industries and the chinese government has introduced a range of new policies to encourage innovation in china designed to favored chinese technology over foreign technology including the enormous government market. where these practices violate china's international commitments we are active i to remedies available under u s we willaw enforcement effort to combat the concerns. the government launched a new theft of intellectual inoperties and fouhe intellectual property they use. the chinese leadership has committed to expand opportunities to procure government contracts. the government is committed not to discriminate against u.s. companies that operate in china. we welcome these commitments. they do not address all our concerns, but there something we can build on. we will press for the chinese to translate these commitments and to further progress.

doing so is in china's interests. government domination limits competitiveness so the chinese economy prevents the private sector from contributing to growth at its full potential. you cannot promote innovation if you do not protect intellectual property. alongside the reforms i mentioned, we want to encourage china to move definitively away from the export driven growth model of the decades previously to a model driven more by domestic consumption. the chinese leadership recognizes china is too large relative to the world economy for it to continue to rely on foreign demand to grow. the government has adopted a comprehensive program of reforms to shift growth to domestic demand. increase public spending on health and education to raise minimum wages, remove barriers to investment in services, expand access to financial

products for individuals and companies, and remove subsidies in sectors that drove the initial decades of growth. the transition will take time. it is already having a major impact on the shape of chinese growth and already providing increased opportunities for american companies. domestic demand is contributing more to growth. as a consequence, u.s. exports to china are growing rapidly. u.s. companies operating in china are seeing more opportunity. china still closely manages the level of its exchange rate and restricts the ability of capital to move in and out of the country. the imf has said consistently that these policies have the effect of keeping the chinese currency substantially undervalued. they also impose substantial costs on other emerging economies with flexible exchange rates. there can be a substantial loss of competitiveness against china.

this is not a tenable policy for china or the world economy. if china does not allow the currency to appreciate rapidly, it will run the risk of seeing domestic inflation accelerate and face greater risk of a damaging rise in asset prices. both of them will threaten future growth. sustaining an undervalued currency will undermine china's own efforts to rebalance growth towards consumption and higher value-added production. since june of 2010 when the chinese authorities announced they would resume the reform of their extremist exchange rate regime, there has been a nominal change. this is a pace of about 6% a year in nominal terms. the real rate of appreciation for the dollar is faster because inflation in china is much higher than in the united states. is the real rate of appreciation that matters for the incentive space for what they purchase and invest.

we believe it is in china's interest to allow the currency to appreciate more rapidly in response to market forces. we believe china will do so. the alternative would be too costly for china and its relations with the rest of the world. these are our main priorities. china's objectives are focused in the economic area on the following priorities. china wants more access to u.s. high-technology products. china wants to see greater investment opportunities in the united states. china would like to be afforded the same terms of access to our market that other major market .conomies enjoye we're willing to make progress on the issues. our ability to do so will depend on how much progress we see from china. as china produces the role of the state in the economy, reforms policies that discriminate against u.s.

companies, removes substances -- subsidies and preferences for its companies and allows exchange rates to reflect market forces, we will be able to make more progress on china's objectives. in any discussion of china, it is important for americans to understand that the solutions to our challenges rest ifirst and foremost with policies in washington and not those of beijing. fundamentally, the number of jobs we create, the pace of growth and income for americans, depend on the results of choices we make in the united states and not the choices of other countries. choices of other countries. in our effort to rebuild and put more americans back to work we have to make sure we are making investments and reforms that will be essential to our capacity to grow in the future. as countries like china, india, brazil, grow and expand, won the american workers and companies

to play a major role in that growth. we want to see a substantial part of that growing demand that is going to come outside the united states that by those produced in the united states that are fuelled by investment in the united states. if we are successful in doing that we will be much stronger as a nation but to be successful meeting that challenge there are things we need to do here. we need to invest in research and development, we need to invest more in education reform. we need to invest in public infrastructure and create stronger incentives for investment in the united states by americans and foreign companies. we have to be more forceful and effective in floating american exports and restore fiscal responsibility. restoring fiscal responsibility is going to require the government to spend less and spend more wisely so we can afford to make the investments that are critical to the future

of growth that require tax reform that produces a system more simple and fair, encourages growth and investment to restore fiscal sustainability. these are our challenges. not just an economic imperative but national security imperative because our strength as a nation depends on the ability of our political system to move quickly enough to put in place solutions to our long-term problems. our economy as a country has been our openness to ideas and talent, our capacity to innovate, excellence in higher education, willingness to invest public resources strategically and scientific research and discovery and political will to confront challenges with speed and wisdom and force. if we preserve and build on those strengths and if china successfully continues on its path to a more open, modern market economy than both our countries and the world economy will be in a stronger position.

the president recently said we should feel confident about our ability to compete but we are going to have to step up our game. china's rise offers us the opportunity of dramatic growth and demand for things americans create and produce but it will also force us to raise our game. we should welcome both the opportunity and the challenge. i would be happy to take your questions. [applause] >> thank you, mr. secretary. we now have about 20 or 25 minutes for questions and answers. because the event is taking place in a school i would like to give priority to students, alums and faculty members. to whom i may i give the floor?

would you please wait for the microphone, introduce yourself, your name and affiliation and one question very brief. >> thank you for the excellent speech. actually your speech about china is -- it makes issues left theories. >> excellent question. i don't usually complement the new york times but they had two very important stories that explain this better than i can do. when you think about competitiveness and the affects in the exchange-rate you need to look at inflation and the move in the exchange rate.

you see inflation accelerating, running much higher rate than in the united states and that rate of inflation combined with a change in the exchange rate that affects competitiveness, and if you look at the amount the exchange rate has moved and the relative lack federation of chinese inflation the last six months or so, is appreciating to the rate of 10% a year. if that appreciation was sustained over time, it would make a substantial difference in correcting a major distortion of the chinese and global economy. we are probably at the end of the first quarter to use -- we are in the end of the second inning to use a sports comparison. it is changing. it has to happen. the fundamental forces that are pushing chinese productivity growth and pushing inflation higher will bring about the necessary adjustment in exchange

rates. >> do you have many students who would like to ask questions? we are trying to give priority. >> my name is alex. i am a graduate student. my question to bcu with regard to capture controls. even the large amount of liquidity in the international economy, emerging markets start to point to controls especially brazil for example. it appears to me there has been an ideological change after 2008, especially the imf publishing papers about the orthodox approach. i would like to know how the united states sees the use of capital controls by the emerging

markets. >> it is important what is driving this influence. there are two fundamental sources of work. one is the world perceives likely to be growing at a more rapid rate in the future. that is a good thing for those countries that reflect a lot of confidence in their relative growth prospects. the other force driving this is consequence of china's exchange regime. china still runs a close capital account. tightly managing the link of currency to dollar. a lot of forces that run more flexible regimes push currencies up with the chinese currency. and domestic inflation to come -- you are right to say there is a new wave of experimentation going on with risks that come

from those lows. they can be -- a whole different set of measures. the most important thing to do with that is to make sure system with an unsustainable growth in credit. that is a provincial challenge and mandiblell and the emerging. i am not troubled by the new experimentation. china does too reducing the extent to which china's policies are related to the challenge. >> before i go to the next question i need to come to a few points. >> you are welcome to correct

me. >> china embarked on an important set of reforms. to loosen the controls in china to make it easier to use its currency. those reforms are going to happen. they will accelerate transition to a more market-oriented exchange which is a good thing too. if you look at china's intentions, a difficult debate about what the right pace of reform is, we're doing in terms of nominal cases, the controls that exist with currency out of

china. >> the key dimensions where china has to change its economic policy to arrive at a harmoniou situation. you are very forthrighr the international economic u.s. economy. among the chinese leadership or need for these changes, to embark upon these policies. what is the quality of your dialogue? >> there's a lot of support in china for basic imperatives they face and rebalancing and very active debate in china and competition in china over what the right case is for those reforms. as china goes through this political transition over the next year or so, in some way

having an effect of slowing the pace of reform. reducing a bit of caution among leadership. if you look at what china has done, they run a remarkably effective, incredibly ambitious set of economic reforms with ar has been enormously beneficial to the global economy as a whole. recognize for them to continue on that path they have to change fundamentally. look at what the chinese leadership has said, there's a lot of awareness. we have a very good understanding of our interest in the economic side. very good understanding of concerns that we each have, good relationship and huge amount of admiration for the vice premier

who leads these efforts in china and has made an enormous difference in things that matter to us. but faces a lot of opposition in china. as you know of anybody in this case. i really think overtime china has no choice but to move what they believe is in their interests in their economic challenges and china needs to recognize that. please let .. >> i have a question on the rebalancing theme you mentioned, especially about prodding china to shift away from export- driven. i think that is a similar

perspective with other export economies like germany. i want to know how valid those points are and if there were more or less valid than encouraging the u.s. to shift away from credit consumerism. >> let's go back and look at what drives the fundamental imperative. as we learned through an incredibly deep and painful recession, u.s. growth had been driven too much by consumption, investment in housing, financed by borrowing from the rest of the world. it is overwhelmingly important for the united states that we put in place a growth strategy that is more investment driven or export driven and more sustainable in the future. we have to be saving more and investing more. the process is happening.

if you look at the initial shape of the recovery, private savings are higher. our current balances are lower. private investment has been growing rapidly. the underlying pace of productivity is strong. manufacturing and exports are strong. that is very encouraging. what that does for the rest of the world is force fundamental change in growth strategy. the other economies recognize they will not be able to look to the united states to be as strong as a source of demand for products as in the past. as was true in the past. and china, of course, recognizes that reality as do many other countries and that is part of what has driven, that along with the crisis and the vulnerability they were exposed to in being so export-dependent has forced a fundamental reassessment of how they want to grow and again, it's that fundamental economic interest that motivates this shift, this rebalancing broader imperative. now, these are thing you can't

force other countries to do, you know, this is a much more integrated world economy and a world of sovereign states and so what we have to do is to find it a way to make compelling for countries to make those broad changes together so that the changes that we're going through in the united states are complemented by other growth in the world and allow the world economy to grow much closer to its potential growth. that's a overwhelmingly compelling fundamental imperative for the major economies. i think it's broadly recognized. you're going to have different paths to get there but there's no alternative. >> we have four students. >> thank you. i'm an assistant professor in international economic region of american university but i'm also an alum and a adjunct professor here to economics. i have a question about the

topic of today which is emu's -- the european debt crisis. the japanese are buying europe-owned -- your president promised to double american exports in the next two years and it's much bigger than china and must be a major source of american product. the euro is at four-month low against and it doesn't seem it will get any stronger anytime should not so i'm just wondering, u.s. treasury secretary, are involved with brussels in the u.s. decision-making and how are worried are you about this. i don't think the chinese will be any rush to straighten their currency but demand will change too. >> i think you're absolutely right. one of the still most remaining challenges in the process of the economy is the challenges europe is facing but i'll give you my personal view. i do spend a lot of time talking

to my counterparts in europe about the choices they face and how to get ahead of this problem. it is my view that they have made decision that they will do whatever is necessary to prevent this crisis from escalating beyond the countries that were the initially were the focus of so much pressure. there is no doubt that they have the ability to do that financially and economically. and i think they've chosen to do so and if you listen carefully to what the leaders and germany and france and the others are saying, they made it clear they're going to do it. and what they're engaged in now is a complicated discussion of how best to do that. what scale of financial support and support of what set of reforms to help the banking system through this, help the weaker sovereigns to do this. and they have the capacity to do it and i think they recognize that if you get behind the

fundamental forces driving this process, it's more difficulty to solve, much more costly and expensive to solve and they are eager not repeat that -- the choice of the last first six of last year. and that's my perception and you're right to say that europe and japan together are still a very large share of global growth and demand. and the world economy as a whole is not going to be growing at a sufficiently rapid rate unless you see the major economies in europe play a major role as part of that. now, of course, realistically the challenges that greece and ireland are going through are going to -- they are unavoidable. i mean, they are necessary adjustments they have to go through. but for growth in europe as a whole, what matters is how rapidly do the major economies,

germany, france, and spain and italy grow and how successfully are they going to in restoring confidence in their capacity to manage these financial challenges. >> wait for the mic. yeah, yeah. >> charles, a teacher at sais. as you said in your speech, i think, correctly, what is very important is what we do in terms of our own economy. so my question to you? -- to you is this, what can we do to accelerate foreign investment in the united states and our own investment into this economy as rapidly and as effectively as we can? >> in the short term, of course, it's worth noting that the tax package that was passed in congress has a very short-term incentive for this that because we provide for one-year period of investments and capital equipment and that has the

benefit of providing a pretty powerful spark and catalyst, useful reinforcement and recovery in gathering momentum but we have some ways to go to repair the damage, climb out of the hole. long term, it's obvious. we want to make sure we have a tax system that create better incentives for investment in the united states. the president proposed last september to expand resigning a permanent tax credit for research and development in the united states. but that's just one of the things we can do and we're examining whether we can find the political support for a comprehensive tax reform. it would be neutral but would improve incentives of investment in the hundreds what we do for education, not just higher education but the basic quality of public education across the country is fundamental. our ability to make this still a compelling case for talent

people around the world not just to go to school but to build a business and make sure that we restore our economy that was a financial system that was really very good, really the envy of the world and taking the savings of americans and channeling them to support innovative companies, entrepreneurs, making sure those reforms work and creating not just a more stable system but want to encourage inocomparison allocate the capital sufficiently is very, very important. i'm repeating now what i said in my speech. we were very early very, very good as a country in investing a substantial share of public resources in research and development in basic science. that's something we have to make sure we preserve the capacity to do. and if you look at the quality of public infrastructure in the united states, it's alarmingly poor and that operates like a tax on american businesses, raises costs for businesses and there's a very good compelling

economic case, you know, for a prudently financed economic investment in the united states. that's a good start. doing those well won't solve all of our problems. but if you won't do those things, nothing is possible and that's what i would focus our priorities on. >> good morning, professor. i studied with you for two semesters. my question is about the financial narcotics china and deepening them and making them broader. and what do you see and how do you see that in terms of a bond market or a derivatives market. >> excellent question. financial reform is a key part of that. and you see china expanding

foreign firms so they have a spark for the major global institutions in in this area but they are starting to gradually set a more market set -- a more driven system and reduce the role of the state, reduce the administrative controls on how capital is allocated, and that process has a long way to go. but i think they recognize that part of this transition to a more domestic driven growth strategy requires financial reform creates greater ability for individuals to borrow, for companies to borrow. and, of course, fundamental to china, they want to make sure that the -- you know, what financial systems do is they allocate capital. and how fast you grow over time depends on how well they allocate capital. you know, we've had a great long run in the united states. but you saw what happened when our system misallocated capital substantially to housing

investment. and for a state-dominated financial system that risk is much, much greater. the risk for them is much greater that there will be huge investments wasted over time and things that are not going to be very helpful to china's growth ambitions. so there's a very substantial financial imperative to move for a financial based marketship prudently managed and good but you don't want to -- you can't grow if you rely on the state to decide who get capital at what price. it doesn't work. there's no successful example of a strategy that relies on a government to decide how to allocate the price capital. >> i have another student question in the center here. >> good morning, secretary geithner. my name is john gams and i'm a ph.d. student here at sais. my question, is we went through

a heated political election and china's role was not the chief concern but was certainly a concern and was -- the potential to scapegoat the chinese and our economic problems was certainly leveraged by both parties to a certain extent. is that worrying to you as a policymaker. how disconcerting is it to you and if you don't mind sharing, how disconcerting to your counterparts in china. >> it should be a concern to anyone in the united states and something the chinese need to watch very carefully. if you look at the strength of concern in the united states across parties, it's not a republican or democratic concern. it's the bipartisan concern. you saw the strength of the vote on the current legislation in the house in the fall and i know it's something china is very attentive to and they need to be. what china needs more than anything is an external environment with access to not just our markets but if they're going to meet their broader growth ambitions. so they're very tied to it and i

