quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask consent to call off the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the

following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, gregory alan phillips of wyoming to be united states circuit judge for the 10th circuit. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 0 minutes for debate equally divide i had and controlled had the -- divide you had and controlled in the -- divided and controlled in the usual form. mr. leahy: i would hope once the senior senator from wyoming is finished speaking, we might make a consent request and whatever time there the vote still be at 5:30. or after both he and senator barrasso have spoken. once their time is consumed, we will be able to have the vote, if possible, at 5:30, but as close to that time as pofnlt i just mention that not as a request but just to say it. our constitution provides an

important role in providing advice to the president, voting whether to confirm nominees for our third branch of government. last month we were reminded of the importance of these confirmation votes when the supreme court handed down several narrowly discoed opinions already impacting millions of americans. in this chamber, i voted on the confirmation of every one of the nine justices currently serving, as well as several former justices. since only a tiny percentage of cases brought in -- the federal court of appeals are often the courts of last resort for most disputes. i am glad we're final lay voting to confirm another appellate nominee, one i will certainly vote for, gregory phillips, the attorney general of wyoming. he was appointed to that position by the wyoming

republican governor. he is supported by his republican home state senators, the two senators i respect and serve with, and with his confirmation, there will be 10 actual judges on the 10th circuit. this means that the number of pending appeals for active judges in that court will drop from 150 to 135. it will still p them all very busy. i mention that only because in the d.c. circuit, they currently have 177 pending appeals for active judge. we all support this nominee as the lower of the pending appeals of the tenth circuit from 150 to 135. but i do worry in the d.c. circuit, which has a much higher caseload, that some, not the tw senators from wyoming but some

senate republicans have argued the d.c. circuit's case onus is too low and that three of these judges should be eliminated. i suspect they will vote to confirm attorney general phillips even though his confirmation will mean the tenth circuit will now have the lowest caseload in the country, just as the same supported the confirmation of jane kelly to the eighth circuit which gave that court the lowest caseload of the country. so i hope they'll not have a double standard for the d.c. circuit which of course is a far busier circuit. judicial nominees shouldn't be about tit for tat. they impact people all across america. we need to have these judges. and i hope that we will confirm

attorney general phillips by the senate. there could be many more nominees the senate should consider in the coming week. tomorrow the senate judiciary committee will hear from james comey who president obama nominated to serve as f.b.i. director. then we'll begin the process later in the week in considering of first of three nominees to the d.c. circuit as well as the nomination of e.todd jones to serve as the director of bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives. there's other nominees that are pending. we should get to them, and i hope we will soon. i would ask consent that my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: in fact, i will yield back all time on the democratic side which will bring us very close to the -- i yield

to the senior senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i want to thank the chairman of the judiciary committee for expediting the confirmation of greg phillips and rise this afternoon to add strong support for the confirmation of gregory alan phillips to serve as a judge on the tenth circuit court of appeals. i believe mr. phillips has all the characteristics necessary to serve as a federal appellate judge. i worked with mr. phillips in the wyoming legislature and can say with confidence that he's recognized throughout wyoming in the legal community as a talented, respected and thoughtful attorney. this vote's also important because the tenth circuit court of appeals has experienced a number of judicial vacancies recently. in february the senate confirmed

judge bacharach of oklahoma to the panel. and we now have the opportunity to fill another vacancy so the tenth circuit can continue its work. mr. phillips has served as wyoming's attorney general since 2011. the attorney general is not an elected position in wyoming, and it's important to note that mr. phillips was appointed by governor mead, although they do not share the same party affiliation. this speaks tremendously to mr. phillips' talent and legal reputation. governor mead and the former u.s. attorney comments that greg is a first-rate legal thinker, a tireless worker and has an abiding sense of fair play. governor mead goes ton say that if confirmed, all those who appear before mr. phillips will find a judge fully prepared, engaged and respectful to all. mr. phillips was reported out of the senate judiciary committee

with a unanimous vote on april 18. the fact that he now stands for a vote after only being nominated in january is a credit to his abilities and strong bipartisan support. i want to thank chairman leahy and ranking member grassley and members of the judiciary committee for reviewing and moving this nomination along so quickly. it's no surprise the american bar association unanimously gave mr. phillips its highest rating. greg has extensive experience practicing law as a deputy county attorney and in private practice. before becoming wyoming's attorney general, mr. phillips served seven years as an assistant u.s. attorney for the district of wyoming handling criminal prosecutions and appeals. greg has extensive experience arguing in federal court including nearly 20 cases before the tenth circuit. mr. phillips studied economics at the university of wyoming and

graduated with honors from the wyoming college of law where he was on the law review. immediately following law school mr. phillips served as a clerk for u.s. district judge alan johnson of wyoming. judge johnson writes that greg is devoted to the rule of law and will honor the remarkable judicial officers who preceded him. specifically, judge johnson notes that mr. phillips thorough study of the u.s. sentencing guidelines, experience as a federal criminal prosecutor and understanding of state and federal legal issues will serve him well on the tenth circuit. mr. phillips also has strong support from his colleagues from around the nation. 34 attorneys general wrote the senate judiciary committee in march expressing their support for the nomination. i'm told there would have been more signatures on the letter, but the nomination was advanced so diligently that some didn't get a chance to sign the letter before greg's hearing. i'd like to conclude by saying

