issue. they can make sure the promise to consumers are fulfilled. i am concerned if the ftc is taken out of the picture the consumer balance will not taken in the consideration. >> host: maureen ohlhausen, and brian fung of the "washington post." thank you boat. &%c1

>> an alarm box near the front enterance of the whitehouse designed to alert guards to the intruder was muted at the request of the usher's office. a secret service working spoke on this. you can read more at "washington post" website. there will be testimony before the live house committee at 10 a.m. eastern. and next remarks from steny hoyer at the national press club and then we will hear from john huntsman who served as the ambassador to chaina.

>> our debate coverage continues. tuesday night at 9 eastern. live coverage of the debate between wendy davis and greg abbott. and then live coverage of the minnesota debate between the governor candidates. thursday at 8 east n, live coverage of the oklahoma governor's debate between joe dorman and mary fallon. and the nebraska debate also will air. and saturday live coverage of the montana's house debate. more than a hundred debates for

the control of congress here c-span. steny hoyer talks about the elections five weeks away and talks about the strikes in syria. this national press club is an hour. >> good morning. welcome to the national press club the world's leading organization to journalist. i would like to welcome those watching on cspan as well. thank you for coming. after the speaker's presentation i will open the floor and q and

a sessions. please identify yourself when recognized and your organization before asking your question. no speeches, please, except from or speaker. the national press club is proud to offer a forum for political leaders to give their views. it goes back to the founding in 1908. today we will talk about why the republicans shou-- democrats sh take over the house. he has been elected to the democratic parties leadership in the house since 2003. first the majority whip, then

the leader and now the majority whip. he is the second ranking member of the house democratic leadership and is charged with leading the vote on important legislations and shaping had house democrats priorities and delivering the democratic message. thank you for coming to the national press club. i am pleased to yield floor to you and look forward to yielding it back to me for remarks. >> thank you very much. i am pleased to be at the press club. a group of journalist and friends and i want to thank you for giving me this opportunity. i want to say the president and i had an opportunity to discuss this coming weekends activities. when maryland will play ohio state from which he graduated

and was chairman of their newspaper "the lantern" i am pleased to be here and hopefully will be pleased on sunday. in five short weeks the american people will make the decision about the direction they want to go and chose the government they want. one characterized by gridlock or one that achieves progress. a government on their side or one that tells them you are on your own. congress, many americans feel with justification, isn't on their side anymore. congress hasn't also been this dysfunctional.

congress can do a great deal of good. in the 1950's the republicans and democrats worked together to build the highway system. and they passed the higher education act so millions can afford the higher education that their parents and grandparented only dreamed of. it led to the enactment of social security and medicare as well. it brought us the civil rights act and voting rights act 50 years ago. in 1990, congress came together to pass the americans with disabilities act and open the door of opportunity to millions. they worked on a bill to balance the federal budget and created

unprecedented surpluses. five partisan compromises is no myth. it happened. it worked. it can work one more. american people deserve a congress that tells the middle class we are on your side. as voters prepare to elect the next congress they have a clear choice. maintain a republican house majority that made obstruction and partisanship its policy. or elect a democratic party and end the gridlock and make progress. we need to make progress. according to a gallop pole -- poll -- 4-10 americans don't think it matters who leads

congress but in fact it matters a great deal. voters should be concern about continuing the republican majority for two reasons at least. they have ignored the will of the people by refusing to address the issues that american care about. secondly, they have overseen the least productive and most closed congress in modern history and contradicted the pledges they made. in their book, "young guns" they wrote woo we pledge to stand on principle, lead as adults and serve as responsible stewards of the public trust by listening to the american people. when speaker boehner assumed the

gravel he declared above all else we welcome the balance of ideas, encourage it, and engage in it openly, honestly and respectfully as the chamber closest to the people, the house works best when it is allowed to work its will. how much better off would we be if the house was able to work its will? the house of representatives hasn't lived up to its title. 71% of americans want to increase the minimum wage and 61% of small businesses support an increase to $10.10 an hour. that is according to a july poll. house republicans, however, won't allow it to come to the

floor. more than 7-10 support immigration reform as surveyed in may and a poll in june showed a majority of republican voters want a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants if they meet certain conditions. but instead of listening to the american people, the republicans refuse to allow the house to even hold a vote. when women ask for legislation to occur equal pay for equal work republicans said you are on your own. on one important issue after another, house republicans, who control the agenda, refused to allow the people's will to be considered on the house floor. on september, 18th, speaker boehner dlifrn delivered a

speech saying the house is more tra transparent and open. you can bring your ipad to the floor they said. but you cannot bring a bill to raise minimum wage to the floor or institute unemployment insurance continuation or a bill to expend the terrorism risk insurance act. dave camp, republican committee chairman, can't even bring his tax reform bill to the floor. of course, you can bring your i-pad so you can read about the bills but you cannot consider them on the floor. as a result of the republican majority walking away again and again, congress is less

productive and more divided than other. under the house majority and the 113th congress just 165 laws, the fewest in history have been enacted and only 26 were major legislation pieces. compare that to when george bush was president of the united states in '07 and '08 and the democrats led the congress. 460 bills were enacted to make america better, to serve the american people. and we are on target this year to be in session for 107 days only. they earned the title of the do-nothing congress. the american people deserve a do-something congress. in fact, they deserve a do the right thing congress. this is exactly what house

democrats are ready to do by working across the aisle to achieve results and we know it is possible because we have done it. there have been a number of moments over the past four years when speaker boehner frustrated in his conference turned into democrats to pass key legislation. we supplied the votes to keep the government open and reopen it after the october shutdown. we pushed the budget control act over the finish line to avoid defaulting on our debt. and after hurricane sandy, devastated families, farms and small businesses and 179 republicans walked away from the victims of sandy and said you are on your own. but 192 democrats voted for the disaster relief package which is

the only reason it passed. same true for the violence against women's act, highway bill and the farm bill. when president bush was in office, democrats worked to pass a new gi bill, a bill to increase energy independence and legislation to prevent another great depression. today we see a republican majority that automatically opposes anything president obama present ever n though the country needs action. "atlas shrugged", the ann rand involved that ron paul sights often says this about congress: again "atlas shrugged"/ann rand quote there are two sides to every issue. one is right and one is wrong.

