we put the dawn satellite i mentioned earlier into orbit around a giant asteroid in the main asteroid belt for the first time later this month. in september, we launch the twin grail probes that will use changes in the moon's gravity to study its interior and the curiosity rover heads for mars in november. in the coming years, we'll undertake many more world class science missions to observe our planet, reach destinations throughout the solar system and peer deeper into the universe. .

we now the strong foundation from which to pursue larger goals. the space shuttle gave us tremendous insight into how humans can live, travel, and work in space. we are getting the breakthroughs in human health research that will help us reach in return for

new destinations and inspire the next generation of leaders. we have choices today -- do we want to keep repeating ourselves or do we want to look at the big car rise in and do inspirational things we have already challenged ourselves to do? my generation, together with those that followed, built the isf. today anash @ -- nasa and the others want to touch an asteroid and move to mars. the status quo is no longer exceptional. -- acceptable. the students and early career scientist had a ton of energy and enthusiasm. they are excited about the chance to do something new, to be it on the ground floor of the next big frontier of human exploration. to put their big ideas into

practice, and they should be. if you are studying in a stems discipline today, you love a great career ahead you, not just at nasa but at other government agencies and academia. when that final shuttle landing occurs, and the cheers and jeers subside, we will keep on moving to where we want to go next. your kids and my grandkids will do things that today we can barely dreamed of. our nation has made great progress the west's history by innovating solutions to meet grand challenges, to build an intercontinental relic -- railroad, or land a man on the moon and return safely to earth. these challenges not only motivated the technological work force but created new technologies and innovation all along the way. these achievements inspired generations to pursued challenging goals, create a new

industry, and ultimately improve our country and our world. 50 years ago, a young president gave nasa a grand challenge. one chosen not for its simplicity but for its audacity , to "best organize our energies and skills." nasa not only defined america in that goal, and made a lasting imprint on the economic national security and geopolitical landscape of our time. today, we have another young president, barack obama. he has outlined an urgent national need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build our competitors. and to create new capabilities that will take us farther into the solar system and help us learn even more about our place in it. president obama not only honors the kennedy space legacy, but also again challenges this

nation with his vision for the next era of exploration. and let me tell you -- nasa is ready for the grand challenge. thank you all for blessing me by allowing me to be here. i will take questions, i guess. [applause] >> thank you, administrator. we have a lot of questions coming from the audience. we want to give captain kelley an opportunity to speak before the top of the hour. i wanted to talk about the environment we are now operating in washington and the news of the day, thematically, involving the budgetary reality that i alluded to in my introduction. it seems as though right now

there are a lot of wheels in motion. there seems to be a lot of risks to the federal funding environment in the sense that the white house and congress are trying to come to terms on an agreement that could avoid a rather dangerous debt ceiling deadline down the road. we have a short-term problem and a long-term problem. could you talk about the risk to the work you're talking about here in the short-term as well as the intermediate or longer term? just because of this problem alone. >> as i tried to say in my remarks, america is the foremost leader in space exploration. there is no question about that. i travel overseas and talk to my partners and they acknowledge that. set out a course where we will explore even farther than now into deep space. i hope that i got you all to understand the shuttle program

starting 60 years ago with a very well-organized transition plan, and we're about to realize that. we will launch next week and bring it back safely to earth and effectively close out the space shuttle program. in the 2010 authorization act, produced by a bipartisan vote of congress, signed into law by the president, and we are supported with the full year cr that provides our funding right now. and that is bipartisan action in the congress and signed into law by the president for the elements of act i talked about in my comments. i am very confident in spite of everything around us, but it is most important error for america remained a leader. our primary focus will be to make sure that we have a viable domestic space industry so that

we do not have to rely on international partners to get us to and from the international space station. >> it seems as though the cause of the budgetary environment that we're, there is a general acceptance of the idea that we need to hand off a good deal of this work to the private sector. and in an environment where the risk seems to be rising, that america cannot afford a lot of things, is the risk growing that the government cannot be as much in the business of space in the future? >> let me step back for a minute. i wanted to remind everyone that our turn to rely on commercial entities for providing access to low earth orbit started long before the present economic crisis. in that 1968 act, to the greatest extent possible use commercially available assets to do our work, we have been doing that for years in terms of data

and the like. the previous administration after the columbia accident said that we needed to bring about a viable commercial space industry so that nasa can be about abo exploration. owning the low earth industry is not in the best interest of the nation. this did not start as a result of the crisis and it is not a response to our financial crisis. it is the smart thing to do. >> i have things changed at the moment? >> when i became in nasa administrator, i maintain the safety of the crew's going to and from space. maintaining the safety of crews operating on the internet space station, and that has not changed. we will safely fly out the shuttle, safely operate the station, and then safely operate

or oversee the operation of the commercial space industry. i'm very confident that that will be done well. i will tell you, if you look at any in new of the major companies today but as any of the major companies today, you will see faces that are familiar to you. you'll see former astronauts in executive positions. their orbital scientist right here, frank, my fellow south carolinian, so i am very comforted and confident that safety debt will not be compromised because we have nasa engineers, scientists, five directors, flight controllers who are now transitioning not out of the aerospace business but to the new arena, the access to low earth orbit. >> this question seems to persist to some degree. we've had our greatest safety testifying to say that we need a

national security is innately tied to the nation's space program and there's a certain level of uncomfortableness we have with doing business with international partners with some degree and also to some degree taking the tradition that we have within nasa and the government sector and transferring it to some degree to the private sector. to what degree can you recognize the validity of the passionate argument that they make? >> i would only say that everyone of these dimensions i have as friends. many are my mentors and my heroes. i respectfully disagree with the positions that they have frequently taken. we are doing things that are in the national interest that will ensure our national security by producing or facilitating the success of a viable commercial space industry for this nation very will grow our technology, our jobs, and i think everyone will admit what is most important to the nation today is

in increasing our technological work force, ensuring that our people have places to work, and the space program that president obama conditions and it is my task to carry out what the health of our nasa contractors and civil servants is a viable, vibrant commercial use to get too low earth orbit while we'll go and export. when i flew the hubble space telescope deployment, i don't think anyone imagine what it would do to change our perspective on the universe. without shuttle, hubbell was not even be in existence today. it definitely would not be writing the text books on planetary science and other things of that nature. we're going to continue to do that. i was with some congressional interns earlier and mentioned, i asked if anyone had had a parent or relative have to go to the hospital in an ems vehicle.

several of them had. did it strike you as strange that when they arrived at the hospital, that doctor knew everything about their vital signs, knew exactly where to put them? that was not planned it that way. it happened. we decided following president kennedy that we would send humans to the moon. we realized all the sudden, quarter of a million miles a is a long way. we do not have enough tools. we have to be able to find ways to know how the astronauts are doing. so wireless communications, wireless biomedical instrumentation develop, not because we knew we needed it, but because of the necessity. that is what's base exploration does for us. that is why it is so important that i be able to carry out president obama sufficient for increasing the amount of technological development that we do in this nation. it is vital for our national security. i would say do not be filled by

anyone who says that space is not important, that the things that we do is not important. they are vital for our national security. >> you mentioned that orbital science with private sector partners that you have right now, and in so far that there is a great deal of in burlap between defense contracting and the space business, how you guard against transfers of technology to entities and governments that might be hostile to us? >> i do not a real problem with that because there are a lot of laws that helped make sure that i do not do that. since you mentioned orbital, and if they go back to how we're going to explore, you made mention in my introduction that we will be awhile without being able to do things in space. and that is not entirely accurate. you'll find that those two entities, for example, in less than a year will be providing under contract for us access to

lower the ordered, access to the international space station. the reason i talked about the critical importance of the domestic capability to decree to orbit, if we do not have to rely on international entities, then there are certain to is that we can do domestically to take care of national security interest. growing our international partnership and expanding the our reach is critical. it is a vital part of our national security policy, our national space policy. but we need to have our own internal domestic capability that is used in times critical for us to do things alone. >> realistically, how soon will let commercial, baby flying astronauts? as an aviator yourself, how would you think about flying commercial? >> i just said that i think that when we asked the commercial entities how long it will take,

in our previous experience, about three years after we let the first contract, we should have a viable commercial capability to take cubans to space. i think that is corrected some of them think that it will take even shorter, but we're saying about three years. roughly around 2015 if you want to put a date on it. what do i think about commercial space if i were still an active astronaut? i would not be standing here tossing it if i was not willing to go get on that. do not tell my wife my answer, but i would say in a heartbeat. [laughter] >> so people have the money, and in the russian industry, they do have the money, when you see that opportunity happening on a more appropriate basis?

>> i do not want to give you an ad date but we are very close to having the capability to do some or all flight, which is not what we're talking about when we send people to the international space station, but it is the type of operation that sir richard branson wants to do. that would have an opportunity to launch and in fact it is a repeat of the alan shepard first flight into space. it is a sub-orbital mission where you go into space and you the planet from an incredible that this point that many people to this date have not had an opportunity to do. i think that is around a quarter. and i mean not that -- not that many years away with -- if not a couple of years or so. >> considering the number of expeditions to the international space station each year, how to attract, motivate, and retain people motivated to it?

