works is 100% of the time ntsa is responding to the timeliness warning from the car company and then going back and look at the data to figure out whether it is going to happen. it happens all over the map. sometimes we issue the spot before an automaker has identified the problem. that happens. can we do better? of course in government we always do better and that's why i've asked ig to look at the circumstances of this particular incident to see if there are other protocols we can adopt that can improve our ability to handle the next problem. but in a sense, it is highly regrettable and our thoughts and prayers are with all of the families affected by this

situation. when you talk about the recalls i would rather have a recall that allows us to get some corrected we are working hard to make that happen everyday. first on the mission problems gm didn't resolve the condition issues into the latest recall has reports of at least three deaths. deaths. are they going to look at the new recalls to see if gm didn't beat the five-day requirement to report them in a timely fashion? >> as a standard practice, we will take a look at the recalls. there is always a sort of decision points whether this stems from the same as the previous ones. that determination will have to be made by ntsa so we obviously

will be taking a careful look and will point out that work with the gm auto resolution to the initial problem we have been able to extract from gm unprecedented commitments to fix things going forward. and so we are going to keep putting the screws on this until it gets right. >> how big of a concern across the industry as it is that they are moving out of position and do you think there are other auto companies that have similar problems? >> we are taking a look and wherat wherewe see problems, weo address them. it remains to be seen that it's something we are taking look at as you point out. mark? >> any roster of great governors in the 20th century [inaudible] the democrats were noncompetitive between 1976 to

2008 in the tar heel state and the presidential level of jimmy carter and barack obama. since then, the state has turned deep right. what happened, what went wrong? virginia is all of a sudden more purple if not rather than his north carolina. what happened? >> well, i think several things. there may have been -- we may have been a little more optimistic after the 2008 elections about the turning of the corner. but i also think that redistricting played a very heavy role. in 2010 or the first time in more than a hundred years, north carolina did not have a state or state house or senate that was democratic control.

and that resulted in gerrymandering goes to state housethestatehouse, state senate u.s. congressional districts. now, i will point out that the president subsequent to that in the reelection campaign lost north carolina by less than 100,000 votes. and if that is one of the reasons why i still think north carolina at its essence is this state everyone thought it was before but it's going to take another tidal wave to prove that and we will see what happens in the future with some of those great folks that are down there and who i think will be running for things in the future. >> [inaudible] >> she has done a great job and i have a lot of hope that she will prevail.

i have confidence in her, yes. >> "chicago sun-times." >> back in january in washington they proposed a fee on freight going through cities to make up for the hazardous waste that they carry. acarry. at the time you were on defense on it. have you moved towards accepting or rejecting it at this stage, and what is the latest of the mayor in any well wants from you and if you have a moment left with is the da best advice ray lahood gave you when he turned it over to you? >> okay. he wants a lot of things for me. [laughter] the mayor emmanuel. but, on the issue of the fee for the hazardous material wit movig

through communities, i think that's something that probably should be looked at. our goal takes the position that there is more that we need to know. there's more that we need to know about the material itself. there's more wthere is more we w about the various pieces of the safety ecosystem that need to happen. we obviously have some work going on in a rulemaking. that's one of the things we found in this situation with the rock and the crude is that we have several different agencies in the equities even in the dot and sometimes you need resources to do field testing i and the agency that's on the front line that has a very small budget for the protected so tha protectinge to go to figure out whether they've got some resources. so we've asked for about a 40 million-dollar flexible fund to get us the ability to be no

more right now to developing a plan over two years to dramatically increase our efforts on the safety front as we are still working on our rulemaking and more than two dozen steps to this point to try to increase safety. your last question? >> it seems like you don't have an opinion on whether -- >> i wouldn't say that. i think it's something that needs to be explored, but in terms of what we need to do right now, we need to push this rulemaking and try to get that done. we need to have the resources and the agency to articulate an even broader set of steps that need to take place in this and those steps include what i would like to look at because it sounds like a good idea but something i would like to take a look at.

can you give a specific date that you are anticipating the trust fund will be in the beer in the genital august timeframe this is something that changes daily because remember that the way the trust fund works, this works on a reimbursement basis. so, we can tell you certainly -- [inaudible] we go below the $4 billion threshold in the beginning of august trade august 1 is in the letter today the actual balanced assumption, august and septemb september. historically we have lead the le

market down around the 4 billion-dollar mark. that is the same cash cushion you need to meet the obligations of the state. we are going to run below the 4 billion-dollar market by the end of august we will be at zero. use a $60 billion shortfall over four years. with respect to the gas tax, you spoke about how you have and basically seen a proposal that you could weigh in on but there is a bipartisan bill now in the senate from chris murphy to raise the tax. the chamber of commerce wants to raise the tax and democrats want to raise the tax. ray lahood wants to raise the tax. why is this administration dragging so much in on something that so many people support and think it's a logical solution to

this. we said if the congress acts on something we will keep an open mind and that has been my position all along. the reason that we have proposed what we propose is because we've heard from the members of congress they don't want to raise their rates. there hasn't been a vote on ma matt. we are open to what congress has to say that we have a proposal we would like to vote on, to >> you just want to narrow it down. >> i want to ask about whale trains. it's been almost a year now since the accident and you have this very important rulemaking going on. is there a lot of economic interest that are in that rulemaking concerned about how it's going to affect them and what it's going to cost them and

on the other hand you have these areas in the country that trains go through albany, chicago, up in the seattle area that are very concerned about their safety. what kind of guarantee can you give to the people in the community that are worried about their safety that you are not going to water down the safety in the rulemaking to satisfy these big economic interests? >> as i've sai i said before, wn more than two dozen measures very few of which have been very popular in the industry. and we've done that because of safety. i work on a rule that is organized around what is the safest approach to the movement of this crude oil particularly given the volumes in which it is moving around the country. we have these unit trains that are stacking in some cases 100 or more together, and that is a

different caliber of problems than we have seen in the past, so that's the way it's going to be what is the right way to structure the rule to make it as safe as possible? there are a lot of variables. as we said for many months there is the track quality and there's also any number of things. so, we want to strike the right balance with the balance to try to strike is a balance about safety and that is going to continue to be. >> you mentioned you're going to start where the tax revenue comes in. is there a contingency plan after the september 30 deadline for this entry authorized? >> a contingency plan for --

