united states and china are the two countries whose tensions could spread around the whole world, whose conflicts would make many solutions very difficult and huge cooperation is needed for peace. so it is important for the united states and china to be transparent with each other about their objectives and about their general strategy. in the world. we are both major countries and we are both step on each other's toes, because of the magnitude of our efforts. but we must not let a situation arise like the one that led to the first world war in which in

the accumulation of irritations finally led to a crisis that was no different from many -- and one day they couldn't manage it. so the united states and china have still trying to design a way by which they can cooperate and by which people can work for common objectives. fundamentally, there is been significant progress made in every administration. and whenever a new administration comes in, it is a concern that maybe it will take a different course. if madeleine forgives me, in the early clinton administration,

president clinton tried to deviate from the established pattern, but within two years he realized that the established pattern was based on our common interests and he became one of the strongest supporters of this way of international relationships. ..

to pay attention to things that they say against them. once he was president elect, i think he took a different approach, or didn't speak about it very much. i do think the chinese have probably gotten used to some of the things that our elected officials have said, but i am concerned about what has just happened because in some ways it raises questions about all the things that henry did in terms of the shanghai communiqué and the one china policy. while in fact ,-comma what president clinton was saying was that people had been arrested or

mowed down by tanks which did not deal with our values and i think america has always have to state and i always did whenever i met with the chinese was to explain our human rights policies and issues to do with that, which is a little different than questioning or seeming, i have no idea what happened. i only know what i read, but basically questioning the issue of what our relationship with taiwan as. the question is, as part of the normalization, we did have part of the agreement, but the question is, what was the intent of the phone call. >> doctor kissinger, did president-elect trump ask you to go to china.

[laughter] >> no. >> did he ask you to deliver a message to the chinese. >> not in that sense. i was aware of some of his thinking, and he knew that i was going, i was not going as a presidential adversary, i was going on a trip i had planned many months earlier. >> were you surprised that he accepted a call. do think that is productive in u.s. china relations? >> i was one of the drafters of the shanghai communicate and so, there are clear premises of that

communication and clear obligations and i will not separate my views from the shanghai communiqué and from the established procedure. i think also, at this moment, i have been very impressed by the calm reaction of the chinese leadership which suggests a determination to see whether a calm dialogue can be developed, but there's no question that the policy of opening to china has

been based on the premise of a one china policy. >> does accepting a call when he is not yet president, i would argue that what our prohibition is, is about official contact and since he is president elect, and not yet president, that actually is not an official contact. >> that is a good way to describe. >> if i look to avoid confrontation, that's the way i describe it. i do recall running into a deputy assistant secretary of state in taipei and i know the prohibitions and i said wait a

minute, you're not supposed to be here. he said i've been named but i haven't taken office yet so i'm not official. so there is precedent for that kind of contact. what do you think after that turmoil, what you think the president elect, he sent out a tweet after he was criticized, and i had to write it down, did china ask us if it was okay to devalue their currency making it hard for countries to compete, heavily tax our products going into their country, the u.s. doesn't tax them or to build massive military complex in the south of the china sea. i don't think so. what does that mean for the u.s. china relationship. [inaudible] >> you didn't expect to get easy questions for me. >> look, it's perfectly obvious

what my views are on the subject. i think it's also not desirable that at the beginning of a new administration that it's finding its way, that i go into every one of these issues, i believe in a one china policy. i have to be believe it has to be preserved, i believe that our dialogue should be calm and focused, but i don't think, at this point it is important for me to second-guess every move that may have been made. >> let me say, i do think it's a

statement of fact that the most important relationship we have is with china, and we all, diplomatically speaking, when they are our complicated, you say it's multifaceted. it's definitely multifaceted. i think what we have seen is, through a variety administration's, beginning with president with president next and henry kissinger, we have developed a way of talking to each other, and it is very well patterned and there are certain ways it takes diplomacy. diplomacy is, by virtue of the way talk about it, you always have to put yourself into the other person's shoes. it is not negotiating for a hotel, and i think the point is, how to develop the right parlance here. i know it takes a while to sort it out, but in the meantime

,-comma what i have found and i have traveled abroad a lot since the election, is trying to explain to anybody, chinese, i chinese, i was born in czechoslovakia so i went to prague right away to say, and i agree with henry, they, they are learning, but the bottom line is , tweeting has not actually been a foreign-policy tool before. >> but it didn't used to be an election tool either. >> but i do think one of the big questions is how technology is used these days, but i also think, the number of issues that we have with the chinese, whether they are through the strategic and economic talks or military to military talks, a really, it really depends on relationships and having all the information. i think, let me just say, the transition. is both too short and too long.

i have been transitioned into and i have done the transitioning. the latter is more fun, but the battle mine is it's very complicated time. where people in this country are talking to each other and somehow forget that foreigners are listening to them or hear what they are saying. i really hope that my good friend henry kissinger has a very strong influence on president-elect trump. [applause] >> let's go from one sensitive issue to another sensitive issue secretary albright, you are one, to my knowledge, the only senior american to visit north korea. you met with then father of the chinese president, you almost

arranged for president clinton to visit north korea, after the election, prior to the inauguration. president-elect trump is also talking about having discussions directly with him. what lessons from your visit to korea and you're dealing with them, probably more than any american official in decades tell you about his idea? >> let me just say, it was was interesting because we had had a lot of talks with the north koreans throughout the clinton administration. there were a lot of breakdowns, a lot of issues that came up that the united nations, we had the agreed framework with them, a number of different ways and

president clinton had asked us to do, because things were moving in anyway, to do a complete review of korean policy and he asked former secretary defense bill. to do a review. then we had some meetings with the north koreans that explain this is fork in the road time. you're either going to negotiate on some of the issues where we are going to take some action and they chose the negotiation. what happened was, they showed the number two man and invited president clinton to go to north korea and we were in the oval office and he said while i might, at some point, but first sec. albright has to go. the truth is, we knew very little about him. he and the sunshine policy, he spent some time with him and our intelligence said that he was crazy and a pervert.