think we should all be very troubled by it. you know, what's happened in the united states today has happened in the past. when you're in a moment of crisis that's caused a huge damage to the basic economic security of americans, you know, we tend to look at the assent of others, the relative assent of others as a concern and a threat. we look at them as sort of the prism with which we view our concerns. but as i said, put that in contest to recognize how well we do as a nation will depend fundamentally on what we do in the united states. china presents huge opportunities for us. and where things we admire in china's growth create a bit of a more spirited action in the united states, that would be a good thing. >> okay. now i guess we're going to turn it over. we've got a couple last questions from the media. so i'll go ahead and turn it

over to them. >> thank you for taking our questions. it was said today chinese officials over in beijing ahead of this visit suggested in a news conference that it would be welcome if the united states provided more reassurance. during president hu's visit their holding of u.s. treasury, are you prepared right now to offer any sort of reassurance and will president obama offer any concrete actions that the u.s. will take to put its fiscal house in order? >> okay, these are the kinds of things that you typically see foreign ministry people say in the run-up to these meetings. it's the typical pattern, nothing exceptional interesting in this. and, of course, no one cares more than i do and the president does that we make sure we're doing things for the united states to sustain the confidence of the americans and countries around the world in our capacity to manage our challenges here at home. and, of course, we're very

focused on that. >> mr. secretary, i have a question regarding the chinese currency. regarding the letter of the chinese currency you used to judge the assessment by the imf. but i'd like to ask your judgment on the currency -- >> i agree with the imf. [laughter] >> and secondly, does the pace of the appreciation -- you mentioned it's 6% annually. are you satisfied -- are you satisfied with this that's or do you have any idea of the ideal pace of the appreciation saying 10%, 20%? >> well, again what matters is the rate of the nominal change against the dollar but also the relative rates of the inflation in the hundreds because it's the real change that matters and the

real terms the chinese currency is moving in a rate substantially faster of 6% a year. just for comparison the last time the chinese allowed the currency to move over time was a period between 2006 and 2008 where it moved roughly 20%, i guess, a dollar in a two-year period of time. how is that? [laughter] >> i mean, i said this in my speech, we'd like them to move faster. we think it's better for them to move faster. it's better for the exchange rate to carry more of the burden of meeting the challenges they face in the inflation side. if they don't -- the nominal exchange rate, the nominal rate would be higher but that would not be as good a mix for china. but peter can do a better job of explaining that than me. [laughter] >> all right. well, i agree with you the real exchange rate is the thing to

really focus on. not because they designed it that way but because of the events, the inflation in china. the real exchange rate is appreciate much faster. i agree it's probably going to be at least 7% this year. >> well, it could be significantly higher than that but again, the most important thing to understand, it is going to happen. there's no alternative path. the only choice for china is how it happens and what happens with inflation with the exchange rate itself. i think there's substantial recognition among the chinese leadership. >> thank you, mr. secretary. john with cpi tv of taiwan. the end of the election season seems to have taken a lot of steam of the currency debate. my question is, how much of it is politics? and how much of it is real economics?

thank you. >> all economics is politics. i would put differently, what makes economics interesting and challenging is how to -- is how to figure out how to get closer to what's good economic policy given the political constraints that can get in the way of that. so how much of this concern is political. and for us it's a fundamental economic concern for the reasons we've discussed. but, of course, it has huge political salience. here's one way to think about it. you know, the exchange rate some of you can see. so you can look at what it's doing and how fast it moves. and since it's obviously undervalued, it naturally becomes the focus of concern about fairness. it's understandable. if you look at all the other things that we focus on the trade relationship and will continue to be a very substantial focus on the trade

side, it's still harder to measure progress. you know, if you -- if you try to think about what the what's the prospect what a campaign, it's difficult to know. if you look at the collective impact that china puts in place that's subsidized in products and services and investments, it will take time to know. it will be less visible. the exchange rate you can see. so it's a more natural focus of attention and it's not a surprise that it's a borrowed political debate about fairness. >> this will be the last questionth morning. >> thanks. you had mentioned that tax reform should be revenue neutral which seems we would have to do more on the spending side to -- >> can i clarify what you said? >> yeah >> as the president said before, we are going to take a look at whether we can find a political support for a reform of the

corporate tax code that would lower rates by broadening the base but not for revenue because we don't think it's fair or reasonable that does not achieve that fundamental objective. >> would the administration then be open that would increase revenue from the corporate sector? >> well, i think -- you know, you have to recognize -- and i'm sure you do, that, you know, we have to set -- we have to look at the incentives we create in the united states against those created outside of the united states. and although our effective tax rates for corporates are roughly even, our rates are roughly the average of the other major economies. our stature rates are much higher and we have to be aware of what's going on around the world. what we want to do is make sure that we're strengthening the relative incentives for

investing in the united states versus shifting investments outside of the united states and we don't want the tax code creating incentives to shift investment outside of the united states. so that's one way to think about the constraint we face. >> and just on the spending side, you know you said we need to spend more wisely. where -- >> i said spend less and spend more wisely >> and specifically where are we spending unwisely? and would the administration be open to what house republicans have floated in that discretionary back to 2008. i know that the administration has a discretionary spending freeze but would they be willing to go further? >> you're going to see the president in the state of the union and the budget lay it's a set of proposals how we bring our fiscal policy back in balance. if you look back what he proposed in the first two budgets. he proposed a level of discretionary spending that will restore nondefense discretionary spending or let me say nonsecurity discretionary spending back to the level that prevailed in the -- i think the reagan administration.

so we proposed very substantial restraints on the rate of growth in discretionary spending that would shrink the discretionary part of the government back to a level that prevailed about a generation ago. now, that's not the most important thing to do. the most important thing to do is to do that but preserve the capacity to invest more in things that will be essential to our competitiveness and that's why i wanted to emphasize again that as you think about how to restore fiscal sustainability, the challenge is not fundamentally how to bring our resources and get us more into balance. our challenge is how to do that that is not just fair to the american people, to the middle class family but improves rather than impairs our capacity to grow if the future. and our debate is how to make sure that we're preserving the capacity to spend more

strategically and reach the development in education, in incentives for investment. and in public infrastructure. thank you very much. nice to see you all. i hope all of you -- i hope all of you here at sais will have the chance to do more for your country. it's a cool, noble thing to do. nothing more compelling. i hope you do it. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> is now, more on u.s.-china

relations with hillary clinton. her remarks are an event of hu jintao"s visit next week. these remarks are about 45 minutes. [applause] welcome. all friends of ambassador holbrooke, everyone welcome to the state department. it is an honor to have you here for the lecture. i think if any of you know anything about the state department, if you walk into the bureau of public affairs, if you are immediately confronted by

the dignitaries of american foreign policy on both sides. there's some of the natives -- greatest names like usk and others who have served with distinction for years. most of these are men holding pipes, all except one. there is one man with enormous care -- hair, very young, the youngest assistant secretary ever to serve. he looks more like a drummer and the doors -- i in the doors than a distinguished diplomat. that meant was our predecessor in this job, ambassador holbrooke, who served with great distinction. he was one of the key architects of the opening of the relationship between the united states and china. it is only fitting today that the inaugural lecture that will be given in a moment by

secretary clinton beat about this relationship -- be about this relationship that will define the 21st century. it is my honor to introduce and welcome to our wonderful current secretary of state, secretary clinton. [applause] >> this is a bittersweet moment for me to deliver this lecture. i want to thank you for the introduction and for reminding everyone that you are a tough act to follow. curt and his terrific team of the state department have brought intellectual vision to our diplomacy in asia.

wherever i go in the region, people always have the current campbell -- have a curt campbell story to tell. some of them are even flattering. [laughter] thank you to my great team at the state department for all of your hard work and leadership. it is a special honor to welcome my colleague along with so many distinguished ambassadors to this inaugural richard holbrooke lecture here at the state department in the ben franklin room. for nearly half a century as a young foreign service officer in vietnam, as the tireless negotiators of the dayton accord, as a special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, richard holbrooke grappled with some of the most difficult and important

challenges of american foreign policy. he left an indelible mark on this department, on our country, and on the world. because of his efforts, america is more secure. millions of people around the world have had the opportunity to live up to their full god- given potential. we are honoring his legacy in many ways. this afternoon, many of us will gather at the kennedy center to share stories and remembrances. one of the ways we have chosen is this new lecture series which reflects his passion for serious policy questions and his conviction that they deserve serious discussion. richard had a hand in nearly every crucial foreign-policy challenge of the last 50 years. if he was not invited to have a hand, his hand was there any way. [laughter] i looked around the room at americans and many of our friends from across the world.

many of you know what i am talking about. he was tireless. he was relentless. he would not take no for an answer because i would give him no over and over again. it was not the answer he wanted. he worked with many of us on these important issues. today, i would like to focus on one that he knew well and is on everyone's mind as we prepare for the important arrival of president hu jintao. that is the future of u.s.-china relations. as the state department's john best ever secretary of east asian and pacific affairs, richard was a key player in the brokering of the opening of formal diplomatic relations with china in 1979. he served for many years as the president of the asian society. throughout his career, he understood that a strong u.s.- china relationship would bolster

stability and security in the asia-pacific region. he was clear eyed about the obstacles to our cooperation. he saw that the success of the relationship depends on its ability to deliver positive results to the people of both our nation's first and foremost but also to the rest of the world. these insights remain just as relevant today. we heard them underscored this week by secretary gates in beijing and by secretary geithner and secretary locke in washington. our relationship is marked by great promise and real achievement but also by significant challenges, as one would expect. more than ever, we will be judged on the outcomes that we produce for greater peace,

prosperity, and progress and our own countries and throughout the world. america and china have arrived at a critical juncture. it is a time when the choices we make will shape the trajectory of this relationship. over the past two years in the administration, we have created opportunities for sustained cooperation. we have seen some early successes and frustrations. moving forward, it is up to both of us to more consistently translate positive words into effective cooperation. it is up to both of us to deal with our differences. there will always be differences between two great nations. we need to deal with them wisely and responsibly. it is up to both of us to meet our respective global responsibilities and obligations.

these are the things that will determine whether our relationship delivers on its potential in the years to come. we've already come a very long way since the first tentative steps of the diplomatic opening in 1979. after many years of virtually no contact, we have had three decades of intense engagement. in the beginning, our relationship was almost exclusively focused on the common threat posed by the former soviet union. during the 1990's, we began to engage on broader regional issues. i remember with great fondness the trip that my husband and i and our daughter took to china as part of that intense engagement. today our relationship has gone global. we debate and discuss nearly every major international issue in both bilateral dialogue and

multilateral meetings. these are on issues that we have concerns together on and on issues where we have fundamental disagreements such as human rights. our engagement will be on full display next week when president obama welcomes president hu to the white house. these three decades of relations between our countries have also been three decades of impressive growth for china. when richard holbrooke and his colleagues first visited china, its gdp barely topped $100 billion. today, it is almost $5 trillion. trade between our two countries used to be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. to date it surpasses $400 billion annually. china's transformation was made possible primarily by the hard work of its people and the vision of its leaders. it was also aided by an open and

dynamic global economy and by the american power that has long secured stability in the region. it has lifted hundreds of millions out of grinding poverty and helped to drive global prosperity. the united states has welcomed this growth. we have benefited from it. today our economies are intwined and so are our futures. despite its progress in the past 30 years, china still faces great challenges. when i speak with my chinese counterparts, they often talk to me in passionate terms about how far their country still has to go. even with all the growth, china's gdp is only 1/3 of the size of america's with nearly four times as many people. our trade with the european union is still greater than our

trade with china. china has a lot of work to do to move from a state dominated economy dependent upon external demand and technology to a more market oriented economy powered by domestic demand and innovation. more of its people are also seeking greater respect for their cultural and religious beliefs. they are seeking more opportunities for working and recourse for legal injustices. understanding the strengths and challenges is essential for us and others to understand today's china. it provides important context to the country's changing role on the world stage and for the future of the u.s.-china relationship. history teaches that the rise of new powers off and ushers in times of conflict.

on both sides of the pacific, we do see some trepidation on the rise of china and about the future of the u.s.-china relationship. some in the region and some here at home see china's growth as a threat that will lead either to cold war style conflict or american decline. some in china worry that the united states is bent on containing china's rise and constraining china's growth. it is a view that is stoking a new streak of a certain chinese nationalism. we project those views -- reject those views. in the 21st century, it does not make sense to apply 19th century theories of how major powers interact. we are moving through uncharted territory. we need new ways of understanding the shifting dynamics of the international

landscape. it is a landscape marked by emerging centers of influence but also by non-traditional and even non-state actors and the unprecedented challenges and opportunities created by globalization. this is a fact that we believe is especially applicable to the u.s.-china relationship. our engagement and entanglement can only be understood in the context of this new and more complicated landscape. i said when i first went to china as secretary of state early in my tenure that there was an old chinese saying that when you are in the same boat, you have to row in the same direction. we are in the same boat. we will either rowe in the same direction or unfortunately cause turmoil or whirlpool's double impact -- that will impact our

countries and others far beyond our borders. this is not a relationship that fits neatly into the black and white categories like friend or rival. we are two complex nations with very different histories, profoundly different political systems and outlooks. but there is a lot about our people that reminds us of each other. there is an energy, and entrepreneurial dynamism, its commitment to a better future for our children and grandchildren. we're both deeply invested in the current quarter. we have much more to gain from cooperation and conflict. that does not mean we will not be competitors. that is the nature of human endeavors. it is who we are as people. but there are ways of doing it that are more likely to benefit than not. a peaceful and prosperous asia- pacific region is in the

interest of both china and the united states. a thriving america is good for china. a thriving china is good for america. our friends and allies across the asia-pacific region would agree. they also want to move beyond outdated 0 some formulas that might force them to choose between relations with beijing and washington. all of this calls for careful, steady, dynamic storage chip -- eweardship of this relationship. he needs to be grounded in reality entry to our principles and interests. that is how we intend to pursue a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with china. i am sure you will hear that phrase quite a bit over the next week. positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship.

that really does capture our hopes for the future. that is how our two presidents have described the relationship. you cannot build a relationship on aspirations alone. that is what makes this a critical juncture. the choices that both sides make in the months and years ahead and the policies we pursue help determine whether our relationship lives up to its promise. it is up to both of us to translate high-level pledges into action. to keep our relationship on a positive trajectory, we also have to be honest about our differences. we will address them firmly and decisively as we pursue the urgent work we have to do together. we have to avoid unrealistic expectations that can be

disappointed. this requires steady effort over time to expand the areas where we cooperate and narrow the areas where we diverge while holding firm to our respective values. as we build on our record of the past two years and shape the future of our relationship, the obama administration is pursuing a strategy with three elements that reinforce one another. we are practicing robust regional engagement in the asia- pacific. we are working to build trust between china and the united states. we are committed to expanding economic, political, and security cooperation wherever possible. let me start with regional engagement. the united states, by the blessing of our geography, is both an atlantic and pacific power. we are committed to our relationship through both of these great oceans. we are firmly in betting our

relationship with china in a broader regional framework because it is inseparable from the asia-pacific web of security alliances, in doing so, we will maintain an appropriate perspective on this relationship. today is an aunt -- is as important as any of bilateral relationship in the world, but there is no such thing as a both of our country's -- there is no such thing as a g-2. both our countries reject that. over the past two years, the united states has reaffirmed our commitment to be an active participant in the -- and a leader in the asia-pacific. we are practicing what we call forward deployed diplomacy, expanding our presence in terms

of people, programs, and high- level engagement in every corner and capital across the region. america has renewed and strengthen our bonds with our allies, japan, south korea, thailand, australia, and the philippines. and we have deepened our partnerships in indonesia, vietnam, malaysia, and singapore and new zealand. and we are working to ratify a free-trade agreement with south korea and pursuing a regional agreement with the trans-pacific partnership to help create new opportunities for american companies and to support new jobs here at home. those goals will be front and center when we host the asia- pacific economic cooperation forum in hawaii later this year. we have also worked to strengthen regional architecture in the asia-pacific, including signing viva la crv of --

assigning the aussie on treaty. regional architecture in asia benefits all of us, especially the united states and china. insurers that every nation and point of view is heard and it reinforces a system of rules and/or responsibilities -- roles and responsibilities in a just and international order. in these multilateral settings, responsible behavior is rewarded with legitimacy and respect and we can work together to hold accountable those who take counterproductive actions to peace, stability, and prosperity. our regional engagement places this relationship in the appropriate context. the second element of our strategy is to focus on building bilateral trust with china.