but the middle is also evil. but the middle is also evil. comprimise isn't evil. it is the necessary pursuit of those who govern responsible in a agreement. we listen to each other. the american people are not looking for people that will not compromise. they want us to do this in a bipartisan way that demands comp compromise. it isn't hard to imagine the results if that were the case. according to a study in 2011, had the republican majority worked with accurates that year

to pass the job plan, the gdp would have grown by as much as 2% and 1.9 million jobs would have been created. sadly, they didn't. it was a missed opportunity and real shame. even without help from the congress, the president received significant progress over the last years. as he pointed out on saturday, by nearly every indicator the country is doing better today than it was when president obama took office. 10 million new jobs have been created in over four years. $800,0 $800 billion in health care and the most significant decline in poverty since 1966.

think about how much more progress could be made if congress were a partner with the president not an obstical. a congress led my democrats would make sure people felt we were on their side. we would be centered on taking action to jump start the middle class and expand the middle class and restore faith in the promise if you work hard and take responsibility you can access opportunities such as home ownership, higher education and the secure retirement. the way to achieve that is for congress to enacting precisely what republicans promised in 2010 but failed to deliver. and that is i quote again a plan

to create jobs, end economic uncertainty and make america more competitive. rather the republicans created more uncertainty rather than ending it. no certainty for doctors treating medicare patients that they will be paid adequately and continue to see the patients. democrats have proposed giving doctors and seniors that certainty. no certainty for states and localities seeking to build bridges and highways while democrats supported a long-term plan to invest in the infrastructu infrastructure. democrats want to provide that certainty with a long term re-authorization of the export/import bank. and democrats want to fix the

system through reform that keeps talented graduates here and enables the right for employers to hire the permanent and temporary workers they need. there is an agreement about the issue. the list goes on of course but not brought to the floor. house democrats would work to provide certainty in these ways and making the economy more competitive through our make it in america plan. in addition, we will work to jump start the middle class by expanding the minimum wage, expanding access to education, helping student loan borrowers refinance, and making sure women get equal pay for equal work and making sure affordable childcare is available to those that need it.

this isn't giving america a handout but a leg up. that is how we jump start a strong middle class and build a stronger national economy. and it is what our people want their congress to focus on. not partisan gains. not on obsessions with repealing the affordable care act. not lawsuits against the president or government shutdown. americans want a bipartisan effort to achieve results for the middle class. not a congress that stands in the way. that is what democrats are campaigning for. a congress in which america's voices are heard. we will move forward with make it in america to expand

manufacture, increase employment and open doors of opportunity. republicans block immigration reform but we believe it should be passed and signed into law. the chamber of commerce agrees with that and growers and farm workers agree with that. faith community agrees with that. unfortunately it hasn't come to the floor. while republicans allow discrimination efforts to keep minorities, seniors and students from exercising their right to vote, we will work to restore the voting rights act and protect and facilitate the ability of every american to cast their vote and have it counted. while republicans try to resend patient protections and critical benefits we will protect a affordable health care for

all-americans. while the republicans add billions to the deficit with tax cuts, we will work in a bipartisan way with no threats of shutdown or default. we must make sure social security, medicare, medicaid and other critical programs will be there for our children and grand children when they need it. while republicans spent $3 million of taxpayers dollars defending the defensive marriage act, we will work to prohibit employment discrimination on sexual and gender identity. we will support the development and deployment of clean emergency and manufacturing

technologies. and we will, as we have stood by in the past, we will stand by our veterans and maintain a strong national defense that can meet the challenges we face from terror groups from al-qaeda and isis, from iran's nuclear weapons, and from the destabalizes actions of putin and russia. america deserves to believe in a government that works. not one that can do no good and should disappear. we know congress can affect positive change because it has been done before. over the past four years, the house of representatives created a government that is missing in action. it took many coming together to end the shutdown of the

government last october. 144 republicans voted to keep the american government shutdown. i know what they thought about it and i fear what people around the world thought about it. it will take democrats, independents, and republicans who are tired of gridlock to come together in a vote five weeks from tomorrow to end the four-year shutdown of their congress. this shutdown of congress has been under taken by a republican majority in the house and a republican minority in the senate that used their rules to obstruct and filibuster. the past four years have been proof that elections matter. america's stockholders, our voters, surely know they need new leadership on their bord of

directors which we call the congress. america's challenges demand a serious majority that won't tell the middle class you are on your own but that reassures them we are on their side. one that reminds them of the good congress can do when it takes responsibility and translates the will of the people into the meaningful progress. in "young guns" kevin mccarthy said this: should we regain the american people's trust we will insist our feet are held to the fire. if given the opportunity to govern we will deliver on our commitment. if we don't, i am competent the american people will send us

packing. demonstrab demonstrablely the republicans haven't delivered on their commitment. in a gallop poll, 59% of the american people said they disapproved of congress. they disapproved of congress' performance because it isn't working for those it represents. time to send them packing. on november 4th the american people will have an opportunity to head mr. mccarthy's advice and take their congress back. in order for that to happen, the majority of americans, who have been silenced in this congress, must speak loudly in the election clotted. they must speak with their vote and elect the democrats that

will permit the house to work its will, listen to the american people and act on their behalf. they must chose a leadership that is committed to building security, opportunity and certainty. certainty for our economy, certainty for our middle class and certainty that the people of the house will always be on the people's side. thank you very much. >> thank you. if you could just stay here i will try to moderate based on the ground rules i laid out. if i could just use a presidenti presidenti presidential question. every election watcher in washington expects democrats to

lose house seats. why do you think that is? >> i think the context is historical. people say democrats are on the downside of history. but i have been around the country. been to 83 districts in which we are having contested elections and we have an example of amazing people running people respond with the agenda i have laid out. if i think they analyze it as i have argued they should, they will in fact vote to put democrats in charge of the house of representatives. ...

>> i think the fact is that this matter will be considered lame duck. i think it is important for the congress of the united states to reconsider based on facts and challenges and threats the

authorization for the use of military force passed in 2001 and 2002. i don't believe it is necessary nor do i believe it will happen that we will come back before the lame duck but it is my expectation we will start debate given the circumstances that exist today. ...

