going to get into hypothetical sir. our determination will be to preserve peace and stability on the peninsula. we do care and follow the well-being and the welfare of the north korean people. and we also believe that

ensuring that there is an appropriate high-level exchange of pertinent information among key players including china russia japan south korea and the united states, that is absolutely is it's going forward . and we spend enormous amounts of time thinking about focusing on developments in north korea. all i can say is that it is probably too early to make any clear determinations about the ultimate character of this new leadership inside north korea. we have made clear through both public channels and privately that we are prepared to start a new chapter, to deal fairly with outstanding issues of nuclear matters and the like. and we do that in the closest possible coordination with south

korea and japan. i think what is noteworthy is how careful all of the surrounding countries have been over the course of the last month. his only been a month in the day since the announced death of kim jong-il, but is also the case that as you know, there was a substantial time between his death and the public announcement in which no one apparently knew that this had taken place including some of the closest interlocutors in china. that should give us some stability as we watch the set of circumstances unfold in the north. all i can tell you is that we are fully aware that every possible level of the state's and have applied the appropriate sort of strategic thinking. >> yes.

the north has stepped up the same rhetoric that it has under kim jong-il against president lee and his regime -- i'm sorry his government in seoul. my question is, in light of the incident where they killed several sailors nc in a torpedo and since could there be -- if there were one more incident, are you concerned that this could be a flashpoint for escalation between this new formative group in north korea and president lee and his government in south korea? >> this has been an enduring concern. it is not just something that applies to the current set of circumstances but it has for years. we have communicated very directly particularly to our chinese interlocutors, but also publicly that provocative steps have the risk of triggering deeply unforeseen consequences

and that we need to handle the situation with the greatest care. we expect china in their deliberations with the north koreans, to make sure that that message is clearly understood. it is also the case that the south koreans have demonstrated remarkable restraint in the face of repeated provocations but their leaders have made clear that they have reached a point that if they faced further provocations they would have enormous pressure to respond and we understand that. we have urged restraint and care on the parts of the north and we are working in the closest possible partnership with the south. >> i would like to move across the water and of talk of a japan for a moment. the ppj has been in power for a

while. the phenomenon that has been taking it over after 70 years in opposition is passed. we have learned to work very closely with the new government's. they have managed the national catastrophe of the earthquake in tsunami, and no the prime minister seems to be signaling some new momentum and action in 2012 from the bilateral front. what can we expect to see? >> first of all we are quite impressed by the administration. their proposal. they are determined. they're working on a whole host of issues that we think are important for alliance. we are working closely on space issues. we're talking of a larger security dynamics. we are engaged on deliberations associated with the hague convention and the challenge of the ability of american children

that were living in japan and taken from their rightful parents. we are concerned that those issues will be addressed. we also work very closely with them on the outstanding issues. closely interacting on questions associated with the trans-pacific partnership and would japan's ultimate position might be with regard to these deliberations. i think our alliance was on display during the operation. [inaudible] and to many japanese the american forces in japan were simply thought of for generations as just a burden. but one thing that became very clear during that crisis was that every element was the it team of the u.s. government might military abilities nuclear engineers diplomats and others were on call 24 hours

a day. there was very little that we did not to to support japan in its will with of absolute crisis. and in that regard i just want to say people who had retired from service, called back foreign service to stop foreign service officer that was there morning, noon, a night during that time of absolute crisis, and never incredibly proud of that. it made a big impression on our colleagues in japan, and i think has led to a new spirit and recognition of the importance of the alliance, and i would just conclude on that issue. you know, it has often been said that what has happened is that there is no a deeper recognition of the role of the united states and the desire to have a close races to put the united states. now japan strong, steady, good relations improved relations

with north korea and china and all countries in southeast asia. we don't see this as an either or but we do believe this united states -- this relationship with the united states and japan serves as a foundation for doing other things. we think that that recognition has spread across the aisle if you will, and japan. reasons polling reveals the strongest possible support for the united states parlay the strongest measure since polling on these questions began almost 60 years ago. so it is pretty well understood. what is less understood is that the united states is also learning important lessons colleges we do not operate effectively in asia or as effectively without the strong partnership of japan. clearly we have seen improving relations with south korea with other countries. we already discussed some of the station, but having a strong,

durable, and trusting relationship between tokyo and washington really is the foundation for how we operate in asia as a whole, and i think we have learned that. as a consequence we have tried to work hard with them to support them through their politics. prime minister noted is in a very tough fight on the issues associated with a consumption tax and a variety of other issues but i have to say on some level we are rooting for him. and it is not simply because we think he is then able leader, which we do, but it is also the case that you want to start the build of of a track record with the in japan. what is difficult is finally when you start to get the measure of the man of the person that you then have a new leader with which to deal with. the dpj has been in office for just over two years. this is in its third leader peridot nominee foreign ministers we have had. we have had good relationships with all of them, but anyone who

tells you that the policy is somehow cold-blooded and the void of how you feel about it people is wrong. there is a personal dimension to how diplomacy is conducted and how the contacts that have developed through phone calls and meetings matter. they have seen it played out between the presidents and the prime minister of singapore very clearly between lee myung-bak and president obama and president bush and his interlocutors in india and elsewhere in australia. so those connections matter. i find myself one of my daily interlocutors is an ambassador in japan. the fact that we work closely together for 25 years gives me a confidence about how to deal with certain things and that is important. so we would like -- it is not for us to determine, we would

like a degree of continuity if for no other reason than it gives us some constancy in terms of the formulation and execution of american foreign policy with such a critical -- >> i would just jump in and say that the japanese people certainly made an impression of the american people with their resilience and kurds in recovering from tragedy, so i think they won a lot of admiration on this side. >> can i say one other thing? this next year is an extraordinarily important anniversary for us. it is the hundredth anniversary of the gift of 3,000 cherry trees from japan to the estates. so there is going to be numerous celebrations and examples of our partnership all of our leaders will participate. we're very cited. i just want to tell you that the u.s. government is working to do

a reciprocal gifts meant to signal our appreciation for this for which we will donate to japan 3,000 of our finest virginia dogwoods. in past, the species of tree that has been strengthened over decades from contributions from japanese dogwood spirited is sounds easy, but oh, my god. the various things the you have to go through in terms of inspections and the like, we are incredibly sad about it. we are going to do some in tokyo, and we are going to a make sure that there is a part that is in remembrance of the tragedy that struck the northern part of japan just less than a year ago. so i have to say, know these are small things. i find in my job the people-to- people dimensions electability to send much larger numbers of students to china that set up the expo in south

korea to work on a program like this i find these things are in fact, although they can be thought of sometimes this kind of an afterthought they, in fact turn out to be much more enduring "it's more important and make a much larger contribution actually to what we're trying to do in terms of building bridges to diplomacy. >> excellent. well, let me ask you on the security side. other than people who follow canal everyday and are caught up, this has been planned for a long time. there was a natural disaster. we're very sympathetic. and now when years that there is sort of a back to the table let's get this moving. what are we going to see in the next year or two? >> i am not going to -- i think our position remains the same. we believe that the frf is the appropriate step forward.

