tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN August 10, 2009 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
of the problem between no mas and -- can this of the problem between hans mmas and fatah? because of terror in our area, some of it related to revenge, some of it related to punishment, some of it related to weak people that they convinced to commit suicide, but at the end of the day, do they accept us as a jewish state proof. -- as a jewish state? .
>> in on the complex -- armed conflicts, that our strategies and also psychological operations. in the counter risen efforts -- counter-terrorism efforts, and it may be an abstract question that requires an abstract answer, is there a viable strategy or tactical approach to the use of psychological the terence to deter --
psychological deterrence to deter the actions of terrorists? it is easy to think about the physical deterrents and protections of borders and so forth. how liable is psychological deterrence -- how viable is psychological deterrent to that that of nuclear and biological materials and so forth, and also to be armed aggressors? >> bill on the panel would like to deal with that? -- who on the panel would like to deal with that? >> on mondays, wednesdays, and friday's i am an optimist and believe that there are solutions to problems.
one tuesdays and thursdays i am not an optimist, or in the words of mark twain, i am an optimist that has not arrived. and there are six suasions. thursday you have me on a-day. -- on a negative day. for all intents and purposes they have staked out an impossible goal, they cannot win. and look at the odds that they face. if it is a matter of psychology, i have already overcome the psychological situation in which they are an absolute hopeless situation and nothing that they will work, and in fact have dedicated themselves to change the object of circumstances to label the way that they ought to date and not what an object
analysis would tell them that it is. psychological operations are not necessarily going to keep people from moving in this direction. if that were the case, we never would have had anarchists or others. but there are things that you can do to discourage individuals who might be recruited to this. there are others that you can. but that is involved inconsistent approaches that have a chance of providing solutions, and this being thursday, i do not believe and solutions. >> professor alexander will make some final comments. we will adjourn later. >> obviously the presentations of general nuriel and professor olsen triggered a lot of
questions. they cannot obviously provide answers. the bottom line about the issue that we're discussing would be traditionally called terrorism, that initially going back to 1967 or the 1980's, terrorism was regarded as an israeli problem rather than a problem facing the whole world. that is really the issue not only related to religion, but the issue of the culture of that burst it -- a culture of death versus the culture of life. related to suicide bombing and that the logical motivation --
and that theological motivation of islam which admits much greater attention than understanding, you can globalize the aspect of looking at the experience of the tin mill tigers tamil -- tamil tigers, who were trying to separate themselves from sri lanka. what i am trying to suggest and coming to the question of psychology and mindset -- and after all, we have to deal with the intention as well as the capability, and the bottom line here is the radicalization and how do you deal with that? in other words, the expansion of
psychological warfare and propaganda, education -- and that is why in my initial remarks, but questions that i oppose -- the questions that i posed is whether the arab- israeli conflict, not only the palestinian, that began almost 100 years ago, or at least in the 1920's, will continue for the next 100 years? and no one can honestly provide a definitive answer. there are many, many questions. but the point i am trying to make is that today from an israeli perspective i would like to submit that there are many perspectives which provide to combat terrorism. national self interest and what is perceived as national
interests. for example, we find that iran today -- and the general strike to underscore the iranian terrorist connection -- is directly and indirectly through has a lot -- hezbollah are trying to fish through muddy waters elsewhere. it is not surprising that morocco earlier this year cut off relations with iran because of their activity in north africa and the operations of hezbollah. we had experts here in the audience dealing with latin america. the question is, what are the iranians doing?
what is hezbollah doing in that area? and in connection with the iranian involvement, and we do have our record of almost 30 years, it seems to me that we have to ponder the future with great concern particularly when we see the continuity of the ahmadinejad regime in iran today. so again, the bottom line of the question of threats and response depends on the perception of the threat and the coming of around at that i think we have to develop in order to reduce the risk of terrorism. so unfortunately from the
academic point of view and a practical point of view, we would have to deal with this issue in the coming months as well as the coming years. i like to thank this opportunity -- take this opportunity to thank our panelist for this discussion. at this point, i would also like to recognize the interns who have worked with us this summer, who are finishing the work tomorrow. would you all please rise? where are the interns? this is the future generation of scholars. they will have to deal with these problems in order to protect the world from the threat of terrorism. so again, many thanks from your
contribution and have a nice day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> president obama is on his way back to washington after miss -- wrapping up meetings with mexican president calderon hinojosa and canadian prime minister stephen harper. you can see the closing minutes of the closing press conference from guadalajara tonight on c- span. tomorrow on "washington journal", we will talk to the
mayor's about their cities. the mayor of phoenix, phil gordon, will be tomorrow. washington journal live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. this month, c-span2's booktv weekends continue during the week in prime time. tonight, these authors. and from earlier today that news conference with bennett obama, mexican president calderon hinojosa, and prime minister harbor. this took place in guadalajara, mexico. he returns from the north american leaders summit tuesday.