>> i am a club member and freelance op-ed. steny made the point about jobs that there are over a million jobs and 1% additional unemployment rate and yet the message stays and the policy has stayed for the last decade of rich tax breaks as a way to create jobs even though sierras and 5:jobs create jobs. why is that the case that message is stuck for rich tax breaks and also wired their 50 million fewer voters in the off year elections than in the presidential presidential election? i does your voters? >> you have vows to question. why is it that we give tax breaks to the wealthiest in america and tax breaks don't

necessarily create jobs. frankly we didn't do that in 2007 through 2011 when we are in charge of congress and the united states. the republicans have done that frankly all the time that i've been in the congress the united states. i came in 1981. the result most dramatically in 2001 and 2003 when the republicans promised large tax breaks for the best off in america would result in an extraordinary growth and jobs. this stock market went down and ushered in the deepest recession, december 2007 that i've experienced in my lifetime and anybody in this room has experience in their lifetime. our policy has been continues to be to have a fair tax policy. we need tax reform. you heard dave camp who offered a reasonable, thoughtful bill

making the tough choices that have to be made. he couldn't get his own bill, this is that the republican chairman of the ways & means couldn't give his own bill to move forward. they couldn't even discuss it and debated and considered. we need tax reform to grow the economy to ensure we are more competitive. the president said that in a couple of his state of the union address. secondly in a recent poll a significant percentage of the american public was not sure there was an election on november 4. what i'm arguing is that elections make a difference. we need people to come out to the polls. my proposition and one of the reasons republicans around the country trying to make it more difficult for people to vote is because their premise which is accurate my opinion is if everybody votes democrats when and i would urge every american

to set aside a time to come to the polls. in maryland they can come to the polls seven days before november 4, the 23rd through to the 30th and i would urge them to do so. if they want their voice heard in the congress of the united states, if they want to make sure that the republican leadership does not refuse to bring to the floor of the house of representatives that would clearly mirrors the will of the american people they need to go to the polls and vote. we celebrate next year and we recognize next year is the 50th anniversary of the john lewis march across the edmund pettis bridge in which he marched to register to vote from selma to montgomery. he was beaten and bloodied as were others in that line of marchers. shortly thereafter we passed the

voting rights act. the voting rights act simply says you have the opportunity. you must seize that opportunity if you're going to make a difference. >> we will go over to the side of the room. >> eric with the fiscal times. steny did is talked a lot about the need for the war on isis but there has been little discussion about the potential cost to the government and taxpayers with this. what is your take on a likely impact of a long-term battle and what would that do to the democrats agenda? >> i think we have to look at that honestly. i think we need to have a mic in iraq where the administration contracted less than 100 billion in costs and spent over a trillion in costs. general shinseki pointed out there's going to be a lot mor

more -- we need to have careful hearings and realistic assessment of the costs of doing what the president and the american people think needs to be done and that's prohibiting isil from terrorizing not only his own region but posing a national security threat to ourselves. we need an honest assessment of that. we have not done that at this point in time but i would hope we would and would urge and not with rose-colored glasses that realistic -- realistically given our past experience. >> what about the agenda? >> for the economy? i think growing the economy and defeating terrorism are not mutually exclusive. i think america can do both and must do both. we need to grow the economy if we are going to be strong.

we need to create jobs for our people. i feel confident that america is going to be a country they want to be and they will have the security they want. i think we have to do both. we are the richest country on the face of the earth and also the strongest. we have the will to come together and work together and we can accomplish those two objectives. >> when we take one of the back here and we'll move over this way. >> cindy with the voice of america. with americans very concerned about terrorism what world do you think foreign policy will play in the upcoming elections and do you think it could possibly even be a game-changer? >> i certainly think foreign-policy is more discussed than it was six months ago. i think the threat of isil and the takeover the crimea illegally by putin and russia

threaten ukraine and the threat of a nuclear-armed iran and the chaos if you will in the middle east have all elevated policy consideration however i believe the american people are still very focused on the economy, on their future, them and their families and i think they have more confidence today than they had six years ago when president obama took office. i still think it's a major concern. there's there is no doubt the foreign policy and the threat posed by isil, russia and ukraine and a nuclear-armed iran have raised focus. of course today as you know the president, today or tomorrow his

meeting with the new prime minister of india mr. modi and they think they will have significant discussions about the partnership with india. the largest democracy in the world and the oldest democracy in the world can play in the global picture. i think the fact that that is occurring at this point in time, india has its own concern about terrorists. i think you point out the relevance of your question that foreign-policy is going to be a significant concern. my own view is the continuing economic concerns and as i posited today the lack of effectiveness or willingness by the majority in the house of representatives to bring to the floor to consider the wish of

the people will be a major consideration. >> i know you are not conceding anything in terms of the midterms that the growth areas further publicans tend to to be a swing state seats york, illinois, california. how would the republicans wanting those feeds change the way that conference operates with concern about 2016? >> well mr. boehner seem to be pretty optimistic in this discussion over the weekend but i'm not sure that those seats would change the very hard line that is in control of the republican party. after all is not only the seats that control the republican republican party, to the club for growth and heritage action,

the koch brothers and others whose fast contributions of money have had a real impact on the republican party not only the 45 or 50 or 60 hard-liners in the republican conference. after all had boehner been willing to walk away from that group as i pointed out on numerous occasions when he was willing we passed significant bipartisan legislation. he's been unwilling to do that so whether or not notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the caucus do not fall in that very hard line segment of their group. >> hi i write for tax know so this will be a ways & means committee question. one of the challenges your caucus is based in the committee in the last year and a half or so have been focused on tax reform by the chairman and a lot of policy areas even within the

context of tax so with the new chairman coming in and the potential for pills outside of tax reform moving how do you think your caucus even if it would remain a minority could have more influence on tax policy in the house? >> well i'm not sure who the new chairman is going to be. of course i quoted at was shrugged -- "atlas shrugged." after all as i pointed out the chairman of the ways & means committee worked in a bipartisan fashion as they think you now including democrats and republicans in discussions of various aspects of the tax code. now wasn't a bipartisan bill that he presented but from our perspective and you heard the president say this and you certainly heard leader pelosi and i say this, that he presented a bill that was an anonymous though. what do i mean by back?