there are clearly challenges that we face above end okinawa. we have some budget issues on the u.s. side, but i think the u.s. and japanese governments are determined to make a push in 2012 to work closely together and that is what we will do. i will be his opinion about a week and a half of my friend and counterpart. we will be having a discussion with our interlocutors then about the way forward given some of the challenges that we have for congress, some of our ultimate goal is to make sure that our forward deployment in asia remains strong continuing and robust. >> one more on japan before we finish with china and open for questions. just pan has decided to join the trans-pacific partnership. last call, on paper it would appear to be a major opening up if they really do it after 23

years of sluggish economy. is japan, in your view, going to make a significant change in its market access and other reforms that could change the economy? >> look, i would say that the -- sort of the details of the interactions of what exactly japan's position is and our response the other partners, it's best handled by our u.s. trade representative. so i don't want to get into the specific details. >> from a strategic perspective i do believe that finding avenues and areas where the united states and japan can deepen and think in our relations is in the best interests of both countries. and i do think to be the kind of high-quality agreement for the region that at some point larger

economies need to be ejected. yes. but the japan dimension really where we stand of the next steps is relief for our trader into lockers on both sides. all i ask is that we make sure they're is a tendency when our trade in to doctors get together to sort of flash back to late 1970's and early 1980's. it is a different era and we need to recognize clearly the importance of our strategic partnership. >> i would like to a finish with a couple of questions on china and leaves ever questions. hard to do in a short time, the first one a broad gauge. obviously pivoting toward an age where china is a major rising power. all of the plus side, also lot of concern about security and intelligence and military activities. then there are some friends of ours cause some in singapore who keeps reminding us are telling us you only get to invest 20 years and then china will surpass the united states has a

great power. what is your view? >> look. i can say several things. first i would say that there have been a number of times of the last 30 or 40 years in which there were expectations about the demise of american power at the end of the vietnam war the end of the cold war and again today. as many have pointed out not many people have won money betting against the united states. and i think by almost every measurement, in terms of the ingenuity of the american people the enduring strength of our economy almost all issues associated with deficiencies, believe we will be competitive and we will be an very important and dominant player in the asia-pacific region for decades to come, and that think almost

all strategic players in asia understand that and recognize that. it is also the case that in terms of how we think about china i think the more important insights come from a variety of other players around asia. not who is up and down, but what is expected from american diplomacy in from the region as a whole does wants to understand quite clearly that the goal of every country in asia today is to improve their relationship. and this is really not a matter of gm's strategy but geography. and so every country wants a better relationship. any strategy the united states has fraser has to be cognizant of that very basic fact. and in truth, almost all countries in asia also on a closer relationship with the united states because they believe that it better helps them in their own interactions

with beijing. this is destined to be probably the most complex consequential bilateral relationship that the united states has and has had on the global stage either before or going forward, and it is essential that we do everything that we can as i said earlier to develop a predictable durable, strong relationship between our two sides to recognize that there will be issues economic issues, microeconomic questions security as strategic issues where we will differ. but also recognize that these areas of disagreement competition, struggle to place in a larger context recognition on both sides that our two countries have to get along and work together. and i come to see over the course of hundreds and hundreds

and hundreds of hours of diplomacy with my chinese interlocutors, and that no have good friends that i work with on a regular basis on the other side of the table. there is a recognition that we don't have an option, that it is expected and necessary that we need to work through our respective challenges. this will not be easy. it is the essential feature of high diplomacy but i also believe that it is a necessity at a bipartisan level that we recognize that the issues that we have we must find a way to work together to preserve peace and stability and the prosperity that frankly we have all had a hand in and benefited from. >> let me observe that there is something a little bit traditional about the our diplomacy, rising influence military credibility and at least on the security side thing about the implications her

security issues a little bit further afield from china whereas the national security establishment has just gone through two decades for we had colored revolutions in eastern europe and central asia, the arabs bring, none of which had to do with an army invading another army. it was all about internal issues that we did not provoke and had to react to. so it has been a headache. we hope not to have to deal with too many internal problems but with respect to china by m wondering whether the united states government is focused too much on the external implications of the security posture of china and not enough of the scenarios that we would not have had anything to do with but that could become quite onerous in terms of managing our interest dollar should there be problems inside china and beverages not the past and current u.s. ambassador just

broken out into ways to wear badges going typically refer to ambassador huntsman who talked about the coming changes of the nationalistic generation coming into power. these 07 of the nine members of the politburo. no memory of the great leap forward. barely remember the culture of evolution. yesterday ambassador gary locke said and i quote there is a growing frustration among the people over the operations of government law corruption lack of transparency and issues that affect the chinese people on a daily basis that they feel i've been neglected. he added the situation is very delicate very, very delicate. so my question is, are we ready to not to -- not to have had anything to do with it, but are we ready of china as a one-party state has a little bit of trouble managing its internal affairs to the point where it becomes a security issue for everyone.

>> look. i think when we think about these issues above what is going on in china the economic performance domestic. we think about them in that way. i don't think there has been thinking about the security dimensions of what is transpiring in china. frankly, any discussion of that is almost certainly to send the kind of messes that would be profoundly unwelcome in china at every level, not just at the level. >> i wanted to give you the opportunity. >> that is fine. >> i do think that ted is facing many challenges. is the case that in the united states we all know how controversial some of our spending was.

was out as why the report or understood about the stimulus in china is that it is also very controversial, meeting some of the challenges we're facing in terms of overheating of our real estate as a consequence of some of this they're facing carries ambassador lockset, a very delicate leadership transition. our determination in the current. is the man as you know, i think we are anticipating in the not too distant future. who want to destroy very cheerily our determination to have a good relationship between the united states and china. we can clearly demonstrate progress to love to of both our population and to strengthen our dialogue in a whole range of issues. we have had a number of innovative forms over the course of the last couple of years. you were involved in some of

these-locks. one of the guess where most of about a strategic security dialogue. yes. first meeting took place lives last year. not just foreign ministry people what for nestor military intelligence and others, meeting their counterparts in the united states. in these sessions we took on a complex security issues that really had no particular domain in one or the other bureaucracy. there government-wide challenges. so we talk to a maritime security and security. and so we are looking to have more of these dialogues and discussions. denny's to be more predictability on the whole range of security issues between our two sides and they're needs to be more clarity of and are goals and missions. the chinese have vastus a lot of questions about our

determination to step up our game in asia. those are entirely appropriate questions. and we want very much to be transparent work with them, and make clear that in addition to closer relations with other partners we seek deeper, thicker engagements between the united states and china as well. both of our countries and societies are facing enormous challenges. we both, i take, recognize the promise of the 21st century and the asia-pacific region. and our challenge is to demonstrate quite clearly that the region and indeed, the world, is big enough for the bulk of those. >> i will get you in your car on time. you're going to do a couple of minutes past the normal hour, but i want to finish with this question which has to do with the exclusive economic zone that send every country can claim under the law of the sea and that can be defined in terms of what military activities are

considered acceptable and not an acceptable. we had the c-span.org incident, which was closer in. the freedom of navigation operations all over the world that the united states navy as to the flea performed. and the outgoing commander the other day made a comment that incidence in particular could be very as dilatory and quickly become -- from ship to ship it could turn into a state to state matter. will the united states look at the entire scene if you will, of unresolved maritime boundaries between parks and the players? will they try to bring international law and diplomacy and resolution to all of these issues before positions harden even further? >> we recognize how sensitive issues of maritime security are in asia.

