tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 17, 2013 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
we had eight presidents who have embarked upon energy independence. i don't think any of them were in competent people. but here we are 40 years on and we are where we are. i have met hundreds and hundreds of members of congress and senators over the years. i can only count on one hand people i thought were not competent at least in the conversation i was having. they are competent people who come to serve. i have met hundreds of appointed officials over the years. i cannot count on anything any incumbent and appointed officials have ever met. ..
twenty-six congressional committees and subcommittees, 800 plus federal judges, 50 states, 50 state legislatures and then you get the thousands of municipalities and counties across the country. pretty fragmented system. so where am i going with this? the same issues exist around energy that exists around money, and the supply of money. but yet we have in our democratic wisdom figured out a mechanism that enables the
monetary system to work. within the same governance of this big, sloppy federal democracy. because we have in the past experienced monetary crises where the system wasn't working, we came up with a solution. and that solution is now 100 years old this year. 1913 federal reserve act created an institution, a governance mechanism that works to manage money. i think and leslie give some serious thought and action -- unless we give series thought and action for energy from the dysfunctional and fragmented energy governance system that we have today, to a more simplified, streamlined independent authority when it comes to energy, we will not crack this problem. opec is a powerful institution. and it operates under very
different rules than the u.s. government. think of it as no rules. it's just an agreement. the eighth presidents, 20 congresses, many, many states having tried of this effort, they have none of them succeeded. and i don't think we can afford the lack of success in the face of future fuels competition for the basic fuel that we use today. we are all going to lose. so i think somewhere along the line we have got to turn our attention to not just the practical solutions of competitive products, which i agree with, and work every day to promote, but i think we also have to do with the larger issue which is as long as we pretend that energy is a marketplace, when it's not, in the first instance because it's all
governed, and we have to have a governance institution that enables that the market ultimately to work in an organized manner the same as we have a monetary system that works in the very same system in which we also consume energy. so i will leave it there. >> thank you, john. did you want to jump in? >> just i agree with the complexity that you presented that the government, but sometimes you need outside force to coerce the government to do the right thing to what you see this light is the energy equivalent of, the chinese version of the sputnik. because sometimes you need from the outside, and this is happening. it's real and it's spreading. and as you know, no automaker in the world will be able to give up on the chinese market.
so then the question is, can we afford as a nation to see our chinese friends enjoying competition when we are denied similar prerogatives? and i think at that point people will ask the government why do people in china and brazil can have the kind of choice and we are not? so sometimes you need a little push from the outside. >> let's not get wimpy with china. [laughter] let's go over to bill of the american consulate of renewable energy. then over to you, bud, for a wrapup so we finish on time. >> somebody who's been involved in the production of ethanol for the past 40 years, i would be inclined to wave a white flag. but marines don't have white flags. so i'd like to propose something outside the government that we can do, and that is a
partnership between ethanol and methanol. >> thank you, bill. over to you, frank. >> before we part i'd which is like see if we get some ground truth is down to a couple things i keep being told about methanol as a clear, attractive option. i'm told it's terribly corrosive and, therefore, it can't possibly be used in existing internal combustion engines. i'm told that it's turbot toxic and, therefore, it's a health hazard. i've been told that it all comes down to just basically warranties, that really the technology i've heard jim talk about o rings. since 2007, we haven't been manufactured cars at least in this country that have had as a potential at least a sale and
brazil. that not marketed here as flex vehicles but their market there as flex-fuel vehicles. so, therefore, they could be in fact if not methanol compatible, ethanol compatible, and what's the difference? what else needs to be done to make them both? in other words, could somebody before we part, rocket scientist or others, just get to the ground truth here as to how hard is it whether it's retrofitting models pre-2007 which understand it's a bigger deal for just the ones that have been made since 2007. especially the ones going forward which as you just sort of implied will be manufactured for a chinese market as well as an american market and will we be persisting in this pretense that they can be everything they are in these foreign markets. >> there's a heck of lot of people here who i know want to jump in, but greg, you are in
the hot seat. >> i'll try some of it. we are talking about china. even look at china, all of those products are using 15% methanol, 85% gasoline. the cars they're using those are the existing fleet of vehicles. no changes to the cars. if you look at the chinese auto fleet, about two-thirds of the cars are sold in china are built by the international oems. it's the forward, audi, volvo. those cars are largely compatible with in 15 because they're using it in china. on the and 85 flex-fuel vehicles -- [inaudible] spent with existing warranties, yes, but if you look at -- >> so the countries that manufacture these cars are wanting them to work in china with 15% methanol? >> they are honoring the warranties in vehicles that are being fueled with 15% methanol. and on the flex-fuel vehicles side, you can go back to
california. we have 10 years of experience, 200 million miles, we didn't have technical problems. we know how to build and methanol flex fuel vehicle. we are doing races right now in europe on gasoline, ethanol, methanol in rally cars that are running around europe. we've done research demonstrating the same kind of turn area blends of gasoline, ethanol and methanol in flex-fuel vehicles, and they were. it's really methanol is more corrosive, slightly more corrosive than methanol but it's a simple fix. on the toxicity site, methanol is toxic. you can't make it on toxic, but when you're talking about blends, say turn four, adding that 15% gasoline in the mix makes the bland -- you can't get into because it's got ethanol in it, or that methanol in it. again, california 200 million miles, now more than
200 million miles of experience. china, not a single case of methanol poisoning. so it really is a nonissue. i would point out that methanol is biodegradable. is more environmentally benign than gasoline. it doesn't have the carcinogens. so there are lots of benefits to using methanol environmental energy and we know how to do it. the are no technical hurdles. >> bud, before we jump over to you, the council of the chinese embassy come is a thing you'd like to add reflecting on our conversation today? >> actually it's really very impressive to hear everybody talking about not only oil and gas but also other forms of energy including methanol. china actually we utilize a lot of corn to make ethanol. later we realized that our corn
was not enough for people's consumption and, therefore, we gave up the idea of manufacturing ethanol from corn. and we manufactured methanol from coal. because we have a lot of coal. i think that's really a very good form of energy, and is also a very reliable form of energy. but meanwhile, we will still rely on some other forms of energy, including nuclear and also hydropower. and we will give more attention to methanol because before this seminar i didn't expect that people would be so interested in discussing this topic. and i thought rather interested
in imports oil of gas from other countries. but actually that's not the whole case. thank you. >> thank you. our goal is really to look forward and look toward the competitive transportation fuel market for all countries. >> thanks very much, and thanks to each of you who have contributed so richly today to this discussion. you know, it's kind of an old guy at the table, and i look back on -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> on that day four years ago when we were facing this embargo -- 40 years ago and the secretary at the time of defense
was attending meetings around the clock, having to worry seriously about the impact of quadrupling of the price of oil. well, the 40 years since then, if you're a cynic you could say this has kind of been the golden age of hand-wringing, where we have tried, and again and again, and failed. and so, today, people that have calm hoping for a solution may ask, well, what's new? why hasn't it been done? what did you hope that it can be and that lies will change? and i think what you've heard today tells you that our
approach is relying importantly on two factors. and that is to bring the american people and their values into this policy process. and i mean by that, why does everybody want to have? a better valley at the pump, cheaper fuel. -- better valley. secondly, what is kind of a bedrock american value that every american can give you 99% positive rating is competition. and so thinking about those two kind of drivers, we believe that are common to all americans, we are saying is it feasible to deliver a cheaper way to our transportation? do we have the resources, the
size, the engineering at hand? and that is a new thing, because we do. we can today because of advances in electricity and powering cars, and this windfall, enormous blessing of shale gas, which can be used as a vehicle fuel, bring new things to market. that are cheaper, cleaner, better for you, competitive. well, you may say, how are you going to get that done? the answer is when you go to people that you need to start spending investment to produce more of these alternatives, they say, we are ready.
