Worldwide. For more information about the National Press club, please visit our web site at press. Org can. On behalf of our members worldwide, id like to welcome our speakers and those of you attending todays event. Our head table includes guests of our speakers as well as working journalists who are club members. If you hear applause in our audience, i note that members of the to general public are attempting, so its not necessarily of a lack of journalistic object it. [laughter] id also like to welcome our cspan and public radio audiences. You can follow the action on twitter using the hashtag npclunch. After our guests speeches conclude, well have a questionandanswer period, and i will ask as many questions as time permits. Now its time to introduce our head table guests. Id like each of you to stand briefly as your name is announced, and from your right, skip cottonhauser, an independent journalist who coincidentally organized ralph naders luncheon at the press club in 2004. Rehema ray mahmoud, a guest of mr. Norquist. Dr. Claire nader, ralph naders sister and aivic activist. A civic activist. Pat host, air force reporter at defense daily and helper to organize todays event. Grover excuse me, grover, im sorry. We changed the routine because of two speakers. I will come back and introduce you and mr. Maider in a moment. Donna, a reporter for usa today, vice chair of the Speakers Committee and a past National Press club president. Skipping over mr. Nader for a moment, john welsh, account supervisor at edelman and a Speakers Committee member who helped organize todays luncheon. Suma norquist, wife of tbroafer nor wis Grover Norquist. Andrea [inaudible] economics reporter as investors business daily. Edward mooney, a guest of ralph nader and a veteran political reporter and a former president of the National Press club. [applause] to longtime washington observers, ralph nader and Grover Norquist might not seem like natural allies, but throughout their careers they have fought for a singular goal good, Responsive Government. How they defined response i have government and how they Responsive Government and how they get there are where the consumer champion and the antitax advocate champion part ways. But today they say there can be a common cause. Nader, who founded Public Citizen in 1971, fights to protect consumers from a copollution of corporate collusion of corporate and government interests. Norquist wants to protect americans from overbearing government interests too quick to tax and too quick to spend. Long ago nader passed beyond simple concerns with seat belts and hot dogs. He has built a National Network of citizen groups that have had a major impact in tax reform, Nuclear Energy and health and safety programs. In his latest book, unstoppable, he warns that the United States is at a pivotal moment. Americans are more disillusioned with their political leaders than ever, and large majorities of citizens tell poll thesters that pollsters that big corporate e corporations big corporations have too much political power. Norquists Group Opposes higher taxes at all levels of government. He is best nope for his antitax pledge to which he says 260 lawmakers in the 113th swore to uphold. Norquist recently advocated for the federal government to stay out of the proposed comcast time warner merger beyond antitrust concerns saying the market is adjusting to consumer demand, and the government should not meddle in a free market transaction. Today we will hear our guests discuss where the left and right could come together to work for a better america. Please welcome ralph nader and Grover Norquist, and by mutual agreement and i stress, by mutual agreement it was agreed that mr. Nader will go first and will speak for 12 minutes and will be followed by mr. Norquist for 12 minutes, and then we will have the traditional question and answer session. Mr. Nader, the floor is yours. Ms. [applause] thank you very much, myron, distinguished guests and audience. Representing various views. I think the issue here comes down to an immobilized society. People want to get things done in this country, but the powers that be as they have for thousands of years have learned that the best strategy to block the will of the people is to divide and rule. As a result, we hear article after article about how polarized our society is; red state, blue state, republican, democrat, left, right. And there are many divisions and disagreements, to be sure. There are disagreements on reproductive rights, on gun control, on School Prayer, on constitutionallyrequired balanced budget, on taxes, on kinds of regulation. And those will probably remain. However, there are huge areas and very fundamental ones in terms of constitutional procedures as well as substantive policies where there is a large left right convergence majority in this country. It starts with the public sentiment. As Abraham Lincoln said, you can do anything, and without it you cant do much of anything at all. So we start with the reality that its already out there in the minds of tens of millions of americans who call themselves conservatives or liberals or libertarians or progressives. They agree on a whole host of issues. I first came across this agreement going functional, going operational for mere con eventualing opinion into actually Political Action when we developed a coalition in 983 to 1983 to fight the clinch river radio reactor. They hadnt dug a shovel on the shores of the clinch river in tennessee. And our side wasnt getting very far, and the senator from arkansas called up bumper, and he says why dont you call some of these rightwing groups . Theyre worried about this, because the its a huge budget buster. The prediction is its going to go to 8 billion. So we formed a Taxpayers Group against the clip. River breeder reactor. We had some formidable foes. Ronald reagan was for it, senator howard baker was for it, General Electric and westinghouse were for it, and it was quite an uphill fight. But in a stunning defeat of the clinch river, we won in the senate 5640. That was in 1983. In 1986 against corporate lobbyists, there was a left right convergence between senator grassley, a republican of iowa, and howard bear vin, democrat congressman from california, to pass the false claims act. That would give government officials an opportunity if they blow the whistle, government employees, to share in the recovery that would be pursued by the justice department. And that has saved tens of billions of dollars since then. And we see other examples. So this is not pie in the sky. Were not sugar coating this convergence. We have examples. As of last year, for example, there was a left right uproar on email, etc. , to stop another war in syria, getting the u. S. Involved in syria. The left right in defiance of john boehner and nancy pelosi in the house almost got a bill through blocking the nsa from dragnet snooping. They lost by 12 votes on that. And at the state level, a lot of interesting things are going on. 15 state legislatures have passed juvenile justice reform. Only possibly because of left right legislators. When the kilo decision came down saying it was okay for new london to expropose rate a whole neighborhood, destroy it and give it to pfizer, 25 state legislatures passed a variety of laws very quickly saying not in this state youre going to take private property, condemn it and give it to corporations, other kind of private property. So in doing this book, i go through the history of conservative philosophers, and lo and behold, a lot of them from adam smith to hayek to russell kirk were not exactly what the corporatists who have distorted their philosophy would have us believe. Many of them believed they were against socialism, they were against government planning to be sure, but they were for a safety net leading to milton freed matchs friedmans minimum incomes plan and nixon adopting it. That heritage goes all the way back to Henry Simmons who was the founder of the Chicago School of economics and was milton freed matchs men to have friedmans men to have, and it goes pack to Frederick Hayek who thought there had to be a safety net. Public works was fostered by them. They had these conservative philosophers that did not like monopolies. Very eloquent in busting up monopolies. So we have a doctoral basis here as well as current operational figures, some politicians and some writers, but most important, back there in the country where people live, work and raise their children. The ideological schisms are not quite as apparent because these people back home are facing reality. So we have a great deal of disagreement between left right on reproductive rights and School Prayer and gun control and balanced budget, as i said, but we also have very fundamental agreements. And it was illustrated in an interview in the book that i had of ed crane, the libertarian founder of the cato institute, when he said, ralph, im against all corporate subsidies, unconstitutional laws, the libertyrestricted aspects of the patriot act and the Federal Reserve run amok. I said thats a pretty good start, ed. [laughter] thats a pretty good start. And so i want to focus on the two areas of agreement categorically. One is on procedure, Civil Liberties, protection of privacy, engagement in dragnet snooping, etc. You dont engage in wars of aggression. You dont interfere with International Law and constitutional law and federal law and go anywhere in the world building up empires and bases in 120 countries. You dont allow the pentagon to automatically get huge budgets through Congress Without following normal Appropriation Committee procedures like the budget for the iraq war, the budget for the afghan war. Thats a very important area. And thats where this very, very solid basis here, as grover will point out. There is a lot of collaboration between left right with the American Civil Liberties union and rightleaning groups. In the substantive area, there are quite remarkable con very generalses. I sometimes think half of what the government does is shovel out subsidies, handouts, giveaways, privileges, economic privileges in the marketplace and bailouts. And this is called crony capitalism by the right, its called corporate welfare by us. And that is a huge slice of the federal budget. The patriot act comes up for confirmation or repeat next year. Maybe therell be a struggle instead of just rubber stamping it as it has been renewed twice by a rubber stamp. We have on some esoteric issues, perhaps, a collaboration. Left right wants to audit the pentagon, 800 billion up audited every year. Not really the way a business would run it. And thats why you lose 9 billion here, 6 billion there. Pretty soon, as senator dirkson said, it adds up to real money. Theres also left right on procurement. The government is the bigst buyer. Why not establish standards for efficiency and for National Goals like controlling pollution, advancing auto safety . And here in the audience is the former head of the General Services administration. And when we hit a stone wall on the airbag even though george will and others came out for mandatory airbag installation in the mid 80s during the reagan administration, i went down to see Gerald Carmen whos a very conservative republican from new hampshire, and he was an auto parts business, so he wasnt in awe of the auto industry. And i said, you know, if you have airbags in government cars, you know, they buy cars, 40, 50,000 a year for government employees, it will reduce accidents, injuries and claims and costs and lost work. And that eye peeled to him in addition to appealed to him in addition to the lifesaving aspect of i. And to make a long story short, against all the companies except for ford, he put out and that helped the momentum to get the airbag in all cars, and now its on side airbags and front seat airbags. Thats the use of the government buying power, and thats what so important. Its not just the more dramatic issues, its also the the issues of proper functioning of government. Of course theres going to be a lot of disagreement on taxes and the other converging area. I dont know whether grover agrees with this, but theres a left right coalition and 70, 80 to restore the minimum wage, to take it up close to where it was in 1968 as adjusted for inflation. There are 30 million workers who make less today than they made, workers made in 1968 adjusted for inflation. 