so what we have tried to do is to be exact imprecise about our position and what our goals and objectives are. and i would refer you to the specific state -- not have it has been described but the statement the secretary : made in 2010 in vietnam and then again in indonesia here in 2011. indeed we clearly states and that said, as a strategic interest we recognize that if she lifted asia more generally it is the waterway of global commerce and that all of us have an interest in peaceful commerce and the peaceful handling of disputes and disagreements. issues of sovereignty are complicated, and we believe this

should be managed through the clear guidelines as set out in the law of the sea. we do -- we are not a claimant and we do not take positions and this is not unique to asia. we have seen this play of globally in the mediterranean and elsewhere. our primary interest is to ensure that there is an open dialogue. we have supported the diplomatic process between china and southeast asian aha of these matters. there are meetings that are going to be convened shortly on that. we welcome that. supported. ultimately we believe these issues must be managed accordingly to create the kind of trusted confidence on which the remarkable prosperity over the last 40 or 50 years in asia has faced. >> terrific. will open the floor for questions, and we're going to take turns between the simpson guests and the media. the first question will come

from the simpson gusts. do we have a microphone? we do. please wait for the microphone and identify yourself clearly. right here, please. [inaudible] thank you for that wonderful a novel. both you and a link to describe the situation as one of dynamic and opportunities and explain the complexities and consequences of the u.s.-china relationship and so forth. we see now many things happening, like the secession the number three china even prospects and so forth and so on. it seems to me that is an average into the four must either take advantage of a opportunities or even to create opportunities. the wonder how the measures with the chinese view of the pivot toward asia? >> one of the things that we have tried to do, we have already had substantial discussions with china about our

determination to be more actively engaged in a variety of places for instance, we have made very clear that we are trying to do in burma which china calls after tend to offer our own national interest to develop a better relationship with the country take hold and deliver a better life for its people. we after the change and i leadership in north korea one of our first stops for strategic consultation was with china to ensure that the industry clearly that we wanted to an open line of communication in addition to our very robust discussions and partnerships with south korea and japan. so at every level we are stepping up our consultations. the last year we institutionalized the asia-pacific consultations with

two or it will talk about him in great detail every single one of our bilateral initiatives. we have not yet been able to roll of some of the things that we had hoped for but every time we meet we present china with a number of opportunities for actually on-the-ground operation, whether it is building something together or working in the pacific. too often when we say asia-pacific the pacific gets short shrift. for us, in my view, one of the ways that we can demonstrate an improving relationship, one is to increase the number of people who study in china but another way is actually to destitution allies areas where we work together where we actually corporate on the ground. that is going to be difficult. lots of hurdles but if we are

persistent we can get progress on these particular issues. i have no illusions that the chinese have many questions right now about the american role in asia, but i would simply say that our strong role in asia is not the new-found dynamic. we have been a key and central pleasure -- player in the asia-pacific region for decades. we also try to point out to our chinese friends if you looked at the last 40 or 50 years coming in many respects they been some of the best in chinese history, and that is largely due to the hard work and innovation and determination of the chinese people. i have been -- we have state lawless a piece of stability of was that prosperity was built has to, in some bows small measure, he supported an underwritten by the united states. we will try to create it with

china is that we think the rules of the road, general practices of diplomacy economics security that have been established and asia many of which that china has played a role in for years are supported that the time has come for china to also support to work more to be a purveyor of supporting the is the socialization of asia going forth and that, i think is the heart of what some of our larger diplomacy is about. i think that the next year there will be inevitable challenges as we explain our goals in asia. i can assure you also that a large part of what we want to do has, as part of it a stronger, deeper set of interactions with the chinese call whether it is through high-level business were

is strategic and economic dialogue or the robust people to people exchanges between the two sides. >> the stick a question from the media. please only raise your hand. sir, please wait for the microphone. please identify yourself. >> thank you. >> high. talking about strengthening our u.s.-taiwan relations is the added states where 82 resume the talks turn which both sides may find a solution? do you have to wait for the resolution of the disputes? >> you can imagine, not going to get -- first of all not an economic official. those questions are really the appropriate per view of our

representative and commerce players. we have made very clear what our hopes are. i would simply say that at the strategic level we want to deeper economic ties between bhutan and the united states. we think that is an appropriate next step, and we would like to see steps toward that end. >> of a policy question from the simpson guest on this side. anyone? non media person. anyone? we have one over here. >> richard wright. >> hi, richard. >> talk about asia. they're going to come back. mom the secretary could tell us what the opportunities and challenges.

>> they do. it's always the case we're talking about that some kutcher does not to mention, and then apologize. we haven't talked much about india's important role. we have not talked about us truly a very much or some other countries. i appreciate your raising russia. our two countries at the leadership level that indicated that we want to advance more cooperation dialogue and asia. and so the russians in the last few days have invited us to come to moscow for consultations on the issues. we look forward to that. this year russia will be hosting apec. i think their is a strong determination to see how and where the united states can cooperate on a whole range of issues probably the place that we have seen some substantial cooperation has been on issues associated with proliferation in north korea. at think their is a lot to be

done and i am hopeful that we will be allowed to find common cause going forward. >> last question from the media please. we have several to choose from in the front row. >> high. >> think you. [inaudible] are we expecting more high-level visits? and the president's is rolling out a new approach in trying to give more tourists. >> you have several questions there. we have our own relationship.

we applaud the steps the waiver program that we think will increase substantially the kind of tourism and living between the united states. we will cool it. the president has talked about that. put in place other initiatives to increase not just the numbers of chinese tourists but others from other parts of the -- southeast asia to come to the united states. we think it is an important contribution to our economy and to business more generally. one of the things we cannot discuss, i know it is a little of the question, but i want to underscore this. if we are to be a successful linking asia generally speaking we're going to have to be much more robust in terms of our economic performance. if you look like at the top 1,000 companies that are listed in the united states the first 50 or 100 from all of them have a profile in asia.

many of these have an exclusive market in the united states or immediately over our borders. going for one of the challenges and opportunities of both government and innovative public private partnerships is to encourage these mid cap companies, very large to make the jump to export and be successful in the asians. one of the things that we should do going forward we one credit to people-to-people terrorism and the like from all countries and with someone, and we put those policies in place. i can take one other question.