>> gas tax hasn't been reauthorized. >> there hasn't been a funding solution and there hasn't been a reauthorization extension. we won't be able to spend money even if we have it so that is another part of the crisis. let me say in response to these questions that nothing i am saying is meant to understate the luck that many people are doing. barbara boxer has worked with her committee to prepare a bill. representative david kamp for the house ways and means committee on the very day that we announced our framework back in february he came forward with a framework that was very similar. and the bipartisan work of senator murphy and the senator corker. a lot of people are trying to weigh in here. but the constitutional fact is

that until the congress does something collectively, we are stuck. and the country is going to be stuck into the gridlock in washington is going to translate to the gridlock at home. >> the dot said last week that the faa would likely not need to september 2015 deadline on crafting the rules and i wanted to see if i could get a reaction to that from you. >> i want to get back to you on that. i think what we have tried to do over the last few months has been to really step up the work on this. that's why we have four of the six test sites still out. we have worked to put forth some rules to this point but we obviously have to work on this other rules here as well. so i would like to get a more

continued response. .. as we look at this bold new world of unmanned aircraft

safely into reading that technology into the airspace is something that cannot be done overnight and has to be trial tested and stress tested. does why we are doing stressed type -- test science we will not allow folks to just treat this like a wild west and just to whatever they want because we think there will be safety implications to that obviously. >> thanks. >> to unrelated questions. secretaries and government officials by allowing gm products. everything. do you feel comfortable with gm cars? and also --

>> you know, and terms of my feelings of said this before will folks need to follow what is recommended with any recall active he. if they do that we feel like they're going to be fine. just followed up with the manufacturer or go to the. it checked out and keep it moving. so i don't have concerns about writing in the aegean, that i am writing in. terms of dnc, i can only say that i am looking forward to going as visitor. you know, i don't know if i have any great advice on that. think there are a lot of great cities in the running. all of them would be fantastic,

and i am looking forward to hopefully going just says of passive visitor. >> mr. harrison. secretary. a couple of times today, why use of tax reform as i got to -- stop-gap measure. are you concerned, move us away from a user fee system of funding transportation projects? >> now. for several reasons. one of the ditch we're trying to dig out of is so substantial that we need to have an inflection point. many to have a moment where we are actually going from fights over whether we can find at the same level we did the air last year to a discussion of how to get more investment in infrastructure. oral proposal would help busted out. second thing is that the current

user fee system is broken. and it is broken because, you know, frankly, good reasons. more efficient. wherever you said the gas tax, the curve is still downward facing. so that means that at some point in the future we reach the very same point. you know, i think what our proposal enables is a moment in time where we start to think differently about how we support our and for structures as to. additional funding in place. we have not even talk to many of the policies we think are important right now but focus on getting projects done faster, focused on changing some of the dynamics to the determining how

to move forward. all those things are important there will always be a user fee component. i don't want to say that's not the case, but we need to be thinking differently. also public-private partnerships are to be part of a car recession. >> you are willing to sort of a band of this notion that the transportation system should be funded rather than look for another. >> i think there are a lot of options. some user fee based, others different. i don't think that the conversation about where we're headed is going to stop with the passage of our bill, but i think what our bill does is provide an answer that is actually politically feasible given the congress we have right now. it gives us four years of

certainty and it gives us time to breathe so that we can actually have this discussion without the next crisis around the corner. >> npr. >> ask for more money. >> couple of questions. the first one directly. >> in no, we said we are open, but i can't, you know, i often tell you that we have a proposal that we think it's politically supple that actually works were transportation system, that we think is the best solution right now, but i'm not going to speculate on that. and just wanted chilly that we have expressed openness, and that is where we are. >> today the maryland the tax went up again. it went up last july 1st. today is an inflation trigger increase. fifteen are 20 states.

and both, the public is not as opposed to this as some might think. the business and labour community the of ministration, a confidential bill. but i can tell you because i've spent the time working on this bank. it's a good bill. we are taking the position, it is not just a question of funding. a critically important question. it's also, are there other ways to create more capacity within the system? are there ways to engage

public-private partnership? we have trillions of dollars a money sitting on the sidelines not being put to work infrastructure in this country. so we have to pay for. >> fallout. corporate taxes, all of these, the short-term, what is the administration's vision once and for all solving the nation's funding issues? is a moving away and instead funding transportation out of the general fund? is it a natural -- national bmg, a combination of public-private partnerships? >> i don't think the american public, the many stakeholders understand house of you this prices -- crisises.

the average person pays about a hundred dollars in la our system are now. and in most days the american society of civil engineers estimates the dollar paying $200 from a $300 depending on what state your in, popples or what have you, buy new tires, whenever it is. people are paid for this problem they're paying for it. but those blocks away in some cases to my disaggregated. and, you know, i think other host of questions involve your, but will we need right now is a new long-term stability in the system. that is what our bill is trying to get. >> last question. >> how much relies on harmonization?

more than ten or 15. infrastructure in the metro area that does come from propagation. >> more highways. people were paying two, three, four, $500 a month. offset the legislature. put more money. people paying a pocket. is this something you worry about? >> essentially a prohibition that the federal level to that. there is no feature our bill the pace with the federal piece of funding. you know, that's not how we pay for bill. but our bill does lift that ban and offers to those who wish to look at tolling as an option to

apply to the department of transportation to request the ability to tool to read now, you know, i tend to think that if they're is a commitment to do maintenance on the facility or to invest in congestion relieving systems that there may be acceptable ways to see that happen the country. this is that it -- we recognize, create a little more flexibility at the state level four folks to be enterprising and figure out how to get things done. >> if you added additional toll lanes. >> in theory, yes. as i said, any proposal would

have to come to the department and be looked at independently. >> here comes the last ceremonial softball the plight. he told the "washington post" that if you could get one person from the private sector the lp. i want to see a view of reached out since you've come to washington. >> absolutely. one of the things i really frustrated about a analytics can be used it is a place where there's a lot of room for us to do that. when a project comes in the door and its permanent historically it has come by merrill.

there are big stack of documents, from one area to another within government. takes years for projects to get moving. and so we are looking to digitize the process. we're looking to go from having departments to sequential reviews to concurrent reviews. how we can improve performance going forward is something we think of as useful. we hope to do more. >> thank you. >> thank you, secretary. >> thanks, everybody. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]the nin

presidential library in yorba linda california. this is an hour. [applause] [applause] ♪

>> wow that was nice. as dick says it's almost enough to make you want to run for office. [laughter] >> almost, almost. we are glad to be back here tonight and i've had the opportunity to visit the nixon library and museum on a number of occasions and served in the nixon administration during the first term and so i'm always pleased to come back and visit this part of the world and be reminded of a very important time in our history. the president did a superb job and i was happy to be a part of his administration. we are here tonight and we should explain at the outset way we are here together. the fact is i was born in lincoln, nebraska and lynne was born in casper wyoming and in 1950 were when i was 13 years

old about ready to go to the eighth grade that my dad moved the family to casper wyoming. it was a good thing because lynne and i grew up together. i first took her out when she was 16 years old. we will celebrate our 50th wedding anniversary, august. a bosco but if dad had picked montana instead of wyoming of course i would never have married lynne. she would have married someone else -- he said the other night than he would have been vice president of the united states. [laughter] [applause] >> i don't recall that was one of the jokes you are supposed to tell. >> i'm a freelancer now but i'm unchained. we are here tonight to talk specifically about a magnificent book that lynne has written

about james madison. it has gotten great reviews and we are on the book books service so to speak and i have been to the nixon events here before sponsored by the nixon library when i had other books to write to publish and now i wanted to have an opportunity for lynne 2% hers. as i say it is a superb book about our nation's fourth president in the plan is that i will ask her questions and she will respond and at the end of that. at that time we will open it up and take some questions from the audience as well too. with that let me begin by asking why madison? what made you decide james madison needed another biography? >> before you get there i wanted sam so grateful to dick for joining me on this book to her and i started referring to them to him as my arm candy. [laughter] i have known i was interested in

madison for a very long time. i've had the privilege of serving on the bicentennial commission for the constitution in 1987 and it was than i first began to understand how magnificent madison's accomplishments were and yet how little recognized he was in terms of what he had accomplished in his political life. it wasn't until five years ago that i became serious about writing a book and it has been a labor of love. i only hope that you will enjoy the book as much as i enjoyed writing it. he was the architecture of the constitution, the architecture of the bill of rights. he was crucial to the establishment of the first government under the constitution. he was president during the first floor under the constitution and he performed if not magnificently in all those jobs at least very well.

