Thank you very much, nick. Thanks so much to everybody for setting this up. What a great way to adapt to our obviously troubled times. Im glad were doing this even if if were not in aspen particularly. I wish we were all there, obviously. Secretary rice, thank you for joining me today. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Congratulations to you on taking over the Hoover Institution. I hope congratulations is the right way to look at it. I cant imagine how youre going to squeeze in in the figure skating and the golfing with all that. But if anybody can, i know it will be you. And thank you, too, and nick by the way for helping with that book on james baker. You were both very general with your time and recollections to make sure we got that right. I just want to throw that in there too. So secretary rice, were going to start right off with some pretty big stuff. This is a really tumultuous time in our history both here at home and around the world. Big things are happening. And it feels like, you know, we always say maybe its a cliche, but it feels like a hinge point. I want to get you talking about that. We remember the cataclysmic of 9 11 and how you responded to the challenge. In terms of american fatalities, were now experiencing a new 9 11 basically every 2 1 2 days. Other countries had flairups lately. But its such a different scale. I look at the numbers august 1st, france had 11 deaths. Australia had 7. Japan had 1. Spain and germany had zero. We had 1,244. What are we doing wrong . What should we be doing . More importantly, what is this doing to American Leadership . Where is this going to leave us in terms of our place in the world . Normally were a leader in moments like this as we were after 9 11. How do you see us right now . First of all, thank you very much, peter, for taking the time to do. This im looking forward to our conversation and i am really looking forward to your book. James baker is one of the great figures in american diplomacy. I very much look forward to that. Yes, this is really a challenging time. Some of us were old enough, well say that weve been through other challenging times. I was a child in 1968. And in 1968 we had two political assassinations. We had riots and watts and the tet offensive and when he all kinds of trouble and crisis. And so i think its important to look back with perspective that we have survived other crisis before. But why is this one different . Its different because this hundred seen enemy, this unseen threat of the virus is so ubiquitous among the population and it is very difficult for government to get control of the habits of 330 Million People. The fact is that what were asking here is that because were very individualistic people, because were a society that easy to govern, were actually asking individual americans to make good decisions. And i think we sometimes forget that whatever organization of government we might have, it really does come down to the responsibility of individuals making good decisions not just on behalf of themselves but on behalf of others. I think one of the things that has made it perhaps more difficult, and here i do think we could have done better in term of national leadership, is that we have had, both from the Health Community and from our leadership, sometimes mixed messages about what that Good Behavior ought to look like. And at a time like this, you dont want mixed messages. But i will tell you as somebody whos been in those circumstances under difficult times, i try not to be too hard on those who are trying to manage a circumstance like this because this has been an unfolding story. We didnt know much about this virus at the start. Many of the questions about how a pandemic would have behaved would have said children would have been among the most vulnerable. It turns out theyre among the least vulnerable. So, weve been learning on the job. So, if you put those together, the fact that were still learning about the virus, the fact that were a very decree centralized governing structure governors have been more important to this story than the federal government. If you look at the mixed messages and you look at the fact that all americans have to make good decisions, this is much tougher i think than anything weve had to manage. What do you think this is going to do in terms of our long term consequences . We were already seeing this great debate unfolding here and around the world, globe lichl and isolationism, internationalism versus america first. Now were seeing our country and others shutting down borders. Trade is falling. Travel, obviously, is limited. We were talking beforehand that neither you nor i have travelled anywhere outside of this country in four months which would not be normal. Interanational summits have been cancelled. Nationalism feels like it is on the rise. When this is over or when this recedes on some level, which hopefully at some point it will, what are the longterm consequences do you think . The longterm consequences i hope are still in our control. Let me talk about what it looks like in the short term. Peter, i dont think ive ever seen the greater revenge of sovereignty. Let me call it that. After 9 11 we got Greater International Cooperation on law enforcement, the intelligence cooperation. The un very early passed ways to track terrorist financialing. We got the proliferation to track suspicious cargo across borders. 