et's go to diane in texas. caller: good morning. yesterday the president was saying that he has given the green light on the affordable care act. what i would like to know is how could anybody trust that man? he said admittedly on jay leno that he doesn't know math. he couldn't even help his daughter with math. how could he possibly fix an economy and get jobs created when he doesn't know math? he's ill lit rat in it. he should come out right now and explain to us the truth about what's going on. tell us that -- host: can i ask you what's your health care situation and does any of the affordable care act has it affected you? guest: oh, yes. host: how so? caller: you could ask cast row here . host: how has it impacted you personally? caller: for 2-1/2 months all i did every day was go on the

website. i called up the attorney general when it switched me over to expeerion. i went out of my mind. i -- a dope addict answered the phone. i couldn't believe it. and i called the attorney general. he had to call washington in the beginning to find out if we were supposed to call expeerion. there was no communications between washington and what was supposed to go on with the act. but obama's good at talking talking rhetoric. but just give us solutions. host: talking about her experience in san antonio, texas. we'll go to david in maryland on our line for those who are 35 and younger. a republican. thanks for calling in this morning. caller: thank you. i just wanted to talk to the gentleman. i'm 31 years old and going to the aca. once you turn 30, you cannot have these quote/unquote catastrophic plans any more. i wanted to say the plan that i have currently with aetna,

which they are currently going to leave the state of maryland, and i can't say it's because or not but my plan is 100% co-insurance with a 500 deductible. so the plans that are offered when the state, you know, the common ones are like a 6,000 deductible and would be 06%. even the platinum plans are only 90%. so essentially you could pay more up to a high deductible and then pay part of a cost of the actual coverage once you use the plan which currently i wouldn't pay now, plus it doesn't include anything like dental or vision where mine now covers dental. it's just so ludicrous that these people once they use these plans will realize that the plans are absolute garbage compared to what quote/unquote is junk now. guest: you mentioned the idea

about catastrophic plans which again the affordable care act allouse people under 30 as you mentioned to sign up for these certain really small-scale plans. but even some of those small-scale plans have new requirements in them about minimum standards of coverage. so if you were in a plan that didn't meet those that may not be available any more. because you're now over 30 you may not have access to the same kind of catastrophic level plan you described. although there are other exemptions in the health care law that would make you eligible for the plan. and then as you mentioned, too, some of these bronds plans are actually pretty bare-bones coverage. they come with new protections and benefits that may not have been available before the law. but because of the law, because the bronze plans themselves were meant to be sparor than some of the higher tears of coverage you may find yourself with a higher deductible. host: on this st. patrick's day we'll go to irish ice.

guest: partly has to do with if you're eligible for tax credits and subsidies from the government, they do a -- sort of a detailed financial check on you that includes through the i.r.s. and homents and other aspects of government where they can verify your records and insure that you truly are eligible for a tax credit. that's part of the process they're using to verify the people who get those tax credits are expected or eligible for them. host: we're talking with kyle cheney, health care reporter with politico. have about 15 minutes or so left to discuss the looming deadline for the affordable care act. would love to hear your experiences. we have a special line set up for those age 35 and younger. the number is on your screen. let's go to david in minnesota on our line for independents.

good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is pretty simple. i'm a reasonably smart guy and i did the math. when i was working for corporate america i went back and looked it up. my monthly health charge through the company insurance was $460. i called in to the -- one of the affordable care lines and got an estimate. the amount of money that i would have to pay -- and this is personally per month -- is $470 a month. so i'm looking at a yearly bill of $5,600. i am amonged the group of people who have lived a healthy lifestyle. i go out every other morning like clockworks a two-mile walk. i haven't had even a cold for 10 years. so i do myself more as being more in the 35 and under group

instead of the 55-year-old where i'm at. all i want from health care is pretty simple. pay for the medications that i need right now. 90-day supply of what i need is $100. i want regular checkups. i don't need anything else at this point in my life. as far as emergency care, i have the reagan health care reform from what was it 1998 that says no emergency room can turn me away. so at that point as opposed to the affordable care act, i am ctually saving myself over $3,000 a year. and if you add in the $700 fine per year from the i.r.s. for not signing up for it, well, then it, it is

still close to $3000 a year i am saving. host: your thoughts. sure -- the $700 fine. i think it varies depending on income. the first year, $95 or one percent of your income if you are supposed to get coverage and you don't. i wasn't clear from the caller if he has an employer-sponsored health land, and if the cost of that went up and if that was done by the employer may get a response to some changes. the callerre where would fit in in terms of having prices on theo exchange or tax credit availability and all of that. you do hear situations where people see their bills go up and immediately linked it to the affordable care act and if it is -- and if it is not clear whether the employer made. but the affordable care act becomes -- i don't want to say scapegoat that the cause of

concern about seeing premiums rise. host: little rock, arkansas. caller: i am an underwriter. i went through several of the aca classes here in arkansas. thecan tell by the way whole organization for this is put together that they did not bring in anybody who was an expert in any field of creating policies, such things, in the beginning. this think could not have been put together worse from word go. in the united states, insurance has been a regional animal because people make different incomes, have different health. to $6,000,table which is what most cannot afford but if you live in new york or isifornia, $6,000 adaptable probably what you will pay. you live in texas, kentucky, --n south like that, you may not be able to get the money

together. as far as people enroll now, we know at least 4 million, as many as 7 million people's insurance was canceled but normally would not so of the people who signed up, we don't know how many are replacement policies. and all the people they put on medicaid, the reason these emergency rooms are even more full is because most doctors will not take medicaid. as far as the whole thing put together, the people thought the little too much about themselves about they could put something

ranging from revising the curriculum at harvard to free coffee, which i would like to emulate. if there are any donors out there. of then really being one great dean of harvard law school, of any law school. --2009, you were laminated nominated for solicitor general and became solicitor general in 2009. and then in 2010, you are named for the supreme court, succeeding in justice stevens court on -- justice stevens's chair on the court. but you are very kind. when people used to go through my resume like that when they were introducing me for something, i used to get up to the podium and say, well, now you know my secret. i cannot keep a job. [laughter] but i think my new job has

solved that. [laughter] so, no longer. >> [laughter] very good. i'm relieved to hear that. >> [laughter] >> so let's start again. when you were a kid, what were your first thoughts about what job you wanted to have when you grew up? >> i'm not sure i remember all that well. i had my years when i was going to be a famous tennis player and stuff like that. i was a voracious reader, so i --initely thought i wanted being a writer seemed a good thing to me. being a lawyer, honestly, did not post out my father was a .awyer -- did not my father was a lawyer. when i think about the kind of am ihat he practiced now very much understand why he had fun in the profession and why it

was so meaningful to him, but i have to say that as a kid it did not seem that exciting to me. mayor,eague, sonia soto talks about how when she was a kid she watched perry mason. this was before anyone in this room's time, but. mason was this great trial lawyer and there were all of these are hot moments -- all of when heha moments solves these great cases and it was all very exciting. made her wanthat to be a lawyer. and when she told me that, i said oh, i knew that our kissing law was never like that. my father went to work and he never had those kinds of moments. he thought it was of terrible failure when he went to court. he had a small practice and just helped ordinary people solve their problems.

someplace along the line. now and see what he did and think, what a meaningful way to spend your time in the profession. but as a kid, it did not seem very exciting. >> when did you think that you wanted to become a lawyer? >> well, i never really did. [laughter] i'm sure you were a dean. i was a dean. i spent so much time talking to prospective students and said, don't just go to law school because you cannot think of anything else to do. there are all of the students who get out of college and they don't know what else to do and they think, well, i will go to law school because it will keep my options open, right? and for several years i said this to my students. and then i realized, that is why i went to law school, you know. where does this advice come from exactly?