he made the trade-offs. however, the speaker's response to a real pill making real trade-offs was blah blah blah in response to the question what are you going to do about that though? completely dismissive. what did they bring to the floor? they brought to the floor built which would create almost a trillion dollars in additional deficit and debt and not pay for any of it. some of those we were foreign somewhere against every pointed out you were going to explode the deficit one more time as you did in 2001 and 2003 under your tax cuts which you did not pay for. so the answer to your question is we need tax reform. i think there's a bipartisan consensus that we need tax reform and in order to get tax reform they only buy you get it,

which is what we did in 1986, is in a bipartisan way where republicans in the congress and democrats in the congress and a republican president ronald reagan worked together with significant help from others in the reagan administration to achieve tax reform. that's what we have got to do and that's what we'll try to do and i think we can do when the democrats are elected and we have leadership on the ways & means committee. somebody who believes that working together is in fact what you need to do. >> sometimes a lame-duck session is used to approve free trade policy. is there any -- in any -- and this lame-duck? >> i don't think so. probably leadership has not mentioned it at all and i doubt that it will come up in either

the pacific or the europeans. i doubt that will come up. >> from the standpoint of the hospital that is the prospect of the senate elections securing a democratic majority? >> we have been the matured -- the majority in the question is can we keep that majority of course in the answer is yes. there's a long analysis in the "washington post" today about 13 districts. i believe the senate democrats will hold their majority. there's an interesting race going on in kansas as you know, or you may know, but i think when you look at those 13 races i think democrats can win

sufficient numbers of seats so that we will have over 50 members of the united states senate and we will keep the senate in my view. >> we will stay over and on that side of the room for a few minutes. >> hi andrea wolf. i've noticed as i'm sure everybody else has that both parties are discussing the women's vote. how do you feel the women's vote is going to affect the election and how deep you republicans approach in trying to capture view the women's vote which is historically gone to democrats. >> i don't know if the women's vote is historically gone to republicans. >> to democrats. the republicans have eyes then -- obviously been capitalized on aiming to try to bring in more votes.

>> the problem is they have such a record of opposing issues of real importance to women, children and families and i think all those issues motivate women and men, but women in particular who are very focused on their families and very focused on their children, very focused on how women are treated and whether they get equal pay. republicans have refused to bring that to the floor. millions of women are trying to support themselves living on minimum wage. the minimum wage is lower today by about 45% that was in 1968. the last time we raise the minimum wage was when we took back the house. we need to raise the minimum wage. we need to provide affordable childcare. so i think that women, when they come out to vote, will look at the records. not about talking about it but

you have to act in vote. so i think there is no doubt that women voting in significant majority for democrats and i would urge them as i have urged everybody in this speech to come out and express their voice so that their issues will in fact be brought to the floor of the house of representatives for consideration. right now it's shut down. >> i am mary burger with washington daily. i want to follow up on a question about trade and asked you if you've heard anything about the possibility of trade promotion authority coming up in the lame-duck and then on the u.s. import-export bank which was mentioned in the speech. what's your strategy for getting a a long-term rappers asian xt or? >> as you know mr. cantor and i worked for three or four months in a bipartisan way on a few

issues in the last congress that we did in a bipartisan way. mr. cantor and i worked on them we brought that bill to the floor and every democrat voted for it. 93 republicans voted against it. republicans in the congress have refused to bring it to the flo floor. i talked about certainty in my speech. the republicans had one of the things they wanted to bring to congress with certainty. mr. hensarling is very much opposed to the export-import bank. we believe it has a very positive effect on job creation and makes money. the irony is the party that wants to balance the budget projects a mechanism that makes money for the treasury. my expectations are and i have urged the business community

large, medium and small who are affected by the export-import bank dorf facilitating the creation of jobs and selling products by the operations of the export-import bank to enga engage, democrats and republicans, on this issue. my own view is that if that bill were brought to the floor it's another instance where not bringing a bill to the floor precludes its consideration of the will of the people which is of course what mr. boehner and the young guns that they were going to do. 41 republicans wrote a letter to the speaker saying we want a permanent rasterization of the export-import bank. it was never brought to the floor. what we now have is the extension to june 30 as you know.

that gives uncertainty. it gives some certainty to lenders and borrowers into purchasers from across the oceans of american products as to whether or not that assistance is going to be there in the future. so the question what am i going to do, i'm going to work hard to see it reauthorized as soon as possible to give certainty to all of those entities in the near term. tpa, i think tpa was incorporated in your question and i think it's essential essentially my response. i don't think right now there is a consensus in either party to bring that forward. as you know, i have been historically a very strong supporter and continue to be. >> hi. i'm from the national disability rights network and my question and i know the answer already because i know how you feel but

i want to put it out there. the voting block for people with disabilities, people with disabilities have barriers. people and institutions can't vote and not having ballots in braille and not be able to register to vote in all of those things. where do you see those people and what are your plans to help that block? >> one of the things i mentioned is to facilitate, to facilitate equal voting. this democracy is better the more inclusive it is. the more people that speak, i.e. vote, the better america will be in to the extent that we facilitate all people voting, america will be better and certainly as sponsor of the

american disabilities act and a co-sponsor of the disabilities act i'm a believer that we need to adopt reasonable accommodations of the language of the disabilities act which facilitates people with disabilities voting either ask us to polls, braille ballots, other ways to communicate their choices maintaining the secrecy of the ballot is what we need to do. i will continue to work on that and we need to pass a voting rights act response to shelby versus folder which is adopted a premise that is not sure that somehow things have changed to the extent that we no longer need protections that were included in the voting rights act passed overwhelmingly in 2006 by republicans and democrats and signed by george bush. >> the announcement you are going to be speaking and taking part generated number questions

from outside of the press club for members who are not living in washington. the crowning achievement of the last democratic congress they think you would agree is obamacare. how do you think it has turned out so far and what impact if any will that have on midterm elections? >> the affordable care act as i call it, the president points out correctly that it will be -- republicans will call it obamacare right up until the time that is widely received in working well and then they'll call up the affordable care act. the affordable care act is working. like any large piece of legislation, it was difficult to implement and continues to pose a challenge. however millions and millions and millions of people now have access to affordable quality health care. millions of people are not shut

out because of pre-existing conditions. being a woman is not treated as a pre-existing condition on the affordable care act. in fact we have seen stories which indicate premiums are coming in. the competition is up and running out the marketplace. the irony is it was perceived as somehow a socialist system. these are all private-sector providers. all we have created is a market for which consumers can go and compare shopping. that's what the free market is all about. so i think at worst the affordable care act is going to be neutral and in my opinion mostly a positive and certainly as the years go by it will become a more positive aspect of american life because more and more and more americans will have access to affordable quality health care, which they need, what they want and which i think increasingly they see the affordable care act as an

accomplishment. >> this is your 33rd year in congress and i wonder from that perspective i would just like to ask another question that we received but this year has featured one government if you like to screw up after another from the va scandal to the irs scandal to the intelligence failures that made the growth of isis seem like a surprise. given all that how much faith should the american people have in their federal government? >> well i think as i've said we need to restore the faith that has been shaken by the unwillingness of the congress of the united states, republican leadership in the house of representatives in particular, to consider the issues the american people feel are important and by pulling data overwhelmingly support. i think if the congress were working the trust level would be