90 countries participated after that ultimately. After the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, the g20 met in washington in november and set guardrails about what kinds of policies might make the recession shorter and less fundamental. So, they agreed that they wouldnt have bigger trading policies. Did people break those rules . Of course. There was a sense that the International System knew you couldnt control terrorism or you couldnt control the financial crisis within your borders. This time around, its been my protective equipment, my travel bans, my citizens. In the early stages of this crisis, it was get my citizens home. I dont really care what happens to yours. Well leave them on the cruise ship. Just get my citizens home. So, its been a very nationalist response. Maybe thats to be expected when you have Something Like this that people revert to wanting the governance thats closest to them. But what is really striking is that the internalal institutions and the International Cooperation have largely been sidelined. Theres one exception to that. That is that the Scientific Community has continued to operate in a kind of borderless way so that theyre sharing information, theyre sharing data. But for the most part, this has been a very nationalist response. So, the question that i would have is how do we make sure over time the policy question is how do we make sure Going Forward that thats not the permanent state of affairs . Nerd that we reinvigorate International Cooperation and reinvigorate the International Institutions. I think we have a big moment comes up with the g20 meetings in november when we will either prove that International Institutions can have an important impact or we wont. And if they dont have an impact, then i think were in for a long period of just kind of national policy. So, can the world come together around issues like what would travel standards look like around the world . We walk into an airport, peter, for an international flight, the procedures arent exactly the same but theyre familiar. And they come out of the 9 11 period of trying to deal with terrorism. Is it possible to think about Something Like that that would allow people to feel comfortable traveling again . What do we do about the vaccine . If were so fortunate and blessed as to have a vaccine . We dont want it to be the hunger games in term of just every person, every country for themselves. We would like to think that a pandemicsaving vaccine could be distribute on the basis of need across borders. What are we going to do about trying to reboot Economic Growth . Is there a way to do that collectively . This is going to be, i think, a big test for the International System and for its institutions. But i think we need to focus right now on what kind of response can demonstrate that those institutions can have a say in how we move forward. Lets talk about one specific institution. What about the World Health Organization . President trump is withdrawing us from that saying well, theyre a captive of the chinese. It does feel like there are questions that the chinese ought to be leaving. Should we be leaving the World Health Organization . Weve still got a little bit of time. As i understand it, theres a notification period and a period where were going to continue to pay dues. So, maybe theres still time. I have to tell you i think the World Health Organization desperately needs reform. I was National Security adviser during sars. I dont think it actually reacted very effectively. I think it wasnt very effective during ebola. That was really more a response of countries getting together to do something. So, it needs reform. But i am personally one who believes in reforming institutions, and it cant really reform, i dont believe, unless the United States is involved in that e areform. I do think that there is a reckoning for china in the way that it dealt with the early stages of pandemic. We also had problems during sars in the same way,that we knew something was going on but we didnt know what. We couldnt get answers. So, one real task for the International SystemGoing Forward is the next time, and there will be a next time. How can we have better Early Warning when something braeks out . How can we share data better earlier so that nations can get ahead of the curve . Because this time, we now know that the chinese knew really even before they shut down international travel, which is kind of a problem. I do think they have a we have a reckoning they have a reckoning. But one way to deal with that would be to go to the chinese privately, quietly, and say, okay, we know what you did. It was wrong, lets try to fix it next time. You talk about mixed messages. I think back to president bush who read john bares great book about the 1918 pandemic, and he ordered the administration to start thinking real seriously to prepare for a crisis like that. And our current president , though, has, as you said, mixed messages is one way of putting it. He said this would disappear on its own, the cases would go to zero, countries should reopen, he wouldnt wear a mask until recently, even now really not. Does it matter . It seemed to me that president ial leadership matters. Im wondering how you assess that. This is very hard. Part of the reason for the mixed messages is the story kept changes, even from health officials. I do remember when masks werent supposed to help. So, once you tell people masks actually dont help, dont do it, i know they were trying to keep the focus on protective equipment for frontline workers. I fully understand that. But all we heard, as americans, was, masks dont help. And then all of a sudden, masks everybody has to wear a mask. Lets not just say that the mixed messages were coming out of the 1600 pennsylvania. They