he was not crazy. [applause] when i got there, they put me in a guest house and, because we didn't have any embassy there, we had no idea what was going to happen. i first got instructions that i had to go see his father and it's very hard, actually when you are trying to pay respect to somebody not about to low because it's too respectful and the press will be furious and not to kind of pay no respect. once i had agreed to do that, i went back to the guesthouse and all the sudden i get a message that the deer leader would see me and so we had a meeting, press conference and it was something out of the 50s and i'm standing there next to him and i see that we are the same height and i knew that i have on high heels and then i over and so did he and his hair was a lot goofier than mine, but let me

say this, we had pretty amazing talks in terms of arranging for missile limits. he said we could keep our forces in south korea and there were a number of different agreements made. again, it was one of those strange periods, if i hold no brief for the north koreans, but the bottom line is, many americans were confused about the election of 2000, he certainly was and then when i came back i briefed: powell about what we had done, he was very interested in what we had done and then the washington post had a headline, powell to continue clinton policy, he was called into the oval office and told no way. i do think the north koreans have reason to be confused. by the way, dennis rodman rodman and all the basketball stuff is my fault because there was one other thing we knew about him,

he liked basketball and michael jordan and i brought him an autograph basketball which they put in their holy of holies, but the bottom line is, i do think we need to either get some version of the six party talks, we need to talk to them. i do think that is a very important part, and besides that, having a nuclear north korea is dangerous for the chinese, we have to do it with the chinese, they need to understand that they don't want a nuclear armed north korea either and so i think within some kind of multilateral context it's important for us to talk. >> what president-elect trump seems to be suggesting is a one-on-one. >> well, if it should come to that, it has to be really well-prepared and the bottom line is, we don't know enough about him and the question is,

who does the one-on-one and how do they understand each other, but at some point we have to talk to them. the situation with iran is similar but different. there certainly were a lot of talks that took place. >> do we know if in president obama's conversation with president-elect trump that there has been reference to a real threat and that threat was north korea? >> we were told that. >> if president-elect trump ask you, should he meet directly. >> let me explain my view of the situation. >> korea has played a major role in the american relations.

it got us into a war in 1950 that neither side really wanted, because when the north koreans attacked south korea, they thought it would be an easy victory, and then when the united states came to the assistance of south korea and moved north, china felt itself compelled for its own historic reasons to intervene. you cannot separate north korea from those relations in general. secondly, the basic objective for the immediate future has to be to remove nuclear weapons from north korea. there is no maneuvering that could make nuclear weapons in north korea tolerable.

china will feel threatened with every country in the region will feel threatened and there will be weapons that can reach the united states and they have shown a total disregard for any proliferation. now of course, you could say if north korea is prepared to give up nuclear weapons and wants to exist as a separate state, it is not for the united states to question its existence beyond the point, but the likelihood is, in my opinion that if north korea gives up its nuclear weapons, it will be the regime will disintegrate. it's the only thing that they

see as a national effort. therefore, it raises the question of what happens if north korea disintegrates which incidentally is a question in any event because a regime so strange can maintain itself by brute force for some time, but sooner or later something may happen there that raises the issue of its survival. in my opinion, if that issue of survival arises into an unprepared international community in which there have not been discussions of what to do in such a contingency, it has the possibility of a very dangerous escalation so, i think

it is important for the united states and china to come to some understanding, not just about removing the nuclear weapons, but about the evolution of korea after that. that in turn will involve other countries in the continuing and subsequent negotiation. in this sense, korea is in thread in the military sense but it's also in the long-term sense, many invasions of china have come through korea and china will never be indifferent

to the evolution of korea, but nor will japan be, and of course south korea has a huge interest. >> it is very important to call attention to the need of building korea into an international framework. now who should negotiate with who, and at what stage? i think it is to premature in this administration to discuss this in a realistic fashion and one has to distinguish between general statements and short-term policy statements.

>> it is not likely that there can be one dramatic movement of negotiation that takes care of this, but first the administration has to be organized and its people have to be given a chance to consider that rather than go into every tactical statement that may be made. >> i do think people need to be aware of how these kind of talks happen in the first place. henry just mentioned all of the stakeholders in this that have some interest in it, but what does happen is there are multilateral meetings where various people fit x party talks at a table but then there are breakouts from it where people

can have publicized and the beginning of some bilateral discussion. i don't think you begin, i fully agree with them saying first let's get the leaders together because it has to come in this context of what the region is like. the thing that has happened is the united states has two allies, south south korea and japan but don't exactly love each other, and we have responsibilities there. the region keeps shifting, some of the things that have happened in the philippines recently, a number of different things is going to require a way of us having these discussions with the chinese within that larger context, and i personally think there need to be some kind of multilateral talks that then, as happened when we were in office, but then evolved into something,

not just flat out get them together because the preparation for this is going to be huge, but i do think it is one of the biggest threats out there for exactly the reasons that you've got somebody, we don't know who he is, and he does have scientists and people that know how to develop the stop. >> you made reference to the changing geopolitical landscape, especially the philippines. let's talk a bit about the south china sea which has certainly been an irritant in the u.s. china relationship and president-elect trump referred to it in his tweet, chinese building these huge military establishments in the middle of the ocean. how do we fix that? what do you suggest to the president-elect that we do and what you'd suggest to president she that he does? >> i think we have an interest in having freedom of navigation, and by the way, i get so tired when people say you know ,-comma

what are we doing in the pacific the united states, while i always say were not monogamous, we are an atlantic and pacific power and we belong in the pacific and we have very great interest there and navigation and trade routes are very important. i think we have not gotten involved in the question of of sovereignty, but i do think we are concerned with the navigational aspects and the right to fly in those things have to be worked out since the chinese can't unilaterally decide and the philippines again their leadership does make a difference ,-comma what had happened is that the international court had ruled on this and then the new president of the philippines is somehow changed his mind, but the bottom line is there is a way to do this. the problem is that the united states is not a signatory law of

the treaty which puts us in a somewhat weaker position arguing for some of the rules that the international system has put down, but we depend on freedom of navigation and we have to insist on it. >> it's signatory but we have not ratified it. >> secretaries kissinger, any suggestion on the south china sea. >> the chinese would say we believe in freedom of navigation. the greatest loser of freedom of navigation was impeded and that would be china because their trade goes through more of their trade goes through there than ours. >> this is an example of the different way, culturally, that two countries look at it. the idea of the dotted line and of the chinese claim up to the

dotted line, this was made by some emperor 300 years ago, and when the idea of freedom of navigation and so forth was not developed it was maintained by every chinese government. they had the same view, and in fact the current authorities in taiwan have the same view about the significance. on the other hand, the united states position on freedom of the seas has been developed over a long time. , and so, if i try to settle this in absolute terms, it will

probably be very difficult issue. on the other hand, we have experience in the china communicate and in the evolution of the various agreements that were made between the united states and china following the shanghai communicate by administrations of both parties. how the two sides can find a way of living with this agreement on the nature of the issue and postponing the final solution in a way that is tolerable to both sides, and i think that is the approach that should be used now >> the economic architecture,

the economic architecture of the pacific was the obama administration was sought to recraft through the negotiation of the transpacific partnership that is now, that died as a result of the congress and them not wanting to pass it and president-elect trump has set on day one he will withdraw american signature from it. what is the economic architecture of the region going to look like and what should it, from an american perspective be crafted to look like? >> we've decided, countries decided the pp is not what we want. well ,-comma what should we be suggesting to president-elect trump? >> i think there is a whole question about the architecture, not just economic, but the architecture of the region. i am so old that when i was in college we talked about cito,