>> i have no problem attracting people to the astronaut corps. i have of problem ordering the mall often selecting out of the thousands that applied. the fact that america is the leading nation in terms of exploration attracts young men and women. the fact that they can see that there is a real possibility to go to space very soon because we are not leading space. we're going to be occupying the international space station until 2020 if not beyond. they see their opportunities to fly in space as soon as they can get into the program and get trained. there is no gap. we can get them there and we will get them there. we are trying to get a commercial entity in place, and that means that even more people will have the opportunity to venture into space. there are a lot things that we're doing to attract young people to follow in my footsteps. i am hoping that we will have

many more. >> we have a member that astronaut corps they like to make a statement. i like for you to prepare as for that. >> mark kelly really needs no introduction. he has become quite a figure after deciding that he was going to split his time, if you will. he is an incredible husband and father, an even more incredibly faugh commander for space shuttle set -- missions. he was the commander for the last mission of endeavor. i consider him a true friend. mark, if you would come forward and give us a message. [applause] >> good afternoon, everybody. it is great to be here. it is good to see some familiar faces in the audience. i appreciate the kind words from general bolden about the time i spent at nasa. it has been a tremendous honor

to be an astronaut and to follow in the footsteps of some really great pioneers like alan shepard, john glenn, neil armstrong, and so many others that have led us into the space age. since i joined nasa 15 years ago, i have been privileged to take four trips into space, all to the international space station. it has been a really amazing ride. as i watched isf fadeaway into the distance when i last departed space station on the 30th of may, i could not help but think at what an amazing accomplishment this has been. american ingenuity and the vision to build a strong international partnership is what made this such a great success. with the addition of the outcome

might not -- album magnetic spectrometer which we installed on space station just six weeks ago, we now have a completed an incredibly capable laboratory in space. i expect that this new instrument will revolutionize particle physics research and add to the significant discoveries that will certainly be the legacy of the space station program. has anybody heard of the amf in this office? it was a $2 billion cost. particle detector. we did not pay for most of that. it was paid for by 16 different countries. 60 universities and bob, 600 physicists. it does what hubble does not do. it has been an amazing tool for astronomers and astrophysicists.

shows us galaxies, how they looked to within 500 million years, 1 billion years after the big bang. what ams is going to tell us is what those things are made of. how what does that -- in the beginning when the universe was created, there was a lot of hydrogen and helium. we know that. there was a lot of matter. when something comes out of nothing, there is a positive and there should be in-. that is what astrophysicists will tell you. there should have been a lot of matter and anti matter. we do not know what happened to that anti matter. we do know that matter, like atoms of oxygen and nitrogen, are created in sight of stars. -- inside of stars.

anti-matter would be created inside of a star, too. if we can attacked an anti- particle like that, then we will know it came from something like a star may that anti-matter. a lot of those galaxies that we look at what the hubble space telescope and those stars might not be made out of stuff like this. it might be made out of the opposite of that. it is really an exciting time for science on the space station, and it will certainly add a lot to the science program. as we continue to live and work on isf, we hope to open a new chapter in space, one that includes a new launch vehicles and destinations in and beyond earth's orbit. how exciting will it be to see the next generation of astronauts -- not charlie army, but somebody else the what-how exciting will that be to see

someone visit an asteroid or venture further into our solar system? it will really be something. as we enter into this fourth of july weekend, i cannot help but reflect on how we have been a nation of explorers for over 200 years. it is our responsibility, all of us, to maintain that leadership in the exploration of space. president kennedy told us, and i quote "our leadership in science and industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort." many of you have been following the recovery of my wife gabby. she's doing very well and ansar she could not be here today. we're both so appreciative of the outpouring of support, the hopes and prayers of so many people a tremendous source of strength to her. but also to me, our family, her

friends, and her staff. i love her very much. but i have to say, i also love the space shuttle very much. [laughter] the space shuttle has been very good to this country. it is an incredible step that is difficult to let go. in just one week from today, the space shuttle will rocket off the planet one last time. how many people have not seen this before? so there are a couple of hands. i am assuming that everyone else has seen a space shuttle flight in person? probably a lot of you have not had it. you have a week to figure it out. i suggest that you get down there and do this. charlie amar'e can help you with that. -- and laurie can help you with that. [laughter] [applause] we can be sad for a little while. i will be said. but also know that nasa will

open a new and exciting chapter. we will continue to inspire our children and we are going to be a great and -- continue to be a great investment for the american people. as some of you might know, i announce my retirement from the navy and nasa a couple of weeks ago. it was great to complete my last flight in the navy and in nasa by landing the space shuttle on june 1. it was the highlight of my career. since then, it has been quite a lot of speculation about what my plans are -- do i plan to run for public office? i find it interesting. it must be a really slow, slow summer out there. [laughter] but i will go into more detail about that next week when i visit iowa and new hampshire. [laughter] in all seriousness, my main focus right now and for the

foreseeable future it is gabby's recovery in spending more time with my kids. she is the politician in the family. i am the guy. i see no reason to change and now. guy.am being spthe space i see no reason to change that now. >> i have a couple housekeeping matters to take care. i would remind you of our upcoming speaker spurred on july 10, the majority owner of the washington capitals, july 15, the ceo and r.e.m. huffington will discuss the future of journalism. and then the chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission will join us. if i could ask both of our guest speakers to come up for just a

moment. i have one last question as well as a couple more things, our last question and then get to the other partner for both of you, a very important question, what was the state of food in space? >> trent condo. real jumbo shrimp with cocktail sauce and everything. use dehydrated food. you add water and headed back to normal. that is without a doubt my favorite. >> your favorite food. >> charlie still my answer. those cupcakes look pretty good. fortunately the way that we package stuff, you'd be all massed stuff and you would not. the suit, we have 400 options. i also liked the creamed spinach, believe it or not. a lot of my crew members think that it is pretty disgusting.

[laughter] >> here are the other housekeeping and ministers. are complementary coffee mugs. the other thing is that i said this to gary sinise the yesterday, short hair cuts are all but ruled today, particularly those with military histories. here is a complementary baseball cap. how about a round of applause for our speakers today? [laughter] [applause] i like to thank all of you for being here. i like to thank our national press club staff including the library and broadcast center for organizing today's event. you can find more of our website and get copies of today's program at press.org. thank you and we are adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, henry kissinger takes part in a debate on china's future. in remarks by the san antonio mayor and texas governor rick perry. every saturday in july, here historic supreme court oral arguments on c-span ready. 14th amendment cases on equal protection, including sexual orientation and gender and race discrimination this saturday, mississippi university for women

v. hogan. tune in at 91.1 fm, nationwide on xm satellite radio, an online at our website. >> we did not release transcripts before. now we do it within a half-hour. it used to be that audio recordings were released at the end of the term and now what is at the end of every week. we are moving in a particular direction. cameras present all sorts of challenges that these other areas do not. >> right now on are you to channel, watch john roberts' comments on these issues. >> will the 21st century belong

to china? doubt was the question posed to henry kissinger and cnn host for read zacharia. they argued against the motion, while others argued in favor. the debaters also took audience questions on china's economic and political future, technological development and innovation, and military expansion. the forum was hosted by the month debates -- munk debates. this is about two hours.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

[applause] ♪ ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to toronto, canad for the munk .he faith on china fund fel it is my privilege to feed your

of moderator this evening. i would like a loaf of those watching this fate on-line flight now. -- i would like to welcome those watching and the faithful on line right now a warm hello for the millions of people watching, leave, and live with this fifth day for every left australian broadcasting corporation. also the "financial times of london." hello to canadians coast-to- coast, our own affairs channel. it is play to have you as well.

there are 2700 people have felt it second time in a row to these debates. all of us associated thank you for your support and the sple idea to which this is created which is to create venues like this where we can gather to debate the big chill political issues -- the big geo-political issues. this would not be possible without the philanthropic creativity of two individuals. i would like to have you join me in a round of applause for the

co-hosts, peter and melanie m unk. [applause] for the moment we have all been waiting for, we have a motion before it, be it resolved the 21st century will belong to china. all we need now is our debaters. we will have those arguing for the motion, neall ferguson and david lee. [applause] now let's welcome their

formidable opponents on to the stage, farid zakaria and henry kissinger. [applause] to introduce our debaters, ferguson is well known to our debaters. he and charles krauthammer bes ted their opponents. he has added to his best-

selling books with the publication ofthe ascent of money." most important is, "civilization, the west and the rest." [applause] our next evader joins us directly from beijing, china where he is the head of the global economics department. his family was displaced by the cultural rolution. he still has members of this. 28 years later, he received his ph.d. from harvard. one of only three

directors of the central bank of china. he represents a new generation of leadership. he has 3 million followers on the chinese the equivalent of twitter. [applause] karia is oen of the most

thoughtful wefz

participating in this first public debate on china or any other subject, ladies and gentleman, please welcome to the mock debates that 56 secretary of state of the united states, dr. henry kissinger. let's briefly run through how the next hour and a half will unfold. each of our debaters will have six minutes for their opening statements to make their case for and against this motion. and talking of timing, there's going to be a clock on the screen as we have done in the past; when you see it count down to zero join me in a round of applause for the debater speaking and that will ensure

that we continue this debate in a timely fashion. after those opening statements, we're going to have our debaters cross-examine each other's views and opinions, and then we're going to bring you, the audience, into the conversation in three ways. we have some notable people in the audience tonight, we have students from the munk school of global affairs here also and finally we have a raft of questions from our own website, facebook and twitter, which i will weave into the conversation. so how did this audience vote, coming into this evening? did you believe the 21st century will belong to china? let's take a look at those numbers up on the screen -- interesting. 39% of you believe the century could be owned by china, 21% do

now know -- so there's a swing vote in play already. next question we asked -- would you be open to changing your mind, depending on what you've heard over the course of the debate? let's have a look at those results. wow! ladies and gentlemen, we officially have a debate on our hands. to get us started, as has been previously agreed, i am going to call on niall ferguson. you have six minutes for your opening statement. >> thank you rudyard, and ladies and gentlemen. i believe the 21st century will belong to china because most centuries have belonged to china. the 19th and 20th centuries were the exceptions. eighteen of the last 20 centuries saw china as, by some margin, the largest economy in

the world. let me begin with some demographics and economics -- china is more a continent than a country. a fifth of humanity lives there. it's 40 times the size of canada. if china were organized like europe it would have to be divided up into 90 nation states. today there are 11 cities in china with a population of more than six million. there's only one in europe and that's london. there are 11 european union states with populations of less than six million. in just 30 years china's economy has grown by a factor of very nearly ten and the imf recently projected that it will be the largest economy in the world in just five years time.

it's already taken over the united states as a manufacturer and as the world's biggest automobile market. and the demand for cars in china will increase by tenfold in the years to come. by 2035 china will be using one fifth of all global energy. it used to be reliant on foreign direct investment. today with three trillion dollars of international reserves and a sovereign well fund with 200 billion dollars of assets, china is the investor. what's perhaps most impressive is that china is catching up in terms of innovation and in terms of education. it's about to overtake germany in terms of new patents granted and in a recent oecd survey of educational attainment at the age of 15, the region of shanghai came top in mathematical attainment with a score of 600. the united states came 25th with 487.

you'll be glad to hear that canada got 527. that's better, but not good enough. ladies and gentlemen, it's not easy being a biographer debating against his own subject. it's a little bit as if james boswell had to debate against dr. johnson. so what i propose to do in a diplomatic way is to try to show to you that dr. kissinger and perhaps fareed zakaria are, through no fault of their own, on the wrong side of this revolution. can i quote from dr. kissinger's outstanding new book on china - page 493? equal's quest for partnership with the united states is no longer the outsized claim of a vulnerable country; it is increasingly the reality backed by financial and

economic capacities." or i could quote fareed, from his excellent post-american world -- "china is a country whose scale dwarfs the united states. china is hungry for success." the fascinating thing is that these two great geopolitical thinkers agree that the chinese economic challenge is also a challenge to the hegemony in the world of the united states. once again let me quote dr. kissinger -- "an explicit american project to organize asia on the basis of containing china or creating a block of democratic states for an ideological crusade is unlikely to succeed." he hopes, as he concludes in his book, for peaceful co- evolution. but he fears a repeat of what happened a hundred years ago when the rise of germany

challenged the pre-dominance of the united kingdom. but for me, it's not just about china. the key to the 21st century really lies in the decline of the west. a financial crisis caused by excessive borrowing and subsidized gambling; a fiscal crisis that means the united states will soon be spending more on debt interest than on defense; a political crisis exemplified by a game of russian roulette over the u.s. federal debt ceiling; and a moral crisis personified by a legislator named, implausibly, weiner, sexting miscellaneous women with pictures of his naked torso. the 21st century will be china's because an overweight, over-leveraged, over-sexed america, not to mention a dysfunctional europe, are on the slide. four decades ago richard nixon got this point sooner than most -- "well you can just stop and

think of what would happen if anybody with a decent system of government got control of that mainland. good god, there'd be no power in the world that could eveni mean, you put 800 million chinese to work under a decent system and they will be the leaders of the world." i salute the achievement of that administration in re- opening sino-american relations in 1972. it's an achievement to which no-one contributed more than henry kissinger. so i don't ask you to vote against him, but for his own analysis, which places him and his partner tonight firmly on our side of the debate. i urge you to support the resolution. >> fareed zakaria, your opening statement please.