but we are not going to do it until there are a lot of vehicles that can burn it on the road. and so at that point, john hofmeister's point is absolutely right. we do have to engage government in the regulatory framework that can enable creating lots of cars that can use these things. and that's what joe, the fuel freedom foundation is focused on. set free american ingenuity and the modern pop star for that matter to convert your existing cars, and there are 250 million of them on the road right now, to be able to burn all these alternatives. and at that point you induce those investors tuesday, great. if we're really going to convert all those old cars, and start
making new ones, that can burn anything, well, gasoline, methanol or ethanol, and we encourage people that are at the cutting edge of electricity for powering cars, and then suddenly you have a competitive marketplace. yes, secretary and your is always right about this. we're going to have oil for ever. we will need it. but let's get into a marketplace with electricity, with methanol, with ethanol, and let 250 million automobiles now capable of trying it all. do it. the only other point i think has been underplayed today is it's healthier. it's interesting that automobile
industry has been very imaginative and the fuel industry, too, in trying to figure out how can you get a higher octane fuel? for a long time we use lead and then we found out that's bad for you. then we cut that out and we began to put in carcinogenic things. we didn't tell you that, but when you put in tbd to replace lead, it's been seen, xilinx him and they're all carcinogenic, well, the windfall natural gas that enables you to make higher octane fuels as ben cohen said, gives you the high octane
without the cancer. such a deal. so we have the means at hand to do this if we can get the american people to express their values that are age old. we like a competition. we like a cheaper product. if it's healthier, that's icing on the kick. -- on the kick. the bottom line is and what this report is the first report i've ever seen to do it is that you can do it without a dime of taxpayer money. and right now on the evening news this very day we are finding out that we're just not going to do very many things in our lives in the years ahead that costs more government subsidies or taxpayer money.
well, we're asking you all to become disciples. and get out there and spread the gospel. are going to do our best to do the same thing. let me turn it back to you, anne, and thank everybody for coming. >> thank you, bud. [applause] >> and this is a special message to our viewers at home on c-span. you heard what bud said. we need you. we need you to demand of your elected officials that they stop talking about increasing our energy security by reducing oil imports. they start talking about turning oil into salt to making oil just into another commodity by opening the market to fuel competition. it's the american way. competition is the american way. together we can do this. without you it's just another of the very many issues out there and no policy -- potential pay
attention. you can go to our website, usesc.org and find this report and take the time to read it. thank you, everybody. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] >> defense secretary chuck hagel released a statement on the reopening of government saying in part, now that this latest budget crisis has come to an end we have an opportunity to return to focusing on the critical work of this department. unfortunately, congress did not end the budget uncertainty that has cast such a shadow over this department for much of the year.
in the months ahead, they will have an opportunity to do so. words of defense secretary chuck hagel, and lots of questions about the latest day when he briefs reporters are keeping watch that live at 12:50 p.m. on our companion network c-span. spokesman jay carney will address many of the same issues at today's white house briefing. our cameras will be there and you can see that live at 1:30 p.m. eastern also on c-span. later, how is the relationship between the obama administration and the national press corps? that's the focus of a panel discussion at the new america foundation here you can watch that live starting at 2 p.m. eastern right here on c-span2. at the same time we'll bring you coverage of a discussion on the housing market. specifically the panel will look at what to expect once ben bernanke steps down as fed chair. the american enterprise institute hosts, and that's why the 2 p.m. eastern on c-span3.
>> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s.-centric on weeknights watch key public policy event. every week in the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> coming up next, this week's prime minister's question time. david cameron takes questions from members of the house of thn commons for about a half an ho hour.ent. >> questions to the prime minister. paul broomfield.roun >> number one,fi mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house will wl wish to join me in england congratulating the england soccer team for the excellent win last night ensuring theyensi qualify for nexters worlngd cup.
my commiseration to the other home nation including scotlandte but an impressive win over the n racial last night but i'm surem now that anyone in the unitede u kingdom will swing behind the english team. you can always dream and hope. this morning i'd meetings with mr. collins and others and inmei addition to my duties in thisini house isolate further such meetings laters today. >> and i certainly associate myself with remarks made by ther prime minister in relationship in which football team. i'm hopi i'm only hoping sheffield united will follow their lead. teaugh >>r. sper] >> mr. speaker, we will all have heard from constituents who, while struggling to make endske meet by taking a payday loans, and some are trapped andre spiraling debt with excessived charges and escalating intereste yesterday, all the major national consumer and other
organizations came together in parliament to launch a charter calling for the tough regulation of payday lenders. the chancellor is backed by ---- [shouting][suting] spent the chancellor is backed by members representing every part in this town. e will be prime minister at hisis support speak was first a c k lcanic commend the chairmanor for the work he does on paydayte loans and the need for toughk regulation? i think it is right that we loo at this area are make sure we mh iske things right.ment pbl our biggest month the government published two new report showin, the problems in the payday market persist and consumers do continued to suffer. that is why the financialmade a conduct riauthority made proposs using powers to ban loans inban adverse it doesn't approve of,l, assuring lenders control overs e loans more than twice, limiting the number of pins the payday lender can take money out of accounts and all of the proposals all worthwhile. the ie of the cap and i don't think we should rule that out but we have
to bear in mind what has been found that in other countries and to our own research about whether a cap would prove effective but it's right that would probably regulate this area. >> dr. liam fox. >> mr. speaker, can we have a full and transparent assessment about whether "th the guardians involvement in the snowden affair, and as my friend agree that it's bizarre from some packing of celebrity phone demands prosecution believing the british people and the security personnel more vulnerable is opening a debate? >> i commend my right honorable friend for raising this issue. i think the plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security and in many ways the guardians themselves admitted and when they agreed when asked politely by national security advisor and cabinet secretary to destroy the files ahead. they went ahead and destroy those files. they know it's dangerous for national city. i think it's up to committees in
his house everyone to examine this issue and make further recommendations. >> ed miliband. [shouting] >> thank you i join the prime minister and sending arms congratulations to the english team on their victory last night and getting to the world cup finals next summer. today's economic figures are welcome fall on unemployment. [shouting] they also show that prices have risen faster than wages and that 39 out of 40 months that living standards have fallen since he became prime minister. will he confirm what everybody knows, that there's a cost of living crisis in this country? >> first of all let me welcome his welcome for the unemploymunemploym ent figures. not everyone in the house would've been able to study them but it is good news. a number in work is up 155,000, unemployment is down 18,000, women's unemployment is down, youth unemployment is down.