the southeast asia treaty association, and there's always this attempt to have some kind of architecture. i think from a perspective of national security, tpp was offering that in many ways, 12 countries coming together, part of the problem though, didn't deal with the economic situation of the workers and so i can see what the problem is. i do think the united states made a mistake by not being for the banks of the chinese that they were setting up. >> i think that was very important and it would've made a difference if we had been enthusiastic about it instead of standing aside, i do think we need to see, by the way, i think a point to add to what henry was talking about culture, i've gone to china a lot, and more and

more, they are talking about the fact that they have not been respected properly internationally and kind of back to various grievances, and now with the one belt, one road idea, it's a very large, expansive program that they are interested in. so the question is, how the question is, how can they go about their economic infrastructure without having it be contradictory to what we might want to see in the region. it's very interesting, the chinese are saying they have to get, their labor is too expensive and they send their stuff to other countries. they are no longer, even though they say they are, the largest developing country and so, i think there needs to be a better way of trying to find a structure that may not be tpp but is based on the concept, because what's happening now, the chinese are taking over what we have left on the table and i

think that is going to cause issues for the new administration. >> do you think we will see this regional comprehensive partnership that china is creating as it was kind of a tpp like, would be my description of it? it doesn't really have the protection that tpp or the investment protection, it's more tariff agreement. >> we have a number of american leaders who have said that america has vital interests in asia and that we are, in a way, an asian power, and actually the president has accepted that in a number of his statements. so, the strategic purpose of tpp or of something like tpp is to

symbolize and formalize some kind of structure relationship between the united states and those asian countries that want to have this, and it cannot be in anybody's interest, either china or the united states to see the world break up into regional groupings in which the regional groupings conduct themselves like national states toward each other with even greater consequences so the basic concept of tpp was important whether there were specific conditions that met everybody's concerns. i have never really looked at that as a concept.

i think it was important. >> investment, the national committee spends a lot of time looking at chinese investment in the united states in u.s. investment in china. even though trade is controversial, i think there is a consensus that investment is basically good, that it's job creating and if president-elect trump were sitting here, he would say yes investment creates jobs and i think the china president would agree that foreign investment creates jobs. do you think it is a reasonable theory to come up with the fact that president-elect trump will conclude what president obama could not conclude which is the bilateral investment treaty, that it will look to a business person as a low hanging fruit and job creating, and that it

would be a way to kind of lay a construction of foundation at beginning of an administration because there are this close to getting it done but they couldn't get it done. is that you think may be in the cards? >> not if the tweet you read is what he thinks because there would have to be a certain amount of adjustments on tariffs and a number of different ways of looking at it, and the question is whether, in a negotiation on a bilateral investment treaty. >> just open sectors so china will open more sectors to u.s. investment and the u.s. will agree not to discriminate against china, but we don't anyhow so the u.s. doesn't give very much in the. >> i think there is a question

of the overlay of having said certain things about the way chinese are treated. i happen to think it's a good idea for the chinese to invest in the u.s. there are a lot of infrastructure things that need to be done but don't run into the problem and are worth doing. i think it's also worth americans investing in china. the question is whether the atmosphere that has been created , whether one could go forward at this point. >> kissinger, anything on that? >> i just don't think it's useful for me to go into what should be an immediate negotiation, particularly if the

economic field, which the secretary of treasury, bill simon, when we were both colleagues, set about me and my knowledge of economics was an argument against universal suffrage. [laughter] >> we have talked about, we've talked about the economic infrastructure, let's talk about the security infrastructure, that there has been discussion of reevaluating u.s. bases in japan and in south korea, restructuring how they are paid for. what is that going to do to the existing security architecture or does the architecture need to

be changed? >> let me just say, i teach at georgetown and i teach a course where i say foreign-policy is just trying to get countries to do what you want, that's all it is. the question is, what are the tools we have. my course is called the national security toolbox. one of the tools is obviously the military tool which is not just the fighting forces and the number of aircraft carriers, but in fact the basis and how they are used, whose on them, how they really enable us to have a presence in countries. i do think that some of the things that the president-elect trump has said, generally about what our allies have to pay or not pay, whether it's nato or in asia, i think we do need to have

a more cooperative approach to it, but we want those bases there and we consider them important. i do think blackmailing allies into things is not a great idea and we know what our national interests are in asia and it's a two-way street. they need us and we need them, but i think people need to think of bases as part of our toolbox. >> what i find interesting, there's a there's a story in the paper today about the fact that they have now said the chinese need a smaller and more effective military. they are also having questions in terms of how the money is spent generally, how do they use the tools because we all have the same toolbox.

>> an alliance always has a particular assumption about the nature of security. it is inevitable that, as time goes on, that there are periodic reconsiderations of what the proper balance is within an alliance and also what the proper relationship is of the alliance to countries that are not part of the alliance. i consider it natural that such discussions have taken place and one will have to evaluate it in terms of the nature of the assessments that are made. what should not happen is that

one ally makes it conditional on the other countries. that is something that is the very last resort, but i tell you, we are here in a very complicated situation. when i agreed to this, we were going to discuss the basic relationship between china in the united states. my position is firm and fully explained in many articles, including a long interview in the atlantic, it has now become a discussion of specific statements that are being made and there's much more, i just don't want to participate in that part of the discussion.

i'm perfectly willing to repeat and strengthen. i believe that the united states and china must have a close and friendly relationship and the peace of the world depends on the ability to do this, and that many principals have been established to achieve this. it happens to be that this date was set at an moment where nobody predicted what was going to be going on. >> they have to discuss specific conditions that i would think normally we agree on the issues.

whether we agree on every tactical point is not so important. >> let me just say, we definitely do agree on the overall issue, and nobody and nobody has done more for u.s. china relationships than henry kissinger, and by the way, when he was still vice premier, he had come over and we had a meeting with all the former people and he was explaining how he felt about the united states and that he had spent time here and wanted to know what we had learned over the 35 years and what our relationship was. so then, as we are leaving, i said to i said to one of the others, being in a meeting with henry kissinger with the chinese is like being with the demagogue and that other person said leave out the dummy, so, i do agree, i do think the problem we have,

and i don't blame henry for not wanting to comment on this, but i am however, free is that the things that have been said can't totally be erased which is something that i said initially which is that we forget how much foreign countries listen to what we are saying, and when it looks as though there is going to be, i emphasize looks as though, because we don't know, that there are going to be different approaches to things, when things, when he talked about a nuclear iced japan or various other aspects, i think we have to understand what the effect of it is. whether you can just blotted out from the consciousness of the people that we are dealing with. i do think that we have to be concerned about the importance of the u.s. chinese relationship. i think it is absolutely essential, and there are so many aspects to it so i hope very

much that there is a learning process here that how you are a race what's been said, i think, if i were going on the other side into a discussion i might say what exactly did you mean by that so i think it's hard not to consider it, but i accept that. >> i haven't been asked to go to the trump tower. [laughter] >> one of the bright shining moments in u.s. china relations was the agreement between president obama and president she on climate change. that really was the view of many in the community, that this was an example of america and china jointly leading the world and the myriad of global issues, if the united states and china