at the end of his presidency john adams who was kind of a sour figure and not given to make and complements easily, john adams wrote to james madison's administration had covered itself in more glory than any of his predecessors which is a great compliment because his predecessors were washington, jefferson and adams himself. so i do think he has been underappreciated and it's been really so much fun. i know five years of labor does not sound like fun but discovering things, being able to put it into a form that i hope would reach a wide audience and as the book is called, reconsidering james madison's life. >> which was the most important contribution. the contributions were enormous obviously but if you had to pick just one what would it be?

>> it would have to be the constitution. i think he was a genius and the reason is he was the kind of genius he had is that he was able to break through conventional thinking. when everybody else was thinking one way madison didn't necessarily accepted. he would think of other possibilities and he did that in a the case of the constitution and in the case of establishing a great republican which is what we are. the conventional wisdom was that you didn't have a great republic rated great republic where people voted for representatives for themselves, representative government, that it would be to lose over a long set of land planned and it would fall apart unless you had monarchical power a king or a monarch at the center. madison just thought that was not so. he thought in fact the danger of

a republic is that one faction would dominate and oppress everyone else and madison's genius was to see that if you had many factions as there would be in a larger public than no single one was likely to be -- to become oppressive and that was the rationale for the constitution that was produced in philadelphia. it was his genius to see through what everyone else believed time and again and to transform the world by doing it. >> you talk about his relationship with the other founders, george washington for example. >> you know we think sometimes what the founders as sitting around having a polite conversation and all of them having the greater good in mind at all times. it's much more interesting to realize them as they were which was people who firmly believed in their point of view and are willing to fight to see it

succeed. in the beginning madison was washington's chief lieutenant. when the first government under the constitution began, now this will be familiar to many of you in politics, washington had an aide write his inaugural address and aide produced a 72 page disaster. washington wrote to madison and asked him please come to mt. vernon in hell. so madison did and he wrote washington's inaugural address. he did a very good job of it. after washington delivered the address madison who was the leader of the congress, wrote the congress's response to madison after washington got it. thank you, you laugh even though i got it wrong. he wrote congresses response to the not real address in washington thought madison was so good at this kind of thing he asked him, madison to write washington's reply back to the

congress. [laughter] it's hard to imagine how this voice was echoing off every wall. i'm not sure there has been another time in history when one man has been so influential at the beginning of an administration that way madison was in the beginning with washington. >> as you talk about the constitution convention obviously there were battles over various provisions of the constitution. we ended up with article i and section part of one, two and three and it took a long time, many many hours of days and worked to put it all together. can you cite the specific compromise and the most important provision that they were arguing about that they were ultimately able to resolve? >> it was the thing we learned in the history books about the big states and the small states and of course the big states wanted states to be represented

proportionately according to the population. the small states wanted to be representative of states and we all know the compromise. madison was appalled at that. he really thought that there should be proportional representation across-the-board. he had gone into the constitutional convention thinking the great threat to their public were the states. he called them the evil states as they had been so irresponsible in the articles of federation repressing religious freedom, churning out money. rhode island was especially guilty. it was called the rogue island. churning out money and then this is what rhode island did, passing laws that made it necessary or merchants to accept that depreciated money for a debt that had been incurred. maybe they were getting paid off at a penny on the dollar and the

states for taxing one another, oppressive one another actually. they were conducting their own foreign-policy cell madison thought the states needed to be controlled and when it turned out that the compromise was to have the states representative as states of my proportionately in the senate he was very -- and it took a couple of days to get around to accepting that. >> what conceivably made them think they needed a vice president? [laughter] >> you know that's kind of an eternal question isn't it? well it had to do with the electoral college and every elector had to vote so they finally got to the left world college when they could agree on anything else. so the alternate at that point was to let congress choose the president and just imagine how different our presence would have been if the congress was choosing. he would not have had a ronald reagan.

next-line and, no i don't think you would have had a nixon either. he would have had plenty of speakers of the house though go on to be president. the electoral college. everybody gets two votes and again the big states and the small states. the small states are worried that the big states will always allow to president. so to assuage their concerns the deal was made that you could only cast one vote, one of those two votes for someone from your own state. the other had to be cast for somebody from another state which would give the small states a better chance. but then they started worrying and you have all played this kind of game, you want that one vote for your own guy in your own state to be really important. you throw away the second row. you expended on jim who doesn't have a chance. to prevent that were finally getting to the answer, they invented the vice presidency. the idea was that the person you

got the second highest number of votes would then become vice president. that seemed like a pretty good idea but then they started worrying what was he going to do? [laughter] and it's so interesting to see how this thing builds up. they decided they needed a job and they would make him president of the senate. by the end of the constitutional convention there were two delegates who were so worried about the vice president of the executive branch being part of the legislative branch about his violating the separation of powers. two delegates, eldritch dairy -- randolph of virginia. no, i'm sorry. aldridge at gary and george mason of virginia specifically

decided in the vice presidency as reasons they wouldn't sign the constitution. they called it that dangerous office so there you go. a. [laughter] >> during the course of his career but in terms of temperament in the constitution and that's how you describe it i guess alexander hamilton became an important player in all of that. can you talk about what it was that led to their major disagreements and confrontation? >> first maybe it's important to understand that he and hamilton were not buddies exactly. they were friendly colleagues. they wrote the federalist papers together with a little help from john jay and the story of writing the federalist papers if you don't mind i will just -- divert a little bit here. the story of writing the federalist papers is so interesting because it was done at such speed in such haste. i was explaining to a college

audience from colleges and universities in this area will appreciate, that would madison did during one period of time during 40 days was the equivalent of writing a 10 page paper every other day. now you could do that. that doesn't seem impossible but the papers became immortal. so writing philosophy, or writing politics, writing an effort to convince people to support the constitution at breakneck speed the printer was putting the beginning parts of the essays into print often before they were finished. so madison and hamilton respected one another until hamilton became secretary of the treasury under george washington and began to make his financial plans clear. madison was jewel from the beginning but he eventually