we need to build cooperation and trust and whether disagreements when they arise. -- and weather and disagreements when their rise. we need to bring together hundreds of agencies across both our governments not only to discuss a range of subjects, but to inculcate that habit of cooperation across our two governments. secretary geithner and are looking forward to hosting our counterparts this spring. this is a good start, but i would admit that distrust leaders on both sides. as secretary gates stressed in

beijing this week, both sides would benefit from sustained and substantive military engagement that increases and transparency. we need more high-level visits, more joint exercises, more exchanges from our professional military organizations and others to build that trust, understanding the intention and familiarity. chris will require china to overcome its reluctance at times to join us in building a stable and transparent military. we will continue to raise this issue and work on it with our chinese friends to. but building trust is not just a project for our governments. our people must continue to forge new and deeper bonds as well in classrooms and laboratories, on sports field and trading floors. our people make everyday connections that build lasting trust and understanding. that is why we have launched a

new bilateral dialogue and people to people exchanges, and new initiatives such as the 100,000 strong program that is sending more american students to china. it those students are on the front lines of charting the future of our relationship and i saw this for myself at the shanghai expo where we were delighted to have 7 million chinese visitors come to our expo and they were all greeted by american students speaking chinese. it came as quite a surprise to some of our chinese visitors that we have so many american students that had studied chinese and that were excited about being part of such a tremendous international effort as the expo. the third this part of the strategy is expanding our efforts along with the international community to address the shared challenges, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, party on the high seas -- these are things that

affect all of us, -- piracy on the high seas, these are things that affect our laws, including china. -- affect all of us, including china. we have a wide-ranging agenda, a number of areas that we will ultimately be able to judge whether our relationship is producing real benefits. on the economic front, as secretary geithner discussed earlier this week, the u.s. and china do need to work together to orient our economies to assure strong, sustained, balance, future global growth. in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the u.s. and china worked effectively through the g-20 to help spur recovery. can you imagine where we would be economically if either china or the u.s. had failed to work together so constructively? it is almost a fragging spot -- a frightening prospect to imagine. we must build on that cooperation, and in his speech,

secretary geithner noted that chinese firms want to be able to buy more high-tech products from the u.s., make more investments here, be afforded the same terms of access that market economies enjoyed. at the same time, u.s. firms want to ensure that the $50 billion of american capital invested in china creates a strong foundation for a new market and investment opportunities that will support the global competitiveness. we can work together on these objectives, but china still need to take important steps toward reform, and in particular, we look to china to end unfair discrimination against u.s. and other foreign countries -- other foreign companies against their technology and measure that -- and any measures that disadvantage to foreign intellectual property. we need to open up more opportunities for american manufactured goods, farm and ranch products, and services, as well as allowing currency to

appreciate more rapidly. these reforms, we believe, would not only benefit both our countries, but contribute to the global economic balance, and predictability, and broader prosperity. and we also need to work on some of the global strategic issues that confront us. taye, a change for example, -- take climate change for example, china and the u.s. are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. our corporation at the conference in mexico was critical to the conclusion of the cantor and agreements. now we must build on that progress by implementing the agreements on transparency, funding and clean energy technology. and there is no time to delay. the u.s. and china, working with other partners including the eu, japan and india will set the pace and direction for the world to move rapidly toward a clean energy future.

on international development, we could make a significant impact on coordinating projects. we would ask that john embrace international recognized standards and policy and ensure transparency and sustainability. i often in my discussions with china's leaders hear them say to that their country speaks to a developing world because of their extraordinary progress. but their development practices in africa and elsewhere have raised serious concerns. and we welcome the commitment to development, but would like to work more closely together to have common standards and approaches. on security issues there is also room to work more closely and constructively. on iran, for example, we have made progress, but we have to follow through. as a permanent member of the u.n. security council, china helped enact tough sanctions and now we are working together to and let them. and now we are working to china -- looking to china -- sentiment

and a and now we are working together to implement them. and now we are looking to china to help encourage iran to cease their nuclear activity. now we look to a problem that has vexed as in the last two years, and in particular in the last several months, namely, north korea. there is an urgent need to maintain peace and stability on the korean peninsula, and to achieve the complete denuclearization of north korea. for our part, america will continue to stand with our allies, south korea and japan, as they contend with their belligerent neighbor. and as secretary gates said last week, north korea opposing nuclear and ballistic missile programs are becoming -- north korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs are becoming a direct threat to the u.s. itself. this is not just about peace and stability in northeast asia, north standing with our allies. this is becoming, unfortunately,

marvin national security challenge to our own shores. from the early months of our administration -- more of a national security challenge to our own shores. from the early months of our administration, if the u.s. along with china and russia and japan joined together to discourage north korea's provocative actions with its missiles. these actions shows that when china plays a very constructive part, we can produce results together to send an unequivocal message to north korea. we have emphasized our colleagues in beijing that china, as a country with unique ties to north korea and chair of the six party talks, has a special role to play in helping to shape north korea's behavior. we fear, and have discussed this in depth with our chinese friends, that failure to respond clearly to the sinking of a south korean military vessel

might embolden north korea to continue on a dangerous course. the attack on the island, that of the lives of civilians, soon followed. as the result of intense engagement in recent weeks, including a conversation with president obama and president hu, we have begun to work together to restrain north korea's provocative action. we are building momentum in support of a north-south dialogue that respects legitimate concerns of our south korean allies and can set the stage for meaningful talks on implementing north korea's 2005 commitment to irreversibly and its nuclear program. it is vital that we work together with china. we need to make it clear to north korea that its recent

provocation, including the announced uranium enrichment program, are unacceptable and in violation of not only security council resolutions, but north korea's own commitment in the 2005 joint statement. until north korea demonstrates in concrete ways its intention to keep its commitments, china along with the international community, must vigorously enforce the sanctions adopted by the security council last year. on taiwan, we are encouraged by the greater dialogue and economic cooperation between the mainland and taiwan, as witnessed by the historic completion of the cross drake economic cooperation framework agreement. -- across the strait economic cooperation framework agreement. in the time ahead, we seek to encourage and see more dialogue

and exchanges between the two sides, as well as reduced military tension and deployments. finally and crucially on the issue of human rights, a matter that remains at the heart of american diplomacy, america will continue to speak out and to press china when it sensors blotters and imprisoned activists, when religious believers, particularly those in unregistered groups, are denied full freedom of worship, when lawyers and legal advocates are sent to prison simply for representing clients that challenge the government's position, and when some are persecuted even after they are released. i know that many in china, not just in the government, but in the population at large resent or reject our advocacy of human rights. as an intrusion on sovereignty. but as a founding member of the united nations, china has

committed to respecting the rights of all its citizens. these are universal rights. recognized by the international community. in our discussions with chinese officials we reiterate our call for the release of li osio bao and many of the others a a better under house arrest. we urge them to protect the minorities in tibet and other places. and to protect the rights of all to worship freely and the rights of people to advocate their positions within the rule of law. and we strongly believe that those who advocate peacefully for reform within the constitution, such as the charter 08 signatories, should not be harassed or persecuted. we believe also that when china

lives up to these obligations of respecting and protecting universal human rights, it will not only benefit more than 1 billion people, but it will also benefit the long-term peace and stability and prosperity of china. for example, an independent and impartial judicial system and with respect for the rule of law would protect citizens' property and guarantee that investors can profit from their ideas. freedom of expression for everyone, from political activists and academics and journalists and blotters -- to journalists and loggers would create a vibrant economy. -- a vibrant society. this promise is already apparent in the work of individuals and ngo's who volunteer after the shares want earthquake. the longer that china -- after the chechuan earthquake.

the longer that china denies these rights, the longer they will have an unrealized potential and promise. by now that china's leaders believe that political reform could shake the stability of their country and get in the way of its continuing essential economic growth. but we have seen nation after nation from south korea to indonesia to many parts of the world where once they realize that the night -- denying people the right to express their discontent can easily create more unrest, while embracing reforms can strengthen record societies and unleash a new potential for development. the future of our relationship can be strong if we each meet our responsibilities. the world is looking to china.

and there's a lot of excitement about this because we think that there are ways the china can be a unique leader in the 21st century. embracing the obligations that come with meeting is -- meeting of 21st century power will help to realize a future that will give the chinese people even more, in fact, and imagined opportunities. but that means accepting a share the burdens of solving, and problems, abiding by things that shape a rules based international order. the united states emerged as a true world power nearly a century ago. and there were times when, frankly, we resisted taking on new obligations beyond our borders. there is a strong internal position that was back in our history where we just want to attend to ourselves and let everybody else worry about the future. but whenever what -- whenever americans turned inward,

attempting to avoid accepting the responsibility, events intervened and we were summoned back to reality. our leadership in the world, and our commitment to tackle its greatest challenges have not trained our strengths or sapped our resolve. quite the opposite. they have made us who we are today. a force for peace, prosperity, and progress throughout the globe. this is a critical juncture, yes, but i would say to my fellow americans, this is not a time to fear for the future. the world has never been in greater need of the qualities that distinguish us -- our , ouress and intinnovation determination and values. the world looks for leadership to manage the changing times and to ensure that this juncture and leads to greater stability, peace, progress, prosperity.

that is what we have always done and it is what we will always do. that is what america is all about. and we have a tradition of moving beyond past problems and conflicts. it, it is sometimes hard to imagine that in a lifetime of my mother the united states was involved in two world wars, a terrible depression where we sent many of our best to young people off to war in far off places, and yet, we have forged close relationships with former adversaries. today, we have a positive relationship with china and the chance for a very positive future. the united states welcomes china as a rising power. we welcome their efforts not only to live their people out of poverty, but toward

prosperity and opportunity. and we look to china to join us in meeting the challenges of today and tomorrow. we look forward to a time when our future generations can look back and say of us, they did not just talk about it positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship. they made the right choices. they worked together. they delivered the results and they did livas a better world. -- and they did leave us a better world. that is our commitment for this most important relationship. thank you all very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[applause] >> tonight, television and radio host tavis smiley hosts a form entitled "america's next chapter," focusing on the current and future challenges facing america. one of the topics discussed was

the recent surge -- shooting in tucson. >> your first example of the answers been found in the problems with this issue of the shooting in tucson and this whole conversation out that the country is a engaged in civility. help me understand how that is the way forward if it requires a heinous act like bad to even get us to have a conversation about civility. i have been talking to members of congress this last week, you know, patting themselves on the back and sticking out their chests. this tragedy reminds us that there are no republicans, no democrats. we're all americans. we all where americans to weeks before this happened and we will be two weeks from now. >> you can see the entire form on america's next chapter with

radio host tavis smiley tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern and 5:00 p.m. pacific here on c-span. tomorrow on news makers, the secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius. she discusses the republicans' effort to repeal the health-care overhaul legislation. that is at 10:00 a.m. here on c- span. >> starting tuesday, the house takes up the repeal of the health care law. watch the debate and final vote live on c-span. and go to nkunda c-span.org to read the bill on line -- and go to c-span.org to read the bill online and read c-span's facebook and ritter pages. the >> c-span cozy local content vehicles are traveling the country. we now take you to go a reno -- kobo aruna in detroit.

we caught up with the task force on the automotive industry. >> we appreciate ron coming out. ron has played such a pivotal role on behalf of president obama, as you all know, in getting us where we are now. also with the efforts that have allowed ford to -- to support for efforts to be here. -- ford's efforts to be here. we are very excited about every one of the cars that are here. they were impacted by section 136. we want to expand those and be able to give our suppliers opportunity to be able to use those as well. we are very excited about what

ford is doing in innovation and between the investment, $2 billion in manufacturing, most of which is coming to michigan. we are the sensors for the country and i believe the investment in manufacturing and the tax credit and the cash for clunkers, all of those things coupled with the incentives to buy these great new vehicles are a reflection of the fact that we believe in manufacturing. >> look, this is about a partnership. there is no question that the president stepped forward in an extraordinary way and took leadership, but these companies deserve a lot of credit. ford, obviously, gm and chrysler as well. but this is not a one-man thing. this is an effort where the people affected by this kamal of the stakeholders, the suppliers, shareholders, stake -- where all the people affected by this,

the stake holders, the suppliers, shareholders, they all came together. government lends a hand when times are tough, but it asks in return, appropriately, that the people getting the help exorcise some self-help as well. and i think that is what this story is about. and ford in particular is a story of that. obviously, ford was helped overall by the work done to save the industry, but it did not rest on those laurels. it worked with its creditors, an extraordinary effort by this company. and 136 helped ford, of course it did, but ford did this. we are very proud to be a part of this today. it is nice to be in detroit when we can talk about collective market share in, -- market share in -- market sharing and these

are the sorts of things that we need to talk about. this is a good day for this car industry. >> i would just add one thing, that is, that as we go forward, one of the things i am focused on with this administration is how we get the electric automobile. we are putting in legislation that would increase the amount of charging stations been put in. we want to be sure that we are doing things that are supportive of the major investments and a wonderful technology that has been developed by ford and by all of our companies. what have you -- >> what have you seen in the last two years of the manufacturers, what can america learned, what can the

government learn? >> the auto industry has always in some ways been the center of the united states manufacturing sector. and it still remains very central. the lesson is about people working together. there is a role for government, but a limited role. but when you are in a crisis like we were two years ago, obviously, there is a lot of intervention required. but the normal course -- and you have seen us do it with general motors -- is to back off when we could. but that does not mean that government has no role. when there are issues like senator stabenow mentioned, 136, areas where the government can provide a measure of help, but when you have private sector companies like ford that have their act together and have a terrific relationship with their employees, then you have something that works. and in our industry, the fact that it is happening in detroit, the car industry is going to

require innovation to be successful. and this is a company that is innovative. it is not the only one. others are in detroit as well and that is terrific. it will make for a better company and its competitors better companies. leaders who can come together. i think it offers us a lot of lessons. again, and intervention in a deep crisis that was unique, but a broad level of support that we were able to [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> no comments about the future.

nothing about the future. icsernible talking] >> but we have a six month mockup. we will have to see what the market does. the financial markets can be uncertain. we are determined to exit as soon as practical, but we are not going to do a fire sale. i think the ipo gives you a good sense of the balance we struck.

and i think the remainder of our is completed. >> what do you think about chrysler's plans to pay back the loans later on this year? >> if chrysler wants to pay us back, we will keep the treasury open late to get their check. they have every right to pay us back and if they get us back on an earlier schedule, they can do that. obviously, payment is good. it would be good news if chrysler paid uzbeks in a than expected. if you were in this location -- paid us back sooner than expected if you were in this location a year ago, i do not think anybody who was not using a controlled substance would have said that on this day chrysler would be talking like that and be taken seriously.

clearly, there is a lot that has been developed. they have a long way to go and we have no illusion about it and of particular expectations. but if you ask me how would we feel if they could pay that back sooner, [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> again, this is the largest initial offering. whether that is the appropriate step now, i do not think we will speculate on that. we still own 500 million shares. you're talking about $20 billion. i have no view on whether or not that is appropriately done. we will obviously get the

companies import. we will consult with financial experts and underwriters. >> we all knew where the timing that you wanted to show the markets that you were serious. what could be driving the timetable for the rest of the sale? >> i think the timing for the rest of the sales is not a lot different from the ipo time, which the president has said, i want to exit this as soon as is practical. obviously, i think we have demonstrated -- not that this will ever work out -- that i hope we can put that foolish government motor stuck to that once and for all, but that said, we still own a material part of the corporation and that is not the appropriate role for government. it i think it is important for

the broader economy and for us to fulfill the mission that we set out when we initially invested. and we do have to balance that against getting a fair return, but i think that the "as soon as practical" watchword is still alive. we own 500 million more shares than we want to. we should be looking for a way to sell those shares. in the stockss market in the last few weeks, did that make you more optimistic? >> we are not day traders. the stock market has been strong in the last little while. that is good. i think people are over -- are optimistic about the overall economy. i think it gave people a shot of optimism, but i will not look at two or three weeks of stock

market performance and prognosticate about four months from now. we will talk about it at that time. >> c-span's local content vehicles are traveling the country. visiting cities and communities as we look at issues impacting the nation. for more information on our local content vehicles, go to our website c-span.org/lcv. >> now more on the u.s. auto show and a look at the auto industry with a reporter from bloomberg business week. this is about 35 minutes. >> "washington journal" continues. dave host: 12, staff writer of bloomberg business week joins us from -- host: david welsh, staff writer of bloomberg business week joins us this morning. which are off with an article that talks about how the mood is considerably better this year.

