including the deputy to the groupon finance and economics who have gone so far as to say it's a dead-end. maybe not today, but at some point. and that new model of economic development, well necessitate slower growth and more balanced and sustainable growth trajectory. well, from i u.s. perspective when we see china having generated over the last number of years about 30 percent of global growth, maybe we should also ask the question, to what extent is an engineer -- at least for short and medium-term purposes slowdown in growth and our interest? well, we may not have much control over that, but i would say that from a u.s. perspective

, all of growth that does set a slower, more sustainable trajectory is in the u.s. interest, and i say that for several reasons. one is i do agree with the fundamental assessment that the current strategy has played itself out. the implications for social and political stability, and stability in the domestic context is certainly in our interest. i think also they are projecting that the vision includes a more integrated china with the world economy. i think certainly that is an america's long-term interest. so i think bottom line is we have a national interesting, ber

interests, the leadership'ses is assessment that they need to change that ever economic model. now, chris had reverended some new considerations with respect to xi zhengping and the current leadership. i think one very significant change, structurally in the decision-making process is been the reemerge ends, not that it was ever dormant, but the party under xi, as he projects it will play a much larger role than it has in the past and in a more consolidated and disciplined form. and as he envisions at this at this.i must envision it in political terms take the party left. so he is to some extent

resorting to tactics previous era, leftist kind of approaches, idealogical orthodoxy -- >> information management information management. i think he views it as a bypassing a state apparatus that has been gridlocked now in terms of policy making for well over a decade. so one look to a stronger, i think at least in the near term role for party apparatus. i think to go back to your question that does have some implications for how we interact with china. we have current interactions that we need for ongoing reince. there are new set of players. they are difficult to access

government officials in the past because of xi's institutional dominance. the power base what might actually be. we have to elevate in our own government the point of contact, the senior point of interaction. because it has elevated on the chinese side for institutional purposes. >> i couldn't agree more with that, kevin. i think it is quite important to grasp the full implications of that. for example, one of the things, on one hand it is good xi is doing what he think is necessary of increasing power to justify what they hope to they need to achieve. there is the risk if they're then successful, message only totalitarian, highly centralized form of government will work in the country. so that is very important. let me say separately the presentation highlighted issue

of ttp and first stop of bilateral investment treaty. would i argue this is, you mentioned humility earlier. it is important for us to understand we're not going to fundamentally affect the trajectory of this internal reform program but would argue the bilateral investment treaty may give us our best shot to at least angle the direction of that program because my sense is that there's a view inside the system of what the end point of this process looks like which may be very different what ourselves or other westerners or regional countries would like to see and this process combined with tpp may give us the opportunity to arc with the trajectory. >> we may want to talk on your last sentence more about this later. their definition of reform -- >> very different. >> is very different from ours. despite the, the single-most probably significant statement in the third plenum document that the market shall play a decisive role in resource

allocation, that does not capture the real essence of either their current, certainly, or their envisioned economic model. >> you guys are recalling some of the conversations we had in the lead-up to the study. someone, i wish i could remember who so i could probably credit as we were talking about the relative growth levels, you know what would be historic, if they didn't announce a growth level. if they believe growth happened when good macro policies are in effect. let me tease out this point and also go back to something david said. i know you're working at brookings on china outbound investment but i can't resist asking all of you about the role of foreign investment in this model. it has been so key to china's development. but it's clear to me just in our own client dealings that the old formula where you go in an a foreign investor and trademark

get access -- trademarkket access for capital that deal is dead as julius caesar. i'm not sure what replaced it. as i look at plenum document i don't know where to take, david, in particular as you have these discussions with chinese officials do you get a sense for how they value foreign participation in in this turning point? >> i think the whole attitude toward foreign participation turned last few years and become negative or cold toward foreign investment. foreign investment played a important role building up china's export machine. at one point more than half the exports were coming from foreign invested firm. exports will play a less important role going forward. what you're seeing in the recent data. not just a cyclical phenomenon, china's share of global trade will be peeking peaking. exports will not play the same role. they need set of reforms they

reference in their various documents. i think one of the important ones is opening up the service sectors in china. some of the manufacturing sectors are pretty open to foreign investment, not all, but some but the service sectors are extremely closed. they stand out among g20 countries as having the most closed regime in general. very specifically closed in years like financial services logistics telecom and services media. this will be controversial. my technical assessment it would help them a lot to open up the sectors, get competition, get new technology but it will be hugely controversial and i think what was implicit in your question, china is also moving into a stage where most of as you guy they're overinvesting and they need to bring investment down. their consumption is rising but may not rise proportionally but they could become a larger net supplier of capital to the rest of the world. so their firms want to go out.

you mentioned the bilateral investment treaty. there is good potential to negotiate a deal because chinese firms are interested in coming into the u.s. this would require them to really open up those service sectors in china. this is going to be very controversial there. and as we get into the negotiations, i think many chinese stakeholders will realize the u.s. in fact is extremely open. the u.s. is now the number one destination for chinese outward investment so the u.s. doesn't actually have much to give up in the negotiation because we're already open. i think it will be very interesting to see how this plays out. will china be willing to open up the sectors, some ways lock in a better investment relationship with the u.s. as i said the u.s. is already pretty open. so it will be hard to point to a lot of specific benefits they get. >> matt highlighted at the outset that some of the tensions in these reforms but listening to what you just said it occurs in the need for job creation where does most of the job creation in this economy occur?

i see mike west sell sitting there. david, not mike. that a lost job creation is happening in the service sector. you've been listen about this. so too, you have got six out of 10 american jobs being created in small and mid-cap companies. those are the parts of the china niece economy that have less access to capital which is, seems to me they have avoided that moment of tough choice for about as long as they can. >> china does not need u.s. capital. as it seeks to move up the valued added chain in manufacturing, its greatest need in my view is for collaborative research development. collaborative r&d. they are at the point now, they

understand the sig dance of manufacturing -- significance of manufacturing industries, technologies that are innovative. they can no longer simply copy. they have to create. and from that perspective, as a long-term driver they know they have got to enter into collaborative research and development relationships with outside industry. and i think they are intent on doing that and i think in part because today they bring to the table in those collaborative research and development areas not only capital but genuine human capital, and scientific contribution. this is no longer a one-way street. it is collaborative in nature. >> i agree. i think that is absolutely right. but one consideration i think is how those collaborative enterprises are shaped. so i think, kind of along the

lines of what david has said, we are seeing an emergence what you might call indigenous innovation 2.0 coming out of the chinese as one chinese told me they're pursuing a nike strategy. don't talk about it, just do it. the tools that we see them employing, antimonopoly, anti-pricing, these sort of things all turn back on this wheel of the issue of the development of first domestic and ultimately global champions and the role foreign investment and role foreign participation plays in that process is fundamentally different. >> can i just pick up on that because definitely in the course of this although we were not specifically looking at issues of foreign investment and foreign investors positions and views we heard constantly about the challenges, the increasing challenges that foreign investors are facing whether it is this antimonopoly act where they're pulling companies in sort of a way threatening them or using these, sorry, for the general audience, indigenous

innovation, idea of developing through whatever means, begging, borrowing or stealing, technological capabilities to develop china's own innovative capabilities. and it is just becoming a lot more difficult, between that and the overall too big structural factors that growth has slowed and labor has become a lot more expensive in china i think it's much less friendly place for foreign investors. so that has been something that, that i think is just reality of what is going on there. but i wanted to pick up on that and something said earlier about the bid by chris. we spent a fair amount of time in shanghai because of free trade zone was unfolding and it was very interesting, i mean shanghai is not obviously, inso facto, it is its own sort of place. not exactly a reflection of the center local but we learned a lot about central local dynamics down there and you get a different perspective on local

issues in shanghai where they have their own ideas what works and doesn't work, more or leslieen to beijing when they have to. the difference there, many people in the shanghai, chris can speak much more to this, xi jinping used to be in shanghai and stepping stone to promotion to beijing. there is a little bit of constraint on the independence of action or thought but you picked up there is very different approach in a place like shanghai. the other two things we learned down there that sort of stood out for me are that, they definitely are on whatever level and whatever lasting significance, i'm not sure but they definitely are picking up on these external forces because if you look, for example, at the just glossy brochure about the shanghai free trade zone it uses terms like preestablishment, national treatment and negative list approach to regulation which is straight out of the american playbook.