substantially heightened. now we have some real challeng challenges. when frankly things don't work correctly, democrats came out very strongly with reference to the va issues, with respect to the altering of statistics in terms of veterans waiting times. all of us were very angry about that and the president has put in a new leader who is making very substantial reforms to make it work as well as veterans deserve, which means making sure they have access to the va health care system in a timely basis which provides them very good health service, which they agree -- on the irs, i think the

hearings that have been held on that are pretty clearly indicating this is not the direction of the administration. it was corrected at some point in time but not timely enough and democrats have made it very clear that what happened or what appeared to have happened is unacceptable. no american, whatever their views, whatever their party, whatever status they find themselves and politically or otherwise should have their tax issues related to any of those taxes other than what they legitimately owe as taxes, period. >> i know you feel strongly and confident that the democrats will maintain control of the senate, nevertheless i would like to ask how would things

change for the house democrats if republicans were to gain control of the senate and how would things change for president obama if the republicans were to gain control of the senate? >> well i think we would see exactly what the american publ public -- more gridlock, more confrontation and more partisanship. they all indicate they don't want any of that sell my urging to the american people would be elect people who are going to work with, cooperate with the president of the united states. you may not agree on every issue but we are separate and coequal branch of government in the united states that we need to reflect thoughtful consideration of the president's proposal. we are after all part of one branch of government that proposes policy. the executive carries out policy

and that's the context in which we have to operate but having said that i think the american people ate it very clear they think the obstructionism is largely the responsibility of the republican party. thomas mann and norm ornstein one with the brookings institution one with the american enterprise institute wrote a book in a book and essentially the same of their book was there is gridlock, there is confrontation, there are certain refusal to compromise and while they say they criticize republicans in the past and democrats in the past at this point in time there only conclusion is the responsibility of the republicans both in the house and in the senate which have led to this confrontation, refusal to compromise. remember alice shrugged, iran said compromises in the middle. if you believe in is simply my way or the highway or my way or no way then you will get the

gridlock in competition the american people hate. my proposition to the american people people in his speech and when i go anyplace in country if you don't like what's going on elect a party that will work with the president to create a better economy and a more secure country. >> congregants -- congressman hoyer i thought it would be too partisan if we were to exchange mementos representing our respective universities, ohio state in the university so i chose more of a neutral memento to present to you the traditional national press club mug and we thank you. [applause] >> thanks a lot. wish me good luck on saturday. [laughter]

[inaudible conversations]

coming up former u.s. ambassador to china jon huntsman talks about gridlock in washington. mr. huntsman served as the republican governor of utah. he also discusses his time as ambassador to china and the current protests in hong kong. this event was hosted by the washington center for internships and academic seminars. [applause] >> thank you. it's always a strange moment another 30 years ago i was one of you in the audience as an intern with washington center and i give credit to politics what came later.

he thought it would be best to start the program before we introduced the panelists and their special guest with a video of what we are doing it no label so it will give you some context to the panel and questions. ♪ [videotape] ♪ >> important right now life is -- washington is broken. >> we can't attend to any of the major challenges facing the country. >> we have lost our ability to do anything to become professional partisans.

>> somehow we are feeling took advantage of a lot of -- in washington. ♪ >> certainly there've been fights and arguments since his agreements throughout our history that there resides a moment in time when someone step forward or a group of someone step forward and said leslie. >> the only way forward is by giving the machinery of policymaking to work with both sides focused. >> everything that bill clinton and newt gingrich did in the 90s. they agree to the goal of the balanced budget. >> we need to begin laying a foundation of a common interest.

♪ ♪ >> there are for pickles but we want. >> make america secure by 2024. >> secure social security and medicare for the next 25 years. >> balancing the budget. >> those are for big goals. frankly i think they are hard to argue with. >> we need a vital economy and a coherent policy. we need a sustainable social n net. >> some look at new labels and they say you have some lofty

ideas and kumbaya. i say they are missing the whole purpose. of course you have to get people working in america but you've got to get them working together toward something important to all americans. that is where the national strategic event plays a critical central role. ♪ >> would do you are a republican or democrat, these are the transcendent issues of our time. >> by the time the presidential campaign starts kicking off in 2016 we want this to be. >> talk to your neighbor about it.

just go the web site and educate yourself. >> you have to be involved to help you have an impact. >> one of my favorite process by civil rights leader, we have arrived on the shores of leadership that we are all in the same boat now. >> i want to put a plug-in now. college students you are the engine behind this movement that we have. there are going to be people outside when you walk out the door. we would love you decide that give us your name, give us your e-mail go to the web site, get involved. we are going to have an an active your head and i'm sure our governor huntsman will talk about it. i would like to call up our ambassador. he is really and truly one of the visionaries behind the washington center. i have known him, my goodness i

can't even say how long i've known him but we have worked together in other campaigns. he is truly a model of a person that gets civically involved in was the ambassador of belgium during the clinton years and truly the visionary behind what goes on here. governor huntsman is someone that i met maybe it was two years ago or so. i got introduced to him. i presented this idea of no labels and it took a little bit of time but he agreed to sign up as the chair. really he has such a distinguished record. he was the ambassador to china. he was a two-term governor for the state of utah with a popularity rating, 80 plus, ambassador to singapore and he ran for president. he truly is a leader of this next generation in someone you should all be watching in terms of the national scene and is the chair of this organization.

[applause] >> i like to call you ambassador. at a certain prejudice. the great thing about these highfalutin jobs are to titles like your excellency. your holiness. i tried to get my kids to call me by that but they wouldn't for whatever reason. >> everybody back home said hey you. anyway seriously tell us the difference between being a governor and an executive position and being in ambassador where you are getting input from the secretary of state and the president. >> it's a pleasure to be with you and a pleasure to be with all who are part of washington center. i can't begin to tell you how

valuable this time is for you individually and i hope when you walk out of the center when the semester is done there you go out and change the world and you make it a better place. you are getting tools and exposure to people and an education that is so rare in today's world. don't let us down because they say every generation the baton passes and then it's your turn to step up and take him problem solving and finding solutions. you are about there so tune in and take some of these issues seriously. i started out as a rock musicians of the fact that i'm called anything other than just a total failure is an amazing feat all by itself. i've had two of the best jobs in the world. one of them is representing the country as the highest most senior accredited american in that country confirmed by the senate under the constitution,

