that we face, particularly in k-12 education may well be the greatest threat to our national security. the educational crisis threatens to continue to produce weak links, and actually, a democracy is only as strong as its weakest link. the crisis in k-12 which is producing unemployable people, who will ultimately be on the dole because they will have nowhere else to go, and who so many of them are unfit for military service, let alone for jobs in other sectors. we can't continue to tolerate a circumstance in which i can look at your zip code and tell whether you're going to get a good education. that is indeed, the key to understanding another aspect of american exceptional im. this is the most successful

experiment in self governance in human history built on the responsibility of the individual, yet with a kmun therien impulse not from government but from civil society and philanthropy and faith-based people who just wish to do good. and that belief that it doesn't matter where you came from, it matters where you're going, has given america a narrative, but it is not a narrative of grievement and class conflict and entitlement. it is not a destructive narrative that somehow finds fault for your challenges in someone else's success. it is indeed a narrative that says i may not be able to control my circumstances, but i can control my response to my circumstances. and that is an empowering

narrative of opportunity. that is perhaps more than anything else the key to american exceptionalism. and it is perhaps the key that is most under assault today here at home. and it may explain in part why we lack the confidence and the optimism and the strength to continue to advocate for free markets and free peoples abroad. without that advocacy, without that leadership, without the willingness to sacrifice and imprint one of two things will happen in this international system that is rapidly shifting after these great shocks. either there will be chaos, but of course chaos won't last. because history abhordes a vacuum. it is more likely that vacuum would then be filled by some who do not believe 18 balance of

power that favors freedom. and at that time we would find ourselves in the worst of circumstances where we cannot protect our values and cannot protect our interests either. i'm optimistic, though. i believe that we will lead because i've seen the united states do it so many times before. at the end of -- in 2006 which was a pretty bad year for the bush administration, things were going wrong in a lot of places, i read the piece of the founding fathers. you read them you realize that by all rights the united states of america should never have come into being with a third of george washington troops down to small pox and the founding fathers squabbling and the greatest military power at the time probably shouldn't have come into being but we did. then in the year of civil war, brother against brother, 100,000

americans dead but we became a more perfect union. then of course, a little girl from birmingham, alabama, the most segregated big city in america, where her parents can't take her to a restaurant or a movie theater but they have her absolutely convinced she may not be able to have a hamburger at woolworth's but could be president but becomes secretary of state instead. america has a way of making the impossible seem inevitable in retrospect. i think we'll do it again and it will be a good thing because it is critical that the freest and the most compassionate and the most generous, this extraordinary place, this exceptional country called the united states of america also continues to be the most powerful. thank you very much. [ applause ]

>> thank you very much. that was truly inspiring. a deep look at our history where we are today and what we need to do in the future. that's exactly what the country needs to hear. thank you very much for that. we now have some time for some questions from the audience. we have some ground rules here. we have two people in the aisles with the microphone. so if you could wait until they come to you and give you the microphone. secondly, if you could identify yourself and thirdly, as a courtesy to our guests here, if you could keep your questions

short and to the point. >> hi. secretary rice, a lot of respect to you. i'm meto with the united macedonian deaspiera. i thank you for nato enlargement given your time as secretary of state and prior to that as nsa. i do have a question regarding the boucharest summit. the upcoming nato summit is in chicago, this is the first time a summit is being held in the united states outside of washington and it's not an enlargement summit. macedonia faced a lot of obstacles, it met all of the requirements and in december the international court of justice agreed that greece violated its treaty obligations by blocking macedonia. i wanted to know your perspective on macedonia's

invitation and where do you see the future of enlargement. >> i have long believed that nato must remain open to any democratic state, european democratic state that wishes to join its ranks because nato was after all not to be an exclusive club, it was to be a collective security mechanism for democracies, and in this regard we pressed very hard and as a matter of fact integrated a number of states including the baltic states thought to be at the time impossible to do. i worked very hard to try and resolve the macedonian name issue. i know people are still trying to resolve the issue and perhaps it will be, but i favor very much the integration of any european state that is ready and seems to me macedonia is ready. as to ukraine and georgia, it is important to recognize that at the time of the bucharest