in the by the negotiations, bilateral investment treaty, they're for whatever reason using those terms and adopt ad negative list, whatever it is, negative list meaning that you can do anything you want except the things that are listed on a list open approach. by the negotiations. because it implies a whole different approach to regulation, instead of going through a huge, difficult, preapproval process you essentially set up shop with very low barrier to entry. the problem is, we heard this a lot, first of all it is not clear they will really lower the barrier that much in practice. it still may be hard to get in. but if they do the question is post-establishment once there is a company up and running there are huge number of risks and things that will require structures of supervision and monitoring and disclosure and

things that don't really exist in fully robust forms yet. you guys correct me if i'm wrong, if that stuff is missing there is real risk they will get something wrong and there will be mistakes and abuses, potentially ultimately a backlash against reform. that is one thing we picked up. the other big thing was the gap between the political ambition which is clearly there. there is no question that they're politically committed to this stuff and the, and the technical capability which is quite strong. i think the bureaucrats and the officials working on these issues know what needs to be done to get from here to there. and so, as barry naughton inspiring, i alluded to san diego, barry has been very much someone who we based a lot of our research on, explains the third plenum document as a vision statement and a to-do list and not as a road map or a

blueprint. to me that was very good way of characterizing what i just said, there is clearly the political vision and the ambition and i think there is a good, long, list of things that need to be done and that are good, appropriate things but the missing middle is there, which is, how do you kind of put together a coordinated, sequenced program and have somebody driving that and making sure that all those things are moving in the right order? and in theory i guess this new reform leading group is going to do that but like 10 people who will try to manage this across the country. >> i think that is one of the key structural difficulties frankly we'll see going forward is they do appear to having difficulty doing such processes transitioning from a very small kitchen cabinet around xi jinping that participated in drafting the plenum document, the decision document to the

clunkier document of leading group. >> leading group is not that big and i think -- >> largest one they have. >> think about the implementation challenges in all these areas. >> right. >> i think it will come back to the line ministries. >> i absolutely agree. >> i was in beijing last week. what i heard from some of the people you pictured up there the line ministries will play critical roles in implementation. one way to look what is happening, some of these agencies like the central bank has a very clear vision how it want to proceed with financial reform so you actually see some progress. not sure i would call it all that rapid, but you sigh some progress. what they did last week opening this channel between hong kong and the main land to invest in each other's stock markets that is actually quite significant and what they did to widen the exchange rate band i'm not sure call that significant but obviously they're still managing it. but other areas the line ministries seem extremely lukewarm about reform. you leave the negotiation of bilateral investment treaty to

line ministries that normally negotiate trade relations and i could see that dragging out for years. i think we'll see more rapid movement in some areas than others. it won't be central design. but it will reflect deepen trenched interests in these line ministries. >> as this process moves down if it is to be successful as it has in the past, implemented by people at the grassroots level, say more about the tension thaw observed, all of you, in the incentive structure for these people at, when they're dealing with, in particular state enterprises. the kind of choices that you're talk about, david, are extremely wrenching for and dislocatetive, that is word right? , forethe folks at the township provincial level, when they're sitting across the table from the locally-owned state-run enterprises, how is that going to work? >> a general issue all these state enterprises whether they're central or local, they

used to be more or less owned by some line agency. at the center they collect them under sasic i think there are very strong ties between the line ministries and these enterprises. the relevant line agency for the big commercial banks is the banking regulatory commission. they seem extremely reluctant to open up to competition from foreign first. they're very protective of their big firms. of course you see senior officials move back and forth from being head of a commercial bank to being one of the banking regulators. so, just one little quick anecdote. when we were trying to negotiate with them around electronic payments where the united states actually took china to the wto, we were told to talk to a particular vice governor of the central bank who was in charge of the policy but as we were pursuing this we read in the newspaper that he had become the president of the monopoly credit card company which is, that was a problem. so, i still think the line agencies in general are very

protective and then when you go down to the local level it is even worse. the local level owns a lot of state enterprises in a variety of sectors and they own those and they feel ownership of those. >> can i say one thing? tragically unable to find a good shot of in the creative commons was the red phones that soe chairman have on their desks that connects them to the officials and party members in beijing and these literally exist, right? bat phones that connect people. so it shows we really want ad picture of that to bring home there is this very tight connection. . . .

>> they have doubts about their own human capital, their own bandwidth to be able to manage very technical reforms. >> i want to drag you back into this. there's this mythic view in the u.s. whether it's, you know, capability and training on engineering or, you know, in the government. 1.35 billion people, the top 0.01% are extremely talented folks, let's allow, but having taught in the chinese system, this is a wildly uneven educational structure. is there, look at what the u.s./china business council tells us about the number one need of u.s. companies in china.

it's not intellectual property or any of this other stuff, it's being able to get and retain qualified local people. surely the chinese government faces that same talent constraint. do you -- is there that bandwidth? i mean, is there the human capital to manage this kind of intricate change that we're talking about? down to the grassroots level? >> my instinct is to say, yes. as i already said, i've just been very impressed by my experience with local government officials compared to, you know, the rest of the developing world. it's just, you know, the really striking thing about china. at the central level, you know, as you say, the top 1% is extraordinarily good, and, you know, there's advantages in being a big country. you don't need that many outstanding central bankers. you really just need one. [laughter] china and the u.s. are lucky each to have one. so i think they have enough, i do think they have enough talent, you know, at the very top to design these reforms.

>> you know, it's, in terms of implementation and projecting requirements down to the local level, the big design and putting it in place, it's certainly the case that behavior is affected by incentives. and so it's not simply a question of the technical capabilities of officials, it's a question of what they perceive the rewards to be for change. and i think in that regard in the context of reform and looking at how you design a set of incentives, two things at least note referencing. one is that the softer stuff is harder to quantify. >> yeah.

>> growth, numbers of jobs is relatively easy. and so more nuanced, more balanced set of incentives doesn't lend itself to the kind of certainty that may be required to motivate and to transmit instructions clearly. the second thing is that even in the context of reform the old system, if you will, as they transition will persist for some period of time. it's not only it will persist from their perspective, from the per perspective of leadership -- >> they need that continuity -- >> -- it must interest. and there are very clear reasons for that. one is urbanization is a high priority. it's perhaps the one area where they have laid out the most detailed set of measures for reform.

urbanization necessitates capital investment, fixed asset investment. it necessitates infrastructure. all the elements of the system that, you know, they are saying they want to modify. so there's tension in this transition process that complicates the process of or articulating -- or articulating and enforcing clear incentives that could change behavior down the line. >> i think if you layer onto that structure as well the anti-graft environment that these officials are facing and how that affects their incentive structure or their willingness to lean forward, as olin just said, in areas where it's unclear what the winning strategy is. and secondarily, the broad feel of reform program and top level design. she is using a political

mobilization strategy,? the leading groups that will run down the hierarchy are all led by the local senior party official, and that's great in terms of mobilizing the party apparatus, but when the crunch really comes in implementation of some of these reforms, do you want that top political guy to, the guy who's seeking promotion, or would you rather have a committee of tech technocrats wo understand the situation well? >> we should not assume that the tactics of the left are appreciated. down the line. because they are associated with the past. >> right. >> that was problematic. and so there is, i think there has been a generated some cynicism especially as to the nature of the political direction. >> when you go down and meet with these guys, too, you'll

notice that they're 30 and 40 years old which i find extremely frightening, because they're so much younger, so much sharper that they don't really care what our generation of chinese officials and a lot -- they see a real disconnect with the life experience of some of the people who are offering up these lessons. >> they do. and i think there's also a sense that this too shall pass. >> indeed. >> we will ride the -- this out, that the requirements, the mandates of the old system will reemerge, that the interests in special privilege, in the crony nature of business transactions, that that must survive in order to facilitate business, in order to facilitate growth. >> to which i would reply what do you think this is, wall street? [laughter] >> that cultural challenge is, it's not just a cultural

challenge, where interest really lies. >> hang on one second. we have mirrored the small leading group phenomenon in that we're now in complete and violent agreement among ourselves. [laughter] i want to provoke you because on the wild notion that you might have different ideas and questions to inform our panel and invite those questions. we've got folks coming around with microphones, and you can pick up one. some of the threads here, take us in a new direction as you will. >> and please identify yourself. >> yes, i'm sorry. do identify yourself at the outset if you have a question. >> maybe while people are thinking, chris, you want to make that point? >> i just, my sense is that this is so critical in terms of the risk that we're seeing in the development of the anti-corruption campaign because so many people feel that it won't last. shi finds himself having to go higher and higher and broader and broader to demonstrate that it's real, and that risks the potential of provoking an immune response, you know?