appointed by the president and then you are given the task of basically being the eyes and ears within a country for the united states which is to say we protect american citizens, report on things that are going on and help with business and economic expansion and then you manage all the other things that go on in a bilateral relationship between the united states and the country are hosting. in china and it was very exciting posting in europe, i think can't think of a relationship more interesting in the early part of the 21st century than this. for me there were always things going on in a relationship that i thought were so fascinating, so intellectually stimulating but here's what i love the most and then i will get onto the governor. you know we don't get a lot of good people running for office in the united states. that probably comes as a great

revelation and surprise. you wonder where they go. i had the great privilege of arriving to work every morning and an embassy, this is the second largest in the world in china, couple thousand people and the young men and women who populate the embassy who are part of the foreign service, part of the military, part of any one of 40 different agencies, they were the best and the brightest. they were incredible public servants and if i could have bottled up what they did and the work ethic that they brought in a very patriotic way to serve their country it would have blown away every taxpayer in this country many of whom complained about expenditures overseas. it was just a great honor to work with such dedicated and competent people. the governor is a totally different deal. if you can imagine working in the highly compartmented

atmosphere of an embassy which is what it was like in china, highly compartmented. you speak a different language literally and figuratively. you are working on issues that many americans will never hear about. going from there to an open campaign where the most circus like undertaking in the world, that of running for public office where anything goes and it's kind of a free-for-all environment when she began. you have very little control of your surroundings. you are running based upon issues you believe them. you take your message out to the voters and to ask for their vote which is about the most humbling thing i think there is in the world. standing on. standing on a soapbox, staring down a bunch of people at a town hall meeting and saying will you vote for me? it is without question the most humbling experience of my lifetime because half of them are looking at you you.

you can see it in their eyes, are you kidding? vote for you and the other half are saying i like what you are saying. i could go to work for you. in fact i will dedicate my next year to your cause and we will go out and change the world. because you are asking the voters, in any of you who are in this room may run for office at some point, you will get this exact same. you are asking the voter for the most valuable and precious commodity is that they have which is trust to be placing as a candidate. it's a pretty awesome thing and then you find if you work hard enough and you go out and work in the primaries you win the election. i only run for class office in high school but i won one junior class president and i lost too. i married somebody who lost her election too so we came together as losers. i never thought of the thousand years that i would run for

public office and then you get to the point where you care enough about the issues that you will too. i don't care which country you come from you will care enough about the issues that you will want to go and do something about it. then you are elected mandated by the people. the state constitution to govern and you wake up in the morning after the election. i remember so distinctly. then you say now what do i do? now i've got to take all of those things that just promised the people of my state and i have to turn it into action and turn it into plans and policies and pieces of legislation and lead and go out and get it done. if i don't do it, and here's the biggest difference between being ambassador and governor although much of it will be apparent just based on the conditions in which you work. you are a team player as ambassador. you are not the singular individual out there making it

all happened in calling the shots. you are part of a broader team. you work with the interagency process and you work with the white house and the state department and the whole lot of others. you are just one piece of a broader tapestry that makes form policy work and as such you subordinate your ego sometimes. as governor is completely liberating in the sense that there's nowhere to hide. there is no place on capitol hill you can go to. you are it. you tell the state where you want to go and you try to get it done to the best of your ability and then you stand for re-election. you suffer the consequences or live the successes of what you have done. there's nothing more bottom-line focused or liberating in politics because you really are out there. your ideas and your ability to bring people together, your ability to work the system and

execute it and make it all happen. that is what governors in this country, those who have been elected to the senate on capitol hill -. >> let me ask you this. he served as the republican governor. he served as a democratic president. he came back to the united states. he ran as a republican candidate for the presidency of the united states, certainly a partisan position and get you are one of the chairman of no labels. what got you interested in the label's? >> first of all let me say i did serve as a republican and i would do it again. i was raised with the fundamental belief that you put your country before your political party. with two sons today in uniform both in the united states navy, they don't have the luxury, my

sons before they are deployed of saying what party is my president and i think i will decide. they just do it. i was raised in an environment that in public service that's what you do whether republican or democrat. if you are asked to a job and a job in which maybe could help lead to better than he found it and maybe bring whatever background or set of skills to the work, you do it. i was happy to serve me do it again. but no labels came along. nancy jacobson who is the genius and master mind behind no labe labels, nancy is what i would call a social political entrepreneur. it's almost an oxymoron at political entrepreneur. he you just sort of sit and spin and nothing ever gets done. nancy has created a movement

that is quite remarkable. i have to digest it when i first heard about it because i have been in politics are there wasn't quite sure and two things were readily apparent about this no labels grew. it was just kind of thing just getting off the ground. one, we no longer have the ability to bring people together regardless of their background for purposes of discussion, building trust and problem solving. if you didn't approach everything with a problem-solving ethos when you sit around the table i didn't ask what party people were around the table. if you want to talk about environmental tax reform or education have a seat at the table and let's talk and we will pat -- put our best ideas out there and move forward. that's not the way it works so no labels is bringing this concept of reorienting the whole political construct, the ethos of politics from one of acrimony, anger and

finger-pointing, which i think everybody is sick and tired of for the most part, and i hope we don't get to the point where we say that's that's just the way supposed to be. that's not the way supposed to be. we are fundamentally broken. going from that environment to what a problem-solving. people in the senate say you can't change the culture of washington. i say nonsense. the culture of washington is always changing. there are always new people coming in and things looking -- being looked at differently. i worry about the undercurrent of the divide in washington because they are almost intractable. gerrymandering, the rise of the professional political class. europe professional research person. that didn't exist before in politics. you he did it seasonally

announced a professional industry. so how do you deal with that is a big challenge. creating that change in culture is very effective to me because i saw that as something that needed desperately to be done. the other thing that i've found having lived in poor countries during my lifetime, only one of those four countries that i have lived and doesn't have a sense of extraction, has no strategic direction. this one. it struck me as a little bizarre that this great country of greater than 20 million people, it scientists teachers leaders you can ask anyone on capitol hill and ask where we are going and get an answer except for hot air. we thought we could at the grassroots level based on polling and based on collaborative efforts with local government and congress, come up with a transcendent strategic direction for the country. i don't care whether you are

republican or democrat, there are just some issues that the american people want to see done. the fact that you can put together such an agenda over the next year and market it in iowa and new hampshire in the grassroots of this country where people participate on what that agenda looks like i thought was about the most brilliant thing i've heard in a while. the interesting thing about being a political entrepreneur like nancy is there's no guarantee result of where no labels is going. it's totally based on ideas. it's based on grassroots enthusiasm. it's based on the next generation, people like you signing up and saying i like where this is going. i think i want to be part of it the solution as opposed to being a part of the problem. i think the energy is going to build for no labels and i think we are going to get someplace. >> i attended the meeting a week ago that you and senator manchin

