Globalization

Transcript: I think we should be collectively thinking about how we create a greater sense of community. And I mean that both at home from the perspective thinking locally, but also thinking globally. You know from the moment we wake up, by the time we are out of our home headed to work or school, we are indebted to half the world – from the coffee we drink that may have been, you know, grown in Latin America or Africa; to a sponge that we may have used that was created by or captured by a Pacific Islander – we don’t have any synthetic sponge; to the tea that we may have had that may have been produced some place in Asia; to the clothing that we may wear that will have likely been produced in some part of the world; and in so many other ways we are so interdependent. But I think that one of our challenges at home, and thinking both at home and around the world, is a sense of community. It is about more of the “we” and less of the “me”. Because in thinking of the “we”, we will achieve more for the “me”. But you know, I think we need to be thinking about how do we create greater senses of community, and how do we work individually to make that community more . . . that sense of community, a beloved community, more of a reality? And I think that’s something that would serve us well. And whether that’s back at home and wherever we call home; or in the state or the . . . or our country where we live, in the sense of that community; or in a sense within this more global community of which I believe so strongly are so interrelated, it is working to create a sense of community and thinking more about the “we” than just about the “me”.

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Question:  Will Fidel Castro’s death bring change to Cuba?

Transcript: Well I don’t think that that act alone will change Cuba.  Certainly Fidel Castro will be the end of the dictatorship of one person, but that does not guarantee democracy on the flip side.  I do believe that when Fidel Castro meets his maker, that ultimately the question is, “How does change take place?”   I don’t believe that Raul Castro has a relationship with the Cuban people that Fidel Castro had, which was both a love-hate relationship.  And I believe that he will not be able to continue to be the next dictator because the Cuban people, in that human spirit that we talked about earlier more generally, desire the fundamental things that any human being on the face of the earth desire.  That individual freedom; the opportunity to worship at the altar that they choose; the opportunity to fulfill their God-given potential without being told by the state what their potential is; the opportunity to prosper by the sweat of their own brow; the opportunity to choose those who govern them.  And so that and so much more that is pent up within Cuban society, I don’t think will allow Fidel Castro’s brother Raul to stay in power long.  But I just don’t simply think that the death of Fidel Castro, whenever that takes place, automatically means democracy or respect of human rights of the Cuban people.  That still will be a work in progress.

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Question:  What should be the big issues of the 2008 presidential election?

Transcript: I think the single biggest issue in 2008 should be where do we want to go as a country?  That might not be viewed as an issue per se, but in my mind it’s an issue.  It’s the overriding question.  Where do we want to go as a country?  Do we want to, as a country, be willing to say that we will take a significant part of our fellow citizens and say, “You know what?  For some of us to do well, some of you cannot.”  Are we willing to accept 40% of our human capital in communities of color not to fulfill their full potential and contribute to a greater America?  Are we willing to go to sleep at night saying, “Well I have health care coverage, so I’m not worried about the 47 million who don’t, or the millions more who are underinsured”?  Are we concerned about ensuring that we find the cures to some of the diseases that affect our fellow citizens so that my mother’s Alzheimer’s, or the young man I met with a spinal cord injury, or the husband with Parkinson’s, and so many other diseases . . .  Are we willing as a country to say we accept that that is a human condition that we cannot change?  And are we as a country willing at the end of the day to say we prefer to be known by the power of our bombs than the power of our collective intellect for good, and what that means in the world?  So the big question is what type . . .  The big issue is what type of America do we want to be?  Because if we determine what type of America we want to be, then all the other things will come into play.

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Question:  If you were advising the President on Iraq, what advice would you give him? 