>> i had a chinese colleague tell me he was presenting the customary or red envelopes and $300 bottles of liquor at chinese new year, and the would-be recipients said, no, no, no, no, you know, in this isn't the right time. hang on to that. [laughter] scott right here. >> thank you. and thank you for a terrific panel. alan roberts, simpson center. something you really sort of talked around a ltle bi when ..nd so on, it's sort of been an article of faith, i think, a lot of people who think about economic reform in this town that it won't succeed in china without fundamental political reform. and i wonder if you could comment on that, what that political reform might be and what the chances -- >> well -- >> if that article of faith is, in fact, justified? >> i put david on the spot? as i mentioned, all of these

gentlemen were helpful in giving us insight. and one of the things, david, you said to me was when, as olin was saying, these new metrics for success at the local level, not gdp growth or in addition to gdp growth, you know, environmental protection or improving fairness and equality and so forth, outcomes are much harder to measure, and the only way to measure those things is through some sort of democratic process of subjective evaluation of whether an official is actually doing their job or not. is that a fair characterization? >> yes. i think people may not want to accept this, but when you start out at a very low level of development, economic growth is not a bad summary of what's the national welfare. so when you start out poor and have a system that generates economic growth with lots of bad things around the side, you know, my perception still is chinese people have been pretty happy with this performance, and local government officials, you know, as i mentioned, you've within able to a-- been able to

align their private incentives with a growth agenda. thousand as the economy gets into a middle income, people have a broader set of wants people have a broader set ones. the leadership asperity pic about not and i am skeptical that you can achieve this in an authoritarian system because it is easy to say you'll be evaluated a stunt economic growth and by the way you could put a little bit in your pocket. it's much harder to have a system where you say we both value eight yuan 15 games. here's the measurement and here's the weights of those 15 things. i'm skeptical they'll actually reward officials on across core card. on economic growth plus social stability. >> we see increasingly the fact we can't divorce it because one and the rest, just as a practical matter, the political

economy requires this different polity. i was in a meeting a while ago where we had a rich conversation like this but some chinese friends and we got on the political subject and one said forget the politics. this lack of transparency in this lack of dialogue also does not allow us to see price of lee. of which i hadn't thought about in those terms. but the same inhibitions in the political context do inhibit what is possible. >> a big point not to this day are that is so important on political restructuring is the point i would refer to earlier that for the last 20 years a lot of it has to do with the long shadow cast by tian an men. in the hooch and how administration and with regard to the manifesto for the 13th party congress in 1987 and the

structural reform and that is big guy. that long-standing debate over separation of party and government is over. >> indeed. go ahead. >> just to say quickly, on this question of political reform, there was a guy at the top, there are various begin differences. i was in beijing a couple weeks ago and did a session at the executive vice premier. he gave a very close fashion, but he gave a very strong presentation on rule of law, independence of the judiciary and in large public participation. i know there are other parts of the government that do not share that kind of outlook.

>> was a policy last year not to use the term rule of law. >> he didn't get the message. he very clearly used that terminology repeatedly. >> these comments that collusion pain has made about regulation is a discussion of dialogue. but watch the upcoming planned this fall. they are about party building and if they are interested in making the moves in this space, that the place to watch for it. >> i entirely agree this is a fascinating panel. i would like to probe a little more into this that you've been talking about. you've describe the difficulty of defining a different set of criteria. i wonder if someone could give us a thumbnail sketch of whatever it is they know about

the criteria that the organization department is sending down to local officials now and to what extent that is changed from five years ago when there is also a debate about the need to change those incentives. a second session effecting they talked about many new players that affect decision-making. one of those at the local level and anyplace reduce their pollution to the extent that there is now, must be the role of local environment or groups and they provide a set of incentives on some of these non-economic factors, which hopefully will reinforce the organization department. i wonder if you can talk a little bit about how those things play together. >> five years ago your valuation of the communist party was weighted about 60% having to promote stability. for what is your folks the idea

undertook this thing quiet >> clearly environmental protection has risen, particularly the eastern provinces that are causing a lot of the industrial pollution around beijing in particular has been subject it to very specific guidelines on how much matter if they can release. this has required shutting down factories and so forth and that causes economic pain is so these provinces want some payback for that or pay off to compensate for the loss of economic activity and jobs. so that is certainly one. >> i just want to add, i want to underscore the organization department has changed and what it's not. obviously social stability will be huge. wanting in the previous criteria of social stability and he also

had the policy as a critical sort of criteria. how does that change with the recent changes in policy? i do think it is clear and has been publicly announced the organization department is sending and a lot of it has to do with growth. >> let's see if we have time for a couple more. >> thank you furnished. bob feste, georgetown center of public policy. the chinese announced they will join battista association, trade and services it goes the nation agree that, but not all the 22 member countries are willing to accept them. the united states has made it clear that in order for china to join he has to indicate his good intentions by offering conference building measures and some of the wto cases and

judgments rather and other measures. there are many. how serious -- what is china's interest in joining a negotiation by the international trade services agreement and will they be sincere enough to anti-ahead of joining, in terms of offering changes in their current policy. >> yeah, so i think there's multiple degrees of why china is interested in the service agreements and also bilateral investment treaty with the u.s. recently talking about being open to the ttp, china not opposed to begin about maybe turning in the future. among some of these to press we're talking about, there's a good awareness and rocky mount forms china needs. china has got a lot of mileage out of world trade and the pto. there's a general ex-defense

this can be a good strategy. looking for a down payment seems like a realistic or reasonable approach. that hasn't been a lot of and movement over the last decade or so. he seems to me very reasonable to ask for some down payment. it would be a smart move. it would be consistent with their experiment -- experimentation to pick one factor. i think they've got opposition in all this key sectors. >> he says services are about more porous by their nature it's a manufacture date. so the implications for the economy, you can cycle rise, even though they are trying to show a tax-free trade zone. >> you know, if they are serious about the next wave of reform, getting more dynamism is quite critical. imagine a planet. it's almost the case of the

service sectors, but they're not create enough jobs for college graduates are not as where liberalization of the service sectors could really help them. >> urbanization movement from agriculture to the seas. that population will probably if it happens going to services, not manufacturing. that is the assumption, planning assumption that the government. stephen roach in el is followed this area. i saw a presentation he did recently. he is now, based on his analysis, he says that the service sector nationwide employ smart people are in china they manufacturing. he is bullish on the speed of this transition. but that may in part account for their interests. hopefully they can avoid the wage compression we've seen. >> services are more labor and

sensitive than manufacturing. >> yes, i used to work for all of them u.s. council for international business. i see we have three treasury people. i wanted to take you out of the lease for a moment and talk about the young people and their access to the power of the internet. if you look at the recent history of the last 50 years, the ability of young people in china to push change are rapidly and directions of the chinese officials have yet to contemplate. >> i think it's a very useful question. i want to link it to my earlier snarky comment about how those expectations in the younger age cohorts are so very different from people of the cultural revolution generation. you've looked at this in terms of stability. >> yeah, this is the biggest challenge is a tension between the need to move in this

direction to break out of the middle income track and a pervasive desire for control. you know, rightsizing that is really issued a challenge. all these economic issues, perhaps the chief threat to their continued stay in power is proliferation across china. so we've got the capability of some person far outlast snapping the photograph of something bad happening and put it on one of these sites and then i see that happening. this is what scares the leadership. two types of motivation. and pigs across provincial boundaries on this technology makes it problematic for both of those areas. >> yes. >> thank you. john paul from ethiopia to have a question about the human capital and the chinese government administration.