>> thank you very much. that's a hard act to follow. my role in this debate has been to lower the average age of this debating team and i am going to try and do that as best i can without also lowering the average iq, which i fear is also going to happen. so bear with me and henry will correct all the mistakes i make, including i hope, firing his biographer, which i think should be one of the first steps. i actually was a little worried about having to debate with henry because, you know, the man is a legendary genius, but part of debating is listening to the other side and i remember this story that i was told about henry. it's what journalists call "too good to check," so i've never actually checked it. it goes like this -- henry kissinger, as you know, has this legendary accent and friends of his who are german say to me, he has an accent even in german.

apparently he has an older brother who speaks normal american english. so somebody asked the brother, what explains this difference? and he said, it's very simple; henry never listens. so i hope this is too good to check and will crumble upon real fact-checking. i want to make three points about china. china is not going to be the dominant power of the 21st century, the century is not going to belong to china, for three reasons -- economic, political and geopolitical. economic -- one thing we've realized in the past decades is that nothing goes up in a straight line forever. china looks like it is about to inherit the world, but japan looked like that for a while. it was the second largest economy in the world; i don't know how many of you can remember all the tales we were

told about how the world was going to become japanese. we were all going to be eating sushi -- well i guess we are all eating sushi -- but the rest of that prediction didn't quite work out. if you think about it, most asian tigers have grown at about 9% a year, for 20-25 years. and then they shift downward to 6%, 5%. i'm not predicting any kind of chinese crash. i am simply saying that china will follow that law of large numbers and regress at some point to a slow growth rate, perhaps a little bit later than the others because it is a much larger country. it is also worth pointing out that there are massive inefficiencies built into the chinese system. they have a huge property bubble. their growth is highly inefficient. china takes in, in foreign direct investment every month what india takes in every year and still, it only grows two percentage points faster than india. in other words, if you think about the quality of chinese growth, it's not as impressive

as it appears. it is massive investment, a huge number of airports, eight- lane highways, a high-speed rail that's being built and if you look at what you are getting out of it in terms of the return on investment it is not as impressive. the un just came out with a report indicating that china is going to have a demographic collapse over the next 25 years. it is going to lose 400 million people. there is no point in human history in which you have had a dominant power in the world that is also declining demographically. it simply doesn't happen. and if you want to look at what a country in demographic decline looks like, look at japan and ask yourself how powerful it is. even if china were the largest economy in the world, those numbers are all based on something called purchasing power parody, where china's gdp gets inflated because the cost

of a haircut in beijing is less than the cost of one in toronto. and international power doesn't depend on the price of haircuts. it depends on foreign aid and oil and international investments and aircraft carriers and for all of that you need real hard currency and that adjusts these numbers slightly. but let's say that china does become the largest economy in the world -- does it have the kind of political capacity to exercise the kind of leadership needed? remember, japan was the second largest economy in the world for decades and i didn't see any kind of grand, hegemonic design. you need to have the political capacity to be able to exercise that kind of leadership. henry's going to talk more about these issues but i want to telegraph them by saying this is a country ruled by a political system that is in crisis. it is unclear whether the next succession that china goes through will look anything like this current one. china has not solved the basic problem of what it is going to do when it creates a middle

class and how it will respond to the aspirations of those people. when taiwan went through a similar process, what you saw was a transition to democracy. when south korea went through it, you saw a transition to democracy. these were not easy periods. they were fairly bloody and chaotic ones and china is, as niall has reminded us, a very large country and a very complex country. imagine this kind of political instability and social instability in that process. finally, i'll make one point about the geopolitics and again, henry will talk more about this. people like to talk about the rise of asia. i grew up in india. there is no such thing as asia. there's china, there's japan, there's india. they don't much like each other. and the point of fact is you are going to find that as china rises there is going to be a spirited response in india, in japan, in indonesia, in vietnam, in south korea. you already have begun to see the stirrings of this. china is not rising in a vacuum. it is rising on a continent in

which there are many, many competitors. >> two very professional debaters landing it right on the three minute mark. david li, you're next. david li -- good evening, ladies and gentlemen. as the only one from china i am extremely handicapped in this debate because in my culture and in my education, we do not advocate debates, especially debates against an elderly sage. today i would urge you to read all the best-sellers done by my co-debaters. they are much better at explaining the huge amount of changes in china in the past decades and also even more the mountain of challenges, just as fareed has explained to you. buy their books - today i am advocating their points.

however, i would like to share with you three simple points, summarized by three keywords. the first keyword is energy. i would argue that the changes you have witnessed in the past decades in china at most are only halfway done. what we're seeing is continued change in china. why -- because there is energy. there's new energy there in our gas tank, for continued change, whether it's economic or political. why -- because the changes came from a spectacular clash of civilizations between china and the west as recently as 170 years ago. the clash was a total failure for the chinese. it came as a big humiliation to us, lasting from generation to generation. even today our young kids are also taking in these lessons.

and this humiliations created a huge amount of reaction and over-reaction in chinese society, in china's history, including the founding of the chinese communist party 90 years ago almost to the day. that was more about establishing a strong and independent china than spreading a proletariat revolution all over the world. so after the founding of the republic, 62 years ago, we've seen over-reactions in the communist party and in the government in the form of >> continuous improvement in our institutions whether political or economic.

opening up means to learn whatever is best in the west, initially in the interest of opening up. it would be a fan of nike running shoes, just do it. the past 30 years of change showed the power of reform and opening up. today, i will tell you, young people are not satisfied with the progress we have made. that's the first message - energy. the energy is still there, in the gas tank. where are we driving to?

what's the destination? the destination is the keyword revival. the destination is the revival of our great civilization 1500 years ago, the tang dynasty. it is not revenge against the west. it is not to emulate the success of the u.s. in the absolute dominance of the world. rather it is revival a peaceful, self-confident, open- minded civilization such as the tang dynasty. that is the destination of this change, which is at most, halfway through. the second keyword is revival. the third keyword i would like to share with you is influence. what kind of influence will china have in the world, maybe 90 years from now? i would like to argue that the influence will be multi- dimensional. first, china's emergence has given hopes to the poor in the world, such as people in africa and other underdeveloped regions. they say to themselves, china has been poor. china has been constrained in natural resources. if china can make it, surely we can, as well. so we are giving hope to many

of the world's poor. that's the first dimension. the second dimension is that china's emergence gives us an alternative model of social and economic institutions; different from the west, different from the u.s. in this model -- compared with the u.s. and other western models -- more weight is given to social welfare, to social well-being, to social stability, rather than pure, individual liberty. the third dimension of influence is international relations. china's revival of civilizations such as the tang dynasty is giving us a new picture of international relations in which china is looking for peace, looking for collaboration. we saw this in the past two and a half years with the global financial crisis. so overall i won't impose my conclusion upon you. i would like to ask you to draw your own conclusions -- continuous change with energy,

revival of a great civilization and a positive, international influence. you draw your own conclusions. thank you. [applause] >> i can't believe i'm about to say this, but dr. kissinger, you have six minutes. >> for somebody who was brought up speaking german, six minutes are barely enough to place a word. my colleagues up here have spoken of the magnitude of china. i respect its tremendous achievement. and nobody would deny, in fact i would affirm, what china has achieved in the forty years

that i have been able to observe it directly. but the issue before us is whether the 21st century belongs to china. i would say that china will be preoccupied with enormous problems domestically, and preoccupied with its immediate environment. and i have, because of this, enormous difficulty imagining a world dominated by china. indeed, as i will conclude, i believe that the concept that any one country will dominate the world is, in itself, a misunderstanding of the world in which we now live. china has achieved great things economically, but it has to

produce 24 million jobs every year; it has to absorb six million people moving into the cities every year; it has to deal with a floating population of 150 to 200 million. it has to accommodate a society in which the coastal regions are at the level of advanced countries while the interior regions are at the level of underdevelopment. and they have to accommodate all of this in a political system that must take care both of the economic change that is being produced and the political adaptation that inevitably has to result from the huge figures involved in the economic change.

in the geopolitical situation, china historically has been surrounded by a group of smaller countries which themselves were not individually able to threaten china, but which united could pose a threat to china. therefore, historically chinese foreign policy can be described as barbarian management. china has never had to deal with a world of countries of approximately equal strength. so to adjust to such a world is in itself a profound challenge to china, which now has 14 countries on its borders some of which are small but can project their nationality into

china; some of which are large and historically significant, so that any attempt by china to dominate the world would evoke a counter-reaction that would be disastrous for the peace of the world. as for the quote that niall ferguson -- who, of course, is my biographer so he will have the last word no matter what i say here -- used about the military containment of china, i would say that one of our challenges is to accommodate the rights of china. one of china's challenges is to accommodate itself to a world in which it is not hegemonial as it has been for 18 of the last