right hon. minister stephen harper, the prime minister of canada, right hon. barack obama, the president of united states of america, ladies and gentlemaen, members of the press, the president's of canada -- the leaders of canada, mexico, and united states had completed a fruitful meeting. we have shared our vision with the only other regional communities that are safe, secure, and can face successfully that challenge -- the challenges. these challenges can only be overcome jointly. it is important to keep that
dialogue and cooperation amongst these three countries. americans, mexicans, and canadians and values on which are fat -- our societies are founded, the respected human- rights. our three nations have a decision to combat and struggle against international organized crime in order to bring more security to our communities. the struggles we have had in mexico for the rule of law and the security of our mexican people forces us to stop the traffic of weapons and money going from north to south that strengthen and nourish organized-crime. the notion of responsibilities, accountability, the exchange of information, and the building up of our institutions calls for
our cooperation. this international crisis, these three states have to take a leadership and foster cooperation to recover our task. we have had to implement countercyclical messages -- methods and put them into action. and coordinate in establishing our economies and bring back trustworthiness uncertainty regarding the future of the global economy. it had been necessary to build our national and international financial institutions, such as the world fund, the international monetary fund, which are fundamental to guarantee financial resources. in the case of latin america, the support that will enable us
to recapitalize banks for the development will be the best action and commitment in regard to the poor countries in the region and the north american countries. i am certain that at the next g- 20 meeting, that will be a great opportunity to rebuild the agreements to reform these institutions that are important recovery of our economies. i thank president obama for fostering this, and likewise the united states, mexico, and canada have to restart our agreements. we recognize that it is essential to abide by nafta and to resolve the pending topics that impede us to greater regional competitiveness.
it is important to see how we will fulfil our agreements in regard to the environment and our labor demands and to the commercial agreements of the trade agreements we have amongst our country. i am convinced that only the advantages offered by our economic complementary in desmans, labor, technology, and natural resources, we palace -- we shall be successful in a world that is ferociously competing. we have important agreements such as boosting the standardization of the regulations and certifications of our products, as well as the sanitary procedures that can be simplified as well as increasing without any losses the economic competitiveness of our regions. the objective is that had a
secure and efficient condition and procedures to be implemented with no bureaucratic or far- fetched red tape in our offices. this will diminish -- decrease the prices for staples and food and improve the competitiveness our economies. on the other hand, on a bilateral aspects, mexico and the united states will launch modernization initiatives at our common borders, with terms in order to promote a regional competitive actions. mexico commands this and is pleased to say that we're going to increase an international bridge between the united states and mexico. the united states, mexico, and canada cooperate in the future
to face the repercussions of pragmatic change. but cost is very high but the price we will pay for a lack of action cannot possibly be calculated. we have to foster that global agreements in copenhagen, and this will finance and support mitigation, agitation, and actions leading to the global scale of the change. we need to make progress regarding clean energy and technologies as well as the improvement of our carbon market, in order to have a regional market. north america has to be recognized as a responsible leader and to set the example for the world in terms of environmental cooperation, among countries. cooperation and solidarity among the north american region passed it be of the moment.
it was demonstrated last week when our three countries face the emergence of this new virus, h1n1, and in working together, we showed our highest expressions of responsibility, accountability, and transparency. and because we alerted timely the other regions in the hemisphere, they had the ability to implement preventive measures in order to avoid the propagation of the virus can avoid a legal repercussions. h1n1 will be back this winter. we are getting prepared, all three countries, to face responsibly the contingency and abate its impact on our people. mr. president, mr. prime minister, ladies and gentlemen,
we have an open and straightforward dialogue as countries that share common values to consolidate the right conditions for development and found successful societies based on brotherly and responsible relationships. we believe in the north -- in the north american region, it is able to build a better future for the fourth coming generations. and i want to give the floor now to mr. stephen harper, prime minister for canada. >> once again, thanks to president calderon hinojosa and for the mexican people for their hospitality, and also president obama, with constructive exchanges for those priority issues. they are in three broad categories, the economy, north american health and security, and energy, environment, and climate change.