school and major age in history in college. i thought about being an academic. got to the end of my academic experience and got through a year of the senior thesis, which was a very big project at the college i went to, i thought there was no way i'm going to be historian. and i did not know what i wanted to do. i thought, i will go to law school and something will turn up. and that is why i went. but then instead, i went to law school and i fell into the lucky group where, really, from the first day, i loved every moment of it. i thought, my gosh, what a lucky thing that i ended up here. >> what did you like at law school? the combination of two things, i think. -- i likedt it was

just thinking about it intellectually. i liked the puzzle aspects of law. like one of these law students who always liked the technical classes. thinking through really complicated problems. but i also liked the fact that it wasn't purely a puzzle and purely abstract. that there were ways that people could use the law to actually make a difference in the world. it seemed very practical and timeded to me, at the same as it seemed intellectually fascinating. that is what i like about it. >> as you were going through law school, did you have a sense of what you wanted to do next? >> i think i played with a lot of different possibilities. anhought about being academic, and that was definitely something that i contemplated. but i also had a professor who

said, you know, you've never really known anything but school. you should go out and get some -- do some other things. get some other experiences before you decide you want to spend your life in an academic environment. so i tried to do that. i think i thought about academia. i thought about private practice. i suppose, i knew that at some point in life, professional life, i would go into public service. in some form. have was lucky enough to this actually happened to me. i think i had hoped to have a career where i could experience a lot of different things, do a lot of different things, and during the course of my career. maybe because i had a short attention span, or maybe because i thought a lot of different things would probably be interesting. i had hoped to be a person who

bopped back and forth among a different number of areas. >> how do you think about your career? do you focus on just her first job? on, this is where i want to be in 30 years? what advice do you have for people just starting out as they think about their career arc? thinkinitely don't just about your first job. try to be more holistic when you are thinking about the kinds of experiences you want to have and the kind of work you want to do just during the whole course of your career. -- then also understand sometimes i think just saying that you should plan every step of the way, and i really don't think that. i actually think that law students tend to planned -- to plan too much. or at least, i don't want this to be like an anti-plan, that you should never she -- never

plan anything. because you should. you should think about the different types of experiences that you want to have, but realize it will not all happen in the order you think or the order you want. different things are going on randomly, and will serendipitously present themselves. people who have the most fun legal careers are the people who are very open to serendipity in their lives. and who will be doing one thing and sort of thinking that is what they are going to do for a number of years, but then we'll see an opportunity and will seize that opportunity rather than say, oh, i'm sorry, this does not exactly fit into the plan i have and i'm going to wait for that for another x number of years. life is sort of luck and opportunities presenting themselves in ways that you might not think that they would. and the people who end up, i think, with the great legal

careers, they are the people who grabbed the things when they come. >> is that what happened with your career? is that how it was structured? >> i think i was lucky enough to do that. if you said to me, what was planned? almost nothing was, actually. different things presented themselves at different points in time. i was lucky enough, or maybe i knew enough to grab good things when they came up. >> you started by coursing. >> yes. that was a great experience. i hope the clerks that i have love it. it is just a wonderful place to think about law for a little longer, but also to see it in action. a great mentor, of course, if you are enough to get the right one. and i was, i was lucky enough to get to great mentors, and to

miraculous human beings. great mentors and two miraculous human beings. it was a great experience for young person. for me, it was a great opportunity. >> what did you learn from them? >> all kinds of different things. first, i think i probably learned something just about the various kinds of nonlegal qualities and attributes that people have. judge mix oh was one of the world's most generous men. year withthrough a somebody who had that sort of deep in his bones generosity and love for people was a great experience for me. course, isshall, of an iconic figure.

was one of the great experiences of my life. he was justice marshall by the time i clerked for him. .e was relatively elderly he had turned 80, but he was a little bit of an old 80 and he was looking back on his life at that point. and the clerks were lucky enough to be there with him at a time when he was really thinking about his life and what he had accomplished. he was the world greatest storyteller and raconteur. you would walk into his office and, first, you would talk about the cases and do all of your work, and then at a certain time he would just flip over and start telling stories. they were unbelievable stories, because they were stories about some of the most important aspects of 20th century american history. .nd there you were you are there, listening to this man who i believe was the finest youer of the 20th century,

know, tell about his cases and the way he approached his cases and the decisions he made, and the difficulties he confronted, the dangers he faced, including the physical dangers. it was and am believable experience. >> it must have been incredibly inspiring, working for him. >> it was incredibly inspiring. if you are not inspired after a year of cooking for thurgood marshall, you are the dead to the world, honestly. [laughter] but it was a lesson in what the law can accomplish. i think he is the greatest 20th-century american lawyer. he had all of these incredible skills, and i don't think there was anybody who combined what he did in appellate courts with what he did in trial courts and all of that will stop but look, -- and all of that. but look, if you are going to measure a person by the degree to which they promote justice in the world, which is one way, one

important way to measure lives there isi don't think anyone who approaches him in that. >> i think that is right. having the privilege of working for justice marshall, did that shape your career at all? did it affect the decisions you made? >> i think both he and judge mix though were good lessons [indiscernible] about the way in which you could help people and make a difference in the world. every individual, that will mean a different thing. there are very few deep, who have really fulfilling, meaningful legal wayers without finding some

to things afference little bit bigger than themselves. >> how important our mentors for a lawyer? >> they have been really important in my life, and i've been lucky enough to have them every place i went. i mean, i had them in law school and i had them in these two men that i clerks for. and i had them as a young academic, and when i was a young lawyer in practice. just each step of the way, people to learn from, and also people who make the next step and the next step and the next step a little bit easier. one of the things i did a few worry -- a few years after clerking, i went to the university of chicago to teach. why did i get a job at the university of chicago? parley, it was my resume and transcript and all of that stuff, but partly it was judge everybody in

chicago. he had gone to the university of chicago and had very deep and close connections there. he picked up the phone and he talked to some people about me. aboutd say that everything i've gotten in my life. honestly, i think most people can. it is partly because of the hard work that you have put in and because of what you have accomplished. but it is partly because there are other people who you have run into along the way, who are there to do a good turn for you, and you hope that you will be there to do a good turn for somebody else. said that way, it can seem very self-serving, like, go find mentor so they can help you. but in truth, we all help each other. as you gonking about through, especially the early

years of a legal career, the people you are connecting with and how you can learn from them. but also, thinking a little bit about how you can make your way is a valuable thing. >> i think that is a very , particularlyt when people start law school. the reason why everybody gets admitted to georgetown, they are incredibly smart, and did very well academically. .here is a tendency to focus on intelligence as the key to success in a career. but finding mentors, people you can learn from -- you can find them, by the way, in your peers. i used to think about this when i was in law school. as you just said, adding a lot of people come to law school and they are very good students and they continue to focus on that port -- that part. and of course, you should.

you should work hard. but iowa's felt that when you look at the law school and everybody just sort of putting their -- i always felt that when you look at the law school and everybody is just sort of putting their heads in a book. and then you look at a business school where everybody is focused on making connections. there is something a little bit icky about all of this focus on just making connections. [laughter] you know, so you can help this person and that person can help you. but there is something that is great about it. it sort of vague knowledge is that you will not just be an individual -- it sort of acknowledges that you will not just be an individual in your legal career. you are part of teams and collectives. and the connections you've made with all the people that you work with, all the people that you study with when you are a student, are of really deep significance in somebody's career. >> and also, there are also -- they are also personally very

affirming. >> absolutely. >> one of the things that you have done also in your career that i find really striking is andoting collegiality encouraging people to work together. when i look back at what you did at harvard law youol, what you did was really made the faculty, at least from the outside, feel like a community in a way that it had not before. and certainly, a lot of the press accounts indicate that the trajectory you are on -- were on in the court is similarly about teambuilding. you know, when i think about justices across history who have been about getting people to think together, chief justice warren, justice brennan. that is something we don't normally teach in law school. how do you learn to get people to work together and how do you

no claimss? >> i make for anything on the court. i'm still pretty young there and i'm still pretty new. i'm still finding my way, i'm sure. but i did take some degree of pride in this after law school. and you are extraordinary at it, dean traitor -- dean shrader. part of it is listening to people and getting them to focus on the institution as a whole and how they can contribute to the institution as a whole and work together with other people, rather than just go their separate way, or even worse, fight with everybody, which was often the case at harvard in some parts of its history. thinking, actually, about