were coming in a lot of ways. I believe, personally, that president s can speak too much. One of the suggestions that i would have made early on in this crisis was that the president speaks infrequently, he has something important to say when he speaks, and he leaves the daily briefings to dr. Birx and dr. Fauci and maybe the hhs secretary and so forth because we learned the hard way, peter, you dont want to make the president of the United States the fact witness, right . We learned that in iraq, frankly. You dont want the president to be the one whos talking about the raw data. Its really not a good role. And so, you know, this president is singular. He likes to tweet. He likes to talk every morning. I understand that. But in a crisis like this, message discipline is so key. And frankly, president s, when theyre asked something, theyll answer it. Even if theyre not quite certain what the answer should be. And thats not just President Trump. Thats president s. I think one of the problems in the way this was structured was just too often and commenting on everything. When we had you might remember the mad cow disease breakout in ill never forget. It was christmas week. And poor ann vennmen who was the agriculture secretary was sent out there two or three times a day to talk about mad cow. But the president said very little about mad cow. So, you want the president to be a reassuring figure, absolutely. But i dont think you want to make him a fact witness. Can we talk about leadership in our alliship. What message are we sending to our allies with the draw down with the troops in germany. What message are we sending to Angela Merkel . What are we sending to our allies around the world . I do believe there is some truth in the idea that our military force posture still reflects the cold war. I remember when i became secretary, peter. We had more Foreign Service officers in germany with 80 Million People than we had in india with a billion people. Now, why was that . That reflected the fact that germany was the epicenter of the cold war. Now, its entirely possible im not inside the analysis. But its entirely possible that its time to think about a reduction of troops in germany. But i do think that you do that first in quiet conversations with the germans and with nato about what that might look like. You decide and theres now some talk that theyre actually not coming back to the United States. They might go to poland or the Baltic States. That seems, to me, a reasonable thing to do given russian behavior toward the Baltic States and whats building up and so forth. This may turn out to be the right thing to do. But, again, in terms of the process, its helpful to do it in a way that you feel not just consultant but a part of the decision. Probably relatively unknown, we did a major restructuring of our troop presence in south korea in the Bush Administration. When don came to office as secretary, he said we needed to rebalance. He was absolutely right. We had troops very close to seoul. That was a problem for relss wi relations with the population. We were sitting on some of the most valuable land in south korea. We found when we raised this question, the south koreans actually very much wanted us to restructure our presence there. So, very often you can find common ground. It just takes some time to do it. And this is where i do think some of the turbulence in and turnover at Administration Officials is problematic. You just there have been a lot of people in the various key roles, and i think sometimes you get things lost between them. I want to let everybody watching know were going to be taking questions from the audience soon. Theres a raised hand function. Dont do it yet. Wait until we get started. But this is new for me. Well figure it out. I think itll be fun. One or two more international questions. Then i want to ask about things at home. We have intelligence reports that russians may have been paying bounties or offering bounties to talibanlinked extremists to kill american soldiers in afghanistan. We know that from reporting that there is not a complete agreement among intelligence agencies. They have Different Levels of confidence. Youre very experienced with intelligence that isnt necessarily 100 . Theres probably very little entail yens thats 100 . Should this be brought to the president even if theres not 100 conclusion on this . And if so, what should a president do about it even if it might not be known to President Trump has talked to president putin eight or nine times and apparently never addressed it once. How do you look at . Well, whether the president raises it with a foreign leader depends on how much confidence there is in the intelligence. Here i think theres been a little unfairness before the president. Before you go telling the russian president we think youre trying to kill our soldiers, you probably want to have some confidence in the intelligence. And maybe this could have been raised at the level of defense secretary or secretary of state or whatever with the russians. But i think you want to be very careful about raising something that then later on turns out not to be true. And from your reporting, peter, i have to say that this intelligence didnt seem terribly rock solid to me, just from reading between the lines. I remember during the iraq intelligence issues, people were saying, well, you know, you had one agency that said that those werent that. You should have gone with that one agency. Here you have several agencies saying well, we dont know about this. So, i do think you can you need to be very careful in what you