because of canada's strong record of the fiscal management, we provided a voice in these meetings. as we approach the g-20 in pittsburgh, we continue to implement timely economic stimulus and maintain open markets to resist protectionism. on the north american health security, we talked about our shared an effective response thus far to h1n1. it is a cross-border threat to all of us. the excellent cooperation among our three countries was effective in helping to manage the initial outbreak, and we will continue our cooperative efforts. on security, canada recognize that courageous position the mexican president is taking. it is a shared challenge for all of us in north america.
also, on international peace and security, canada supports ongoing oas efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the political situation in honduras. we must restore democratic government and the rule of law. i just missed energy and climate change. giving that -- given the integrated nature, we talked about the importance of working together on a north american approach to climate change, and also on doing our best to ensure out of copenhagen and going forward, which affect -- we reached an effective new world protocol on greenhouse gas emissions. to conclude, canada the united states, and mexico are good neighbors and good friends. as sovereign members of the new world, we are interdependent and am looking forward to both presidents at the g-20, and looking forward to hosting both
of you next year at canada's summit. 90. -- thank you. >> testing. good morning. buenas dias. i want thank my good friend, president and calderon hinojosa, and my good friend stephen harper. and i won i think that good people of guadalajara -- and i want to thank the good people of guadalajara for their hospitality. here in mexico, the word is juntas. in canada, it is an ensemble. but no matter how did say it,
we, together as three nations because of the challenges and opportunities that we will be facing together, like our magnificent surroundings today. the city could not be a more fitting venue. here in guadalajara, we see all the mexican heritage, its architecture, its vitality, and its culture, and we see all the possibilities of mexico's future -- the innovation, a high-tech industries, and entrepreneurship that makes this one of mexico's most dynamic cities. we also see our continent coming together, americans, mexicans, and canadians, as tourists and business partners, each bringing their own traditions and down by mutual respect. in the 21st century, north america is that i'm not just by our borders but buy our bonds. that is the spirit that produced a very effective summit that we had here today. first we agreed that we had to
work together to restore our common prosperity. the global recession has cost -- cost jobs and her family's from north to south. we're working together in honor of mexico city, and we continue to agree to take coordinated efforts to restore economic growth and restore jobs for our workers, including those in the north american auto industry. because so much of our common prosperity and millions of jobs depend on trade that flows across our borders, billions of dollars worth of trade everyday, we reaffirm the need for eliminating protectionism and investment in it instruct -- infrastructure an international property protections on which parade -- trade thrives. as we work together toward lasting prosperity, we need to expand trade.
our common prosperity also depends on an orderly and legal migration. all three nations have been enriched by our ties of family and community. i think my on brother-in-law who is canadian. i think of the many mexican- americans who found home in los angeles and texas and in my hometown of chicago. at the same time, americans, mexicans, and canadians all expect their borders to be safe and secure. that is why my administration will continue to work to fix america's broken immigration system in order to keep it in the tradition of being a nation of immigrants. and because future prosperity depends on clean economies, we will invest to create a green jobs. nations like the united states and canada will take the lead by reducing emissions by 80% by 2015, and we will work with
other nations to cut global emissions in half. indeed, we made progress toward a concrete goals that will be negotiated at the copenhagen climate change summit in december. i commend mexico for its leadership in curbing greenhouse emissions, and for the president for his innovative program to build us clean, sustainable economies. third, we've dedicated ourselves to security. for the h1n1 virus, we dedicated ourselves to working together. with a preparations and precautions to prepare for the upcoming floozies in and protect the health of our -- fluke season -- flu season and protect the health of our citizens. we are also working against the cartels that cause a much violence and death in our
country. as i have said on many occasions, i heartily commend calderon hinojosa calderon and his government for taking on these cartels, and the president reaffirmed his government's commitment to transparency, accountability, and human-rights as they ways this difficult but necessary fight. united states will remain a full partner in the severed. we will work together to make sure that mexico has the support it needs to dismantle and defeat the cartels, and the united states will meet its responsibilities by continuing our efforts to reduce the demand for drugs and continue to strengthen our shared border, not only to protect the american people but to stem the flow of guns n cassette help fuel this extraordinary violence. third, we reaffirmed our commitment to work, and i use including peace, democracy, and in human rights. we discuss the coup in honduras,
and we stand united on this issue. president zalaya remains the democratically elected president. for the sake of the people, democratic institutions must be established. and we pledge to continue all these efforts. i look forward to hosting president -- welcoming prime minister harper to washington, and both of them in pittsburg where i hope to reciprocate president calderon's hospitality. no nation can meet the challenges of our time on that act -- on the run. we can only achieve them if we work together and that is what the people of the north american continent expect. that is what we will do. thank you very much.