>> policy question. right there please, sir. >> we are feeling some of the problems. that sends me to ask a question to collier generals strategy is to the u.s. senate. >> yes. >> failed to deliver and the future test. passionately so in many countries. the projection is that the situation is not right. what is your general approach of the issues to the usf and so many areas that block the forward motion? >> it is a great point. i would simply say that, you know, we have a very active

group of members, both in the house and senate. we me with them regularly and talk with them about issues. so as i indicated earlier, we are trying to work very closely together on next steps in burma. we worked closely as we left some specific military sanctions on indonesia. we consulted unbelievably closely. it is important not to get to down about this. when you put your head to it and really focus on that there are a lot that we have been able to demonstrate. i have to commend senator kerrey who has been determined and very hard-charging.

i would simply say that although we -- it is a core part of our position in terms of how we go forth, more and more countries are sts if it is such an important part of your position, if you're placing -- base year global strategy on it wouldn't it make sense to ratify it? is that logic. this is not something that you can afford to terrier has a pet. you have to be serious. it has become a bipartisan battlefield.

senator mcconnell comments in vermont in both ap dot and regular i think entirely appropriate supportive, and indicated his support for what the president and secretary plan had done and continue to do. so ultimately of some of these issues to have terminal floor would not be in this job. i do think there are enough areas that we can point to where we have made progress. no one would have thought the trade agreement would have passed a margin that it did to larger than almost any trade agreement in two generations. and so on some of these issues, including this dtb tea coming issues associated with the southeast asia nuclear weapons free zone, many of these days i think what properly explain and work on going forward. >> well on that hopeful and for

looking no let me just express my deep gratitude. you went over time. you with an extra quarter and i want so -- please join me in thanking our guest assistant secretary campbell. at backer. [applause] >> on tomorrow's washington journal, republican presidential candidate rick santorum. also university of south carolina professor mark tompkins of the history of presidential politics in south carolina. michael crash of the boston globe is the author of a new book about mitt romney. a discussion about america's health with adverse on date of the national center for health statistics and dr. pier vigilance of the george washington university school of public health. washington journal every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span.

>> hoover argued a couple of things. he argued that american policy toward japan was rather provocative and perhaps, in a juvenile way we are putting pins and a rattlesnake and eventually it will strike back. >> for nearly a half century herbert hoover's free and betrayed remained in storage and scene. saturday night on a book tv editor and scholar george nash of the four presidents evaluation of executive price decisions. also this eastern sweet heaven. as indebted 15:00 p.m., j. wechsler on the understanding our constitution by looking at the on clauses. but tv every weekend on c-span2.

>> some will say we are reactionary. others will say that we stand for socialism. there will be inevitable cries of throw the rascals out. it is time for a change and so on and so on. we will hear all of those things and many more besides, but we will hear nothing that we have not heard before. >> as candidates campaign for president we look back in 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website at c-span.org / the contenders to see video of the contenders to have a lasting impact on american politics. >> let our opponents stand on the status quo while we seek the refreshment of the american spirit. let the opposition collect their $10 million in secret money from the privileged few and let as fined 1 million ordinary americans who will contribute

$25 each to this campaign million-member club with members who will not expect special favors for themselves but the better land for gasol. >> c-span.org / the contenders. >> british prime minister david cameron gave a speech and capitalism and free markets today. he says that the financial crisis provides an opportunity to improve home markets in the economy operate. this is a half-hour. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much for that the chechen commanders great to be here. i think this is a brilliant innovation. you take relatively unused space in central urban locations and make it available for entrepreneurs and socialist bernard's and starbucks.

this is absolutely a key facility for people who have a great idea and want to build it into something but can staff and some believe was office. this is a great idea for the government to take up unused space that we have so that we can help build more osbourne oriole and social of memorial society that we all want to see. but these are difficult times. we have to deal with the legacy of the deficit and the debt. the eurozone has been deep and continuing trouble. and yesterday unemployment rose again. across europe economies of stalled. here in britain this is an active government sleeves rolled up, doing everything we possibly can to get our economy moving. the biggest work programs as the 19,373,000,000 people, a massive drive, major initiatives on regional growth, infrastructure, enterprise many people are

questioning not just palin when we will recover but the whole way in which our economy works. so when our economic challenge starts with stealing with the debt it must not end there. we must aim higher than just the storms that are affecting the international call of because i believe that i am just this current diversity. we must aim to build a better economy, one that is truly fair and worthwhile. my argument today is this. we will build a better economy by turning back on the free-market. we will do it by making sure that market is fair as well as free. well of course, there is a role for government to regulation, intervention the real solution is more enterprise, more competition, more innovation. in this debate the kind of

economy that we want to see position is very clear. i believe that open markets and free enterprise of the best imaginable force for improving human wealth and happiness. they are the engine of progress. they generate the enterprise and innovation that lifts people out of poverty and gives people an opportunity. and i would go further. where markets work open markets and free enterprise actually promote morality. why? because they create a direct link between contribution and reward between effort and the outcome. the fundamental basis of the market is the idea of something for something an idea that we need to encourage, not condemned. so we should use this crisis of capitalism and to improve markets but not undermine them. i believe conservatives in particular are well-placed to do this. because we get the free-market.

we know its failings as well as its strengths. no true conservative has a net you believe that all politics and politicians have to do is stand back and let capitalism representative. we know that every difference in the world between a market that works and one that does not come markets can fail. uncontrolled globalization can slide into monopolization sweeping aside this small personal local. ..

which should allow everyone to share in the success of the market. at the idea of social responsibility is not some new departure for my party. it was on public accountability with willing pets reported under the control of government. later the same spirit of responsibility helped write the campaign against the slave trade, and appealed to lead to force the price of food and the israeli electorate that jury asked, which began to set working conditions. of course it is true that great campaigns for reform restraints for many other business to social responsibility, watching other business, correct the market failure recognizing obligations has been part of the conservative mission of the

story. a large part of my leadership has been about renewing the commitment and a long-standing tradition. corporate social responsibility and environmental responsibility has been constant themes in the arguments i've made and policies have developed. soon after i was elected leader and said that we should not just stand up for business, but also we should stand the two big business when it was in the national interest to do so. three years ago i argued that previous government turbo s. and i turned a bright day to corporate excess, while we believed responsible capitalism and government would make it happen. with the second principle, popular capitalism is just important as the first social responsibility. we need to open up markets. we need to get more people engaged hme popular capitalism, which is what you see when he was at the space of the health care today today in new zealand.