conducted in nancy put together with hundreds of people hearing about no labels and what it's up to and how many members of the house and senate both democrats and republicans who put together almost 100 now trade at the end of the day there were sort of one unanswered question which i'm going to ask you. it's a tough one of and abide a mask i know know some of the students will certainly ask. 95 to 100 members of the house and senate get together on some strategic agenda and some piece of legislation that they would like jointly in a nonpartisan way to see go through and yet there were 50 members of the house and something called the tea party that will probably block any kind of legislation. how does no labels deal in the long term, how do you deal with a group like the tea party that's basically has an ax

against government. >> politicians are pretty dumped -- adept to the marketplace. i have hung out with politicians and they are good at town hall meetings in reading the polls and hanging out in the coffee shops. the job of a politician is to try to get -- so you were not eat alive and in election. if this is done right then the whole culture of problem-solving which exists in a whole lot of states in this country and a lot of cities, we had mayors at this gathering. we had local officials. they get that whole problem-solving thing. when the culture begins to turn more toward anger and division, which we have all had enough of. i think that's yesterday's

mantra, more toward okay we recognize the system is broken. we can no longer afford to go another three or four years without a basis like a budget and i think people at home are going to demand that there be change. you are not going to get change in this country until you get a collaborative working atmosphere which is the same thing that exists in any other realm of life. whether you are raising a family or building a business or teaching in a classroom you've got to do at a certain way to get progress and results. inevitably that's where we are going to be. i'm betting that the american people are going to say we want results and in order to get results we have to have officials that are going to focus on problem-solving as their vision and that is where i think we are going to see the 100 members of this problem solvers caucus. this has only been a year and a half. never thought in a thousand years we'd wake up in the fall of 2014 with 100 republicans and

democrats and members of congress. i was in a gathering a couple of weeks ago and some person said now here's the solution. here's what we need. we need a group of about 100 members of congress, republicans and democrats who agree that there is a common set of objectives that we need to go toward and i said you are exactly right. not enough people know about it. they are increasingly learning about it but this is a very powerful moment when you can get a tea party person like they had with matt salmon who was on the stage a couple weeks ago from phoenix arizona and a more progressive democrat. they are all saying we want to balance the budget. we want to fix entitlements, we want energy security. we disagree on the pathways though we all know what the goal should be. when is the last time this country have discussion on goals? we don't put goals on the wall. we did when clinton was president about a balanced

budget and newt gingrich said i want a balanced budget to match match. the two different pathways, argue different merits of the pathways and got there. they arrived at the same destination. i for one say let's give that a try, that whole creating the goals first and then moving the machinery toward those goals. >> let's back up for a moment. we have all admitted there is terrible divisiveness in washington and some say it just doesn't work. it's been suggested that the two reasons for the divisiveness totally and related is one, that the members don't stay in the city. they go home to their states to raise money to see their constituents for town meetings and look for money to get reelected. their families are tearing their children aren't here and years ago the families live here. the children were educated here and because of that they had to get together all the time. that's one reason and the other

reason and here we are on c-span, the other reason people say it's because of c-span. when a senator or representative is on television they have to show very clearly to their constituents where they are and they say things that are not as diplomatic as they might be if they were -- and i just wondered on your thoughts on the divisiveness. >> we have quit seeing ourselves as americans first and foremost. the parties have been built up professionally with money and organizers and professional people some of whom are elected to congress as political people and then they get to congress and can't figure out why we can't do the economic and foreign policies that. ..

>> >> and i am happy to hear from any of you.

>> i of from the university. my question i know you said with the presidential election 2015 but he ran on the sideline but my question is whether we going to contribute to the campaign? >> somehow'' to inspire you. there is nothing more important than to take what i have experienced in my career the ups and downs. you just learn about what

that will be like. with the presidential campaign or running for office they really cannot communicate with others. with that atmosphere to be conducive one and then to talk about it. but i can tell you the victory for super tuesday but the primary state? no. connecting to. >> hello?

one. >> 11 my question is, have you shared more insight with the culture or how you think we could try to dismantle that?

>> i have a few questions. one is to spend some time on the presidential campaign that means more and more professional apparatus. number to what i found i ever shocked at the young people that doesn't matter? they cannot write a big check? with so with that political system and people just peel off. that is another part that i think is tied to money and politics. it was not just about the

big money but to participate. at the grass-roots level to small contributions. to give the of money in politics some more grass-roots participation would be a nice transition to make. so i think we spend in politics one denominator of what we spend on potato chips every year. but my argument is for the people that are low end.

>> i am studying journalism. with the campaign's and they have gotten nastier over the past couple of decades. after words after everybody has voted in things have been said they contribute to the ongoing partisanship? >> are they connected? i think so. politics will always nasty. also the secretary of treasury was actually shot and killed after eight to '04 by a man named burgonet was pretty nasty. but the problem today is we build on a permanent basis this division so the prospect to break it up it is the different culture to

become increasingly difficult. but the nastiness has another unfortunate offset. who wants to run for office anymore? you're just to the election campaign everybody wants to take a shower. and to go on television if you have seen them once or twice for those who are actually spending money on that level of stupidity. what it does is run as a lot of people at lot of politics purpose those getting in the arena. i don't want to have the future prospects destroyed destroyed, look for somebody else. increasingly i don't think we're getting a level of

real quality people to run for public office. who runs for public office? not too many hands go up and that tells me something the poison of politics and the nastiness. we need to regenerate the system. it would be a great way to reduce the number of lobbyists and congress which is part of the problem. but we need to create an incentive because we are rewarding constructive problem solving to get things done as opposed where 90 percent of the incumbents are reelected.