if it was the house so, and why? guest: all of the executives -- if it was, how so, and why? guest: all of the executives were upbeat this year. most of the companies are close to breaking even. this was not the crisis we saw a year-and-a-half ago or so. everyone is looking at a pretty good year and getting even better. we are kind of getting back to the business of making cars and trying to sell them. maybe it is a return to normalcy for the auto industry for a while. host: and what are the big discussions? guest: if you go to the show, you will see a lot of smaller vehicles, fuel-efficient vehicles. everyone is looking down the barrel of oil going over $120 per barrel. you've got efficiency and

hybrids and electric cars, that has been the buzz for the last couple of years and it was especially this year. a lot of the vehicles being shown at the show are some kind of put in hybrid that can give you 40 m.p.h. on the highway. they are trying to make the case to the american consumer lead despite gasoline and the rules coming down the pipe, you can have your cake and eat it, too. host: carmakers are attempting a small miller -- asmall miracle, according to one article. and the law of physics still means that small cars are less safe in crashes. products will still average 35

miles per gallon in 2016. they could be of to 62 miles per gallon by 2025. that all but mandates shrinking cars. guest: this is an age-old problem for the car business. the industry has pushed for more efficient vehicles and consumers have always wanted a bigger as tv's. the carmakers have been -- bigger suvs. the carmakers have always been stuck between what the government wants them to do and what consumers want. for reasons that are very technical, and i will not go to the details, but the 35.5 actually = about 27 to 28 miles per gallon -- actually comes out to about 27 to 28 miles per gallon by the with the testing is done.

for people who want hybrid technology or a clean diesel engine, you do have this push and pull. the company could be held back by the fact that fuel prices are expected to rise. they are already over $3 per gallon right now. that does not make people want to switch to a compact car, but it does make them wary of about -- does make them wary of buying something big. id will be a challenge. why is everybody putting them out if nobody is buying them >host: david welch with

bloomberg is our guest. the numbers are on our screen. a comment coming to us on twitter. guest: it is testing my memory to tally all of them appeared reason members say they will hire zero thousand engineers in the next two years. those are really good jobs. those are people that will work on hybrid drives and electrical systems. there have been some high tech jobs like that that have been at it and will be added. -- have been added and will be added.

ford announced during the show that they will hire 7000 people. we are not back to the level of employment where we were before the crisis started a few years ago, but you are starting to see some growth on the part of ford and gm and they are bringing people back. chrysler hired some engineers as well. slowly coming back and there are some pretty good signs. host: let's hear from michael in oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning. if you watch motor week on television they go through a to 10 cars for every week. the mileage is terrible with the around town knowledge. they get 31 or 32 on the interstate, but the around town mileage is in the teens, sometimes 60 or 17. yes, they put out an economy model, but they put 10 other models or 20 other models with horrible around town mileage.

it is just where they are. guest: the caller has a good point. when you see advertisements on television, the car companies -- all of them -- intend to talk about a highway fuel economy. -- they tend to talk about highway fuel economy. they changed it to measure more of city driving that highway driving. it used to be the other way around. and it is for that reason. a lot of these cross over as tv's -- crossover suvs get better gas mileage than they know, you're not getting 35 mpg

in combined fuel economy with these. americans are not going to be driving too many cars. -- but are not going to be driving to many cars that are getting 35 mpg out there. there are just not the many options out there that did not super fuel economy. host: the ford explorer was named truck of the year, -- the chevy volt was named the car of the year. are those the two big ones to watch. guest: are certainly vehicles to watch. particularly the vol. -- the volt. it is not something new out of

the show that we need to look at. but it is something that needs to be watched because there is a big debate here. there are people that like a green cap apology and the latest in car technology, do they want something like a niece on leaf petcthat goes 100 miles on a bay engine? other people want something that has to be plugged in. others say they do not want that because they do not want to be stranded. starting in 2012, they will want to sell quite a bit more than their initial plans. it will be interesting to watch how the public reacts to go and how many of these get snapped

up. -- how the public reacts to both and how many of these ducks napa. host: next caller, good morning. caller: you alluded to the fact that drivers do they need more room. -- think they need more room. do these you will have any sense of conscience at all? -- do these people have any sense of conscience at all? guest: there is a great car movie with jeff bridges called "tucker" and in that movie he says it is advertising. nobody is supposed to believe it. they've got that incredible advertising about what their cars can actually do. if you are talking about fuel

economy, it gets people in the door. it gets 40 mpg on the highway and when they look at the window sticker and realize it is less, they have to make their decision based on that. it is an advertising issue. how much do you want to make the case that your car is perhaps greater than is don't include every bit of inflation in there and they will find out later. it is a risk they take in the showroom. host: joe, writes in -- and he is talking about the bailout. talk to us about what the perception is that the auto show about how the bailout has affected the opinion -- the public opinion of the auto industry. guest: in detroit, first of all, that is where the show is.

chrysler is controlled by fiat null and are close to breaking even. gm -- by fiat nowlin and are close to breaking even. gm has growth in the past year. they have saved quite a few jobs here in the u.s.. and some optimism in detroit over that period in the rest of the country -- over that. in the rest of the country where we have seen in the last year, the anti- rea out crowd that really had a problem with this -- the anti-bailout crowd that really had a problem with this, they were very vocal. some of the companies that were bailed out, they criticized some of their marketing moves or spending ideas.

how most americans are not that bothered by the fact of gm was bailed out. there is a certain percentage of the population that does not by gm -- gm -- buy gm. but they are louder than they are big. host: here is another story. let's hear from holly, democratic caller in kalamazoo, michigan. caller: good morning. we have large bewick's that have done well by us. i drive a honda.

he was really banging his knees on the vehicle because it was too small. some people really do need larger vehicles. i think detroit needs to step up and deliver the cars with mileage. i think they can be pushed to do it and if they do it detroit will flourish again. thank you. guest: certainly, they can deliver these cars. if you want a bigger car that gets the fuel economy, the question always comes at what price. you will have to put the technology on board to make that happen. in the buick lacrosse, which is kind of a large sized, mid-size sedan. they're going to come out with a version that has a small battery

on board. does not cost a lot more. i think it can get 37 mpg on the highway. you will see solutions like that that do not add several thousands to the car. but it will still cost. you can get a bigger vehicle, but you'll have to pay more money. you cannot ask these companies to operate cellaragselling a vet a loss. host: and republican in lexington, kentucky, welcome. caller: good morning, david. i agree with some of the other callers. people are bigger today and you cannot put them in tiny cars. as a senior citizen to live in the cars that set too low to the ground, often times we do not

get the mileage that they say we're going to get. we drive a van and it is much more suitable to our needs. guest: you found the vehicle that you want. most vehicles are going to be available. gm is working on a next- generation of trucks and large suvs. again, it depends on how much you need that space and what you want to pay for because fuel prices will get more expensive. fuel economy is not back to where it needs to be.

as fuel prices go back up, you will see more demand for fuel efficiency. you can have it, but you'll have to pay. host: what is the most exciting thing that has happened at the auto show this week? guest: this is not the kind of show that -- where you have some great new bentley or rolls royce or some piece of by kendeigh that everyone is fawning over. -- some piece of white candeye t everyone is falling over. i looked at a number of vehicles that might be kind of fun. one of the most important

vehicles of the show is the new high -- a new honda civic. is everything that honda civic has always been. honda has been in a bit of a slump last -- lately. they actually lost market share last year. it will be interesting to see you aware that will go as far as honda, and then the industry as well. there is a model that is supposed to get 40 miles per gallon, very fun to drive. and a car will be built that is all will drive. it sits higher than a typical monday, but it is in a small package. -- then a typical mini, but is

in a small package. car companies have to make cars more comfortable and more fun. and you are starting to see it happen. host: next caller, go ahead. caller: i know there is a lot of tension after the tucson tragedy, but i have a simple question. this will define fascism as privatizing the game. hypothetically, if the federal government does not make a profit off of bailing out gm, is it or is it not fascism? guest: and no, i don't think it is fascism. i did not catch whose definition that was, but i do not. but bigger question there is whether the government is going

to make money off of general motors. of the government is going to break even on these things prepared that stock went out at $33 per share and eventually got to $35. if you throw a cost of the other bidder could see -- the cost of other benefits, cost avoidance you could call it, and you could say those things as well. it is not just including those numbers in there. -- it depends on whether you want to include those numbers in there.

what the government avoided becomes a bigger question. and it is probably one that people will debate for decades. >> invest a production rose solidly in december. but auto production dipped. what does that say for the auto industry? guest: auto sales are rising pretty steadily throughout the year. and coming off the year before that when sales were really at an historically low level and production was pulled back. as soon as it was built up and they've not the head of a -- they looked at a lot of information that enabled them to pull back a little bit. i think we will see a steady, level production going forward.

now that we know where sales are going to be, it may depend on picking up the market this year. 12.5 million cars estimated this year to over 13. it depends on who you talk to. if it is a 11.5 or 12 million vehicles, that will be in a steady range. let's go host: to austin, texas. -- host: let's go to austin, texas. caller: are people being high educated enough about the electric cars? the average has was on tv show it being plugged in and you can just take off. i know it will be three or four hours to charge it up. what is being done about these

things for electric cars? guest: you have several questions in there. first, our people educated enough on the electric cars? -- our people educated enough on electric cars? they are not. carmakers are doing a full-court press to do that. but despite we have written about them in the media, i get surprise for ackley by those asking some of those questions. this caller asked some very good ones. how long will it take to charge up your card? that depends on what you have in your house. if you have it difficult 120, you can add up -- you could operate on a charge. and you can have more than that, but it costs extra to have them installed. how the chevy volt hazards of the repair our on board, sort will not take as long to charge.

-- the chevy volt has auxiliary power on board, so it will not take as long to charge. what are the city's doing? you see some cities that are progressive with this. portland, oregon is one. they have charging stations next to parking meters. cities in california are doing this in places whereon they are starting to sell these. public utilities are getting involved. they are upgrading the local transformers in the neighborhoods to be sure that they will not be overloaded with a power traidrain. they're asking people to let them know if they are buying an e.v. so they can make sure that

the power in the neighborhood is upgraded. host: in warren, ohio, al, democratic collar. could morning. caller: -- good morning. why caller: the thing i don't care about the electric cars is that they are going to make us who spend more on coal. when our electric prices are going to go up. i switched over to ford because they seen it coming, this your downfall. they did not need a bailout because they are a smarter business. general motors and chrysler, they should have seen it coming.

i know we will not give you be allowed back. the reason they are having problems is that they cost too much. i remember when people had problems paying $15,000 and now they have replaced those with $17,000 cars. they need to get in touch with the american people. they need to understand that we want better cars but when we hire people down here to work, they are getting half of what the guys were getting before. guest: he said a number of points. he is basically right about the

uaw, they have signed an agreement in 2007 that agreed to two-tiered hires. one of the problems here none of the domestic car companies could make money selling the small cars that he is talking about, selling them for $15,000 and paying someone $28 per hour to build it. they lost a lot of money on those cars. his point was that the big three always sell their profits in their suvs and pickup trucks. they have had to strip down models and now they are putting more features in them to get people to buy them. people have been going to the used-car market there will not

be a lot of vehicles down in the $12,000 range any more. some models start there, but it will be very strict and down. that is how they stay in business and how they afford to do research and development and some of with two -- come up with new technology. if a person can only afford $12,000, they will probably have to go to the used market. host: here is another comment on twitter. of course, the bill is putting in some georgian stations, about 201 area. how dependent is the car company on places like cracker barrel

putting in charging stations? and how useful is this for people in their own homes? guest: on companies like cracker barrel, general electric is another one that agreed to buy 10,000 e.v.'s, most of them chevy volts. it's kind of gives them a piece volume -- a base volume and it is a way to stabilize the volume on these cars. you really need that. you need to get volume of in a hurry because you want to see more of these vehicles on the road five years from now. they have got to become cheaper. you take a four 40,000 -- you take a chevy volt and was there

are 200,000 of them over so many years, the $7,500 incentive goes away. they have got to get it more affordable for now to get the kind of volume. the second question, were you asking me about the charging stations? host: i think you actually put it altogether. one of our twitter followers was wondering how much electricity the e.v. uses and if it is viable in people's homes. guest: that is a complex question. first, what the companies have told me is that the cost of driving the e.v. is about 3 cents per mile. how much of a drain on the total

neighborhood? this is when you want people to let them know that they are born to be buying an electronic vehicle. you want to make sure that they have enough to get them on the road. there are already many big appliances coming into homes and older homes may not be able to handle it. most newer homes are already equipped with enough capability to handle something like that. but that is why you should talk to your utilities if you are going to buy one. in this case, the transformer in your neighborhood, if it handles 8 to 10 homes and it is already pretty well next out to my utilities will have to come

in and upgrade data or have another one because it is like adding a whole new home. you need to talk to your utility. but if you go to nissan or you go to gm or to chevrolet and you want to buy one of these cars, they out advisers of -- they have advisers at the utility level. it all kind of happens over a period of months. it is not exactly like just going on a saturday and picking up a car and going home that day. you can, but there may be some issues. not the sincerely. your neighbor -- not necessarily. the your neighborhood may be able to take the charge just fine, but if you do not have a

240 volt outlet and you are charging on 120, it may work, but it may take more time. and be aware that there may be an issue with your neighborhoods transformer. host: mark in pennsylvania, a republican caller, welcome. caller: like the other caller before. he said one of the things are but like to talk about, too. people like to gas and go. they are not going to wait around and charge up the station's. there are a lot of things that are wrong with the electric car that they are not telling you. i used to be a mechanic for six years. the real problem with gas emissions and stuff, you have got to make smaller engines. host: we will leave it there. guest: they are doing that

already, making smaller engines in hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles. not everybody wants to just gas and go. there are those who tend to be technology enthusiast or they have an interest in the environment. but it will be a limited market for a while for that reason. nissan says it goes 100 miles on a charge, which is true. but that is it city driving. the electric cars can recharge the battery while you are doing a lot of that stop and go in the city. on the highway, you have to use more power and you can get considerably less, let's say, 60 miles on that charge. it may be a car for someone who lives in the city and drives a short distance host: larry in

florida -- but and drives a short distance. host: larry in florida, democratic collar. caller: my car's always had the big engines. the akita run 20 to 22 miles per gallon -- i keep around 20 to 22 mpg. but in 2003 i got a package crown victoria and on the road about 33 miles to the gallon. i have had several of them since and each year they get a little worse and a little worse. but back in the 1960's through the 1990's, the average cost of a car was about $3,900. they were big and heavy metal

and they really protect you. if you have a great big family, the smaller cars, you have to go to of them to go anywhere. i want to know why the prices are getting so much high and so much smaller. guest: it gets down to fuel economy. the car companies have regulations to meet and they are very fearful of what is that the -- of what happened in 2005 and in 2008. oil prices brought up to about $50 per barrel in 2005 and that is when suv took a hit. and then in 2008 when gasoline went up to $143 per barrel, that was a blow to the car making

industry. host: peoria, ill., suzanne on the independent line. caller: i wanted to point out of when you hear people talk about the bailout you never hear anyone mention that the courage of a a a sort -- the current shareholders, it was confiscated. and when it was raised again, the shares were not given back to those who from whom it was confiscated. guest: we wrote about that. you can hear about it from us. gm declared bankruptcy and when that happens, existing shareholders pretty much get cleaned out.