[speaking spanish] >> there are certain questions about violation of human rights here in mexico, and all these problems of fighting drug trafficking. are you going to certify in mexico? and how can we move forward with this initiative? there is also been concern about attempts about president calderon's light. this is certainly related to your country. we are concerned about the visa problem, too. what comments which you have about all these questions? >> it sounds like a very good question.
i think it is coming. [speaking spanish] >> what are your concerns regarding this? and will mexico be certified and if you will help? we applied resources for the merida initiative? we have heard about a chance against the life of president calderon? do you have any knowledge about this? and we're concerned about national security and pieces. we would like to know if there is any possibility that you might turn this around that we might not have any limit on and pieces -- a limit on visas?
>> i will apply to the two questions that seem to apply to the united states. we will continue to be supportive of the initiative. we have already a scene resources transferred, equipment transferred, in order to help president calderon in what is of very courageous effort to deal with a drug cartel, that are not only result in an extraordinary balance -- violence to the people of mexico, but reminding the police and the judiciary system that unless stopped, it will be very damaging to the country. with respect to the conduct -- this battle against cartels, i have great confidence in president calderon's administration applying the law enforcement techniques that are necessary to curb the power of
the cartels but doing so in a way that is consistent with human rights. we discussed this in our bilateral meetings, and i am confident that as a national police are trained, that the coordination between the military and local police officials are and proved, there will be increased transparency and accountability and that human rights will be observed. the biggest violators of the human rights are the cartels themselves that are kidnapping people and extorting people and encouraging corruption in these regions. that is what needs to be stopped. that is what president calderon is committed to and that is what i am committed to helping president calderon accomplish as long as he is president of mexico. >> we will continue with alex.
>> on the question of visas, it's important to understand that this is due to one thing only. the dramatic rise we have seen over the last two years and this year in particular and the number of bogus refugee claims being made from mexico into canada. it is important to understand that this decision has nothing to do with the actions of the mexican government. the mexican government has cooperated with us in efforts to stem this particular problem. it continues to work with us in ways we might reverse it. but the underlying problem, as i said to president called iran and other, is in the canadian refugee laws. it is simply part too easy in canada to make a bogus refugee claim as a way of entering the country. we have to change that. it is unfair to those who were
legitimate refugees and to that hundreds of thousands of people who are working their our immigration system. -- working through our immigration system to come to this country. we what tried to limit this problem, but in the absence of legislative change, it is very difficult for our governments to control this other than through the imposition of visa. it is the only tool available to us right now. we need additional tools from our parliament to stem the flow of vote as refugee claims and other tools to deal with this kind of problem. >> alex panetta, the canadian press. we will continue with him. >> you just three topics were were very important to us. first of all, our government has
a categorical commitment which human rights. the struggle in battle that we are fighting against organized crime is precisely to preserve the human-rights of the mexican people, the right to safety, to security, to personal safety and integrity, and the right have a safe family. the right to work without being molested or perturbed, and the struggle for the security and state of the mexican people. obviously we have had a strong commitment to protect human rights, as does everyone -- the victims and even the criminals themselves. this is how will continue to be and this is how the federal police will act, the attorney general's, and armed forces. and all of these cases there have been scrupulous efforts to try to protect human rights, in all cases.