institutions and how they operate, how they work. how you can get people to work and make themem succeed in ways that you didn't think you could. it is a little bit trial and error, and i think -- i don't think it came very naturally to me. it was something that i had to learn and think hard about. involves really andening to other people doing a lot more listening than talking often. in order to exercise leadership and in order to move an institution. if there was anything that i was proud of at harvard, other than the free coffee -- [laughter] you know, i recommend you get that donor for. it was probably that. >> it really was remarkable. at harvard, it seemed like there was a time in which the faculty

was really deadlocked. --re was no -- there were there was very little new faculty hiring, and then you came in and transform the law school in a very short timeframe. there was curricular reform, a tremendous wave of faculty hiring. is there anything specific that he -- that people can think gett listening, trying to people to see across differences? listening, trying to get people to see across differences, picking out people who will help you, because you cannot do it on your own. you need people who are going to join into this endeavor with you and help you achieve it. i was lucky enough to have a bunch of great people doing that. and just trying to figure out -- -- youw, some people know, just trying to figure out

what makes an institution work, the personal dynamics within an institution, and using that knowledge to figure out how you can move and change and shift the place. >> is live at different, but one of the things that you did that i find very striking is the concern that the senate had about the fact that you had no knowledge of hunting and guns. >> [laughter] >> and the way that you responded to that i think is reflective -- >> do you want me to tell the story echo is a great story. [laughter] >> talking to people before hand about what they wanted to hear, a number of them wanted to hear the haunting story. >> ok, they have not heard the hunting story? >> a couple of them have. >> one thing you have to understand when you go through senate confirmation, at least for me, as someone who was nominated by a democratic president, as someone who had worked in the domestic policy council under another democratic

president some initiatives that involve gun control. i grew up in new york city. we did not go hunting on the weekends there. >> it was discouraged. [laughter] >> we went to the ballet, you know. but everybody is very concerned in the senate, democrats and republicans alike to my about second amendment issues. the hoty thinks, oh, issues, the ones that you are going to be asked about by every buddy are like, abortion. i would say, second amendment, guns totally eclipsed everything else combined. i did not have that much to say. you cannot talk about it substantively. you cannot say i'm going to rule this way or that way. and as people asked me, well, have you ever hunted? [indiscernible] have you ever touched a gun?

have you ever seen a gun? [laughter] my answers were actually pretty poor on this front. it was late in the day and i had been through a lot of these interviews. i was a bit tired of them, to tell you the truth. i was sitting with a senator from idaho and he started asking me these questions, and telling me come as is appropriate, -- telling me, as is appropriate, how for many of his constituents, hunting was an extraordinarily important activity, part of the culture, and how he did not have any confidence that i would understand this in the way i thought about these issues. and i said to him, you know, senator, i've never had an opportunity to go hunting. .t's not where i grew up but i said, senator, if you would like to invite me hunting -- because he had been talking about his ranch and what he

hunted on his ranch. i said, if you would like to invite me hunting, i would really be obliged to go. and this look of abject horror passed across his face. [laughter] and i realize, ok, i probably went a little too far. said, i'm sorry, i didn't really mean to go that far, but i tell you what, senator, i will make you this promise. toi am lucky enough to go -- get confirmed, i will asked justice scalia to take me hunting, because i knew that justice scalia is a great lover of hunting. and when i got to the court, really, in the first summer, i went to justice scalia and i told him this story. i said, this is the only promise that i made in 82 courtesy visits. [laughter] help meyou going to fulfill this promise? he loved it. he thought it was hilarious. he was laughing and laughing. he said, all right.

gun club outr of a in virginia. first, he took me to his gun club. one of his sons-in-law, who is a great shooter, he taught me to shoot. then we shot some birds. he had this group of buddies. he goes quail shooting and pheasant shooting with. we did that a few times. and at the end of the year, he said, all right, it's time to do big game. [laughter] got ourselves a deer license and an antelope license. we went out to wyoming together. >> oh, my god. >> yeah. i shot a deer. we could not find any antelope. and according to him, we found the wrong kind of gear. he says that the deer that i shot, i could have gotten in his backyard. [laughter] but it seemed like a dear to me. [laughter] next year, he's taking me turkey shooting, which he says is the

best kind of hunting. it turns out, it sort of fun, actually. you know? [laughter] know, was that story supposed to show anything? [laughter] >> it's such a good story, it doesn't really matter. >> [laughter] >> i think it reflects the idea of getting to understand where other people are. you know, some senators questions about guns -- you know, i'm from the new york metropolitan area. that is not what we did. say, we had a family vacation last year and we were driving through the southwest [indiscernible]

>> i hope so. i mean, because everybody has different experiences, and the ability to learn from everybody else's experiences, as well as from your -- i just can't take you anywhere, can i? [laughter] [applause] >> that is one of the take away points. >> [laughter] >> [laughter] another question. you aren't such a turkic writer. -- you are such a terrific writer. going to come back. i can tell you all the things i'm not so good at. >> your opinions are really a joy to read. they are different from anyone else's on the court. things that as -- that graduates are

going to be doing is that they will be riding in a range of different contexts. i wanted to see if you had any advice for them as writers. >> mostly, to work hard at your writing and to try to find your voice. for me, it took many, many years. -- for saying -- thank you for saying that i think about my writing. i'm sure i can get to be a better writer, and the reason for saying that is because i have gotten to be a better writer. what i look back at the writing i did when i was in law school, i did not write the same way that i do now. partly, i have just gotten to be a better writer. of partly, i found a kind distinctive and individual voice, which actually, i think, if i had tried at the age of 27, i probably shouldn't have tried at the age of 27. well do think that writing for most people takes enormous amounts of hard work. i think that the number of

people who can sit down and produce perfect paragraphs in an instant are like -- i've never met them. [laughter] i mean, maybe there are one or two. including maybe one or two of the people that i work with now. but i think, for most people and even most really great writers, they are great because they spend the time that it takes to produce great writing, which is a lot of time. which is, you know, staring at a paragraph and asking yourself over and over how to make that paragraph better. so i think writing matters. i think writing matters a terrific amount in the law. certainly, if you're going to be an appellate lawyer. that is mostly the way we decide our cases. we do all of this argument stuff, but it is a little bit for show. really, the most important thing is to write us a good reef. .- a good brief some people are better at it than others, and i do think that

the part of the reason that some are better at it than others is that they understand that you have to work and work and work at it, and there is no such thing as turning in the first draft. >> but you also have a really distinctive voice. opinions -- if you read your opinion you're not saying, oh, this is justice scalia's. it is distinctively yours. how did you come up with that voice? and again, it's not that you were a judge before and you found the voice while you were an appellate court judge. how did you come up with the voice that you have on the core? in some sense, justice scalia has a distinctive voice. through history, justice holmes, justice jackson. unusual to have such a distinctive voice. >> i'm not sure exactly how unusual it is. i suspect that if you gave me a

whole pile of opinions, but with the names cross off of them, but knowing that they were all produced by members of the court now, i suspect i could do pretty well in saying which was whose. that is quite as unusual as you are saying. but i don't know. i will tell you the way i write an opinion, which has a lot to do with my being a teacher. i sort of think about writing opinions in the way i used to think about teaching classes. i sit down at my computer, and i used to say, how am i going to explain this really complicated body of law to a bunch of people, a bunch of first years, or even 30 years, who don't -- years, who don't know all of that much. and law is complicated and it is difficult to explain its

distinctly and well in ways that toerstand -- that mattered people at the moment and in ways that stick with people. it is one of the great challenges of teaching. i used to sit down and think about, ok, first, i say this, and then i say this, you know, how to order all of the different points to get people the logic of something, and how to use analogies and sensees to give people a of why the reasoning goes the way it does. and that is what i do now, too. i basically do the same thing that i used to do what i was preparing to teach a class, trying to figure out how to explain something to a group of people who did not know about it , and trying to explain it in a way that would be sticky, in a way that would really sit in

their heads. i kind of do the same thing now when i plot out an opinion. >> how do you use the clerks? >> the clerks are really important. honestly, it is a little bit frustrating for the clerks. [indiscernible] say, look, it's going to be my stuff, and i'm just going to sit down and write my stuff. aasked the clerks to write repressed -- a first draft. the reason it's a little bit frustrating is because i'm going to ask you to write a first draft, and then you are not going to see a single word of it in the opinion i produce. but for me, it's helpful. it's helpful for me to see the way somebody else thinks you're a tough it -- thinks through a topic. even if it's, ok, i see what they did, but what is the point? [laughter]

it is helpful for me to use it as a launching pad. i look at what ideas work and what ideas don't work. i think about the organization and the progression of arguments that they have used, the things that they have picked to talk about and to respond to. for me, it gives me a kind of launchpad to think through a case on my own. i think for me, and that there are two reasons for this -- the first is, i'm one of these people that don't know what they think until i see what they say. for me, writing to a problem is the way i learn a problem. countless times, pretty much iery time, in the writing discover all kinds of things i didn't know and would never have learned about an issue unless i had really started from scratch. and the second thing is, i do want -- if you say my opinion, and me, that is a good thing. i want my opinions to sell mike michaud.