raise with foreign leaders about intelligence. If i had done this i would probably not have done it. I dont know what the intelligence really looked like. But i probably would not have done it at the level of the president and president putin. I probably would have done it at a lower level and depending on how good the intelligence level was how low the level. Again, you dont want to be embarrassed if our intelligence agencies then say, oh, never mind. You mentioned the iraq thing. I would have mentioned Robert Draper has a new book out on the decision to go to war in iraq, and he looks at it in a very granular way. Its a very interesting book. And he writes that we often think of the failure of intelligence there as a failure to imagine that Saddam Hussein didnt have weapons, it seemed inconceivable to many people, republicans and democrats, that he didnt have weapons. But he you writes it was the other way around. Imagination rather than facts had driven policy, we had concluded something and therefore tried to look for the things that prove what we had already assumed were true. What lessons do you take from that . Context matters, right . If we had learned, for instance, that the japanese were buying large amounts of chlorine, we would have said, oh, they have a lot of swimming pools. But when Saddam Hussein buys a large amount of chlorine, an active agent in nerve gas, and he does it through military front companies, that piece of data looks very different. So, yes, the context matter. Yes, the fact that he had weapon of mass destruction, yes, the fact that he tried to hide everything from inspectors and eventually the Clinton Administration had to have the inspectors removed because they werent getting anywhere. All that matters to how you read pieces of data. As you said in regard to the russian bounty issue, you never have something that says, here, we have 100 confidence that this is for that. So, youre painting a picture. And frankly, you know, after having been told we didnt connect the dots with 9 11 and i can tell you those dots were pretty scattered too to not then connect the dots on a serial a person who serially sought weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein who had actually gotten them, who had actually used them in war, yes, unfortunately from our point of view, the intelligence was not didnt add up to what we thought it added up to. But did we have some preconceived notion had about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction . Of course. Anybody who had dealt with Saddam Hussein for the ten years since the end of the gulf war would have had a preconception and notions about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. In our country right now obviously its a very polarized time, a time of struggle over issues of race, injustice. President trump and attorney general barr said they dont think there you wrote a moving book about growing up in birmingham and the bombing of the church there when you were a young girl. And i recommend anybody that wants to read about our own history with civil rights and jim crow, they should read about your experiences. You wrote an oped in the Washington Post the other day or a few weeks ago about this as well. President trump and attorney general barr say they dont think theres systemic racism. In fact theyre saying it is a bad apple situation. Is there systemic racism . Is there something we should conclude there is a systemic racism problem . I would like to have a better definition of systemic racism so we can address it. We have a tendency to throw terms around and we dont really know what they mean. So, if, by that, we mean that there is something in the system that is part of the explanation for the persistent, the stubborn achievement gap between black students and white students even when you control for economic conditions, somethings in the system thats causing that because i dont actually believe that black kids are inherently less intelligent somehow. So, something in the system is causing that. We know that in certain neighborhoods policing looks different than it looks in other neighborhoods. And because of economic circumstances, those neighborhoods tend to be more minority than not. Is that something in the system . Yes, thats something in the system. But i think we have to break it down because, you know peter, im someone who believes very much that we were we had a birth defect at founding. Slavery was a birth defect. And it still has an impact. When i hear people say, oh, i want us to be color blind. No, i dont think were ever going to be. I dont care if were color blind. But i would like to get to the place that when you see somebody who is black you dont have p preconceived notions of what theyre capable of, who they are, what they think which i think is a problem of the left. You look at somebody who is black and you think you know what they think or you think you know what they ought to think. So, yes, i think these are issues that continue to be on us with a long history of racism, and they do get built into systems in ways that have negative impacts. But i am not one who believes that you can just sort of, quote, take on systemic racism. I dont even know how to start. I do think you can take on the impact of an educational system for minority kids that leaves most of them behind. I think you can take that on. But people might not like my answer. My answer is lets do School Choice in a big way. Why . Part of the systemic issue here is that we have an opt out k12 education system. So, if you are of means, you will move to a district where