summit, the kmun kay said that these countries will become members of nato so. that was an affirmative statement of their -- the rightness of their coming in. the timing i'm very far from this now, and i would never be one to suggest i know all of the ins and outs of what's going on with the allies. but i hope that nato keeps remembering not only to have these states in nato but what it's meant to the states to be in nato. nato and the european union together have managed to make really relatively smooth the transition from the collapse of communism in central and eastern europe to the integration of those states into europe. >> thank you so much for coming in to speak today. your story is truly inspiring. i wanted to thank you also for

your part in miss representation t documentary i had the opportunity to view a couple of weeks ago. and on those lines, what advice would you give young women in a time where even though enormous strides have been made, women are still severely underrepresented in media and in the government and in high ranking jobs. what would be the advise to give to women and what do you think it will take in this country to finally receive full equality for women in government? >> well, i believe that we are indeed going to achieve full equality. you knowsh it's going to happen 1 person at a time, one brick at a time. glass ceilings are going to be broken not by some announcement but because there are people who are willing to break them. i remind after all we had three out of the last four women t secretaries of state have been

women. now colin powell of course was therein but that means it's 16 years since we had a white male so. some have to wonder what's going on there. we are indeed making these strides but i would say to young people to define yourself not in terms of the ceiling that you might meet. but in terms of what you're -- what you want to do, how are you going to get good enough at to the make a case that you ought to do it. and then go for it. it helps to have mentors, it helps to have people who have been through these stretches but i'm going to give you a warning. you don't actually have to have role models and mentors who look like you. had i been waiting for a black female soviet specialist mentor i would still be waiting. in fact, most of my mentors have been white men, maybe even old white men because they were the one who is dominated my field. so, find people who take an interest in you and take an

interest in your career. and i think you will find that it is more open to you than you might imagine. and most importantly, never let anybody define what you are going to be by how you look. that is something that if you see somebody trying to do that, you challenge right back because they have no right to do it and you can't let them. >> thank you very much. i am the second youngest member of the parliament in turkey and the youngest of the foreign affairs here. i would like to ask you how do you approach the things happening in syria especially how do you see turkey's role and china and russia, directly support the region. can we say that there are usa is a leading super power but today there are less countries who are trying not to follow usa. can we say this? this is a debate in our region especially in my country. what do you think?

>> thank you. well, first of all let me say in terms of turkey's role i think it can be quite beneficial to have turkey which is a democratic country that is coming to terms with the relationship between islam and democratic values and democracy and does not see them as contradicting one another. i know there are a lot of struggles in turkey and it makes people a little unnerved about some of the things going on but i know your leaders. i know the prime minister, i know the president and these are people i believe who are going to build a new democratic basis in turkey. from that democratic basis turkey has begun to advocate for the rights of others to live in freedom. it's very important to see how strong turkey has been in support of change in syria.

change in syria is important because if we were willing to say that we would not allow moammar gadhafi to mow down his people, we have a problem and i think there are many things you can do. some would say arm the opposition, if we're going to do that, i would hope that it would be a broad policy, not just the regional powers arming the opposition. you are likely to get something more like proxy warfare in syria. i worry that if we just contemplate the situation in which bashar al assad sort of half re-establishes his power but there continue to be challenges to him you're going to have spillover as you have into turkey and lebanon and ultimately into iraq so there is a lot at stake in syria. i think it comes to trying to bring the opposition together as turkey has done, trying to get

the opposition to agree to a certain set of institutional -- institutional reforms that would be made that would protect rights of all of the minorities in syria. it's a real milange. that would have patrons, countries whoic turkey but the united states and the european union. i think you have to say to the chinese and the russians f we can't do it through the un we'll do it as a coalition of the willing. i'm not suggesting that the u.s. needs the ground forces in that region, white the opposite. but we have to remember that this is not just a threat to our values, although it is that. it is also a strategic threat and we've got to find a way to bring toll those who are willing, in the arab league, to deal with al assad. but without american leadership i'm fearful it will be a set of