gm posted bond holders -- and we're talking about old general motors, those bondholders get stock. it will not get 100 cents on the dollar. there will get anywhere from 26 cents to 45 cents on the dollar. that is right. shareholders to get white dog and a bankruptcy. that is not just with gm -- shareholders to get wiped out in a bankruptcy. that is not just with gm. host: let's go to the next caller from washington state. caller: i have a 1998 cadillac and i have an early '70s dodge pickup with a cummins motor in it and i get 22 mpg in nothing. ralph nader in the 60's and

'70s, was trying to get all of these cars off the road and it is not a problem anymore. host: in the minute or so that we have less, what is the industry during to curry favor? guest: they're using a lot of technology. as far as being in a small car and getting in an accident with of the larger, you cannot completely overcome the laws of physics. you've got safety regulations and fuel economy regulations and they do not always move in tandem. the car

>> tomorrow on "washington journal," a discussion on the 112 congress and the obama administration with republican and democratic strategist. also a preview of president hu jintao's visit to the united states with richard solomon. later, u.s. unemployment and job growth in 2011 with harry holzer of georgetown university. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> starting tuesday, the house takes up the repeal of the health care law. watch the debate and final vote here on c-span. go online to read the entire bill. >> the shootings in tucson, arizona, where the focus of the weekly addresses. president obama call for unity with members of both political parties as they move forward to address the nation's challenges.

in the republican address, the arizona representative denounces the shootings and notes the heroic efforts of gabrielle giffords'in turn during the event. >> it has been one week since tragedy visited tucson, arizona. we have spent much of the week mourning the victims and remembering their lives. we also heard stories of heroism and bravery, of courage in committee. stories that remind us that we are one american family, 300 million strong. one of the places we thought up -- one of the places we saw that sense of community on display was on the floor of the house of representatives, where gabrielle giffords is deeply missed by her colleagues. one by one, representatives from all parts of the country and all points of view rose in common cause to honor gaby and the

other victims and to reflect on our shared hopes for this country, as shrill and discordant as our politics can be at times. it was a moment reminded us of who we really are and how much would depend on one another. what we cannot escape our grief for those we have lost, we carry on now, mindful of those troops. we carry on because we have to. after all, this is still a time of great challenges for us to solve. we have to grow jobs faster at and forge a stronger, more competitive economy. we have to shore up our budget and bring down our deficits. we have to keep our people safer and see to it that the american dream remains vibrant and alive for our children and our grandchildren. these are challenges i believe we can meet. i believe it can do it in a way worthy of those who sent us here to serve. so as business resumes, i look forward to working together in

that same spirit of common cause with members of congress from both parties. before we are democrats or republicans, we are americans. as we perform the work of this nation, my prayer is that we stay true to our words and turn to those examples of heroism and courage and perseverance to bring out the better in all of us. thanks for listening, and have a wonderful weekend. >> i am jeff flayed and i represent the people of arizona 6 congressional district. last week's for -- attacks in tucson is a stark reminder of the senseless brutality of someone is capable. the selfless bravery in which he rose respond -- heroes respond. my heart goes out to the family of my friend and colleague, gabrielle giffords, and to all those impacted by this heinous act. among the lost or a federal

judge, a young girl born on september 11, a congressional staffer. many others were injured in the lives of many others forever changed. these violent acts have no place in our society and we should honor those who stood up in defiance. it was from the shadows of this evil that we saw true heroism emerge. when shots began to fire, daniel hernandez, the gunmen who joined gabby's staff just days before as an intern rushed into harm's way. he noticed her on the ground, injured. amid the crisis, he shield her. his bravery and levelheaded this meant the difference between life and death, literally. doctors have said the actions that daniel took may very well have saved gabrielle giffords. of course you are afraid, he said, but you kind of have to do what you can. people needed help. daniel story on its own would have been inspiring.

men and women disarmed the attacker and held him until law enforcement arrived. i have -- i last spoke with gabrielle when we were sworn in. what we may not agree on everything, members of congress are bound together by a sacred oath to support and defend the constitution. as speaker boehner has said, an attack on one of us is an attack on all who serve, and an attack on representative democracy itself. gabby was engaged in the most fundamental duty of a lawmaker, listening to her constituents. it continues to separate us from the despot's of today. the people are sovereign. of theedom and with awisdom people determine us.

it is our duty to uphold our of, to listen and to represent. please continue to keep all the victims of this horrific tragedy in your thoughts. pray that the injured make a speedy recovery and that those whose lives we have lost have their reward in heaven. thank you for listening. >> tonight, television and radio host tavis smiley hosts a forum titled "america's next chapter." notable speakers include cornell west, are not huffington, maria bartiromo. >> the first example of the interest being found in the problems was this issue of the shooting in tucson. and this whole conversation that the country is engaged in about civility.

help me understand how is that that is the way forward, if it requires a heinous act like that to get us even into a conversation about civility. i have heard members of congress for the last week patting themselves on the back and sticking out their chests. this tragedy has reminded us there are no republicans, there are no democrats, we are all americans. we are all americans two weeks ago before it happened, and we all will be americans two weeks from now when we are not talking about it anymore. my point is it cannot take an act like this are like 9/11 for us to realize we are all in this together, we are all americans. >> that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern and 5:00 p.m. pacific here on c-span. tamara "washington journal," a discussion on the 112 congress in the obama administration with

republican and democratic strategists. also a preview of president hu jintao's visit to the united states with richard solomon, head of the u.s. institute of peace. later, u.s. unemployment and job growth in 2011. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> tomorrow on newsmakers." kathleen sebelius. she discusses the republicans' efforts to repeal the health care overhaul legislation. that is at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> starting tuesday, the house takes up the repeal of the health care law. watch the debate and final vote live on c-span and go to c- span.org to read the bill on line and continue the conversation on c-span is facebook and twitter pages.

>> juan williams talk to students about his life growing up in new york city and his career in journalism. this event took place at the washington's injured for internships and academic seminars. it is one hour. >> a wonderful seminar event on politics and the media. juan williams is a special correspondent and contribute for fox news, a regular panelist on fox news sunday. he is the anger at parks news anchor at fox news for weekend coverage. he has a distinguished record as a journalist and columnist here in washington and nationwide. in 1999 through 2010, he was a senior news analyst for national public radio, a rather interesting and public departure not too long ago, and he may or may not wish to refer to that today.

you certainly are open to ask your questions. juan has received high acclaim for a series of documentaries. he is author of of best -- two best-selling books, including " thurgood marshall, american revolutionary." he has also offered the television series this year in stories from the african- american religious experience. that was in 2003. juan is still very much involved in a journalistic enterprises involving racial relations in the united states.

it is a privilege to introduce him now as our speaker. [applause] >> good morning to all of you and welcome to washington. >> good morning to all of you and welcome to washington. all the consternation that is spinning around about the kind of vitriol that you get from especially conservative media in the aftermath of the shooting of congresswoman giffords in arizona. this is a moment where i think there is so much to talk about, i hesitate to do any introduction but just so simply to your questions. it seems preferable. i will ask that you just give me a second to tell you who i am, so you have a sense of who you are talking to. steve did a very nice introduction.

i think that many of you no doubt want to be journalists. you have come to this program as an expression of your interest in national politics and the way national politics are done. and i think of that 9-year-old girl who went to congresswoman giffords' session out in arizona. in some ways it is a reminder of how fortunate we are to have this experience that you are at this moment in your lives. i remember when i came to washington at about your age as an intern for "the washington post." that was such a plum assignment. it may seem to you that i was blessed and had such good fortune. there is no question i was blessed, but what is also true is that i was a kid whose mom used to bring newspapers of the subway in brooklyn, new york. she was a worker in the garment

district in lower manhattan. the businessmen would leave their newspapers, and at that time new york had almost seven daily newspapers. that would leave them on the subway seats, and as they got towards lower manhattan, you could also find newspapers from new jersey. so she had a bunch of newspapers, and in those days, i would go through them. i was a huge new york mets fan as a kid growing up, identifying with an underdog team that never won. i would read the difference sportswriters and i would think, this guy did not get in the locker room. he did not do a very good job. this guy was very descriptive. he did not get the key moments of the game. he did not understand what really happened. i would compare the columns. i thought, wouldn't it be great to be a sportswriter? not only to go to the game but

get inside the game and help people understand the game. and then you start going forward, especially in the tabloids, and start looking at cultural issues in american life. books and movies and plays, and then you go toward the front of the newspaper and discover there is politics going on. there is politics, money, power, influence, and certain people get their trash picked up in certain people get to send their children to good schools, and serve people have police protection, and certain people are viewed as being the subject of police protection. so i thought to myself, you know, the real sport here is not on the back pages of these tabloids. the real game is going on in the front. the real game in american life is about politics. the real game is one that people often times do not see, don't understand, don't appreciate. i am very interested in this game.

who gets the winning ticket in american life is often determined by american politics, even as we are distracted by all the movies and books and athletic events. i became the editor of my junior high school paper and the editor of my high school paper, and when i went to college, i was so afraid of the academic competition at haverford that are really did not do much with the newspaper my freshman year, but i apply for an internship that summer at the philadelphia bulletin. the evening bulletin was the biggest newspaper in philadelphia. while i was in high school, i also did some writing for a local newspaper that never covered black people, so i would go out to naacp meetings or neighborhood organization meetings and i would send them little stories. much to my delight, that they would run the stories and give

me a bio. what was applying for this internship in philadelphia, i had clips from my time as a newspaper writer, professional if you will, and as editor of my high school paper, and i had recommendations. i sent them into this newspaper, the evening bulletin, and was thrilled when i got the internships. when i showed up for that internship, having completed my freshman year and secure housing on campus so i could continue to live there, i remember sitting with a bunch of the intern's and the man who was then the managing editor came in and talked to us for a little bit. then he sort of fixed his stare on me and asked me to come outside with him. he said help older you? i said i was just about 19 years old. he said the program was for seniors and graduate students.

then he disappeared and came back with the file. he said he did not put your picture or your agent this application. i said i did not have a picture. he said this is not a babysitting operation, this is an internship, and he asked me to leave. so i went back to campus, and i remember telling people i was going to go back to new york, to brooklyn. several calls were made in a deal was struck where i would get to be an intern at the evening bulletin for two weeks, and that would be my experience, and i was grateful for that. at the end of the two weeks, nobody said a word, so being a jerk that i am, i came back the next monday. nobody ever said a word, and i was there the whole summer, and they paid me. then they invited me to work two days a week during the school year, and the next summer i was there again. and the following summer, "the wall street journal" was then

owned by the dow jones co.. they sponsored internships around the country, and i got an internship in rhode island. i went there for a summer, we back to the bulletin, and i hoped to stay at the bulletin. i was having a great time, doing good stories, but they said that they would not hire me permanently, which was a great disappointment to me. the wanted people who were more mid-career in terms of journalism. all of you are so interested in media and journalism, it thrills me that you are here, but you should know that back then, it was unbelievable how many young people wanted to go into journalism. they did not want to be tv stars. they wanted to be, i guess, movie stars. they wanted to be like hoffman and radford because they had played woodward and bernstein in

"all the president's men." everybody wanted to reveal corruption and scandal and all that. i was not being given the opportunity to stay at the bulletin, and i got my applications out and got to internships, one at the philadelphia inquirer and one at the washington post. i thought it was better to take the internship at the washington post, because they were the hot newspaper picked it would look better on my resume. so i came to washington d.c., and i worked at 7:00 p.m. at night and got off at 3 in the morning. i covered rates, muggings, murders, the kind of thing that goes on in the city, usually at night. it resulted in small local items that hit -- ended up hidden inside the metro section of the

newspaper. but being persistent, one thing i did was come in early. most of my competitors or people from ivy league schools, harvard and yale. they were all editors of the ivy league newspapers. the difference between us i sensed was, they were extremely bright and capable writers, but the big difference was, i had worked at newspapers before and i knew the kind of staffing cycles that took place. i realize that the people who would make decisions about whether or not to keep me were people who worked in the daytime, and that being assigned at night, i did not get much face time with them. so i would come in at 9:00 in the morning and i would essentially work the day shift. i would ride the weather story or i would write a feature story. i would find something to write about, and pretty soon it came to know who i was, to rely on me, and expect that i was coming in in the daytime and be

surprised that i was there at night. my favorite story from that period was that one saturday night, about 2:00 in the morning, i was down at the police station, and i heard on the police radio barks that they had a barricade situation. the barricade situation was not far from here. i did not know how to drive, being from brooklyn. i wish to the bus and subway, although i had an expense account to pick up the calves. remember, -- to pick up the cabs. i looked like a skinny, black kid with a big afro. essentially, i looked like a dandelion. they were always giving me a

hard time about anything that i had to do. on the middle of this night, the detective said, if you want to ride with me, come on. we were writing down the street and we come to this intersection, and there is the most incredible sight. there are people there who are the tallest people you have ever seen, and the shortest people you have ever seen, the fattest, the skinny as people you have ever seen. there are people there who are just gorgeous, and people there who are hideous. i am thinking, this is an odd sight, and on top of this, they are all naked. and people are coming from nearby buildings and stores and bringing them blankets and sheets and even paper bags to cover up with. the detective and i are looking at each other, the cops on the scene come over, and from what i can pick up from the conversation, this place is a war house rejectwhorehouse.

one gunman is outside the building and they were rousting people out of the bedrooms and stealing from people. one of them got in a fight, the one that is now outside, and being held, but the other three gunmen were still inside, and some people had fled through the fire stairs on the back of the building. those are the people who were down on the street. then i eventually get over to the policeman in blue and said, kind of an odd group, don't you think? he said oh, ringling brothers are in town. these are people from the circus. not only that, guys from looking naval base and the marine barracks over here. some of the women are the women who are working here and some are from the service. a most amazing sight. so anyway, i call in, and is now

almost 3:00 in the morning, so we are not going to get this even in the final edition, but we want you to do it for the monday paper. they did not even have a photographer to send at that time, so what happened was, there is no photographer from the paper, there is no tv, so i end up writing a very descriptive story about what happened in the barricade situation, early sunday morning or late saturday night, for the monday paper. of course, everybody in town is going to be attracted to a story about sex, crime, guns, and it was a real big hit on that monday morning. stories like that can then get in a position where they will offer you a job at the end of an internship, and they offered me a two-year internship and then offered me a job at the paper, and i stayed there for about 20 years. covering everything from local

governments, the mayor's office, city hall, to the district building, to the white house. in the midst of that, i wrote several books. i wrote books about african american religion, inspired by faith, people had been involved in social change, hispanics, women, the disabled. my last book was sort of a polemic about what is going on in terms of black america. i think i am going to stop there. i will mention that i have been involved in some controversies. steve touched on about being fired from national public radio for comments i made on a fox news show about muslims and about anxiety that i feel in

airports if i see people who are dressed in a muslim garb getting on a plane. i was told that i had violated journalistic standards by revealing that feeling, and i think it was unjustified, but nonetheless it led to my firing and has had tremendous repercussions, not only in terms of my life and my career but in terms of national public radio. i think having said that, i think it is a good time to open the door to interaction. i hope that all of you will have great success, and i hope that we use this time to answer questions that are on your mind about what it is to practice journalism in washington here at the start of the 21st century. [applause]

÷ if you have a question go to the microphone. >> having interviewed a bunch of different president, what are some similarities and differences you have noticed? know, personality media or just mannerisms, things like that but maybe you noticed in your interviews. >> you know, it's hard to discern any patterns when you need a president other than you are stunned at being there with the president. i just went over to the christmas party and this would be last month, and i had my son with me, and my son had not met president obama, and his first reaction was as i described to you to say that he was my god he's a real person from he's not just a picture or the image on tv, he is a guy standing there.