30 million workers. And so whether youre conservative or liberal worker in walmart, i dont think youre going to fall on your sword ideologically and say, no, we want the continue working at 8 an hour while the boss is making 11,000 an hour every hour, eight hours a day throughout the year. So in two hours on january 2, he makes more than the worker makes in the entire year even before the martini lunch. So i want to conclude [inaudible] yeah. I want to conclude by noting that this book does not sugar coat t the obstacles. And what we really need here to kick start this bigtime although there is now a left right alliance on Prison Reform which grover was involved in with Newt Gingrich called right on crime, joining with progressive groups. Theres a lot going on that is not getting that much attention compared to the division, the divisive areas. But in this book i argue that there are a lot of obstacles that have to be faced, but they are overcome bl if we have a number of civic groups established whose only concern is convergence and left right alliance advocacy. Because theres a lot of convergence cato and heritage, Progressive Policy Institute have all come out with reports against corporate welfare. Thats not their top priority. Thats not where the grants and the contributions expect the work to be done. So they go to work every day, and thats not their top priority. Its where the grants and the targeted issues often are in conflict with the left right, thats their priority. So we need this kind of sing lahr focus, and i have singular focus, and i have a chapter called dear billionaire, and im looking for some very rich person to start funding a number of these nonprofit civic Advocacy Groups. Thank you very much. [applause] thank you, mr. Nader, for holding to our 12 minute request. And now i have the pleasure to turn over the floor to Grover Norquist. [applause] thank you, myron. Last time ralph and i were on a stage together, we were competing at funniest celebrities in d. C. So im going to be the straight man today. Im going to make it very clear that when you talk, and ralph and i both talk about left right coalitions. Thats different than traditional bipartisanship here in washington, d. C. And state capitols. Traditional bipartisanship is republican politicians and democratic politicians exercising their class interests as politicians and deciding to raise their pay. Or to give [laughter] or give themselves pensions or invent new ways to kneecap potential challengers to their running for reelection. And there are very real class interests that elected officials have, and they can cheerfully be bipartisan in defense of those. Earmarks for decades. You would get some, i get some. We all steal some money, and we all share it with our friends. What im talking about, ralph and i have worked together on, are issues where right and left, people of principle that are not willing to sacrifice this isnt like moving to the center and giving the other guy something that nobody should have in return for trying to get something good. This is about issues where right and left both agree on what they want done. For instance, the issue of transparency. Both right and left through the states, and this has moved across dozens and dozens of states making state budgets completely transparent. By that i dont mean a printed budget after its dope, i mane every after its done, i mean every contract as its written, every grant given online so everyone can see it now. Not the people who can hire lobbyists or happen to live in the state capital or federal capital. Its all legally public, its just in shoe boxes in various basements or in filing cabinets, and its not accessible to the average person. So what were looking to do is those issues both right and left where principles can move forward. Now, if total spending and all contracts were made transparent to every american, every person in the world could go look at them, im under the impression people would look at it and say lets spend less money. Ralph thinks some would look at it and think, martha, look how wisely theyre spending our money, lets send more. We can have that argument as to how people would react to transparency, but each of us believes that a transparent government would be a better government. I believe it would be more limited, ralph thinks maybe more expensive, but transparency we can agree on, and often people in our respect cheerful about that. So right Left Coalitions are areas of principled agreement on, perhaps, procedure or even goals, not a compromise where somebody walks in and gives up a part of his soul in order to get something and moves, they think, slightly in the wrong direction in the hope of doing something else. I also want to point out as ralph alluded to, this is not something that might happen, this is not an interesting theory. Ralph naders not written a book about what might, in theory, people could do this if you imagined them. I want to go through a list of things where this has already happened and where its happened in seven states, it can happen in more. So were looking now at the term limit movement. Actually, in my living memory the least success isful press conference ive ever participated in was one where ralph nader and i in 1992 were holding a press conference on term limits, and not a single reporter showed up because official washington had zero interest in term limits period, and its revolutionized state government, its revolutionized the Committee System by having this sort of rotating french revolution every six years where the leadership moves on. So term limits have, has gone across the country both at the state level in local government, and it shows up here not only at the president ial level, but in terms of committee chairs. Right on crime which i was working with a group of folks who said do we really need we thought it was 2,000, turns out it was 4,000 federal laws do we really need to keep 75yearold former bank robbers in prison for the rest of their lives . It costs 50,000 to put someone in prison for one year in california, 25 in florida. Those are expensive. Youre disrupting communities, breaking up families, taking the bread winner out, youre making it difficult for people to move forward. Look, and im tough on crime. Im all in favor of executing murderers, i think some people should be in prison all their lives but not the two million weve got now, and we need to look at what mandatory minimums are doing. And this is where theres been a very good right Left Coalition on working, and weve moved this through quite a number of states often starting in texas. One of the reasons theres a problem with coalitions on crime is because people on left are afraid theyll be called weak, people on the right are afraid theyll be called weak on crime by guys further to the right. So making it clear that this is about, as texas has dope, continuing to reduce the crime rate more rapidly than other states by having fewer people in prison and perhaps more people under parole or probation. But also asking yourself how many people you actually want to have in prison. The issue of corporate welfare is one that we can agree on. I think we worked together on this many years ago when john kasich was taking the lead and coming up with a series of suggestions that both groups on the right and the left could agree on. Government ought not to be stealing peoples money and happening it to somebody else, period. And we made some progress on that. Theres more to be dope. The earmarks to be done. The earmarks was real progress. Right on defense. The sequester going to be a help. The sequester is going to require those people to say, look, its very important to have a Strong National defense. Its a dangerous world out there. Got to keep the canadians on their side of the border. [laughter] you want to have a Strong National defense, but you dont have to waste money. Theres a new piece of legislation that i think is very intriguing by congressman calvert, republican from california, that will through attrition reduce the number of civilian employees at the pentagon by 100,000. The budgets experts over there the tell me you could cheerfully do 200,000 and still have a strong and Robust National defense. There are going to be a series of efforts along these lines because the she questionser puts sequester puts a cap for ten years op the pentagons budget. Those people who want more tanks had better figure out how to reform the procurement system, theyd better participate and help when we suggest that perhaps we need a compensation system that pays soldiers more and spends less time trying to figure out what theyre going to do for them 50 years from now and front loads a lot of the resources that we make available to soldiers and sailors. So we can reduce the cost of National Defense while making it more effective. The sequester is certainly an important project in making that continue. Civil liberties. Right left share a lot of interests. The goth, the part of government, friends the of government, what they used to call loyalists during the revolutionary war, friends of government always like the government to have more power because theyre quite convinced the government would never abuse it. And i think its important for republicans to say to their left to their conservative allies, do you really want Hillary Clinton to have this power youre now planning to give to george w. Bush . Because at some point he moves on. Well, we trusted him. Do you trust the next guy . And the people when clinton was accumulating powers like this, do you really want to hand this to the other team . We can make some progress in limiting the government snooping, the governments mega Data Collection and making sure that our Civil Liberties are taken seriously, and that almost only happens in a left right coalition because all the people who trust the government to always do the right thing dont see anything wrong with a government continually accumulating more and more power. One of the reasons why i think not only do we have this in about six or seven fields and its moving through various states, some of the stuffs actually happening at the federal government, i testified in what you would have thought was a difficult issue. This was reducing the disparity between how long you were sent to prison for crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. It was 100 to 1 ratio, and it was reduced to 18 to 1. And i went and testified, and there was this fascinating dance between the republicans and the democrats. The republicans said wed be delighted to get rid of this bill that the democrats had passed and introduced, and the democrats say if you stop mentioning that we introduced it, wed be happy too. If they reduced the disparity, 10 to 1. 