my opinions to sound like me. i want to have my own voice. that is another reason i start from scratch. the drafts help me to think about something. they sort of provide a launchpad for me. they obviously, give me a lot of the citations and things like that, that i can use. , and this is i do where my clerks are unbelievably important. i give it back to them. i say, ok, here is my take. and i occurred to them to edit me -- i encourage them to edit me really super hard. clerks, sometimes they start out and they are really a bit nervous about doing this. when you become a justice, they are not. [laughter] but really, to me, the value of a clerk is how hard she edits me. because nobody writes critically

that first -- the first time out. theobody writes perfectly first time out. i write slowly and deliver the and i think about everything, but even then, by the end there are so many things that can be improved on. clerks, --t to mike to my clerks, and the first one to give me a draft and show me an edit, i turn around and do it again. and then i give it to my other three as well. and those people probably do not know the subject matter quite as well. become at it with a bit -- a little bit fresh eyes and the way a normal reader would come at it. and then all three of them will edit. and i asked the sort of toncipal clerk on the case essentially compile all of the other edits and give me her take on which things to do and which things not to do. but from very small things -- a change of word -- two big things. you know, this argument really does not work. go read think it. re-think it.

that is the most important part of the process. >> at the other hand, you talked about the significance of the briefs. what is the key to the briefs? >> rarity, for sure. the worst kind of brief is a brief -- clarity, for sure. the worst kind of brief is a brief that you have to struggle with. you want something that is crystal clear. and then, i think my the ability to speak in commonsensical terms. here is what is at issue. here is why you should care about this. here is why this has got to be the right answer. and the ability to sort of put it all together, to speak thematically. there will also a -- obviously be a lot of micro points you make along the way, but to have a theory of the case, and to have that theory appeal to somebody one cents. base -- to somebody's

common sense. interpretthe law will this. >> it is not just about saying this is the with the precedents lined up. >> it is partly that, and i'm sure it is more that in lower courts. but one of the things about the supreme court is that, as people often learn when they stand at the podium, they would say, well, the sixth circuit said. and somebody will say, what do we care about what the sixth circuit said? you know, we only care about what we said. [laughter] and sometimes we don't even care about that all that much. [laughter] >> what makes something appealing in terms of common sense? >> that is too hard to do. it is very case specific. >> what about oral arguments? what makes them good, oral arguments? whoell, you know, somebody -- i think some of it is the same, the ability to know that

three points you really want the court to get, to be able to have picked those three points. and to leave the court with that sense, like, i'm not leaving the podium until you absolutely know these three things about my case, which is going to make you think that of course i have to win. but you have to be able to do that, and at the same time have a conversation with the court about whatever the court wants to have a conversation about. the person who is just hammering home his three points is not nearly as effective as someone who manages to convey them, but also completely engages with the justices on what their questions are. and the most effective people are people who do that in a very natural and relaxed kind of way. we are really having a kind of conversation. who are very good listeners, who completely understand what a justice is getting at in his or to itestion, and respond

very quickly. and you have to be quick at the supreme court, because most of us asked a lot of questions. somebody will get up there at the podium and it will be sort atatat.attack -- rat you cannot be the person who stands there clearing your throat before you get to the main point. you've got to have the main point on the tip of your tongue. and that involves an extraordinary amount of preparation. if i sound like i talk a lot, whether it is about writing or oral advocacy or whatever, about , you know, you have to work at it. and it is the same thing here. the people who are great, who come to the court, are people you know have spent hours and hours thinking about every single question that is going to be thrown at them and thinking about what the two sentence way

to answer each of those questions is. >> thinking through kind of every angle of the case, every -- ible question >> every possible question and the answer you are going to make to that question. and we are lucky. we have an extraordinary number of great lawyers who appear before us. and they all have different styles. there is no single style. i was once on a plane with two of the greats, the now judgment of the boston, and paul clement. together at the sixth surfer -- sixth circuit conference and our plane was delayed and we were in our -- each other's company for many hours at the airport. we were talking about different styles. thataul clement said navasin boston -- sri said that there are people who heat up the podium and those that cool it down and paul said

that he is a heater upper. there is a tremendous energy when he steps to the podium. he is a very mesmerizing speaker and there is energy in the room. vasin, he calls it down. he is everybody's reasonable man. how could you possibly disagree with what i'm saying in such a calm and cool way. [laughter] and they are both just tremendous, but very different in style. and probably, those styles reflect their personalities. you cannot turn yourself into a person you are not. but you don't have to, because there are lots of different ways to be great. >> and how important is oral argument? >> it's not all that important. [laughter] sometimes it is. it's not that it never decides a case. sometimes it does. sometimes i go in and i really will be on a knife's edge. and sometimes i will have a lien

, but you can get me off that lien. back to my clerks and i will say, well, i was thinking x, but now i'm thinking why --y, because y sure sounded better than next. than x. but for most people, the real work happens when you read the briefs, not when you hear the oral argument. and the world argument partly has an entirely different function, which is that it gives us an opportunity to talk with each other. we don't talk with each other about a case before arguments. [indiscernible] and that can be quite important, actually. when we go to conference, we go around the room in seniority order.

and that means i always speak ninth. and everybody else will have spoken and have cast a pulmonary vote by the time i get to speak. and there are some there are good things about speaking night. it's definitely a lot better than eight or seven. is that thereing are a lot of votes cast before you ever get to say anything, right? for me, there is a distinctive take -- if there is a distinctive take i have on a case or something that i really want my colleagues to think about, or i think that for whatever reason they might not have focused on, i will try to use argument as my opportunity to do that. >> so you bring out a certain angle on the case that you think is relevant. but sometimes. i mean, not every time. sometimes i'm asking questions because i really want to know the answers to them. sometimes i am asking questions to try to convey certain points to my colleagues. and i think all of us do that to some degree. >> would it be better -- and i

realize it is not the tradition, but would it be better if people talk before the oral argument? or is this a better structure? >> i could see why it might be. i think it can work either way. anotherto flip to topic, one of the things that has an very striking about your career, you know, you've talked about being open to different opportunities and that it makes sense to be open rather than just say, this is what i'm going to do at 35 and this is what i'm going to do at 50. you have had a series of very important jobs, very high stakes. how do you prepare for them? dean of the law school, or solicitor general, or justice of the supreme court -- how do you prepare for these new challenges? >> well, you talk to people about what is involved in any of them. and you know you are not going to get it right the first day

out. solicitor general, that is actually a good example. when i was solicitor general, i had never argued a case in front of the supreme court. in fact, i had never argued a case before any appellate court. and if you ask me the moment in my life when i was most nervous and most insecure about whether i was going to have the -- you know, everything necessary to really succeed in the job, i would say it was that job. talked to ant enormous number of people. i talked to pretty much every living solicitor general, all of who were incredibly generous with their time, who talked to .e about how the office worked there were a lot of different things that had nothing to do with actually arguing the cases, but that go into being a successful solicitor general, and also to talk to me about arguing.

and in terms of my argument, i spent a lot of time with my my firsts, especially argument was citizens united. it's kind of a big argument. [laughter] it was the re-argument of citizens united. was thatsaving grace everybody said, well, you know you're going to lose. in ordering re-argument, the court had sort of said which way it was going to go. i really did not think that all of campaign finance was resting on me. i pretty much thought that the argument was not going to have a lot to do with this case. but still, it was important, and i knew that everybody was going to be focused on it and it would -- it was important not to fall on my face. i spent an enormous amount of time with all of the gillette -- all of the deputy solicitors , who had just incredible experience. each of them has done 75 or 100 oral arguments themselves.