tactical decisions that really are because of the interest of the regional powers, not because of the interest of a different kind of serious. >> back over here. >> thank you. yes. i'm with voice of america. you said the united states needs to challenge rye ran, representatives of the u.n. security council plus germany sit down tomorrow with iran's nuclear negotiator. what does iran need to agree to to make those successful f. they are not as so many have been with iran, what should the u.s. do next? >> well first of all, i think it's a tactical decision whether one talks to the iranians. i think we get caught up in that. what do you say once you're talking to hem. i think there are a couple of things that have to be said. the world has to be reliably confident that iranians have been shut off from a bath way to

a nuclear weapon. the problem with reprocessing to a lower percentage is that it is basically the same process that you can pursue higher percentages later on. once you solve the science problem it's just an engineering problem. there are grave dangers in saying to iranians you can entrich to this level and no further because you leave the capacity in place. secondly, i think the iranians do have to be told that they are going to have to shut down the sites that are undeclifred sights which think are an open secret where they are. but we need to be careful not just to focus on the nuclear side, although the nuclear side is very key. one thing we should remember is why iran with a nuclear weapon would be so destabilizing. it's because of what iran is.

it is a athlete israel, it is trying to remake the balance of power in the middle east in its own favor in a 3ocratic way, it is a state that is the poster which would for state sponsored terrorism whether it's in tourn iraq or the gaza strip or in lebanon. and a state like that in the volatile middle east with a nuclear weapon would be not just unacceptable. it would be a grave danger. the good news is iran i believe that regime is under pressure from dances that have been pounting since 2006. i do believe it's a regime that lost all legitimacy, the clerics are at each other's throat. it's a population that is 70% under the age of 30. so putting pressure on the regime is critical because it's hard for me to see how in long run that region is stable with

that releap in power. what if the iranians don't ag e agree. i think that if we don't want the face the president of the united states, to face the very hard choice of having to use military force, then the iranians have to believe that he will use militaries for. that is the only thing that will ultimately change their view. president obama has said he has a military option. he doesn't love, all the water around him isn't helpful because the it would be hard t games that leak out about how terrible it

to -- >> speak louder. >> i'm wondering if you would like to share your thoughts with us what's going on in china, the case billed as the biggest political scandal in decades. >> what is striking to me about the case, and i don't think any of us know what happened there and the depth of it but it obviously raises some questions about the strength of institutions out in the provinces and the strength of rule of law which i think raises questions again about how one achieves a rule of law under authoritarianism. i think this is really what it raises. but one thing that's fascinating to me is how open the discussion of it has been in china.

it is lighting up the blogs as i understand and that suggests that there is a chinese population that craves information about what is going on in its country that is determined to know what is going on in its country, and that ultimately when people know what's going on and they are interested in what's going on, they start to want to do something about what is going on. now, that present as challenge, i think, to the chinese leadership. particularly as they prepare for the 2012 party congress. again, we have to say china has achieved legitimacy based on prosperity at this point. but prosperity, legitimacy based on prosperity tends not to last long because people's expectations keep growing. people become concerned about princeling who is drive around in ferraris, the grand children in a state that is supposed to be dedicated to social equality

so china has a lot of challenges. and i suspect that if we were in the halls of or the meeting rooms getting ready for the 2012 party congress people might be asking how the political structures could accommodate some of these pressures, quote, without becoming gorbachev which is everybody's fear as you try to reform from the top and end up collapsing the system. the bogeu case, what does it say about china itself. how politics gets done, what the relationship is between provincial leaders and the center and ultimately how the chinese people will respond to what is in fact one of the biggest political scandals in the country's history. >> we have time for one more question. >> hi. walter lowman with the heritage

foundation. i wanted to ask you how you think the u.s./india relationship was panning out. it was one of the bush administrations biggest successes, really, but since there has been a few disappointments i wonder how you feel it's gone and where it's going. >> yes. well, thank you very much. i think the relationship with india is one of those key two or three relationships that we need to invest in and we're going to have to continue to invest in. we have some like brazil, for instance, we have turk wre we need to invest and we need to invest in india. it is not easy because for so many years in india's history it defined itself in a sense in contra distinction to american power t non-aligned movement was that way. and even the tilt toward the soviet union for a long time. that's not going to change overnight, it's not going to change in the bureaucracy overnight. it is, however, fundamentally changing in the indian business community.