the schools are good. The houses are expenses and the houses will be good. Palo alto, fairfax county, you know where it is in your town. If youre really wealthy, youll send your kids to private schools. So, whos stuck in m poor neighborhoods . Poor kids. Having charter schools, having vouchers for poor parents to move their kids, having interdistrict mobility within states, okay, tell me that thats bad because its not good for the Public School system. But then, if youre going to write that editorial, send your kid to school in anacostia. Dont send your kids to anuel friends and write that article. So, this article on systemic racism doesnt accord with the agenda with many people who claim to want to undo systemic racism have laid out. You said in your piece you wanted President Trump to speak in a language of unity and a language of empathy. I think about john lewis funeral just the other day, moved so many people around the world. President bush was there. He said he believed in an america where he could disagree with john lewis and still admire him and speak about him at his funeral. President trump said, i dont know john lewis. He chose not to come to my inauguration. Is it conceivable that President Trump can speak in the language of unity, or have we learned its not possible in the last four years . I have heard him speak in unity. I would like to hear more, frankly. I thought the john lewis situation was an opportunity. You know, we all have disagreements that we try to put aside at certain points in time. I believe i may be wrong about this but john lewis may not have gone to george w. Bushs first inaugural either. Thats exactly right. And that didnt stop george w. Bush from coming to his funeral and paying tribute to him. Right because sometimes you need to be able to overcome. Again, i think that part of the issue here and look, the next president s going to deal with this too. President s are communicating in ways now that i would never have imagined when i was National Security adviser. Just, you know, you didnt get up in the morning and say what did the president say overnight because there was no overnight way to do it. And so, i have really hoped that the president would step back. Nobody none of us should say the first thing to comes to mind, none of us. And thats what twitter has a tendency to make us want to do, with all due respect to my friend jack dorsey who i know well and like a lot. Thats what it makes us tend to do. I still like to hear more unifying messages. Ill just take one on, flat out. You know, i actually dont know why anybody wants to defend the confederacy and confederate monuments. I also dont know why anybody wants to tear down a statue of Abraham Lincoln and slaves which was actually funded by freed slaves. So, this has gotten a little out of control frankly. And i dont want to be the soviet union where were trying to erase history. But the glorification of the confederacy, which, by the way, came after reconstruction really and as a response to the fact that really Abraham Lincoln didnt make the confederacy pay because he wanted to reunite the country quickly. This glorification of people with military bases named after military officers who tried to destroy the country, i dont get it. Im going to open it up for questions now. One last question. You said because people kill me if i dont ask this. In october, you said President Trump didnt have the dignity and statute to be president. Your colleague john bolton said hes not fit for office. Are you open to voting for President Trump, or is that something you can tell us youre not going to do . First of all elections decide whos fit. Lets just remember that. Look, peter, when i want to make a statement about american about my views of american politics and what they might be, youll be the first ill call. I think you told Margaret Brennan that. I guess ill call you both. Baker comes before brennan. This is true. Im going to open this up for questions, please. Questions can be asked by using the raised hand function located near the center of the meeting control bar. Thats what im told. I hope this is correct. And then i if somebody can tell me how i pick them. Do i pick them . Okay. Sorry about this. Im looking to see for hands that are raised. Gee where i see that. Pete e why dont you just continue with your interview and well get you the questions. Okay. All right. Well go a little longer while we get these questions queued up. One question i was curious about, have you been contacted by President Trump looking for advice . I have talked to the president on a couple of occasions early on when he was elected after he had been elected. I think it was march of 17. Im actually much more in touch with the Vice President , who ive known for white a long time and speak to him. And i did i was on a call with the president trying to think about how to reopen the economy. But i dont know that i really had much to help with on that. But i feel that i have connections to the administration, particularly ive talked relatively frequently to secretary pompeo. And so if i had im one who believes you can overvalue your advice once youre out because i was in once. So, i know that people who are out can overvalue their advice. So, i try to be about when i do. Im going look for questions. Im going to ask for ambassador sanders. How do i do i click on that . All right. I think thats in queue. He will appear momentarily. We have a slight lag, i think, in the calling. Can you hear me . Yes. Yes. Hi secretary rice, good to see you again. Yes. I wanted to ask you in the south, which countries