conservatives have always believed in ownership society. a theme has been the ambition of building a nation of shareholders and savers of homeowners. mln champion mr. homeownership giving people an asset of their own. or thatcher did the same of privatization with the right to buy canceled ads. in two years ago i called for a new popular capital one that we recognize what's going to a capitalism in which makes people make something of themselves, to get a good job, own a home started business. today this mission of improving markets and ensure it the airfare as well as free and for many principles of social responsibility and genuinely popular capitalism should have three things that is sorry. for us, we need to be clear about the specific mistakes of the last decade. second, we need to put the right rules and institutions in place to correct them.

and third and i think this matters more than anything else is we need to open up enterprise and opportunity so everyone has a chance to participate and benefit from a genuine market economy. we need to boost competition, back enterprise, encourage adventurous spirits and challenge the status quo. that is how we'll build a a more worthwhile economy. so first, what went wrong? the last government claimed to have got rid of movement. what really happened? did it get out of control clicks this series is if you like a series of lethal imbalances in our economy between north and south, financial services and manufacturing between the people that huge awards at the top. everyone else seemed to get left out. the truth is the last government made some data for fast and packed with the. it encouraged the economy because it needed to pay for spiraling welfare costs and a

very much top-down intervention state. it tolerated market failure because at heart he didn't accept the markets would be made to work properly. he seemed frightened of challenging vested interest, believing too often that the interest of big business were always one of the same as those with the economy as a whole. all this left us with a level of public spending we could afford any model economic growth that would work. now i understand why this has made any people totally disenchanted with markets even angry. far from abolishing boom and bust, what we had is the biggest boom and the biggest baddest where everyone has to share the data. and thanks a while, only a few seem to get a share of the profit. too many people found they couldn't count on their savings growing. they couldn't afford to buy a home. they wondered how they would pay their bills and old-age. in the city kumble should've been a powerhouse of competition and creativity became instead a

byword for financial visit tree that left the taxpayer with other risk in a fortunate few with all of the rewards. so instead of a popular capitalism, we ended up with an unpopular capitalism. so the next question is what needs to change? my answer is we need to change the way the free market works not just up the free market from working. we need to reconnect the principles of risk, hard work and success with reward. when people take risk with their own ideas, their own energy, own money, when they succeed in the contested market and anyone can come and knock them off their perch at any time, we should celebrate entrepreneurs succeed and create wealth in get rich in that way. we should support business leaders who earn great rewards for building great businesses, for doing great things for their come to me for economy and for

society. they should be a probable functioning market for talent at the top of business. and that will inevitably mean that some people will earn great rewards. but that is away from what we've seen in recent years with the bonus culture, particularly in the city has got out of control with the link between risk hardware, success and reward has been broken. this is not the politics of anything. the government of the bank of england reminded us this week, excessive undeserved or mrs. reduced funding that's debatable for small businesses. lurch rumors for failure and companies are suffering become even less is left the customers for shareholders. so next week the business secretary will set out a detailed proposals on executive pay, including any necessary legislation to follow. so there is a need for new rules. but we should be clear about what we do most to bring about

true responsibility. we need to make the market work and will do that by empowering shareholders and using the power sector. see as well. that is why i welcome this week's decision by fidelity worldwide to add their cars for better policing of boardroom pay. it's responsible action to make markets work in the thread that runs to his government. regulation is part of it, but again the last government that regulation of wrong way around. small companies were often strangled in red tape of the banks were allowed to live with. we need to turn the tables of this are acting to make banks for the people of the firms who rely on it as implementing the vickers report, separate investment banking for retail banking. we would ensure banks are properly capitalize should people buy investors not by taxpayers. we're completely overhauling financial services regulation, abolishing the apartheid system

and putting in place a system that will work and protect the consumer, were fundamentally reviewing the finance commission gave to strike a balance between risk and reward and private sector. and almost busting up in the cozy collusion between big business and big government out of public-sector contracts come a market worth 150 billion pounds a year. none of this should mean more regulation. it means less not better regulation. we need strong frameworks that people can understand what am must in effect give tape. that's a life behind the new rule that the chancellor is examining, which will make the tax cuts and other, not more complex this stuff abuse at the same time. at the end about this, this government will have reduced regulation, not increased it. the third part of the mission to

improve pockets and make them various illustrious enterprise and opportunity. capitalism will never be genuinely popular in the savings opportunities for everyone to participate and benefit. of course this means a greater emphasis on equality of opportunity. you can never create a fair economy if there are people who are automatically excluded from it through poor education. or if there are people who encouraged that the only way to live their lives is to depend on state handouts. people need the capacity to succeed. but he said his government has made the education revolution a priority with the academies, preschool, richter come exam and tolerance of failure as we saw this week with the abolition of the ij you can have a score less than good being called satisfactory. we are shrinking the funding system in education and vapor of the poorest with a premium that means disregarded pupils get more. so every time a child or

preschool walks into a school, that school knows they'll get more money teaching that people must missile will get help to turn their lives and prospects around. in an age where we have to cut public spending, were actually investing more in early years. and we're intervening comprehensively and family is failing to help children who otherwise look at a poor start in life. the popular capitalism also means believing in what i call the insertion economy, where we support the new, innovative and bold and give a chance for thousands upon thousands in a country who aren't envious yet but want to be come whose ideas and energy and enterprising ambition have crucial spring rolls, intelligence, ingenuity energy. i believe witnesses in the business potential in you can see it a few yards from where i'm standing. we need to have a theory that

says this is opportunity for review. i admire almost went than anything the bravery of those who turn my back on security of the regular wage to follow their dream and started from any. if you take a risk on a quicker job, create google or facebook could wind up a billionaire and if you take a punch, message your money in a hugely risky set up and made a fortune. let's also recognize people who take risks, to succeed the first time, who often find the first investment of the first business failed, doesn't succeed but who persevere. we have to recognize that as a process leading to success, not a failure in itself. they want to see it happen and encourage it. but if i were taking a whole series of steps. for improving entrepreneurial beliefs of the founders of come these get a bigger slice of the gains they made. it's why we want to be

entrepreneur thesis of the best and brightest would-be entrepreneurs around the world and start their business right here in the u.k. if i was implemented some of the most diverse texas and as for early-stage investment of any developed economy inextricably launching a new campaign to start up with, helping people take that a step in the business for themselves. it is a basic truth that if people have a stake in business they will support its growth and sharing his success. but the reality is even as our country has grown richer, participation has actually shrunk. yes we are boosting shareholding by giving tax of two people invest in useful businesses. for the olympic year 2012, were taken another step that hasn't had much easier. we are effectively abolishing capital gains tax for people who this year are prepared to have a go and invest in a startup. i don't believe we should start there.