that i can personally attest to mr. phillips' qualifications to serve as a federal judge. greg was on the senate judiciary committee when we served together in the wyoming legislature. on the senate floor, we sat across the aisle from each other. and i don't mean just across the republican-democrat aisle. i mean right next to each other across the aisle and got to visit a lot. he was a part of formulating my 80% rule for legislating. greg and his family are highly respected in their waoeuplt -- wyoming community. he'll be an outstanding judge to follow terry o'brien, another long time friend of mine. terry when he was a wyoming district court judge and i was in the wyoming state senate used to have dinner together to solve the world's problems. then i became a u.s. senator and he became a circuit court judge. i know his successor will honorably fill that seat. mr. phillips is highly qualified

to serve on the tenth circuit court of appeals and i call on my colleagues to also support his confirmation. lets get this man to work in his new job. i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i strong senator enzi in strongly supporting the nomination of greg phillips to the seat on the tenth circuit court of appeals. he graduated with honors from the university of wyoming college of law. he has worked in private practice. he's worked in the office of the u.s. attorney for wyoming and currently serves as attorney general to the state of wyoming. the breadth of his experience, his understanding of the law and the role of a judge as well as the thoroughness with which he approaches his responsibilities, well, mr. president, they will serve him well. the people who know him best, his peers, uniformly praise his intellect, and diligence. his former boss, u.s. district

judge alan johnson said in a letter to senator enzi, again and again local defense attorneys stkpresed their appreciate -- expressed their appreciation for the fair handed and temperament treatment they received from greg phillips. we are fortunate in wyoming to have greg phillips nominated for the bench. i have no doubt as his career continues he will become a successful and respected member of the tenth circuit court of appeals. i strongly encourage all members of the senate to join senator enzi and me in voting to confirm greg phillips. thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i'd ask to set aside the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: i'd also yield back the balance of any of our time and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. is there a sufficient second? a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 88, the nays are zero. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president shall be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: it's my understanding a motion to proceed to s. 1238 is now pending. is that correct? the presiding officer: narc. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk. ifer officer the clerk will

report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 14, s. 1238, a bill to rammed the higher education act of 1965 to extend the current reduced interest rate for undergraduate federal direct stafford loans for one year, to modify required distribution rules for pension plans, and for other purposes, signed by 18 senators as follows: reid of nevada, harkin, reed of rhode island, gillibrand, leahy, klobuchar, udall of new mexico, whitehouse, wyden, cardin, blumenthal, coons, brown, casey, warren, franken, durbin, stabenow. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory

quorum required under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, as i understand it, the majority leader has just filed cloture on a bill that would keep us at a 3.4% student loan rate for the stafford loans, which impacts about 7 million americans, for a year. am i correct on that? the presiding officer: the cloture motion is on the motion to proceed. mrs. boxer: well, that he is a very important cloture motion. and i would hope that in a bipartisan way we will move forward on this bill because, mr. president, as of now, student loan rates have doubled on stafford loans. in my state of california,

550,000 californians are facing a doubling of their student loan from 3.4% to 6. 8%. and i have asked my students to contact me and talk to me about their real-world stories. and what it means to them to see a doubling of their student loan interest rate. and i'll tell you, they're more eloquent than i could ever be. they talk about how they look at their dreams and maybe this'll become fantasy dreams. they talk about what it would be to feel that you're in a ball and chain of student loan debt that is so large that it overwhelms you. and so in the name of those students and all the students across the country, i hope that the majority leader's move to resolve this for at least a year and keep those loans at 3.4%, i hope that that motion to proceed will go forward and then the

bill itself will pass. now, what are the alternatives? every alternative i've heard from the republicans leads to higher interest rates with no cap -- no cap. mr. president, i don't know if you remember the years that interest rates rose, after a period of low rates, and they went up to 7%, 8%, 9%, double digits, 1 2%. i remember those days. it is hard for our people to remember that. but those were crushing interest rates. and if you don't have a cap on student loan interest rates, we are facing a real problem in the future, a problem that's going to impact the quality of life of our families. we're already seeing -- the fed put out statements that say that the crush of the burden of student loans, without these high interest rates, is having an impact on our economic recovery. i've read stories of young

people this were putting off -- that were putting off marriage and having families because of the crush of student loan debit. -- student loan debt. so i am very pleased that we're moving forward on this very commonsense proposal to keep these rates at 3.4%. we offset the cost by closing a tax loophole that is hardly -- hardly effects anybody at all. has to do with inheritance on a 401(k). and it will pay for this proposal. you know, i am a he very supportive of the immigration bill. but the last time my republican friends came forward with an enor mu proposal to build an even bigger fence and wider fence and stronger fence, and i guess the song "don't fence me in" is an old song. it doesn't apply anymore. we're going to be fenced in. and the cost of that is $20,00 0

billion, $30 billion, $40 billion. surely we can find $4 billion a year to mik make sure that our students don't have to face a doubling of these rates. now, mr. president, i also come to the floor to speak about gina mccarthy. for those people who haven't followed this debate, gina mccarthy has been nominated by president obama to lead the environmental protection agency. to me, she is the poster child of bipartisanship. and one of the best qualificationed candidates i've ever seen for this position. she's experienced, she's smart, she understands the law, she understands energy, she understands everything she has to understand to undertake this job. she understands court decisions, she understands the health

impacts of dirty air, and she understands that without a clean environment and a healthy environment, you can't really have economic growth. you know, i often retell the stheer when the walls came down in eastern europe, you couldn't even see the air was so thick -- you seen couldn't seen even see people. and one of the first thing they did was ask us thousand clean up their air. we have made grade strides and will continue to did that. yes, we have to face carbon pollution and the president is taking a stand to say he wants to follow the science. some people have said, we don't like that, therefore, maybe we shouldn't vote for gina mccarthy. can i just say this? the president has his policies and you don't have to agree with them -- or you can; i do. if you don't, that's fair. that's fine. but somebody has to run the environmental protection agency.