few people know that even in the center government ministries, the media are higher-level official salaries bear low. $900 per month or $1000 per month. over the years there is no example if you want to buy a house, government officials cannot give more per village. there is a revolving door between administration, public sector and the private sector. but in china it's come a long way. if you jump at the government come you could never come back. i asked the panelists, can you share with us the comments about this human or criminal capital policy. for a standard government to the local government come of human capital is quite lacking people within the government with a

decent salary and over the past two months is a very heated debate on the internet. the public sector service be to raise the salary. >> solus comment. >> we can never have that conversation. >> we've seen successful management of this issue. it is an important one in places like singapore for a civil servant salaries are equivalent to and sometimes better than the private sector. do you have any instinct about where in the context of the reformers are looking at and studying, is there any elements about professionalization of the civil service? let me answer that for the military that gives you confidence in what makes you think we can avoid that problem.

>> is a challenge and this is where the realignment of the incentive structure is so important because if you take things that the crackdown on the so-called extravagance, so many officials rely on the red envelope chinese new year and so as a supplement to their salary. so this environment remains pervasive and i don't see any sign he champagne is letting up on it, the counter to that is this idea is seeking -- there was a good singapore as a model, but the first to tell the chinese if you look at what is happening in singapore, the packet is under tremendous pressure. so i think the chinese realize that's not viable for them. so the retooling incentive structure, how'd you incentivize somebody who gets paid nothing but a signature authority over anything over 10 million,

whatever the limit is. that's a difficult situation. had he changed that dynamic? it's very hard. >> it is corrosive because we know officials above middle-management have to purchase their position. i mean, you've got to come up with a lump sum in many cases to buy the job. that kind of data corruption and the party's personnel system. is a remedial per rightsizing pay packages with the private sector? does the conversation even permit that quick >> i would point out he had the same problems with the united states before the progressive era and what it took was a lot of free media. it took fair amount of intervention on the part of the people, but basically democratic institutions loosely with how we

brought corruption under control. i think there's too many other historic examples except in tiny places like singapore. everybody else's control has used the institution. >> the private sector is favorable with the government now in china. one way in which the human capital, metallic pieces dealt with is there is heavy reliance on outside think tanks, universities. the dividing line between being in government, influence government being outside is not sharp and a set of policy interest can still have impact from the private sector and they can supplement far in excess of

what government officials do. in many cases the outside advice if the driver for policy formulation. there's another component of this and that is on the back and come at retirement side for senior officials consist of what you're saying perpignan when they leave the government and are constrained with the private sector that been engaged in. you don't find senior officials from senior posts in government to senior positions in finance or industry generally speaking. they go into honorary positions, associations. >> or think tanks with government institutions. >> three of the five of us up here. except the high income part

doesn't apply. >> we've got a question over here. >> my questionable tie in -- >> let me ask you to identify yourself. >> formally with the usda in beijing. currently unemployed, seeking part-time unemployment. my question is a little bit -- contains a little bit of meta-commentary. i see a panel very informed about china, good contacts within china. why is that the decision was made not to include someone who is part of the chinese system by scholar from china studying the chinese system in a more rooted is domestically rather than an international policy is. >> we talked about that. >> that's a fair comment.

just a little empathy i hope you have. it's very difficult to put these panels together at these events we try to find the best people that we did explore the possibility of bringing some chinese experts of the kind you described and were unable to get the right person for this particular panel. but i think we would like to do more of this. this is only halfway point in our study and we certainly expect to have more and by the way we have events including chris has done a couple of events as some officials involved in these decisions. we certainly encourage that want to have more fat. >> been involved right now with putting together a panel oversees. i've been trying to do this and what is frustrating to is the polity in china hasn't reached a stage and you know this from a time in china where there's officials, retired officials

even felt the confidence of being able to do the kind of irresponsible thing by sharing our personal views without any baggage. that can be looked for in the second edition. we have time for a couple more. >> thank you. and from georgetown county university. one of the interesting thing spot up in a panel discussion is the disconnect or lack of harmony between the central government and the local government administrations. it is well known at this point that there are range of issues that are central local governments, especially developed areas in china, places like beijing. there's a range of issues government officials disagree

on. can you elaborate on this issue going forward. for example, can you kind of foresee, is it more likely it is going to develop on itself and people will be fine with it? the disconnection between the local and central government in the long run will not be huge problem. it will adversely affect economic development or do you rather foresee the central government of china is more likely to rate back its power under its own plans and play hardball against a local governments? >> it's a great question and i'm going to field to my colleagues with this introduction. if you want to indicate in my mind of how that issue is progressing, look at tax reform. again i'm not talking about the u.s. if you get authentic deep

sophisticated revenue-sharing that works between the center and the provinces instead of the asymmetry you see now, with if you see a tax bill that is that consequential emerged the next year or so, i think it would be a really good indication the government is serious about the rebalancing. >> can i assist you make my last thought on this panel? it strikes you or talked a lot about this local central. some of the reforms require the participation of local governments and implementation more than others. as things move ahead, i am going to be looking at, is there more progress in things that are more of a stroke of the pen character? for example, the central government clearly could introduce more flexibility to the exchange rate and get rid of the tax on interest rates. they're the ones negotiating with international trade agreements.

so the central leadership is united about reform, i would like to see relatively quick movement in those areas. i remain a little bit skeptical because at the central level there are powerful officials who were not that it was yesterday. i am not convinced, but if they are, we should see a clear movement those. we haven't talked about hoopoe reform, that you mentioned the tax issues. there's just a lot of things that will clearly require local government involved and in a very deep way. it'll be interesting to look up whether they're so there's a lot of progress in one of these areas versus the other hand it will be very fascinating to watch it play out the next few years. >> for those of you don't know, the urban passport entitles people to get the full range of subsidized benefits, education and health care and so forth. a national i.d. card that is denied to workers for the most

part, but they are trying to change that and give more micro workers rights. >> broke way, i think there's some areas of national design. if you had to make a statement, in the local over the next five to 10 years. decentralization. >> i think we have one more question. we have time for one more. right here. no one said anything about the gender imbalance on either the panel or the questioners. thank you for the south bay. >> thank you. my name is leah from voice of america. we talk about sheets and things perception in china. all government officials are corrupt. in terms of the party and governments officials, they heavily rely on a system called.

as we know, we've recently seen some ports and videos of people and what that was like for the system. i have just wondering if any u.s. side has ever expressed its concerns about this too which is that china's top officials. i think it is and actually human rights issue. of course it's also a judicial issue as well. also, wondering if you can talk about europeans anticorruption purpose. it's widely seen as using this as a tool to get rid of the people you don't like, especially the local level. but the top-level is more of a power struggle. if we look at the com case and

those are the other, vice-chairman of the cmc who's also very close to all these people. really serious about getting when of corruption or is this a tool for power struggle? >> yeah, there's a lot of questions in there. i think for people who don't know it's an extrajudicial form of detention by which somebody can be held in the terminally without basic charge and what's been interesting centro to conservative judicial and legal reforms is this whole issue. even the current had at the industry or the head of the law commission which oversees these issues has talked about the need to make this more legalistic in the way they do in the procedure and so on.