Transcript: I wish the President would listen to the advice I’d have to give him, first of all as someone who didn’t vote for the war in Iraq in the first place; and spend time to make sure that that vote, which was not a popular vote at the time, in what was then my congressional district which had lost lives on September 11th and had a whole security consciousness that made them more supportive of the President’s engagement in Iraq at the time, and therefore less supportive of my views in voting against the war.  I look at that then, and I look at where we are now, and I would say, “Mr. President, not only did you obviously commit the greatest mistake that we have seen in foreign policy at least in my lifetime, but you continue to be wedded to this mistake out of what I consider to be pride.  And that is not pardonable.  There are too many lives . . . sons and daughters of America who are dying, and too much of the national treasury that is being spent.”  And so what I’d say to him is, “The Iraqis will never ever make the hard choices, compromises and negotiations necessary for a government of national unity if they believe we are there in an open-ended commitment in the loss of lives and national treasury.  And when the Chief of Staff . . . the President’s Chief of Staff . . . the Joint Chiefs of Staff said to me that, in fact, ‘We need the Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors,’ that is a powerful truism, Mr. President.  But the problem is that doesn’t come at the point of a military gun.  It doesn’t come at the point o military power.  And so the only way we will get the possibility of achieving success in Iraq is if we transition our troops out, let the Iraqis know that they have to make the hard choices, compromises, and negotiations necessary for a government of national unity to, as we transition, help them train what’s left of the troop strength that they need, and the quality of those troops.  And at the same time have a contingency left for what was created by the President’s policy in Iraq, which is Al Qaeda in Iraq that didn’t exist before our invasion . . . to try to take care of them and bring our troops home.  Because at the end of the day it’s not only about finishing a policy . . . ending a policy, I should say, that ultimately is the wrong policy . . . because I believe that our men and women in uniform are creating . . . are performing, I should say, with extraordinary resilience and sacrifice.  But we need them to have a policy worthy of their sacrifice.  This policy is not.  And not only is it about ending a policy that isn’t bringing us success and changing the course; it’s also about the national security of the Unites States.  We cannot, Mr. President, continue to have 130,000 troops in Iraq, assuming that you’re bringing the surge back home . . . the surge troops back home, and at the end of the day still meet some other challenge in the world.  And the Iraqis will never make those hard choices, compromises, negotiations necessary for a government of national unity.  So this is about ending a bad policy; stop shedding American blood; stop shedding an enormous amount of our national treasury that is being put on as debt to the next generation of Americans.  And it’s also about security of the United States.”  And I think the President is actually, with these actions, making us less secure.  And so therefore I would say to him, “Mr. President,” you know, “there is nothing wrong in recognizing a policy that has failed and transitioning out of it.  But what is not acceptable is staying the course out of pride.”

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Immigration

Transcript: The history of our country is an immigrant history.  Only Native Americans – Indians – are allowed to believe that they are the one true Americans.  Everyone else – even maybe generations removed – but everyone else has an immigrant root to them.  And so . . .  This has always been, at the end of the day, a welcoming country; but it hasn’t always had a welcoming dialogue.  From the . . .  From the very beginnings of our country, Ben Franklin would say, “They’re sending a universe of people that we don’t want.”  I’m paraphrasing what he said.  And . . . or that would change the nation forever.  He was talking about the Germans.  The former governor of Massachusetts said, “We cannot afford any more of the illiterates they are sending to our shores.”  He was talking about the Irish.  In 1925, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce in an official report said, “We need the Mexicans because of their bending and crouching habits which the Whites cannot attain themselves to – to pick our agricultural products.”  And we had the Chinese exclusionary principles.  And the list goes on and on.  So if we think about our history, our history has always been replete with immigration being . . . the subject of immigration being a lightning rod for controversy; but we also have probably the most incredible experiment in the history of mankind, which is America; which is bringing this incredible diversity across the spectrum of humankind, and bringing them to the United States, and making them such a very special place.  So I believe very strongly that yes, we have to protect our borders and secure them.  And yes, every country now has the right and responsibility to do that.  But also I believe that in a world that is so interdependent, more so than ever before, to believe that we can just put up walls – whether actually construct walls or in otherwise seal ourselves off from the rest of the world is such a mistake.  And so you know it’s about realizing, yes, security.  And there are many ways to do that successfully; but it’s also about at the end of the day making sure that we take advantage of the incredible human capital that comes to our country, and that gives us some of the greatest Americans we’ve had who have made some of the greatest inventions.  Under the debate going on these days, Einstein, Edison, General Petraeus and a whole host of other people . . . Colin Powell . . . they would have never made it.  They would never even have been . . . made it to this country.  They would have been born in this country because the immigration policies that some are advocating today would never have allowed them to come in.  And so ultimately in my mind, I think this is about taking our country and fulfilling its potential by the incredible universe of people that can be added to this great American experience.  So “no” doesn’t mean we can’t have everybody in the world come here, obviously.  And it doesn’t mean that we should just have open borders.  No, I don’t say that either.  But by the same token we should recognize that we have achieved some of our greatest moments by those who have come to this country with a dream, worked hard to fulfill that dream, and enriched America by doing so.  And I would hope that that great experiment which has been one of the greatest successes of mankind, that we just don’t snip it right off and understand that, in a view that ultimately it is the threat versus the opportunity. 

Question: How do we decide who can become an American?

Transcript: Those who, in my mind, believe in what America is all about, and are willing to work for it and fight for it; who believe in the very essence of our principles of democracy – the rule of law; who believe in opportunity, but also in hard work and sacrifice to make that opportunity a possibility for them individually; who believe that ultimately the promise of America is not to be horded by a few, but to be shared by all of us who are . . . who call America our home.  And so I believe it is those who believe in . . . and in their own lives from however humble to however powerful, live that American creed.  I believe those are the true Americans.

Question: And now in Spanish? 

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Question:  What forces have shaped America most?

Transcript: I think that spirit that everything is possible; the spirit that says, “We can do this,” whatever this is; the spirit of independence, both individually and, to some degree, collectively as we say and speak about it in the rest of the world.  But certainly in America that spirit of individualism; that spirit of “can do”; a pioneer spirit.  I think those are things that have shaped America over the last . . . since its inception and continue to be forces today that shape America; that unique American mindset that we can do this; we can achieve this; and I individually have the independence to do that, and to shape my own personal course of events as well as maybe in a broader, collective mindset be able to do . . . have America do anything that needs to be done in the world.