long-term an opponent is down and vacancies are up. the fall in the claimant count is 41,000 this month alone, that is the fastest fall in the number of people claiming unemployment since februar february 1997. so these are welcome figures. of course, were all want to see living standards improve, and last year's disposable income increased at the ways to deliver on living standards is to grow the economy, keep reducing the jobs and cut people's taxes. -- keep producing the jobs. >> prime minister, the almost 1 million young people still out of work and record numbers of people working part-time who can't find full-time work. that is no cause for complacency for this government. and i think the british people will be very surprised to hear the prime minister duncan their living standards are rising when they know the truth. under him living standards are falling months upon months upon months there is a cost of living
crisis and one reason is rising energy bills which one leading charity reports today is one of the things driving people to food banks. in light of that does the prime minister think the energy company to raise its customers energy bills by a.d. .2% as justified? >> first of all let me come back to on the youth unemployment figures which he mention. because the youth claimant count the number of young people claiming unemployment benefit is down 79,000 since the election. there's no complacency, we need more young people in work, more jobs. one of the remarkable things about today's figures is they show for the first time there are 1 million more people in work than they were when this government came to office. let me remind the right honorable gentleman of something he predicted in october of 2010, he said this, he said the government, i think people want to listen to this, he said this,
the government have a program which will clearly lead to the disappearance of 1 million jobs. that was his prediction. he was 100% wrong and he should apologize to this house of commons. [cheers and applause] >> now, of course, we all want to see energy prices come down. that's why we're putting people on the lowest terrace. the one thing that won't work is a price calm and that is what he is recommending. >> ed miliband. >> this prime minister for the cost of living crisis facing millions of families. let's talk about ssd because they see on the website and i quote, they have just won strategic priority, and they call it their dividend obsession. it's not to get deals done. it's not to be on the side of the consumer. so its make up your mind time for the prime minister. whose side is he on, the energy company for the consumer? >> we are on the side of
hard-working families. that's why we have cut income tax or 25 million people. why we have frozen the council tax but what we've lifted too many people out of tax. let me make this simple point about living standards. if you want to help with living standards the best way to do that is to cut people's taxes. you can only cut taxes if you cut spending. he has opposed every single spending cut that we have proposed, even now he still wants to spend more money. that is the truth. more spending, more borrowing from our debt. it's the same old labour. >> ed miliband. >> isn't as striking that the one thing the prime minister doesn't want to talk about is energy prices? he can talk about it because he is no answer. let's have an answer on the energy price freeze. can he confirm that opposing the freeze he has on his side the big six energy companies? and supporting a freeze we have consumer bodies and small energy
producers, and the vast majority of the british people? >> if an energy price freeze was such a great idea why didn't he introduce it when he stood here as energy secretary? the fact is it is not a price freeze. it is a price gone. he's not in control of worldwide gas prices, which is why he has to admit the next day he couldn't keep his promise. that is the truth. the reason the right honorable gentleman doesn't want to talk to the economy is because he hasn't got a credible economic policy. he can't explain why the deficit is falling, the economy is growing, unemployment is coming down. i have to say, given his problem, is no -- he doesn't help himself by having a totally incredible energy policy. >> ed miliband. >> i thought he might get to the record of the last government
because they found a new tactic. they been slandering all of the place and they blame the last government. let's talk about green levies, because who was it who said vote blue, go green. i think it was this prime minister. who was it who said, as leader of the opposition and i quote, i think green taxes as a whole needs to go up. it was him as leader of the opposition. and he's been talking about my record as energy secretary. so i looked back at the record on the energy bill of 2010. did he oppose the energy bill of 2010 bucks know. he supported the energy bill of 2010. you could say, mr. speaker, two parties working together in the national interest. let me ask him, doesn't he feel embarrassed that in five short years he's gone from hunter haas
keep to voucher? [shouting] >> the only embarrassing thing is this tortured performance. he wants to talk about the record of the last labour government. let me remind them on the cost of living they doubled the council tax. they doubled the gas bill. they put up electricity bills by half. they put a pet troll attacks 12 times. and increase the basic state pension by a measly 75 cents. then we came to the low pay they got rid of that can be income tax banned altogether. they have absolute no economic policy and that is why the former chancellor, the honorable member said this, on the ninth of september i'm waiting to hear what we've got to sit on the economy. well, we've all been waiting but i think we can give up because they are a hopeless opposition. >> i'll tell him what happened because he talks about the last
labour government. i'll tell him what happened. living standard -- living standards -- [shouting] living standards up 3700 pounds over the 13 years of the last labour government. living standards down 1500 pounds under him. this is the reality of britain under this prime minister. food bank use on the rise, energy bills and soaring, even if you're in work you are worse off and they prime minister in total denial about the cost of living prices facing millions of families. [shouting] >> if he wants to debate the last labour government i say bring it on. they crashed the economy. they bust the banks. they doubled the national debt. they bankrupted this country. and i have to say, today on the day we can see the our 1 million more people in work in our country, that is 1 million reasons to stick to the economic plan that we have.