if you've got a problem with those policies, you're going to have to go to someone who's intelligent and wise and bipartisan in flair to talk to. -- in nature to talk to. gina mccarthy is one of those peevment this is the second time gina mccarthy has been nominated for a top position at the e.p.a. she was confirmed by the senate for her current position which is the assistant administrator for the office of air and radiation, without one "no" vote. let me reiterate that. no one stood up and said "no." everyone supported her. now, the senate environment and public works committee reported out her nomination on may 16. may 16. it's july. this is the longest period that e.p.a. has ever gone without an administrator. and the full senate should confirm this nominee as soon as

possible. now, when i say gene ma mccarthy is the poster child for bipartisanship, i mean what i say. she has over three decades of public service at the local, state, and federal levels; she is demonstrated a work of working with republicans and democrats. will he me just run through the republicans, mr. president. the republican governor of connecticut, former republican governors of massachusetts, william well, paul salucci, and mitt romney and then a democratic president, barack obama. now, let's look what the former republican governor jane swift said about gina mccarthy in an opinion piece that wasn't in "the boston globe." remember, this is a republican governor, former republican governor. she said, "gene ma mccarthy would bring competence,

fairness, and bipartisanship to washington. her record of accomplishment and her collaborative, pragmatic approach to policy-making, that's the reason she enjoys such strong support." now -- so this former republican governor goes on to say, "the senate has an immediate opportunity to strike a blow for good government and bureaucratic competence by swiftly approving mccarthy's nomination." and the title of governor swift's article in support of gina reads, "a qualified nominee for the e.p.a." and this was written/may 23. 2013. christie todd whitman, we all know her. she was the former e.p.a.

administrator. republican, she called for a fair confirmation process. now, you can look at businesses, health officials, environmental organizations, scientists -- they all support gina mccarthy. ithey all support her. for example, dr. george benjamin, executive director of the american public health association, said, "ms. mccarthy has been a true champion for public health, has consistently developed her leadership in developing casks to protect the public health from pollution. she is well-respected by the public health community, the industry, she is a solid record of work across the aisle with democrats and republicans." and that's a very strong statement. then there's gloria berk quift, vice president of the alliance of automobile manufacturers. mr. president, here is an e.p.a. administrator nominee getting the support of the vice president of the alliance of automobile manufacturers.

that's a rarity. and this is what she said. "she is a practicing matte pragc policy-maker, she has aspirational environmental goals but accepts the real-world economics." that's why this nominee should be embraced by everyone. yes, she has aspirational environmental goals for her grandchildren, someday when she has them. she wants them to breathes clean air. and so on -- drink clean water. but she understands the practicing matterrics that go into making policy. and i believe gina will lead the e.p.a. with transparency, follow the signs and the law and, yes, she will be straight from the shoulder and she will tell republicans and democrats alike how she sees the issue. and when we don't agree, how we can reach agreement. by the way, gina has answered more than 1,000 questions from

republicans on the e.p.w. committee and e.p.a. has provided extensive information to members of the senate in connection with this nomination. this is the longest the e.p.a. has gone without an administrator. how is this the right thing to do? this is the united states of america. this president deserves to have his people in place. sol would a republican -- so would a republican president. gina mccarthy has a deep understanding that the health and safety of the american people and a growing economy go hand in hand, and she will lead e.p.a. in a manner that is consistent with her past track record of success. so, from my perspective, approving gina mccarthy to head the e.p.a. is a very important step toward protecting the health of our children and future generations, and that is a most sacred obligation. we need her strong bipartisan commonsense approach to lead the e.p.a..

now, it's no great secret that in this last election, both parties were fighting for the votes of women. it was a knock-down, drag-out battle, and the democrats won the women's vote. president obama, by a lot. and the republicans said you know what? we -- we've got to change. we've got to reach out. and this is their chance. this woman deserves a promotion. there is nothing in her record that should make anyone fear her. she's a good woman. she's a hardworking person. shehas won unanimous support frm this body before, and there is no reason why we should not confirm her. and i'm going to continue to speak out for gina. i really do believe my

colleagues are hearing the truth about gina. i think they're getting the message that she's quite bipartisan, that she has strong support in the business community, in the health community, among scientists and others. and i am very hopeful, first of all, that there not be a filibuster. the woman deserves an up-or-down vote. and that, secondly, my colleagues will think long and hard, and they will agree with so many republican lawmakers, former governors who served with gina, who stand up and say she's a good woman, and she deserves this promotion. thank you very much, mr. president. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut.