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Collective Responsibility

Transcript: My political philosophy is rooted in the belief that when one of us is left behind, all of us are diminished.  And it probably can best be exemplified in the words of . . .  I believe it was Hubert Humphrey who said a society is judged by how we treat those in the dawn of life – our children; how we treat those in the shadows of life – those who have some disability, or affliction, or other challenge; and how we treat those in the twilight of life – our parents and grandparents.  And so that view that we move together as a nation, but when we leave people behind we are all diminished is one that instructs me – personally speaking – in terms of what I both believe that politics, and public policy, and government should be about.

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Question:  Is there room for vision in Washington?

Transcript: I think so.  I think so.  I think you’re limited only by . . .  I should say I think you create your own limitations.  You know I look at things and say – whether it’s a problem or an opportunity – what should it be?  What can it be?  And then work from that backwards and say, “Okay, this is what it should be.  This is what it can be.  How do I make it be those things?”  And I think that that . . . that’s the . . . it is an opportunity to think big.  I think it’s an opportunity to, you know, to do things both at home and abroad; in which you can make, you know, significant change.  I think we’re, you know . . .  There are things we’ve been doing in this session of the Senate that move us in that direction of thinking big – that no child in America should go to sleep at night without health care coverage.  The Senate just passed . . . the House passed it, gonna fight with the President about it, but ultimately that’s thinking big; that no child in America, the greatest country in the world, goes to sleep at night without healthcare.  I think it’s thinking big that we could create real, quality educational opportunity for every student in America to go to college; to have the ability to work hard and give something back to their country.  I think we just passed something that’s gonna move us in that direction.  The greatest amount of resources for that effort in money since the G.I. Bill.  And so I think there’s opportunities to think big.  It’s just a question of do you create your own limitations.

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Question:  How is working in the House of Representatives different than working in the Senate?

Transcript: Very different.  In the House of Representatives, an institution of 435 people that is incredibly diverse, getting enough people in common cause – 218 people to pass anything – is a real challenge.  But particularly one of the big differences between the House and the Senate is if you’re in the House of Representatives, and if you happen to be in the minority party, whatever that might be – whether it’s Republicans now or Democrats in the past – it’s almost an abject minority because the rules of the House control the process in such a way that the majority largely controls everything primarily through a traffic cop called the Rules Committee.  And in doing so, that committee, which is a super majority . . .  The majority controls what gets to the floor of the House of Representatives . . . under what way it’s debated, how much time, what amendments and all that.  So . . . And it can even change the legislation that you may have gotten out of another committee that ultimately comes before the Rules Committees.  The Rules Committee can say, “You know what?  We’re gonna re-write this bill, and we’re gonna send it to the floor in a different way.”  So in the House of Representatives, not only is getting common cause a much more difficult challenge because you need 218 votes, but you also have the differences between a majority and a minority, with a minority facing enormous hurdles to have its views or propositions to be voted on.  In the United States Senate, not only, of course, is it a smaller institution – 100 members – but the powers given to an individual Senator can make a minority Senator one in which they play a majority role.  And because there is no traffic cop – the Rules Committee – and so much moves in the Senate by what we call unanimous consent, it just means that.  There has to be unanimity among the 100 members to have something move forward.  And one Senator can get up and object. 

For example…

Transcript: I had an early experience of that upon coming to the Senate where there was legislation in the final days of the Republican Senate in 2006 that wanted to change and authorize Ryan White funding, which is important.  It’s about AIDS prevention and how we help the HIV affected community.   And it was going to be done in such a way that clearly would have hurt my state of New Jersey in ways that I could not tolerate on behalf of that community.  And it was in my power then as a minority. . . part of the minority party, but as an individual Senator to say, “I object”; and by my objections, stopping a process that until a negotiation took place with me that changed the course of events; that made that legislation and its reauthorization far more acceptable to those people who suffered with HIV/AIDS in my home state of New Jersey.  It’s an example of how even a member of the minority party in the Senate can have a disproportionate opportunity to affect the course of events than a minority member of the House of Representatives.

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Question:  Is the American political system broken?