it is 1 million reason to keep on getting the deficit down, delivering on education, to living on welfare. it's 1 million reasons to say more borrowing to more spending and more debt. that is the same old labour. never again. [shouting] >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. last night, speed the honorable german will be fully heard. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. last night -- [inaudible] the gay world war ii codebreakers of this country went world war ii. the government indicated in july it would move to give a pardon to him for his conviction for indecency which led him to take his own life. to my right honorable friend, can he tells when the pardon will be credited? >> first of all let me pay tribute to what alan and all the people who worked at the park if our country. it was remarkable and crucial in
winning the second world war. clearly what happened and was completely wrong, and a looking back everyone can see the. everybody knows that. the specific issue of the pardon i'm happy to look at the response of the honorable gentleman but above all what we should do is pray for him and the brave people who worked for him. >> today is the day. the prime minister embrace the campaign including the need to cut federal grain biofuel mandates, which effectively hijacked food product for fuel consumption by the rest. today, the eu presidency is proposing a 7% gap as opposed to a 5% cap. that difference could be feeding six many people you. what effort is he making to compromise the fight to? >> first of all let me pay to get to the honorable gentleman, the campaign is waged on this specific issue. we are clear the production of
biofuels should not undermine food security and on some occasions in some countries it clearly is. a 5% cap made from crops was one of the kiosk of the if campaign. i pay tribute to what they did. that is exactly what we are pushing for an current negotiations and hope we will be successful. >> mr. alastair burr. [shouting] >> thank you. thank you, they use of content a blood product by the nhs in the 1970s and '80s exposed 5000 people to have to -- and some 1200 others included in that number the hiv as well. of those 1200, just over 300 are still a life. has never been an apology or a public inquiry. will my right honorable friend who has an outstanding record in seeking to close historic wrongs of the past meet with me and one
of my constituents, look again the possibility of public acknowledgment that perhaps this last historic health of scandal and ensure the for those who survive now they are treated equally and fairly by a state that wrong to them in the first place to? >> can i think my right honorable friend for raising this issue in the way that he has? i have constituents have been affected by this appalling thing that happen i in our country. and 2011 come in january we announced a package of measures to provide additional support for those affected not least because there's been a change in the potential outcomes of people with hiv compared with those with hep c. i'm very happy to meet with him and consider all of the issues he raises and see whether there's more we can do to bring this very, very sad chapter to a close. >> the prime minister will know of the many injustices that have been meted out in the last few
years. they will mention again on monday in an interview. the latest victim was a farmer who went in december 2012, and were stripped of his benefits. for 11 months he waited for an appeal. and then his aggressive cancer took his side, took his hearing, and then last friday, took his life. isn't it time that would put an end to this system where people that are really suffering should not be allowed an appeal having to live on 70-pound a week, him and his widow? two things that prime minister should do -- [shouting] with immediate effect, make an extra payment to his widow to
cover the suffering, the pain and the loss of income, and secondly, abolish this cruel, heartless monster. get rid of it. >> prime minister. >> prepare for it. >> the gentleman rightly raises what is a deadly sad case and am happy to look at this and look at the specifics of the case that he raises. i think everyone who has constituents and talk to constituents knows that would have to improve the quality of decision-making about this issue. but where i would take issue, i think it is important that we carry out proper assessment of whether people are qualified for benefits are not qualified for benefits. that's why the four members opposite shout out about this, that is why they started to look at work capability. >> the question was heard, and heard i think with great courtesy. and the answer must be heard. the prime minister. >> that is why when they were in government, the less government did look at the issue and making
sure whether proper way of judging who should be receiving benefits and who should and. as i say we can always improve the system. the our appeals and the system but happy to look at the individual case. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [inaudible] including alexander harris has suspended my daughter. i am really concerned that their ecological process -- protests is being misinterpreted as piracy because nobody wants -- [inaudible] >> i share my honorable friend concerned at one of the people involved is a constituent of mine but i think we need to follow this case extreme it closely and that is what the foreign office is doing. the foreign office minister had a meeting which i'm sure she attended and we are daily seeking updates from the russian government about how these people are being treated. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week in answer to question
on his marriage tax policy the prime minister answered that all married couples paying basic rate tax would benefit from this move. that wasn't correct, was it, prime minister? can he confirm that? >> what i said was married couples allow tax is available to all couples who are on basic rate tax to anyone who has unused tax allowance is able to transfer it between a husband or the wife but it comes back to a very simple principle, which is would want to back marriage in the tax system and not just as a party opposite did, backpacks in the marriage in the inherent tax system. but we want to back marriage for less. if the shadow council wants to raise another point of order, i'm very happy to stick around and hear that. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i originally intend to raise the issue of a keep 14 with my right honorable friend but an important announcement was made today by the supreme court which
sent down an appeals of bridges rights. also importantly, mr. speaker, reasserted it is the role of this parliament to make the decision rather -- can my right honorable friend incher we will not be voting for prisoners rights in this parliament? >> well, can i thank my auto friend for taking the issue and raising this very important issue? and can i congratulate the attorney general on the excellent results here he thought his case himself in front of the supreme court. he made a compelling and forceful argument, and this is a victory for common sense. my views on this issue are well known. i do not believe that prisoners should have the vote and the believe it's a matter for this house of commons. the supreme court today has stood up for commonsense, stood up for democracy and made clear this issue is nothing to do with the european union and i think we can all rejoice in that result. >> mr. speaker, the number of people held by food banks in
2012-13 will triple compared with the previous year. is the prime minister proud of this achievement? >> well, food bank usage went up 10 times under the last labour government. of course, what i want to see is helping all families with their living standards. that is why we are recognized the fact we're getting more people into work, growing our economy, keeping interest rates down and crucially what cutting taxes. for things that are vital to living standards and four things you'd never get from the labour government. >> mr. speaker, in september and and the service moved to a makeready system. and today you are known to man ambulances based in the borough. already several of my constituents have been left for with totally unacceptably long periods waiting for an indolence to take them to the hospital. talking to endless chief as i
followed up the death. so will the prime minister agreed to meet with me to see what can be done before a constituent dies waiting for an adult to come? >> i share my friends concerned about the importance of response time for ambulances. i think we have to pass the in a as for how to best meet those targets because what matters most of all is swift attended to people who need it. i'm very happy to arrange a meeting with her and held diminished to look at this. i know the and its services look at ways to improve its services include she will encourage them to do just that. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister will note that yet today the independent police and state commission published a damaging report into an event that occurred involving the former government chief whip. this report goes to the heart of the issue of integrity and ethics of the police. does he agree with the home secretary who, in her evidence to the committee yesterday, said
it was right that the constable should apologize to the right honorable member, and wrong if the relevant officers did not face disciplinary procedures? >> i agree 100% with what the home secretary said yesterday, and i think we should be clear about what we're discussing here. the whole case of what happened outside number 10 downing street with the cbs and we actually that on one side until they make their decision, what's being discussed here is the fact my right honorable friend had a meeting with police federation officers in his constituency where he gave a full account of what had happened to a left that meeting and claimed he had given them no account at all. fortuitous meeting was recorded and so he's been able to prove that what he said was true to what the police officers said was untrue. that is why the right honorablee gentleman is right, he's owed an apology. the conduct of these officers was not acceptable. these things should be properly
investigated as the home secretary has said and and crucially absolute right for his committee to discuss this with the chief constables concern and try to get to the bottom of why proper address has not been given. >> can i congratulate the prime minister on taking 2 million out of income tax that noting that 1.3 million earning around 40,000 in families have been sucked into high rate. [inaudible] can i just urge him -- [laughter] >> here, here. >> can i just urge them to deliver it by cutting government spending so we can also ease the squeeze on the middle-class? >> i think my honorable friend is absolute right to make this point. we have taken 2.7 million people out of income tax altogether because what lifted the first 10,000 pounds of what you can earn before you start paying taxes. this means also somewhat on minimum wage working full-time
-- someone on minimum wage has seen attacks will come down by something like two-thirds. yes, i want to see taxes cut for all but the only way we can do that is to continue to get the deficit down, to bear down on public spending and not listen to the party opposite who, even today, are making massive commitment to more welfare spending and more public spending which would mean higher taxes, higher borrowing and more of the same old labour. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister consider a source of shame that on his watch the red cross has announced that it will be distributing food to -- in 70 years of? >> what the red cross are choosing to do, it is their choice, is to work with fair share which is an excellent charity that make sure that supermarkets don't waste food but make the food available to people who needed. and i think that is worthwhile.
what we need to see to repeat again is a raising living standards which will get if we keep growing the economy, we keep getting more jobs, we keep cutting people's taxes and we keep interest rates and mortgage rates low. those are the four things this government is delivering. for things that we never would have delivered if we listen to a word of the front bench opposi opposite. >> mr. simon kirby. >> thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday i presented a petition to the department of health calling for 420 million pounds for redevelopment and brightened. does the prime minister agree with me that this money would make a real difference to patients right across suffix at my local hospital? >> well i understand that the business case for the 420 million pounds redevelopment of the regional center of teaching and trauma care of a hospital in brighton, that is currently being considered.