mr. blumenthal: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank my colleague from california, senator boxer, for her very eloquent and powerful words on behalf of my client and friend, gina mccarthy and her appointment as commissioner and administrator of the e.p.a. i don't make any pretense of matching the persuasiveness of her statement on behalf of gina mccarthy, but i'm going to be speaking throughout this week and as long as it takes about gina mccarthy because she is not only a client and friend, she is a consummate public servant, an environmental protector. i have known her for many, many years. in fact, i was her lawyer, which is why i say she was a client. and as her lawyer, as attorney

general of the state, she became a friend. not just because of her personal qualities of integrity and intelligence, but her professionalism as an environmental protector who has sought always to recognize the need for a balance between environmental activism and economic growth, a balance involving as ardent and passionate protection of environmental values as anyone could possibly bring to this task, but also a willingness to listen, a willingness to hear all sides and consider all facts and in fact act as a passionate fact finder and lawyer as well as someone who respects the letter and spirit of the law. and i want to talk to my

colleagues about her respect for the law. it isn't just the letter of the law that she follows. it is the spirit and intent of the legislature, and i think that is important and should be important to this body because she has reflected throughout her career, working for two republican governors, in massachusetts and connecticut, her dedication to the public interest and to the legislative intent of the laws that she fulfills. she is truly an environmental protector for all seasons. she is a woman for all seasons and a public servant for all seasons. over the years that we worked together, she was consistently tough, fair and smart as an environmental law enforcer, and when she recognized the need to balance environmental activism with economic growth, she also

understood that the two are almost always mutually supportive. i'm proud and delighted that she has demonstrated her willingness to assume this critical position and to face the kind of difficult path that this confirmation process has imposed. achieving confirmation, which i actively support, should be truly bipartisan and blocking a vote on her nomination is disappointing and destructive. paralyzing partisan gamesmanship at its worst. my former connecticut colleague is well respected in the environmental and business community in my state and around the country for her dedication

to that listening and developing public leadership and practical solutions to environmental challenges. she protects environmental values and policies while enhancing economic opportunity. she is no foe of the business community or economic progress and job creation. in fact, she sees how protecting economic values is complementary and supportive to environmental activism. the president couldn't have picked a more qualified person to lead the e.p.a. at this critical time. the combination of her experience, intelligence, energy and unquestioned expertise will make gina mccarthy an effective e.p.a. administrator. she has a deep understanding that health and safety of the

american people depend on clean air and water, and the american people more than ever understand that fact. she is the right person for this job at this time, and i urge my colleagues to move forward with her confirmation to avoid obstructionist tactics, to embrace this nomination as good for all of the american people, for all of the interest that she has sought to represent and to move forward as quickly as possible so that this critical agency will have the kind of leadership that is so important at this point in our history. i urge my colleagues to support my friend and the president's choice to lead the e.p.a. i assure you you will not be disappointed. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. i ask senators be permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each

in a period of morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 87. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 87, s. 793 a bill to support revitalization and reform of the organization of american states, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed with the measure. mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, that there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, july 9, that following the prayer and the pledge, morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the majority leader then be recognized, that following the remarks of the two leaders, the time until 11:00 be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their

designees, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the majority controlling the first half, the republicans the second half. further, at 11:00 a.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 97, nomination of jennifer dorsey to be a district judge, that there be one hour of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form and that all orders under the previous order remain in effect and finally the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to offer weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so there will be a vote on the dorsey nomination at noon tomorrow, mr. president. if there's no further business to come before senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> there are still a bunch of rules and a lot of legislation and we are focusing on delivering good services to our citizens. let's clean this up and consolidate the federal government is looking at a way to deliver services better the content better. just like every business owner

wants to make sure that his or her company keeps pace with the times. i'm going to keep on doing what we can administratively. that we could use congress is help, particularly at a time when they say that they won't government to give a lot of lip service. we are operating under severe fiscal constraints. it makes sense for us to be able to redesign government. so that it can deliver the functions that the american people are looking for. we should want a government that is smarter and quicker and more responsive to the american people. >> president appointed sylvia mathews burwell to lead the effort. you can watch the entire remarks following the communicators here on c-span2. >> five years from now i think we will look at a world that is

dominated by this. it is starting to happen and we are starting to see erosion around the edges. not through a seismic change in technology, but the leakage of people out of the system that are very slow in accumulating. over 10 years from now, that will be a very large audience of the programmers and the entertainment industry will have to address and serve. >> yes, trying to set up an opportunity for broadcasters to turn in some of their perspective righ if they choose to. to turn ou and sell it to the wireless companies for flexible use, which could be mobile broadband. >> more at this years annual

cable show. the communicators nine at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> next time a conversation about china who was sent to china as a linguist during world war ii. after the war come here made in china for more than 30 years. becoming politically active. he was imprisoned twice by the government for 16 years sidney rittenberg is the co-author of the book, the man who stayed behind. the washington state china relations council hosted this event that is one hour long in the city of seattle, washington. >> thank you vey thank you michael. thank you all for coming here. they give you the washington state council and c-span today. this is someone you would want

to hear the most from as far as this topic goes. we will hear from him in the next few minutes. especially with personal experience of china experiencing hardships during the years in prison. it was the peoples republic of china. we were talking about what should we cover. it was just very detailed, 19-point note that exceeds in expectation what you'll read in

any newspapers. it is a real pleasure. most of what we are going to cover this evening is the current state of china. this book is insightful and it tells you about parts of china that are different from what they are now, parts that are very much the same as well. it is also a recording of 16 years in two different episodes and that is something that most of us or at least i do not think that i could take. there was one time when i was in

korea about 10 years ago and i realize that there was nothing around me in the a language that i could actually read or understand. nothing in japanese or chinese. i cannot understand it. and i thought for 16 years that you were in this kind of cistwhat did you learn about li? what to do and do you want to tell us who have not had this experience. what is the moral about yourselves and 16 years on their own?