particularly when the issue of establishing a national bank came up, he was deeply concern concerned. he didn't think that bank was a bad idea but at the constitutional convention in fact he thought it was such a good idea but at the constitutional convention he had proposed giving the congress the power to grant charters which is what you needed if you wanted to establish a bank. however the constitutional convention it turned out turned it down. congress didn't have that power and that was madison's problem. hamilton was simply running roughshod over the strict number of powers that congress had been given. there was no power to grant charters and therefore madison thought you should not establish a bank. he lost the fight that he went on to kind of when the war i guess you would say. he established the first

opposition political party. parties didn't have any better reputation than than they do now so again this is counterintuitive. it was against the conventional wisdom that said parties were divisive, they were noisy. we didn't want them in republic. madison said our high guess we do. a government without opposition is a little more than a monarchy so they organized the first party in order to change to defeat away that hamilton was trying to carry the government to make it so strong that madison thought it was something the constitution had not contemplated. by founding this political party he managed to get jefferson elected president in 1800 jefferson like madison was a small government guy. >> one of the most important functions that we have seen obviously throughout her history

is the role of commander-in-chief. who is going to run the wires and began charge of the military and of course madison as you mentioned in the opening was the first president ever to have to conduct a war under the constitution, and the way that power was vested in the presidency strikes me as a great story but it's not how it started out. can you talk about that? >> the proposal of the constitutional convention there was just about to go through was that the congress and among its delegated powers was the power to make war. madison, his mind was so quick. his intellect just instantly grasped what would be the results of various proposals. he leapt to his feet on the floor of the constitutional convention and changed the word make to declare. congress would have the power to declare war.

he did this in part because he had seen what ms congress may do things when they were in charge of war. he had been a member of the confederation congress where there was no executive and the congress would decide. they would write to george washington and send them south and if they would realize there was more trouble in the south and they would say send light force kerry to the north. it simply was no way to run the war so he leapt to his feet and said congress has the power to declare war but what that did was make the president commander-in-chief once more had been declared. >> how did he do as commander-in-chief? the british marched on washington, burn down the capital, burn down the white house. was he a good commander in chief? >> he was patient. [laughter]

like lincoln had trouble with generals. in the war of 1812, the generals were people who has served in the revolution and they were getting a little bit long in the tooth. as -- they want as brave as they might've been in their younger years. one general who was supposed to invade canada near to generate over the border became so alarmed at the rumors that turned out to be true actually that the british had formed a strong alliance with the indians who are great warriors that the americans might have to face this. he just turned around and destroyed it. he not only didn't invade canada he gave the british detroit. so generals as they will were with lincoln were a problem. not so with admirals.

the navy started under john adams had eight or nine by the work 1812. the british had more than 100 warships. that the navy had trained all that time and brought new and younger blood. to man the warships. you can't just mothball and navy and then build it up again so the navy kept going all that time. as a result there were magnificent naval victories in the war of 1812. and when people like general paul were playing from the british and indian allies -- who was indeed isaac hall was commanding the constitution and the constitution of course the uss constitution most famously encountered the british frigate carriere and just wiped her out. part of the reason was that our

frigates though they were far far fewer were better built in the cannonballs from the carrier just bounced off the side of the constitution in many instances which is why she gained the name of old ironsides. so the there were splendid naval victories and toward the end of the war we were developing a new class of generals. when i say madison was patient, he suffered through those first generals. i don't know what choice the commander-in-chief has a map and absolutely helped celebrate the glories of the navy. he also changed his mind and he was not afraid to do that when circumstances change. he had long regarded armies and navies is too expensive and is a threat to the republic. too easily used against the citizenry. by the end of the war of 1812

was suggesting to the congress that they expand the navy and provide for a standing army. >> how would you evaluate him overall? how was he looked upon? was reviewed by the public by his command is somebody who was successful or not very successful? >> his contemporaries, madison was one of those fortunate few that left the presidency highly-regarded by all of his countrymen. we don't pay much attention to the war of 1812 but it was regarded by americans as evidence that we should by gosh be recognized on the world stage. we deserve to be recognized on the world stage and that the rest of the world begin to do that especially as you pointed out after andrew jackson just beat the heck out of the british at the battle of new orleans.

>> one of the most intriguing aspects of the researcher came up with had to do with madison's health and i think it's a major contribution from a historical standpoint, something the reviewer said to matt. he had an affliction throughout his entire life and yet he was able to achieve these phenomenal objectives under extraordinary circumstances and clearly one of the most important founders. can you tell us about that both what his problem was and. >> it was one of those puzzles to mean the beginning. people called madison shockley but she wasn't. they said he was sickly and indeed you could see that he was sick from time to time but he also between the episodes of whatever it was was a marvelously energetic taking

1000-mile trips by respecting carriage with lafayette and another one of jefferson, traveling in days when travel wasn't easy between his home in montpellier and wherever the capital was new york philadelphia washington. undertaking just those routine trips i have often thought of something none of the scholars who have called him sickly could manage. during the war of 1812 he was on horseback for 60 hours when washington was burned. there was something odd here. he was sick a lot but between sickness he was quite well. there is a letter that he wrote towards the end of his presidency and it hasn't been published yet. i certainly didn't discover it but i think it was the first person that really paid attention to it. it's at firestone library at princeton men's draft of the ma that madison wrote in which he says he was subject and this is the quote sudden attacks

somewhat resembling epilepsy and suspending the intellectual functions. well nobody had taken him seriously really. i think people just wanted to shy away from it. it was kind of a difficult topic to figure out health and 18th century but i decided i would take it seriously. you can see areas in this light gray did have these episodes. his description of the sudden attacks in fact fits quite well with what neurologists today call complex partial seizures which is a mild form of epilepsy and i think that was it. the first he had few procedures as a child. long febrile seizures as a child is often part of the syndrome that involves seizures, epileptic seizures as an adult.

so he had -- it fits right into all that and he suffered the first at princeton when he was in college. you know you could just see it. want to say he knew what he was talking about and i take him at his word he fell into this period of deep to spontaneity and he worried about his soul when he worried he would not live long when he worried that he wasn't good enough and he was lucky. he found doctors come his family did that urged him to exercise. that being said would help. it didn't in the seizures but he was remarkably fit which doesn't fit with the sickly mist. i think he decided once he had taken his physical health in hand he decided to take his soul when hand. he was not going to believe all the things people said about epilepsy. people said if you had epilepsy or seizures are assembling it

that you are evil, that you are full of sin and you are even possessed by the devil. madison finally just decided he didn't have to believe god. i really think this fed into his strong support for freedom of religion. people can believe whatever religion or no religion if they want and to his strong support for freedom of conscience, intellectual freedom. nobody should have to believe anything that he or she thinks in himself is wrong. and that idea liberated him and i think indeed helped liberate us all because he led the way for freedom of conscience, for intellectual freedom and religious freedom more than any other founder even more than jefferson. >> what happened to the autobiography? did he finish its? >> he didn't. it's just a draft.

this happens after you've been in political life are well. people write and say what you just tell me something about yourself and this fellow wanted to publish them, whatever madison sent him. so madison started the autobiography but he didn't finish it. he decided subsequently not now to talk about as a poet -- epilepsy i think because it was so demonized that he decided it was more trouble than it was worth it call all of that down in his head at the end of his presidency. >> he still had this amazing ability to perform as he did year after year after year. >> i really do think that seeing him as having complex partial seizures explained how he can be sick, sick, sick time and again but in between he was perfectly well, full of energy. the energy spent at the constitutional dimension was from him at all.