Transcript: I don’t think the system is broken.  I think Americans look at the debates that go on, for example, in Congress and say, “Well, they can’t seem to get along with each other.  Or they’re just political or partisan.”  And there is an element of that; but people come from across the country, and I’ve had the privilege and experience of representing . . . being in both houses of Congress.  So I look at when I was in the House of Representatives, there are . . . 435 people come from across the country, from North and South and East and West.  They come from great cities and farms.  They come from suburbia.  They’re doctors, and lawyers, and farmers, and business people, and teachers, and former veterans and a whole host of other things.  They’re Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Catholic, Muslim.  And across the spectrum they’re brought to the nation’s capitol to not only represent the interests of their particular district, but to represent the collective interests of the nation.  And they’re asked to face some of the most difficult challenges we have in our country, and to also look at the great opportunities that exist with our country, and come together to lead in what hopefully is a strong bipartisan response to these issues.  But at the end of the day, all those different experiences, all those different backgrounds, all the different political ideologies . . . sometimes they are rooted in . . . clearly in very strong views – principled views – as to how we achieve these goals or overcome these challenges.  And those principle views can sometimes be in great conflict.  And so that . . .  Whether it’s in the House or in the Senate, the reality is that it seems to me that what people sometimes view as strictly partisan is the clash of ideas – the clash of ideas that people brought from a very diverse country, but who hold, I think, common goals of achieving . . . making America the best that it can be.  And in doing so, that clash of ideas produces differences.  Some people look at that as a broken system.  I look at that as largely to be the fulfillment of the democracy that we have.

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Hispanic Americans

Transcript: I think I’m best known for trying to give Hispanic Americans a place at the table, particularly as it relates to being part of the political space in our country; empowering . . . seeking to empower Latinos which I’ve done from my home state of New Jersey.  I’ve been involved with nationally.  And also riveting attention within the fastest part of America’s population growth in the largest single minority; that there is a great potential not just for that community itself, but for the broader American community.  This is a community that is younger by a decade than the rest of the population.  And so as the nation grays and grows older, it will increasingly look to members of this community within the American family for the quality of their lives.  Some of us will be washing a surgeon’s . . . a kitchen knife in a restaurant, and another one of us will be holding a surgeon’s knife in an operating room.  And how well-educated and trained that individual will be will be increasingly important to those who are going to be his or her patients.  And so if we are younger by a decade, and going to be about 25% of all of the nation’s school children within the next 20 years, it means the educational future of the nation is also at stake in large part to this community.  And so how well educated that part of American society is is going to be important for the nation’s competitive future.  So having Hispanic Americans play a significant role in having policy issues that affect the quality of their lives, and in return therefore, the quality of opportunity in America is something that I think that not only have I been doing, but that I am known for in terms of part of my work.

 Question: What advice do you have for the Latino community?

 Transcript: It would be that it is a sleeping giant that I think is about to awaken and needs to wake up.  It needs to wake up by using its electoral power in a way that can decide the course of events immediately in our country, and for the long term.  I think the community has a transformational opportunity to change and impact not only, for example, who the next President of the United States will be – which in and of itself would be significant – but where public policy will head.  When you have 17 million Latinos in the country who are eligible to vote, and when you see where they’re located in the states that are critical for an electoral victory for the next President of the United States, you have an opportunity to have transformational change by the use of your power.  Our challenge . . .  My message to the community would be you’ve got to use that power, because that power ultimately comes back in the things that you care about for the future of your family, for the future of the community that you live in, and in the nation that you call your own. 

And now in Spanish?

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Equal Opportunity in Education

Transcript: What got me involved in public life is something that happened to me in high school.  I was a senior in a public high school.  I was asked by my counselor, “Well, you know, you qualify to be in the senior honors program because of your grades and other things you’ve done, but . . .” you know, “And to do so, however, you have to have $200 to purchase books.”  My family was poor.  We lived in a tenement, and I didn’t have $200 for the books, and I was really upset because I said, “Well wait a minute.  This is a public school, and if I have the grades and the ability, why would I be barred from being in the honors program if I simply don’t have the money?”  So I created such a ruckus that they gave me the books, told me to shut up and put me in the honors program.  But I didn’t feel right about that because it was okay for me, but it wasn’t okay for a lot of my friends who also had the ability and the grades, didn’t have the money, and didn’t say anything.  And ultimately the result of that was they didn’t get in.  And so the next year when I graduated from high school, I started a petition drive to change the school board from one that was appointed by a corrupt administration to one that was elected by the public; achieved at the age of 19 with a group of my friends who felt equally cheated out of the type of education they should have received, getting thousands of signatures over a long, hot summer; put the referendum on the ballot; passed the referendum; ran for the first school board elections at the age of 20 against a priest and won. 

Recorded on: 9/12/07

An Immigrant’s Perspective on America

Transcript: I grew up in New Jersey.  Born in New York City.  Lived in New Jersey my whole life from parents who emigrated from Cuba. It’s bought certainly an immigrant experience to me; one that is very relevant in the work I do today, but more importantly one that make me think about what it is to come to a country in which you don’t necessarily have anybody waiting for you; in which you don’t necessarily know the language; in which you may have to start all over again as my mom and dad did, and think about the courage that that takes to do.  And in doing so, you know, the voyage that people are willing to undergo, whether it be for freedom or for economic opportunity.  And so I think that that’s shaped a lot of my thinking, and certainly who I am as the first generation . . . the son of immigrants.

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Question:  What should we be asking ourselves?