they are lightweight getting married terms of the system. to suggest pressure to make the system more transparent. motives for anticorruption and i like to call multilayered cake of motivation. there's a lot of things going on. one of them is power consolidation and the ability to be able to make key constituencies know that he's in charge. i think there is a basic element of trying to improve governance, trying to frankly get the party's reputation rehabilitated. to us in the west, these things look for dishes than a soup for officials and so on sounds ridiculous, but it's a smart strategy in terms of the people. he's targeting corruption people see everyday, local official and so on. another key could tone it which hasn't got much public attention as he is also trying to focus on

corruption in "the guardian" said the regime and the military security services. he has concerns like all chinese leaders do. they studied the fate of the soviet union and one of the key conclusions as those key guardians of the state have become corrupt and lax and therefore didn't stop and workman enough to prevent a collapse of the soviet union. all of these factors have an emphasis on anticorruption. >> we started with one of the university of michigan stories. i will close with one. there is a professor of ethics, a colleague, a fitness east coast university who is undoubtedly one of the greatest writers of his time that had extra bold personal life. the guy was a famous lothario. at one point the faculty member confronted him in the lounge and said how even with the greatest moral and ethical leaders of all

time and made such a moral life, he was so morally unaware that he actually thought there was a question. so he answered it. [laughter] he answered it, but his answer offers my closing, which he said look, it is like this. in a debate highway sign on the road boston near wellesley versus 20 miles to boston. i am like that sign. i provide reliable direction to others. i don't actually make the journey myself. i close with that story because a lot of times we discussed what is there shouldn't be in the data and other elements of chinese decision-making. i want to commend matt and his colleagues on forcing us and giving us a tool to make the journey so we actually look at the elements of decision-making in a more useful way and maybe in a way that might guide american policy.

>> president obama arrived in washington state this afternoon a month after the mudslide in the chalmette oso that killed 41 people. jay hensley and patty murray and maria cantwell dragon for an aerial tour at the sight of the mudslide. the president is also meeting with first response is that the victim families. our live coverage of president obama's remarks from oso and about an hour and 20 minutes from now at 650 eastern here on c-span2.

>> tonight in eastern on c-span from a conversation with prominent whistleblowers including dana osberg is that the pentagon papers to the near times during the vietnam war. here on c-span2, both tv and private chat with folks about the presidencies of john adams, abraham lincoln and harry truman. >> now, conversation of gridlock in washington potential risk to any. the bipartisan policy center commission on political reform posted a discussion at the jfk library in boston.

[inaudible conversations] >> welcome back. i'm susan page of "usa today." u.s.a. today's been so honored over the past year to participate in this project at the bipartisan policy center and its commission reform. we cannot claim to have solved the issue of congressional dysfunction in logical polarization, but over the past year we have tried to foster thoughtful and productive conversation about it. among policymakers and engage in a lot of americans, including you. today we have another very impressive group of panelists. for members of congress, all members of the bipartisan policy commissions. senator commission on political reform. as we start, i want to say to our panelists, thank you so much for your service to your state and our country.

[applause] let me introduce cofounder of edward kennedy institute for the united states senate, dickie kennedy. [applause] former utah senator, bob bennett. [applause] former maine senator, olympia snowe. [cheers and applause] so we have a main contingent here on the panel. former texas congressman, charlie gonzalez. [applause] for bernier congressman, said to. [applause] and former texas congressman, henry bonilla. we have fuller panelist bios in your program and online and we

invite everyone in life ideas are watching and the webcast to join our conversation. if you are physically here, so that one of these cards with a question or comment. it will be brought up to me and i will use some through this conversation. if you're digitally here, send us an e-mail or a tweet. her twitter handle -- out for poor performance. but a contrasting view from the constant who said, why is division bad? i'm especially happy when congress is in gridlock because america is safe. [laughter] you know, we found both of these

points of view in a new "usa today" bipartisan policy center national poll that was just released on monday and assured if you will talk about some of the resulting comments we gathered from a range of people. they are, governor, two senators, white house policymaker but what is going on and possible solutions. let's watch. >> i come i'm susan page from washing bureau chief of "usa today." for the past year come "usa today" and the bipartisan policy center have joined forces to look at the nation's political polarization. this divide has contributed to washington's gridlock and has fueled americans and happiness of the way their government works or doesn't work. we thought for national town halls at the reagan library in california, constitution center in philadelphia, ohio state university in columbus and not the jfk library in boston. and if cosponsored for national

polls taken by republican pollster whit ayres and democratic pollster, mark mellman. inner new survey, americans pay more than to do once say the country is caught up on the wrong track. consider this, just 2% strongly approve of the job congress is doing. nearly half strongly disapprove. when they ask people what they liked about congress, the top response was we can kick them out if they don't do we want. but about solutions? elected officials have offered suggestions including combat ideas. >> the thing that will ultimately make washington work before the democrats and republicans in congress to put the people of this country first and their own edition second. >> if we paid more attention, more close attention to some of the limitations outlined in the constitution, the structural

limitations, i think some of the thing so acrimonious today would become less acrimonious. >> but there's not much consensus on particular steps intended to make washington work better. for instance, republicans inclined to think the senate filibuster is a good role. democrats are inclined to think of a bad rule. independents split evenly. while some experts say members of congress need to spend more time in washington to forge relationships and foster cooperation, two thirds of americans say representative should be spending more time home in their districts. some policymakers suggest we focus more on substance, less on politics. >> in a substantive conversation, you can often have more convergence. you'll still have disagreement, the canary down to where they are and what they are. if i talk to a republican economist can always pick assembler language. we have different views on

things that the minimum wage, but it'll be a decent language. so i say that helps. that is something the bipartisan power centers greater printing experts from both sides together and getting them into a substantive conversation. i think it would be a little utopian to say we'd know exactly how to do that, that would solve all of our problems, but that from a piece of evidence as part of the affair. >> over the past year, some things haven't changed. the poll was taken february 2013, 3 for america and said politics had more divided in recent years. in our poll this month, almost precisely the same number agree. one finding has changed. a year ago, just 20% said those political divisions are a good thing because it gives voters a real choice. now the number has doubled in the percentage who say it is said that they because it makes it harder to get this done has

dropped by nearly 20 percentage points. that could mean a polarized state of american politics increasingly is being seen as the new normal. but many continue to express concern about the showdowns, the recriminations and the gridlock that criticize much of politics today. >> is tracy said at an all-time low. then people can't expect that we're going to be able to solve the really big problems facing our country. >> it's not just the eyes of america, but the eyes of the world that are watching. the greatest country in the face of the earth. the greatest democracy in history. we cannot people around the country lose faith in our system. when they see craziness like that, i wonder how much it effects the rest of the world and how they view our country and preeminence in this world.

>> just about everybody seems to agree the stakes are high. >> vicki kennedy, let's start with you. thank you for welcoming us here this afternoon. i know we all look forward to seeing the edward kennedy institute when it's open. i'm surprised americans hate congress in and our poll through them one of five americans approve of congress even a little bit. so is there one thing that could help? not solve every problem, but is there one reform that could improve congress is standing? >> i don't think there's one reform. it's a combination of reform. one of the two comments he started off with about term limits and also congress not doing anything. i disagree with both of them. teddy is to love to quote hl mencken for every complex problem there is a simple easy answer and it's wrong. and i think both of those comments fit in that description

i personally am opposed to term limits because legislating takes time. it takes knowledge. it takes getting an expertise about an issue and the truth is we have elections. right now over half of the united states senate is in its first term. i don't think term limits is the answer. unless, in her feel safe when on this blog during not saying. it ignores the reality country we need to have a functional government. we need a budget. if teacher and foreign policies they now. but ukraine, other instances around here.