20 centuries. so if i may take the liberty of retracing the topic before us -- the issue before the world is not whether the 21st century belongs to china. the issue before the world is whether, in the 21st century when china undoubtedly will get stronger, we in the west can work with china. and the issue is also whether china can work with us to create an international structure in which perhaps for the first time in history a

rising state has been incorporated into an international system and strengthened peace and progress. i say in my book that based on experience the prospects are not optimistic. but on the other hand we have never had to deal before with proliferation, environment, cyberspace and a whole set of other problems that can be dealt with only on a universal basis. [applause] >> dr. kissinger, i'm going to give you 20 more seconds on the clock. >> my conclusion is that the issue is not whether the 21st

century belongs to china but whether we can make china belong to a more universal conception in the 21st century. [applause] >> a fascinating series of arguments have begun to crystallize in this debate and to keep it going i want to ask both teams of debaters to quickly respond to what they've heard in their opponents opening statements. specifically, i'd like them to address what they disagree with most. niall, as we agreed i wanted to come to you first for your rebuttal. >> well let's just take one point -- and i assume you don't want me to wander around the stage anymore >> whatever you'd like to do. >> well, everybody else wanders around the stage, soi mean, what are these [gesturing at the note-stands] for?

my question to fareed is, if you're right and china is going to repeat japanese history, just think what that means considering japan's much smaller size and considering china's relatively low level of development as both of you have pointed out. if you're right and china is going to re-enact japan's economic history, then it surely will own the 21st century. because before it slows down in the way that japan has since the late 1980s, it will achieve an enormous share not only of global gdp but also of global power, because unlike japan, china never lost its sovereignty through the kind of military defeat that japan suffered in 1945. so both economically and geopolitically the prospect of china repeating japanese history should really be quite a scary one for your side of the debate. >> fareed? >> well since i'm an american

trained in the oprah winfrey style i intend to come out [walking to the front of the stage] and -- you're all my friends. >> you hope. . if you look under your feet you will see you are all going to australia -- if you vote for our sid >> and if you look under your seats you will see you're all going to australia if you vote for our side of this debate. look, the japan example is simply to point out that nothing moves in a straight line. modernization scale find they have problems. if you look at the number of cotries that have able to get past $12,000 per capita g.d.p. over the last 100 years, it a very small number, about five. lots of countries start to do well in basic manufacturing, the government begins to turn, then you have to modernize ever

element of your society to move up to that final stage that singapore and hong kong have been able to do. china with the economic and political problems, with the demographic and geopolitical problems it faces might find that that last period will be somewhat rocky and it may be complex and as henry pointed out, it may require that china stay internally focused and absorbed in a way that will not allow it to project this kind of enormous power. i don't doubt that china is going to be an enormous economy and enormous player on the world stage. the question is will it own the 21st century? will it dominate it? and i say for all those reasons it's not going to do that. [applause] >> good point. come back on this. it was a subject of a lot of debate before this debate, the japan example, the years of

g.d.p. growth, and maybe more importantly, the chance that japan in the 1980's was a society like china. one that had a lot of energy like you describe china having dood. why isn't japan's recent past china's near future? >> let me respond to your question and fareed's points and dr. kissinger's points all together. i think your argents are already. these points were even better made 20 or even 30 years ago about china. but china has been growing and changing for the past 30 years, right? this point didn't change. my point is that today's china, the modern challenges are making changes. let's compare china with japan. in japan i don't think there have been any fundamental changes before the collapse

starting in early 1990. in china we do see that. also, compared with japan, japan has been learning from china. japan was one of the primary cultures in the world while china has been, until the spectacular crash with western countries. also on the point by fareed about economic growth. i agree that china can never grow at a pace of double-figured g.d.p. growth. thu.s. wasn't growing nearly as fast as china. the u.s. slowed down significantly long before the u.s. became a world power. however it was keeping growing. today's china i do see changes ongoing. dr. kissinger was referring back to the past centuries in china. fully agree. but in today's china we have

been sending out a huge number of young kids comg to the outside world to study. how many young kids? imagine. six times -- not students study in the u.s. and canada. these are sources of change. this is learning. people's skills have been learning. so i do think china's emergence will be different from the u.s. and also willle not receive the problems of japan. thank you. [applause] >> dr. kissinger, would you like to offer a rebuttal? >> china is changing. it's undbtedly the case. if one compares cha -- what china looked like in 1971 to what it looks like today, it has physically changed and it has demographically changed in

a fundamental way through the one-child family, which is changing in a way the values in a predictable future. in about 30 years, there will be only two people of working age taking care of retirent people. in 2005, there were 9.2 people that were able to deal with the retirement people. so this creates a different set of attitudes. but one must not conse magnitude with global influence. china will have to be preoccupied with the adjustments to urbanization. with the adjustments to

democracy and with the adjustments to an international system in which it will be a permanent participate rather than the center of the universe as it has been historically conceived. these are soluble problems but they should not be eached with the western notions of imperialism. historically, the chinese roll internationally has been based on gaining respect for its conduct. it has not been culturally geared to a global role. and i believe that for china to manage its environment, its domestic situation, requires cooperation with the west

rather than attempt to dominate the west. [applause] >> you want to weigh in on this point also? >> i wanted to ask -- >> absolutely. questions are encouraged. >> i wanted to ask niall a qution. which i could have done this by reading all of his 46 books and finding quotation that is contradict his current position. but stead, i'm going to put this simply. niall is a very keane student of geopotics and i wondered what he made of the fact that china is undoubtedly rising but not in a geopolitical vac kuehl. last year china has a good year. it had a good financial crisis, came out of it feeling confident. and the manner in which it behaved -- in copenhagen it

humiliated the united states and the president of the united states and refused to sign up for a defeat on the islands it angered japan enormously. on the north korean sinking of a south korean boat and they asked them to condemn it, they con used, enraging the vietnamese. that's just in one year, right? and that's when china isn't even yet gotten to the point where it is, in fact, the dominant economic power in the world. do you think all these countries are just going to roll back and accept chinese dominations or are you lely to see a spirited response from the vietnams and indonesias and south koreas and japans of the world in which this proposition doesn't look as rosie as it did? [applause] >> thanks, feed, for that

question. i've noticed in your recent columns in "time" magazine you've been dab until economics. so this gives me an opportunity to help you out. [laughter] you see, the thing about china's growth during the financial crisis is that it fundamentally altered china's role in the world economy. up until the crisis the main story was that china was competing with other emerging markets -- markets for market share in developing countries like canada or the united states. it was an exportser of cheap goods and able to beat most of the competition with the so-called china price. and then the financial crisis struck and those developed countries went into recession or near depression. what happened? china engaged in the biggest and most successful stimulus in the world and in so doing its role chaed.

it seized to be a competitor with other emerging markets and it became their market of first resort. they found that the most dynamic market they could sell to was china's. china's neighbors throughout asia, including india, where you were born, discovered a new china. not a competitor but a market they could sell to. and that trend is just going to keep on going, because the whole aim of china's latest five-year plan is to shift from exports to domestic demand to, consumption. that's why your id that all these little asian countries are going to band together against nasty china is a total fantasy. they depend on china economically more than they ever have. haveo go to seoul and talk to people in the region, talk to india's richest man, he'll tell

you just how big the china business is now is for the rest of asia. that seems to be one very good reason why the 21st century is going to belong to china. because thr markets are going to belong to china. [applause] >> the debate is proceeding nicely. i'm going to go to you david quickly then back to fareed then we're going to start looking for a couple of questions. >> faree defense was right in observing the tensions in the last years. but we have to go deeper. more than the television surface. i'm sorry, televisions are important. especially pbs programs, which i like very much. look beyond the surface. at our aggressors. who were the provocative parties? it was not china. it was theapanese government

which arrested in using domestic law against chinese sailors. about the dispute on the island. the chinese side was trying to make peace with e issue. take the issue of copenhagen negotiations. it was the choings side trying to make meaningful agreement with other cungs. on this issue of negotiations, the chinese side is extremely hammed because whatever the chinese government commits to today or at that time the government has to honor. we had a change of partly." . the partlyments nullified agreement. i'm sorry, i can be very open and abrupt. it would show for the new president obama trying to go everywhere, negotiate and expecting congress to kill the deal. not the china. ok, i would suggest you look at other evidence. during the financial crisis in the past almost three years, it was china trying to stabilize

the global financial system. during the peak days to have financial crisis, their currency did not decrease against the u.s. dollar, unlike other curncies. also, china did not sell massive amounts treasury holdings. it has been the most patient supposing the u.s. government, which has trouble and runs the risk of default. i suggest you to look athe big picture and also go underneath the surface. thank you. [applause] >> just a quick point. niall is an incredibly accomplishedconomic historian and understands the economics of araba -- asia so well. but throughout history, people have gone to war and countries

have happened spirited geopolitical rivalries despite the fact they've been economically interdependent. the first great his honor talked about the war and his first explanation for the reas was honor and dignity. it had nothing to do with economics. the you -- if you look at europe on the eve of the first world war, you saw an economy that was more independent by some measures than the countries of the world today. in fact, the level of economic interdependence between britain and germany was such that it was in some ways madness these two countries went to war. there was a very famous book written by a young historian who talked about the fact that perhaps britain should not have gone to war. that this was craziness for britain to do it and it was the pity of war. wait a minute. that historian was niall

ferguson. >> yes, before wend the rebuttal portion of this deba, i'd like to allow dr. kissinger the last word. >> i don't know whether one can reverse the order of participants up here, because i think it's three to one against my friend niall. our chinese friend is saying that china has suffered a great deal, has been provoked through a ntury of western exploitations and that it's not trying to dominate the world. as i understand what he is saying it is this -- when the west wants to discuss climate or the financial assistance, our tendency is to say china

can be a stakeholder. it can be a participant in a system they did not themselves participate in creating. so the issue is whether it is possible to create an international system in which china participates in the creation of it without dominating it. this is really what we're debating here. and if i understand the observations of our chinese colleague, he's not saying that china will dominate the world. he is saying china is making great progress and that china wants to be heard. and that in such issues as climate, the uted states should not present them with a

finished product and ask for its agreement. all of this we agree with on this side of the aisle. so if you would like to move your chair -- [laughter] we will welcome it. [applause] >> a fabulous debate. we're going to move into the question and answer portion of the evening. we're going to break it down into three sections. i think we agree there are three main depentions -- dimensions to the pros and cons of chinese rise. and to start us off in our first section on the economy, i want to go to someone in the audience who's written a number of best-selling books on economic themes, including