i guess i've met them all from ronald reagan and on and it's that you don't know them as human beings. you know them in just the way that my so experienced that my gosh, that's the president and there is a certain sense in which she takes their error all of the room that it's overwhelming to think that is the presidenof the united states. in the case of prison as ronald reagan for example, what i was struck by is how warm and attentive he was that he really focused on me and in terms of discussion they have all of these aides buzzing around, but that with president reagan he felt like this is someone you would want to know and be with and trust. and the stories are not washington obviously become a factor in the waiting you relate

to someone that is the president because there are so many people that tell stories about the president, and in his case, you know, even people who are political antagonists would say he was a great drinking buddy and he could tell terrific stories. so there was that since about he was great company and then the whole notion of reading the cue cards at not being that smart it became a joke because he would play on it. he wasn't afraid. ..

and if you come forward from that from bill clinton, is much more of a different generation, much more of a young man who i think i'm always captured a dat is that he is a young man at georgetown university was already thinking about how he could become by the president, how he could help students unpack and get to know them and their parent and insinuate themselves into the lives very quickly. and he has the sense that he is extremely smart and not as -- not as much as a reserved figure, if you will, as the first president bush, but much more out there, friendly, sort

of a hail fellow well met tye attitude. and of course, if you come forward from that to george w. bush, a gang, what struck me they are was but a nice person. in other words, this is the guy is working really rd, someone who's really disciplined about his life, the money was put is whole life on his check to make the best of what he has to understand the opportunities h has an absolutely feels less to be in this position and is working really hard at it and is obviously in very different circumstances. if a president obama, what always strikes me as no matter what the topic, no matter the discussion, whether were having lunch for a press conference or in a receiving line, here's someone who can have a discussion about any issue.

and no more than anyone in the room and be totally conversing with people who are experts on the topic. it's just kind of an amazing range of intellectual bandwidth, just terrific. and so, what strikes me as not white. two things strike me, but i don't know if there's any commonality. they're our leaders, but they all have different characteristics that i would identify as leadership characteristics. >> good morning. >> my name is hillary bro. bankruptcy cisco state university. my question is that now, the republicans took over the house. would there be any media coverage when it comes to restorations? >> i didn't understand the last part. >> any media coverage? >> like the race to help the

wealthy class and all that stuff. will that be media coverage, specifically on race relations click >> definitely. i think for republicans, one of the challenges they have been exclusively white and the congress until just now, and so this 112 session. you can have two black members elect to. tim scott, south carolina and allen west fromflorida. and that's a breakthrough for them. you have to go back to jc watt. i'm forgetting frank's first name. the congressman from connecticut. so it's been a while since we've seen anybody black in the republican ranks on capitol hill and the challenge for republican is also the need to understand the party going forward because the country demographics are

shifting so quickly, not just in terms of african-americans. i don't think they're going to make a lot of embryos there at the moment, but i do think they have some chance at 16 x, although the chances diminishing given the parties on immigration and immigration reform issues. so, this is a critical issue, race and the republicans. and sometimes when a journalist either assume well, there's not going to be much motion on that front, not much change or there's an occasional piece that points out what a dire situation it is. but i think they're reluctant to talk about it because it could beimply translated as the white party and demorats are the party of the people of color in the united states. i would also make the case that if you look at major issues like health care reform, tax cut extensionsyou could say republicans have become the

party of the older generation in america and democrats are the party of younger people in america appeared he can do this in terms of president obama's approval rating. he is a think most white americans disapprove of his performance in office. most americans of color are wildly approving of his performance in ffice. you look at health care reform bill. tremendous support among democrats. tremendous opposition among republicans when you boil it away in singapore the republicans and democrats and then you come back. and from 1% to two of racial prism in which he say look, people of color and also lower in income, older people come away people are not supportive of this health care bill. so there's race that plans though many of these issues. it's a very touchy issue. people are discomforted by the

discussion, but it is reality and i hope he'll be allowed to find that coverage. >> hi, my name is cat named from the university of san diego and i was wondering, have a say in journalism change the years and in the terms of quality journalism, where do you think that's going? >> well, you know, for me, i came in 76 as an intern, as they told you. so i been here no more than 30 years. and there's a little bit of a forthcoming. you're still young. i don't know if you saw that movie. but there's a fourth come quality to this because when i was coming along, as they told you, i was working initially for an afternoon newspaper. what they don't exist in the united states anywhere. so now you think about it coming forward. you think about the declining number of morning newspapers in the declining size and quality of disney's papers in the united

states, the whole crisis in termof the newspaper iustry. and then you come forward in time and there was the advent of cable news in the early 80s. cnn and the like. and of course the 1990 and the gulf war, everything was focused on cable news and the idea of a 24 hours news cycle that was constant it would take each of the same animals fed them the morning paper was an afterthought because you know everything because he sought the night before. you throw in talk radio, especially conservative talk radio became so big. you come for commandments are talking about the internet and then you're just not talking about the internet itself is the source of news, which are talking about in the popularity of blogs. and now you're talking about beats and all the rest. and you know, if you throw into this also the fact that cnn,

which was initially the premium cable news it's now number three far behind fox news and msnbc. it gives you a sense of how things have changed, the landscape. another way in which i think of this though, as i guess it was last year that walter cronkite type. i think to myself when i was a kid growing up, how much i admired walter cronkite. as i told you i was a black kid in brooklyn. i love this guy is good, i like listening to him telling the news of the day. and i don't think the mets a liberal. i don't think of immense weight. i don't think of him as democrat or republican. i think that's a trust for the good. that's walter cronkite. i'm not sure that would work in this political environment. in this political environment, people seem to want to know if a host, a liberal or conservative and i wa to know about their purse maladies in their views

and that's what drives the top-rated primetime cable program in the country. so, you know, even if you swing back over to something like the nightly news and again declining ratings for all the three big tworks in terms of their nightly news broadcasts, there's tremendous -- those audiences tend to skew much older. people there are trying to become their personalities. i think he tried to do feature presentations. the whole notion of foc on hard news and what is a very small window, about 22 minutes from a half-hour is gone because they are trying to hold the viewers attention in a way that's quite different than anything i would have seen when i was your age. when i was in your position, also i think the quality of writing about politics was much different. i mean, i was inspired by books like teddy white rating about

the making of the president in 1969. yet a series of books about taking you behind the scenes so you want to do and who was really pulling the strings behind the choice of a political candidate and then to advance that political candidate. usually it david halberstam's books, best and the brightest without policymakers involved in american diplomacy and the war effort and be at tom and the mistakes they have made and what led president johnson that he could not stand for reelection. and then you get into books about like he talked aout why mention woodward and bernstein of watgate. and again, getting behind the scenes, these are books that would time idea of how you can get people to understand the game of national politics of a game in which they are real flesh and that people with real flaws in real strength cantake

away these are larger-than-life people you could never touch. now those ways, journalism has changed. in the 24 hour news site, constant attention that gets blown up. there is less in the way as it stands a debate that around here and the way of political polarization, although lots of people disagree with me about that. at a conversation with don rumsfeld, secretary of defense. you know, wee you're in the 60s? i said i wasn't. and when they arrived in the streets and there is racial anger, anger over the war in vietnam, all the rest, that political polarization of a different kind. the political polarization you see today, where there is a clear policy of instruction is on that is employed very little

talk across party line, very little debate on big isss because everybody is afraid they will lose their base would not be able to win a primary election, makes for a certain kind of political paller says her polarization that is in the later eristic in m mind of my time in washington. back at morning and ann taylor wiki from a1 university. but the shift in congress there's been talk of having to scale back the education program. and are just curious of your opinion having written on policies, particularly nbc what you thought the first step should be taken to remedy these problems and budget cutbacks. just thoughts in general. >> well, i don't know exactly the details of the cutbacks are thinking aut with regards to education. i think the big challenge right now is whether they're going to reauthorize what remains of no child left behind now called race to the top under the obama

administration. congressman boehner, you may not know this, but he was one of the leading forces behind the creation of no child left behind and now a speaker he has an opportunity to put republicans in the part of making sure that that kind of attention to improving quality of public education k-12 continues in the united states. but the very issue that you've highlighted here this morning of budget cuts, include discussion of education because people are saying that's discretionary spending and their arguments from a conservative point of view about legitimacy of the federal government being invoed with local schools at all. why is the federal government have anything to say? well, from my perspective if you ask in my opinion, i think the federal government needs to help the standards. at things one of the great opportunities of america and

promise of america is every child will have the chance to succeed. that should have a chance to move up that ladder of upward mobility. it's key to social, political stability that everybody believe that i don't know if it's still true people lieve they can become president, but that you can succeed, but you can have a dream in this country and you can have your dream realized he would welcome you can't do that without education. if they're certain places whereby just accident of birth you find yourself wanting a community with low standards, low quantity schools, i think that's a prescription for disaster. i think it's the case because you're a minority are you come from a single-parent family, the presumption is you're not going to succeed and there's not the investment in need to give you the chance to demonstrate that you want to be a good sudent and that you want to have those opportunities. again, i think that sends a signal we have become a very different society than the one we've been historically.

so to me, this is critical and i would hope people who are taking up the budget ax would realize that you can'tut the roots. because if you do, the people who would become the leaders, the people who would keep the american dream of flame will not be there. so this is a critical issue i think going forward as we look at this new congress in the change that's taken place in terms of political control of the congress and the ability of that republican majority in the house to do business with president obama the democrat. >> hi, sir rehires. but if that sticks out it was your favorite to report on? >> well, that's tough. i've been around a while. i would say, you know, the book i wrote on justice marshall released dance out for me in the sense that i remember wanting to

talk to him so much and he was reluctant to talk to me. he had been described in several books about the supreme court in a negative way, as a buffoon, as someone who came in late, left early, someone who is really not intellectually of the caliber to deserve to be on the supreme court. and he couldn't just in the press. and he was just by serendipity that he finally agreed to do a book with someone else. and then that fell through. and finally, i think at the urging of his law clerks and his family agreed that he should talk to somebody toward the end of his career. and i had been sending messages out there, asking for that for a long time. and so i got a call. it's a little bit of a funny story and how i got that call

because the call came to the "washington post" and i wasn't at my desk. so this is in the 1980s -- late 80s. the phone then ran ove to the receptionist was a friend of mine and knew i'd been trying to reach just as marshall. so when justice marshall's voice came on the phone and said hi, this is justice marshall at the supreme court, and like to talk touan williams, her response was something to the effect of yet right i don't have time to play around. what are you doing? who is this? they said no, is is justice marshall. is that i'm sick of you and then hung up on him. but you know come to think about it and you guys may end up being the supreme court were present in the united states. you don't have to put up with that level of foolshness. so he called back to the woman in the publisher of the papers with katharine graham. and she took his call and then

they found the editor and a reporter and i said chief justice marshall, so sorry. we do know is really you you and all that. and then to go over and to meet him was like meeting someone who would living history. clearly, this is someone as president johnson said the supreme court was going to be in history books on the board of education. through us and a supreme court justice that involves so major rulings. everything from pentagon papers to roe v. wade to pocky. and he's just a great storyteller. so for me, this was an amazing experience and i would go out and visit once a week for about six months and it became a long magazine article and then a boat. and i think i always remember that experience. but i remember there's so many being the president vacant on the golf course in it that

justice orca when they were attacks on the kind of scattering of craziness that attended that moment in life. i remember, you know, i could go on. the point is these things come and go at the moment their front page top of screaming hadlines and 24 hor coverage. and of course it fades into the woodwork. d in washington, the response to this weekend would be quite and quite absorbing for an experience, but then you move on to the next story as we think maybe the books got in my mind. because the newspaper the next day tv and radio seemed to be

rather favorable, you know, they don't stick with you. but books stick around. >> whitney donahue from suffolk d. within talk about media buyers this past week and i was just wondering if he tended to lean one way or another depending on the network you are working with at that time. when the difficulties i had it been in the middle. but it's not a difficulty. it's always been a blessing. the fact is that what they fired me at work for npr for 10 years. and so they saw value in what i was able to bring to their listeners. and then i've been working for fox for 14 years and they see value in what i'm able to bring to their viewers. and i work for the "washington post," cnn. i could go on. but the ideas in terms of my training, when i was your age i

was able to tell a story in a compelling, accurate fashion and i didn't care who you were. it's like, you know, steve said we've got a plumbing problem in the building, i don't think he would say and i want a democrat or a want a liberal or a conservative or i want a black person or a hispic or white boy wants a man or women. each just said get somebody to fix the plumbing and get them here now. while i thinkit's like that. i was training just to do the work. i can tell you the story. i can collect information that the facts hopefully get the right people, hopefully to a quicker than competition. when you read the story even at a later come and say thas a better telling of detail. and more from it than i did from the competition. that's what i was trained to do. obviously the earlier question that i've seen, platforms i

present that information have changed. i never thought, you know, where do you go from the afternoon paper to a morning paper and then you go from newspapers to tv and radio. i never thought i'd be dointv and radio. and you know, it will print different formats like talkshow tv and then do something like sitting in for a primetime cable host by bill o'reilly. i think the same skills are can you identify the heart of the story? can you bring information that helps people to better understanding of the dynamics that created the story and what the story is going. so you're helping them to see the broader goods. to me, it's not about whether i am -- and i am a democrat. it's not whether an liral or conservative and depends on e issue you're talking to me

about. do you know, there's certain people a notice in the black community. often they say you're pretty conservative. i said why is that? they say you're tough on things like out of wedlock birth or high dropout rate or, you know, you don't like a lot of the content of rock music, especially when they use in the. and i say that's true. if that's what you want to do it, that's fine. then he say when you know what, i'm big on gun-control. i live in the district of columbia. i like all these aren't people, especially gang bangers running around with stolen guns. that's a threat to me and my mily, so i had a very acute sensitivity to the idea of everybody having a gun. i think everybody might have the sensitivity after what happened in arizona this weekend. or you go to issues like subsidized marriage or gay in the military.

it's like that amount to. it depends on the issue. i don't fit into any talks. a message in the current media environment, there's a great advantage. there are people who advertise themselves specifically as being a voice for liberals or a voice for conservatives. in one of the changes that take is that e audience seems to have an appetite and they say i just want to hear somebody who will reaffirm my preexisting political positions. and tell the other guy what a he is and how silly and make fun to mock the other stuff. the people like their news delivered. that outfit and not box and i haven't changed to make myself identify one w or another. and i know sometimes i might aggravate the audience and there's evidence they certainly aggravated some people at npr.

but that's what you get with me. >> tanks. >> you're welcome. >> and/or charlie from university of san diego. my question is one of your recent departure at npr, the shooting at tucson and the great divide in american politics that's evident, how do you see america's ability to respectfly disagree with one another and just be okay with that, still be friends? and what if any role do you see the media has been trying to bridge that divide? >> displays little on the last question we had. you know, i mentioned earlier that one of the characteristics in terms of the american president is for the most part, that when you meet them, they are our people you feel you could talk to. i don't care what your political affiliation, you don't come in and say, you know, that guy doesn't deserve to be here. you might question their inteect in some cases but in

terms of their comitment to american progress and their love of country and their belief that america really is a blessed place, there's no question. and so, in moments like that you say, a lot of this political fragmentation, a lot of the polarization and hyperbolic but jim that it tends the political process and start to boil away and you have a very cr view of what's really important as embodied, listening to president or any political leaders once you get them away from the rhetoric. to me it's regrettable without a doubt that you have people who simply take one line or another, without a willingness to acknowledge when the other side makes a good point. now i think debate is absolutely

essential. and i think strong debate and strong voices and sharp points are wonderful. i think that's good stuff. that's in keeping with the american tradition. if you go back in terms of american history and go back to the founding of our country that things like the federalist papers, you understand that the founding fathers with all their rebellion against the british were pretty rebellious on an intramural basis with each other about what our country would be in the direction were going. obviously we've had a civil war in ths country, was a way no internal division. this isn't our first dance. but i think for the average american trying to make sense of the political system and trying to understand what's in the best interest of the country right now, the tendencis to say that red state or blue state. arb. and that is so simpleminded.