>> dolly. >> oh dolly, don't you love dolly? she was beautiful. men stopped in the street of philadelphia when she walked past she was so beautiful. she had dark hair and pale skin, blue eyes and ruby red lips, the whole package and madison was smitten when he saw her on the street. he asked his good friend and this will be a surprise to you, his good friend aaron burr. [laughter] they had gone to princeton together. this was before aaron burr got in trouble. he asked him to introduce him to dolly. she received him in her paller -- further. she wore a bar brawl red dressing glass beads and he was a goner. they married a few months later and she was a political asset. i am always kind of skeptical about how important wipes are.

i'm not sure anymore it's as important as it might've been where we sometimes think it is. more and more wives have their own careers so they aren't essential to getting their husbands elected. but dolly was because in those days the congressional caucuses pick the presidential nominees. there were no conventions but the caucus on the republican side and a federalist side picked the nominees and dolley made all of those members of congress very happy. they were miserable. washington was just getting started. they all lived in a sporting houses. one senator said we are and sensible like bears from talking nothing but politics from morning to night. there was no place to go. there was one club in washington that specialized in world dancers. [laughter]

i know, i'm not sure either. [laughter] baby tightrope walker's? that's my story. i don't know. so these men were so happy when the madisons opened the doors to their house on the f street and welcome them to matter the party. they played cards. dolley took a little snuff alongside henry klay. they shared a snuff box. it was just warm and genial and they didn't mind if you talk politics. jefferson was very different. he didn't like people to talk politics around him. he likes things move you know and calm. so he didn't invite people from both parties to dinner. he would only invite people from one party at a time that the madisons mix it up. people love dolley and she loved them and they began to feel not only great respect for madison but i think great ones because of dolley's entertaining. there's even contemporary testimony to have having been in

some not insignificant measure responsible for his getting the nomination in 1808. >> james and dolley were married for 42 years. >> not as long as us. >> in august as i mentioned we will be married 50 years. tell me what was the highpoint of those 50 years? [applause] i'm going to repeat the question. what was the highpoint of those 50 years for you? [laughter] >> not the 42 years with dolley? >> now. >> i knew is dangerous to have you asked me questions. well you know one event i can think of dick% sure to light that think people don't often see you in. darth vader is the image.

[laughter] by folks let me tell you he's a real romantic. for the 50th anniversary of our first aid, now what year was that? >> it would have been 1958 please? >> it was 2008 and dick arranged a surprise party for me to celebrate the first anniversary of our day. all husbands in the audience try to top that. it was very special. he invited all of our college friends. even have the good sense to tell me we were going to the british ambassadors for dinner. now you don't want to take somebody to a surprise party especially and i think it is true especially a woman if she doesn't have on a nice dress and you don't want to take her for harris and rollers or whatever the equivalent nowadays is. so he got me to dress up and he told me this story weeks in advance. and then they annual gridiron dinner happened in washington.

as vice president, president, vice president and vice president and sousley what i said at the head table. after his telling me we were going to the british embassy that night i was sitting next to the british ambassador. [laughter] so as dick put it i had to read him in. he had to tell him the cover story and the british ambassador didn't say a word and the surprise was complete. it was really wonderful night. he had a cake made that was tall and had a little oddly sticking out of it with blond hair but the cake was a red and it was a skirt and he did that because on our first date i were a red formal with a big red skirt. [applause]

are you blushing? >> no. [laughter] >> yeah just like dolley madison. one more question in more question and then we will open it up to the audience and this is a difficult one obviously. what was madison's greatest disappointment with respect to the constitution in those formative years in the republic? >> well you know he wasn't entirely pleased with the constitution when it was finished what he thought it was probably the best human beings could do so it became a fervent defender. at the end of this his life, throughout his life he hated slavery. he wrote a letter as a young man in which he said i'm going to do everything i can to become independent of slave labor. and to get off his father's plantation or farm as they called it, let an independent life in which he wouldn't be dependent upon that dreadful

institution. and he tried but he didn't really have a long time to try at it because he became involved in public life and creating the constitution and so forth. so he didn't succeed. jefferson also hated slavery and he didn't succeed either at freeing himself from it though i don't think, i don't think he had such a goal, such a firm goal as madison did. but at the end of long lives they both died owning slaves and you could see him toward the end of his life clinging desperately to the only thing he could think of that might help which was the american colonization society. one of the problems by the 1830s was that if you freed slaves they couldn't stay in virginia. there was a law that prevented that. neighboring states pass laws so that freed slaves couldn't move their so there was was this idea of finding a place in africa and

paying the way for free slaves to go to liberia. the problem for many one of which was that freed slaves or slaves generally thought is the united states is their home. the slaves of montpellier had been in virginia as long as madison's family had soap was a failed scheme from the beginning. you could see him just clinging to it not able to think of anything else. that could give him a kind of hope he had as a young man that this awful institution would be done away with. >> maybe just to wrap up this part, say a word about his madison were here tonight, would he think that we have been true to the basic principles embodied in his work? >> i think he would be appalled at the size and scope of the federal government. he would think that we moved far away from the limited powers

that were given by the constitution to the federal government. he might be somewhat gratified though his disappointment would be much greater at seeing ways in which the constitution does still prove itself relevant time and again. i was earlier telling some people a story that it just occurred to me in the last few weeks the supreme court is considering a case that involves whether you should -- with the police should have the authority to search your cell phone if they stop you for a traffic violation. there were two instances in which this happened in those two cases are argued before the supreme court. it's interesting you know when i mention this to people that will say well that's wrong or they will say well that's right. maybe the guy who was stopped was a terrorist. and what's interesting and what i try to emphasize is that's not how we decide things in our society how you feel about it,

what do you think oh that's right or that's wrong. we turn to the constitution to make these decisions and the supreme court justices will go back to a constitution that was formed so long before there were cars, so long before there were cell phones but the justices will have to go back to the fourth amendment which madison wrote that talks about citizens not being subject to what the phrase? unreasonable search and seizure. so he would be gratified a think that the constitution still lives so there is an enormous effort to ignore it. >> without sanding is that it might. >> let's thank lan and vice president cheney. [applause]

they have agreed to a few questions which we will do good for the book signing and i'm going to start that this young man who is from what school? >> chapman university. >> in her question is? >> you talk about how he was viewed by his peers. could you talk about how he was viewed by the public whether they like him are regulated like you meant he kind of started the government. >> well madison wasn't the kind of person, if he were alive today he wouldn't be the fellow that above everyone else out of the way to get to the tv cameras. i don't think that all of his deeds in the early republic were fully appreciated by his fellow citizens. certainly by the time his presidency was over he was deeply appreciated. his contemporaries were most enthusiastic about his job as commander-in-chief. i do think that has really bee

been -- good question. >> from corona delmar high school. >> what is madison's most significant domestic president? >> i'm sorry? >> significant domestic president. >> significant precedent achievement may be. well the constitution. but we had was a country that was growing increasingly unstable during the articles of the confederation went madison did with the constitution and this idea that faction would be put against faction, ambition against ambition is to create a stable environment. alexander hamilton is often accredited for the economy we have today, for the vital economy that the united states has put madison's role in giving businessmen and the rest of us a stable environment in which to live was a major contribution.