"dead aid" a great bestseller here in canada and "how the west was lost." dambesa. if i could have your one question, please. >> yes, thank you. my question is actually to mr. lee and mr. ferguson. until now a key piece of china's development strategy has been to use soft power to accumulate and access natural resources, land, water, energy and minerals. and effectively, china has been how aggressive do you think china will become in her efforts to secure natural resources? in other words, what is the

likelihood that china moves from the soft power strategy of accumulating resources to one where she becomes -- depends more aggressively on hard power and adopts more military and colonial like strategies of accumulating resources, particularly in the context of africa? [applause] >> it is great to have you here, and i hesitate to answer a question from you on the subject of africa. but it seems to me, having recely visited zambia, and last year having been in senegal and namibia, something very important is happening in africa in which china is leading a whole new developmental push, radically different in its nature from the

aid programs that you so persuasively argued had been a failure when the west tried them. this is a developmental strategy based on self-interest. china is developing natural resources like copper because it desperately needs copper to wire its vast new cities. but the effect in africa is by no means all bad. i think it is a really big misrepresentation to suggest this is a rerun of 19th century colonialism. >> that was a questn when i went to zambia. it was not the answer that i found. that is not the chinese approach. they are investing, trying to make money. they are letting the money drive economic development rather than handouts and a culture of dependen. with this ultimately lead to conflict of the sort you suggest as in the late 19th century? it is conceivable, but i see

absolutely no sign of it at the moment. there is only one country scrambling for africa right now, and it is china. >> let me follow upn that great point by adding three simple observations. number one, intention. there is no intention -- china has been working hard, collaborating with african countries. look at the african summit, whh was veryopular about three years ago. most of the african leaders and business people are very enthusiastic about cna's investment. second, capacity. look at the chinese reality. we are still an extremely poor economy. per-capita gdp is around $4,000.

there is absolutely no capacity to colonize of these african countries, even if china was trying to do it. within china, there has been tremendous effort in pushing for new technology to conserve resources, new technologies for energy efficiency, and their policies to enhance resource prices in order to encourage across the region. in my mind, and china will have new growth, a new pattern of modernization. >> isn't it one of the traps at nations that began to assume global power status: 2, which is their supply line, the

resources they have to sustain with countries around the world to fund it their development. don't you think china is at risk here of either reaching beyond itself, having to project beyond soft power, hard power to defend the lines of resources back to china? >> china will want t require resources for its industry as a natural evolution. whether it believes that in order to have access to these resources, it must also be militarily dominant, that is another decision. if you look at the rise of germany before world war i, the world would probably have been able to live with germany having the largest -- when it developed

the largest naval force, it began to threaten the long-term existence of great britain. so there are two challenges. we have to understand that china will get stronger, and we cannot react neurotically to every indication of chinese strength. but china has to learn some self limitations in the way it vindicates its interests around the world. both of these things have to exist. cannot be done by one nation alone. it has to be done collectively. >> china's investments in africa

are ve popular. i think it would be more accurate to say that china's investments in africa are very popular with its dictators. [applause] yana a yearnd-a- half ago -- was in kenya and ask what the main concern was. they said the single biggest concern we have is that china is going around africa at making deals with africa's dictators with no questions asked and no accountability on any human ghts issues. [applause] i would argue that certainly that is something they have to be worried about from a long- term, geopolitical sense. we discovered in the middle east that we thought we had very stable relations with all these countries in the middle east. it turns out we had very stable

relations with all the dictators of the middle east. [applause] >> hang on, wait a second. remind me, are you saying that the west does not ever deal with african these -- african dictators? i spoke to the minors in the copper belt who had no jobs when the state-owned mining system collapsed, and now have jobs because the chinese reopen the minds and extended them. it is not fair to say that china only deals with african dictators. deals with the government's it finds in africa, including the governments that western powers propped up for many years. beck's i make no apologies for the west. i am simply pointing out that china is doing what it is doing with the leadership class that

may not reflect the wishes of the entire african public. >> would africa be better off if china did not invest there? i think that is the kind of hypocritical argument that if i were in chinese, i would find quite annoying. >> your obviously finding it annoying even though you are not chinese. [applause] >> kegan on the economic theme -- keeping on the economic theme -- i will have to separate these guys. [laughter] i am holding in my hand what many people considered to be the quintessential consumer success product of the last decade, the apple iphone. it will be interesting to see how many fellow iphone users there are out there in the audience tonight. you have one, put it up in the air.

look at that. [applause] this is a fountain pen, ladies and gentlemen. >> this andino is manufactured in china by farrakhan -- by foxconn. the software that powers it was thought up by steve jobs and his team at apple. the design factor that makes this such a coveted device by millions of people around the world leads me to ask, can china do this? can china innovate in the same way and on the same scale as apple, google,im here in

canada? they have to do it if they think they can only 21st century. >> yes, remembe no country starting from being buried pork innovate overnight. it is a learning process. learning whatever is good. something hundreds of thousands of students in t west learn, and then gradually innovate. china cannot innovate anything 30 years ago. now at least we have railroads. we have some automobiles that are not only cheaper but more efficient than gm. if it were not for chinese operations, gm would now have more u.s. money in being bailed out. it is a gradual process and in

the long run, i am sure john will innovate. there a different levels of innovation my vision of china is that yes, we will innovate. however, coming from where we are, we may not be at the cutting ee of innovation, but you don't need to be at the cutting edge in order to be respected in the world. it gradually improve and the process will lead to somewhere. >> i have heard that story about the iphone so many times and it is simple westn complacency. the idea that we will always have a cool ideas and they will always do the assembly line. that is so out of date. china is going to overtaken germany in the next couple of years because of a huge effort

by china's educational institutions to raise the game in research and development, in inducing people with ph.d.'s engineering, and that is going to work, ladies and gentlemen. >> you are right about this a lot and talk about on your show, can china at innovate without a free and open society? without universities where you have total freedom of thought at inquiry. without a culture that allows the mavericks, the steve jobs anothers to emerge? do you think that happen? >> i agree that it is a mistake to assume there is some kind of genetic deformation that does not allow the chinese to innovate. of course they are going to

innovate and do things that are interesting. the point that henry and i keep making, this is going to be a world of must -- multiplicity. there will be a lot of innovation going on. if you look at apple, apple is generally regarded as the most innovative company in the world right now. apple expense on research and development in one year what it did in one decade what microsoft spends in one year. if you break apple in terms of -- look at a listf research and development spending, apple is 82. their innovations are in design and in the way in which the human beings use technology.

that may be something you learn when you get a ph.d. in media studies. [laughter] >> by the way, this is true throughout history. the invention of the sewing machine, the great steel was not coming up with the best machine. it was figuring out that you sell it to women on an installment plan. nobody had ever so machinery to women before. but will innovation may not be the search engine, it may be the advertising program that goes along with it. part of what innation is is a strange combination of science in consumerehavior and business. the great invention that launched capitalism was double entry bookkeeping. it was not some scientific gizmo. of course china will innovate in its own way. there's something about the ecosystem of america.

most importantly, and has the ability to question hierarchy, which is absolutely key. i hear all these people talking about education and the tiger mom way of parenting. i have been for a nation's educational system that is pretty loudly -- pretty lousy. you just learned by rote memorization and the day after the exam, you forget everything you learned. learning is a continuous process and it doenot make too ashamed of failure. the ability to fail efficiently is incredibly powerful part of innovation. china will innovate, but the u.s. has something very special about it. [applause] >> i want to move on to the

second part of our question and answer session which is politics and culture. i would like to call on janice stein, head of the munk school of foreign affairs. >> thank you very much. this question is to david lee n. tofareed. the world watched recently with astonishment as young people streamed into squares and streets in tunisia and egypt to demand political rights and to demand that authoritarian and corrupt leaders leave the scene. the parallels between our world and china are far from perfect. china is a mature society. the arab world is young.

china created hundreds of millions of jobs, arab governments have not. but, china, like the arab world, tolerates almost note this sense -- almost no dissent. there is growing income inequality in china. china is about to undergo a leadership transition. will there be growing demand for political rights in china, and how will the leadership coat? [applause] -- how will the leadership cope? >> i knew this question would come up. i don't need to be reminded of the arab spring. we knew this long before, since day one of economic reform. after economic success, people knew in china that there will be more voices, more demands for

expressing opinions and political participation in decision making. that is why it is very clear from day one, people knew in china that economic and institutional change will go hand-in-hand with political institutional change. the biggest myths understanding of china is that we do have political, institutional change, starting with theay leaders are being selected. today, the way leaders are being selected unpopular decisions are made or more participated in before. as we speak today, young people in china are able to express their opinions on the internet, and these voices are being heard and decisions are being changed. i would invite you to go to china, talk to young people, and visit chinese web sites, to understand the new wage reform is being done, the new way that people express their opinions and express their difference.

[applause] >> five years ago, i think i would have agreed with david, it was very clear in china that there was a movement toward very graally limited but real political reform. i think that over the last five years, what you have seen its economic reform and growth, but there has been a drawing back of any kind of political reform. as events have seemed to take place around the world that suggest some danger such as the arab spring to maintain t political control, what you do not see in china is an opening up, an attempt to announce a series of ambitious political reforms. in fact, you see of closing down so that china -- if you type the word jasmine into google in

china, you will come up again a blank page, because of fear that somehow the jasmine revenue, to revolution will take root in china. china has by some accounts a million people monitoring the internet. i had interview with wen jiabao for my program, a very important interview and i was honored to get it. the chinese government announced that because it was seen as very important. the premier made some very harmless comment about how china would eveually evolve politically. the interview was taken of chinese websites and ban on chinese tv. the journalis protested the fact that this had been censored. this does not strike me as political reform. this strikes me as a circling of wagons, a fear of what is happening next. [applause]

clearly, china has been moving and getting -- giving greater freedom to its people. i do not doubt that at all. but have to figure out how they are going to create a political system that accommodate the rising middle class in a world in which people are demanding greater and greater accountability from their leaders. in some ways when i look at india and china, i think to myself, china has all of the small problems. they have built the best roads and hhways in the best high- speed rail, and have done it so magnificently that puts india to shame. but india has sought one big problem, what will it look like 25 years from now politically it will be the same crazy, chaotic democracy that it is today. but what will try to be 25 years from now, politally? the communist party of china today is the most elite political organization ithe world.

everybody looks like david. they are all political engineers and ph.d.'s, but those people are not reflected in the political system. it strikes me as a huge political challenge for china going forward. [applause] >> i think this audience wants to hear you on this question, to, and maybe pusher mine forward in the decades to come when there will be a decade of -- a generation of chinese without memories of the cultural revolution. how is that generation going to approach the challenges of potical reform? will they embrace it or will they reentrench? >> i believe the next decade

will see china wrestling with the problem of how to bring its political institutions in line with its economic development. i think that when you have the vast economic changes, the gration of people, the spread of education, it is absolutely inevitable that that question will be one of the dominant issues of the new leadership that is coming up in a year and a half. what form it will take, whether it will be the form of parliamentary democracy or some new form the we have not seen yet, the outcome will have to be more transparent.