18 to 1. Where that came from, i dont know. But 18 was less than 100. Some senator thought that up, and we said, well take it. And there you had a broad left right coalition. As im looking at mandatory minimums for federal crimes, treason is five years mandatory minimum, okay . Things dealing with naked pictures of people are up like 35 years. So this was driven by how many people you could get to your press conference when you announced that you really, you know, message i care, i really dont like carjacking. Its not like in the 57 states we didnt have laws against carjacking at the time, but some congressman decided were going to have i want a press conference, so were going to have a federal law. Just have the press conference. Anyway, we had to have a federal law, and car janging carb jacking became a federal crime each though the states were quite capable of handling that. So the mandatory minimums were really press conferences, not law being made as you looked at what was considered important to have a mandatory minimum for. I want to suggest that the movement that ralph naders written about and that many on the right and the left have begun to participate in is going to grow and strengthen. And one reason is that weve had some success, okay . When you see people walk out on the ice and they dont fall through, more people are willing to go out there. When politicians hear that right on crime has gotten a series of reductions in how long you have to keep how many people in prison and how much you have to the spend doing it, and, you know, crime didnt increase, it fell, things got better, and most importantly nobody lost an election, that theyre more willing to move this forward in their own state. The other reason its going to move is that theres nothing else to do in this town. You know, were going to raise taxes or cut taxes, spend more money or less money . Thats settled, and as long as obamas president and theres a Republican House, were not eliminating any Big Government programs, not creating any more Big Government programs, but were not cutting taxes either. Thank you to you both for holding to the 12minute limit that we imposed. So that we could have more time for questions. Lets start with some questions for both of you. And, some people say that the partisan divide deeper today than it has ever been. Do the two of you agree . If so how do you think the gap can be narrowed. You might have touched on some of this in your remarks. If we could have succinct answer to that question. Do the two of you agree and if so how do you think the gap can be narrowed . The partisan difference is much greater. When nixon was president he wanted government to get a little bit bigger and ted kennedy want ad lot bigger and they argued every day, and every day the government got somewhat big. Agree if youre heading in the same direction. Now it is speed. We have two parties. One wants larger government and one wants Smaller Government and they each mean it. What would have a bipartisan compromise be. There is no way to do that. Pass the Republican House and senate plan and pass the ryan plan. While we do ralph and i will work on other issues. Precedent mr. Nader will follow. We have lot of questions. Keep it brief to the report. There is partisan divide where . In congress. Back home, 90 of people want to prosecute wall street crooks put them in jail. There is real main street, wall street antipathy here. Too big to fail . All kind of conservatives are coming out against allowing banks to be too big to fail. But it hasnt hit congress yet in terms of any operational momentum. That is what we have to talk about, filling that gap, pushing this public sentiment of convergence into operational mode. Is the Supreme Court decisions, is the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision a good thing or bad thing for the country . Do both of you regard money as free speech like the Supreme Court did . I think we probably disagree on that one. I think people should be free to do anything they like other than punch somebody else or steal their stuff. That includes spending their money any way they want, buying ice cream cones or running ads, make engaging in politics or making movies or films. I think the Supreme Court decision went in the right direction. We should have complete libby. There are plenty of leftwing billionaires. Doesnt upset the applecart. No stolen money in politics. Forced union dues. No taxpayer money. Voluntary, fine. Yeah. Disagree. I think public election should be publicly fund. Can be done in voluntary manner. I think mccain fine gold is convergence which has been eroded by 54 decisions of the Supreme Court. The money is corrupting. The idea money is speech would have horrified our founders. Furthermore i draw the distinct shen between corporations and individuals. I think corporations are artificial entities. They should be subordinated constitutionally to the sovereignty of people. Word, corporation, company doesnt even exist in the constitution. And i think Supreme Courts revolutionary 54 decisions time and time again are erecting a system in our political economy where corporations are supreme over individuals. And that is obviously in my mind a subversion of our democratic process. For the next few questions well have mr. Nader answer first to keep the balance. Is it possible to have a government of, by and for the people in this country without meaningful Campaign Finance reform . It is very difficult obviously because intimidates people who otherwise might move forward, either to run for office, or just to be active. When they see mountains of money on the other side and tv ads and radio ads and all kind of apparatus. I think the important thing to remember though is, even if there is no money in politics there would stipping a problem of mobilizing citizens. They have been so stomped on over the years. We dont teach Civic Education or civic experience in our schools. Young sisters are taught to belief, not to think. To obey, not to challenge. That is always going to remain a problem and it has in many other country as well. So it is not a elixir on money and politics but certainly we have to start there because it is getting worse and worse and impeding a variety of candidates from even trying to run. Sure. I think it is important to have Campaign Finance reform in order to have fair elections. In wisconsin they have taken a step towards that. Prior to act 10 passing, Public School teacher paid 50,000 a year. Found 1,000 taken by force without his or her permission handed to unions. That was condition of employment. They didnt vote to join the union. They never voted to june the union. They were in the union. Couldnt do anything about it. Took 1000 not as teacher might want but as the government wanted to. That law under Governor Walker was changed so all dues have voluntary and unions could not take your money and spend it on whatever you want to. The most important thing in politics is no stolen money in politics. No taxpayer dollars taken from you and spent on politics and no union dues taken through coerced union dues. Voluntary union dues, all they want to spend, thats fine. Last question addressed to both of you. Then i go into a session of asking you individually some questions. Could the two of you conceivably back a left right candidacy, ron paul, Dennis Kucinich ticket, focus on attacking nsa, nafta type deals and Federal Reserve . Mr. Nader. Just what they stand for, how ought then i can it is what their record is. I dont care their labels. Barney frank and ron paul had a caucus in the house in 2010 to reduce the military budget. Couldnt have people further apart on that but they were very sincere in that area. By the way, grover, i never discussed this with you, investor rights, visavis management. Corporations spend money in political campaigns and do the shareholders have a right to approve or disapprove . Would you agree that they should . Yeah. Easy for an investor to decide not to own General Motors stock or another. It is not easy for a teacher in wisconsin to change jobs since it is government monopoly that theyre working for. I see it a distinction there. What was the question . Oh, im sorry. Kucinich. Ron paul hasnt been to turn about man yet and kucinich and i were out this year so he gets to be at top of the ticket. Unlikely to have the left right effort show up inside of a president ial race but there are certainly individual pairings on individual issues that are interesting and it sort of man bites dog and press is a little more interested when you can have a republicandemocrat, particularly very conservative free market republican, liberal democrat together. That helps raise important issues and makes our job easier even when they are difficult topics. Okay. Now some questions for mr. Nader. Let me just say on behalf of everybody, really appreciate the succinct substantive questions that are relatively brief an and i dont want to add to the time. Let me ask questions for mr. Nader. Having run a member of green party for so long and recently as independent, how would you rate our two party system of government and in your opinion does it need to be overhauled so other parties stand some sort of a fair chance and if so how. First of all, i think there is a convergence on Ballot Access and instant runoff voting. You have Libertarian Party and green party often collaborating on lawsuits at the state level. They want to open up the system. I think most people in this country, regardless how they vote, whether hereditary voters, republican, democrat, they want to see more choice, moyemore voice on the ballot. It will bring out more people to vote and be more exciting and more meaningful campaign. Thats one of the second is i think that in many ways, the two parties are one Corporate Party with two heads wearing different makeup. We have a convergence the the other side. Corporate democrats and corporate republicans building corporate state or as grover said corporate statism. Franklin Delano Roosevelt called that fascism in 193when he sent a message