Transcript: I really do think everybody should be asking themselves, “How do I make this world a better place?”  And it doesn’t have to be the big things, although certainly the big things are great, too.  And I think . . .  As I’ve said before, I think sometimes ordinary people get asked to do extraordinary things, and they do.  And the results are pretty big.  But I think  . . . I truly think that if we are all asking ourselves, “How is it that I make the world in which I live a better place?” and think about the collective power of everybody asking . . . not only asking themselves that question and thinking in that direction, but acting upon it, more powerful than all the money in the world; more powerful than all the armies in the world; the incredible output that can take place from that would be enormous, and they are in small and large ways.  It might be I’m gonna make the life of one person so much better.  Some child that we’ve mentored; somebody who doesn’t have a parent; a child that gets adopted.  It might be, you know, some contribution of time to our church or synagogue.  It might be some contribution of time to the public discourse.  There is just such an infinite number of ways in which a person saying, “How do I make this world a better place for me, for those I love, and for collective humanity to be better off?” . . . that it’s unlimited potential with an unleashing of incredible positive power.  And if we were all doing that and having a little bit . . . each one of us taking that opportunity to do something, then I think, you know, we’d be a much better world.  And I think that’s something that people probably very often in the challenge of their daily lives don’t think about.  And so . . .  But I think there is enormous potential in each and every one of us to do something.  And if we asked that question and acted upon it, the world would be a much better place.

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Question:  Collectively, what should we be doing?

Transcript:  I think we should be collectively thinking about how we create a greater sense of community.  And I mean that both at home from the perspective thinking locally, but also thinking globally.  You know from the moment we wake up, by the time we are out of our home headed to work or school, we are indebted to half the world – from the coffee we drink that may have been, you know, grown in Latin America or Africa; to a sponge that we may have used that was created by or captured by a Pacific Islander – we don’t have a synthetic sponge; to the tea that we may have had that may have been produced some place in Asia; to the clothing that we may wear that will have likely been produced in some part of the world; and in so many other ways we are so interdependent.  But I think that one of our challenges at home, and thinking both at home and around the world, is a sense of community.  It is about more of the “we” and less of the “me”.  Because in thinking of the “we”, we will achieve more for the “me”.  But you know, I think we need to be thinking about how do we create greater senses of community, and how do we work individually to make that community more . . . that sense of community, a beloved community, more of a reality?   And I think that’s something that would serve us well.  And whether that’s back at home and wherever we call home; or in the state or the . . . or our country where we live, in the sense of that community; or in a sense within this more global community of which I believe so strongly are so interrelated, it is working to create a sense of community and thinking more about the “we” than just about the “me”.

Question: If you were advising the President on Iraq, what would your counsel be?

Transcript: Well the . . .  I wish the President would listen to the advice I’d have to give him, first of all as someone who didn’t vote for the war in Iraq in the first place; and spend time to make sure that that vote, which was not a popular vote at the time, in what was then my congressional district which had lost lives on September 11th and had a whole security consciousness that made them more supportive of the President’s engagement in Iraq at the time, and therefore less supportive of my views in voting against the war.  I look at that then, and I look at where we are now, and I would say, “Mr. President, not only did you obviously commit the greatest mistake that we have seen in foreign policy at least in my lifetime, but you continue to be wedded to this mistake out of what I consider to be pride.  And that is not pardonable.  There are too many lives . . . sons and daughters of America who are dying, and too much of the national treasury that is being spent.”  And so what I’d say to him is, “The Iraqis will never ever make the hard choices, compromises and negotiations necessary for a government of national unity if they believe we are there in an open-ended commitment in the loss of lives and national treasury.  And when the Chief of Staff . . . the President’s Chief of Staff . . . the Joint Chiefs of Staff said to me that, in fact, ‘We need the Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors,’ that is a powerful truism, Mr. President.  But the problem is that doesn’t come at the point of a military gun.  It doesn’t come at the point o military power.  And so the only way we will get the possibility of achieving success in Iraq is if we transition our troops out, let the Iraqis know that they have to make the hard choices, compromises, and negotiations necessary for a government of national unity to, as we transition, help them train what’s left of the troop strength that they need, and the quality of those troops.  And at the same time have a contingency left for what was created by the President’s policy in Iraq, which is Al Qaeda in Iraq that didn’t exist before our invasion . . . to try to take care of them and bring our troops home.  Because at the end of the day it’s not only about finishing a policy . . . ending a policy, I should say, that ultimately is the wrong policy . . . because I believe that our men and women in uniform are creating . . . are performing, I should say, with extraordinary resilience and sacrifice.  But we need them to have a policy worthy of their sacrifice.  This policy is not.  And not only is it about ending a policy that isn’t bringing us success and changing the course; it’s also about the national security of the Unites States.  We cannot, Mr. President, continue to have 130,000 troops in Iraq, assuming that you’re bringing the surge back home . . . the surge troops back home, and at the end of the day still meet some other challenge in the world.  And the Iraqis will never make those hard choices, compromises, negotiations necessary for a government of national unity.  So this is about ending a bad policy; stop shedding American blood; stop shedding an enormous amount of our national treasury that is being put on as debt to the next generation of Americans.  And it’s also about security of the United States.”  And I think the President is actually, with these actions, making us less secure.  And so therefore I would say to him, “Mr. President,” you know, “there is nothing wrong in recognizing a policy that has failed and transitioning out of it.  But what is not acceptable is staying the course out of pride.”