>> cara wood's corona delmar high school. what precedent to james madison said during his presidency? >> what precedence? well i think he set an important precedent a really important one as commander-in-chief. there was a seditious movement going on. in the northeast particularly dated like the war, new england and some in new york. they hated the word because it was very damaging to the that part of the country economically. there was so much anger about the war that there was talk of secession and even some organization towards secession. it was even an effort to strangle loans for the war by going after the people, the big bankers in the northeast convincing them not to fund the war so i think when madison

refused to put down that kind of protest, it was free speech. you are welcome to stand up and say whatever you want and you are not going to be oppressed. when madison let free speech continue even though in my opinion a lot of it was seditious, i think he said -- said that very important precedent. it was certainly one that his countrymen appreciated. he knew that you didn't want to suppress those rights that the republic had been created in part to protect. so that's it. >> mat with corona delmar high school. which president in the last century would you best equate to james madison? >> you know it is a good

question but i find myself as an historian thinking that you have to take the founders and abraham lincoln and put them in an entirely different category read not because they were different people but because the challenges they faced were so enormous. it's hard to think of somebody like franklin pearce. maybe you could include franklin roosevelt in there to match. if you look at presidents who faced existential challenges, if what they were doing good work out there would go the republic. the founders faced that kind of existential challenge and i think have ingrained themselves in our national story because of their overcoming the challenges they face. lincoln face that and i think you could say franklin roosevelt did too. so i guess the last century in the 20th century may be roosevelt in terms of the challenges that we faced and

overcame. >> from casper wyoming. >> oh wow that's my home. >> jan gray. about madison heights, he was only 5 feet 4 inches and he was our shortest president. i wanted to know in your research did you find out if he had any troubles because of that especially with regard to his relationships with women? as you know he didn't get married until he was a lot older and dolley was 17 years younger than he was. and mr. vice president i want to ask you about bald presidents. [laughter] eisenhower in the last 750 years is all made bald president. i was wondering if you think there's going to be any more.

>> if i may go first. >> please. [laughter] >> i have always believed in the principle that my good friend al simpson went by from the senate. al used to say we all have so many hormones and if you want to waste yours growing hair that's okay by me. [applause] >> a young lady from redwoods californian. >> i review mentioned how important it was to madison the freedom of conscience so i am wondering how you feel about the fact that the whistleblower who exposed the torture program is the only one currently sitting in prison for its? >> well i mean the supreme court has wrestled with this too.

you are welcome to believe anything you want to. you are welcome to say almost anything but what you can't do is violate national security ordinances that would endanger the country. edward snowden is a case in point. i think he is a trader and i feel it's so, does not bode well for our society that he is being valorized for having been a trader to his country. [applause] [inaudible] >> i'm sorry you need a microphone. >> maybe this is off point. [applause]

>> i respect your right to speak your mind but i also reserve the right for myself and lynne cheney not to answer your question. [applause] >> dr. frank cannon in the back of the room. >> you spent five years living with in addition to the vice president living with james madison. >> and the other 45 to dick. >> can you talk about writing a book like this and where the papers and did you talk to madison descendents and if you could ask james madison one question that emerge from your research what would that question be? >> that last is just really a puzzler. i have to think about that while we talk. the madison papers are in different places. you have to travel a little bit.

you have to go to princeton for example because they were unpublished papers there. you have to go to philadelphia. there are unpublished papers about madison's family in the historical society both 30 volumes of madison's papers are on line. they have been digitized and done a wonderful job of digitizing them. dolley's papers as well have been done by the university of virginia. research is so much easier now than it has been before. i think -- i was chairman of the national endowment for the humanities at a time and i used to be appalled at some of the things that we funded but if they were to increase the endowment budgets so they could make the funding of the founders papers and digitize them so citizens can have ready access i think i would be a good expenditure. you know frank i can't give you a serious answer. i just have to think about what i would ask madison so my unserious answer is i would say

how tall were you? [laughter] this has been disputed. someone said 5 feet 4 inches and his favorite aide said 5 feet 6 inches. there's a confusion about whether the aid was trying to be flattering. i am 5 feet tall and i think 5 feet 4 inches would have been just fine. [applause] >> a young man who studied at singapore and is a student at pepperdine university. >> my name is jacob young. pertaining to james madison's life is there a particular piece that maybe the history books are missing that you think there's not enough information on and you'd be most interested in learning more about? >> there were two things that really stuck out to me as i went through, personal things. this whole idea that he wish i is the 20th century invention. his contemporaries said nothing about that. they noted that it was a canny

politician that learned the trade of not speaking before you needed to, being respectful to your elders when you are a young politician, and not speaking carelessly. madison spent a great deal of his life cleaning up after jefferson who was prone to speaking carelessly. so the fact that he wasn't shy, i spent a lot of time showing in the book that in fact he wasn't and then his sickly thing. that was really important to just get rid of this myth that he was so burdened by his help at all times and he couldn't really get out of bed. you just can't see this vital politician is a man who was that way and i think the idea that being shy and sickly has damaged his reputation and i hope my book will do something to restore it. >> a gentleman from orange california with a real quickie. >> mr. vice president where did you guys go on your first date?

[laughter] >> oh well. [laughter] actually we went to informal thrown by one of the high school girls social club's. we went with some good friends and we double dated. lynne did wear an amazing red gown and afterwards we stopped in what and casper is called ceo. >> now stopped. >> it gets better. we hadn't been there very long when we discovered that some friends of ours including somebody to dated lynne before i could have snuck up and let the air out of the tires of our car. so we spent a lot of time creeping back down to the filling station so we could get air in the tires and by then of course we were violating lynne's

curfew. so i was very concerned at that point that we had violated the curfew the first date and i knew i would be in trouble with somebody. the great thing about it in retrospect was that lynne's mother was the secretary to the police chief and casper wyoming and we didn't make a move that night that hadn't been reported to her at home. [laughter] >> one last question from a student from chapman university. >> you shared some of the most influential authors that implements james madison in his writings and opinions. >> i'm sorry the microphone wasn't close enough i couldn't hear. >> can you share some of what you think would be the most influential works or authors that helped madison shaped his opinions and believes in writing the federalist papers?