and anyone who says the contrary certainly would have to prove this. any case, it just one case, where the proper authority has not acted in a correct way, that the company and authorities have not punish anybody you has abused their authority, whether it be police officers are soldiers or anyone else. we have a clear commitment with human rights. we have met this commitment, and we will continue to do so, not because of any money that might come through, the end is a dead -- because of the initiative, but because we have a strong commitment to human rights, and i have struggled for several decades now, and i have always had this commitment. i have some details about what you have pointed out, but it will be the first or the last occasion on which -- but it will
not be the first for the last occasion on which we might hear something about an attempt against my personal life, my person, but once again, that government just cannot stop or deterrent. we know that we are destroying the criminal organizations. we are hitting them hard. we are hitting at the heart of the organizations. we're making them back away. and they know that we are not only taking an initiative in the struggle against crime, but we are actually being able to protect and defend our country better as time goes by. this is not a type of vengeance, of getting back at anyone, but we want to make sure that mexico is a safe place to live in, that we will be able to move forward in this way. we're not talking just about these organizations but our basic objective is to provide security for the mexican people.
this is something that the mexican people are entitled to, so that your family or children can go out to the streets to play or to go to school. they can make progress and to fulfil their aspirations. so that mexico can be a free country, free of delinquency and violence, and mexico will be a safe country. in the struggle we will not be intimidated and no one will put a stop to our efforts. i hope that mexico society recognizes all the efforts that we're making all along these lines, the police force who have been victims of cowardly acts by the criminals, all the efforts carried out by mexican marines and soldiers and different attorney general offices -- we are committed to have a safe mexico and a safe country. these are values that we believe in and they are certainly stronger than any threat they can bring against us about anything whatsoever.
so once again we have had dialogues with prime minister harper on several different occasions as we do on this occasion about the summit, and the matter of visas for mexican visitors. we have talked openly and frankly, and certainly mexico feels very bad about this decision, about this rejection, but it is a privilege of the canadian government is to be like this. but it certainly gets in the way of a good relationship of what prime minister harper and i are doing to have good relations between the two country. the explanation is that prime minister harper had mentioned, there is certainly a problem with the refugee claim problem which has led to an abuse of the system. we're going to try to work together, collaborate together, we are doing this in mexico it did deal with the underlying causes of this abuse.
once again, it is very clear that as the president of mexico, i have the obligation of ensuring that a specific talk on the bilateral agenda -- hot specific topic not distract from other items on the agenda. here is the particular area and this complement's of the three countries' economies. this will take our entire region of to a higher state of competitiveness to the benefit of our people. these of the lines that we have been working along and i think we have been making great strides. we will certainly continue to work along these lines in a practical way with prime minister harper and president obama. [inaudible]
>> this is a two-part question. the first is for the three leaders. i would appreciate -- >> use the microphone. >> i would appreciate if the prime minister could answer in french as well. i am wondering what you discussed about this meeting and what power you personally had to rescind this measure and whether you intend to use that power? on a completely related topic, health care have been an issue of tremendous debate in your country and the canadians have looked on with some fascination as our health care systems become a political football in your country. our life as prime minister harper and president obama whether there are elements of the canadian health care system, particularly the public model, which are worth
emulating? >> bric respect to the buy american provisions, your prime minister raises this with me every time we see each other. that is important to know it. he is expressing his country's concerns. i think it is also important to keep it in perspective. in fact, we have not seen some sweeping steps toward protectionism. there was a very particular provision that was in our recovery package, our stimulus package, and did not extend beyond that. it was wto compliance. it was not something that i thought was necessary, but it was introduced at a time when we had a very severe economic situation and it was -- and it was important for us to act quickly and not get bogged down in debates around this
particular provision. prime minister harbor and i have discussed this and there may be mechanisms whereby states and local jurisdictions can work with the provinces to allow for cross-border procurement practices that expand the trading relationship. but i did think it is important to keep this in perspective. this is no way has -- it has no way endangered the billions of dollars of trade between our two countries. it is not a general provision but it was restricted to a very particular aspect of our recovery package. with respect to the health-care debate, we are having a vigorous debate in the united states and i think that that is a healthy thing. the reason it is necessary because -- is because we are currently on a sustained -- unsustainable path. we spend far more per person for health care than any other
nation on earth. the outcomes in terms of various measures of well-being don't write us at the top -- write us at the top. we're not doing better than a lot of other advanced countries that are spending much less per person. individual families are being bankrupted because of a lack of insurance. we've got 47 million people without health insurance in our country. and for those who do have health insurance, they are always at risk of private insurers eliminating their insurance because of a pre-existing condition or because they lose a job or they have changed jobs. the final aspect of it is that our health care inflation is going up so rapidly that our federal budget simply cannot sustain that, nor can businesses that are increasingly having to make decisions, whether hiring