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Question:  Are generally optimistic of pessimistic about the way the world is headed?

Transcript:  Optimistic.  I believe we face great challenges in our country and in the world.  And yet in some of the greatest challenges, we have found some of the greatest opportunities to change the course of history and make it so much better.  You know it was optimism that took a country from the Great Depression; and by the optimism created by President Roosevelt and his programs, brought us into a new era.  It is optimism in the midst of the Cold War that had President Kennedy say that we could put a man on the moon and ultimately achieve it.  It is optimism that has led us to some of the most incredible technological advances that we might have ever envisioned happening as a people.  So it is when we harness that optimism, and imbue it in our people, and call upon them to meet the great challenges that we do great things.  And so I’m an optimist.

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Question:  When you read the newspaper of watch the news, what issues stand out for you?

Transcript: Well obviously I think what stands out is . . .  You know they say the essence of a good story is conflict.  And it seems to me that I read a lot about conflict.  Conflict in the political sense.  Conflict in our society between ethnic, racial and religious groups.  Conflict, you know, in our families.  And so much of the stories, if you read about them, there’s an element of conflict to it.   And so broadly defined, I’d say, you know, of course the issues of the day.  You know Iraq.  How do we educate our kids?  How do we get a quality education?  How do we have healthcare for every American?  How do we preserve the planet?  Those are the big issues, but even within all those issues is conflict.  And so it seems to me that what is missing is a combination of . . . instead of talking about the conflict, how do we go about solving the conflict?  And also, you know, there’s a lot of good things happening in our communities and in the country.  And those good things which can be models of successes, or instill pride, as well as promote a certain positivism for us collectively, they’re missing because they’re not the essence of a good story. 

Question: What is your stance on immigration?

Transcript: You know the history of our country is an immigrant history.  Only Native Americans – Indians – are allowed to believe that they are the one true Americans.  Everyone else – even maybe generations removed – but everyone else has an immigrant root to them.  And so . . .  This has always been, at the end of the day, a welcoming country; but it hasn’t always had a welcoming dialogue.  From the . . .  From the very beginnings of our country, Ben Franklin would say, “They’re sending a universe of people that we don’t want.”  I’m paraphrasing what he said.  And . . . or that would change the nation forever.  He was talking about the Germans.  The former governor of Massachusetts said, “We cannot afford any more of the illiterates they are sending to our shores.”  He was talking about the Irish.  In 1925, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce in an official report said, “We need the Mexicans because of their bending and crouching habits which the Whites cannot attain themselves to – to pick our agricultural products.”  And we had the Chinese exclusionary principles.  And the list goes on and on.  So if we think about our history, our history has always been replete with immigration being . . . the subject of immigration being a lightning rod for controversy; but we also have probably the most incredible experiment in the history of mankind, which is America; which is bringing this incredible diversity across the spectrum of humankind, and bringing them to the United States, and making them such a very special place.  So I believe very strongly that yes, we have to protect our borders and secure them.  And yes, every country now has the right and responsibility to do that.  But also I believe that in a world that is so interdependent, more so than ever before, to believe that we can just put up walls – whether actually construct walls or in otherwise seal ourselves off from the rest of the world is such a mistake.  And so you know it’s about realizing, yes, security.  And there are many ways to do that successfully; but it’s also about at the end of the day making sure that we take advantage of the incredible human capital that comes to our country, and that gives us some of the greatest Americans we’ve had who have made some of the greatest inventions.  Under the debate going on these days, Einstein, Edison, General Petraeus and a whole host of other people . . . Colin Powell . . . they would have never made it.  They would never even have been . . . made it to this country.  They would have been born in this country because the immigration policies that some are advocating today would never have allowed them to come in.  And so ultimately in my mind, I think this is about taking our country and fulfilling its potential by the incredible universe of people that can be added to this great American experience.  So “no” doesn’t mean we can’t have everybody in the world come here, obviously.  And it doesn’t mean that we should just have open borders.  No, I don’t say that either.  But by the same token we should recognize that we have achieved some of our greatest moments by those who have come to this country with a dream, worked hard to fulfill that dream, and enriched America by doing so.  And I would hope that that great experiment which has been one of the greatest successes of mankind, that we just don’t snip it right off and understand that, in a view that ultimately it is the threat versus the opportunity. 

Question: How do we decide who can become an American?

Transcript:  Those who, in my mind, believe in what America is all about, and are willing to work for it and fight for it; who believe in the very essence of our principles of democracy – the rule of law; who believe in opportunity, but also in hard work and sacrifice to make that opportunity a possibility for them individually; who believe that ultimately the promise of America is not to be horded by a few, but to be shared by all of us who are . . . who call America our home.  And so I believe it is those who believe in . . . and in their own lives from however humble to however powerful, live that American creed.  I believe those are the true Americans.