>> it was something that we could live without. something that comes under the general heading of integrity. especially what you say in what you do and how it impacted. you are using this to harness your emotions and get behind positive ideas that keep from dragging you down. you know, we put this over a long period of time through a number of lessons.

you gain strength as you go along and it's a great thing to have. >> there is a theme in literature and philosophy of people looking back on this. wishing they could tell people. >> it is not something you can insert to somebody else. there were conditions and incentives for them to train themselves and hope that they will do it. especially in regards to raising children also.

but you cannot really put it into another context. so a long time ago they asked if it was a terrible home for ladies night. [laughter] >> okay, looking at the bright side. there are a lot of university students and individuals who were going to do the things that

are part of china's next step. >> i am not emblazon, but i will do the best that i can and what can we reasonably expect just like this private industry and

commerce. this is the most profitable sector by far in order to get funding to meet the payroll we have to go to the underground bank, which charges decisively shrunken state investment real estate investment for all kinds of reasons is enormously unproductive. to build up the capital market, which will include absorbing more from investments into the capital market, so that in the

future hopefully most chinese enterprises will go to equities and fixed income and so on to finance growth rather than relying on putting up money. these are very big changes. also we want to move the focus away from exports and serving with the market. so in the next 11 years and not

all big cities, but many big cities. and they think it is one of the ways of poverty. monopolies are usually against it. they don't want anything to change. and they certainly don't want more competition. but i think that they will be able to push through so he was the one that was so successful so this is like when the

president was part of the problems. in charge of the province. he was also one who openly spoke out against in 1989 and as pointed out, the new style that he brought into office with him already managed to overcome the terrible political cynicism over the chinese people, especially the young chinese people for quite a long time. i think on the other side of the

ledger, there is a man and his policies and remarks, the emphasis on the great chinese nation and also as has been manifested in this attitude towards sovereignty in the south china sea as opposed to southeast asian countries, so how far will you go and be able

to manage them as a question that i have. >> i would like to come back to these nationalism issues in a moment. first, i want to note that the father of the president of china was a close friend. this is something that you don't get in a normal conversation. people were saying that the restaurants were notably less crowded and the traffic was notably milder because of those ostentation campaign which suggest how many cars must have been bigshot cards. but let me ask about the question of political trust. there's been a lot of argument of questions of corruption, inequality, of the widening gap in the chinese system. they say that this can't be sustained.

>> i think that it can be his adventure. he has made some moves already against a number of corrupt officials, some of them are very corrupt, some of them above the level ministerial level and there is no way that we are going to eliminate corruption today. it's not going to happen. nobody here is old enough to remember that we used to have a lot of little audrey jokes. little audrey took her mother's toothpaste and squeeze all of the toothpaste all over.

the fact that the new leading team has been selected, all seven of them partly because they all have record of working against corruption and they have put the most capable of all of the prime ministers in charge of the fight against corruption. probably quite a lot will happen. but it will show the public that these guys are trying and that they mean what they say. >> to judge how they are realizing this when the second term is coming from another five-year plan, what will be the benchmarks that you would say, oh, yes, he has been able to

make good versus things that show he's not able to make progress? >> well, i don't expect it to happen in that way. the political system is not going to substantiate things. the thinking is it has created miracles in human history in terms of growth and improvement of people's lives and why should you change it. but there are lots of things that are wrong that must be changed. i think that if they are able to carry out economic reforms and they are able to make corruption, you know, to give it a very bad over so it has to be much more secret, and to make some moves against powerful

people, i think that they will have moved a great deal for her. as a result, the economy will continue. >> i think the first time that we talked was five or six years ago when i was interviewing you for a story i was doing for the event of a puzzle that remains in my mind still. you are clarifying that. it still has that started the puzzle is why china and the chinese government does such a bad job of protecting the country's realities to the world. this is connected to political reform. it seems to me many people saw the variety of this, all the things that are exciting, doesn't make you think day by day, yes, it's horrible in many ways, but it's more vivid and appealing things like that. of course, government makes it hard with the official

propaganda and remember during the olympic ceremony, the foreign ministry opened up an official protest zone and then they arrested people who went to protest. so the question i'm asking you is why is this balance so skewed, to what i think about this. will there be a time when america look bad if america were in charge of our foreign presence, in my own opinion, and his counterpart, i think, they have had the upper hand in terms of not letting the country relaxed. can you see china relaxing at some point? >> i think that is a very important point. for so long, not so much in recent years, but the long -- for a long time, people were told about the threat of

peaceful evolution being carried out by us in china. i remember asking about what is it you're concerned about. because in my view, there really is -- if you're talking about elements of socialism, it seems to me that we have more here in the united states today than they have in china. and so this has sort of been dropped, as far as i can see. but i think the problem we have is culture and this is a country that has been blocked off from the outside, not just for centuries but for a long time. for millennia is. the cultural concept is deeply embedded in that the chinese are

the normal and they are not really normal. i mean, they are okay, they are okay. but we are what's normal. therefore, the idea of letting the not quite normal people get too deep in the chinese affairs and be involved is quite a foreign idea for lots of people. you know, but hopefully it will get better with time and f will get shot in the eye and like that.