we need more shareholders, more homeowners, march but her spirit that is why we are real degrading three to buy or cancel a home in transforming the failing housing rocket. as the deputy prime minister said monday, we need to encourage different models of capitalism. what more employees of a much more direct stake in the success of their come to me. this is an issue i have long cared about. back in 2007 i established the conservative cooperative movement which now has 40 conservative mps as members. any government where we are providing new ways for public-sector workers to create mutual said on a stake in the first success come with employee led mutuals not delivering on the civilian pounds worth, i think it's right to take further steps because we know that breaking monopolies, encouraging choice opening up new forms of enterprises not just safer business, it's also the best way of improving our public services too.

there's over 12 million co-op members in the u.k. it is if you like a vital bunch of popular capitalism. rate other too many barriers in the way to extending and improving that record. there are over a dozen separate identity pieces of legislation that cost and complexity to the process. today announced they will be brought together and simplified and a new cooperative bill that will be putting before parliament. i wonder in these difficult economic times to achieve more than just paying down the deficit and encouraging growth. i want these times to lead to a more socially responsible and genuinely popular capital one in which the power of the market and obligations of responsibility really come together. one in which we improve the market by vacated fare as well as free in which many more people get a stake in the economy and the share of the rewards of success. that is a vision of a better or worthwhile economy we are

building, an economy where people who work hard every words that are fair and true conservatives of the world. an economy in their destiny because they started their own business or shareholders in the company they work for or indeed part of a cooperative an economy river and has a chance to build assets come to pass on links the next generation. that is how we make markets work for all of us, to spread wealth, freedom and spread opportunity. thank you very much indeed for listening. [applause] thank you very much. we've got time for some questions.óo let's start with james alexander this evening.éñññ÷ >> by ministers james alexander, and bbc.??3ñ? ? you have to present the proceeds of poorly on a treadmill andg owned banks for million dollarsx

businesses click >> the short answer is yes. first of all distorting the "financial times" this morning as i'm afraid to say that accurate. there has been no meeting of the remuneration committee at the bank of scotland and so no decision has been made. for our part as major shareholders in the business, first of all we say we are repeating what we did last year and restricting bonuses and all state owned yanks, restricting the cash element for 2000 pounds. you might ask why there's any bonuses that all. i argue there's people working hard in the business' bank managers tylers for junior employees leaking their target doing my best try to restore portions of their bank and i think it's right there should be a small cash bonus available for those people/year. that would apply to anyone at the top of the organization as well as anywhere else. in terms of the broader question

of the chief executive of the rest as i've said is there's no meeting of the remuneration committee. that to be a proper process. if there's a bonus will be a lot less than it was last year. but the process has set up should be followed in the proper way. david shipley and from the daily mail. >> thank you, prime minister. if you agree it is what are you going to do about it? >> i think it's right there is a proper process to be followed for some enough disorder. there is a committee in terms of honors that exist and that will now examine this issue. i think it is right that it does so and there's a proper process. obviously take into account the financial services authority report, which i think is material and import because of what he says about the failures of what would amount into his response will not investigate.

they should do the work rather than the prime minister himself. for herself. christya. >> thank you, prime minister. anyone watching the speech today might ask him if he can act on a company of which he rode 83% are your words noteworthy a? are ultimately meaningless. >> i have that day. as you just heard, there will be a 2000-pound cash limit how many bonus for anyone whether they are at the top of the cab near the bottom of it. that is the action of this government took last year and the action we asked rbs to take again this year. as for the rest of the process the review duration committee needs to be, discussions need to be held, decision made but clearly the british government is a major shareholder and has a major interest message is heard has a pretty clear view.

>> thank you, prime minister. you are right to comment on the good tradition of corporate responsibility in this country. w ó i sometimes they can experience it is rather patronizing kind of business leaders how to run a business. i think we could argue that we could tell them a bit more about how to motivate staff rather than ethical and sustainable business. so the practical two hopeful suggestions number one. how about encouraging come needs to take charity leaders onto their board? number two with the bankers take the bonuses. tell them to give it to charity or invest in social enterprises.8 >> some great ideas there. let me just remind the principle behind what you're saying is entirely ready.÷÷÷÷÷ for too long in this country, social responsibility was seen as some in that businesses

should sort attack on to an otherwise third street port profit-making model and now i began to shed a bit of money to this charity or that social enterprises to. that's completely the wrong model. the nakedness model for seems like a hundred years. but business status should actually incorporate all of social responsibility. the way it treats its customers, its staff, the weighting gauges in the world in the businesses sometimes they do think you're taking this a bit far, i could actually go sit in the classroom with young children and see what their aspirations are for the sort of businesses that want to work for consume products by coming to you within all the rest of it. he will soon find out the corporate social responsibility is not some businesses should do as an add-on. it should be absolutely core to the way they do business. from that flows consequences and

one of which you think your first idea is saying to businesses as you look at who you want to have on your board actually the awful word mainstreaming, but will save would help if you have someone who really understood the social enterprise what social responsibility is all about. the second suggestion i bonuses is also a good one. the point the governor of england made with importance, which is links to sites pay out more in bonuses or pay out more in dividends, they are going to effectively be reducing the capital base on which they commit their decisions. i think we all know one of the problems in our country today is actually difficulty of getting hold of bank lending. that is why the government has taken an intervention, his strong start to the murdoch agreement, which was my initiative is fitting that the banks of a book you want some predictable rules on tax and what is going to happen in terms of banking. you are only going to get that

if in return you actually set //ñ out to the sort of funding are doing to businesses large and/ñw/ñw small. /ñw i think it is important that we have done that and actually those targets are on course to be met. maybe one or two more from the press. the bst can defend themselves in wakulla today. >> thank you, prime minister. their announcement today of a cooperative bill is very very welcome. it's an historic decision that would clean up a fragment dated classic process that will be good for cooperative business. over 12 million members of metrical within individual shareholders in deed in the u.k. this year has been declared to the united nations vis-à-vis the international year of cooperatives in the united nations asks government to review their framework. i think the u.k. is the first country in the world to get that commitment under way.

i wonder whether you have a message for the 12 million numbers of cooperatives large and small up and down the country this year. >> first of all thank you for telling the ended in an international obligation of which i wasn't entirely aware. i'm very grateful for that. it is important to clear up a lot and make it easier and encourage creation of new co-ops large and small, clearly trying to cut the paperwork is a sensible thing to do. i think my message just keep on doing what you're doing. i think we want to see a spread of different business models, not just in the private sector but the public site. is doing a lot of work to encourage public services is more appropriate in some rather than others. i think trying to give people a greater sense of ownership in what they are doing is hugely important. if you ask people about what it

is that makes them satisfied in work and happy at all the rest of it, it is obviously partly collect good to your job security, but it's also whether you feel you have a real stake in what you're doing. i have often had my leg pulled pork talking about happiness and the rest of it they think it is important. i think there's a growing understanding that it is about the control you have come to influence you have come as setting your work as well as vital themes of pay and conditions. >> , no, the fact. >> prime minister, just go back to is you just described the out-of-control bonus culture. what about the nonstate owned banks, which as you'll note the vast majority of the city.

you have no control over them. he's got a few opportunities today to exert any moral suggestion they should be paying their bonuses to charity. you are totally powerless over goldman sachs. >> i don't accept that. what the government is doing is recognizing, but we can't legislate for the pay level in every business in every company in the country. where you can do is make this market for top pay work properly. it's quite clear it's not working properlyí today. -- india saw 49% increase in the value of pay and the ftse top management, but she only saw a 4% increase in the proceed. as i said in my speech, rewarding success has become big. >> was a date and morality onto mass., are you prepared to use a state to limit the power and influence of big capital?