could cooperate on them, we them, we would have a chance of solving them. if we don't cooperate, then we are doomed to failure and climate change, the obama administration did a great job of getting that and ultimately signing the paris agreement. >> secretary, which we do going forward. >> well let me say, during the clinton administration, we tried to deal with this in one of the issues was that it was unfair that developed countries had created the whole environmental mess and the developing countries were going to suffer about it, and we talked to the chinese a lot about leapfrogging with new technologies, and yet that continue to be an issue. i do think, what has ,-comma what has been done on climate change is remarkable, and i think that the paris agreement is quite different in terms of the various requirements of it, but the chinese, the fact that

they were able to do this i think is remarkable. i think would be most unfortunate if it were not followed up. there's an article going around today that vice president gore who is mr. climate change has had a meeting with his wife because that's what she is interested in. i hope that's great and i hope there is progress and those people who think the earth is flat and don't believe in climate change actually are not the ones that influence president-elect trump and that he really continues with it. >> this doesn't relate to recent news, so after both of you served, the strategic and economic dialogue was created as a mechanism to kind of strengthen u.s. china relations, to build at various different

ministries and agencies in the united states, to have many cabinet members go and many ministers from china come. from your perspective, is this an effective mechanism? should it be continued? >> to have a dialogue on these issues is very important. the evolution of these institutions is that they usually began with a group that is small enough to have an effective dialogue, and then it gradually expands and then increasingly the outcome of it is influenced by the communicate

and so they begin working on the communicate before they even meet so there is a critical size of membership that permits an effective dialogue. for example how it started as were actually started as it g5 and they're only three people permitted on each side in the room. now it is a very large group. it is still useful because it permits side dialogue and its focusing on issues, so so what i think is needed is too keep the basic idea of the dialogue going and periodically examine whether it needs some trimming or

whether it is kept with some subgroups, but the concept is useful and should be continued. >> inc. it should be continued for a number of reasons. one is we know that our government and other governments, things are not just contained in one box. the strategic and economic things go together, the the military, the other part is, we have a tendency to talk about how the leaders of a country get along. it's nice to have that personal relationship, but it has to be carried out in bureaucracies by both the countries in the institutions. this is way for some of the other people to give them an

opportunity to get to know each other and smaller groups to do drafting. it does provide a useful mechanism. we do it for other countries in terms of having big eating is to get various ministries together and how lower-level officials begin to work together under the leadership of the leaders. i do hope it continues. >> we have an illustrious audience so let me open the floor to questions. right here in the front. please identify yourself and keep the questions short. >> i have a question for secretary madeleine. >> identify yourself. >> actually, i am up partner, i currently conduct research for colombian university, and you

said don't pay attention to what the candidates said, but something happened after the election day, the phone call from taiwan, and we don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. to be honest, what the concern. [inaudible] so in your view how the issues influence the relationship between china and america. >> thank you,. i do have to say i think campaigns are one thing, but once the person has been

elected, it does, it does make you question where this is going i do think it's important for president elect trump and his people to know the reaction it has created. i think will also be important are the other people he chooses and how they will look at it. at this time it is unclear. the most important thing, i think, now is for everybody to stay calm and i think the relationship is, whether it's economic, military, security, it is the most important relationship and therefore, to make decisions based on a lack

of information is very dangerous i would hope that beijing is not overly insulted by what was said or people thinking that this is the policy. we don't know what the policy is yet. that's my suggestion. >> gray hair. >> i am with the chinese agency. have a question for doctor kissinger. you just praised china's calm reaction toward the taiwan call issue and sec. albright mentioned everyone needs to stay calm in the current situation. my question is, some people say the phone call was just a diplomatic blunder by the president-elect due to his lack of knowledge.

>> i think mr. kissinger made it clear he doesn't want to talk about those issues you're raising. >> my question is, some people say it might be mr. and trump's intention to test them so there calm reaction might be interpreted as weakness and lead to even more provocation and bullying. my question is how would you comment on that. >> i have tried to explain to this group, i have now seen ten american administrations, and i believe that one of the big challenges to america has been

the division of our country i many of these foreign-policy issues. so i do not think it is desirable that at the beginning of a newly at elected administration we now elaborate all the points that can be made about which we can be divided. i have just spent three days in china and i believe it is possible to have a creative relationship between our two countries, and really you shouldn't look for tricky questions to make me say something that is clear i don't have any intention of saying and

to my view of the current necessities, and so i believe what i have said. there are americans who have spent 40 years on this problem who have the same view and we will make our views known, and i think it is important to permit an opportunity for this concept to be developed. if it doesn't develop, then we all have to make our decisions when it is sad, but as as far as the u.s. china relationship is concerned, i believe that there

are positive prospects. i believe they should be pursued i hope that they will be pursued therefore, ladies and gentlemen here, as far as far as you take my view seriously, you should focus on that and not see what points we can find that give us concern. it wasn't considered to be in such a particular period. there is reason for concern and reason for hope and one should concentrate on those and that's my fundamental point which

cannot be. [inaudible] >> let me call on a nine chinese, back over there. my name is daniel burke and i work with the american economist and my question is for doctor kissinger. mr. larouche has opposed that he's very strong and agreeing with you that the u.s. and china must corroborate and he's emphatic that they must operate on the one belt, one road policy that this would be a clear way to help the united states collapsing economy. we could work together on space science and on nuclear fusion and i wonder if you have any comments. >> i have never thought of him

in this particular context. let me say there are ways we can cooperate. i think one of the issues out there now also is cyber and various problems that are there and very various possibilities. the question is how our two great countries can in fact cooperate in a way that requires a certain amount of trust. :

talking about it. it's one of the issues in which cooperation probably is possible , and -- so -- well, i think that's my most useful contribution. >> last question. graham. right here. >> thank you very minute. i'm from american express. now we're celebrating 50 years of the national committee. what are the top three things we should be celebrating, 20 years from now. >> first of all, that many of

our students learn to speak chinese; that we have more' more educational exchanges; that we understand each other's history and culture, and that our work internationally is actually not in competition but in cooperation in terms of to pick up on the one road in terms of infrastructure, which brings people together, ways of understanding how dependent we are on changes in the climate, with each other, and that we do in fact drop the fact that we are enemies when we actually have to work together. so, neither of us will be here, but i do think that we need to look forward to that kind of a relationship.