to congress to start Investigation Commission on concentrated corporate power. He said when private economic power controls government, that is fascism. Both of those parties exclude competition. They harass people. Democrats worse than republicans. They harass people, getting petitions on the street to try to wear them down. We were sued 24 times in 2004, in 12 weeks by the Democratic Party or their allies to get off one state ballot after another. Needless to say it was pretty depleting for anybody who wants to have a campaign for more than eight weeks after labor day. Last week important to note is, this combination of corporatism, that gets the parties dialing for the same commercial dollars is getting tighter and tighter. You have the clintons are now on the record, they are wall street, they are corporate its and theyre mill at that rifts. Hillary clinton hasnt seen a war she didnt like. She hasnt opposed a Weapon System she doesnt like when she was on the Senate Armed Services committee. This is what we have to face up. They all have different rhetoric on social services. There are different issues on things like reproductive rights and School Prayer but on the fundamental issues of empire, on constitutional observance, on Civil Libertieses, on main street versus wall street, on where the budget is going to go in terms of the necessities of the people, or piling up into the oligarchy and plutocracy, these two parties are converging very, very tightly and we have to break them up and get more competition with other parties and other independent candidates and break them up in ways that is quickly and functional at the local level where you can have more choice at the local government level. Starts bubbling up to the state and federal. Mr. Nader, your 2000 race for president is widely acknowledged through the election to george w. Bush. Given how mr. Bushs presidency turned out, do you regret running that year and why or why not . Last i heard, bush got more votes from gore than i did, thats is a minor thing. I dont think third parties are second classy sense. If we all have equal rights to run for election and then we are all trying to get votes from one another. So were all spoilers of one another or none of us are spoilers. When you say spoiler are Third Party Candidates given all great things they have done in American History to pioneer antislavery, womens right to vote, worker rights, farmer rights, when you just say Third Party Candidates are spoilers, that is political bigotry. So blame the Electoral College because gore got 500,000 more votes nationwide. Only country i know in the world where you can come in first and lose the election, because the Electoral College. Blame florida, blame the thieves in florida. Blame the Supreme Court. You dont blame someone exercising Constitutional Rights to challenge the two parties on at least 15 issues that they are totally ignoring, will not discuss, but have majority support. I left my website open to document that. You can go to votenader. Org 2008 campaign. Web site. This is where there is nice convergence by the way. Because it is a civil liberty issue. Very nice convergence. Right now, there is a leftright convergence moving to get rid of the Electoral College by interstate compacts. They have reached 160 electoral votes. Maryland, new york, california, passed laws saying we will throw our electoral votes behind whoever wins the popular vote in the United States running for president. And so it is only a matter of couple years before the Electoral College is history. [applause] one last direct question before we go and ask mr. Norquist some. Considering mr. Nader, requesting Grover Norquist entire race on debt abolish all government regulations thaw spent your life working to enact, why are you partnering with him on anything . Because we can win on things we agree on. Very simple. We disagree on a, b, c, d, issues. We agree on w, x, y, z issues that affect many of people. Why should we indulge in this political vanity and be overwhelmed by what i call the yuck factor . This is what liberals have to get over, the yuck factor. Excuse me liberal intelligentsia. They dont feel the need out there, they dont have the empathy, too busy writing articles and being in the top one or 2 of income in this country, to get over it. Theyre not affected by this. But millions and millions of people can be alleviated in one area after another. By the way, the liberals are more rigid on all these issues i have found than people who are really conservatives, not corporatists and conservative garb. You can see that again and again on this question of the 2000 campaign. Get over it. The Democratic Party could have blocked bush on iraq, they could have blocked bush on the tax, succumbed to bush. They could have blocked him. Look what republicans are doing to obama. Get over it. Stop scapegoating the green party. Stop trying to find an alibi for your not standing up to the American People and their rights instead of dialing for the same commercial dollars that republicans do. [applause] now some questions, now some questions for mr. Norquist. First of all, before ralph nader aim came along the free market acknowledge ad lousy job of protecting consumers from flawed automobiles an corporations ripping them off. Why do you think things will be different now if you realize your dream as a questioner asked of drowning government in a bathtub . The actual quote is, you want the government to be small enough to where you could drag it in the bathroom and drown it in a bathtub. Question of size, not question of ones intent. For dramatic effect. I think if you look at the history of Big Government, of statism, monopolies like at t didnt exist until the government gave them a government monopoly. Monopolies are created and forced by the state. I think we probably worked on some of these issues together. The regulation of trucking which kept prices high. The regulation of railways designed to keep trucking prices high. The regulation of buses to keep prices high. And airlines as well, rail, buses, all of these issues, the government came in and set prices on floors, not ceilings. Im not in favor of ceilings. They like to pretend theyre coming in keeping prices lower, helping consumers. The cost of state interference in the economy is not to make things better and if you look at the larger governments, they dont necessarily do a better jobs at these things. I think the market, i think consumers working voluntarily without violence, without threat of force, 300 million americans deciding what, how they want to approach things. Consumers demand increased safety and in products and they can get it. The government tells you how to be safe, moving away from something that down work anymore. Moves as quickly congress. I want the economy to be able to particularly when safety are health and at risk move not as quickly as fda but as quickly as microsoft or the guys who make your iphones. So there is big difference, you want taxi guys fixing things for you or uber . Choose. Outlawing abortion in all circumstances as republican platform demands. Why do you hate government . Because this is the oddest thing, when people who want a limited government are called antigovernment, okay . Cancer doctors are not anticell, okay . They like cells. Some cells are healthy and they just sit there. Some are cheerful and do good things. Some cells reproduce so quickly they hurt you and can kill you, okay . Government, where you have some modest and minimal rules, like keep your hand on your own stuff and dont punch other people and otherwise youre to live your life and believe what you want and do what you want, that is a much, there is a big difference between disagreeing with Big Government and not liking any government, okay . We have had wars against people who were masters of Big Government. We didnt want government that big, whether soviet union or germans. We wanted more limited government like we have. I think our government has gotten too big. We have four thousands laws. Ignorance after law is no excuse. I cant list many of those 4,000 or tell you what they are and they all can put you in prison. I think we have too many laws, too many regulations and government is too big and too expensive and ought to be smaller. That doesnt have anything to do with government. The government created by constitution is thing of beauty and makes people more free. So i am not there with that. I work on tax issues and i work with candidates who want to keep taxes and spending more limited. Thats what we work on. Right. Just a brief followup. Why do you want to only support candidates that want to use government to control Womens Health but by not allowing abortion in all circumstance . I dont. I work on spend being and tax size of government. Candidates come with a big package of issues of the central issue today is total size and scope of government and reducing that as overall cost in how people operate. That is what we work on. [inaudible] well we asked the question and he answered it as he wishes, im still being asked about, for more specific response to false premise in the question and walked you there that. Sir, tax reform went nowhere yet again in this congress yet politicians on both the left and right say it is absolutely necessary. Mr. Norquist, dont you think your no new taxes pledge inhibits lawmakers from devising a, better, fairer tax system . The question was, does tax, is the pledge, taxpayer production pledge, no net tax increase get in the way of tax reform . No. As a matter of fact if we remember back to 86 when we did tax reform the only reason we could do the Tax Reform Act of 86 is the pledge existed. Why i created it. There was a fear if you told a bunch of can congressman and senators to go into smokefilled room, to think something of what they brought back because they move all the little pieces back an forth. At end of the day it would be trojan horse for higher taxes. No matter how much they broaden base, lower rates whatever they bring back is tax increase. Reagan said i will veto tax increase. I got 100 members of the house and senate, we wont vote forfeit it is tax increase that was enough for tax reform to be ref tax reform. More revenue, lower base. Get rid of tax deduction. Without the pledge you dont get tax reform. You just get tax increases. The pledge is why we got the sequester because the president couldnt talk people into a 1. 4 trillion tax increase which is what he was asking for from the supercommittee. I talked to kerry bit. Grover, got to help me. What do you need . 1. 4 trillion in higher taxes to pay for 1. 2 trillion deficit. Obama wanted 400 billion in spending, another stimulus and 200 billion in spending we all agreed could be cut. I was taken aback by 1. 