and that does not serve them all in terms of news consumers for it doesn't serve the political process while. the consequence i think as we go from the 06 cycle where we saw at swing towards democratic and then await when it really was another huge swing towards democratic and now he going to 10, where we see a swing towards republicans. so you see this wild oscillation in terms of political process. but the undercurrent tends to be wild discontent with those sites. people don't do politics. they think politicians are corrupt are all about money or simpleminded gap, just craving soda people. so there's a disrespect for politicians and therefore in for the political process. and you know i must tell you, i think the world of the process

and it ain't the world of our congress and instutions and they've been too important in terms of the world and world progress. so the idea that most people think well i know exactly what to write and i'm on the website or the right side. or in the case of your generation, all these politicians are a bunch of clowns and jon stewart and stephen colbert would they make fun realize how silly and these people are. i think to myself sometimes, this is not helpful in terms of developing people who understand how difficult it is to become a successful politician, to make an important debating point, to make tha point in a way that is persuasive so your fellow americans can hear you and appreciate the importance of what you're trying to say. that is the core of democracy and they just wouldn't sell it cheap. you know, you can obviously get lots of laughs and i don't mean

to bring you guys down, but i think it's a serious process and at some point worthy of your consideration. that's why it's so please only made the trip to washington today and treat the subject with some care. >> good morning, roxanne taylor from suffolk university in boston, massachusetts. questio is do see a lot of advanced than we would've reported from newspapers to tv stupider net. what changes do yousee for the way we report news in say 10 years? >> well, i think there's a huge change coming and it's taken me a lot of time to appreciate it, but clearly news is migrating to the internet and that's where people are going to get their news from. so for all the worry about what's going on with newspapers were the major nightly news broadcasts, the reality is now that news has -- if you're looking for breaking news, people don't go to the major networks anywhere.

they go to cable. they go to cable news. and even more so now, from what we're starting to see, puget said a study on this, people are going to the internet. if you think about how people get their news off the internet, they get them from major news brands, but then they quickly go on to blog and they're going to do some research, exploration, a little reporting on the road so they can try and find out what is behind the news. i think in that sense it becomes more days. news becomes more available, but it also becomes much more planted if you will because there are fewer gatekeepers in terms of standards and editors who say yes, this is information that confirmed, that were shorter. in this environment, if you have a presidential assassination like making 63, you couldn't have the country glued to let say walter cronkite and say

well, he's getting theews, yes it's confirmed, et cetera appeared and. and so do people plugging into various websites or blogs in picking up bits and pieces. some people believe in what they're reading. other people say i saw something, not knowing if it was edited and the way if you're familiar with the shirley sharad case where something comes across the internet and find out it's been placed in a way to make it appear to be something that is not. but that spirit going. there's no? going to the internet for news and i will be the source of the question is not only the quality of this product, but how it will be delivered and the economics behind it, you know, who pays for that. and so the news, for example, about something like a piece of legislation on capitol hill if it's related to the say the drug industry come from the pharmaceutical industry that has an economic interest in how the legislation is reporting in

great detail and depth for themlves and their client as opposed to coming from a general interest news organization that's covering for the entire public. that's the difference in tone i think. it's going to be harder to identify exactly the bias behind the pers who has put this information into the computer. so in that sense, brands will play a bigger role because it will coney trust. but the question is what's behind the brand? because even now we're not sure how news on the internets going to be paid for. >> hi, my name is peter. i'm a student at the university of san diego. do you think the issue should be addressed her as a matter of certain groups pointing fingers? >> know, as i say, i think michelle is an important issue because it didn't pack the political ocess. and certainly if you can't go to

your congressman or congresswoman without a gun on the table between the two of you, i don't think that's a good situation. i think you have to have a free-flowing debate, disagreement, agreement. you have to do you know, thank you standing up on an important piece of legislation. and i think people who are striving to be our political leaders -- i don't think they're going to be so anxious to cannot position. they feel like it's the okay corral for anybody who states an opinion or tes to make point, that people who disagree feel it is okay to physically attack you, that violence is called for. i mean, who wants that for themselves or their families? so it is a big issue. now, can you attach b-tree out to the actions of jared lochner in arizona? that's a big issue. what we've seen in some cases as

a kne-jerk instinct is to my left to say well jared loughner was inspired by some of the victory all. what is clear this moment is that it is a mentally disturbed person. >> it's time for one more person. >> and nick witkowski for adley university. my question is over the past year a lot of things have happened politically. has it been any single piece of legislation that you thought was kind of a surprise or did that a pastor didn't pass in what were your viewpoints on that? >> i share president obama's feeling that i was surprised at you and i pass. thought that was a real opportunity to say we understand how difficult this issue of immigration is. when it comes to young people who came to this country because their parents brought them, so it wasn't a matter of their own actions. a lot of them came at the mom

and dad. and they say to people who are completing school, serving the u.s. military. these are ople who i think are really, you know, the bread-and-butter of her future. but everybody's going to agree. we have defined awake to get them a path to citizenship. but the opposition is so strong on this issue. i think again feature all plays into it. i think the demonization of legal immigrants in specific, but anxiety over the amount of immigration is so high right now, but it has prevented the congress from dealing with this major issue for us as an american people. you know, you can talk about added security at the border, but we have to put more security in place than ever before. you can talk about added strain on the social safety net in tes of hospitals, schools and

all the rest, but for the most part -- or you could talk about drug dealing and only collect dvds. for the most part if you look at people who were immigrants of the country i think historically clearly immigrants have been a blessing. but even the current moment, you would have to say immigrants had so much in terms of the workforce and revitalization of neighborhood that were indicating the rest. and if you even go to the high-end of our employment market, you will find that companies going in terms of the high-tech industry come the pharmaceutical industry are trying to get talented, educated people from overseas here to add to our economic duty, to add two jobs. and so you get people from the highest and other business leaderip community saying we need immigration reform. but somehow, the coress is unable to act and even unable to

act when it came to the transaction that was a huge disappointment. well steve, it's been a pleasure. i want to thank you all r coming and thank you for listening. [applause] >> we have our traditional speaker gift as well. thank you very much. >> i just wanted to say, juan, th is 30, 40 years ago now when i was here in washington anchoring the morning news for abc, i kept reading this young guy at the "washington post" and identified him as a calmer and it's nice to see how far you've come up with marvelous career. thank you very much. [applause] >> it also goes to show that it

helps to be in the right place at the right time and at the circus is in town. good, good, good. so we're going to take a quick little standup stretch break and we're going to get going here just a minute again. [inaudible] if you leave the rimini to come back in, please try and do so through the stores over here so once we get started were not walking across the camera [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this will focus on the current challenges facing america. --ell's baker's include notable speakers will include david from. one topic discussed was the recent shooting in tucson.

>> there was the issue of the shooting in tucson and the conversation now about civility. helped me understand how is that is the way forward if it requires a heinous act like it to evas -- to even get us to have a conversation about civility. congress over the last week was sticking out their chests and patting themselves on the back. everyone were saying, "we are all americans." my point is it cannot take a heinous act like this or 9/11 for all of us to magically realize that we are all in this together. >> you can see the entire forum with the radio host tavis smiley at 8:00 p.m. eastern here and c-

span. tomorrow on "washington journal," the discussion on the 112 congress and the obama administration with john feeh ery and karen finney. and a preview of hu jin tao's visit with richard solomon. also harry holzer. that is live at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. tomorrow on "newsmakers," the secretary of health and human services kathleen sibelius' discusses the republican effort to overhaul health care legislation. that is at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> starting tuesday, the house will take up the repeal of the health-care law. watch the discussion live on c- span. you can read the bill on line

and continue the conversation on c-span's twitter and facebook pages. >> massachusetts senator >> good morning everyone and welcome. i am the chair for the center for american progress action fund. i am glad to join all of you this morning. a special thanks to senator john kerry for being here today. this is a sober and difficult time, but this is an important time to address this discussion. as we get started, i want to remember those lost and wounded in the tragic shootings in arizona last weekend.

if anything is to come out of saturday's terrible violence, i hope that those of us here in washington will begin to work with a renewed sense of purpose, service, and cooperation to honor congresswoman giffords, and judge roll, and christina green. i am pleased we have senator kerrey here to leave this call to action. the senator has a long and distinguished record of rising above the partisan fray in the interest of our country. with honor, dignity, and compassion he has done so through his career. i would like to recognize and applaud the senator's most recent achievement, the passage of the nuclear start treaty in december. senator kerry worked tirelessly to shepherd in start to the senate even as a handful try to prevent it from coming to a vote. thanks to his leadership, the treaty was approved in the final

hours of the 111th congress. thank you for your hard work on the new start treaty. from all of us, congratulations on your success. [applause] with so many challenges on the horizon addressing the budget, the debt ceiling, putting people back to work, dealing with the many national security challenges that our country faces, the vitriolic rhetoric is a dangerous distraction from the real problems at hand. as the center will discuss, it is the decisions we make now or fail to make that will determine the strength, influence, and prosperity of our nation in the years to come. if we want to compete with the rest of the world in technology, education, energy, power, we will have to make serious efforts to lead today. that means spending far less time in a symbolic debates and spending more time getting down

to the work of governing. in light of last weekend's appalling events, it seems that the congress will tone down rhetoric at least in the short term. some scheduled votes will be postponed in order to focus on and address the enormous tragedy in arizona. meanwhile, there is a loud and public debate taking case -- taking place over the cause of the violence. it is an important debate, but i think it is ignoring a larger point. in order to move on, we have to go beyond the words we use and change the way we do business on a day-to-day basis. we need to stop pointing fingers and start taking responsibility for our actions. we must seek out all opportunities for cooperation and collaboration is to try and understand one another to address the enormous challenges facing our country today. i am glad we have people like senator john kerry fighting to

bring the focus back to the larger challenges facing us. it is my pleasure to introduce him today. he was first elected to the senate in 1984 from massachusetts where he quickly established himself as an expert on foreign relations and national security. he won the chairmanship of the center for relation committee. he has chaired the small business and entrepreneurship committee from 2007-2009. he ran as the democratic candidate for president in 2004. he is an expert on foreign affairs, competitiveness, climate and energy, and military affairs. i can think of the few public servants were qualified to address the problems facing our country going forward. welcome for work -- both a back to the senator - welcome back to the centre for american progress.

>> thank you for the personal introduction. thank you for capturing the importance of shifting the dialogue and the importance of our talking about the future of the country even as we face the difficult issues. let me just say with respect to your very generous comments on the start treaty, it was a tremendous team effort in the president, vice president, secretary of state were all enormous the engage did we would not have achieved it without the kind of team effort that was produced. it is an honor to be here today. i know that some may well ask, "why, with our country in morning, are we here this morning continuing to talk about the business of the country"? the truth is that is what gabrielle giffords was doing, talking about the business of the country.

the truth is that talking about the business of our country is more urgent than ever. john and i did consider postponing this speech which had been planned for some time. serious times call for serious discussions. after some reflection, both of us felt that not only should this speech not be postponed, that in fact it was imperative to give it. obviously, as we gather here this morning last weekend's unspeakable tragedy is at the forefront of all of our minds. our thoughts are very much with congresswoman giffords, the families of all of the families -- the families of all of the victims. we pray for her recovery even as the nation mourns the loss of innocent life in such a senseless act. all of us struggle to understand this terrific event. there is much we still do not

know about what happened and why. here is what we do know without question. on saturday, a public servants went to meet with her constituents in the best tradition of our democracy. well out doing her job, congresswoman giffords was shot. today she is fighting for her life. six people lost their lives in this senseless assault, not just don them but in its calculated planning for assassination, an assault on our democracy itself. eerily, i heard this weekend's news while in sudan of all places representing their country in a collective effort to help people who have endured unspeakable violence and are trying to make a fresh start to their democracy. yet as i stood beside those

africans who had lost young ones in pursuit of the democratic now use that we americans support the export to the world, and it was unavoidable clash with the events unfolding in tucson, a dramatic underscoring of the work that must be done to revitalize our own democracy here at home. many have already reduced this to simple questions of whether overheated rhetoric is to claim or one partisan group or another. shirley today many pundits and politicians are measuring their words and thinking a little bit more about what they are saying. in the weeks and months ahead, the real issue that we need to confront is not just what role devices and political rhetoric -- rhetoric may have played, but the violence, divisive, overly simplistic dialogue does to our democracy every day.

in the wake of this weekend foxy tragedy, the speaker was right to suspend the house usual business. the question now is whether we are all going to suspend and in the "business as usual" in the united states capitol. even before this event chavez in all of our partisan routines, it should have been a clear that the consensus, this course, democracy, the entire endeavor of the national purpose, the big question was not whose rhetoric was white or wrong but whether our political conversation was, indeed, worthy of the confidence and trust of the american people. millions of americans wake up every day knowing that we can do better, much better than we have done in these last there years

because our history has proven it time and time again. leaders from both parties rose with a sense of common purpose and resolve that never again to reach the goal. before the decade about -- was out of landing a man on the moon. there were no partisan divisions to block that way with the daring and unerring determination removed to levels of science, technology, research and development and only 12 years after sputnik two americans from the tough mankind's first steps on the moon.

our leaders, democratic and republican, had deep disagreements on many issues, but back then they shared an shared- an even deeper love. it stopped at the edge of the atmosphere. american exceptional is some was not just a slogan. . america was exceptional not just because we say we are but because we do exceptional things. as i first said last month, we as a people face another sputnik moment now, today. the great moment is whether we will meet this moment as americans did some bove in five decades ago. the decisions that we may, or failed to make, in this decade our new energy sources, education, infrastructure, technology, research, all of

which will produce the jobs in the future. our decisions on deficits, entitlements, will, without doubt, determine whether the united states of america vote continue to lead the world or be left to follow in the wake of the others on the way to decline, less prosperous in the our own land, and less secure in the world. some question how in the world this would be possible. america less prosperous? america on the decline? the decline? they forget that exceptional some for america has never been an automatic fact, a birthright on autopilot, but it is an inheritance of an opportunity to be renewed and revitalized by each generation. so let me share some facts with you. right now as john adams said, facts are stubborn things.

right now, other developed and developing countries are making far reaching choices to reshape their economies and move forward in new and very different global era but instead of us responding as americans have in the past, the frustrating reality is that our american political system is increasingly paralyzed and falcon iced into a patchwork of narrow interests that have driven the large national good fortune than the national dialogue altogether. increasingly over he to ideology and partisan in sight leave us less able to address or even comprehend the decisive nature and scale of the challenges the will decide our whole future. the fact is our strength here at home determines our strength in the bottled. and other countries are everyday constantly taking measure sizing

us up, watching our politics, measuring our gridlock. on issue after issue during the consensus has been freed or shredded by lust for power cloaked in partisan games. health care individual mandate. guess what? it started as a republican idea. a pro-business idea because rising insurance costs leave big holes in the profits of corporations. cap-and-trade. guess again. another republican idea based on market principles and with bipartisanship successfully implemented by president george herbert walker bush, now denounced as our theological heresy. and energy independence? for 40 years, every president since richard nixon has recognized that foreign oil imports are america's achilles' heel. but whenever we've had a chance to act, we've been blocked by

entrenched influence and the siren can call up short-term interest instead of achieving long-term success. even as we were calling our way out to the ratification of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty that john just talked about last month, i noted that far more ambitious treaties had previously been ratified by votes of 90 or 95 to zero. i joked that in the senate in this hyper partisan washington, 67 might be the new 95. i'm proud of that in the end we send a signal to the world that in american foreign policy however uphill slog and improbable victory, partisan politics can still stop the water's edge. but the fact remains that it was closer than ever should have been. all of this underscores the current danger to our country,

clear and present danger to our country in ways that go beyond far the single debate and highlight a host of other issues that demand and deserve common resolve, not constant suspicion and division. if the treaties ratified almost unanimously yesterday just 71 votes today what's the forecast for other decisive and divisive endeavors that once would have commanded 79 votes in the senate? we can't afford for the old 79 to become the new 49 common dooming our national will to undertake the gridlock. because in 21st century where choices and consequences come at us every day so much faster than ever before, with larger consequences and downstream impacts the never before, the

price of senate inaction isn't that we will just stand still. it isn't just that america will fall behind. it's that we will stay behind as we see the best policies of this young centuries to others who are more focused and disciplined. just think about an issue as simple and fundamental as building and investing in america -- an issue that was once so clearly bipartisan. the republican mayor of new york city, fiorello laguardia, a famously said there's no republican or democratic way to clean the streets. well, for decades there was no democratic or republican way to build roads and bridges and airports. the building of america was every americans' job. this wasn't narrow pork; there was a national priority. but today, we are still living off and wearing out the

infrastructure put in place by republicans and democrats together, starting with president eisenhower's interstate highway system. we didn't build it; our parents and grandparents did. and now partisan paralysis has kept us from leaving the inheritance even as it decays from neglect. and the question is for all of us what are we building for our children and for future generations? the lawyer of the modern infrastructure, my friends, isn't a luxury. it's the life blood of our economy -- the key to connecting our markets to moving products and people, generating and sustaining millions of jobs for american workers, the key to not wasting hundreds of thousands of hours and millions of gallons of gas on colin highways. in the face of global competition, our growth and exports are directly tied to the

modernity of our infrastructure, but you wouldn't know we'd in today's congress. and as we invest too little and of our competitors invest more and more, the harder and harder it will be to catch up -- and the more and more attractive those countries will be for future investments. in 2009, china spent an estimated $350 billion on infrastructure -- 9% of its gross domestic product. europe's infrastructure bank financed through $50 billion in projects across the continent from 2005 to 2009, modernizing seaports, expanding airports, high-speed rail lines, reconfiguring coal city centers. brazil interested over to $40 billion in infrastructure in the past three years alone with an additional 340 billion planned over the next three years. and what about us? well, we know that americans have always been builders.