>> what was the precise question? >> 20 years from now what can we celebrate in the u.s.-china relationship. >> i think 20 years from now we will either celebrate a creative cooperation or the degree of tension, which will be spread all over the world by forcing every done to make a choice, choo would lead to confrontation. so our obligation is to expect that the cooperative relationship about which both sides are talking, and both sides have proclaimed of both bodies will continue. and that is what i expect. >> perfect note to close on but let me just -- before we close, let me ask secretary albright about those -- she is famous for

her pins, as we all know. these are monkey pins. >> it's the year of the monkey and i already bought by rooster for next year. [applause] >> i want to thank secretary henry kissinger and secretarial bright for giving so -- secretary kissinger will be hoffed with a lifetime achievement award from the national committee for the traction to the u.s.-china relationship, but my advice to president-elect trump would be very simple. watch this video. thank you

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> federal reserve chair janet

yellen will be delivering the commencement address at the wherever of baltimore today. last week the fed announced it will raise a key interest rate for the second time since the financial problem in 2008. she will we speaking to students graduating from in the university of baltimore's public affairs and arts and science college. right now, conversation from this morning's "wall street journal" about government premiers to combat profiter. >> charles murray is a scholarme at the american enterprise institute and the author of thio book: "in our hands, a plan to replace the welfare state." welcome. could you give your assessment of the social safety met program and do you think it's an

efficient way of doing things? >> guest: it'ses there. 2 trim a year we spend in -- $2 trillion a year we spend and we still have poverty, we have millions of elderly who are without the means to luff a deposit existence. it's crazy you can spend that much money and still have poverty be a serious problem. one refor writing the book. >> host: is this money transfer or the programmed. >> guest: it's a come brian nation of things. not so much we're paying thousands of bureaucrats. it's doled out in bits and pieces, a lot of it in kind, a lot of it gets lost in the pipeline. there is -- what we have now is a kind of patchwork of assistance that is -- we try to target to individual needs. we don't do a very good job of that.

if we instead just gave people cash resources to make their own decisions about how to deal with their needs, i think you get a way for us to get rid of what i call involuntary poverty. under a guaranteed income, will we still have people who waist money and make wrong decisions? yeah. but are we providing a way in the hey have a fair path for a deposit existence?his jess. >> can you. >> host: can you describe the way you came to this issue no i've been a long-tomb writer about the social welfare system, and in the 1980s i gap to look at the idea, let's just give people money, but when i did the numbers it was much more expensive than the existing

sevens. 2004-2005 i said we could afford this by 2011, which turned out to be true. as of 2016, the system i'm proposing is a couple hundred billion dollar cheaper than me system we have now. i've been looking at it for a long time. it's finally become realistic. >> host: some bullet points every u.s. citizen would safe 13 donees a year actually, you can still earn income on top of that while you're still getting guaranteed income. you can earn 30,000 and they fundies by the total elimination of the safety get programs. >> guest: social security, medicare, medicaid, culture welfare, subsidies, anything s that a transfer from the h

taxpayers. >> host: how did you get to the 13 how to didn't visit cincinnati is affordable, and let me just put in caveat right now, of the 13 the has to be detoteth volted to medical care from the age of 21 on. that's when in the universal basic income beginses. the health care thing is veryedw interesting. if you how i came to thousands, said i dent want a basic income that allows a person to surf. i want an amount of money to put together a deposit living if you can cooperate with someone else, whether it's a spouse -- that's $20,000. >> a friend -- $20,000, if it's two friends or $30,000 or is a

comfortable income if you have a low-paying job.u so if you're making $12,000 a year at a low-paying job, that's 22. well, 22, you can have a very different live, if you're married, 22 for you ex-10, 10 for your spouse. is it easy for people to put together a life? $0,000 works. >> host: we'll talk more with prr guest but if want to ask questions, 202-740-8800 for republicans, 202-740-8802. for democrats. $10,000 sound sound like a lot of living.

when you pay rent and utilities. how that that work as the practical aspect? well, the current poverty line for one person is 11,000 something. but that's low. now, mine you, when you talk about rent -- we're in washington, dc, you can't do a thing with that. if you're talking about a small town in iowa, the whole question of rent and the rest is quite different. but let me emphasize, no, you better not trying doing this on your own without working. you better find someone to cooperate with and join forces with or better work at a job, any job, low-paying job, but if you do either of those two things then we aren't talking, w about $10,000. >> host: so the figure changes, depending on -- >> guest: if you have -- if you're making 12 grand a year you got thousands on top of that. that's 22.

if you have a pair of people, that's 20. >> host: if you follow us on twitter, you can marry your thoughts known at -- make your thoughts known on twitter. the first call, bill, pittsburgr pennsylvania. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. mr. murray, i apologize. i hoped to hear more of what you said about your plan before i was called, but the obviously this does not work, your idea does not work if social security was not bundled into it and the whole -- and frankly issue think social security as a contributoe plan of mandatory retirement savings is one of the best ideas we have ever had.

the idea that from your income, you produce your own retirement savings, and what you get return is proportional to what you have put aside. of course, most people can't do -- a lot of people will simply aren't able to do that in real life, but since -- because they run out of -- too many expenses. so what everyone has to do when the economy adjusts and you're able to do it. my problem with social security is that obviously it needs to be adjusted so that contributions pay the benefits and that what has been discussed now. but i simply can't support you

idea of not relating your income to your own contribution from your own income during your working lifetime. >> host: thank you. >> guest: it's an interesting question because -- well, let me get to the reasons why i think you can get rid of social security and not only that, itwh will be better for the elderly. let me run through a couple of things. social security is not universal. you don't -- there are a lot of elderly people who are desperately poor, who have no income from social security, but on top of that, look, if you have a couple who are of retirement age, they're getting $20,000 a year. a whole lot of people receiving social security, that looks just fine. i've paid in the absolute full amount into social security all my life, and i get about

$33,000 a year, and that's for somebody who paid in all that much. what would it have taken someone who pays into the payroll plan incentives to switch to something like i'm proposing? turns out with the math that if you offered people the choice of the $10,000 a year, discretionary income, and social security and say you can go into either system, you're a lot smarter if you go into the guaranteed basic income anytime after -- until the mid-'40s, and actually, even people in their late 40s or early 50s might very well choose to switch to this instead of social security, because the fact is social security isn't very good deal in terms of the return you get on the payroll contribution. the main point is this are this plan which gets rid of social security does not leave you destitute at the age of 65. you still have the same roads i

described earlier putting together a decent existence and, by the way, unlike the current social security system, everybody get this money at 65. >> florida, a welfare re sippent, jimmy, hi, you're on. >> caller: hi.da i was listening to this and i am actually on my social security disability because i'm disabled. i -- people that actually going to pay me any diseight, receiving ssi and i don't now how the gentleman -- that anyone can live on, what, $10,000 plus $13,000 a year, around $20,000 you were saying? believe me, i've been struggling desperately for ten years now, and it is not possible. it takes -- i have $25 every month out of my check after i

pay my rent. that's it. >> guest: well, you have to ask what constitutes a living income? if you want everybody above the poverty line, and you're talking not just one person but two people, you're in a around the $20,000 range, depending on the specifics of your situation are. which is -- i'm essentially saying we will guarantee an income at that point, which puts you at the poverty line, and if you sub policemen that at all -- supplement that at all, all of that you get to keep.ab the question i asked about people who are on welfare right now is to think about a couple of problems you face. one of them is that if you have managed to qualify for the package of welfare benefits than is available in your state and localeity, and you're working age and would like to go to work

and you hear of places where there are jobs you can't pick up and go where the jobs are because to do that requires you to forfeit the benefits you qualified for and if the job doesn't pan out, it's just too risky. the plan i'm offering gives you a lot more cash than a lot of -- well, than almost any male gets and a lot of women get when they're on welfare and also frees you up. it enables you to change your life for the better in ways the current system prevents you from doing. >> host: eureka, california, independent line. mark, go ahead. >> caller: good morning to both of you, and thank you for c-span very much. i would just say i'm a vietnam veteran.