i believe the next leadership change which is due in 10 years from now, will reflect this. this is also why do not believe that a country that will be so preoccupied with its fundamental change will also have time to concentrate on dominating the world. [applause] >> the final block will be on geopolitical politics. >> i remember reading a book a few years back with a title like "the picture of freedom," in

which a brilliant young journalist argued that there were problems with western democracy, and especially with western democracy, that were only going to g worse. hey, that was you. we are making a big mistake. if we think there is one, universal model of western democracy that at some point between now and 2050, if you think that is what the future of the world is going to look like, you are going to be one very disappointed person. the chances of western-style democracy emerging in any of these countries has to be between 0 and 5% at best. the possibility of alternative models is something that was raised by david wright at the begin -- at the beginning in his opening remarks. i want you to think seriously

about what it implies. singapore is not worrying about the jasmine revolution. singapore is the model. think of china as a giant, technocratic singapore in which the one-party state evolves itself in ways to avoid the collapse of th soviet experience. the second point, and this is where differ, it is precisely when nations are struggling with problems of internal political reform and challenges from below that they are most likely to pursue a more selfish and aggressive foreign policy. this must be one of the lessons of modern history and indeed, of ancient history. that is one reason why i think it is precisely at this time of political stress that we are likely to see a more nationalistic china. that is one of the reasons i am arguing for this motion tonight. [applause]

>> the start of our final section of these questions and answers on geopolitics, i want to call on someone who has thought long and hard about the practicalities of china's rise. he is william cohen, the former u.s. secretary of defense. [applause] >> i would like to respond or reply to the reference to singapore by mr. ferguson. i was just there a couple of eks ago and they had the so- called shangri-la dialogues. secretary gates was there, making a very strong statement about the need f the united states to remain deeply engaged in the asia-pacific region. the reason he made the statement was to counter or at least satisfied that asian nations, one of whom, young man i talked to that no one in asia wants to

be dominated by china. there is no aspiration for the chinese dream before the american dream, but there is growing concern that as china continues to expand its economy, it is also expanding its military. there is concern that the united states -- we will not be there in sufficient numbers or presence. they would like very much for the united states to become even more engaged. the question i have, is said the united states must look for ways to cooperate with china and there are a number of things we can always cooperate on. there are other areas of friction, be it taiwan or the south china sea. the question is, i suggest that we need to draw lines with china, but we cannot draw them

everywhere. we have to be very carefuln how we draw those lines. the question i have, would you suggest or support drawing the line at china's assertion of sovereignty over the south cna sea? this does raise all the questions that you mentioned in terms of indonesia, malaysia, and also the philippines and others in the region. and most ironically, vietnam, asking for thenited states to play a role in helping to so i would ask you, is this an area you would recommend we draw the line with china and how would you draw it? [applause] >> to answer your specific question, i think freedom is a

fundamental principle of american policy and has been a fundamental principle of the international systems. so i would oppose the notion that any sea should be -- should be treated as a territorialssue. and secondly, tre are of course a series of specific issues about the possession of a series of -- and hopefully that should be dealt with by negotiation but on the fundamental issue, i would apply the principle of freedom to south china sea as i would do any other open ocean. the second point i want to make, however, is this -- we

can of course define the emerging relationship with china as an ability to draw lines and then see whether confrontation succeeds along these lines. i believe that this would be extraordinarily dangerous to begin thinking of international relations as a question of military containment of china. it is not the question of military containment of china. it is a question of dealing with china's inevitable rise. china has to restrain itself within definable mits. we cannot have china solve our internal problems for us. we have to remain competitive.

if we remain competitive, then the next challenge is to see whether a dialogue can develop between china and us and other countries that share our views on what the world -- what we intend the world to look like five to 10 years fro now. i keep asking the question, in his first book, if the leaders of europe had known in 1914 what the world would look like in 1990, would they ever have believed that what happened in sarajevo, tens of millions of casualties that resulted, similarly, i believe the leaders of the world now have to ask themselves and the leaders of china have to ask themselves, how the evolution, some of which we have discussed

here and much more which could be considered should be managed in theay that is cooperative rather than confrontational. i conducted foreign policy on balance of power principles. i know how to play that game. [laughter] so it's not that i wouldn't know how -- how we should play it. i want to ask the chinese -- i spoke to a chinese group. and somebody got up and said you're a great friend of china. but also read your books. [laughter] and in your books, you talk about the balance of power. how are you going to manage the balance of power? and i said, look around yourself. look at the countries that border you.

and ask yourself whether we -- it'sot a problem but it's conceivable, what i'm suggting is south china sea, it's a clear case to me,hat should not be claimed by any nation. but what we really should have is that the top leaders begin to ask some of the questions that have been asked around here, look at where we want to be five to 10 years from now. and rather than dealing with crisis management moh after moh. and being in a situation in which every time the leaders meet, there is a communique and two months later, one has to sort -- one has the sort of discussion we have here and where did the chinese go wrong,

that's my fundamental view. so on the south china sea, it's clear where we should come out with respect to freedom of navigation. but it's a symptom. what is required is an understanding that we are heading into a new world order in which there are now universal issues. and that this world order cannot be organized on the same principles ase -- as our customary conventional thinking. and this is where the relationship of china becomes so important. because china is rising. and the question is, can china learn restraint, and can we learn to accommodate a reduction of our previous influenc that is what we need to deal

with. [appuse] >> fareed, to pick up on dr. kissinger's last words there, can america learn a pattern of restraint in this new phase, because i think part of -- for your side, arguing here, part of your contention is that for china not to own the century, in se ways it has to not come in conflict with the united states, at least not m military means. so give us your sense of where the american politte is at right now -- polity is at right now, are we ready to accommodatthe rise or a more dangerous dynamic as dr. kissinger writes in the final chapter of his book that we saw in the beginning of the 20th century? >> you know, everybody tends to view the united stat as having this vacillating foreign policy that's unable to get its act together and constantly

shifting. and on china, have to say i think that the opposite is the case. since henry kissinger opened china to the world, and opened u.s. relations with china, the united states has had a remarkably consistent policy toward china. and that has been to integrate china into the world, to help china gain the knowledge, the know how, the technology, the capital, and the institutional frameworks that will help it become a productive, thriving member of the international community. we have followed that under presidents that were democratic, under republicans. we're managing extraordinary consistency of policy. even on those issues like red lines su as our relationship with taiwan. our relationship with the dal i lamb a -- dalai lama. every president has maintained a coop active relationship with china while retaining some core interests and values that we thought were important. i think at my greatest worry abt u.s.-chinese relations

right now is not the united states. i think the united states will continue to play that role and has been trying to do so. the united states has been willing to reform the i.m.f. and the world bank and all international institutions to properly reflect the rise of china and other emerging market countries. let's be honest. the cents that haven't wanted to do it are the -- the countries that haven't wanted to do it are the europeans because it is their voting that wille diluted in this process. i think that the -- the greater danger is that china going through the kind of political transformation that henry has been talking about might find itself in a very different road. and here i'm only quoting back what nael ferguson was sing. quite rately, china is more assertive, more arrogant a growing sense in china that the policies that peng outlined are

not as relevant. and said that was at a time when we had the soviet union that was our enemy and we needed the united states and needed it for polling and we needed it for capital. we have the capital and needed it for w.t.o. membership. we have all those things. we don't need those things. so the great discontinuity is more likely to be chinese than the united states. >> david, that poses a vital estion for your side. which is will china push on certain red lines? will a new generation of chinese leadership take those risks? >> well, the chinese side is very much waiting to work on this difficult issues. the chinese side has been saying we're not making new claims. we're waiting -- willing to work with murlt tim parties. -- work with multiple parties. however, we're not willing to work with interventionist american policy.

the essence of the problem is after the global financial crisis, the competence, the competence level in the u.s. has been coming down so the u.s. side has been giving us very mixed signals. even though the white house has been very clear in its policy, the congress, the congress, the candidates for t president are giving very mix signals. saying that the chinese side are screwing up american issues. and many chinese people do not fully undersnd american politics. so they take this as a signal that the outside world are becoming more and more hostage. hostile toward the chinese economic and political emergence. that's the issue. i suggest the people in the west trying to understand the issues, trying to put this very small issues in a larger context and on the chinese side it is not changing. it is the western side. you have to solve your problems all together starting with the financial problems, starting

with financial system, and then when you are more confident it's easier for china to work with the west. thank you. [applause] >> you may not have heard the voice of chinese power before, ladies and gentlemen. this is what it sounds like. get used to it. because this is the kind of firm, self-confident and more assertive china that i have seen more and more in my trips to china and my encounters with chinese academics and statesmen in recent years. let's be clear. in all honesty, going right back to the question, does the united states have the option of drawing lines anywhere in asia in the way in a it did in the days of eisenhower or indeed in the days of nixon? i don't think so. the reason i don't think so goes right to the point you just made, david.

where are the resources? look at the congressional budget office projections of where the united states is going to be. i don't know if you saw jim baker's article in th "wall street journal" today. in nine years' time, the unite states will be spending more on the interests, on the federal debt, than on national security. the c.b.o. has projections imagining what the u.s. would save if it reduced its overseas troop presence to 30,000. 30,000. now, in that world, and we are racing toward that world in this decade, right now, the idea that the united states can say to china, thus far and no further, and adopt a policy and military threat that idea becomes less plausible and that's the point of the debate we're having tonight. it's this way that power shifts. it's somewhat inperceptible but when it shifts, ladies an gentlemen, it talks a little bit like david.