we build a transcontinental railroad. we build an interstate highway system. we built the rockets that let us explore the farthest edge of the solar system and beyond. but as a result of our political gridlock and attention to the short term and partisan games played today, that is not what we are living today. for too long we have under the old and under invested and too much of what we have done has been on informed by any long-term strategic plan for the nation. in 2008, it was estimated that we had to make an annual rent a spread of 250 billion for the next 50 years just to legitimately need our current transportation needs. right now, we are not even close to that. right now we are as many miles away from that as we ought to be building in order to get their. other countries are doing what we ought to do. they are racing ahead because

they created a infrastructure banks to build a new future; but we have yet to even build a new consensus for our own national infrastructure bank in order to make americans the world's builders again -- and plain and simply to keep our country the leader in the new world economy. i can't talk with you how many times and dealings with foreign leaders as we move for him, world if you see this feedback, doubt about people and asking about the country. and just imagine the possibilities that for americans would come from this endeavor. financing projects from high-speed rail to air and sea ports, with the expectation actually of being repaid, lending directly to economically viable initiatives of both national and regional significance, without political influence. run in an open and transparent manner by experienced

professionals with meaningful congressional oversight. that is an indispensable strategy for prosperity and a legitimate vision that americans could embrace. and if we offer america the leadership that it deserves, it ought to be an on delta the opportunity and necessity for bipartisanship. it's not just infrastructure we have to rebuild our sense of national purpose, my friends. virtually every measure shows that we are falling behind. today the united states is co ranked tenth in global competitiveness among the g20 countries. america is now 12 worldwide and the percentage of 25 to 34-year-olds with a college degree, trailing, among others, russia, new zealand, south korea, and israel. this year investors have pulled $74 billion out of domestic stock funds and put $42 billion

into foreign stock funds. high-profile multinational companies including applied materials and ibm are already opening up major r&d centers in china. and as we look to the google of future it is increasingly possible that they will be funded by students from tianjin university rather than mit or stanford. so we need to face up to these new challenges, not just as individuals or separate interests, but as a nation with a national purpose. the world of the next generation will change too rapidly for political parties to focus too narrowly on the next election. the 21st century can be another american century, but only if we

restore a larger sense of responsibility and free place of the clattering cacophony of the perpetual campaign with a wider discussion of what is best for our country. for the last months we've watched the news and read the campaign literature and heard a lot of the set of -- some points. we've heard politicians say they are not going to become a part of washington. they say they are for small government, lower taxes, more freedom. but what do they really mean. do they want a government too limited to have invented the internet? now a vital part of our commerce and communications. do they want a government too small to get america's auto industry and its workers a second chance to fight for their survival? do they want taxes so slow to invest in the research that creates jobs and industries and fills the treasury with so much

more revenue that it takes the children to matures disease and defends the country? we have to get past the slogans. we have to get past the sound bites and talk in real terms about how america, our country can do best. if we are going to balance the budget and create jobs and yes, we should, we can't produce we are going to do it by just eliminating the earmarks and government waste. we have to look at the plain fact of how we have done this before. by the way, you don't have to look very far back. in the early 1990's our economy was faltering because deficits and debt were freezing up capital. but they are capable of being responsible. we've done just that and as a result we saw the longest economic expansion in history creating over 22 million jobs,

generating unprecedented wealth in america with a freezing guinn come brackett rising -- income bracket rising. the clinton economic plan, the country to a plan of discipline that helped unleash the productive potential of the american people. we invested in the work force and research and development read we helped new industries, and working with republicans and a bipartisan way we came up with a budget framework that put our nation on track to be debt free by 2012 for the first time since andrew jackson's administration. how we got off track is a story that doesn't require retelling. but the truth of how we generated the 1990 s economic boom does need to be told. we didn't just cut our way to a

balanced budget. we grew our way there, and we cannot now just cut without remembering the vital need to invest in the future of the nation. nothing played more important role back then the and the fact the we developed $1 trillion technology mart with 1 billion users. here we are today staring at another economic opportunity of extraordinary proportions, staring us right in the face, and so far we are doing precious little about, far less than any of our principal competitors. the current energy economy is a 6 trillion-dollar market with today's $4 billion -- 4 billion users growing over the next 30 to 40 years to perhaps 9 billion users and the fastest-growing segment of that is a green

energy project at $2.3 trillion in just 2020. yet as of today without a different policy decision by us, most of this investment is going to be in asia and not the united states of america. two years ago, only two years ago china accounted for just 5% of the world solar panel production. today, it boasts the world's largest solar panel manufacturing industry exporting about 95% of its production to other countries including us, the united states of america. just two years ago they produced 5% and today they are producing over 60% in the span of two years. we don't have one company in the top ten companies of the world and solar production despite the fact that we invented this technology right here in the laboratory is 50 years ago. shame on us. what are we thinking?

what are we doing? china is reaping the rewards from the technologies that we invented and china's government is to spend its on the united states three to one over projects the next several years. they've installed a 36% of the global market share and wind energy in 2009 and dave surpassed the united states as the fastest-growing market. so this is a critical, absolutely critical component of where we have to go. let me just share deutsche bank's, kevin parker who manages $7 billion in climate change related investments, almost a bad word here now calls the u.s., quote, asleep at the wheel on climate change. and on the industrial revolution taking place in the energy industry. this is a foreign observer to say we are asleep at the wheel

because political uncertainty and inaction in this country guess what he's doing? he's focusing the deutsche bank's investment dollars more and more on opportunities in china and western europe where the governments provide a more positive environment. today only 45 million of the 7 billion green investment fund deutsche bank manages is from the united states of america. simply put, because we are asleep, the investments are going elsewhere. so now is the moment in my judgment and i think the majority of americans and with many of our colleagues but not yet the coalesce majority we need now is the moment for america to reach for the brass energy bring to go to the moon here on earth by building our new energy future. and in doing so create millions of steady higher-paying jobs at every level of our economy.

make no mistake jobs that produce energy in america are jobs that stay in america. the amount of work to be done here is literally stunning. it's the work of many lifetimes, and it has to begin now and this shouldn't be a partisan issue. but instead of coming together to meet the defining tests the new energy economy and the new future and economic future we are now leaving the political season in which too many candidates promise not to work with the other party. it was a platform of running for office. and in this, in the wake of a senate session that started for republicans with a power point presentation renouncing, and i quote, the purpose of the majority is to pass their agenda, the purpose of the minority is to become the

majority. now obviously it's no secret i am a convinced democrat and i know it's better to be a majority in the minority. i've been in both in the 25 years i've had the privilege of serving in the senate. and i don't want anyone to come to the senate and check their beliefs at the door and go washington. it's not what i'm asking. and the founding fathers didn't want anyone to do that either. certainly no one is elected to the senate promising to join an exclusive club or forget where they came from. but the truth is some of the most fiercely independent plain talking direct and determined partisans the life ever known in the senate have also been the ones who have tackled the toughest issues. finding common ground with people they disagree on on just about the damn near everything else they thought about. daniel patrick moynihan was a new york liberal. alan simpson was a wyoming

conservative. they could sit down and talk and debate and disagree about the deficit and debt and entitlements and somehow, someway they could shape the way forward and they did it in a way that in listed liberals like bill bradley and moderates like jack himes and conservatives because they knew certain issues were too important to be lost in the partisan squabbling. and you couldn't find three more proudly partisan and ideologically distinct politicians ronald reagan, tip o'neill and bob dole but they found a way to put politics aside and save social security for the generation rather than saving it for misuse as the next campaign. they didn't capitulate. the compromised. and speaking of the backroom deals, they agreed not to let either party demagogue the issue against the incumbents who passed the tough votes in order to pass the bill.

now let me tell you, if you've got to make a backroom deal, that's the kind of backroom deal we ought to make in washington. folks, you're not going to find a republican today who would dare criticize ronald reagan. last week when the candidates were chairman of the republican national committee had their debate, grover norquist asked each of them to name their favorite republican other than ronald reagan, and he said he had to add the caveat so that everyone didn't get the same answer. well, we would all be better off if some of these republicans remember that their favorite person ronald reagan worked across the aisle to solve the problems and we would also be better off if grover norquist thought of that ronald reagan before he announced by partisanship is just another word for date rape. that is the difference today. all ideology isn't new to the

political arena and ideology itself isn't on healthy. the biggest breakthroughs in american politics have been brokered not by the middle or splitting the difference, but by people who had a pretty healthy sense of ideology. ted kennedy and orrin hatch were a powerful team precisely because they didn't agree that much, and they spent a lot of time fighting each other and so the senate cleaned in and listened on those occasions when somehow this ultimate odd couple of things that they were willing to fight for together. sometimes as john kennedy once said the party asks too much. sometimes party leaders also asked to much especially if the exploit the rules of the united states senate for the sole purpose of denying it president a second term but that is what we witnessed the last two years. republicans nearly unanimous in

opposition to almost every single proposal by the president and almost every proposal by democratic colleagues. the extraordinary measure of a filibuster has become an ordinary experience. today it's possible for 41 senators representing only about one-tenth of the american population to bring the united states senate and the congress to stand still. now certainly i believe the filibuster has its rightful place. i used it wants to stop the drilling for oil in the wildlife refuge because i believed it was in our national interest and 60 or more senators ought to be required to speak up on such a decision. and which preserve the capacity but we have reached the point where the filibuster is being invoked by the minority not just because that kind of major difference over policy, but as a political tool to literally undermine the presidency.

consider this. in the entire 19th century, including the struggle against slavery, fewer than two dozen filibusters were mounted in the entire century. between 1933 and the coming of world war ii, it was only attempted twice. during the eisenhower administration twice. during john kennedy's presidency, four times. and then ate during the lyndon johnson's push for civil rights and the voting rights bills, big issues. by the time jimmy carter and ronald reagan occupied the white house, there were about 20 filibusters' a year. but ladies and gentlemen, in the 110th congress of 2007 to 2008 there were a record 112 cloture votes and in the 111th congress, the one we just left, there were 136, one of which even delayed a vote to authorize funding for

the army, navy, air force and marine corps during a time of war. that's not how the founding fathers intended the united states senate to work and that's definitely not how our country can afford to work. chris dodd said it best in his farewell address a few weeks ago. a speech the republican leader called one of the most important in the history of the chamber. chris sounded a warning. he said what will determine whether this institution works or not, what has always determined whether we will fulfil the framers highest hopes or justify the cynics worst fears is not the senate rules, the calendar or the media, it is whether each of the 100 senators can work together. there was a speech the needed to be heard. but the question now is not whether it was heard. it's whether we really listened

to it. because when it comes to our economy, our country really does need 100 senators who face the facts and find a way to work not just on their side, but side by side. no one who runs for the united states senate are giving that the key united states should have one-fifth of its foreign debt held by china. no winning candidate has ever suggested that the united states ought to trail poland and education or that germany should invent the next google or develop the cutting edge new clean energy industries. no one has ever gone to a debate pledging that indian workers shall hold the jobs of the future, not american workers. but that is effectively what is happening. there is a bipartisan consensus just waiting to lift our country and our future. if senators are willing to sit down and forge and make it real.

if we are willing to stop talking past each other, to stop substituting sound bites for substance. if we are finally willing to pull ourselves out of the ideological cement of our own mixing, we will, no doubt, continue to be frustrated and angry from time to time. it's a nature of life and politics. but i believe that more often than not, we can rise to the common ground of the national purpose surely we can agree and back to realize the goal set by the president who called his fellow citizens to me that earlier spot next moment in america, and in an america that isn't first if, not first but, but first period. so in this time of crisis and in this time of mourning and a lot of soul-searching, in this time of challenge and opportunity, we all need to commit to reaching

across the aisle as colleagues did before us to unite to do the exceptional things that together can keep america the optional for generations to come. that is our mission and we need to get about the business of accomplishing it. thank you. [applause] senator, thank you for the call to the higher national purpose and call to common good. i think the senator is on a tight schedule the test plan for a couple questions. maybe we will start in the map. the gentleman in the aisle. would you please identify yourself? >> dean space, washington. could you talk a little bit about your condition for climate

change this year and when you think can be done on this important topic given the challenges -- >> absolutely. we are working now to rebuild a coalition and consensus on a national basis boutwell revalidating the urgency and the science effectively. i think what happened is the u.s. was exploited you talk about some of what i'm trying to say today it was that fortunately it became too politicized and as a result we lost track of where we were trying to do. i think there is a coalition waiting to rebuild. if you look up and in california last year where they beat back an initiative the was calculated to try to undo their efforts on

climate, they won overwhelmingly and this very significant battle. that is an example of what needs to be done. now congress isn't going to be there yet so the key is when the energy. there are a host of energy initiatives, of which can reduce global emissions, all of which can put the united states on a path towards increased job production and new technologies that's really what i was talking about in my prepared comments today. this energy future that is as i said staring us in the face is the largest market in the world which other countries are rushing to words. i think if we can build a consensus that doesn't require a command and control, doesn't require a excessive regulatory effort, but unleashes the entrepreneurial spirit of the nation, encourages capital investment, since it will to the

marketplace about the long-term goals of our country so that private capital begins to move into mr. sections here in this country and people like the deutsche bank reevaluate their current position and seek america moving in the direction there is a huge amount that can be done. there are all kind of possibilities in terms of new energy sources. we have a proponent in this room ic is deeply committed to something like fusion many people think we can be doing more research in terms of fusion. there is a host of different things we could be doing more of, better, faster and commit ourselves to, which ultimately will reduce emissions not to the level we need to according to science, but sufficient to be able to allow us to rekindle the year urgency, rebuild the movement at the grassroots, reconnect to americans on this issue and hopefully build a new consensus in the congress about why this is good for our economy as well as our national security

and as well as our health. i was with somebody the other day who is going to be engaged in the public campaign, i'm not going to tell you who it is now but somebody well known who was talking about you walk into a doctor's office and get a diagnosis that tells you you've got a certain kind of cancer and when you have a certain kind of cancer, 99% chance if you don't do this and 80% if you don't do this etc. it's basically what we've been told. 99% of the doctors in the world decide to do research on this say we've got this kind of cancer yet we are not behaving like a normal patient who comes out of that office so we need to go reach america on that and i am convinced we are going to rebuild that consensus and we will start with energy and ultimately we are going to wind up my hope creating a job base and the energy future for the country that will lead the challenge.

>> thank you. [inaudible] with key to the the administration proposal to solve the mexican threat issues? is this something you will support? how do you see the climate in the senate to solve this issue? >> i think this is just a huge challenge for all the fuss. it is tearing apart the fabric of the life and society in mexico immediately on the border, and there are ways in which we are contributing to this problem, not just in our use in america and therefore the