i have no kids and was married and divorced now, and i haven't been able to work, and i do get about $1,100 a month from the va. i was hurt during the war, but -- i wasn't hurt during the war but i became disabled after that, and i have a hard time making it in eureka, california, which is a place where, you know, it's not in the big city where you have to pay a lot of rent, and so that is one question. the other question is, is this for everybody at any age or once you reach 65? and i'll take my comments off

the air. thank you so much for c-span. >> guest: the baseicground rules are that the universal basic income begins at age 21 for all american citizens and continuess until death. that's theground rule there. i guess with regard to your situation i specify the benefits a vietnam velocity i think of the same way as pension benefits or other earnedded benefit is not subject to the plan i have. so, government pensions, whether they are for veterans or civilian employ questions, that's completely separateur thing, as pensions in the private sector as well. i guess that the disability you now get would be replaced by this plan, so you would be

getting the $10,000 plus your benefits as a veteran. >> host: if everyone gets it at 21, does it matter income brackets? >> guest: no. >> host: how due you square that? >> guest: politically this is going to be very hard thing to get through, like all radical changes are, but if you're think can about asking people to give up social security, you also have to provide them some incentive. so what i'm saying to somebody who is an upper middle income person or expects to become one, that you end up after paying back part of the grant, after you reach $30,000 in income, --n throwing a lot of numbers out here. let me back up to make it clearer. you keep everything you make upe until $30,000 of earned income so a net of 40. from 30,000 to $60,000 there is a very slow clawback of of that. so by the time you get to

$60,000 income you have $6,500 left of your 10,000. that is your compensation for giving up social security, and i want to tell you, if you say to someone age 21 who expects to be making good money, would you like to go into the social security system we have now or have $6,500 a year you can do what you wish with. it's a no-brainer. if you take $2,500 of that, which is less than you put in payroll tooks and put it in an index fund for 40 years you'll do way better than the social security system. that's the reason why. bill gates gets 6500 bucks a year and everybody in between. >> host: you mentioned social security orrincast he says the first flaw is the inclusion of medicare and social security.er

murray's ubi covers only half no i well go back and take a lookok at the numbers that i presented in the book, comparing the alternatives, and if you take tl $2,500 a year approximate-dish dish. >> we'll he leave this segment to go to janet yellen. >> to off mr. congratulations to the members of the class of 2016. i also like to recognize the vital support students have received from family, friends and others, many of whom are hear to share on this great occasion. in a moment, i will explain why i am particularly proud and honored to be speaking to the new graduates of this university. but first, i'd like to address students on the topic that i

expect is on the minds of many of you, which is the job market. the short version of what i have to say is that while i expect workers will continue to face some challenges in the coming years, i believe for two reasons that the job prospects and career opportunities for new graduates at this time are very good. first, after years of the slow economic recovery, you are entering the strongest job market in nearly a decade. the unemployment rate at 4.6% is near what it was before the recession. this is a level that has been associated with good job opportunities. job creation is continuing at a steady pace. the -- is low and job openings

are up over the past couple of years which is another sign of a healthy job market. there are also indication that wage growth is picking up and weekly ashes forking younger worker who have made strong gains over the past couple of years. that is probably one reason why younger worker reported feeling significantly more optimistic about the job market compared with 2013, according to a survey published just today by in the federal reserve. challenges do remain. the economy is growing more slowly than in past recoveries, and productivity growth, has been disappointing, but it also looks like the economic gains of the past few 'ers are finally raising living standards for most people.

median household income grew and poverty fell significantly in 2015. although these measures are still lacking their levels from before the recession. in improving economy may be especially important for you as new graduates. those who graduate and enter the work force during a strong economy are more lookly find employment, remain employed, and enjoy persistently higher earnings. the second reason for optimism is that you have already done the one thing that research shows is most important to a successful some stable working life. earning the degrees you will receive today. economists are not certain about many things, but we are quite certain that a college done

almost, with an advanced degree is a key to economic success. those with a college degree are more likely to find a job, keep a job, have higher job satisfaction, and earn a higher salary. the advantage in earnings is large. college grads' annual earnings last year were on average 70% higher than those with only a high school diploma. back in 1980 the difference was 20%. the gap in earnings is significant only a few years after graduation. almost $18,000 a year, according to some recent data. beyond these advantages, research also shows that a college or graduate degree typically leads to a happier, healthier, and longer life.

one explanation for the greater advantage in recent decades con federal by higher education -- conferred by higher education is it reflects an increase in demand for outside indicated workers -- educated workers. the drive for those with college and graduate degrees are likely to continue to be important. let me mention two factors. first, technology. for decades technological advances have allowed repetitive task to be done more safely by machines. this kind of work in factory, stores and offices often required only a high school education. statement technological advances have increased demands for workers with the education

necessary to perform the ever-growing share of jobs where technology is important. more recently, further advances are automating increasingly complex tasks and allowing worker with the able and flexibility to use technology to be more productive. higher education has also changed in response and one of the most important things many of you learned at the university of baltimore was how to learn, adapt, and succeed in the technology-rich environment of most work places. the second major development in the job market is globalization, and allows goods and services to be produced wherever it's moe economical. offshoring and trade have profoundly affected the u.s. economy. no one knows which jobs and

which industries will thrive as globalization continues, or how each of you will be affected, but i can say that the education you have earned will provide an important advantage. like technological change, globalization has reinforced the shift away from lower skilled jobs that require less education, to higher skilled job that require college and advanced degrees. the job that globalization creates in the united states, serving a global economy of billions of people, are more likely to be filled by those who, like you, secured the advantage of higher education. while globalization well likely continue, and technology will continue to advance, we don't know how fast the economy will

grow, what new technologies will be developed, or how quickly and consistently employment will expand. what is considerably more certain, however, is that success will continue to be tied to education, in part because a good education enhances one's able to adapt to a changing economy. one reason for the increasing economic advantage of a college or graduate degree is the very slow growth of earnings in the last few decades for those with only a high school education. it concerns me, as it should all of us, that many are falling behind. improvements in elementary and secondary education can help prepare more people for college and the opportunities college makes available. but those who do not attend college, we must find other ways