>> the answer to that is a straight yes. if you have an example where despite ascii participants in the market to exercise responsibility they don't clearly you have to intervene with the law. no conservative believes that america without law. there's all sorts of practices you have to ban. for instance, insider trading or what have you. obviously a conservative hopes that she'll have a max on extent of responsibility allowing you to have a minimal extent of law whereas i would say they tend to believe you need a maximum extent of law because we can't ever trust anyone to behave responsibly in any way. let me encourage responsibility when possible a much as they were necessary. the good example to prove i am somebody consistent was yesterday when i was asked about on line and television gambling advertising. i basically believe that kinsley

is an industry that should be licensed. it should be legal but he must behave responsibly. if you want, the government has to think again. i'll be having meetings last week about the issue of how to advertise to children and issues around commercialization and sexualization of childhood. again, there should be a strong repeal for behaviors from business of the things are handled properly in the marketplace. if they can't be, you have to go to rules and regulations. that is solid now. thank you thank you indeed for comingcuqú on. thank you i can to the house for having us. thank you very much. [applause] >> for more from prime minister david cameron, what's her weekly coverage of prime minister's questions. the main topic of the session was britain's unemployment figures. it airs sunday night on trade at

night and 90 server you can watch at the c-span video library at c-span.org.

[applause] only those who show the resolve to defend the freedom that the last can be trusted to safeguard it in the challenging turbulence cannot predict both times that lie ahead. [applause] mr. president, and a decade of the century, which open up before us now see the lasting triumph of liberty of common cause. the world needs bridgend and britain need fast.

>> senator, there are some countries in the common market who would like to hand over some financial affairs to europeans central bank indebtedness their parliaments of much of their powers. that is not our view. we do not wish to hand over for their powers from this president to other bodies. >> today former senate majority leaders tom daschle and trent lott gave a behind the scenes look at how the senate operates. this is part of a bipartisan policy center some leadership series. it is in our 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> well, good morning everybody. it is terrific to welcome you to

the first public event here atirst public ent here the bbc in 2012. 2 we had about 70 last year, so expect to invite any feedback in the near future. i see a lot of a lot of longtimecol colleagues, also terrific to see terri new faces. it's probably an heroic understatement to say bipartisanship is going to be to kind of a challenging state over the nexten several months so theyeral m are happy to have many new friends as we can get. today's discussion is about leadership and i really thrilledt to have tom dasochle and trent lott was asked. wi the vote played a vital role ineatin creating a shape in the work you're the bipartisan policy center of the last five years. they also know a bit aboutfive leading a divided y government enacting we will hear somes terrific stories about that very h shortly. i want to situate this series on leadership in the broader context of what we do here at thead ppc. at to my mind there are threethe bp dimensions toc. the challenge thatge t ha we face. the first is policy work.

too often we find when you have polarized issues with ng-stand long-standing kind of challenges, people get stuck in these deep roots of dermatology and being so sensitive de engagement and we strive to mean bring together diverse groups of experts to work on not justtive sensitive solutions, the politically pragmatic solution. whether it is our health or energy or adapt our nationali security housing, and every casee they bring together policy xpe experts with deep political engagement and try to put together proposals that can be meaningfully embrace we hope in. 2013. the second after we were done is to try to address the core institutions of our democracy. it's terrific to have damned and gleeso weakening here who is thechairing cochair this t effort.ort. i think to state the obvious many structures and traditions we found to rely on to solve ouriou toughs, challenges are undertough chalnges are

tremendous strain right now. into that project we have a project series of forums and research activities that will hopefully give us sothme insight there.ab and finally, we are sure to talk about leadership.come ultimately the problems we face in our democracy are not acts ofey are n god, notot natural disasters. they are fundamentally human problems createda by people that ultimately have to be saved by people. asp we look back through history at the moments where we faced a to the magnitude of problemsn always with a guy today, you can always find inspired leadership. it is often a bit of a cliché to say. we need a leadership.ducate the we are going to try to digc. deeper and really try to understand what are some of the te force is an action firehaare replicable that could be brought back into the conversation today. but ultimately, we hope we can ca help to motivate a virtuousen 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 scoop jackson foundation and their president, john hempelmann an today. it's the 100th anniversary ofgay of jackson's birth. he is a profound legacy in stimulating public discourse and advancing bipartisan efforts.rts. so we are pleased to be about toe affiliate with affiliate with you. there are some books on the senators ice on the outside sena table, which we really encourage you to look to. you to as i reflect on century markstury come i also want to know that we'll be honoring a century of sr service inv tribute to the 100 years years of public service that two of our founders, senator dole ad and baker have given to thisv e country and that will happen that wl happen march 21 and the look and you'll more about that. so with that, let me close.our s but they welcome john. thank you for your support and ask you to introduce your speakers

speakers. >> thank you jay sandefur partnered with ice. r and work within our executive director of myself joined theo this chase and in you to thism discussion. the henry m. jackson foundation was founded over 30jf years ago after the untimely death of senator henry m. jackson.ac and it was founded to help us can tame you the legacy of his good work in the foundation paid and t as one of the coronation pursui pursuing a continuedogue in bipartisanship and civilongre dialogue and congress. and so, it is on this occasion asss jason said of the centennial of a scoop spurred that we are so pleased to be partnering with the bipartisan policy policy center and disgustingness impts and chalnging center 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. ..

he never pulled that on me again. [laughter] so, but we went right and work together. i do think that right now the rules are being just i think abused and i'm not blaming either of the leaders are either of the parties. i just think it would be good if they would step back, protect the institution but not abuse it, to achieve goals that may be our correct from your political viewpoint that not to get things

done. >> i will throw one question at the leaders and then open it up to the audience. this questions about working with precedence. both of you served as leaders under clinton and george w. bush. what is the role wid the senate majority leader or minority leader working with precedence especially giving the key role in being the final place whereed compromises crafted? >> have to tell one of myf favorite stories to that question. i had just gotten electedel and as with so many i got elected by one vote. chuck was that one vote, but i sat really is 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]

the obama administration just came down with the policy is said and set 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 that nobody has read, and then discovers to his great surprise two years later as he himself put it, that the shovel-ready jobs weren't shovel-ready and the stimulus fails leaves us $800 billion deeper in debt. at some point he has to take responsibility. that was his plan, his proposal and it failed. >> as candidates meet with voters to get their message out. >> i know, absolutely. >> after the polls close saturday evening we will show you the results from south carolina along with candid speeches and your phonecalls.