4 trillion tax increase. What is the 200 billion we agree on . I love to focus. When do we talk about 200 billion in spending cuts we all agree on . Ivory soap percentages moved rat republican party, getting elected promising to their constituents they would, no net tax increase. Promise me, president and harry reid sometimes misstate that im sure by mistake. The pledge, if you read it online, her. Org, is to voters of your state and to the American People. That i will oppose all efforts to raise taxes. Only if you convince the American People that the tax reform youre talking about is not a trojan horse for a tax increase can you ever get consensus to do tax reform. So i would argue that it is opposite of what premise somebody tried to put into the question. Tax reform happens only when taxpayers are convinced that it is not a hidden tax increase. I have two more questions for each of you, if we could keep the answers brief. I thank you both for doing that. Then i will have one last question for both of you. Mr. Norquist, do you think the republicans who shut down the government again if president obama wont accede to their policy demand . No, i dont think they should take the approach that was taken last year. I think it would have been better to have passed shorter bills. The idea of shutting down the government and thinking that the press will focus on issue you want them to focus on instead of the shutdown is historically inaccurate. And not a good idea. Besides were taking senate in a couple months, so hold your horses. Mr. Nader, if you could briefly say, what is your most serious disagreement with mr. Norquist . Excuse me. Regulation. Health and Safety Standards are absolutely essential, because people cant discern through their senses that the degree of pollution in the air, water, food, emissions from nuclear plants. All the things that are invisible forms of violence. I even got Milton Friedman debate him once in pittsburgh to agree. He was against all regulation, including licensing of doctors. And i said, well you mean a barber can put a sign up and say cardiovascular surgery, special price . He said sooner or later people will find out. Sooner or later. But he did agree that pollution had to be regulated, because there is no sensory, nothing that people can detect. Carbon monoxide. You cant tell it, taste it. That is an area i think i can persuade a lot of people including grover. Last i heard he breathes. He smells. He eats, he drinks. And the more we get together on things we already agree on in principle the easier it will be to enlighten each other. They will enlighten us on real wasteful programs weve been very fearful of challenging for fear, that will go down the drain 100 by undermining of support for these programs. More of this will come in you if you subscribe to my come loom free, nader. Org. I do follow crony capitalism and all these convergences. I simply say, grover i will pay for fulltime person and you pay for one fulltime person. Start right on the spot in few weeks, first totally committed convergant Advocacy Group in america. We are almost out of time. But before asking the last question, we have a couple housekeeping matters to take care of. First of all i would like to remind you of our you coming event and speakers. On september 15th, ken burns, documentary filmmaker. September 17th, john stump if, ceo of wells fargo. September 19th, larimer low, president and ceo of cvs corporation. Mr. Norquist and mr. Nader youre welcome to come back an join the audience to smith questions. I would like to present the guests with traditional National Press club mug. So on my right, mr. Nader i hope you got one 10 years ago and add this to the collection. Mr. Norquist, your first one i believe. Im sure you will be back for another one. 30 seconds left to answer following, i know we are democratic republic but if you were emperor of america one stay what would you do . Mr. Norquist for [inaudible] shoot the emperor. No emperors, never. Mr. Nader . Abdicate. [laughing] i liked your answer better. Mr. Norquist first to mr. Naders answer. Let the record show that. Thank you for coming today. Especially to our very special guest of honor. We are adjourned. [applause]. You have these Huge Companies who are not only in control of distribution but of content, and theyre getting hammered on the misinformation, the structure that we as a democracy or light upon to govern ourselves. Spent the adoption of smartphones is faster in minority communities than it is in suburban, affluent white communities. That is fantastic news for america. Youre seeing the developing world about such technologies rapidly. Fantastic news for improving the human conditions for allowing people to have the benefit of new information and changed the political expectation, economic expectation, all in a positive and constructive way. Tonight at eight eastern on the communicators on cspan2. And taking you live here on cspan2 to the newseum in downtown washington, d. C. And audience ready and candid remarks by president bill clinton and george w. Bush to announce the launch of the president ial Leadership Scholars Program, a partnership between a number of president ial centers for the study of president ial leadership philosophies, styles, practices and to allow leaders from various sectors to learn about aspects of presidency from Key Administration officials from practitioners and leading academics. Todays moderator is josh bolten, a former chief of staff for george w. Bush. We will wait in the room as the audience is gathered and waited for participants to take the stage. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] and waiting here at the newseum for the start and the launch of the president ial Leadership Scholars Program. Remarks expected by former president s bill clinton and former president george w. Bush. Later today on cspan2 we will have remarks from George Washington university, health and Human Services secretary Sylvia Burwell at 1038 eastern, or whenever this event wraps up. Then later today at 2 00 eastern the senate will be in, back after the august recess. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. The program is about to begin. Please turn off all mobile devices. [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [applause] ladies and gentlemen, please welcome margaret spellings, president of the george w. Bush president ial center. [applause] good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today as the announcer just said i margaret spellings, president of the bush president ial center and im so glad to see so many familiar faces with us today. For a really special announcement. We would like to especially thank our supporting sounders without him founders. The moody foundation, sitting right there on the front row. [applause] is leading the way with a substantial commitment to the program and their gift really is making this program possible. Beard joined by the miles foundation, representatives from all organizations are with us today. Thanks also to the Hearst Foundation for their support. Thank you to my partner and our best friend Bruce Lindsey of the Clinton Foundation. And, of course, my friends, ceo of the george bush president ial lever and larry keppel, chairman of the lbj president ial Library Foundation and austin mccoy to acknowledge my board chairman, don evans, is also with us. Our National Archives and records of Administration Partners led by david ferrier, archivist of the United States, and directors from each of the affiliated libraries are also here with us today. Finally, our university partners, sne on his campus we glad they were, the president s. In you. The university of arkansas, texas a m university in College Station and university of texas at austin. Okay, so all the acknowledgments are done. Im thrilled to be this going to launch the president ial Leadership Scholars Program, a partnership between the president ial centers of george w. Bush, william j. Clinton, george h. W. Bush, and lyndon b. Johnson. President s bush and clinton will join us shortly to discuss why this program is so important to them at the are a few key matters to discuss first. In my career ive had the distinct honor and good fortune of working for and with many strong leaders, men and women who are born with the characteristics that put them on the path to lead but who had perhaps more importantly developed and honed the skills that allow them to make a significant contribution and to better their community. Like many of you ive seen a tremendous difference a gifted leader can and does make, and we need more of them in every sector of society. Last year before i left washington i had the opportunity to visit with my friend and former head of the democratic leadership council, owl from come is also here about an idea for a powerful partnership between president bush and president clinton. When i moved to dallas i became acutely aware of the powerhouse of the president ial center that we have in our region. We have four president ial centers in texas and arkansas, sounded like a texas to democrats and two republicans all within close proximity of each other. The centers, more important, tell the story of for consequential leaders who lead our country during the last half of the 20th century and into the 21st. So with assets and resources of these four centers in mind, i reached out to Bruce Lindsey to testify the of the Leadership Program stewarded by president s 42 and 43, with braces support we put our Heads Together and the president ial Leadership Scholars Program was born. Leadership is and always will be a critical need. Thats what im excited about the opportunity that lies before us. A program that will train highly motivated people with a track record of leadership from across all sectors and backgrounds. Business, the public sector, nonprofit, the military and academia. These leaders will apply the lessons, principles and ideas they learned through this program to the complex opportunities and challenges that confront us. The president ial leadership scholars experience is unique and the resources it offers participants. They will learn from the president s, not as politicians but as people who have led to some of the most dynamic and complex situations of our time. Times change and issues are organic, but fundamentally strong leaders core, regardless of what sector they serve are what ideology they hold, are the skills that guide them as they set a vision and strategy, motivate strong teams, navigate challenges, make difficult decisions, and find common ground. Our curriculum is developed in partnership with some of the best minds in the scholarship of leadership. Paul, michael other from Georgetown University working with us as well but the program will combine the study of leadership skills like communication, persuasion, decisionmaking and Coalition Building with examples and case studies from the four presidencies. Participants will connect with the best minds of the science of leadership, gain insight from the former president s, and those who served with them, and develop practical skills they will apply during and after the program. They will also learn from leaders in other sectors as well as a distinguished faculty from universities affiliated with each center. Participants will visit and learn to give them a firsthand look at the resources of