more workers or eliminating health care, whether they stop providing coverage or force more costs on to the workers. the whole system is not working. how do we change it? when is 1/6 of our economy, there will be a lot of opinions. congress has moved forward and we are closer to achieving a serious health reform package then we have been in the last 40 or 50 years, but there will continue to be a vigorous debate. i have said that canadian model works for canada. it would not work for the united states. we have evolved differently. we have an employer-based system and a private-based health-care system that stand side-by-side with medicare and medicaid and are veterans administration health care system. so we have got to develop a uniquely american approach to this problem. this, by the way, is a problem
that all countries are going have to deal with at some level. yet medical inflation continues at a pace that is going, and everyone's budget will be put under severe strain. what we're trying to do is make sure that we have a sensible plan that provides coverage for everybody, but continues the role of the private marketplace, but provides people who do not help insurance or fall to the cracks, of realistic and meaningful option. and we have to do it in a way that changes our delivery system so that we are not engaged in a type of wasteful, inefficient medical spending that is so costly to us. i suspect that we're going to have to continue vigorous debate. suspect that you canadians will continue to get dragged down by those who oppose reform, even though i have said nothing about canadian health care reform. i don't find canadians particularly scary, but i guess
some of the opponents of reform think that they make a good bogyman. i suspect that as a mistake. once we get into the fall and people look at the actual legislation that is being proposed, more sensible and reason arguments will emerge and we're going to get this passed. start to take so long on the question. -- sorry to take so long on the question. [speaking spanish] -- [speaking french]
[speaking french] >> one by america, we had a good discussion as president obama said. i am glad to see that we come to an agreement to work collectively on this matter, which is largely within their jurisdictions, as this involves some-national procurement. our respective trade ministers have been talking, our officials have been talking, and i anticipate that president obama and i will be discussing as at
greater length in our meetings. on the american health care debate and the debate over the system of health care, as you know well, canadians support their own health care system -- and for the rest of this question, my only answer is that this is an american debate and the responsibility of the provinces. >> ginger thompson. >> i like to start with president obama. given the pipe that you are having to wait for health care -- the fight that you are having to wage for health care, what the prospects for immigration reform? he said that that was your goal. and what he think of the blows your taking now on health care and that the democrats are likely to take around midterm elections -- making it hard to
achieve comprehensive immigration reform in this term, and what you told president call the wrong about that? president caldron, i like to hear about your thoughts on honduras. some in latin america have said that the united states is not acting strong enough to return president zalaya to power. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you feel about what the united states should be doing or could be doing to restore democratic order in honduras. and prime minister harper, a few months ago, homeland security secretary of the united states went to canada or aggravated canadian sensibilities when she bumped -- compared the canadian border to the mexican border. i wonder what you think about that, and how do feel about the united states using some of the
enforcement strategies adopted on the southern border in the north? thank you. >> and that is all? [laughter] >> that is all, mr. president. >> first of all, a ginger, i don't know what your doing some prognostication about the outcome of the midterm elections, which are over a year away. i anticipate we will do just fine. i think when all is said on health care reform, the american people are going to be glad that we acted to change an unsustainable system so that more people have coverage, and we are bending the cost curve, and we're going to get insurance reform so that people tonight -- do not get drop because of pre- existing conditions or other issues. understand no, i am not acting
based on short-term political calculations. i am looking at what is best for the country long term. if i have been making short-term political calculations, i would not be standing here as president. nobody calculated that i could win the presidency. with respect to immigration reform, i continue to believe that that is also in the long term interest of the united states. we have a broken immigration system. nobody denies it. and if we continue on the path we are on, we will continue to have tensions with our mexican neighbors. we will continue at have people crossing the borders -- to have people crossing the borders in a way that is unsafe for them, unfair to those who are applying legally to emigrate, we will continue to have employers exploiting workers because they are not within the legal system, and so they would be receiving less than the minimum wage or do not have overtime or being abused and other fashion
-- that will depress u.s. wages. it is causing ongoing tensions inside the united states. it is not fair and it is not right and we are going to change it. now i have got a lot on my plate. it is very important for us to sequence these big initiatives in a way where they do not all just crash at the same time. what we said in the fall, we're going to complete health care reform. we still have to act on energy legislation that has passed the house, but the senate will have its own ideas about how it wants to approach it. we still have financial regulatory reform that has to get done, because we do not want a situation in which irresponsible actions in the global financial markets can precipitate another crisis. that is a pretty big stack of bills. fortunately, what we have been
able to do is begin meeting with pope democrats and republicans in the house and in the senate, and secretary napolitano is coordinating these discussions. i would anticipate that before the year is out, we will have draft legislation, along with sponsors in the house and senate potentially, who are ready to move this forward. when we come back next year, we should begin acting. now can i snapped my fingers and get this done? no. it will require bipartisan cooperation. they're going to be demigods out there who will try to suggest that any form -- any pathway of legalization for those already in the united states is unacceptable. those are fights that i would have had it my poll numbers were at 70% or if my poll numbers were at 40%. that is just the nature of the
u.s. immigration debate. but ultimately, i think the american people want fairness. we can create a system in which you have strong border security. we can have an orderly process for people to come in. but we are also giving an opportunity for those who are in the united states to begin to achieve a pathway to citizenship so they do not have to live in the shadows and their children and grandchildren can have a full participation in the net states. i am confident that we can get it done. .