>> to bring this to a specific case, as you know, it does seem to me that censorship of the internet is both an illustration and a much more important phenomenon than it seems. because if china is aspiring to have first rate world universities and corporations, the people who can build those things are not going to go to where they can't really use it. and there must be people sophisticated enough to realize that. so how will this be resolved? >> there are people who are definitely against this and working against it. you are up against some very powerful groups.

so there is this tension that is going on, this tension between people that understand we want to open up. but i think that historically the more liberal individuals that open up have been women.

>> i don't think so. you improve it by the fact that there are thousands of thousands in china. some of them are really extreme. some are extreme left, some are extreme right. extremely against the government drama but nothing happens. there has not been gas because of that. i mean, there are lots of disturbances because of that policy or crooked people, but not because -- and i am certain -- and say every time we go to china. if you allow the press which is totally party own to to have open debate on all political and theoretical questions, it will release tension that would not build up. this happened in 1978, for a time.

it was then shut down and they did not create any trouble of all. and -- >> one more question about these internal tensions. as you know, the number of documented uprisings is a huge number, hundreds per day. it has impressed me the ones i have seen, they have been an appeal to salvation to the central government against local pressures. the you view this as a safety valve are a sign of discontent? >> both, i think. it is both the scientific plan and safety valve. the vice minister of agriculture several years ago said that, we are against disturbances, disruptions in public life and direction, but there is egg could side. if they bring our attention to bad things they're going on that we otherwise would not know about, and then we can deal with them. that is a rather sunshine the take. you cannot deal with all of

them, but i think that is true. is very significant, i believe, that not one of these more than 100,000 every year public strikes, protests, marches, petitions, campaigns, not one of them has been against the central authority. as you say, to get the emperor to send his people down to a deal with local. and so you can see it partly as a threat, but also partly as an element of stability, really. a system that has serious lax in political -- >> in your observation over time the central government becoming more tolerant or more draconian? >> oh, definitely becoming -- not only becoming more tolerant, but they are fundamentally changing the way of management.

half a dozen years ago they would still, if there was a striking demonstration, there was and then someone to try to suppress it. usually they would succeed. now they don't. they keep hands off in terms of force, but they send people and to negotiate, even three years ago the very serious truckdrivers strike in shanghai that blocked the main arteries of transportation and caused great losses. they did not jump on anybody. they sent people down and negotiated until they get a deal that was acceptably. that is a big change. >> the nationalism question. i will preface it, as you know, we live in japan for a number of years during the 1980's. i have to nationalistic questions. one is, you very eloquently pointed out in your book how you were very deep inside the

chinese system. he spoke chinese. there was a certain point where you work -- a barrier you encountered. still, i always thought how much more permeable chinese society was that japanese society. so big. there is more room for partners then there would be in japan. so question number one, do you agree or disagree. question number two, in the 25 years of going back and forth to japan, from china to japan, have been really struck by how the level of anti-japanese hatred is going up and up and up. how should we think about that, its origins and potential consequence? >> i think there is no question in my mind. i think there is much difference between chinese and japanese mindset if you like as japanese americans. on the surface it may appear quite similar, but they're very, very different. if you go to china and you deal

with your guide or whoever it, you're talking partners, once you become acquainted and relax, they are puffy year. you can live in japan for 30 years and that will never happen. [laughter] >> thank you. i won't call you dick cheney. >> and the other point -- >> the mounting tensions. the mounting -- just kind of ron anti-japanese sentiment. >> yes. well, you know, it comes mainly now from people that have had -- that never suffered under any government 100 years ago and that have had very few, if any, dealings with japanese. so they may have heard some

stories, the elders in the family, not too many of those others are still around, though. so you have to conclude that this is really manufactured. it is manufactured. it is what you get from your textbooks and schools and from the movie. you watch chinese tv, there is every day, war stories of heroism chinese fighting japanese. and some of them are really grotesque. so this is manufactured and kept up. that is part of what i was saying. it makes sense tech cultivate national spirit benefits and the cultivating hatred for other people that can be very dangerous. in china it is interesting. when the anti-japanese campaigns over the last decade, let's say,

start, typically they are supported by the government, at least by the local government. and -- but after it grows to a certain amount of demons and power the government begins to dampen it and even to crack down five or six years ago it ended when they arrested, i think, 27 of the spokespeople in shanghai. so there was no fuss about that. so it is a double-edged sword. it is dangerous because it can happen and can have an evil effect on foreign policy and is dangerous because it can be a vehicle through which disgruntled people can attack the chinese government, to get soft on japan. >> i have a test york and apply next time you travel to either japan or china. you mentioned how as soon as you get near somebody, kidding around and joking. when we first went, at 1986.

we were seen off from the airport in tokyo. the baggage handlers were ballads the plane. and as soon as we got to the airport in beijing the yes we're throwing bags of each other and playing tag and essentially every time i have been to the airport in beijing are shanghai is always the same thing, the baggage handlers playing games with each other. would you agree with that? a psychological question for you related to this. in many ways experiences in china sort of confirm your own experience about your own great personal hardship. this is not worth dwelling on, yourself. and when we talk to veterans, people that have been through starvation and the cultural revolution, there's a very practical minded, let's move ahead. on the other hand, a come across people, sometimes even the same people telling on what we have done to their grandparents 70 years ago by the japanese, the 100 years of humiliation, except representative.