the four libraries and the stories they tell. The president ial Leadership Scholars Program will set the stage for the participants to expand the scope of what they believed is possible, to build upon their already proven track record of success to achieve significant and measurable good in their community and in the future work. They will also bond together and learn from each other as mentors, resources and partners to advance their own personal leadership projects and help each other with the challenges they face. And importantly, this program is at no cost to the participants, thanks to the generous support of our founding supporters. It has been terrific to collide with my colleagues at each center and now its my pleasure to introduce stephanie and executive director of the Clinton Foundation who will tell you a little bit more about the type of leader we are looking for as well as more about the esteemed Advisory Committee that will help guide the program. Stephanie. [applause] well, thank you, margaret. Its been truly an honor to be here today, and on behalf of the Clinton Foundation i would like to thank our partners will work alongside us over this past year to turn our shared vision into a pioneering Leadership Development program. Now, to echo markets sentiments about having new best friends and as this program has taken shape over the past year, our teams have met regularly. With the exception of having very strong opinions on whether arkansas or texas has better barbecue or football, are working together has been truly wonderful. Let me take this time to recognize our president ial leadership scholars Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is comprised of 12 members, three appointees representing each president ial center. First our chair josh bolten agriculture, alexis and our cochair, alexis. [applause] in addition were pleased to have james debbies economy, carlos gutierrez, tom johnson, general stanley mcchrystal, connie newman, lyndon olson, doctor rodger b. Porter, donna, and laura tyson. Serving as ex officio members, please join me in thanking our full committee. [applause] as you can see we have been fortunate to a symbol quite a distinguished group of individuals who will advise on all aspects of the program, and be active partners to help us ensure that the president ial Leadership Scholars Program is really a state of the art experience. We join together to launched this program because we believe that working together in a spirit of collaboration, is truly the best way to start a path forward. We want to work with and help develop the individuals who believe in tha in the same phil. And the work of our four centers is evident, that individuals at different backgrounds and perspectives can unite to pursue a common goal. Now, you just heard from margaret about the programs origins and objectives. Let me set the stage that put this program into greater context. I will start with the curricula that is being designed by dr. Paul our media, the senior associate dean of executive education at this Mcdonough School of business at Georgetown University and his colleagues at the mike dunn a school, doctor only read. They have developed, managed and taught in numerous executive Leadership Programs for many years and are incorporating the best of what they have learned into the design of this program. Our leadership scholars through a variety of expenses including lectures, group discussions, debates and case analyses. During their sessions the have the opportunity to hear from worldclass academics, preeminent scholars and the public, private, military, and Nonprofit Sector as well as key advisers from the president ial administration. Scholars will also explore critical moments of president ial leadership and take a deep dive into the president ial Library Resources relevant to the moments. And there will be a number of collective learning activities designed to give our future leaders in any sector the practical skills they need to drive solution, oriented action. Now, i want to briefly touch on our scholars. We are being intentional in seeking those with significant work or professional experience who have demonstrated a record of leadership and a clear impact on their communities. And more importantly we are looking for leaders from every sector of decided that they want to strengthen their leadership skills to have an even bigger impact. We look forward to the committed group of alumni scholars which will grow year after year, and become a significant force for positive change. At the Clinton Foundation we have seen a president ial leadership has translated into success and a global nonprofit. As a result of president clintons commitment to greater cooperation, a new model of leadership has emerged. Ceos who consider social good to be part of their bottom line. Philanthropists who know that this is Oriented Solutions will help them reach their goals faster. Creating Innovative Partnerships that bring together people and organizations with very different philosophies, backgrounds and objectives, and asking them to Work Together to solve the same issue is an extremely potent and powerful force. And it takes leadership. Its that same spirit and approach that we bring to the table as we join with our fellow centers on todays launch, to build a future where cooperation triumphs over differences. Thank you. [applause] i dont think anybody can be fully prepared for the moment when youre getting a briefing on a National Security issue, and everybody turns to the president and says, what are we going to do, mr. President . Our greatest responsibility is to embrace a new spirit of community for a new century. For anyone of us to succeed, we must succeed as one america. Use power to help people, for we are given power not to advance our own purposes nor to make a great show in the world, nor a name, there is but one just power, and it is to serve people. We are all fellow passengers on a dot of the earth. As each of us has really only a moment. Leadership is making sure that as a leader you are doing what leadership requires, even though you are your own personality, your own nature might make you wish you were somewhere, anywhere else, but you are not. You are there. I cannot think of a recent president who didnt embody that, and thats what this particular president ial Foundation Initiative is about spin the program is a president ial Leadership Scholars Program. I think it was to fully use so that people who really want to make a difference in the world can learn from them, formed a community and contribute to society. Lbj respected Public Service, and he realized the needs for great leaders. He would also recognize a great leadership quality in clinton and the two bush president s. Thats one of the reasons im so excited about this because Young Leaders are coming to our institutions to learn the lessons from these president s. In order to shape a better america. This is a program that is targeted at people who have demonstrated some capability and leadership and demonstrated a desire and a passion to refine their skills to some public good. Whether they are in private business or work for the local government or state agency or involved in nonprofit or in the military, we are not looking for people who share the same perspective on an issue. Theres some fairly unique aspect of the programs. Its not just one program. We have access to the president s themselves, members of that administration, people came in contact with them. And thats the goal. This is a wonderful goal, aspiring the next generation of leaders. The same skill sets that are necessary to succeed in government or in business or an ngo are basically the same. So theres a big premium on motivating others, selling others, getting buyin from others, and compromise. We want to create leaders who can learn from the president , what the president , these are human beings with lots of positive attributes who have to deal with commitments and tremendous challenges and probably face on the uncertainty and yet soldiered ahead, made decisions, motivated other people. If they really want to make a difference, youll have to go through that. I think that can be inspiring. The tough decisions are never black and white decisions. The tough decisions are always the ones that change. Eacchange. Each individual leader needs to find his or her niche, and what skills they have to affect the outcomes that they are trying to achieve. So we hope to give them the tools with this program to be able to decide. I think any time a president is dealing with a crisis, they are dealing with an enormous amount of uncertainty. You have to be willing to live through the discomfort of having everybody against you because you are doing something that is either very difficult or hard for people to understand. We have something very unique in a program that pairs for president ial centers together that really tells a story of some very, very consequential issues. And it just makes sense that they come together and helps stewart the next generation of young, physically in kind americans. Its better to nurture Young Leaders than leaders themselves. Our faith as a nation and our future as a people rests not upon one citizen, but upon all citizens. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order. One of the Guiding Principles of my presidency, which much is required, and america is such a fascination that i believe have an obligation, service to the and. What should our shared values be . Everybody counts. Everybody deserves a chance but everybody has got a responsibility to fulfill. We all do better when we worked together. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, please welcome cochair president ial leadership and scholars Advisory Committee and joshua bolten, chairman of the president ial leadership scholars Advisory Committee former white house chief of staff and budget director under president george w. Bush, and current managing director of rock creek global advisors. [applause] good morning. It is an honor to be here and to cochair this important and timely program. Today, we do a good thing for our country and for our world. And i must say that you, president clinton, ma president bush, i think you today for your foresight, for your insight, and for your commitment to inspire a new generation of leaders, and to help them to better understand what it really means to collaborate, to communicate and to find common ground, even if they dont agree on the basic issues. Ive always believed that leaders are not born. They are made and they are shaped by the environment, by the people that they need, and by the events they encounter. I believe that the work that we will do through this initiative will help propel them even further on the higher path of giving back to our country, and to develop them into even greater leaders for the future. I am delighted to have the opportunity to be working i can with my good friend, josh bolton, on this initiative, and for all of the distinguished members of the Advisory Committee. I believe i speak for you, josh, and for all of the committee when i say that we recognize that this is not about the art of the easy. But it is about the art of the possible. And i look forward to helping to foster all of the great possibilities that i know that this president ial Scholars Initiative will hold for the future. Thank you. [applause] thank you, alexis, for those kind words. I look forward very much to working with you. Now ladies and gentlemen, please join in welcoming the 42nd and 43rd president of the United States. [applause] the old squeeze play. I am with you. Gentlemen before i had a chance to ask you some questions, i have a letter thats just arrived from walkers point, kennebunkport maine. [laughter] september 8, 2014. I am delighted to send greetings to all gathered in washington, d. C. For the launch of this Innovative Partnership between the participating foundations in this new president ial Leadership Scholars Program. Every former president is different, and thats as it should be. For example, not all of us skydive. [laughter] thats not a judgment will come it. Just a fact. [laughter] every so often, however, theres an idea so compelling that it brings together a former chief executives and the foundations to push it forward. So it is with this president ial Leadership Scholars Program which will offer quality leaders the chance to study president ial decisions and learn from Key Administration officials, practitioners, and leading academics. We face a lot of the challenges both in and out of government. So the idea of developing more leaders to all walks of life to address them can help lead our nation forward isnt vitally important in my view. Thank you for being here today, please ask it to dissing bush gentlemen following me to keep it brief. [laughter] signed george bush. [applause] i understand president bush is watching, so i know from everybody in this room today, we send greetings, respect and salutations. Gentlemen, the letter i just read from 41 mentions the uniqueness of having these four president ial centers come together. In fact, i think this is the first collaboration ever among president ial centers in an ongoing initiative. Why did you decide to do this as a collaboration . And why did you pick leadership as the theme . President bush. He does. He said keep it short, right . [laughter] hi, mom. [laughter] because weve got a lot to offer. I mean, bill and i have become friends in the postpresidency. I admire, i admire white house ability to communicate and to lead. I know he wants his library to be relevant as he heads into the future as do i. I know 41 well. Ive always admired resident johnsons leadership, and i know these centers and the education, the universitys associate with are tremendous assets that need to be used properly. And i felt, and i know bill feels the same way im not going to put words in your mouth. Anyway, i felt its a fantastic use of our ability to bring people together. And the reason why leadership, i know in washington everybody us and were talking about the next president our next senator, we are not. We talk about leadership in all aspects of life. And unicode one of the things ive learned, maybe through my painting comp im trying to leave something behind, something to make the world a better place. And we did that hopefully of people would judge it that way and we were president. But there still a lot of life to live, and i think a great contribution to our country will be to educate the next generation of leaders. And so im thrilled to be associated with this. Its a big deal. President clinton. Well, first i wanted to do it because the great test for any democracy is anytime is how to have vigorous debates, serious disagreements, knockdown dragout fights, and somehow come to ultimately a resolution that enables the country to keep moving forward. I mean, the founders that our job was to create a more perfect union. They never said our job was to agree on everything. But if you read the constitution it ought to be s some time, lets make a deal. [laughter] subtitled. Because it was designed to avoid dictatorship. Therefore, leadership styles, they are all different, but in the end we have to both let our differences forged and come to some sort of understanding about how to deal with our challenges and how to go forward. These libraries and foundations represent two republicans, two democrats, three of us fortunately steal around still around. People of my age are profound effected by president johnsons civil rights act, a whole set of things that happened in the 60s. And so i think we are in a great struggle in america and around the world to define the terms of our interdependence. This is a interdependent age in human history. And we were laughing about going to restaurants and having to spend our time taking sell these with people. At least they are still asking. [laughter] thats right. But its like to use the people want to shake your hands. Now they want to have shaking your hand and had a record of it. But we are all, we cant get away from each other. The question is how we define the terms of our relationships and escorted enormous amounts of leadership in every sector. Im glad george said that. This is not primarily a political deal. We believe that theres some skills. And i also think leaders are made. You may have some innate abilities of you are born with, but our military proves you can train leaders and that their capacities can dramatically increase. So i hope we can be helpful. President clinton, let me follow up on that last point you made about leaders not being me. This center is supposed to be teaching leadership, but can it actually be taught . How do you do that . Well, i think some things can be taught, but some things have to be observed and practiced as well. So i think we have to teach through observation and practiced. I mean, you know, whatever you want to do just got to have an idea where youre going. If got to have a vision of where youre going, a strategy about how to get there. Then you have to have a plan to execute that strategy. And you need to be comfortable with an honest assessment of what you dont know and what you cant do so well so that you build a team of people who know things you dont, who are good at things you arent. So that, you do, you can do the. Then youve always got to leave the door open for somebody to call, disagree with you. I remember, i will say one thing nice about my friend here [laughter] i will say more than one thing but this particular one thing i will say [laughter] he used to call me twice a year in his second term, just to talk. We would talk, depending on how much time he had, because he was b. C. Are than me, somewhere between 3045 minutes, for several years but it meant a lot to me. We never talked about it. Never talked about in public. We talked about everything in the wide world. He asked my opinion. Have the time he disagreed with it, but i felt good about that. I thought that was a really healthy thing, and ill never forget the first week i was in office i got all the young people who helped me in my campaign in, and i said, you know, if any of you ever come in this oval office and tell me what you think i want to hear, my goose is cooked. That i might as well run the white house with a computer. Youve got to cultivate people who know things you dont and have skills you dont, and yes, that can be taught. And then if nothing else, we do know people get out of their own way. Everybody has got a story and a dream, and they can bring to bear if we can just help people get out of their own way sometimes spent resident bush, there was no president ial Leadership Scholars Program when you were growing up. Yeah, there was. [laughter] george h. W. Bush. [laughter] thats exactly where i was going. You need to disguise your questions a little better. [laughter] so my next question is to president bush. [laughter] president clinton, is there anything [laughter] is there anything you wish somebody had taught you about leadership before you became a Leader Speaks actually i thought youre going to promote my book. [laughter] i wish i read it. You answer that question. Well first of all and go back to the question that you answered. I agree with a lot of what you said. I dont think you can teach humility. I dont think you can teach the and secure. I dont think you can teach courage. I think you can give people tools if thats immediately in the system and thats what we intend to do. This program is aimed at people who have exhibited leadership characteristics that you cant teach, and give them tools so that come and conference. I believe this can be a real confidence boost. People go through this program. They will see other people their age or you know, the same area of work and they will say, wow, i think i can give more, you know . Ive studied william j. Clinton or george w. Bush or lbj and first they will discover, you know, we are just normal people who got caught up through ambition and drive and circumstance ended up being president. Man, these guys can do it, i can do. Here are the tools necessary to do it. So absolutely you can teach leadership skills. I dont think you can necessarily teach leadership qualities. And so this program is going, i assume the committee is going to screen for people have shown leadership qualities, you know, by the age 35 or 50 or i dont know how old the people will be. Anyway, i learnt a lot from my dad. Look, im very fortunate to watched a great read but as the medevac this book im writing, im about done now, which i think will be out november 11 [laughter] its a love story. This will irritate people in washington, i suspect, or some. Because its a love story. But its a story about seeing someone you admire and learning from them. And maybe this program will be able to do the same thing. And i learned a lot of lessons from being able to watch them throughout life. I suspect people are going to be say when they finish this program i learned a lot about leadership when they studied the presidencies of the four people that are associated with the program. And mr. President , you clearly absorb a lot of lessons from 41. Im assuming those will be laid out in your book, available november 11. [laughter] 16. 