and with some of the assistance as well, to talk about -- with s as of the assistant well, to talk about what they had done in court and to talk about each case in particular. when you go into something that is new to you, just reaching out to all of these new people, who know a lot better what is afraid tond not being say, i you know, help me, is a really important thing. >> before you became a justice of the court, did you talk to other justices? unique job. how do you prepare for it? >> a little bit less so, actually. one of the things that struck me was that when i got on the court , i was struck by the fact that all of my colleagues were like, now you are just one of us. in some ways, the court is very seniority focused where we do

everything in order of seniority, but in some ways from the day you get on, everybody assumes, hey, you know is much as i know. it's actually a really lovely part of the institution that everybody treats you from the very first moment that you're there as a full, equal member of the institution. an sort of pretense that you know is much as they do. and to the extent and you go in and ask somebody for advice, their first inclination is to say, you don't need my advice. just do what you think. you just have to push them a little bit, which is actually a really nice thing about the court. >> apart from her colleagues now, do you have a supreme court justice in the past that you think of as your role model?

>> the one who is on my wall is thurgood marshall because first of all my connection with thurgood marshall. that is very important to me. i am a huge justice brandeis fan. he was like the greatest writer ever to serve on the supreme court, and think he was a very deeply wise human being. i love the way justice jackson oftes, and i love his sort very practical and commonsensical and institutional approach to law. i guess those are my two favorites, brandeis and jackson. those are great role models, right? models.are great role we are running out of time. two final questions. is there anything that you didn't know when you graduated from law school that you wish you had known? it's a big question. >> what is your answer to that?

[laughter] >> i think the teamwork part. when i graduated from law school, i thought it was all about how smart you were. i thought it was really about doing it yourself. i think that's one thing i've learned over the years. >> it helps to be smart and all that, but it is so much about how you get along with people, it's so much about your -- the eq as opposed to the iq. that's pretty much true in every single job, even the ones you think of is more about really instead about anything else. it turns out that's not what they are about at all. it is in large part about how well you listen to people, how will you work with people, how will you cooperate with people, how much you can sort of put your energies together with

theirs to do something that neither could have done on your own. >> and the final question, people are getting ready to graduate. is there one piece of advice you would give them? >> can i say again, what is your piece of advice? and i will just agree with it again. >> to go back to what you said earlier, being open to opportunity. say, one thing i think is important that we always stress is to have some goals about what's important for you in your career. his public service important to you? what are the things that you want to achieve during the course of your career? and keep those in mind. but at the same time, life isn't planned. things happen that you can't anticipate. it's very important to be open to that. the jobto think that

you have at 28 is the jogger going to retire from. >> it's almost certainly not. in the waynow, but the legal profession has changed. i think for many decades, it's one of the great things about a law you're's career is that you can move from one thing to another and that you can experience different kinds of work in your life. and the ability to recognize there are lots of different opportunities that are going to present themselves to you, and it gives you a sort of freedom .o think about your career i guess the other thing is that in thinking about that, just to reflect on, and this changes over the course of somebody's life, but to reflect on what fills you with a sense of meaning and purpose and value. i think mostly the loggers who are happy our lawyers who find

some -- the lawyers who are happy are those who find some way to accomplish something for people outside themselves, and what that is is going to vary enormously from person to person. but to think about the kind of , because of the way it makes a difference in the world, is going to fill you with a sense of mission accomplished. some feeling that you did something that matter to somebody or something that you pretty much the most important thing in making people really happy to go to work every day. >> that's a fabulous way to end. after the microphone gambit, i think i've done ok since then. i'm going to give you a tchotchke that i hope will not drop on the way. that as peopleng

are really about to embark on a lawyers, and, as you will have incredible opportunities, and i think the opportunity to sit down and to hear from someone who has had the kind of career you have had, and done so many different things, and also to go back to your last point, giving back, and so many profound ways. and it really made the world a better place. it's a real privilege for all of us. i would like to present you with this plaque, our first inaugural let sure to the graduating class. i would like to lead everyone in it a round of applause for justice elena kagan. [applause]

>> and i hope you will join us. were going to have a reception in the health and fitness space to read again, thank you justice kagan. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> on our companion network, eastern, the8:30 author of "the new cold war." ilan berman on his book, "implosion." russian relationships in the 21st-century. letter to night on c-span3, at ohio,astern, from dayton a trip to the bellingham museum look at then state vietnam war. then we stop at chattanooga, tennessee. finally, the musical history of macon, georgia and southern

rock. concluded -- yes, i will be glad to yield. >> he had an opportunity, because i look to both sides, and the only gentleman on that side that has even made up move -- the gentleman did not stand. the gentleman did not rise. don't get political with me. greg sir, i didn't mean to suggest that you are acting with fairness at all. what i was suggesting is that we do have a contentious bill that you have work with the president of the united states. >> that isn't what you said. you said i had a fast gavel. and it wasn't a fast gavel. on a bill of this type -- as for , there wasn't a

man on either side of the aisle. >> i respectfully suggest, sir, that i did not mean to offend wasn't --t >> i accept your apology. >> find more highlights from 35 years of house for coverage on her facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> in 1979, the u.s. broke off diplomatic relations with taiwan and moved to officially recognize china. economic, military and other ties between the u.s. and taiwan. last week the deputy assistant secretary of state for east asia testified before a house subcommittee about u.s. policy toward taiwan. sheridanress and steve

chaired the hearing. >> this hearing will come to order. i'm going to ask all members to take their seats. this hearing on the promise of the taiwan relations act, let me just say it's been 35 years, and for that time, the taiwan relations act has served as the legal framework governing the important relationship between the united states of america and the republic of china, taiwan. ince the act came into force 1979, there have been few other

pieces of foreign-policy legislation as consequential as the tra. indeed, it is the steadfast support of the united states congress that has helped taiwan , aome what it is today thriving, modern society that strongly supports human rights, strongly supports the rule of law and free markets. and his democratic. the purpose of today's hearing is to consider whether the administration is doing enough to fulfill the larger promise of the taiwan relations act. america's support for taiwan is now more important than ever and it is vital that we speak with one voice when it comes to our support for taiwan. the u.s.ning relationship with taiwan is one of the committee's top legislative priorities. in fact, i have led to bipartisan delegations to taipei in the last 13 months.

last year our delegation trip included a visit to taiwan's world war ii era submarines. committeemonth, a delegation of eight members of congress traveled to see firsthand the fleet of fighter jets that serves as the backbone of the taiwanese air force. >> a stark reminder that taiwan needs continuous u.s. support in order to maintain a credible deterrence across the taiwan strait. on this front, i reluctantly submit that we are not doing of theto meet the spirit taiwan relations act. we need to do more here in the united states. defensenecessary as

sales are to taiwan, it is equally important that the u.s. actively support taiwan's efforts to maintain and expand its diplomatic space. when it comes to matters of public safety or public health, the u.s. must do its utmost to ature that taiwan has a seat the table. for this reason, i authored legislation that would sign into law to help taiwan or dissipate in the international civil aviation organization last year. fromn's absence prevented obtaining air safety information in real time. the recent disappearance of the malaysian aircraft highlights the importance of cooperation in the aviation field. as a result of my legislation, taiwan has finally been able to for the first time since 1976. taiwan's participation in the

transpacific partnership free-trade agreement is an important opportunity that we must not overlook. by working to include taiwan in a high-quality, multilateral trade agreement, the u.s. would be helping to preserve taiwan's ability to do business internationally. the events unfolding in the ukraine remind us of the strategic weakness of relying on one major trading partner. i understand that the government of taiwan will soon announce its intention to seek membership in tpp. as chairman of this committee, i strongly urge the administration to support taiwan's inclusion in tpp. american consumers and exporters would benefit. story of taiwan is really a story about transformation from the grinding poverty of the postwar era to a military dictatorship to a thriving, multiparty democracy.