if we haven't been talking to each other, why would we suddenly be able to? one of the things we would be doing is thinking of ways we have numbers together. they can learn about each other as people. we could maybe listen if you've met them in a non-contentious situation. >> from the audience immediately macfarland. she writes, do you think imposing the first amendment with the product to the neo-congress? >> term limit, first of all, in any given election, in essence

you are trying to put by advocating on someone else's shoulders rather than year-round because one comments i want to make arson factors that cause dysfunction. the way you talk to someone, their sheer hall or your place of business and what we have now from people who have strong views. two presidents, reagan and clinton having the most difficult time of their presidency with losing political, international crisis. when they came out publicly,

they were the most opposite people. the 10th harsh toned you hear from both sides now. so one way to start the dialogue in washington to improve it would be to just be nice with the way you communicate. a lot of us have very strong views. but again, it's how you put it. another point i want tonight is a lot of people look at what's happening in washington as the selected members suddenly turn harsha ugly when they get to washington. you vote for these people. america, they reflect america's attitude now unfortunately. dado creator went a step further, get off the plane washington and say i'm going to be made now and dysfunctional

and the ugly. they go back home and say the same thing and people cheer them. america has to reflect upon itself no and how at the grassroots level they have helped create the situation in washington and try to fix it. >> senator bennett, what you think this is happening? i think all of us would agree that tone of discourse in washington and politics generally has gotten so much harsher and so much less civil. why is that happening? >> oval series of answer to that question. some of them very provocative but i won't tell you because this is not the right place and the right setting. there have been changes in the media. the internet had made everybody into walter cronkite. each of you know how old walter

cronkite? none of my students have ever heard of walter cronkite. the genius of the two-party system over american history has been to force compromise within the parties. you have to choose which party you were going to be and in many got into the democratic party. the democratic party is the party of government. they believe government is the best instrument to solve problems. republican party is the party of free markets. they believed the free market such by themselves are the best way to solve problems. they are both right. because sometimes the free markets make better decisions and sometimes the government makes better decisions. well, if you are a special interest in meeting the government is the best place to go to get your interests matt, you become a democrat and you

come into other people have become democrats are special interest is different than yours and the democratic party has to work out that conflict within itself and the republican party. we do not have the european system of multiple parties for every special interest has its own party. the two-party system doesn't perform that function very well anymore because you had vitter fights within parties and people insisting the rise of the word rino and now china who are republican in name only because you disagree with me on immigration. you did a terrible thing on immigration. he voted with kennedy. i voted with the republican president, george w. bush who had been a border state

governor, who understood the immigration problem far better than any other rest of us and i was delighted to have senator kennedy but without us. no, no, you are republican in name only because you didn't agree with us as to what that should be an activation come so strong that we do not have that kind of cohesion that used to take place in both parties were the leadership of both parties would sit down and say okay, guys, we've got to stick together. we got to make this thing work. we've got to compromise within ourselves and have a position we want to pass on paying. that means we have to talk to some democrats. we have to work this all out. the old ronald reagan line, which in my view labels him a rino. it's better to get 80% of what

you want than 20% of nothing. i remember when we were debating medicare part d and it was a republican proposal from a republican president and never democrats who are saying no, absolutely not, it is not enough, teddy kennedy said look, to get the republicans to give us anything in drug treatment for medicare, let's take it and then argue about what more we can get later on. as long as this is on the table and republicans put it there, let's take it. that's the way it used to work and now everybody has his own place of ideology and the insistence on. he and the two-party system isn't working nearly as well as it used to. i don't have -- i do have some ideas about how to do with it, but i don't have a quick answer for. maybe wrong.

[laughter] >> senator bennett, of course to these divisions cost you your seat in the senate and these divisions i think contributed to her decision, senators snow, to leave the senate. is there something congressional leadership can do to make this work better? >> well, certainly. they obviously had communications and working across the aisle and communicating. that is especially important in the 90s state senate for it requires a building of accommodation and consensus and unanimous can add to that anything forward in the united states senate, so much of which has to be occurring by agreement. because the power rests within the individual senator in the senate, where the rules of the house protect the rules of the institution because the institution is much larger. so does require cross party come

across leadership communications. certainly they could allow the process to work. the fundamental factor in the united states senate today and in the house of representatives, the process is not working. they are not legislating. they are not having committees that are operating and functioning where they have legislation reported to the floor. and had an amendment process at which point i think senator lott was mentioning earlier, you work through those issues then eventually reach an agreement to the other side in terms of how many more amendments. sometime it's very bad i cannot play. they talk, talk, talk. just let them talk it out. give them a month to talk about a particular issue. most of the issues outstanding conciliator collected our consideration in the floor of the senate. that's what they deserve. let them talk it out.

let them and then to bill. have their perspectives and views of constituencies represented through the course and ultimately get to a point where they begin to coalesce. that is how it used to work. the fact is when i first began my legislative career in a state legislator, the first year in history throughout my 34 years in congress, the first year was devoted to legislating. you know, understand politics interferes in the center here in the election cycle. it didn't deter us in the first year working on a number of issues important to the country and we synchronize between the president and congress and leadership to work it out, knowing these are the major issues on the agenda and they needed to be addressed. but that is not happening today. in fact, the legislative process has been virtually abandoned. it's all about the next

election. it is not out of the canoe to craft the best policy to solve the problems. what's absent a novice is problem solving anymore. it's scoring political points and to leverage one side and disadvantage the other side politically that he can capture the 32nd sound bite. what can they do to drive their point home so they can win that election or get somebody to run against the other side? so it all revolves around the politicization of the process rather than doing what is in the best interest of the country. said they have to return to a normal legislative process. i often threaten to go to the florida senate and conduct a refresher course in how a bill becomes law like schoolhouse rock, okay. [applause] >> if i may, picking up that very quickly, one of the reasons you need to have a course in how things are done is because 50%

of the folks there are in their first term in don't know, don't remember the strongest argument possible against term limits. >> we have a suggestion from an e-mailer and she writes, have responses to ideas become longer, less to the point and more colorful since television cameras have started publicizing sessions? if so, members and visitors with a synopsis. i would like to see a synopsis of the question. we want to pose a question to her audience online. you can buy the bipartisan policy.com backslash engage u.s.a. can the senate obtain its presentation is the worlds greatest liberty audie without the filibuster of their minority rights? and we report those results in a few minutes.

post a tweet or ask a question. let's go to the point senator bennett was just make you known the facts so are new and we see a lot of senior members of congress, including the most senior member of congress. congressman dingell announcing they will retire at the end of this year. congressman gonzalez, is there a laugh with so many senior heirs decided not to run again with the fact so many members are relatively junior? >> i do think of the members that have announced retirement, it really is a loss because these individuals have such a respect and love for the institution of congress, especially the house-senate legitimate function in american society. i think one source of where we are today as a result of what would have been a don't have a

love respected to the execution of the role of government. they actually are elected on a platform to make sure that there is gridlock in government will not function. and if they could reduce the number of legislative days to three or four, they probably would. now that sounds like an extreme statement, but i assure you, close analysis of what is going on because you don't even have the speaker of the house. now that's individual elected by the majority party. they don't even best that individual anymore with authorities to broker a negotiate if we were negotiating and compromising in forming consensus. i think that is the real issue. ps i think it is a great loss. some people say mr. dingell was their 50 something years and mr.? and was there 40 years and george miller -- but i'm going to tell you something, those are

very, very effective legislators. you may disagree with them, but in large measure, most of those that will be leaving for real craftsman, individuals like i said that we all learn from and we often took those and that is my fear that is what is left of that legacy will suffer or was something else carreon? others that have served in the hospital if there are individuals that would pick up the mantle and carry forward. but am concerned. soon a congressman, here's an e-mail i've gotten from cabin air lit for for syracuse, new york. who writes how often do members from across the aisle socialize with one another without debating political issues? do you think the lack of friendly personalized interaction outside of the political urbina is a consider and what steps can be taken to facilitate? how often would that happen

members of congress get together not talk about politics, but to forge some kind of personal relationship and would it make a difference? >> could make a great difference. when i came into the congress -- when i came into congress, the elder bush was the president. relationships were much better and while he was there, one of the things he did he was in the gym at best, exercise in the gym and with the members. the connection between people makes the difference and that connection somehow got lost somewhere between the start of the earth and finished in one of the things agreed to the table is an understanding of how you do with people, how you make people work. i was dean of the chapel for eight years.

if you can deal with that many young people, helping them to understand the things that are difficult to plan, i learned in that environment that it is always possible to help people bring them to a level of understanding about that which they have difficulties and problems with and i do believe that much of that could work in a political environment, but it takes a person who has the ability to help people understand not only who you are, but help them to understand who they are. ..