Question: Will Fidel Castro’s death bring change to Cuba?

Transcript: Well I don’t think that that act alone will change Cuba.  Certainly Fidel Castro will be the end of the dictatorship of one person, but that does not guarantee democracy on the flip side.  I do believe that when Fidel Castro meets his maker, that ultimately the question is, “How does change take place?”   I don’t believe that Raul Castro has a relationship with the Cuban people that Fidel Castro had, which was both a love-hate relationship.  And I believe that he will not be able to continue to be the next dictator because the Cuban people, in that human spirit that we talked about earlier more generally, desire the fundamental things that any human being on the face of the earth desire.  That individual freedom; the opportunity to worship at the altar that they choose; the opportunity to fulfill their God-given potential without being told by the state what their potential is; the opportunity to prosper by the sweat of their own brow; the opportunity to choose those who govern them.  And so that and so much more that is pent up within Cuban society, I don’t think will allow Fidel Castro’s brother Raul to stay in power long.  But I just don’t simply think that the death of Fidel Castro, whenever that takes place, automatically means democracy or respect of human rights of the Cuban people.  That still will be a work in progress.

Question: What is the world’s biggest challenge in the next decade?

Transcript: Sustaining the planet, because everything flows from it.  And that’s about global warming, but it’s also about the challenges of sustaining a planet between those who have and have not.  And all of that coming together in a way in which the very essence of our existence is at stake – at least our existence as we know it today.  If we continue with global warming, the . . . unfettered and largely unabated, the consequences to us are enormous . . . to us here at home and throughout the world.  Where there is already scarcity, there will be more.  Where there is already famine, there will be greater famine.  Where we care about migration, there will be movements of people.  Where we have scarce resources – natural resources – we will have less.  And where our very ability to sustain mankind as we know it today will be challenged.  And we will in a decade, if we don’t reverse the course, find ourselves not only with nature’s response to our destroying the very fragile balance that keeps us collectively joining together as mankind on this planet, but we will see the human consequences and responses to that.  And so if we don’t preserve the natural resources not only of our country but of the world . . . if we don’t do something about global warming, then we will have nature’s consequences, we will have mans’ consequences, and we will have greater conflict in the world as a result of the fight over scarce resources and dwindling resources.  And that is, I think, our single biggest challenge from . . . so that if we don’t manage this and begin to act in a different way from, you know, those who need access to have, you know be heated we’ll see a continuing chopping down of the Amazon for other purposes.  Those who have arid land will find themselves with even less.  In some parts of the world with less rainfall will travel to those where there is.  Those who find themselves in increasing rising flood zones and hurricane zones will seek to move away from those possibilities.  And the consequences of all of that is conflict – conflict over the very essence of people’s ability to survive and to have their families survive.  So I think that’s our biggest, single challenge over the next decade because it affects so many other things than we might think about as challenges.

Question: What should be the big issues of the 2008 presidential election?

Transcript: Well I think the single biggest issue in 2008 should be where do we want to go as a country?  That might not be viewed as an issue per se, but in my mind it’s an issue.  It’s the overriding question.  Where do we want to go as a country?  Do we want to, as a country, be willing to say that we will take a significant part of our fellow citizens and say, “You know what?  For some of us to do well, some of you cannot.”  Are we willing to accept 40% of our human capital in the communities of color not to fulfill their full potential and contribute to a greater America?  Are we willing to go to sleep at night saying, “Well I have health care coverage, so I’m not worried about the 47 million who don’t, or the millions more who are underinsured”?  Are we concerned about ensuring that we find the cures to some of the diseases that affect our fellow citizens so that my mother’s Alzheimer’s, or the young man I met with a spinal cord injury, or the husband with Parkinson’s, and so many other diseases . . .  Are we willing as a country to say we accept that that is a human condition that we cannot change?  And you know are we as a country willing at the end of the day to say we prefer to be known by the power of our bombs than the power of our collective intellect for good, and what that means in the world?  So the big question is what type . . .  The big issue is what type of America do we want to be?  Because if we determine what type of America we want to be, then all the other things will come into play.

Question: Is the American political system broken?