when you talk to people from mumbai, they are really very interested in what can be done with the united states to push creativity. there is so much free flow of people back and forth, sometimes for short periods of time between india and the silicon valley that you can't even count how many. so underneath the governmental relations a lot is happening that i think will ultimately change the character of the u.s./indian engagement. so, even though there may be some disappointments, maybe the civil nuclear cooperation will stall a bit as india looks to other sources, maybe as people evaluate nuclear energy in the wake of fukushima, still the civil nuclear deal was not just about energy, it was about high technology and the ability to share high technology with one of the most innovative and

creative states on the globe. obviously, we need to engage india where it comes to afghanistan, and where it comes to pakistan. because india lives in that neighborhood and that's not so easy these days. but i believe if we stay with it, if we encourage not just governmental engagement but engagement across the populations, across the business community, the university community and the like, we're going to find that those barnacles if you will, of the tendency to define india in contra distinction to the united states are going to start to fall away. and we'll have a good and reliable democratic ally in south asia. we've done amazing things. india was the first to contribute to the democratic fund in the u.n., we did relief for the tsunami with india, australia, japan and the united states in naval engagement. military to military exchanges

are going forward. so, we have to be patient. this is not a relationship that's tomorrow going to produce votes at the u.n. that are always in our favor. but it is a relationship that is worth investing in. it is a relationship i think if we stay the course and push we're going to continue to make league with one of the remarkable multi-ethnic democracies in the world. [ applause ] >> a chance to do this again. i'm sure i'm speaking on behalf of everyone here today that how thankful and appreciative we are that you came here to speak to us. it's been a while since you've been in this hall.

i think the last time you were here you were secretary of state. i think you were here twice. and we hope that this is not the last time that you come. you have an open invitation, you have a lot of eager people, not only here at heritage and washington but across the nation and in fact, across the world. very eager to hear what you have to say. we thank you for your service, we thank you, i thank you for the time that i worked for you. i remember working on the india and that democracy fund issue very well. and i thank you for coming here, and for your hopefully your future service and ongoing service to the country. join me in thanking her once again for coming. [ applause ]

>> this is c-span3, with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week. and every weekend 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules, see past programs at our websites. and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> the house oversight committee looks at gsa spending after an inspector general reported excessive spending at a conference outside of las vegas. former gsa administrator martha johnson who resigned in the wake of the report will testify. you can watch live here at 1:30 eastern. and congress returns to capitol hill today after a two-week recess. the senate votes on moving forward with the plan to tax millionaires at 30% known as the buffett rule. later this week the house consider as tax cut for small businesses. both chambers gavel in at 2:00 eastern, you can watch the house live on c-span, and the senate on c-span2.

>> frankly, we owe to the our first responders to give them a modern communications network and that's exactly what this legislation does. so, congress created first net, put it under ntia and indicated that $7 billion from auction revenues would be made available to first net to go ahead and design and construct this network. >> tonight, national telecommunications and information administration head lawrence strictling on spectrum policy and other telecommunications issues at 8:00 eastern on the communicators, on c-span2. >> it's been nearly ten years since the release of robert caro's third volume of the years of lyndon johnson. in a few weeks the fourth volume will be published. it follows 1982's "the path to power" means of ascent in 1990, and 2003's "master of the

senate." here he is in 2008 with how follow 4 was taking shape. >> this is really a book not just about lyndon johnson but about robert kennedy and jack kennedy and the interplay of their personalities, particularly robert i guess. and it's a very complicated story that i don't think people know of two very complicated people. and robert kennedy and lyndon johnson. and i had to really go into that and try to explain it because it's part of the story all the way through the end of johnson's presidency. that's done. and i suppose chronologically at the moment johnson is passing the 1965 voting rights act. and that's sort of in one way we're up to now. >> watch the rest of this and other appearances by robert caro online at the c-span video library. watch for our x and a interview with robert caro on sunday,