to extend economic opportunity to everyone in america. in discussing higher education, you have -- you may have noticed i have spoken in terms of completing your goings. research shows that a large shower of the benefits i've described from higher education comes only to those who graduate. even those completing three or mother years of college benefit much less when they don't get a degree. for example, some of you may be worried about paying off loops you have taken out for -- loans you have taken out. the good news is the vast majority of student borrowers who complete their degrees find work that allows them to keep up with payments and pay off their loans. everything i've said so far could apply to the graduates

this year of any college or university. the rest of what i have to say is about you. the 2016 graduates of the university of baltimore. i've learn a bit about you recently with the help of the university staff. let me tell you a few things about some of your classmates that you may not know. among you today is a full-time student who found the time each semester to volunteer with nonprofit organizations, including one that helps refugees from other countries find their place in this community. another of your fellow students, who used to doubt that she could every afford college, has become a student leader. she made the dean's lives every semester after transferring from community college. like many of you, another of

your fellow graduates took day and evening classes to balance work and family demands. she was forced to change jobs to accommodate this schedule. she later decided her future lay in digital communications, which required her to switch majors of taking some required classes. today she will become the first person in her family to graduate from college. some of you were born in other countries. one of you lived in four other countries before coming to the university of baltimore for a masters degree. many of you have contributed to the sense of community at the university of baltimore by actively participating in student life. onor you has even decided to seek a career helping other students as a student affairs

professional. these are a few of the outstanding people who will join you in walking across this stage today. let me describe one more. to that student, sitting in audience, i would say you deserve a tremendous amount of credit. based on what i've learned, you did not have all of the advantages that can pave the way to college and graduate school. you overcame obama stack -- obstacles to make its here and mere obstacles to get your degree. one of the biggest obstacle is some people doubted you could or would succeed. but others in your life believed in you. some of them are here today. they believed in you and you

believed in yourself, and your talent, and intelligence, and hard work enabled you to earn the degree you're about to receive. if this sounds like you, then you are absolutely right. because i'm not describing just one member of the university of baltimore's class of 2016. i am trying to describe every one of you. in different ways i expect all of you have overcome obstacles and demonstrated resilience and determination to succeed. all of you gained knowledge in and used your intelligence and talents to complete your degrees. as impressed as i am with the individual graduating today, i am more impressed with what all of you have achieved. let me tell you what else i learned.

more than the students of some college and universities i know that many of you have deep roots in this city and in the county. many of you will start careers, build your lives, and raise your families here. the challenges you have overcome are the challenges faced by many people in ball -- baltimore and communities throughout america. your success, which we celebrate today, is also the promise of a brighter future for the city. the goings you have worked so hard to earn, and the opportunities now opening up to you, represent the sub stubborn, earn necessary home that anyone and everything who strike strives to succeed still can succeed. and that is why i can consider it a rare privilege to speak to you today and a great honor to be associated with the

university of baltimore and the members of the class of 2016. thank you, and congratulations. [applause] >> tonight on c-span2 2 we'll have booktv in primetime with a look at the nonfiction finalists for the 2016 national bookward. boths on the vietnam war, the divide between red and blue america, the 1971 at attica prison uprising and the history of racism in america. book tv in primetime each night this week. >> sunday, january 1st, in department will feature a live discussion on the presidency of barack obama. we'll take your phone calls,

e-mails, tweets, and facebook posts, our panel includes -- an author of the presidency in black and white. my up close view of three presidents and race in america. princeton university professor, author of democracy in black, how race still enslaves the more than soul and associate editor of the "washington post," author of "barack obama the story." watch in depth live from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern on sunday, on booktv, on c-span2. >> michael o'reilly of the federal communications system, on january 20th your life changes. how will it change? >> guest: well, first of all, thank you for having me. it's a pleasure to be back on c-span and all the good work you do. the change in administrations will bring a lot of change to our activities at the commission. i like too say that very few people vote based on policies

but the outcome does have dramatic impact and changes the majority of the makeup. so that will alter our current baseball in terms of the breakdown. members of our board, the panel. it won't be dramatically changed. we have some thing that will be different, but i'd also imagine that we can get back to regular work. >> host: when you say regular work, what do you mean? >> guest: i have worked in the sprays -- space for a quite a while and seen many different commissions. tend to find this commission most troubling in terms how it approaches issues can how i'm allowed to be involve in sir activities and i like to believe whether you're in the majority or minority, you're able to work and participate with colleagues

in a collaborative process and we fine the best outcome. these issues generally nonpartisan. and good ideas should be taken no matter who offers them. it hasn't been how the commune commission has rated. >> host: after january 20th january 20th what your priorities? >> guest: i think they flow from the decisions that need to be made by the president-elect, mr. trump. do not speak for him or the new administration to be bit him and his team had a very successful election outcome. rightfully so they get the tub to make some big decisions regarding the fcc, including the any chair person of the commission, any commissioner openings and a direct for the commission that will have impact on policies. so from that and those decisions i a hope to play some small part of whatever role this is but i anticipate being there. and being active in the issues

be of. >> host: your role as commissioner is not affected. >> guest: correct. >> host: let bring david into this conversation, with communications daily. >> guest: one of two commissions, one will be named interim chairman on january 20th. can you provide any clarity on that? would you be interested in being chairman? a lot of rumblings probably the senior commissioner. >> guest: i haven't got any information of an interim chair but if they pick my colleague or myself, i will be happy to participate whatever role they ask of me. the question has been posed would you bed a in being chairman and i say i focus on my current job and let he chips fall. >> host: what are you looking most forward to doing.

>> guest: i think they're four things the next commission needs to look at and had the president-elect trump gets to set a number of different structural changes to the commission. that it will have an influence on the new chair person, heavy role as the current chairman does in terms of setting agenda. the we need to move regulations, on the books and have been there and make no longer sense in current markplace. two we need to fix and address the structure and the organization and procedures over the commission itself. internal structure has broken down. i i'd like to see that improve. three, think we move forward on a pro growth, pro innovation agenda and i realize those are -- can be buzz words and i'll give you an example.

there's something that the commission can do and be very aggressive in siting an an antennas and towers. to fourth, the commission will play into the new chair person, the fourth thing is to undo bad policies that have been adopted by this commission on a partisan basis, where my input, the input of my fellow republican commissioner was not considered, or even -- or even given a time of day. so i think we have counted somewhere in the low 30s the number of items adopted in that fashion, and i think it's going to be an activity for the next commission in addressing. >> host: care to elaborate on the last category, things you want to undo. >> guest: you can read my defense in a bunch of different areas. a lot of them flow from comment theme of the current chair

pushing forward an agenda with the majority and not seek our ouring -- seeking our inpout and pushing an agenda that is not the mainstream or sustainable long term. not built for collegiality in my opinion. >> host: so, title 2? >> guest: i think title 2 should never have been adopted. thick the net new centrality needs to be explored. have problems with the concepts that are contained win the decisions that then get codify under title 2. i think that will be a priority but this is for the next chair person. >> host: what are prom almost you have with the net neutrality principles. >> guest: there was no -- we talk about this -- there were no

demonstrable problem that existed in the market place we are trying to address. there weren't these -- these are all prophylactic attempt to address things. we are guessing what the market place is going to do and trying to prohibit activities and in doing so we're stopping behavioral practices they may be billion to consumers. one example, the paid prioritywidation university. we ban it but we have no instances of it being in place and may be fess for a number of different activities that would be beneficial to consumers. remote surgery. you want to have a consistent signal, network speed and that goes ahead and prioritize over e-mail or videos and that how the internet is prioritized today. it's not all the same. it's not how it functions today and never has been. never has operated that way.