do you think today we can work the most with or the best with and why . Im sorry, in the south . In the south south countries. Yes, yes. Look, i think that we have to be able to deal with all countries that are trying to do the right thing in terms of governance, in terms of providing for their people. Its why i like very much the way that we went about the Millennium Challenge Corporation which incented countries to come to us with ideas for improving governance, improving their economies. Middle Income Countries were not eligible. But i think we were able actually to even help in Getting Better laws. Ill give you one interesting example. Won an mcc compact, and they had some ideas about business development. But they had in their constitution or they had in their laws a law that women couldnt own property or businesss in their own name. So, we said to them, well, that either goes or youre out of this compact competition. So, i think we can work with almost any country thats willing to make that commitment. Obviously i think the countries of our own hemisphere are extremely important now, and i worry about some of the backsliding in some of the countries of the latin america. And i hope we have a more active role there. And then, of course, as i said in africa we have a long history thats really i think the Bush Administration did a lot of work there. So, i think there are a number of countries with which we could work. But i would make the criterion not a named country but are you really trying to provide for your people to govern democratically and govern without corruption. Madam secretary, we have another question. You should be on in a second, i think. Caller hello. Yes. Caller hello. Madam secretary, its so good to see you and so good to hear you. I hope you can hear me. I can. Caller yes. So nice to see you. This saturday, august 8, marks the 12th anniversary of russian invasion of georgia. And you played a very critical, instrumental role in stopping russias advancement. Now, since then, we saw many other both military and other types of operations by russia including illegal taking over of crimea, nepal poisoning, you name it. So, all of this, it seems like, had origins in georgia in 2008. And now we know that president putin made staying power until at least 2036. So, whats your advice to georgia how to deal with russia . And how we as the western developed world should deal with president putin . Thank you. Well, on georgia, first let me just say that as i said to the georgians at the time time and ive said to ewe yan yaukrainia others, you have to build your own country. You have to build your economy. You have to have the right rules and laws and the International System can help. But it starts with Good Governance at home. And georgian democracy has had its ups and downs but it survived and i think thats a good sign. When it comes to the russians, i have two parallel notions here. The first is where putin needs to be deterred, you have to deter him. Its one of the reasons that i think if were going to move forces out of germany, moving them further east is a good idea because the truth of the matter is weve never actually just been dependent on what the president says to deter even the soviet union. It was the american soldiers who were actually in harms way in germany that deterred the soviet union. So, i believe we can do more in nato to deter. I think we can do more to help the countries that are kind of in russias path, if you will. So, arming the ukrainians, i think, was a very important step. Deeper cooperation with the eastern, the new entrance into nato. Theyre not so new anymore. The polls, the czechs, and others. I think thats another strong way to send messages to the russians. We have sanctions with the russians and have largely agreed with the sanctions. I want to Say Something about the different parallel path. A lot has happened in the almost 30 years since the collapse of the soviet union. During that period when i was a student in the soviet union, soviet citizens didnt travel. They didnt know the outside world. Now russians travel. The russian middle class spoils their kids at mcdonalds and has their mortgage on their 30year mortgage on an apartment. They want different things. And its not clear to me that Vladimir Putin is going to make it all the way. I dont know if youve been following the big protest out in the far east. Theres a lot of anger at putinism. So, we need to play the long game here. And part of my concern is in. So sanctions, were starting to sweep up people who we ought to be cooperating with for the future. I have a former student whos a very major player in russias effort to build a knowledgebased economy. Its hard for those people to get to the United States because of the web of sanctions. We want those people to come to the United States. So, we need more nuance toward the russian people encouraging those who want a different kind of russia. And maybe we have to wait out Vladimir Putin. But i wouldnt take it as a given that hes going to stay as long as he might want to. Those regimes tend to be more brittle than you know. All right. We have a question. Were running out of time here. We have a couple of minutes left wech. I just want to clarify on your previous question on the confederacy, would you urge the president to sign the nbaa which requires the changing of the names of the bases . Absolutely. Absolutely. First of all because we need the mdaa. Thats the first point. And secondly i think think of better names than confederate generals for our bases. Right. Right. Caller thank you. Madam