[applause] >> well,adies and gentlemen, i want to be conscious of our time so i'm going to call on our debaters for their closing arments. they're each going to be given three minutes to make their case to try to sway any final undecided votes in this hall. and we're going to have our concluding remarks in the opposite order of our opening statements. so dr.issinger, if you could please begin. >> the issue is not whether china will grow in magnitude. that will clearly happen. the issue is two-fold -- how china uses its growing capacities and secondly, whether the united states and its allies have the willingness

to adjust to the new international environment. i see nothing organic in the situation that leads me to believe that china will dominate the 21st century. china will play a larger role in the 21st century. the challenge is whether america can redefine itself after its century of progress. and similarly, how china redefines itself when if absorbs its economic growth. i believe we do have the capacity to draw lines. but we have to be selective in drawing the lines. and more important than that, we should try to move toward a relationship in which the lines

that separate us are not the crucial element but the things we do together. [applause] >> david lee, your three minutes, please. >> let me start by reiterating a point which i made in the opening remarks that the changes in china which have been going on for the past three decades, at most, are only halfway done. the country is still changing. we still have gaps in our gas tank and the changes will be more than economic. the changes must also be societal and political. also, i would like to remind you that that's the nation of china's emergence is not dominance in the world. by no means, china, there is only one dominance in the world. that is the u.s. today. that is not the dream, not

aspiration of china, not the capacity of china, to emulate the success of the u.s. and the dominance of the world. it's simply not in the gene of our confucious tradition. i urge you to think from a different perspective. forget about the 500 years of western philosophy, western perspective, to look at the international relations as winners and losers. instead, look from the lens of our traditional philosophers, confucious, they have been advoting for a harmonious world in which individuals are at peace with others in the world and in society, people are at peace with each other. and the countries are working with each other to solve internationa conflicts. so i urge you to look from this perspective to understand the ongoinchanges in the chinese economy and society. finally, let me call upon you to have patience, to understand

that we're not bystanders. we are also participants in the chinese economic and social and political emergence. when we become hostile, wn we worry abouthina's emergence, we worry about the relative decline of the u.s., of the west, we indeed create problems for the world. we indeed provoke the forces in china, the suspicious forces in china, indeed this work will become a very uncomfortable world. so in the end, i urge you to think about these issues again. china's emergence is not implying that china will dominate the world. the 21st century will belong to china. and also will belong to any countries, any nations, any people who are waiting to follow the flow. together we own the century. thank you. [applause]

>> fareed zakaria, you're next. >> you know, we are going flew a crisis of confidence in the -- going through a crisis of confidence in the western world. and this has been true often when we faced these kinds of new and different challenges. and when we faced nations that seem on the rise and on the march. george cannon, the great american statesman, and writer, used to write routinely about how he thought the united states would never be able to withstand the soviet challenge. because we were weak and fickle and we changed our minds and they were long seeing and they were far sighted and strategic. we were tactical and stupid. somehow it worked out all right. i think there is a tendency now to think the same of china, that they have this incredible long-term vision and we're bumbling idiots. there's a wonderful story that encapsulates this. i think actually in a conversation with henry kissinger, when asked what do you think of the french

revolution, he said, it's too soon to tell. and everyone thought oh, my goodness, such a genius. he thinks so long, in centuries. it turns out we now know he meant in 1973, the french revolution of 18, the student revolution, and it was perfectly rational to say at that point it was too soon to tell. so don't believe that chinese are the strategic masterminds and we're bumbling. we have managed to bumble our way through -- despite the challenges from the kaiser germany, from the soviet union, fr nazi germany, from japan. and i think what you will find is that the united states and north america are creating an extraordinary new model in this new world. we are becoming the first universal nation, a country that draws people from all parts of the world, of all colors, creeds and religious, and finds a way to harness that talent and build a kind of universal dream and it happens

over here. it happens here, and it draws together people from all over the world. look at this panel. three of the people on this panel, neil ferguson, myself and henry kissinger are immigrants and found their fortune in the united states because it welcomed the most talented people in the world. and allowed them to flourish in whatever way they want, even to denounce the united stes as neil ferguson is now doing. [laughter] so iimply urge you to think about this. if we lose faith in ourselves, if we lose faith in the power of free and open society, we do much more damage than anything else we could do. we need to fix our economy. we need to fix all these things we can do. the congressional budget office used to predict that we were going to pay off our debt in 15 years, 10 years, ago. now they predict that we're going to be eviscerated. we'll see how it works. my point is don't lose faith in free and open societies. vote with your heart. [applause]

>> neil, your final closing remarks, please. >> well, ladies and gentlemen, we've heard tonight that china is likely to repeat the experience of other asian countries and run out of steam. maybe. but thus far, it has done far better than these other asian countries. china has achieved the biggest and fastest industrial revolution of them all. hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. i don't agree with david. i think this story isn't half over. maybe it's a quarter over. there's a lot more still to come. the second point i want to make to you is that the west's problems are far more serious than you have just heard from fareed. and one of the biggest problems is that kind of complaccy. [laughter]

as we speak tonight, ladies and gentlemen, the euro zone is falling apart and an experiment with a single currency is disintegrating mainly because of the insolvency of the cradle of democracy, greece. as we talk, as we talk, the public finances of the united states are, if you do the math, which i do, more or less in the same situation as greece was two years ago. the trajectory of the debt is not differently. it may only be a matter of time before a fiscal crisis strikes the united states. the magnitude of which we will never have seen before. you know what? if we had this debate 100 years ago, just think, the motion had been that the 20th century would belong to the united states, who would have voted for it? it would have seemed certainly

to any british debater preposterous. [laughter] those yanks, trivial, small military forces? yeah, they had a big economy, but not all the social problems. look at their cities with the squalor and poverty. it would have been very easy to make the case in 1911 that america would falter as we've -- as we've heard china will falter. and yet it happened. it happened. first the economic power, then the geopolitical power. i want to conclude with a quotation. what if china gradually expands its economic ties, acts calmly and moderately, and slowly enlarges its sphere of influence seeking only greater weight, friendship and influence in the world? what if it quietly positions itself as the alternative to a hectoring and arrogant america? how will america cope? this is a new challenge for the united states. one for which it is largely unprepared, the words of fareed

zakaria, ladies and gentlemen. and that, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why china will own the 21st century. and you should vote for this motion. thank you. [applause] >> all i can say is i'm glad i do not have a second ballot, a second vote because exceedingly hard-fought and well contested debate. and let me reiterate something that peter munk has said at past munk debates. it's one thing for any one of these individuals to get up on a stage in front of an audience like this and give a set piece speech. it's something quite different, though, i think, to have this sparring, this meeting of minds, and to do it with the eloquence and conviction that our debaters have done so tonight. so please, a big round of

applause for the debaters. [applause] bravo. bravo. bravo. bravo. bravo, gentlemen. bravo.

>> one final comment, dr. kissinger, you have denied your publicome very special talents that you've had in waiting until your 88th year to engage in a public debate. yowere aolutely outstanding tonight, sir. thank you. [applause] now, before we vote for a second time, let's briefly review where public opinion was at in this room at the start of tonight's debate. we had asked you, yes, no, and maybe, there are the numbers. 39-21-40. we asked depending on what you heard, and you've heard a lot this evening, some very convincing and compelling arguments on both sides, would you change your mind? 96% yes, possibly changing their vote. this debate is very much in play. you all have a ballot with your

program. power ushers will collect them on the way out -- our ushers will collect them on the way out. i will announce the results short had i after 9:15 p.m. -- shortly after 9:15 p.m. in the free public reception and for those of you watching online, the results will be on our facebook page, our twitter accounts and our website in a matter of the next half-hour. so again, ladies and gentlemen, to the reception, let's start voting. what? they're going to do it right now with a paper ballot. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, remarks by the san

antonio mayor and the texas governor. after that, the nasa administrator on the future of his agency. >> c-span has launched a new ec did navigate web site for politics and the 2012 race on the campaign trail, biographical information, twitter feeds, and facebook updates. and the links to media partners in the early primary and caucus states. visit us at c-span.org/ campaign2012. >> the national association of latinos held a conference. governor perry talk about the texas economy in his first speech to a texas audience.

we will hear from the governor and about 15 minutes, but first, the address by mayor caster. at age 35, he is the youngest mayor in the 15 largest cities in the u.s. he discussed why it is the best of times and worst of times for hispanics. >> good afternoon. let's begin by giving a big round of applause for trey fisher. i live in his district. thank you for the introductions. forest we don't need 36 or 37 latino he will get the job done in austin. welcome to america's seventh largest city. the second largest in texas, the fifth fastest growing city in

the united states. i want to ta a moment to really thank sylvia garcia, arturo vargas, all of the naleo board members and each and every one of you who are here for coming down to san antonio today and the next few days to be part of a very special conference. all of us, as elected officials, i know, have a million different things going on, very busy lives, but i believe this conference will be well worth your time, your energy and effort. it's an exciting time to be here in this city. we have seen san antonio grow in the last 30 years from a city of about 700,000 to a city of almost 1.4 million. the city, over the last couple of years, has been ranked as one of the most recession resistant cities in the united states. our unemployment rate right now is at 7.5%, a full point underneath the state of texas and well underneath the nation. we feel very blessed about

san antonio as a community. more special than that, though, is, i think that what defines san antonio is its fundamental character. this city is the kind place that, even though it's grown to a city of 1.3 million people, is the kind of place that, if you're in a restaurant and you sneeze, two or three people still say "bless you." if you're walking down the street here in the downtown area and you pass someone, they still look you in the eye. i won't name any other cities. but try doing that in some of the other big cities in the united states. there's a sense of connection, a sense of less guardedness than what you find in many other places. and that's because over the centuries, over many generations, folks from different walks of life, different backgrounds, different

perspectives and nationalities have come together to create a confluence of culture where people live together well, they work together well, they pursue a common american dream. it is, for san antonio, also, a very proud moment, because this city is the perfect place to host naleo. as trey mentioned, it's been the birthplace of organizations like maldef and southwest voter. it was the site of the first spanish language t.v. station, one of the first print media newspapers in spanish that continues strong today. in the present day, san antonio, the university of texas at san antonio, is the second largest u.t. campus and one of the largest number of classes of

hispanics who receive a bachelor's degree. our medical school graduates more hispanic doctors than any other school in the united states. over the generations, our community has seen the rise of icons in the community, like henry cicneros, the first hispanic mayor of a major american city. the story of san antonio has been one that i know every single person here who is part of naleo can be very proud of. we also gather, though, at a moment that is crucial for the progress of the latino community. and i have to tell you that these days sometimes i feelike i'm at the beginning of a

dickens' novel. you remember "the best of times, the worst of times." a few months ago, we were greeted by official census numbers that proaimed that latinos fueled 50% of the growth in the united states over the last decade, not just in places like california and new york and texas, but also almost doubling in places like iowa and nebraska, georgia, north carolina, uth carolina, idaho and so forth. and here in texas, contributing to 65% of the state's growth. we see, just because of sheer numbers, more latinos today receiving their college degrees, becoming doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects, all of the things that generations past had as the dreams for themselves, but oftentimes because of the circumstances of their time,

were not able to accomplish. we see more than ever in the america of 2011 the fullness of the potential of the united states spreading out in front of the latino community,and places like san antonio truly are the new face of the american dream. there was a song in 1977 that was popularized in 1979 by frank sinatra, the theme from "new york, new york." you know that song, "if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere." in the 20th century that was the case for places like new york. in the 21st century, that describes better places like dallas and ausn and san antonio and phoenix and albuquerque and los angeles. it is an exciting time for our community. it also, though, is, to be fair,

quite a challengi and distressing one. while we gathered last year, we knew of legislation in arizona, f.p.1070 that was aimed at trying to go after folks who largely have tried to make a good and honest, hard-working life in the united states. since that time, more than 20 other states have taken up legislation similar to that. we've seen, in this state of texas, the call for arizona-type legislation. we have seen in this legislative session easily the most anti-latino agenda in more than a generation pursued without shame. we have seen the propition of a voter i.d. passed by the legislature, a sanctuary cities

bill, a re-districting map that does not respect the growth of the latino community in the state of texas and doesn't reflect the aspirations of texas in genal, and all of that i beeve against the backdrop, against a veneer of success in texas, and smuch that this state has to offer. let me explain that. today, texas is headquarters to more fortune 500 mpanies that y other state in the united states. today, our unemployment rate in texas is significantly lower thanthat in the united states. today, just about every state in the united states would like to be growing the way that texas is, and over the last decade, we grew more than any other state, grew by 4.2 million people.