Transcript: I don’t think the system is broken.  I think Americans look at the debates that go on, for example, in Congress and say, “Well, they can’t seem to get along with each other.  Or they’re just political or partisan.”  And there is an element of that; but people come from across the country, and I’ve had the privilege and experience of representing . . . being in both houses of Congress.  So I look at when I was in the House of Representatives, there are . . . 435 people come from across the country, from North and South and East and West.  They come from great cities and farms.  They come from suburbia.  They’re doctors, and lawyers, and farmers, and business people, and teachers, and former veterans and a whole host of other things.  They’re Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Catholic, Muslim.  And across the spectrum they’re brought to the nation’s capitol to not only represent the interests of their particular district, but to represent the collective interests of the nation.  And they’re asked to face some of the most difficult challenges we have in our country, and to also look at the great opportunities that exist with our country, and come together to lead in what hopefully is a strong bipartisan response to these issues.  But at the end of the day, all those different experiences, all those different backgrounds, all the different political ideologies . . . sometimes they are rooted in . . . clearly in very strong views – principled views – as to how we achieve these goals or overcome these challenges.  And those principle views can sometimes be in great conflict.  And so that . . .  Whether it’s in the House or in the Senate, the reality is that it seems to me that what people sometimes view as strictly partisan is the clash of ideas – the clash of ideas that people brought from a very diverse country, but who hold, I think, common goals of achieving . . . making America the best that it can be.  And in doing so, that clash of ideas produces differences.  Some people look at that as a broken system.  I look at that as largely the fulfillment of the democracy that we have.

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Question:  What forces have shaped humanity most?

Transcript: I think the desire of mankind to be fundamentally free; to be able to fulfill their God-given potential; the desire to be able to advance.  In broad terms, I think that has shaped history over centuries.  I think religion has also obviously, till this day, shaped humanity.  And today we’re in a whole different era which we had become to believe in the Western world that there is a secular side, and there is a religious side, and that there is a divide between that.  And we don’t understand why others in the world are driven in a way in which they are driven by their religious beliefs – very fervent religious beliefs.  And so I think religion over history has taken us . . . has been part of shaping our experience, and is still involved in shaping our human experience.  I think the struggle for freedom in all of its manifestations . . . I think those are two great forces that have shaped history over time and continue to shape history today.

Question: What forces have shaped America most?

Transcript: I think that spirit that everything is possible; the spirit that says, “We can do this,” whatever this is; the spirit of independence, both individually and, to some degree, collectively as we say and speak about it in the rest of the world.  But certainly in America that spirit of individualism; that spirit of “can do”; a pioneer spirit.  I think those are things that have shaped America over the last . . . since its inception and continue to be forces today that shape America; that unique American mindset that we can do this; we can achieve this; and I individually have the independence to do that, and to shape my own personal course of events as well as maybe in a broader, collective mindset be able to do . . . have America do anything that needs to be done in the world.

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Question:  Do you have a political philosophy?

Transcript: I do.  My political philosophy is rooted in the belief that when one of us is left behind, all of us are diminished.  And it probably can best be exemplified in the words of . . .  I believe it was Hubert Humphrey who said a society is judged by how we treat those in the dawn of life – our children; how we treat those in the shadows of life – those who have some disability, or affliction, or other challenge; and how we treat those in the twilight of life – our parents and grandparents.  And so that view that we move together as a nation, but when we leave people behind we are all diminished is one that instructs me – personally speaking – in terms of what I both believe that politics, and public policy, and government should be about.

Recorded on: 9/12/07

Question:  What inspires you?

Transcript:  I’m inspired by a couple of things.  I’m inspired by people I see – whether it’s in my home state of New Jersey and people I’ve met across the country – who do remarkable things against overwhelming odds . . . ordinary people who are called upon to do extraordinary things.  And if they can do that considering maybe their station in life and the challenges they face, and yet they do extraordinary things for people who are . . . who might be considered ordinary people, then from my privileged position of being a United States Senator, I have every obligation in the world to do that and much more.  So I’m inspired by the stories of people I meet at home and across the country.  And I’m inspired by people I meet across the world as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the great challenges they face in the own countries in promoting democracy and promoting human rights.  And I’m also inspired by the fact that . . .  My view is that one is obligated to . . .  It’s a personal philosophy.  One is obligated to make this world better than how they inherited it.  And so that’s what drives me every day – the inspiration that I take from people, and the view that I have as a personal philosophy as to why I seek to be a United States Senator in the first place.

Question: Is there room for vision in Washington?

Transcript: I think so.  I think so.  I think you’re limited only by . . .  I should say I think you create your own limitations.  You know I look at things and say – whether it’s a problem or an opportunity – what should it be?  What can it be?  And then work from that backwards and say, “Okay, this is what it should be.  This is what it can be.  How do I make it be those things?”  And I think that that . . . that’s the . . . it is an opportunity to think big.  I think it’s an opportunity to, you know, to do things both at home and abroad; in which you can make, you know, significant change.  I think we’re, you know . . .  There are things we’ve been doing in this session of the Senate that move us in that direction of thinking big – that no child in America should go to sleep at night without healthcare coverage.  The Senate just passed . . . the House just passed, gonna fight with the President about it, but ultimately that’s thinking big; that no child in America, the greatest country in the world, goes to sleep at night without healthcare.  I think it’s thinking big that we could create real, quality educational opportunity for every student in America to go to college; to have the ability to work hard and give something back to their country.  I think we just passed something that’s gonna move us in that direction.  The greatest amount of resources for that effort in money since the G.I. Bill.  And so I think there’s opportunities to think big.  It’s just a question of do you create your own limitations.

Recorded on: 9/12/07