we can only consider because this government decided not to cut the nhs budget put extra resources into the nhs and that show when it is presented an announcement will be made. >> tax cuts for millionaires, tax cuts for the wealthiest in this country, at the same time as millions are denied the right to work and most people who are hard-working -- pay cut by 1500 pounds. when is this government, the privileged -- [shouting] millionaires minister going to do something -- instead of being the political goods for the hedge funds and the bankers. [shouting] >> we all know who did the most for the hedge funds and the bankers. it was the people who allowed the banks to go bust in the first place.
it is this government that is cutting taxes for working people. taken 2.7 million people out of tax, compared with the disgrace of the government he was in the scrap the 10 be income tax. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we all appreciate the government requires hard choices about priorities. does the prime minister agree with me that generous basic state pension based on a triple lock should have a priority and more generous wealth? >> i think my honorable friend makes an important point and a proud of the fact that last year under this govern the basic state pension went up by five pounds 30 a week. we have the inflation figures for september so we can say because of our triple lock the basic state pension will go up by the rate of inflation to point some% next year. of course, the party opposite committed to an earnings income wouldn't see anything like that. and yet at the same time they
are choosing to operate welfare by to point some% when we think it should go up by one person. we have the priority to stand up for people who work hard, done the right thing, but said underlies the deserve dignity and recover. unlike the party opposite we will never let our pensioners down. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this week the office of national statistics supported the house price inflation in london was running at 8.7%. does the prime minister agree that this was inevitable that his mortgage guarantee scheme will simply feast the property bubble of the price of individual low-cost homebuyer? >> i don't accept that for a moment and it's interesting flavor has now come out against the health provides king. so with we want to help people get on the housing ladder, as ever the labour party is standing against those people. i have to say to the honorable lady, you look at house price
increases outside london in the southeast it is -- mortgage activity still way below where it was before the recession struck. will tell people get on housing ladder and receive and achieve the dream of homeownership. clearly the party opposite don't care for them. >> the prime minister will know that in my constituency some businesses are almost paying as much in business rates as they are paying in rent. however, what steps will be take to persuade local council to use the powers this government has given them to reduce those rates and make the right choices to support our qwest? >> well, i'm grateful to my honorable friend because i know he's a real champion for small business on this issue. obviously, the first thing that we need to do is to get the bill passed through the house of commons that will cut the national insurance bill of every business in the country, particularly helping britain's small business. it means a single traders will be able to take on three people
earning minimum wage without paying any national interest at all. that is the most important thing we can do. we should continue to look at the business rates system, in courage counsel to make sure that they do everything they can to apply the discount whether a fable and continue to work on this issue. >> under this government wages in real terms have fallen in every region of the uk. given that those in power and across the rest of london are now have 2200 pounds worse off future. when will the prime minister take personal responsibility? >> what he has to do is look at disposable income as well as wages. because this government has cut people's taxes, because what allowing people to keep 10,000 pounds what they earn before they pay taxes, disposable income went up last year and it is rising as we speak today. this is important for the labour party because he did go on attacking spending cuts and if you go on asking for more and more spending, everyone will
know, repeat after me with labour, you get more bar become more spending, more taxes but it's the same old labour. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. is my friend aware that unemployment has fallen and job seekers are in college, could i ask my honorable friend to go one step further and look of raising the threshold which always been no national insurance? >> i'm happy to look at what my honorable friend said. he is the real champion for the low-paid come of the people who want to work hard and improve their circumstances. clearly taking people out of tax issues, we should also get national insurance, the priority is to help small businesses to take people on. it is worth recognizing in the figures announced today that 1 million extra people in work, three quarters of those jobs are full-time jobs, not part-time jobs. what i think we can see is that country is getting stronger, the
>> how is the relationship between the obama administration and the national press corps? that's the focus of a panel discussion today at the new america foundation. former executive editor of the "washington post" is among the participants and you can watch that live starting at 2 p.m. eastern right here on c-span2. we want to tell you about a change in our way you service. c-span rated is moving to a new channel on ex-im radio. starting friday you can listen on channel 120.
keep track of public affairs when you're in the car or away from your television with c-span radio. >> over the years when you look back at the books that have an impact on a president, what did you find? >> subsequent an impact on us. >> that's one of my inspirations writing this book. i rescue is to see what they both had an impact. one of the famous stories is the other america in the early 1950s about poverty especially in west virginia. it led to the war on poverty. it's not quite that simple. it didn't happen quite that way. what he read was a book review in part because he was reading it and that inspired candy to tell walter heller with the chairman of the council of economic advisers to go look into policies that could be used to alleviate poverty and candidate tragically died in november of 63 but johnson and
heard about this program and said that's my kind of program. >> 200 years of popular culture in the white house with tevi troy sunday night at eight on c-span's q&a. >> who 200 year old clock stopped ticking. time stands still. ohio clock is a metaphor for the government shutdown. >> we are standing a few feet away from the main entrance to the united states senate chamber and the north extension of the capital. the clock behind her is the oldest clock in the united states capital. it was commissioned for the united states senate in the year 1815 ordered from a philadelphia clockmaker your. >> one of the ring to check many reasons why the c-span feed archives are so amazing. >> you can view and sheer c-span programming anytime. it easy. here's how. go to c-span.org and go to the
video library to watch the news media go down to the most recent tab, click on what you want to watch and press play. you can search the video library for a specific topic or a keyword or you can find a person. just type in their name, hit search and go to people. go to their bio page and scroll down to their appearances. you can share what you're watching an make a clip. use the set of buttons or handles, add a title and description and then click share and senate by dino, facebook, twitter or google+. the c-span be a libra, searchable, easy and free. created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. >> next, remarks from the chinese ambassador to the u.s. who recently spoke at the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies in washington. the event comes as asian leaders meet in indonesia, a summit that
president obama missed due to the partial government shutdown. this is one hour. >> thank you very much for your very kind words. good evening, ladies and gentlemen. it's really nice to be back at sais. when i was running up and down the stairs back there, to the library and every wednesday evening to this auditorium. at a time it was chaired by a professor. i have always wanted to have the opportunity to extend my appreciation to sais. thank you for giving me the opportunity today. and in my capacity as a chinese ambassador, i would also like to
i will make it relatively short and that we will have question-and-answer period for us, just a few words on china's deep. i promise i will not repeat the official lines. rather, i would like to offer my personal point of view. how will this could be seen in its proper perspective. because china's foreign policy has been a subject that many people have discussed, written about and lectured on. it is barry often been
misconceived. so every visit to this policy, especially on a policy level for a closer look at china's history and culture, behind the formulation of the policy is extremely important. and to connect the dots of history, culture and the foreign-policy formulation is even more important. china's economy summarized in a very simple and brief formulation. the independent foreign policy. now we have two keywords from the cabinet and peace. i believe it's two words actually defying the nature of the whole policy.