secretary, even after two summits between President Trump and north Korean Leader kim yong un, north korea considers its nuclear development. Where should United States go from here . What do you think is the best approach . Multilateralism, sixparty talks, topdown, or bottomup . I actually think the administration has done about as well as you can on north korea. I certainly tried. Everybodys tried with the north koreans. I think that the first overture to kim jongun turns out i think to have been a good one from the president. I now believe that were seeing that this is going to be a long haul. Theres not going to be denuclearization in the way that we had hoped or that i had hoped. So, thats where, i think, we probably need to start to formulate a more multilateral response. The United States can still be at the center of it. I have no objection to our being at the center of it. But you really do need a coordinated policy between, first and foremost, south korea, which has the most at stake, japan, which has issues with the north koreans, china, which has some leverage in north korea, although sometimes i think not as much as we attribute to it, and even the russians who even though we dont agree about much, i dont think the russians want to see a nucleararmed north korea either. I think the multilateral approach brings the countries together. You want to keep them aligned so north korea cant pick off one at a time. Thats why generally we want to have a more multilateral approach even if you choose the United States at the center of it, which i dont quarrel with the administration about that. Okay. I think were basically running out of time here. I want to thank you very much, secretary rice, for taking so much time with us today. Its a great way to kick off this Aspen Institute forum. I think its going to be a lot of great panels and discussions all day. Myself, im looking forward to any number of them. Im especially looking forward to nicks hope. Hope wouldnt be a bad thing right now. Secretary rice, do you have anything to say to end it before we throw it back to nick . Can i just say one word, peter, about where we are at a country. Ive heard a lot of people say the United States looks so broken now that weve lost respect in the world. I understand that argument. But when it comes down to it, around for instance the racial issues, im actually grateful for the fact that we are able, as a country, to address these issues in an open way, that people are able to speak their minds, and that people want to solve the issue. When i was a little girl growing up in birmingham, alabama, a black man being killed by a policemen wouldnt even have made a foot photohad in the newspaper. Now you have people who want to do something about that. So, one piece of hope for me is americas always reinventing itself, and weve got a lot to live down in the past. But i think weve got a tremendous future. And i will tell you as a University Fe university professor, this is the most publicminded generation of students ive ever taught. I would want to say to noift young people here, keep trying. Democracy you get is the democracy you work for. So, thats my hope. Thats a great way to end it. Thank you have very much for taking the time. Great to see you. Good luck with all your other zoom calls which i know are many. Good luck to you in the future as you take over the Hoover Institution i think in just a few days, right . Thanks peter. And come out and do a book event with us when we can see humans again. I would love to do that. Cspan has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court and Public Policy events. You can watch all of cspans Public Affairs programming on television, online, or listen on our free radio app. And be part of the National Conversation through cspans daily Washington Journal Program or through our social media feeds. Cspan, created by americas Cable Television companies as a public service. And brought to you today by your television provider. Weeknights this month, were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan3. Tonight at 8 00 eastern, a look at the manhattan project. George may John University history professor Martin Sherwin details the development of the atomic bomb through the bombing of the japanese cities of nagasaki and hiroshima. Enjoy American History tv this week and every weekend on cspan3. This week marks the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki. Wash cspans washington journal live thursday at 8 00 a. M. Eastern. For a discussion about the bombings. Then on sunday, watch American History tv and washington journal live at 9 00 a. M. Eastern at we look back at how the bombings ended world war ii and their legacy in decades ahead with richard frank, author of downfall the end of the japanese empire. Join the discussion with your calls, texts, facebook questions and tweets. Watch the the 75th anniversary this sunday on c pan and American History tv on cspan3. The perjury case against President Trumps former National Security adviser Michael Flynn will be reheard by the full u. S. Court of appeals for the d. C. Circuit on tuesday. The panel of judges will decide whether a federal judge should dismiss the charges on Michael Flynn as recommended by the justice department. Hear the case live tuesday at 9 30 a. M. Eastern on cspan and at cspan. Org or listen live with the free cspan radio app. During the summer months, reach out to your elected officials with cspans congressional directory. It contains all the Contact Information you need to stay in touch with members of congress, federal agencies and state