and biweekly leadership dinners at the white house with president reagan was very much engaged and weighed in with members of congress and also specifically with leadership trait that's important issue going forward on both sides. it requires both the support, both the leadership and the president working together hand in glove. does it mean to say they are not going to have differences? no but they have to communicate and they have to be understand of one another's perspective and that simply isn't happening. that's something that i think we as people have to demand in the future. i think that's a level of accountability that has to be elicited from people who are running for these offices to ensure that they are going to meet the government work. you can't have both branches working separately and independently of one another as has been the case. >> susan if you look at the most

recent bush presidency working with ted kennedy in the education and before that bill clinton worked with republicans to pass the free. agreement, nafta. before that you had tip o'neill working with reagan to pass legislation. you are just not seeing that anymore but in each of those cases you asked about the presidents influence. the presidents in those cases made a special effort to have those relationships with the congress and vice versa. for some reason that has stopped when you have to sit next to someone in the white house or on capitol hill and look them in the eye and talk about an issue you really feel it more and if you have a difference it's going to be a true difference before you bring -- rather than going to make a speech in front of the tv cameras that's different than looking someone in the eye who has sincerely come to you to try to work out some agreement.

it sets the table for something to actually get done at the end of the day versus each one individually reaching out to the podium to make a speech that's going to look good on television >> president obama does not i think it's fair to say have a good relationship with members of congress including democratic members, not just republican members. is there time for him to change that? good the remainder of his second term be different and more productive if there were things that he did coax. >> i think there's definitely time to change it and i would hope that he would continue to reach out. i was also struck by something that henry said early on about just civility and people talk knew each other in a nice way. i think we have to also acknowledge that they have members of congress actually declined presidential invitations. i have never heard of that before and i think that is a

place where the people need to speak out and say to their members of congress when the president of the united states invites you to the white house to talk, you go and they should be held accountable, not the lauded for not speaking to the president of the united states. or if someone calls the president a liar during a speech that should be something to be celebrated. i think that those are such acts of such incivility that we should be speaking out about that. i mean i think there's a lot of incivility and blame to go around but i think that people need to speak out and say this is and what we want of our government. this is what we want that our elected representatives and we need everybody to continue. we want you to break bread together because a lot happens over a dinner table. we talk about family staying together and eating together and having good relationships. the same is true of the good

working relationship between the executive branch and the legislative ranch but also among legislators. >> i agree. i found it remarkable that people turn down white house invitations because you are not just saying to the president, seems like you're at dissing the institution of the presidency when you say that when you refuse to have conversations. so why does that happen? >> susan i think for many republicans a photo of that republican next to president obama will cost them the primary. this is happening in every primary since 2010 and for us not to discuss that environment which is very obvious after 2010 i'm a democrat and i'm not blaming all the republicans and i think the president could make a greater concerted effort at times and establish those relationships but we should not fool ourselves. this is not george w. bush's

term and it's not clinton's term it's not george h.w. bush's term. this is in a different environment and i still blame leadership in large measure for not trying to reign in that kind of behavior but i'm not real sure what leadership is going to do in the way of discipline or correction. but what do you do without political environment that is so poisoned that you have individuals as vicki said that would actually turn down an invitation to go and meet with the president to go to the white house. >> getting back to valuing compromising consensus frankly, it i mean it's not even heralded in the media because it's all you are on one side or the other. they don't want any of the gray areas and sorting through the issues because that doesn't generate a lot of ratings unfortunately. that's also has happened whether it's through cable networks or any form of media.

the point is people want to know where you on one side of the other? i racs to feel like i was defined through the "msnbc" and "fox news" and that was it and basically that is what it's come down to, sorting out instead of saying wait a minute wired shoe working out that issue for all of us? at the end of the day we will all have differences and we have to get over those differences and solve the problem. that is not what's happening today to this country. so it's going to be up to all of us to get involved in these elections in real-time and demand that and he gets back to what what you are saying charlie. the fact is that doesn't become punitive. because of the primaries and the focus on the primaries but rather we have gotten our broader support among the population for a compromise and consensus. that is why reforms have to take place and we are focusing on that as well. >> even if you don't believe in

compromise you can believe in civil discourse. let's report on the results of our first on line audience question. the question was can the senate retain his reputation as the world's greatest deliberative audit without the filibuster or minority rights? here is what you told us. no, 77%. yes, 23% so a lot of consensus among those who are watching in the audience to retain filibuster had to protect minority rights. we want to pose a second question to her on line audience. this question is would you support a two-year budget so that congress can focus on budget issues half as often leaving time to conduct real oversight? you can vote at bipartisan policy.org rack/engage usa and we will report the results in just a moment. you know here's a question from the audience from maliki donovan who is a boston college high school student who is in the audience. she writes what role does gerrymandering play in

congressional dysfunction and the asset particularly because of the conversation that we just had about members who would be crucified in their districts for talking to the president because it's such a republican district. has gerrymandering had the effect of setting us up for this kind of lack of function or this kind of dysfunction? congressman flake what do you think? >> i think gerrymandering plays a major role when you think about how you shape the district, how you shape the districts that persons wanting to be in a particular place and not another and perhaps getting elected and finding that their district is not capable of providing for them in the way that other districts might be able to do so. if is a difficult process when you get to drawing the lines. people draw the line to their

best interest and in many instances it destroys a great deal of what made the district strong in the first place because you take so much away from it, so much out of it and now you have created minimalism and it's extremely difficult to build it back. i have not seen it else back in my years. it's very difficult. >> if you look at a place like texas lots of gerrymandering their. congressman gonzalez. >> there is some evidence of that. [laughter] we have been in lawsuits in texas. i was so tired of taking the witness stand that i will tell you there is local consideration and as the reverend was alluding to what you are trying to do is get as many seats as you can possibly win. that's what it comes down to but as a minority i will tell you that a jury will be minority districts and you can say when we create that are we creating a

democratic district? that is minute legal argument for a long time because the answer is generally yes. because of the voting patterns and such so sometimes there are these compromises but actually it is out of respect legally speaking of the minority's rights to be able to elect someone of their choice. it might be republican, it might be democrat and most likely it will be democrat so it's not as easy as i would like to present to you but definitely there has to be a better way of arriving at congressional districts every 10 years. >> some of the biggest political fights in this country are over redistricting and we have discussed it at meetings with this group over the past year some reforms that might be considered to take that out of the equation. the state of iowa for example ranks them as independently as one can possibly do and that

versus our home state charlie, it's done by the state legislature. the governor gets involved in outside interests get involved in it is a bloodbath every 10 years. >> what are the odds that texas would agree to nonpartisan redistricting? >> that's something that the state legislature has to agree to and they are up for re-election this year so i can tell you offhand but i think at least they ought to consider it because again we have an example of one state that has done it pretty objectively thus far. another consideration might read what california does where you have primaries and you have individual primaries of republicans and democrats and lets everybody run one pile. >> a jungle primaries were the first two finishers ron? >> regardless of party affiliation. if you don't get the majority and you have a run off it might be to republicans and might be to democrat so clearly there are some ideas that should be considered by states to take

this ugly fight out of the equation after a consensus. >> i'm sorry senator reid. >> there a dozen states already that it adopted independent redistricting commission's and frankly don't have to change every state in the country. you just need to change enough to alter the political equilibrium in the house of representatives having more competitive seats. depending on which study you look at some conducted a study last year and there were 35 seats out of 435 there were competitive. there was another one with 21 seats out of 435. that gives you an idea as the degree to which these districts have been significantly altered to fit the political. >> in california the citizenship pass a referendum of requiring nonpartisan redistricting. here is kind of a radical idea from a tweet from george sanders

of larchmont new york who wrote would you ever support approval voting the simplest no-cost solution to help mitigate -- you go to an election you can vote for more than one candidate and the candidate that has the broadest acceptability who would win the office. what do you think? senator bennett you're kind of shaking your head. >> no. >> i agree. >> they have a form of that in nevada. >> where? >> in nevada. >> in nevada. >> in nevada you can vote on of the above. and none of the above never gets more than four or 5% of the vote that none of the above has determined the outcome of the election. i think harry reid would not be the senator from nevada if they hadn't had none of the above on