the investment that the american people made in taiwan has more than paid off. today, taiwan is a beacon of democracy in a region of the world that still yearns for freedom. haveood people of taiwan also been a part of america's own success story with many taiwanese americans participating as leaders in business and government and in their own communities. to 35thknowledge anniversary of the taiwan relations act, let us come together to support and strengthen the u.s.-taiwan relationship. our actions will directly impact arefuture of taiwan and economic standing in the critical asia-pacific region. let me turn to mr. eliot engel of new york for his opening remarks, the ranking member of the committee. royce, thank you for calling this hearing on the

taiwan relations act. i am a big supporter of taiwan and have traveled there many times. most recently with you last year on your first kordell as chairman. i want to agree with everything you just said about taiwan. march the 35th anniversary of the taiwan relations act. the act passed in 1979 and is the cornerstone of the relationship between our two nations. it has been instrumental in maintaining peace and security across the taiwan straits and in east asia. it serves as the official basis of friendship and cooperation between the united states and taiwan. i'm proud to be a leads bonds with you, mr. chairman, on a dress for 94 which reaffirms the importance and relevance of the taiwan relations act three decades after its adoption. taiwan is a flourishing multiparty democracy of over 20 million people, with a vibrant, free market economy. it is a leading trade partner of

the united states alongside much bigger countries like brazil and india. over the past 60 years, the u.s. taiwan relationship has undergone dramatic changes, but taiwan's development into a robust and lively democracy underpins the strong u.s.-taiwan friendship we enjoy today. our relationship with taiwan was initially defined by a show shared strategic work is of stopping the spread of communism in asia, but the end of the cold taiwan's political evolution from authoritarianism to one of the strongest democratic systems in asia has transformed the u.s.-taiwan relationship from one based solely on shared interest to one based on shared values. one of the main obligations of the united states under the taiwan relations act is to make available to taiwan defensive arms so that taiwan is able to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.

despite improvement on the political and economic ties between taiwan and mainland china, beijing's military buildup opposite taiwan is continuing and the balance of cross strait military forces continues to shift in china's favor. i encourage the administration to work closely with congress in meeting our obligations under the taiwan relations act and to provide taiwan with the defense of weapons it requires. in that light, i am very concerned about the decision of the u.s. air force not to find the so-called case program in next years budget that would have upgraded the avionics system of in 16 fighter jets am including about 150 of taiwan's f-16s. nowtaiwan defense ministry faces a tough decision on how to move forward with the upgrade of its fighters at a reasonable cost and upgrade that it desperately needs. i hope our witness will be up to shed some light on this issue and on a way forward for taiwan

and the united states. taiwan's political, economic, and social transformation of the past 60 years has demonstrated that a stake in the modern, democratic, and thoroughly chinese. taiwan's example is an inspiration for other countries in asia and throughout the world that linger under the control of one person or one party. the fact that taiwan has now held five direct presidential elections is a clear sign of the political maturity of the taiwanese people, and frankly, a signal to beijing that a change in relations between taiwan and china cannot be imposed by the mainland. for many years i have been a staunch supporter of the people of taiwan. i will continue to lead efforts here in congress to demonstrate continued u.s. support for taiwan. i think it is a moral obligation of the united states to defend taiwan and to be supportive of taiwan and to stand with taiwan.

i look forward to the testimony of our witness this morning and in hearing his view on how to further strengthen ties between the united states and taiwan. thank you, mr. chairman. >> will have two more opening statements, two minutes from the chairman of the asia sub committee and then two minutes for mr. sherman of california crew >> i was pleased to join you in traveling taiwan just a couple of weeks ago. i think we had a productive trip and certainly had the opportunity to meet with a host of top taiwan officials. i know my colleagues were happy with our warm reception and the many courtesies extended to us by our hosts. we appreciate that. as one of the founders of the taiwan caucus, i am a strong supporter of a strong u.s.-taiwan alliance. taiwan is a democracy, a loyal friend and ally and it deserves to be treated as such by the u.s. government. as we commemorate the 35th anniversary of the taiwan

relations act this year, it's only appropriate that we strive to move even closer to the policy objectives set out in that landmark piece of legislation. chief among which is the principle that our diplomatic prc, thehip with the people's republic of china, is premised on the expectation that the future of taiwan will be determined by peaceful means. for over three decades, the taiwan relations act has served as the cornerstone of u.s.-taiwan relations. reagan'sh president six assurances in 1979, the taiwan relations act has played an indispensable role in the maintenance of peace and security in the east asia-pacific region. taiwan has come along way since 1979. it has conducted direct presidential elections, which would've been unthinkable back in 1979. it testifies to the values of pluralism, transparency, and the rule of law. , the threat ofe

military aggression posed by the prc to taiwan has grown exponentially over recent years. when i first came to congress in 1995, and china had perhaps a couple hundred missiles pointed at taiwan. since then, it grew to hundreds 1600 midrange now him listed missiles. i look forward to hearing from thewitness this morning and continued relationship between the united states and taiwan which is very important to both countries. to commend the chairman for putting together and leading an outstanding codel to asia, particularly to taiwan. i see mr. weber, mr. messer, and mr. shabbat was on that codel. i remember mr. shabbat leading us in our effort to seek the release on humanitarian parole of former president chin.

i don't think we can conclude one way or the other about the judicial determination there. but certainly given his poor health and his service to the country, and given the unifying effect this would have, i would hope that we would continue to press for an amended terry and treatment and release of mr. chen. i think that it is important that we provide taiwan the tools to defend itself, but taiwan needs to act as well. time one spends less than $11 billion on its defense, less than 1/5 per capita what we in america do, and god blessed us with the pacific ocean separating us from china. but taiwan has only the taiwan strait. of gdp basis,e taiwan spends roughly half what we do. so we should be willing to sell

them the tools and they should be willing to spend the money to buy those tools. i'm also concerned with the reduction in the reserve requirements imposed on young people in taiwan for military service. onlyly, i do disagree slightly with the chairman. i do want to see taiwan involved in the trade negotiations so long as america is out of those negotiations until such time as we revamp our trading policy, which has given us the largest trading deficit in the history of life on the planet. i yield back. >> this morning we are pleased , abe joined by mr. kin moy career member of the senior foreign service, he previously served as deputy executive secretary in the office of secretary of state clinton. he was director of the executive secretary staff and deputy director of the office of maritime southeast asia.

were going to ask him to summarize his prepared statement, if he would, and we will remind members that you will all have five calendar days to submit statements or questions or any extraneous material you want to put into the record for this hearing. , you have the floor. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman and members of the committee. i'm grateful to appear today to share news about the strengths, substance, and success of our unofficial u.s.-taiwan relationship. i wish to thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership and strong interest in regional prosperity and stability. your commitment was evidenced by the large congressional delegation you lead last month to taiwan, japan, and south korea. as you noted earlier in your remarks, the 35th anniversary of the taiwan relations act. the resilience and development

of our robust relations with taiwan over the past 35 years have been greatly fostered by the framework that congress established in the tra. the u.s.-taiwan relationship is grounded in history, shared values, and our common commitment to democracy and human rights. entertaining and deepening our strong relations with taiwan is an important part of the u.s. rebalance to the asia-pacific region. with taiwanely authorities on a wide range of issues. security, maintenance of peace across the taiwan strait is crucial to stability and prosperity throughout the asia-pacific. the obama administration has notified congress of over $12 worth of arms sales to taiwan. this is a tangible sign of the seriousness with which we regard taiwan security. we encourage taiwan to adopt an innovative approach to maintain a credible self-defense capacity

on an austere defense budget in order to effectively deter kohler chin or aggression. has experiencet tension, the united states appreciates taiwan's cooperative efforts to peacefully resolve disputes and share resources. in the area of the economy and economic engagement in 2013, taiwan was the 16th largest export market for u.s. goods in the eighth largest export market for u.s. agriculture, fish, and forrester products. in 2012, direct investment from taiwan to the united states stood at approximately $7.9 billion. withommercial relationship taiwan is vibrant and continues to grow. last year we were pleased to host two large delegations of taiwan business leaders. atst at the select summit the end of october and again in mid-november, during a visit of taiwan ceo's led by the former

vice president. that delegation brought news of orr $2 billion in new ongoing taiwan manufacturing investments in the united states. in march 2013, we restarted our engagement with taiwan under our trade and investment framework agreement. .fter a six-year hiatus we have taken note of taiwan's intention of formulating new economic reforms, demonstrate its willingness and capability of joining in regional economic integration initiatives. the united states will continue to encourage taiwan to further liberalize its trade and investment measures. as you noted, mr. chairman, the isa of concern also to us taiwan's international space. as a top 20 world economy and a full member of the wg oh and aipac, how one plays a constructive role in the asia-pacific region and worldwide.