first, independent. why independence is so important for china's current policy for the country. china has been an independent country for many centuries. we cherish independence very much and it is one of our fundamental ideas. from 1840 to 1949, china was invaded by foreign powers time and again and lost much of its independent. for instance, china's customs service from 1861 to 1911 was bush official, robert hahn.
china was coerced into 343 illegal treaties at gunpoint. he was 14 million kilograms of silver for war spot on it homeland and china lost 1.6 million of territory. so during that period, china has little say on its own feet and was not treated with respect, justice or fairness on the world stage. these 100 years or so i remembered that the chinese nation as a century of national humiliation. this was the chinese revolution in the 20th century and most
of this generation of chinese in the struggle gained national independent. it is still today offers for revitalization and modernization . on nation's cherish its independence. but for china, independence was almost lost and was reeking with such sacrifice good that expands by the chinese people, quote, independence and is only logical and natural that it is one of the fundamental principles in china's foreign policy. but i must emphasize here that when we talk about this sense of
national humiliation, we are not seeking revenge. which is what you say that our independence and sovereignty from the rest of the world. based on our own night there on what we know to i don't make a right. the workers patients are more equal than others is a horrible place for all. we want to take history as a mirror and tried so what do you guys in the past will never be done to anyone anymore and that will lead me to my second word you are i think it is a policy goal for almost all the nations
in the world. but at the same time, we have witnessed numerous features. where for the international community. then, what is a special significance apiece for china. there are of course many practical considerations for peace. but today i want to focus on the factor that is not so material or attainable, but more profound and lasting and that is our culture. if we want just one cheney scared her time is of value, it
is this one. [laughter] this in chinese could be translated into many english words. peace, harmony, reconciliation and benevolence in maybe many others. we believe that harmony kien and should be achieved by accommodating diversity. that's why we say in english it -- [inaudible] we also believe the spirit brings good fortune to everybody. even the chinese term for peace -- [inaudible]
if we look at these two characters closely, most of you recognize these. [laughter] if we look at them very closely, it actually means tranquility is achieved. that's why you have tranquility. together they make peace. that is why confucius said it is the most precious thing under the heaven. this concept has the guiding principle of the chinese society. in addressing all of the issues and communities. so it is not an exaggeration to say this is united nation and it
is only natural that it should find its way into our foreign policy. it is the means and the end. it is both a matter of policy on the way of life. so with the appreciation, it will not be difficult to understand why china values peace so much in this foreign policy and why it has been peaceful settlement of international you. of course we will use to safeguard our sovereignty. but this is just to make sure that our role as peace. must be confronted with force in accordance with the provisions
in chennai. it should be resolved through peaceful means. and mutual accommodation. we never believe the military can solve the global patterns. it is presumed to this independent foreign policy of peace that would develop our relations with the united states. nothing illustrates our foreign policy better than our handling relations with the united states because this relationship is the most important as well as the most sensitive. the most comprehensive, the most
promising as well as the most challenging. thanks to both sides over the past four decades or so, china-u.s. relationship has been in good shape and despite some ups and downs. president g xing for china and president china must try this here instead close touch. literally, our leaders are just a phone call away from each other and communication at the top level. as guided by the agreement between the two presidents come in the two countries are now working together to build a new model of the relationship based on mutual respect and the willing cooperation.
this new model is called for by the new realities of the world in the 21st century. it is in conformity with the interest for both countries and with the expectation of the international community. the fact that china and the united states are doing this together shows that the determination of both to break the old cycle of a major power and open up new prospects for an outcome. during this new model relationship is no easy job. there will be difficulties and problems ahead, but we have no alternatives if we really don't want to have a lose-lose situation. this common endeavor of hours
requires wisdom, vision, and mutual house, determination and perseverance from both sides in order to succeed. so in this regard, i would also like to suggest three keywords. first, respect. china and the united states differ from each other in many ways. we have a few more people in china they need to hear. in our country is a little bit older than the united states. we speak different languages in different culture. we have different natural endowments. we are at different stages of economic development and certainly have different forms of government.
acquired a comprehensive object of each other is not easy. showing understanding the differences is even more difficult. because of these differences, we sometimes see things in a different light. our approach is to some of the global issues may not be unilaterally the same. it is important to keep in mind that these are the points of history that cannot be changed at will. to respect these differences is to show respect for history. to appreciate them as a foundation for constructive and productive relationships. my second keyword is cooperation
despite all of our differences far outweigh them. economically, we are each other largest trading partners. our lateral trades almost reach 100 billion u.s. dollars last year and 200 times over the early days of our diplomatic relations. besides the high degree between our two economies, which offers great potential for mutual beneficial cooperation. at the fifth row of strategic and economic dialogue has been washington d.c. july. the two sides agreed that negotiations on the bilateral investment, the itu.
the pre-establishment and negative list, when concluded last tremendous opportunity. in addition, china has just set up a private free trade. it is not just a business opportunity, but also a new signal of china's reform and opening up. our countries also share share important international was on says. we are both permanent members of the united nations security council. together with other members, which is the primary responsibility for international peace and security. moreover, we are confronted with so many common challenges, collaborative change is one the
biggest and most pressing challenges. also, food security, disease prevention, poverty, transnational crime, counterterrorism and non-proliferation are all calling for our joint efforts. even in our differences could be turned into rallying point. economic commentary is a good example. cultural and educational exchanges are also areas where diversity means opportunity for mutual earnings. in this regard, i would like to commit the contributions made on people to people exchange and we look forward to the fourth round of this high-level to be held in washington d.c. in her.
my third keyword is responsibility. we are a great country. our relationship not only affects the future of our two people, but also has a major impact on the asia-pacific region and the world as a whole. so the stakes are really high. we have to manage this relationship with a strong sense of responsibility. this means being prudent and cautious. he should respect the other's major interests. each ship out cautiously on issues that can turn to the other. neither should allow us to be taken advantage of by any third
party and that other people's troubles become our problem. this possibility means acting positively and construct overlay. there are always difficulties and challenges, but a positive approach were produced positive results. we should always make our best efforts to expand common interest and manage the differences in a concert way. responsibility also means taking the long-term view. immediate gains i very often tempting. but too much focus is shortsighted. for countries like china and the united states, we should have a capability to look forward and show that the responsibility to
work for the long-term interests. so these are a few of my observations on this new model of relationships between our two countries. now the goal is set. the direction is clear, but the real challenge is still before us. i full confidence in our two great people. if this is a new -- [inaudible] is already no turning back. thank you. [applause] >> i'd like to get the honor of
the first question to her again. raleigh, and you want to come over here so the cameras pick up the sound? >> first of all, thank you very much for that thought provoking speech and seven the issues the two countries have to address. you pointed out in your remarks the importance of not only deepening the relationship between china and the united states, but also to cooperation between the two as both are now viewed in the context of the current global order as the main stakeholder. we often think about the g2 world, two global powers, china and the united states. i was wondering whether he thought the existing national institution are appropriate
venues for china and the united days to cooperate in resolving shortly publishes or whether there is need for new internationalist tuitions and trademark to be created with the reality of the global worker. >> thank you very much team nasr for the very good question. there are two types of international divisions. we have the world bank in washington d.c. we have the united nations in new york and geneva. china is a member to lobby for the tuitions. we are doing our best to contribute to the work. these were formed basically after the second world war.