but, if you've ever had the experience of finding a coin on e ground, one that i shiny on the outside, the side up, picking it up and turning it over, and finding a rusted out bottom, it's what you can't see right now in the state of texas that is so distressing for the latino community. let me give you a few facts. the texas education agency a few months ago reported that over 50% of the children in our texas public schools are latino. in the census numbers that were reported, of the one million new folks in our state 18 years or under, fully 95% of those young people were latino.

at the same time, in the texas legislature, education funding has been gutted by $4 billion, even though the money was there in a rainy day fund to do otherwise. texas already was 44th in term of spending per pupil, and our results show that. in the latino community, our dropout rate is more than a third. the number of uninsured children in our state is nearly 30% and texa is ranked 50th, dead last, in the number of uninsured, or insured children. we have the highest number of uninsured children. and 748,000 latinos are uninsured in our state. and so we have in 41 -- front of

us these days something that looks like a pretty picture of low taxes and low regulation but when y start to look at the future of our state and particularly the latino community, it is a completely different picture and it often goes unsaid. it often goes unanalyzed. as policymakers, though, it is not our job to just complain about reality. it's our job to change it. the future is certainly a cause for concern, but it's not a concern that is completely outside of our control. we ha the opportunity, through engaging our constituents to ensure, for instance, that more of them get to the polls and vote, we must acknowledge as a community that those gerations who have worked hard so that we

could have the positions that we have, that they did not work hard so we can have a voter turnout rate that is significantly lower than any other group in the united states. we must bear some responsibility for changing that. the fact is, that of latinos in texas of the united states voted at just the rate of african-americans, they coul make a major difference, we could make a major difference in the policies that come out of places like texas. we must re-engage the parents in our community to be effective first teachers of their young children, to not rely solely on the school system or others to do the job that we can start off doing as parents so that they can be good shepherds and put their children on a trajectory to accomplish the american dream. and we can insist that we only

support folks who are for making the right investments in the future, investments in education, investments in hire hire -- higher education, investments in healthcare, investments in immigration reform. and those things that will truly ensure that those words in our founding documents of folks ing created equal and the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness, come to pass for all americans. it has been 33 years now since, in 1978, "time" magazine declared the 1980's were going to be the decade of the hispanics. three decades have past since then. but i believe that if we're serious in this room, that if we

recommit ourselves to doing the hard work that it takes to mobilize our communities, if we work at that harder than ever, then we can help ensure not just that these next 10 years are the decade of the hispanic, but really, that this 21st century america is a century of prominence, of global superiority, of excellence and economic prosperity for the entire nation. thank you. [applause]

>> that is one good man. good to see you. thank you all for coming out, mr. mayor, it's a easure to be in the butiful city of san antonio. all of you that are here for your first time, welcome to what many would consider to be one of the most beautiful cities in america and one of the most dynamic. you look at the economic impact feat this city has gone through that's frankly a metamorphosis of becoming a real magnet for economic development and a lot of the players in that great play are standing here in front of us, sitting here with us today. but aaron, i want to thank you

for your work in the legislature. i know there are a number of your colleagues that are with you today. will y'all hurry up and get out of town. i know there's florida legislators here and from other states and we have a special session going on right now and i know for a fact everybody wants to go home and be with their families and get back to work. so, anyway, we're putting the finishing touches on a special session and these members of the legislature are playing an important role with it. one of the things that i would suggest that each of these not only legislators but the local elected officials that are here, the men and women who really make economic development happen in this city and in this state, it's about putting people to work in the state of texas. i mean, that's one of our things that i think that we're most

proud of and rolling up your sleeves and getting the job done and that's what i'm so proud of the legislators for. so, how many of you are from out of the state of texas? just a quick show of hands. that's awesome. welcome. as i said, you are in the job creation capital of the world. you might have heard us talking in texas that we tend to brag a little bit from time to time. aaron will tell you, it's not bragging if you can do it, is it? so we have been really focused on job creation over the course of the last 10 years in particular from 2001 to 2011, more than 730,000 private-sector jobs were created in the state of texas. and just to kind of put that into balance, the next best

state managed to create just a little over 9000 jobs during that same time span. i don't need to remind any of you that during that period, our nation as a whole lost almost two million jobs. when people around the country -- i know that these members of the legislature go to national association meetings just like i do and traveling across the country and they get asked, you know, what's the secret of success in the state? why has it been easier for you and texas to create jobs than it seems it has been across the rest of the country? and the fact of the matter is, a great deal of the credit goes to just hard-working men and women that are out there and have been given the freedom to risk their

capital because they know they'll have an opportunity to have a good return onheir investment, and our state work force, it can truly feel the -- fill the needs of any company, no matter how demanding the job requirements might be, whether it's a high-tech job or what ve you. representative martinez fisher and i will be at boeing here in an hour or so and again, sending the message that no matter what the need of your company is in this state, that you can come here and you can find that skilled work force. we do what we can to maintain an economic climate that attracts businesses, that industries that are looking to expand, for instance, the need to relocate, and it's, as the mayor said,

it's pretty simple. it's about keeping the taxes low, having a regulatory climate that is fair and predictable, a legal system that doesn't allow for over-suing. but again, it's that rank-and-file texan that truly drives our state's prosperity. whether it's companies that are big like boeing or a small mom and pop business here in san antonio and it may be in big cities like san antonio or it may be in a small community somewhere. it's those texans and we come from a variety of backgrounds but the fact is, we're all united. we're united with this common spirit, to make life better for ourselves, for our families. and texas has always been this unique place. people from all over the world have come here to pursue their dreams. according to the most recent census, we welcomed more than

four million new citizens to the state of texas over the course of the last decade and that's helped us create a really unique culture here. it's a diverse group of people. it's a diverse thought heritage that it's just a little bit different. i will suggest than any other place i've ever visit before but it's a culture that emphasizes good schools for our children, safe neighborhoods for our families and a chance to succeed based on your own merit. in texas, one's work ethic, thei character, they can take it whereverou want to go. it doesn't matter who your parents are, how you spell your last name. it doesn't matter whether you're from the valley or you grew up

in a shrimping family on the gulf coast of texas or even if you were raised, the son of a tenant farmer in a little community you never heard of before like me. no matter what or who you were, growing up in texas, no matter your race, your creed, your heritage, you have a role model to look up to, someone who proves that any obstacle can be overcome, there's no limits to how far you can go. that's especially true for a hispanic child in texas. roughly a third of our citizens identify themselves as hispanics in texas, making them part of what is our state's largest demographic group by the next

decade. and it's no stretch to suggest that the future of texas is tied directly to the future of our hispanic population. during my time as governor, i have worked very hard to appoint the best, the brightest, the most qualified individuals in leadership roles across the state. it gave me great pride to appoint the first latina secretary of state in hope andrade. pplause] it gave me great pride to appoint the first latina to the supreme court in this state, justice eva guzman. [applause] it gave me great pride just last month to appoint the first latina to the texas court of criminal appeals, justice elsa

acala. the young hispanics in texas can aspire to be the next rolando fablos, the chairman of the texas racing commission, maybe the next roberto dehoyas who heads our economic development shop and one of my favorites, the head of the texas alcoholic beverage commission, jose querveose. is that awesome? that is the right job for that man. these are truly leaders. these are individuals who, you know, so many more in our public and private sector just like them, they rlly make me proud to be a texan. they make me proud to have associates and be able to work with men and women like them.

hoping really makes me optimistic about the future of this state. indications are that our younger generation is getting that message about those opportunities. their heading to school to pursue opportunities in record numbers. between 2000 and 2010, in that 10-year period of time, hispanic enrollment in texas universities increased by 88% compared to 48% for all the other ethnic groups in this state. over the same time period, the amount of bachelor's degrees, associate degrees and certificates earned by hispani students increased by over 100%. hispanic owned businesses have been experiencing an explosive growth. you've seen it right here in

this city. their numbers expanding by 40% during the previous decade and according to one study, generating 62 billion dollars in revenue just in the year007. that same study indicated that hispanic owned business employed most 400,000 texans that year. the sky's the limit. those of you that aren't from the state of texas, we welcome you. i can't get by without offering you the opportunity to come live in this great state. it truly is the land of opportunity. it will stay that way as long as we adhere to the principles and the values that got us here. the future of this state is

incredibly bright because of men and women just like you. men and women who continue to be pioneers, individuals who love this state, love our country, and will continue to make sacrifices to make it even better. god bless you and thank you all for letting me come and part of it today. [applause] >> next, the nasa administrator on the future of his agency. then, a state department briefing on sudan. after that, treasury secretary timothy geithner on u.s.-india trade relations. tomorrow on ""washington journal," a discussion on the

state of the u.s. economy, afghans ambassador to the u.s. talks about president obama's plan to reduce troop numbers in afghanistan, and the security of the country, and the president and ceo financial literacy group discusses a recent poll that shows high school student strongly distressed financial service providers. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> he had decided several days before mcanally arrived that he was going to kill him. he went out and bought a pistol, followed his whereabouts in the newspapers, reported in detail, and he began tracking him. >> on september 6, 1901, an anarchist fired two fatal shots at president william mckinley. sunday, scott miller looks at the president and his assassin and