about 60rticipates in international organizations as well as hundreds of international nongovernment organizations. want.s. supports i membership in international organizations that do not require statehood for membership and we support taiwan's meaningful participation and other international organizations. we are pleased that since 2000 nine, taiwan has participated every year in the world health assembly as an observer. we welcome taiwan's participation at the international civil aviation organization. that assembly in montréal in 2013 as guest of the council president, and we support taiwan's expanded participation in the future. we also encourage the u.n., system agencies and other organizations to increase taiwan participation in technical or expert meetings. taiwan's role as a responsible player in the global community has been well demonstrated by its disaster relief efforts in the region. taiwan was a quick and generous

donor of supplies and funding after the 2011 triple disaster in japan and after last year's typhoon off the philippines. in short, taiwan is a stable and capable friend in the region. finally, mr. chairman and members of the committee, i thank you again for the opportunity to appear today to highlight the strength and durability of ties between the people of the united states and the people of taiwan. shantou underscore the substance , success of our cooperative efforts within the context of unofficial relations. taiwan has earned a respected place in the world. every society wishes dignity for itself, and people of taiwan are no exception. anxious to the taiwan relations act, people of good will in the united states and in taiwan have a firm foundation with to further drink than our robust furthership -- to strengthen our robust relationship. i look forward to answering your questions. >> iq, mr. moy. there is one -- thank you, mr.

moy. there is one really disappointing thing to me. i frequently speak to assistant secretary danny russell on the phone about different issues. i believe he intended to be here to testify. i believe i talked to him twice about it. but time after time, and this is something that the subcommittee on asia-pacific has talked to me about, for whatever reason, the administration pulls the witnesses, and i know it isn't a lack of engagement on the part of danny russell, because we have talked to him repeatedly about issues. thee is something about relationship here with the state department, when eliot engel and i make these requests, or the subcommittee chairman on the asia-pacific subcommittee, for some reason the witnesses are

always canceled. what we want to talk about is iia policy, and as far as know, danny russell and i are in concurrence on a lot of these issues. further up inbout the ministration. so when i asked questions, for some reason, state department -- i'm going to ask the question now, for example. as i mentioned in my opening statement, i strongly believe that taiwan should be included in the transpacific partnership. does the u.s. government support taiwan's inclusion in the tpp? that is my question to you. can you speak on behalf of the administration here? >> thank you very much. commentseciate your and i did have a chance to speak to danny russell before coming on, and he wanted me to pass

his regrets and also his appreciation for your setting up this meeting. i can say that from our part, i don't think that it's anything preventing us from talking about taiwan issues here. >> it's not just taiwan. chairmanmittee schappert was an equally concerned about this, equally disappointed, as he brought up with the sacred terry of state here yesterday -- with the secretary of state here yesterday, i probably would have brought it up. it's just a pattern at this point due to us, the asia-pacific region is vitally important. we spend a lot of time on this issue and we want the administration to be engaged on this. so if you will carry that information back, but again, particularly given taiwan's onost singular reliance cross strait trade, does the

u.s. government support taiwan's inclusion in the tpp? i will relay and those comments to my colleagues. it certainly isn't a statement about our commitment to very strong u.s.-taiwan unofficial relations. in fact, i think we have a very strong record and a very good story to tell about that. with regard to your question taiwan's, we welcome interest in it and we have heard from them very recently about their interest. -- and i think that you met with the president on your recent congressional hisgation -- but we welcome steps to liberalize taiwan's economy. i think that as you know, we are ,n ongoing negotiations on tpp

and i think what i can say about this is that perhaps it's best conclusion onard those negotiations before we discuss additional membership. i think we are taking a step-by-step approach here. we have heard from taiwan as well as others about interest in certainly, again, welcome that interest. we are willing to definitely consider, along with some countries that have approached us, most recently we are willing to discuss tpp in the future. >> one of the most important poorts of tpp beyond the and trade related benefits is that the grouping will help shape east asia's multilateral political architecture by firmly

anchoring nationstates in a binding, legal agreement. i want to make certain that taiwan is part of that agreement. i think it is critical to taiwan that it be included, not only because it's one of the world's top 20 economies, but also because it is in our own strategic interests, and adding taiwan to tpp will allow it greater access to other trade agreements, with europe for example. it's going to serve as a strong symbol of american support, and that is why i strongly support this. there was another issue i wanted to just briefly talk to you about and that is the f-16 upgrades. does the united states remain fully committed to taiwan's f-16 upgrade program? >> we do. tpp, what we would

encourage taiwan to do, as you know, tpp is a consensus type membership, so we would encourage taiwan to raise its with allin membership of the other parties as well. thatutely, i know congressman engel also raised his concerns about the issue of the capes program. as i understand, the u.s. air force funding for the row graham will continue through 2014. the u.s. air force f-16 program thece has determined that lack of u.s. air force participation beyond fiscal year 2014 will not have a significant impact on the taiwan program, and that all funding can be

covered in taiwan's current letter of offer and acceptance. as a result, potential cuts in u.s. air force funding for the cakes program will not negatively impact the taiwan f-16 retrofit program. mr. chairman, we certainly are to the f-16 retrofit program. i think that we have demonstrated that and we have certainly had discussions with taiwan in that regard. >> it is discouraging to me and to others, because many of us here, including myself, have talked to the administration about the sale of new f-16s. now we are talking about retrofit. we want to make certain that this goes forward. i would suggest the sale of new f-16s would be an easy solution to this. i strongly support this, but my time has expired.

i had best go to mr. eliot engel of new york. >> mr. chairman, thank you. let me pick up where you left off. in my opening remarks i talked about the f-16s in the cakes program. i'm really very concerned about it. ministry nowfense faces a tough decision of how to move forward with the upgrade of its fighters at a reasonable cost. this is an upgrade that it desperately needs. maybe they will continue with it and maybe they won't. concerned about taiwan being able to maintain its fleet of f-16s, and certainly the that we apparently made, the u.s. air force made not to fund the cakes program was a poor decision. it just makes no sense to me whatsoever. , there comes to taiwan

is this sort of undercurrent that we feel over time where we bend over backwards to try not to upset the sensitivities of the beijing regime, and frankly it irks me. not that i don't wish to have good relations with beijing, because we should, but not at of our relationship to taiwan or our friendship with taiwan. it really just irritates me that we make a decision like this, which has an adverse impact on our friend taiwan, and doesn't seem to be for any good policy purpose other than to placate beijing. the chairman i have said the same thing. we haven't really discussed this, we both independently came up with this because we are just very disturbed about it. >> thank you very much. i regret i'm not able to speak for my colleagues in the air

force for that. i do understand your concerns and i will relay those to my colleagues. what i do want to do is to that all ourasize improvements in bilateral relations with the prc does not come at the expense of our relationship with taiwan. in fact i think our relationship with taiwan right now is as strong as it ever has been. we have often emphasized that in fact ipoint, that certainly n interest in strengthening relations with aging, but absolutely not at the expense of our very strong relationship with taiwan and the people in taiwan. thatcertainly hope continues to be the case, because sometimes it appears that that's not really the case.