the very first world war ii international order. so we believe these institutions are important and they are here for global stability and prosperity and taking part with all these institutions. on the other hand, there's a second kind is international institution are mechanism, e.g. 20. both china and the u.s. are important numbers and the g20 is addressing economic financial upper level. the program the g20 has made is very important in many aspects. but the fact that the developed economy in the so-called emerging markets are sticking
together to discuss global issues, we certainly support that. so both institutions could really play their roles and can tribute to the global concert peace and stability and prosperity in china is taking place in all this effort. thank you. >> if i could take the liberty of asking the second question. [laughter] >> as the world, particularly the u.s. and china face many crises or things that could escalate and get out of control come you think of korea, taiwan, south china sea, east china sea. my question is, do you think the united states and china have adequate crisis management and
avenues of communication where we can talk about alternatives and crisis management and hopefully crisis prevention before they occur? to think we coordinate our governments internally, adequately to manage these complicated problems? >> well, huge bureaucracies are not always easy to manage. sometimes they shut them down. [laughter] [applause] >> increasing communication and coordination between our two governments in many of the international regional issues. we i think are doing a quite good job. but what is important as i said in my speech is to show full respect to each other's major can turn senators and we can
certainly courtenay are responses to these issues and maybe work together for solving at least some of these issues. >> i will say canvassers event. yes, young man here and then i will alternate sides. >> excellent presentation. minimus flamenco from china and the first tier i come back to here. my question is, what's your expectation for a personal rule and american relations as ambassador and you want to contribute this very important position? thank you. >> thank you for your question. thank you for your confidence in me. basically the role of the ambassador is the role of the messenger. the most important is to
facilitate communication not only between the two governments, but between the two people. sometimes the messenger tries to be the messenger of. our two countries have to work together, have to work with each other, not against each other because this is the only option if we want to have a win-win situation. i arrived in april, just over six months. i hope during my year here i will really do something in this regard. >> thank you. bought a glacier and then will alternate sides and i'll try to be equitable. >> thank you, ambassador scrapie pleasure to see you in thank you for your ongoing contributions to u.s.-china relations. i'd like to ask you a question
about dogs out guideline for many years ago going to perhaps 1991 when he had some people say a 24, 20 character expression. the court date is the four-carat tears to keep a low profile but some people sometimes trip data as hydro- capabilities. that was a very good interpretation. diapering door included this phrase in a very important article he wrote, which was published both in chinese and then on a leash under foreign ministry website, quite an usual for an official to actually use that phrase in writing. it's been done a couple of times. but we haven't seen it since then. not mentioned in any major speech or read the articles.
i wonder if you could comment on the relevance today for chinese foreign palace the of this guideline, keeping a low profile, is important? thank you. >> thank you. there's a lot of good things. some of these have been missing, even within china and abroad. it was quite simple. the most important part of the most important challenges in china is its own economic and social development. so china has concentrated on this date we cannot afford to divert resources for other purposes. so that's why we have to keep a relatively low profile internationally and not to get
involved in disputes and conflicts that are not related to us. i think that's the basic message . but that's not changing of course. china is developing. i thought of this in the late 1980s. so about a quarter century ago. china has more developed and maybe a bit stronger than where we were at that time. so they are fully aware of the need to take a more international responsibility and to make great international confiscation. it will take great time. the basic philosophy behind the teaching -- actually this is the basic philosophy.
you have to be modest. you don't overestimate your capabilities. you try to do things within the limits, try to work with others in what i said about this concept -- [inaudible] thank you. >> thank you. i will go to the back. i see a handoff on the far left there. the one that's waving. >> thank you for your speech, mr. ambassador. minimus rashid, mel. i work on the sensor of the present republic of azerbaijan. it is clear for everyone who was sitting here american dream.
but after the president of china, the chinese president, xi jinping, became president, he mentioned the chinese dream. could you give us the next donation but the chinese stream s.? thank you. [laughter] >> i don't think the chinese different is very different from the american dream. i always believe people all over the world have very similar aspiration. they want to have a good job and stable, may be increasing in come come in very good medical care and good education and of course they want stability of their country. so these are the things
mentioned by president chen on that than when he did in the 18 party congress. i think all of these things, people in china come at people in the united states and elsewhere to have very similar trains. the task for the government is to make sure people will be able to have their dreams come true. so i don't seem there is anything more profound or larger than that. if people could be better off in the future than now, then you have your dreams come true. thank you. >> i saw a hand. david. i do is stand up, david, so they can be.
>> ambassador troi -- i guess i will have to speak loudly. thank you for a very thoughtful talk. i am a former diplomat and i think i note that in diplomacy and foreign affairs, the most difficult questions arise in different aspects of your goals and policies, your principles come in conflict with each other. you mention in your talk that china would be firm in defending the sovereignty and also be pursuing peaceful relations with your neighbors. a lot of us are concerned about situations in east china's e. and the south china sea, where sovereignty and peaceful relations seem not too easily be brought together. i wonder if you have any brought dogs about how china and its
neighbors can bestcome up with an outcome, which all of the participants will see as harmonious and consists in with their basic interests. >> well, our neighbor has spent his distant. we certainly have to have a stable relationship with all her neighbors. and we are working very hard for that. this is by the recent theater, our president and some of the countries last week. some of the other action countries in the next few days. we believe that we have to work together with our neighbors for regional stability.
of course we have so many neighbors and with some of them, we do have disputes. in this regard, the united states is very lucky. you have only two neighboring countries. [laughter] and you have ocean on both sides. so we have more neighbors than you do. these territorial disputes are left over from history. they have been there for so many years, or even so many decades. they believe these disputes have to be worked out through bilateral negotiations and dialogue, between china and the country of concern. if the permissions are not ready yet, we have the patience to wait. we are not in a hurry to resolve all of them overnight. unfortunately, when it's made,
we have to respond. we have to state our position clearly. that is about all we are doing. they're just responding to some of the revocation. we certainly don't want to see an explanation escalation of tension in our region. but we hope there will be a meeting of the minds. >> thank you. anybody in the back quadrant there want to get a hand up? okay on the i/o and the far rear. >> hi, my name is sawmill it i missed you. as ais. my question is considering japan as a major ally of the united states. there's been a lot of nationalist anger in recent years in china towards japan and response in japan with the a lot
of nationalist assertiveness vis-à-vis china. how do you see -- do you see this relationship improving? and if so, how? >> thank you for us thank you for asking that question. you know, i was ambassador for japan a few years ago. i still have a large number of friends in japan. china and japan, we are neighbors. you cannot change her neighbors and you cannot move away from your neighbors. [laughter] so we stand for a stable and positive relationship with japan. of course in the past, japan brought about huge suffering to the chinese people. we certainly don't want to see this happen again. 35 years ago, china and japan
concluded a bilateral treaty of peace and friendship and this treaty is still valid. five years ago, two governments concluded a political segment for the establishment of a strategic relationship of mutual benefit and we are still firmly committed to that document. what concerns us in japan is some disturbing tendencies in japanese politics. japan's outlook, history, what happened in the past. maybe there are a few people, a few politicians in japan who believe that japan lost the war and the psycho world war because of the atomic bomb dropped on the united states.