the ballot because people who don't like kerry but they don't like his opponent either so they just say none of the above and if they were forced to make a choice then they probably would have voted for harry's opponent. kerry happens to be a friend of mine will. he did a lot of wonderful things for me while i was in the senate and some people would say kerry is. i say do you like my record in all the good things i did for utah? oh yes oh yes you are triptych a triptych senator. i couldn't have gotten them done without the behind-the-scenes support of harry reid who i felt was a westerner and understands the u.s. has to stick together and he would say okay i can help move that through. naturally i'm very careful about saying nasty things about harry reid as i'm going to need him the next time something comes up three at but the idea of having

a generic we hate everybody a none of the above or a disproof, that's a copout. pick a side and make a choice. don't give us this mary i don't like it. >> so note to approval voting i gather? sorry for whoever sent that in. [laughter] here's a question on twitter from lonnie turner of new carrollton maryland her rights what is the line between acceptable minority party app decision -- opposition and blatant obstructionism and i wonder where that line is might depend on whether you are the party in power or not. congressman flake is there a line and are we stepping over the line these days? >> i think there is a line. i think there is a line.

i cannot see how there cannot need. there is always a party and there party and there's always another party. there's isaac rubin there is always another group. there are always people who have their ideas about what politics are in another group who has a different idea. you are always going to have those kinds of challenges. it's not going to be easy to change it because this is in than the way it's been for so long for so many and anything that is different to them that seem to be that you are just tearing up that which they truly believe in and that would cause another degree of problems and we not be able -- may not be up to solve it. >> congressman gonzalez were deicide where the line is between taking a principled stand and being obstructionist? >> i will say something that's pretty dangerous and that is if you are always voting the party

line and voting basically because it's the republican bill or something you are probably going to run into problems. you're boring against every amendment and the committee because it's a republican. i think that's probably the easiest line you could probably draw where they would be some line of demarcation. biois thought when you have the pics were bored, there are foreigners and 35 of those and the senator will say it's easier to call out 100 games in 435 so we put electronic. i always thought would be great on a controversial piece of legislation we could vote but no one would know that was your vote. now you are legally entitled to vote. i wonder what that vote tally would look like? he would have real bipartisanship going on but no, i really do think do not entertain the idea from the other side of the aisle.

voting against it because of the origin i think that's probably the easiest thing to identified in my view. >> we are going to get the results of our second on line audience question in just a minute periods senators snowe you served on the budget committee so do you think the idea of a two-year budget makes sense and would it change the way things work? would we have less of this cliffhanger stuff and we have had in last couple of years? >> just getting a budget would be remarkable he stays but that's another story. i too think a two-year budget would be a significant reform that pete domenici who chaired the committee and the budget committee for many years and is a senior fellow at the bipartisan policy center introduced a biannual budget back in 1999. i advocated it since i first came to the house of representatives because it gives the opportunity to congress to establish a two-year budget

process and have a two-year resolution, two years for procreation and then go back in and engage in aggressive oversight of government programs and how they are functioning and what we can do to make them different, what works and what doesn't work and the kind of oversight that's absolutely vital and essential. so that gives i think the opportunity through the biannual budget for congress and the committees to weigh in in that regard and then make adjustments through supplemental so they don't have toys addressed the 12 appropriations simultaneously a comeback and if there have to be adjustments made and any one of the appropriations in the two-year process. we are to know that from the shutdown that occurred and ultimately reached it de minimis agreement but we have not had a budget in united states senate for three consecutive years until this last agreement in december that ultimately reached a resolution.

but on the appropriations side of the 12 appropriations, we haven't had 12 appropriations pastor for the fiscal year october 1 since 1996 which was under senator trent lott's minority leader in senator daschle as minority leader in the late 13 appropriation bills have passed since 2000. only 13 total, not in one year but total. just to give you the degree to which this current process has failed so it would add significantly anything to improving it and getting them on a course of evaluating federal programs. >> so what are the odds of the two-year budget process? >> i think they are very good and we have an example. the murray brian budget is a two-year budget. let's see what happens over this two-year. not. >> do you take this as a green

shoots spring that they were able in december to reach a budget deal? >> i think they did it without realizing what they were doing. [laughter] could i go back to the previous question? we kind of went over it very quickly but it's a very very significant point which is where do you draw the line between principled opposition and absolute obstructionism? there wasn't anybody who had stronger principled opposition than ted kennedy and many of the positions the republican presidents took and andy was very outspoken about it. i go back in history. the ratification of the constitution was one of the most bitter, divisive fights we have ever had. everybody thinks they came out to philadelphia and we waved

this marvelous document and there we were. no, they came out of philadelphia into a massive opposition in the fight for ratification of the constitution state-by-state was a bloody fight. the two states that were the bloodiest were the two states we had to have been a union or we would not have had a country and that was virginia and new york. all of the other states could have ratified and virginia and new york had stayed out we wouldn't have had a country. it was a very narrow thing in both states. james madison fighting the fight in virginia was opposed by edmund randolph the member of the constitution convention who put forward the virginia plan to begin with and then voted against it in the convention and came home to virginia and campaigned against it on the

position that it takes too much sovereignty away from states and they can't be for it in the most powerful orator in the state of virginia patrick henry. they fought the constitution every step of the way and it finally was ratified by a narrow vote. okay, what did patrick henry do when people came to him and said all right now what do we do to stop that? he said we have lost. now we fight within the system. i will not fight the constitution anymore. i will now work within the structure that is created to get what i want later on. that is where the line should he. fight as best you can for your position and then if you are defeated you say all right, that's the way things are. now i will work within the system instead of saying all

right now i will shutdown the system. that is the line that should be drawn. >> of course we have a pretty -- [applause] we have a pretty notable example at the moment where that has not happened with the affordable care act that past four years ago. republicans spent several years trying to repeal it and try to make a work better. where do you draw the line vicki kennedy? where the java line between taking a principled stand against an act you disagree with and being obstructionist? how do you know which side of the line you are on? >> i think senator bennett just set up you to flee. i think the constant attempt to undermine what has already happened, i think a partyline vote or decision that no matter matter -- by a party leader that no matter what comes up you will never vote with a nether side a

decision to filibuster every single thing that comes from another site, think that's just obstructionism he does not principled opposition. we have to always have room for principled opposition and allow people the chance to debate an issue, to talk about an issue. but totally revisit laws and i'm feeling very strongly and personally about the affordable care act obviously but to have a law that has been passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president, approved by the supreme court of united states and to still be talking about it over and over and over again not about how to make it better but had to undo what i think really is not really historically as far as i know what we have done. obviously there are things you can improve. that has not been the conversation. >> does anyone the panel think republicans -- [applause] have continued to fight to

repeal the affordable care act in the last several years have done the right thing as a principled opposition and not an example of obstructionism? >> i believe what they feel is a sincere opposition. there might need a french group that wants to be negative on the president regularly but for the most part it's not just limited to one party either. there are a lot of people both sides that have a lot of issues i think for the most part the majority of those that are constantly trying to change it or eliminate it. they are sincere in their feelings. i'm sorry vicki? >> i said pinocchio alert. [laughter] >> i sincerely mean that from what i'm sensing. >> can i just raise a point. the fundamental and primary

issue of why we are all here is that the processes and working. affordable care act and i'm very much involved in it and they gave it my level best. alone republicans standing. [applause] >> i know that for a fact. my former chief of staff asked me do you know where this is all going? i said i really don't. i had to take it to the end and decide the end of the road and ask where you draw that line and what you can support of what you can't and i couldn't. it requires bipartisan and that is why the process matters. when you have both sides weighing in on a significant issue is the largest domestic initiative in our history. sitting at the table working through you identify major problems with issues. if you think about our history with the voting rights act and the civil rights act and how they came to pass it was bipartisan. social security and medicare.