how would you rationalize the fact of great practical dismissal of history and great dwelling on historical sites. i know the contradictions abound, but would you talk about those contradictions? >> for one thing, chinese, chinese philosophy has always stressed self cultivation of the individual. there are always positive and negative forces battling inside you, and you want to learn to use your own strong points to deal with their own weakness and that that is the essential engine of progress. and this is a course in chinese thinking, the concept. so in dealing lots of people draw on that tradition. on the other hand, the. that is a different story. a great slogan during the

resistance to the japanese invasion, the grace logan was, give back my mountains and rivers. dino. it wasn't predators and my home town. give back my mountains and villages. get out of my country. there is a very powerful feeling. and so -- >> is the current skirmish between japan and china over these islands, is that dangerous or not? >> i think it is extremely bad. i don't think that it's a danger to war because neither japan nor china has any intention on war with anybody out base. and they are not the kind of people that can be catapulted into a strategy that they opposed by incident. you know, there are incidents and miscalculations.

they will get over them. a good buy them. i think the toxic effects, however, is that i think it has turned a great portion of the japanese public against china among which is absolutely unnecessary, absolutely unnecessary. i think that most japanese had quite a friendly feeling toward china and now they feel, hey, what is going on? why you sending ships to threaten us and locking out your radar and so on? china, of course, stimulates this. so it is hard to see why anybody thinks in china that this would be a good move. but i think it is part of the general feeling that has grown over the past few years that now we are a great power and we have

to show the world that we are a great power. we have to stand up and be noticed. but not visa the the united states -- >> you anticipated my next question. >> i think they are very clear that one of the cornerstones of the foreign policy is to avoid confrontation with the united states. almost at any cost. >> let me ask you. we talked about the relationship between china and japan which will become needlessly sour and hostile. i offered to you the sort of while there is pollyannaish, the united states and china for the last 40 years have made things much better and smoother than they might well have been. is that something you agree with? and what do you attribute that to? the two countries' respective leaders. >> well, i think as a general sense in terms of national

interest that this is the only path that makes sense. anything else that only doesn't make sense but can be really very, very dangerous. so what politicians say in congress and so on is one thing. but when they campaign for the presidency, when they actually do it and are in charge of national policy in the white house, i think it is quite different. i mean, that can lurch in one direction or another, but by and large it has been a steady policy of finding common ground and expanding their relationships in -- and the u.s.-china relationship. >> and there is -- we are living in beijing during the financial collapse in l.a. and nine. there was an unmistakable town with a lot of chinese leaders, not simply pride in their own economy being able to rebound,

and not simply justified condemnation of the u.s. financial that led this world into this, but a sense that the time had passed. the u.s. and got into the action of history. that is not the town now, but you agree that there was the tone for what? reps -- >> there was that kind of circle of critics there were saying that and felt quite happy about it. then they decide to miss some of them decided there were not sure whether it would be a good thing and not. because it -- i mean, when trillion dollars some, there were not sure it would be good. -- >> and there was a narrative at the time that britain, france, portugal, venice, spain, holland, they all had their imperial moments. all small countries that were ever expanded. what you think that chinese strategic long-term view of their interest with the u.s. are?

or is? >> first of all, i think there want a stable international environment for them to reach their economic goals. you cannot think about that without thinking about u.s.-china relations. and that think that is probably the main thing. also, i think, particularly this new leading team, they keep emphasizing over and over that we should build a new type of relationship between great powers -- >> major powers. >> major powers. we should show the world that the emergence of a new major power does not necessarily mean chaos in the war. and i think i could get very interested in this and try to build it. and that is why american politicians go over there and usually get a very great welcome, even the ones that are

not so friendly. >> as i mentioned, last week in beijing with a number of serious a jury officials including the green uniforms. really interesting. one of the things that came through was the theme of mistrust. and the argument was given that, for example, a large number of american troops said been killed accidentally by u.k. friendly fire. nobody thinks this is on purpose or reason for a crisis between the u.s. and england, but they said if any incident in the u.s. and china, notably the embassy bombing in the balkans 20 years ago is taken as having been purposeful and no explanation is excepted, what do you think of the main grounds for chinese strategic mistrust of us than for american strategic mistrusted china? >> well, i think in the case of mistrust of los they went

through a time of 27 years about him from 1949 until the end of the cultural revolution in which we were there a great satan and everything wrong with the world was attributable to the american policy. people grow put that idea. later, starting in 1916, we shared that with the russians. there were also a great satan. so the relationships' fundamentally changed. it takes time, i think, for that kind of building or mistrust to wear off. however, i feel very strongly that at no time to earn a worst-case to the korean war, at no time to you find coronary

chinese personally hostile to americans. our mayor there is an incident, americans -- and we went with him -- went with him 210 and squared where there was a huge meeting of students. must have been a million people. there were some agitated against u.s. imperialists, as usual. and so, felix wanted to go out and tell the rally. and so i've sort of guided him through the zone kids' shouting slogans. then they stopped us and asked who this was. i said he is an american journalist. they immediately fell back on both sides and opened for him to drop their film. so i think americans and

canadians have all this time been favored foreigners in china . you go take a chinese village and some those guys practicing his anguish will come up and say where you from. if you say america he will get a big grin right away. >> personally, my experience over the decades has been that. we have never really had any bad experiences based on being american, only our personal traits. not my nationality. and so what does the u.s. legitimately mistrust about china? >> i think that the u.s., talking about washington, i guess, basically does not understand china. there really do not understand. i mean, if you spend time in china the thought that the growth of china including is a certain degree of expansion in the military force, that this