80 on amazon. Com. [laughter] i learned a lot from him and im not making any money off the blood. [laughter] look, no, lets explore that. One of the things that is challenging for this program, last week i went to kennebunkport as a designated blacksheep of to see president bush on the 70th anniversary of his being the youngest american pilot shot out of the sky in world war ii. Now, somebody talking now to fly the plane, but he was 20 and he wanted to be up there. And we had a flyover with an exact replicate of a little bomber he flew, and it was a small bomber compared to the larger ones that were developed later, and even smaller fighter planes escorted them that were most famously flown by the tuskegee airmen, the only unit we had who never lost a bomber. Now, benjamin o. Davis was the commander of the tuskegee airmen. It was a great leader. Why . Because he had simple things that he drilled into people. He said, you know, our fighters cost 50,000 to the bombers cost 250,000. Do not leave the formation to bridge you can shoot down a german fighter plane. Protect the bomber. Thats our job. And that was a simple Leadership Strategy that resulted in their being the only unit in world war ii never to lose a bomber. And i was talking to president bush about it, and i told him ive been thinking about it all day, and he said, he had been thinking about it all day and he remembered everything that happened 70 years ago on that day. When his life nearly ended. Now, he was too young to have been through much Leadership Development, except learning how to fly the plane, but i also think he got better as he went a long. I think you got better as you went along. I know i got better as i went along. And i will say again, i think giving people access to insight skills and training, and also literally helping them to keep their heads on straight is very, very important. Because anything thats really hard will become harder. And then you will feel a lot of pressure. And you watch, were talking about this yacht tournament the other day. When you get any kind of high level competition, youve got to work really hard to keep your mind, heart and spirit in the same place, not it anyway and never lose your focus. And i think there are ways to do that that are quite effective, and i hope we can be helpful to a lot of people. Margaret and stephanie just did a really nice job of describing the program, telling us the kinds of people that theyre looking for in his president ial Leadership Scholars Program. But let me ask each of you to tell us a little bit more about precisely the kind of people who you would like to have participate in it. What would be a successful kind of person who could benefit from this program . President bush. Well, for sure we want people from all walks of life, and different political persuasions. We want people who have shown the capacity to succeed, people who work hard and who work with others in a good way. And people who, you know, who launched a career, whatever field, and we just want to be a little extra fuel. Remember the fellas, the white house fellows, bill and i both had the honor of meeting with our white house fellows, Extraordinary Group of people that would spend time in the white house. These are people who are highly motivated people, and its not exactly like the white house fellows combustible to the white house fellows. There ought to be a rigorous application process. One of the challenges by the way, and we hope people are supportive of this program help us, apply for the program. And you know, i guess, i mean, any other thoughts on that one . Ill give you one example. I do like, id like for us to have some people involved in nongovernmental organizations, like our foundation work, that operate at a smaller level but do really great work, but need to figure out how to rent it out and do some wrapped it up and do so with the help of modest donors. So its become sustainable and in the committee or interstate or where ever. I think they could benefit from a program like this. I would like to have some people who are entrepreneurs in the program who are working in areas with enormous potential, but significant uncertainty for americas economic future. And id like, to go back to one thing george said, id like to get some people from dramatically different backgrounds together with the charge to come up with something they can do together. For example, when the tea party first got organized, a lot of the early people who are interested in it were not involved with anybody big, anybody rich. They just thought the government had let them down, and that, therefore, and they thought both the public and private sectors had gotten too big, and have everything work the way they thought their little hometown or their neighborhood or their upbringing worked, things would be all right. Id like for some people like that to be paired with Community Activists and africanamerican and hispanic immigrant asian neighborhoods with projects to figure out what they can do together to have both the right culture and the right support system. And i think, you know, we did a lot of things like that it really would help develop leadership and the skill that we are beginning to see atrophy in america, which is listen to people who disagree with us. We have made so much progress. We are most passionate we are less braces, homophobic that we used to be but we dont want to be around anyone who disagrees with us. Its hard to make good decisions in complex environments [laughter] only one only two people have this number and both are related to me. I hope im not being told im about to become a premature grandfather last night. That would make national news. [laughter] spent all, i dont think so. Theres a president ial Scholarship Program here. I dont think so. President bush, ive been admonished in asking these questions not to encourage you guys. Thank you. Here we are in the newseum. So that requires leadership on your part, josh spent it does am going to try to exercise it, but if either of you have any political announcements, endorsements or predictions youd like to me, that would be a really fun time. [laughter] like the time, remember the woman, i think intended that asked us about gary dramatically said, what about another clinton bush matchup . My answer was the first one didnt turn out too good. [laughter] okay. Im going to exercise my leadership and not lets get any farther off. You know, but of interest in the answers that both of you gave to the last question in talking about what kind of scholars you wanted. Neither of you talked about politicians or elected officials. Because i gather thats not the core purpose of this Scholarship Program, is not to train a bunch of new political speech know, but i think politics is important and i know he does, too. One thing i would like to do if we got some, you know, if we got into that, i thought about the other day, i went to see all the way, the broadway play about johnson passing this overwrites act, and Bryan Cranston one a tony award for. I liked him way better as lbj than a drug dealer but he is a great actor. I liked the movie lincoln, because it should Abraham Lincoln as a politician, making those dreaded deals, giving guys jobs and stuff for the amendment to end slavery. I wouldnt mind having a Leadership Program which forces people to talk about the compromises that leaders have to make, and which ones are more principled and which ones are not. And is it only determined id and are dont you have to have some limits on the means, to . I hope we do have some of that in there, because thats really important. If you lose the ability to keep the door open to people, i remember one day trent lott jumped all over me in a sunday morning talk show, set i was acting like a spoiled brat. I will never forget this. I called on the phone afternoon and he said have you called me out . I said but not for what you think. He said, what do you mean . I said, you worked hard last week, didnt you . And you agree because somebody suggested he do the sunday morning talk shows, and you woke up exhausted with a headache. You imagined ago. They baited you when you got there and you took the bait. He said, thats exactly what happened. How did you know that . [laughter] and im telling you this because it made us better friends. I didnt do what he said. I cared about whether we could go to work the next week. Those things i would like to help teach people. How did mandela developed the strength to put the people who kept him in prison 27 years, the leaders of the party in his government . He didnt just invite into the inauguration. He had been in his government. We will have to do some pretty radical things like that i think over the next 10 or 15 years if were going to create real decisionmaking processes that workers are not against having people and politics in this, but im against giving it a reticular local cast. Particular clinical cast. Im also concerned about people look at the political process and Public Service and said i do want to serve. Who wants to get involved in that . Who wants the reputation besmirched . And i think that this program, hopelessness program will inspire the people deserve and say look, its worth the cost, its worth the price. And so, and we didnt mention the military. I hope the military participates. I think it would be very important to the people who wear the uniform code through a program like this. So im not adverse to politicians. People say politics is noble. I want to serve as a result of the program. I think it would be a wonderful dividend. Lets talk a minute about the curriculum of the president ial Leadership Scholars Program. Margaret and stephanie described it, its got four defense to they return. First is communicate should innovation, the second is decisionmaking, that there is influence and persuasion, and the fourth is Coalition Building. In your mind, president clinton, is anyone of those four more important than the others . Well, the bible says where theres no vision, people perished. But i think the truth is, if the test is, i think youre better off when you quit when you start, whatever it is youre doing, you have got to have a vision which is articulated, turned into a strategy. Then you have to build and execute the strategy, Capacity Building are trying to pass a bill, or if youre not in a political context, just go do it. And have to be able to assemble the team. As i say, people who know things you dont have skills you dont, to do that, and to build support for it. And i think all those things are exceedingly important. And then you have to stay at it. One of the things that i hardly ever see george that i dont think of this, and we never talk about it, but ive watched all those debates he had with Vice President gore. Not a single one of them did either one of them get asked what are you going to do and they blow up the World Trade Center . So if you take a leadership position, you very often, particularly in an uncertain world, if you dont do or get caught trying to do what you said youre going to do when youre in, you feel like youve let yourself and your supporters of down. Or if you take a job as chairman of a company, same thing. Or you start a small business. On the other hand, you cant ignore the incoming fire. Thats what really damaged our friend in south africa. He said, mandela create a modern political state, i will create a moderate economy, and here comes a fellow pretend like it doesnt happen. You have to deal with that and then you have to try to think of things that are not in the headlines that will prepare for the future. Youve got to do all that. I dont think you can decide to get these things. Thats one of the things i hope will come out of this program. I agree completely with that. I thought stephanie and margaret had a valid point, in that issues change, circumstances change, economist change but there are certain principles that dont