and just because of that, do you believe if they don't antagonize the united states, everything would be okay by them. they don't have to take care of other countries. they believe this is very wrong and dangerous. japan was defeated in the second world war, not just by the atomic bomb, but all the peaceloving countries and people, the people at the united nations, including china and the united states of course. japan was not some modern
weapons besides the strong will and determination of the people of asia, the united states and europe. i think politicians in japan have to realize this is the post-world war ii international order. you cannot challenge that. so we are really concerned in japan in the united states in the interests of china and the united states, of the federation countries and at the global order. so i think that this is maybe the most important issue between china and this is a massive
zabul. i know you may not represent priorities of the chinese people. i hope the japanese people, maybe together with all of this here won't make sure that such tendencies will not dominate future direction of the country. >> jonathan. >> right here. >> yes, jonathan pollack, brookings institution. ambassador, good to see you in the nation again. i thought it would try to race an issue and i hope this doesn't sound overly academic, but about the structure of international relations. china continues to resist any suggestion that there is a g2. on the other hand, we noted we are in kind of a hybrid world, where we have on the one hand a
traditionalist dictation of the post-world war ii era and newer institutions that we now grapple with. left unstated though is that china has emphasized a desire for a new framework when you can't type of major power relations. what i am curious about is whether or not the assumption of this framework applies only to the united states and china or is it something we could generalize beyond these two states? and if so if i could ask you, would you care to offer us an estimate as to what the great powers? who is entitled to a particular power? you could be a student again. last night >> thank you very much. >> will you see, one of the basic constables for china's foreign powers he is all countries are equal, large or
small, weak or strong, rich or poor. this is still one of our principles. so we don't believe the world affair should be determined by only a few coordinated power alone. but on the other hand, countries have different capabilities and they should take up some different responsibilities. i think that's why we have to cicerone because there's countries in that group accounted for. about 80% of global trade and finance and so on. so they have to work together to make sure the economy finances stable and this has higher stakes than some of the other
countries. so i think we have to pay that kind of a balance between the principle that all countries are equal and they should have equal say in the international threat on the one hand and the reality that some countries have greater capability they should be ready to make greater contribution. [laughter] >> young lady midway in this section and the perp roll. >> hello, my name is i.e. i graduated from the university and now here for a nice steady. my question is a little bit personal. you are our dearest chinese
alumni and senior schoolmates. do you have any suggestions and maybe from china or american or azerbaijan -- [laughter] to make contributions to the world peace, like talking about china and the u.s. relationship after a graduate. thank you very much. >> well, [inaudible] i spent over a decade and china's fur with service. so i knew what i needed. i think most of his duden here are just college graduates or undergraduates here. i think whatever you've learned here will help you if you know
how to make this useful in your career. and in the larger sense, what i talk about here about this new model relationship, about china's future and our common future, we are really up for the younger generation. i think in the relations between our two countries, we have to handle a generation after generation. there are no guarantees that we can do everything. the years that we are still working. you will have no problem. it's really up to you that we finally reached the goal of this new type of relationship. so i hope the students of sais, first of all you have to pass
all the exams given to you by your professors and get very high marks here. unknown whether you join the government or private sector or whatever, you can really make sure that you and your children will have a better future and you will have greater certainty in the international situation. we still have too many internationally today. but the world is yours. thank you. >> i saw a hand to shoot up here. >> hi, my name is val soon come a second-year student of sais and also graduated peking university. today i'm so grateful to see you and thank you for your speech. my question as like realists always believed that like war or military is sort of a zero-sum
game. the way you have already proposed in our country propose as a new model of major country nations seem to be a win-win game and a non-zero-sum game. so what do you think this sort of new model can be applied to ask him on the strategic relations between china and united this relation and how this could solve the zero-sum game problem if there is any problem? >> at this new model relationship is called for today. our two countries are so interrelated in many respects.
if the stocks in new york go up or down will affect china's economy. the american dollars go up or down, it will also affect china because we have a mark of american diet. [laughter] >> why are you looking at me? [laughter] >> so really, you cannot have this kind of zero-sum game. you cannot say that one side will be 100% winners, the other 100% losers. besides the so many challenges that cannot be handled in a single country the united states, most powerful country in the world. energy needs, poverty,
terrorism, all these things. all countries have to work together because it is a concern of national boundary. if we fail, we fail together. if we prevail, we prevail together. and also, between china and the united stated, there are major conflicts it something neither can afford, something neither can afford to win or lose. the issue is the reality we face today. of course there's always people who advocate this kind of zero-sum game, but you have to be careful because what is at stake is our long-term interest. i am quite confident that our two countries would have to
withstand 200 the issues, to understand the new reality will have the capability to build up this relationship. the mac is there somebody in the distant back? i don't want to short change them. i see a hand in the back. >> hi, my name is hank hill chang. i'm a second-year care. i bike to thank you for taking the time to speak with us. so my question is also related to japan as well. so with the recent two plus two meeting in tokyo in which secretary haeckel and secretary cary discussed expanding military co-op ration between the united states and japan and also taken into account japan's recent policy shift towards expanding their military
capabilities, i was wondering what your comments are what your opinion of our and how that affects china, japan relations, but also u.s. and china strategic relations. >> first of all, i want is you i am so happy to be so many young people from china at sais. i'm also, thank you for your question. they are two views to outlook for asia pacific. one believes that this economically as the most promising in the world. so we should turn this into a huge marketplace full of opportunities for everybody. the content cooperation in economic development. and the other view, the other outlet is this is a place full
of conflict. what they are really lucky not his japan is a personal battlefield. so these two views represent two very different futures for asia pacific. i hope everybody could make the right choice to borrow a very familiar phrase from one or the other former presidents the right side of history. the first view certainly represents the common interests of all the people of asia pacific, including china, united states and japan. in the second future, the second not let will certainly do a great deal of damage to all of us. i hope all the people, especially the leaders in this countries and politicians and
scholars will be very careful about it and make the right choice. thank you. >> one last question. only be fair. -- lady fair. >> i am a sais alum from long ago. my question is china on north korea. what do you think will happen? will china continue to take some measures to put pressure on north korea are what they started stay where they are now quite >> we have so many neighbors. japan is one of them. korea is another. but we certainly have a lot gained relationship with korea. but our positions on the
situation in the korean peninsula. first, we are against any nuclear program, nuclear weapons that's why we voted in favor of the united nations, dprk when they -- [inaudible] is one of our fundamental goals on the korean payment to. number two, already for peace since the ability. because of the interest of the korean people themselves, this is also in the international interest of china because we have a common border. we are neighbors. any conflict, unarmed conflict or war will certainly assess
china's national security interests and we would never allow that to happen again. another negotiation and dialogue because first of all, this is always our present option for an international be. and besides, we don't believe in the conflict are just pressure alone to solve this problem nuclear issues. the six party talks made diebel assets and contributions to resolving this issue. i'm not ..