, certainly will take your word and i wanted duly noted that we on this committee feel very strongly about it. let me ask you this. the administration taking to ensure that taiwan is accorded an appropriate level of dissipation in international organizations such as the world health organization and the international civil aviation organization? >> thank you very much. as i stated in my introductory remarks, it is an area that is of primary importance to us. that theriority expertise from taiwan is recognized. there is so much professional expertise there, so much knowledge in taiwan that it deserves to be recognized in the international organization. this is not just a matter of

knowledge, however. it's a matter of dignity, too, and we take it very seriously. we do review different opportunities to expand. one that the chairman had noted and you may have also as well the international civil aviation organization. i think that working together with a number of other countries, we have supported not just taiwan's guest participation as they appeared as a guest lecturer at the assembly, but more frequent there is a, because lot of technical expertise they can bring to those types of meetings. as you noted, world health assembly, we are also looking at opportunities working on climate change issues. various types of international

organizations. we often consult because there often times our issues where taiwan has a unique ability to provide knowledge, recommendations, imaginative ideas beyond just their technical expertise. we want to take advantage of that and we will continue to do that. >> let me ask you this final question. is the administration providing taiwan the defensive weapons it requires, as required by the taiwan relations act? are there defensive weapon systems that taiwan has requested but we have decided not to provide? if so, what are they? systemsot aware of such , but we are absolutely in compliance with the taiwan relations act in making available to taiwan defense

articles and services that are toessary to enable taiwan maintain sufficient self-defense capability. we will continue to be in compliance with that. we, meaningiew -- the u.s. government, there defensive capabilities, and i think that we have a very strong record in this administration of providing that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. ingle. our chairman emeritus from florida. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. thank you to you and to our ranking member for holding this important hearing, because relations between the u.s. and taiwan are at a critical juncture. i am concerned him as all of us are, about china's continued rise and aggression in the east

and south china seas, and the feeble response by our state department to north korean missile launches which are clear violation of international sanctions. the people of taiwan have every reason to fear developments in the west pacific, to worry about the future of their land, and to question both the resolved and the commitment of the united states. how tragic him and as we approach this 35th anniversary of the very important and essential taiwan relations act anniversary, we remember that this crucial legislation forms the cornerstone of u.s.-taiwan relations. it is the foundation of policy that has been and will be, and will remain for ever more, the anchor of peace and security in the west pacific. but as we reflect on the promise of the taiwan relations act on

this 35th anniversary, we must also gauge the fulfillment of the specific policies, and re-examine the lack of strategic vision in this part of the world, and talk about where we go from here, as we watched china again increased its defense budget by double digits, "structure and on a second aircraft carrier, establish an air defense identification zone in the east china sea, and .ontinue its aggression there is no better time to reaffirm, to clarify, and to strengthen relations with our democratic ally and our strongest friend i'm a taiwan. but instead of recommitting to taiwan, we continue to hear our state department speak in half truths, indent a laundry list of items that hinder our relations with taiwan and are pacific

allies, and do everything he can to not provoke china. that sadly seems to be our policy with taiwan, don't antagonize china. the taiwan policy act introduced passed out ofgues his committee last august. the bill aims to rectify these problems by advancing the sale of essential defense articles and it points -- i would like to point out that new sales of f-16s is included in this bill. it encourages high-level visits between the u.s. and taiwan officials. it promotes bilateral trade agreements. what is the administration's policy on the taiwan policy act? secondly, how does the administration plan to counterbalance china's power when we don't even commit to our democratic ally, taiwan? and back stitching, any of our

other regional allies. thirdly, what is the administration going to do to develop taiwan's economic bond with the united states, to strengthen our economic bond? the state department's policy, the obama administration's policy on taiwan, other than don't make china mad? >> thank you very much. i don't think that our taiwan policy is founded on the principle of let's not make china mad. in fact, i think that if you look at the record, we have done an enormous amount to expand our relationship, strengthen it in all areas. it's not just the security aspects of it, it's the economics. it's also the people to people side as well.

as you may know, with the help --others, we granted >> i apologize, but the time is limited. have you read the taiwan policy act? i would like to give that to you and have an administration policy on it. how are we counterbalancing china's power in committing to taiwan? >> thank you very much. i am of course very pleased to take a look with my colleagues at the legislation, but i think again we have a very strong taiwan,f support for and through our unofficial relations and in accordance with the taiwan relations act, as i noted the 35th anniversary is a reason to celebrate. it is a reason to also

commemorate just how far we have, and what we need to do in the future. and enhance refine -- >> i appreciate that, and i know my time is up, mr. chairman. i don't believe the people of taiwan share those sentiments. i don't think that they see us as upholding the principles that are enshrined in the cornerstone of our u.s. foreign-policy related to taiwan, which is the taiwan relations act. it promises a lot, and i think the people of taiwan with ink that we haven't really fulfilled those missions. do you think that we have? -- i haven'tve seen any recent polls, but i would imagine that the people in taiwan regard the u.s. the mosthip, if not important relationship for it has got to be right up there. they are good friends of ours. they think like we do.

their values we share. i think they're very supportive of the things that we have done. >> did you think we need to do more? looking forways ways to strengthen the relations, just as we are inking in the larger context are rebalanced asia, we want to strengthen our relationships with our allies. we want to strengthen our relationships -- >> and new sales of f-16s and higher technology planes for defensive needs of taiwan? >> again, we have had a very strong record of providing defense articles to taiwan. >> thank you. to mr. brad sherman from california. >> thank you. the one issue we brought up was the and course ration of former president chen.

flags thatred democracy isn't working real well is that the former president is in jail. that is true of just about any country. to seek eitherng the humane treatment or the humanitarian parole a former president chen? know, the former president was convicted on hisuption charges after presidency, including the transfer of presidential office funds to private swiss bank accounts. we believe that his conviction was in a system that is fair, impartial, and transparent.

rule of law exists in taiwan. in regard to your specific question, certainly we have heard varying accounts of the status of his health, and certainly we would want taiwan conditions.s health i am not aware or i don't have an update -- >> we will go on to the next question. taiwan is spinning only half as much per average gdp on defense as we are. i don't mind going to my district and saying let's pay on thebut taiwan is front lines. i'm sure you have had discussions and they say they can't afford to spend any more. we are all very concerned about

the maintenance of the f-16 aircraft. percentas only a five value added tax. has the united states pushed taiwan not just to spend more on defense, but if they don't have the money, to make its value added tax or other taxes at the rate of our european allies, who also need a push for their own defense. peck certainly on the issue of spending more, we have encouraged taiwan to fulfill what it has said in the past, that it will spend up to 3% of gdp on defense. accept 3% for them, including inventor -- veterans benefits, 5% for us? the presidentt has stated in the past. we hope that --

>> i think the best way to get the 3% is to start demanding 6%, or insisting that a good ally who seeks our support, that for a country that faces possible eradication or forced incorporation ought to be doing well more than the united states per capita. i think of we start talking about 6%, we may someday see 3% or 4% at a minimum. finally, what are we doing to push taiwan to adopt better laws against peer to peer websites for piracy in movies? >> i think this is part of our economic engagement with time on -- with taiwan. what we have said in the past is , and this is in terms of all our dialogues, we would like to have a little bit more confidence, especially in areas like intellectual property protection.

>> are we specifically focusing on peer to peer websites, the lack of legislation in that area? and the pirating of our movies. >> i'm not aware of that's pacific lee. -- i'm not aware of that pacific lee -- specifically. ask a general statement about intellectual property protection mode have the specific effects, and may have no effect compared to the specificity. i hope that you will specifically focus their attention on the peer to peer website piracy of our movies. finally, what steps is the administration taking to make sure that taiwan has appropriate participation in international organizations such as the world health organization and the climate control unfccc?

>> thanks for much. as i noted earlier, international space is a priority of ours. we are looking for opportunities experts and professionals to shine in their fields in international fora and will continue to do that. it really does help those organizations and does help the global community when they are able to participate. >> mr. chris smith of new jersey. >> thank you for your testimony. over the past years and across two different administrations, we have witnessed an alarming number of gushing statements by senior american officials on the u.s.'s one china policy. laster, -- last year, a general during a visit to washington claimed that hillary clinton stated that u.s. policy

maintains that there is only one china in the world and that taiwan is part of china. not long after that, and admiral said that he shared the view of a "peaceful reunification of china." the me ask you mr. moy, the people's republic of china is a dictatorship. it is a gulags state and would we have wrist -- wished that reunification of west germany when there wasny a cruel dictatorship in east germany? i think not. i think those types of statements are not helpful. oro believe as to whether not the time has come that the cold war relic -- i know all about the shanghai communiqué. he said that the shanghai communiqué said