>> hello. i am so excited to have you here. with i have run university in beijing china. with a two -- the china u.s. relations two weeks ago i was at a hearing visiting with the u.s. congress and china. but the leadership are inspired but could you please share in your opinion the most suggestion as our ambassador to china?

thank-you. >> thank you for the question aha the biggest challenge to talk about disputes of various kinds it gets down to the ability to build trust it is earned by working together as we did during the cold war. what brought us together. so with the establishment of the republic of china. but i did not bring anybody

to gather. the common objective was a balance of power goal which to deal with the soviet union that kept us together for purposes of economic enhancement or political cooperation. then rebuilt on that objective the economic goal which occupied part of the 1990's. and clear the way for china to reform its economy was a huge deal. and i would say in today's world we slowly burned through the trust that we built up in that is not a good thing. so this is a challenge. what can we do together that should have a long list of

things we're working on to make the world a better place with the overall regional stability and economic agenda. how about dealing with diseases and different parts of the world? what about environmental issues? the lot of things can be worked on but we are not there. not to carry their relationship into the 21st century and to renew get together because you're not working productively, that is dangerous for the whole world. but during my time there was a lot of things. every day their relationship is a sensitive issue.

but i would say the lack of communication with military was a very dangerous thing. we have planes in the sky and ships on the sea. and then to talk about to coordinate the activities without the strategy is something goes wrong is worrisome. it is not with that military dialogue. that was two years into his job. also was chair of the central military. so he has an opportunity even next week in front of congress. no announcements yet but he will have some impact on the central military commission

how it is structured, who leads it to and the bodies within the cnc. but recognition for greater stability and more dialogue. they can reach our allies and friends is a good thing. we will see. >> i am in journalism student and emerson. but what about the recent protests in hong kong and what is the appropriate response europe? >> also removing the arms embargo to vietnam has that effect the relationship going forward? >> i was in vietnam

recently. and therefore lead 11. i found to be the safest place in the world for an american i was in saigon. and going through some of those final phases. normalizing trade relationships. and reunification of the palace this as a moment for america 9/11 played in the background and instruct me how quickly the world changes so what you see and recognize you do things on the world stage but as i

walked the streets of hanoi a people express sarraute. i thought this would be the most dangerous place for an american to be walking so i watched the evolution of the relationship with regional cooperation. and things are getting interesting. to think a u.s. naval ship called the uss john mccain was at fort cents interesting signals were the u.s. and vietnam are going. there is more talk of military to military cooperation. there will not find themselves in cameron bay but you can see them with

embargoes as we go to those more sensitive aspects. keep your eye on that it would be an interesting couple of years. with respect to hong kong no risk -- no surprise hundreds of thousands of people who'd turned out last month that i gave the speech. the end it is interesting because the hong kong people love freedom. they don't want to see it change. they move toward a greater democracy. said choosing that chief executive there with like to see a direct which is legitimate to. why not? that would embody the

aspirations of the hong kong people. then they run against china's objections so that would take place in 2017. that would be a tricky issue because i'm not sure you could live within the model of the chinese economy with the democracy. tie one is an interesting example. during martial law 35 years ago. and democracy blossomed in 1987 in what you see today. there is no way to talk to the people of hong kong to talk about their dreams are

desires or aspirations. at some point there would pay a hybrid model with how they would plan to do its to within choose among themselves. a hybrid of that that is the thriving metropolis with a centerpiece of a rule of law >> day zinc u.s. government should express more public support for the protesters in hong kong or is that too much of an issue to have a public dialogue? >> the chinese know where we are. you cannot hide there are certain values with the united states of america.

part of the name-brand in the marketplace is democracy. free markets. human-rights. liberty. that is the name brand of who we are. you can defend that it diminishes our standing in the world. you have to be on the side that champion a direct democracy ribby disingenuous to do otherwise. that may create some tense moments for that ambassador. of course, . there are plenty of issues we disagree but we just have to put those aside. and as relates to hong kong this is important example. >> thank you very much.

>> i tend state university in illinois. my question what is one of the most significant changes you felt you made as an ambassador? >> diplomacy moves. so in answer to that realistically in 20 years and will give you an answer. because it takes a lot of time to produce anything. but i have to say one of the more immediate issues that could yield something short term was a desire to connect more america is leaders in china's leaders at the grass-roots level. so we had a program to connect the governors and mayors. an amazing thing happens

they sit down with a counterpart and you talk the same language for an education, jobs, clean air, infrastructure, it is amazing with the country to country relationship at the provincial and state level these are the issues. so it occurred to me as a transition from governor to ambassador we need to connect more grassroots leaders. because we find commonality in what we do together. but the answers to some of these questions are working together how to clean up the air in china? that is the worst in the world arguably. it carries over to the

pacific coast of united states. it is a global problem. hagel expect them to do with this issue if we don't have a conversation? how can you expect practices on trade with respect for innovation and intellectual property? that is a byproduct as well. and the overall trust to work together. we started dash and nurtured it hopefully building numbers greater than what we started with. but long-term it will be the most important investment with a better understanding. >> there is an expression that ambassadors get on

better than their countries. is an interesting lesson for everyone. a relates to what goes on in washington today. i know i had relationships with ambassadors for our country but we agreed as friends and embassadors to work on the problem. but they get back to washington navy people would learn the individual is more important. >> i am from university of south florida. with international relations major. for those policies that people don't understand

well? that they would promote certain ideals especially with no goal of foreign policy. >> i thank you start with us sensible way to where people want to go. and members of congress and representatives who are courageous enough. right now there is too much pandering. you play to the base. you pander. this was with a lot of applause lines. but you have not accomplished anything. to connect good ideas and good policies for support by the people.

we have to have members of congress to talk about that. >> as the former ambassador that the people don't understand that we have other policies with constantly changing issues have to repay attention to those on the front line? >> this is the national strategic agenda is important because with the sophisticated polling recapture the minds of the american people. so with those that are in office are running for office the challenge there is foreign policy. the key at the hierarchy we took the top four or five.

why? because we want to work as a reflection of people think are the most important for jobs, better budget, is securing entitlements. their bread and butter issues republican democrat you come together to support these goals at a high level of support. the tricky part is much of what we have to talk about on foreign policy side does not want -- lend itself to the one liners or the sound bites so you want to give the applause line so what about the situation in syria? you may have to bring in parties from the region. how do find a successful outcome? is now sitting down with

russia or china? i don't know you cannot talk at town hall meeting at the master plan. when it is easy to save you will do for china? it is important to say what will we do with china? where will be worked together? this is a tricky thing that requires additional courage from our elected officials that are not necessarily the headline issues from the hometown audience to have that conversation. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i am from india in racy new year my major is biotechnology.

in relation to labor being a national movement with the extraordinary approach with the national strategic agenda one of the most crucial goals. so what extraordinary approach to execute with the most important concern as a crucial issue for health care. >> health care was not one of the topics spinnaker i just read that it was one of the most important goals of the four goals. >> that would be part of securing entitlements. you are quite right. talk about jobs anon