poses a military threat to the united states. it just sounds way out of left field. i mean, there is no school of thought in china as far as i know and then never has been a school of thought that argues to solve our problems we need to go out and cocker other countries. never. the part that is used to belong to the emperor, that's a different thing. i don't think the chinese think that way. unlike the new japan at least. so i think that we don't understand that and we don't understand the intentions. we know it is still called communist, and we don't understand that we've won nothing to do is come in this whatsoever. a lot more to do with capitalism . and also i think, unfortunately

our chinese policy, politicians and people in congress, it tends to be based not on our national interest but not what they think will play well back, and get the votes. that is the tragedy of it. so some people are mentioned. when you went to shanghai, conversations in shanghai about china. it was like you were talking to a different man. he could not find anybody more reasonable. but back, the head of young democrats could sell was the editor. set on a certain path. and just wanted this point, the one area where i think the u.s. opinion is now most focused is the cyber threat, where china does seem to be different from

others and having state-sponsored commercial espionage. what is your view of that? >> i had the average into the to talk with the person in the fbi who is one of the people in charge of cyber warfare and against cyber warfare. i said to a.m. -- he just made a talk about the terrible threat an influence on several warfare, many in china. i asked him, isn't it true that we are pretty get that to. hello, where the best. but we don't talk about that. >> i agree with that. people last week made that same point. i think one of the differences -- i don't think the u.s. uses state, cyber, or commercial ends. that seems to be china's distinctive traits. three cyber attacks as we used

to declare weapons. a confidence-building measure and all that. let me ask you something different -- >> something we are just having the two sides. the chinese, their first level of response was only the victims of this sort of thing. never heard of it. my express to you on the biggest threat to china's continued development and the biggest problem that chadic rates for the rest of the world as environmental, and certainly what is happening in china now is the same as what happened in germany and london and l.a. b. query this bill is so different from anything the world has seen the form. can you argue with generous dealings with the environmental problems? >> i think the grounds for optimism is that they now take it very, very seriously which they did not before. veba -- you know, they are

spending billions and billions to deal with it. however, it is already a presence. so you don't get rid of it just by spending money overnight. it is going to take time. i think there will be able to deal with it in time. it is critical now just to live in beijing, it's a danger to your health. it really is. and if you check the hospital, you can see its manifest. >> and certainly i have been witness to some of the efforts of people in this room, the chinese clean energy council and others, a very, very dense connection of cooperative efforts between the u.s. and china. however, the birth defect epidemics, that does seem in a way threatening to the stability of the regime in no way at some other things might not be. >> i think if the regime is really positive persistent in dealing with corruption, i

suppose that will be a factor for public confidence. it is not. you know, and this is one thing. in to talk who, practical action that we need. >> we will move now to the lightning round of the discussion. a few more minutes here for our publics before we turn to our viewers. so i will ask you about how we should think about the future of mainland china and taiwan? there are those who say that the status quo and go on indefinitely and others say it will be provoked to some kind of crisis where the u.s. and china just cannot agree. twenty years from now, 30 years from now, what you think the relationship will be? >> i think it will gradually move to some sort of confederation agreement, sort of association. for taiwan tubs become a -- an actual province of china, i think, is difficult and would

probably take a long time if it happens. but that is not really necessary. what he used to say -- and that all remember whether it was published and not. if he could believe that he had won national anthem, one flag, one title for china from and we don't send soldiers or police to taiwan, officials that will come and take part in the central government, that's okay. i think it may move in that direction, frankly. so far, i mean, it's okay. today it seems to be pretty of cape. >> moving around the region, north korea, can and should -- should turn to be doing more to control monetary? >> you know, i don't think it is about control. [laughter]

you know, they have cut off some of the bankings and the refinancing. they have stopped some of the exploits, not the main thing. and they have made unpleasant noises showing dissatisfaction in, but it seems to me that what we are working toward is a situation whereby they do their best working their side of the street. >> it seems to me that she really is what ambassador dennis rodman may. [applause] [laughter] >> and that is, we need to talk. does not make any sense not to talk with people just because you disagree with them. it seems to me that exactly the time when you need to talk. but we refuse to talk directly

to the austrians. to me it does not make any sense. this young guy they're needs recognition. he needs recognition, mainly from us. so what would it cost us to give him a little recognition in terms of diplomatic talks and so on? it seems to me that there is much more there than there is any further controls in china because what the chinese are afraid of is one thing, the same thing washington is afraid of. they are afraid that if you put too much pressure there is him will collapse suddenly. then we will have millions and millions of refugees. and they are mindful of what happened to west germany when east germany collapsed. they don't want that to happen. >> how about china's more broadly defined responsibility as a major power in the world? north korea, syria, a raw, sedan , will that chinese literature become more

naturally accepting of international requests to do the right thing in those areas? >> i think there will. you know, there has been a process where we and others have been trying to coax them out not to of year the influence, but to hope for them to participate in the solution of international issues that to not necessarily directly involved in. i mean, the middle east directly involves them. you don't have to invite and there. suddenly the north koreans. but to it is a process because that tradition has been not to get involved if you can help it. the old chinese saying that it is better to have one. butanone. and so i think it is gradually changing. also, they have to learn how to do -- how to get involved. ..