>> in the run-up to the constitutional convention he undertook a study project of years reading classical accounts of previous attempts at establishing a republic. he saw where they had gone astray and that helped inform his proposals at the constitutional convention so classical sources were important to him. but practical sources were important to him as well. he not only wrote what had happened to pass republics, he wrote what was wrong with the current run -- one and that he had learned from stating -- serving in state government and the continental congress. it's a nice pairing. he not only undertook this philosophical exploration. he undertook an understanding of the art of politics. he was a genius at both ends so his reading was part of that reading sources like montague

but also his practical experience was crucial to his successes. >> ladies and gentlemen let's thank the cheneys for this great presentation.is is just under a.

>> welcome to a special edition of huff post live which is the birthplace of the actual tea party. the real one. [laughter] [applause] i will be your host. i'm ryan grim of the huffington post with two people that have searched the top of amazon "new york times" bestseller list. the first one, l. 21st century by professor thomas piketty. [applause] and senator elizabeth warren a fighting chance. [applause] senator warren's book makes the case that the system is rigged on behalf of the rich and against the middle class.

>> [inaudible] fortunately i won't be doing much of the talking. these two are going to be doing it. so, professor piketty's book makes the same case except he makes the empirical point of this has been happening for 250 or more years. so, senator warren come i want to start with you. tell us what you have made. >> i get to describe your book in front of you. i like it. [laughter] i saw this as a book that had a pretty straightforward pieces. the rich get richer and everybody else gets to poor. that kind of shows with this book is about and has drawn the

data together to show how this has happened across countries, across time. and i have to say the first thing i thought when i read this book or one of the first things is i thought george bush senior was right. remember when he called trickle-down economics do voodoo economics? he assembled a lot of data to show that while does not trickle-down, it trickles up from everyone else to those that are rich and he demonstrates that it keeps happening as i said over time and country. >> does that sound about right? [inaudible] >> in the strategic defense and

also between the countries and within countries as everyone has said so the institutions in the market can make a difference. right now the real level of the minimum wage is less than quite peculiar in the country that has a lower wage. it was invented in this country. the education institution can produce different outcomes.

>> going to the point whether or not this is an extra bold whether it has to be this way, these are two points that are made simultaneously. it started with a question on trickle-down economics because i think that the math behind trickle-down economics is if we let the rich maintain more of their wealth, somehow that is going to flow down to everyone else and it will make us all healthier. the first part of the message is this is simply not true. it doesn't work that way. it is not like gravity that if we hold it here it will trickle down over time. but the second point is also powerfully true. what happens in the distribution of wealth over time tends importantly on the government, on the policies that any government follows that can either make this problem a

bigger problem if we can get more in the economy or that we make it a worse problem and exacerbate. >> a lot of questions are about this particular issue on the taxation. as a matter of fact in georgia we want to know how do you propose to convince more people that taxing themselves at a fair rate is in their own interest as well as ours? >> to take the decision but everybody has to agree. they have to be -- >> however we are not exactly on one vote here anymore.

they create to make it even more but at the same time, we are on the information technologies in the formations in the political motivations and so i think, you know, and this is what people seem to do when they've read my book. there is time for -- [inaudible] >> the question about how you persuade people that they should pay more taxes if they already have a great deal. part of this goes to the integrity of the tax system itself.

a world in which anyone in moderate means looks left and right and says wait a minute. he gets a tax loophole, he gets to move his property overseas and doesn't get taxed. he gets a break for moving jobs overseas. that over the air to get a special deal. the cost of that is not just a cost in dollars. if the cost of integrity in the system. when people feel like we are not all in this together and we are not paying a fair share of our income or our wealth, then i think what you get is it's sort of all comes unraveled. everyone moves towards i will pay the least because he is paying the least. he's cheating so that means there is no reason for me to go ahead and be scrupulous about what i paid.

so partly this is about your ad a moment in american history the tax system has become so riddled with loopholes you talk to small business owners small business owners pay on taxes because the loopholes aren't as available to them that you look at fortune 500 companies that are profitable and end up paying zero in taxes the cost is the integrity of the system and the sense that we are all in this together and so the first place for me that we have to start this is we have to clean up the tax system he got. that has to be the first step. [applause] >> speaking of integrity and the power of the big money you've recently been on the receiving end of the power.

so a lot of people are familiar with this row and the financial times. you have rebounded this week. basically it's turned out the financial times didn't understand how to do that you creation. so even after that was pointed out they follow it up and i want to read you the follow-up and get your reaction to it. further debate on many of the items is difficult because the professor accepts that he makes still undocumented adjustments to the data and of the forces appeared to be secondary to the professors pry your expectations of what the data needs to show. yonder that being in an incredibly self-aware statement how would you respond and do you plan to respond or do you think this is over? >> what is sent ove they sent oa request for more transparency.

my book is not the problem. it was the fact that [inaudible] you take the rankings that had been writing three times faster and does the financial times has a different ranking so they should step out? with respect to this matter there is a lack of transparency and this is the best thing right

now. it's attached to globalization and can make the interest of everybody to be competitive on the times that everybody gets a fair share in the organization and so whoever has a treaty that is one cost of the gdp and we cannot just go for more transparency. more regulation and we need to make sure that the multinationals pay their fair share. you cannot just make huge profits in the free trad free-td pay no taxes anywhere. you have to have some balance so that everybody makes an effort.

the dynamics try to produce more. in fact the main reason with a form of taxation with an exchange of information and the financial aspect is so that we will no. and it's sad that today all that we can do is to learn more information it would be better if you could read the ims factor and what is going on with different groups. without this the democratic transparency and accountability, we cannot address our policies and we cannot have a peaceful conversation about these issues. >> it sounds to me like you have

explained a lot of people that won't want to see more data about the inequality that's out there. >> you're right. democratic institutions are stronger. >> you've been on the receiving end your self. any advice for the professor? >> get back. [laughter] >> back to the inequality you mentioned that it was the shock of the two world wars douglas and any quality and much of the 20th century. century. i'm wondering if the reverse might actually be true. in other words, was it any coincidence that on the e. of world war i we have historic levels of inequality? if you look at the situation in ukraine now you have heidi any quality and oligarchs battling for the resources.

you demonstrate the connection and the inequality. does it go the other way and can there be a connection? >> i think that sometimes if you do not manage to address it in a peaceful way is easy to blame others. so the national response is sometimes the first response so we start to blame foreign workers or neighbors. so in france and europe we could see that a week ago and people usually don't know how to serve domestic ecology problems for the european unions are they doing germany and china. there is always someone to blame. and yes, sometimes it can be aggravated. now let me say there are many that have played in by changing

some of the distribution but there are more peaceful ways. and in fact through the rise of the free expectations practically the response in the role and the response of the democratic process themselves and particularly it was invented in the 1920s and 30s not just in world war i which was much less than in europe and still the new institutions were invented by the u.s. democracy institutions. so there is a lot to learn.