so i think there are some fundamental disagreements over the policies that have been adopted and i disagree with title 2. >> would you support any type of regulation in that area? >> guest: i want to see demonstrable harm. want to see a market failure, but i think the job of the commission is to understand what is happening in the markplace, folly closely what is developing and then make a determinationment we tried to presuppose what would happen. we have done is in the different areas and times the rules are still on the becomes and that's harmel. our decisions impact what companies do and more importantly impact what consumers -- the services and products they get to see and enjoy. >> one of the other areas that's kind of related to all this is viewer ratings and you're concerned the current leadership is trying to do that. can you lay out what your concerns and hopes are?

>> guest: two parts to this. first its the process issue. i was following up on this very early on when the commission started to consider the matter. we asked to be part of the team that was looking into the zero rating issue. we were denied and told that the bury rove was looking -- the bureau was looking that and i book check back and told nothing to report. after the election springs a letter from the commission and bureau regarding questions of certain activities, followed up by another letter a week and a half later, same thing. so on the process part the commission had fallen down on the job. on substance of the matter, i have real concerns about trying to limit zero rating until we know capacity is put before it. if you look what is operating in the marketplace today consumers

enjoy the benefits of certain features offer bid wireless providers. it's morally on the wireless side that people see is more troubling. i don't want to cut off consumer from beneficial services. i want them to understand before we make prohibitive activities and if you read their letter it's quite contentious. >> host: you spoke of the need of internal fcc reform. what are the reforms. >> guest: i put forward 25 ideas and i have more but a list of ideas and have made the pledge when i are before congress that i'd like to believe if i ever were in the majority i would push they be adopted. perhaps i'll get that opportunity and advocate those changings be made and it's not a

republican oar democratic or minority or majority approach. was not trying to -- there's a structural improvement, and number one, there's probably 22 left. i think we have accommodated three. the other ones haven't not made the cut yet and probably will be considered next year. one is the release -- public release of the documents that we are going to consider at our open meeting. we, commissioners, get the items three weeks in advance and that's an appropriate time so everybody can know what we're talking and what is being considered. often times i meet with outside parties, ex parte meetings are health and people critique the information and their information is completely wrong. their briefed improperly or getting misinformation so we're operating on a different set of facts. the same thing from e-mails from the outside parties. there's this inaccurate because

people don't know the baseline for the discussion. we need to make the document available. we saw this in the debate. the commission was considering rules in this area, and in doing so, you saw a number of people from capitol hill on beg sides over the aisle make raise the need to make the drafts available before we made final decisions, people could understand what was being debated and make a critique of the situation at hand. >> host: what about come binning other, he nateing some of the different bureaus. >> guest: i think that -- when its mentioned process and reorganization, i think that's on the table. our structure today is based on old market and structure that doesn't exist in the universe. the lines are incredibly blurring and i think the commission needs to adopt and change as well. i like to believe that's going

to be part of the consideration neck year. >> host: congressional republicans expressed interest in reversing the titlele 2 order and also address that net neutrality. do you think the fcc should, once you all are in the majority and have the helm, should move ahead and do what you can do or wait and see what they're doing up on the hill first? >> guest: i don't pretend to tell or give by advice unless welcome to my congressional friends and former employers. but i think the commission can move forward. like i said, undo policies i think were wrongly imposed. if congress acted i would have supportive of that. i think congress provides a clear direction, whatever decisions they make and we'll implement their lawyers. we need to take in things awful the books some that being one of them. >> host: what about privacy? you also -- >> guest: i think privacy flows

from the net neutrality decision. the chairman made the argentina. the only reason we're doing privacy is we have this map debt. one flow -- mandate from net neutrality. one flows from the other. there's an active and appropriate agency reviewing private for a number of years, the ftc, federal trade commission, done fairly good job on the this issue and isupport the actives of commission on broadband. it was splitting off one portion of privacy. i imagine that would be part of the examination. >> host: has the trump transition team been through the fcc? i. >> guest: i thick they're getting up to speed. i want to be careful about by comments but i'm sure they'll be more active as the season goes on. it will be a place for.

the to make the decisions for the president-elect and his team to make final decision uses two of the folks working on the transition for president-elect time -- do you know them at all? met. >> guest: i know jeff from past experiences on capitol hill. and past lives and not a as much sow with mr. jamison or dr. j, and i know, a third person, roslyn, part of the time, and i've worked with her and participated in panels with her. they're very thoughtful and active commenters on the communications policy space so i look forward to work with. the and helping them whatever they would like to do. >> host: the question has been raised that at least maybe even by the media but there is a need for an fcc? does it serve a purpose. >> guest: i testified on this in the past. there have been folks that would like to eliminate the commission. i think there are functions that

are important to the commission. first and for most is how do you handle spectrum, dealing with lioning and. now, whether it means at the fcc or something else in the reinvigorated fcc, still to be -- those are open questions for anyone to consider. so i have supported the need for an fcc but what it looks like i'm open to considering all changes before me. >> host: one thing that is in effect how fast you all can undo the things that the democrats did at the fcc is whether you have a majority, and with the commissioner stepping down there's still two current fcc democratic commissioners. do you have any insight, thoughts or unscientific wild guesses what chairman tom wheeler will do come january 30th or what he should do? >> guest: the nomination process

and the confirmation process done by the u.s. senate, number of good friends there, and former employers. they have their process. i leave itself to them. to your point, tom is always surprised me over the years. we disagreed, though in a very thoughtful way. like to believe. don't have any clue what he may or may not do. traditionally the chair person has resigned the instance of a new commission, so i wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. but tom has always run things different way. it's kind of some of the problems with we have had. >> host: other then the zero rate doing you have other concerns where the democratic majority might try to push something through. >> guest: we're trying to fine the items that can be adopted. we have some items in two days we'll have a meeting and that will be our last under this

alleged meteorologist -- administration so we're trying to look through the time tames and determine what is do-able and not appropriate. i'm not at lisch to discuss -- liberty to discuss our considerations. i will see what how cooking everybody. >> host: would do you think tom wheeler's leg guess will be -- legacy will be. >> guest: aan open questions elm ited tied to the decisions made. we have a very friendly relationship, personally, we disagreed on the both process and the outcome, and i imagine we're going to get a chance to review the outcome side, and hopefully improve the process. so, i'm troubled that -- after many years i've been there three years, will have been there three years, that some of the