>> 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. he discussed his latest book, titled this used to be us, but america's position in the world. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> i am very pleased to introduce our next speaker tom friedman became a foreign affairs columnist for "the new york times" in 1995. and 2002, he was awarded the pulitzer prize for distinguished commentary. his third pulitzer for "the new

york times." he has written award-winning books. many of you remember the world is flat, a brief history of the 21st century that received the goldman sachs financial times business book of the year award. hot, flat and crowded was published in 2008 and his sixth is sixth in most recent book i recommend to everyone if you. it is called, that used to be us, how america fell behind in the world we invented and how we can come back. it was cowritten with michael mandelbaum and last september had an opportunity to see tom at a book signing in the question-and-answer period and i said you have got to the conference. he has called for green revolution and push for investment in our city some for

structures and he is promoting networked urban hubs. we know about those. as i stated yesterday with the release of our latest mature economies 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, so please join me in welcoming tom friedman. [applause] >> thank you very much. mayor thank you very much. i thank all of you for having me. i was at your conference itself will of years ago and it was a great treat in opportunity and i am looking forward to being back here this morning. i'm going to take the next 40 minutes to talk about our new book, that used to be us, how america fell behind in the world and as the mayor said, and how we can come back.

whenever we share with people the title of our book the first question they isaf is, does it have a happy ending? [laughter] and we tell everybody it does. we just don't know whether it is fiction or nonfiction and that is really the challenge before us today. can i get a glass of water? one of the things you might naturally wanted to be asked is how did two guys, foreign affairs columnist for the move times and michael mandelbaum is the chair of professor grantor lise -- international at -- the answer is very simple and it's relevant for your discussion here. we are old friends that have and have been friends for 20 years. we talk almost every day and we know do something over the last few years. we always start everyday talking about the world but we noticed notice lately we ended every conversation talking about america. and it was evident to us very

quickly that america is faith future vigor and vitality was the biggest foreign-policy issue in the world as if we don't have a strong and sound domestic days and economy there is no way we can play the role we need to play in the world wants us to play in the world. michael and i are both american national us. we believe america makes a lot of mistakes in the world. we are as happened on a net basis would play an enormously constructive role in the world. we are the temple that holds up a global the global system and if that tent pole buckles or phrase your kids watch us grow up in a different america, they will grow up in a fundamentally different world. and that was really what motivated us to write this look. if there is a fear we have the book is built around a lot of movie scenes and one of them is an old classic that really captures our concerns about the future, orson welles 1958 film touch of evil.

you may remember this scene, it's a movie about murder kidnapping conspiracy. wells plays a crooked cop who tries to frame his mexican counterpart for murder or grow one point wells stumbles into a brothel and finds the proprietor who is also a fortuneteller with cards spread out in front of her. read my future for me wells says. you haven't got any she replies. your future is all used up. well it was certainly that fear, which is one of the things that motivated this book, we do not believe our future is all used up but we do believe we are at a critical juncture in this country come a time of real choosing and we need to step up to it and we need to do it now, not in 2013 or 2014 or 2020. let me share with you if i could just for a few minutes, is there

if pinging going on here? do you know what that is from? it's the like okay. i just wanted to make sure it wasn't me. [laughter] let me share with you if i could 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. in september 2010 i attended the summer conference in tangi and china. five years earlier it involved the three and a half hour car ride from beijing to a crowded chinese version of detroit but things have change. now to get to jen jen you head to the south railway station and a roof covered with 3246 solar panels. you buy a ticket from an electronic kiosk offering choices and chinese and english and you board a world-class high-speed train that goes right

to another room a modern train station in downtown chang chen. the chinese bullet train cover 72 miles in 29 minutes. the conference itself took place in it 10 jen convention center a beautiful structure the like of which exist in american cities. the conference as co-sponsors gave some helpful facts and figures. they said the convention center had a total floor area of 2.5 million square feet and construction of the convention center started on september 15 2009 and was completed in may 2010. i started walking around my hotel room counting on my fingers september, october, november, december january. that is eight and a half months. returning home to maryland from that trip i was describing the

complex and how quickly was built to my co-author and his wife and co. at one point and going direct to come excuse me tom have you been to our subway stop lately? we both as i said live in bethesda maryland and often use the metro rail to get to downtown d.c.. i had just been at the bethesda station and knew exactly what ann was talking about. the two escalators had been under repair for nearly six months. while one was being fixed the other was closed and at rush hour this was creating a huge mess. everyone trying to get off the platform and squeeze single file up one down escalator and something some budget to two minutes to get out of the station. a sign of a close it's repairs are part of the massive escalation moderation project. what was taking this projects along? we investigate. spokes month said the repairs are scheduled to take six months and are on schedule. they can exceed 10 to 12 weeks

to fix h. escalate. a simple comparison made a startling.. china's construction group 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 for weeks to repair two tiny escalators of 21 steps each. we searched a little further and found that on november 14, 2010 "the washington post" wrote a letter to the editor from mark thompson from kensington maryland who rode as someone who has written the metro for more than 30 32nd pick of an easier way to assess the health of the escalators. for decades they ran silently and officially but over the past several years when the escalators are running aging reports are generated horrific noises that sound to me like a tyrannosaurus rex trapped in a tar pit screeching its dying screams. the part we found most disturbing that came from maryland's community news from a regular metro rider, benjamin rossi said my impression

standing in line there is that people have sort of gotten used to it. people have sort of gotten used to it. indeed that sense of resignation, that sunset while this is just how things are in america today, the sense that america's best days are behind in china's best days are ahead of it has become the subject of subtext of watercooler dinner party grocery line in classroom conversations all across our country. so do we buy the idea in some circles that 19th century american dominated 20 and china will reign supreme in the 21st no, we do not and we have written this book to explain why no american young or old should resign himself or herself to that view. the two of us do not pessimist. we are optimists but we are frustrated. we are to frustrated optimist. the title of this opening

chapter, if you see something say something, well you know where that is from. is the mantra of the department of homeland security. plays over and over on loudspeakers and bust rations and train stations and all of your cities. we have heard and seen something and millions of americans have to back. what we have seen it is in plain sight. we have seen something that poses a greater threat to our national security and well-being than anything else. it seemed accustomed -- my country with enormous potential falling into the worst sort of declined a slow decline just low enough for us to not drop everything and pull together 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 what we can and must do to make them right. that is how the book opens. now the main argument of this book is that our country today faces for great challenges. ahec i hate can only talk about what in detail but let me go through them quickly. the first is a perceptual challenge. how we start