we shouldn't just be me that they were starting years ago. they have been with us forever and there is a lot to learn on the perspective. >> as most of you probably know it is an extension of the property tax to include the attacks on the other properties and that has been called utopian by some people, but if the income tax was called utopian 100 plus years ago, could you talk about the iq test experience for the income tax? >> it's partly about the notion that we were appalled about the idea of the income tax but we began to tell a personal story. and as i listened to them talk about this, think about every time how it's the story of our understanding

why we are in these economic circumstance. so you talk about one of them ie many cases of extreme inequality, people blaming the political leaders by saying it's their fault. it's that group or that other country. there is a question of how we can describe it any different time the pressures on most people, on the economy. work hard play by the rules economy -- where there are some ups and downs but mostly, if i work hard, my family is going to do okay. and if i worked really hard my kids are going to have a chance to do a little bit better than that and they are chance to veto kids will have a chance to do better than that. that sets the stage if you believe that for everybody to participate in an economy you

have a lot of stability and production and hard work and you get a lot of investment in the future if you build a strong and robust future. at that moment the income tax is part of how the finance of the things we do together and we do it progressively partly because people have more, partly because they have been rewarded by what we have done together. and we all have this sense of shared responsibility and shared investment in the outcome. when things start to break apart, it's when you have people begin to say they diminish davis -- that isn't how. those that are rich have managed to write the rules so they get more and more and they get to break syntax is. so the regulations told in their favor so they have better business opportunities, so they have a better ability to earn

ban everyone else that's out there working and when that starts to happen, when that starts to happen, then what we get is we get a country that is headed in the wrong direction. when people start to feel like it's not about how hard i work but i think the risks that i would work hard and end up with nothing is when the pieces start to break apart. and so, the way that i see this is that we have a right to talk about the taxes and where the tax is should be appropriately placed. it's fundamentally this question about whether or not the games are rigged. right now the game in america is rated so that those at the top keep getting better and better. everyone is increasing economic

strength and my view is that is why that is happening. those at the top te and hired a lobbyist and the lawyers. now under citizens united effects the electoral system so powerfully that they get a set of rules written over and over year by year. the rules are getting better for those that are sliced up atop. that is the major that we see from the great inequality. >> there is a very particular way that it's rigged. now is it similar in other countries or does inequality grow in different ways? in other words is th that how

dynamic the same but the particular way that it plays out in different countries different? >> some countries have been able to read into the institutions into the other. in the tax system they've been able to keep the investment and skills so that -- the very last part says [inaudible] the institution regarding the financing of the political parties and political life and it's definitely one of the differences between the countries. in the legal constitutions it

can make a huge difference in terms of the inequality and the dynamics. >> of notice he goes to finance the opportunity. it's about education. it's about making sure that everybody had a good education so that you have got talented kids that may not have been born into wealthy families that would still have opportunities. i just expand that saying it's about investment and infrastructure. the business wants to start it needs power to plug in and to be able to get the goods to market. making those kinds of investment are the kind of investments for which everyone feels like i got a piece of this. i got an opportunity. i work hard and play by the rules. i'm going to succeed. but if we look at something like the iranian budget.

-- ryan budget look at the basic premise behind the ryan budget. budget. presumes lots of loopholes and cut taxes to those at the top. and how do they plan to pay for it? by cutting the investments that create opportunity. cut the investments in education and infrastructure and research, the things that help to build a future. that drives us towards more inequality. but more critically it undercuts the basic premise of this country of work hard and play by the rules. you have a stake in the outcome. >> not to drag this in a pessimistic direction -- [laughter] >> another move reader asks how well the costs and consequences of climate change interact with economic inequality?

>> you talk about climate change that shows we have much more difficult problems to solve than just exchanging. so if we are afraid, we sit down and see they are too strong for us then what are we going to do? so i think we have to solve the problems and the lack of transparency right away so that we can focus on the real issue and part of the issue is the investment in the energy sources and do something serious about the climate change. it's very sad that we are losing so much time in a way that we issue here just making sure that -- i am from a country where the president was unaware and they started saying he was assured that the french government would never give information as a what

is this world where we are losing time and are we going to be about to get this formation and at the end of the day the state department puts the sanctions that have made a difference so the good news is that you can make a difference. because they are smart and for the proper sanctions to say can we all attached to free trade but we need some fair tax systems we can move onto more important issues such as climate change. >> we separately to climate change from this other debate on inequality. the same is occurring with different words but think about it this way. we have now tens of millions of people who live right near the coast can adjust to pick one example. and if so, what is happening

right now in the debate in the united states? there are giant industries that pollute and the consequence is that they make immediate profits into the effects of pollution will be felt by lots of people in the country and around the globe. it is in their interest to continue because they can make short-term profits and everyone else will bear the cost. think about it. they are able to ask the lobbyists to go to washington to influence the lawmakers and the regulators to do everything they can to maintain their opportunities to poison the water. in order to promote short-term profits. everyone else who has to pay the price on that doesn't have that same kind of organized ability

to make their voices heard in the same way with lobbyists and lawyers in washington. and so for me this just one more example of how we have inequality and a system where a handful are able to reap the benefits that the cost of everyone else. and i think that climate change, like economic inequalitmike ecoe both symptoms of the same problem. at the same problem of those that we have writing the rules too much in their favor and everyone else being left behind. [applause] >> we have a ton of questions submitted on one particular issue and that was the student lending. i don't know if the situation is

that here in the united states there are probably two people appear that still a student loans. [laughter] and there are a variety of different questions, but barbara from arkansas into the moveon members asked if he would support a version of the student loan forgiveness. do you think we are headed in a direction where it has become so unsustainable that there would have to be some outright forgiveness? >> let me do a couple of the facts on the student loans. you will sit down on these because -- okay. right now we have $1.2 trillion outstanding to student loan debt. 40 million americans are dealing with outstanding student loans. over 60 collectively owed about $43 billion in student loans. >> 60 and over.

>> think about that. people that have guaranteed other loans and went back to school later in life. so we have a lot of student loan debt. it's starting to be so much that it is dragging down the economy. the reports are starting to pile up from the consumer financial protection bureau, from the department, the treasury department. and what it shows is that people are not going home at the rate that we would anticipate. they are not starting, they just are not doing that economic things that we would expect them to do because they are burdened with debt. as we have a situation and one more case, it's growing and it's growing fast. oveover was the band a decade te amount of student loan debt has grown by 70%. so think about that. what can we do about student loan debt?

about the outstanding student loan debt there are forgiveness programs. that is a piece of it. we can bring down the interest rate on all student loan debt outstanding. [applause] keep in mind for the debt outstanding and we are in the low environment they have refinancerefinanced and a businn and they've refinanced their township load, you cannot refinance your student loans so people are stuck in 7% from 8%, 9%. wave your hand when i had your number three of the day we go. student loan interest rates. the idea is that this gets to the heart of what we are talking about. the idea for the bill that we have pending with more than 30 cosponsors in the united states senate