we have cooperated with all the international bodies in in sending that message. if these critics think it's appropriate for us to suddenly act in ways that in every other context they consider inappropriate, then i think what that indicates is that maybe there's some hypocrisy involved in their approach to u.s.-latin america relations that certainly is not going to
guide my administration's policies. [speaking spanish] >> many of the people who work active in the united states who live in the shadow, live in the -- come from jalisco, the state. these are people who have myglated in order to build a better future for their families. all of them or most of them have enormously contributed to the american society and the american economy. it is unthinkable to see that the u.s., the main power, the main economic power in the world without the contribution of mexican laborers and workers. this is not only a good will statement. during our meeting we told the
delegations the benefits of north america that represents in terms of age in regards to the total population of the u.s. the only way for sustained economic growth in north america is to allow the natch processes, including immigration. this is what we have underscored with president obama in this meeting to keep on invoking the protection for the mexican laborers, whatever their migration conditions are in the united states, and our highest commitment to the ways -- to the way president obama has tackled the migration issue. aside from defending the rights of american laborers in the
united states, that one day, instead of the mexican people having to leave their country because they're hungry or need their live ts, we need an economic scheme with investments from the u.s. and canada and opening the labor opportunities the mexicans need. i think president barack obama has responded to the issue on honduras. what we have discussed and agreed is what needs to be done to build the international actions that have been taken in order to re-establish the democracy in honduras. to strengthen the o.a.s. and the meeting to build the remediation, in order to re-establish the constitutional law in honduras. this is not about a person or
another. this is not about the president himself per se. it is about the constitutional and democratic life that ought to be defended in regards to the international legal framework that we have all agreed upon and one more expression, i coincide in the contradiction highlighted by president obama. those who have rejected or have argued about the intervention of the united states in the region are those who now are claiming for the determination or the intervention of the u.s. in the region, no matter how legal this action might be. so we have to resort to international law and international instances beyond the intervention of one single state or even more the intervention of one single person to resolve such a dispute and such an issue. this is the path to be taken today.
we congratulate ourselveses that president obama is leading the administration of the united states but in the past that happened, but in the future, we don't know who might be president next and i am not of those who share the idea that the u.s. are elected as the ultimate judge and the ultimate sovereign resolve through the intermediation of the affairs in our countries. yes, we have opened the past ott international organizations, to regional groups we have formed, such as the rio group, such as groups that are friends of north america, the countries that befriend honduras, that befriend central america, that befriend guatemala. these countries must act on our own account, but in observance of the international law and the rules we have settled
ourselves, we have to perform a group of friends of honduras that with the help of oscar arias and the o.a.s. and their upcoming action. >> just briefly, minister van and other officials have been meeting regularly on management of our shared border. i think we have good cooperation in that regard. let me be clear, from the canadian perspective we look at our border as the line between the two closest countries on earth. we have the largest trading relationship of any two nations on earth, and we share security concerns. there's no such thing as a threat to the security of the
united states which is not a threat to the security of canada. that's why canada has been an ally of the united states and nafta over many, many years. we want to address the same issues the united states wants to address and do it in a way that duvent impede commerce or the great social interaction which has made our two countries so close over the decades. i'm just going to also weigh in a little bit as a friend of the united states on the question posed to president obama. if i were an american, i would be really fed up with this kind of hypocrisy. the united states is accused of meddling, except when it's accused of not meddling. and the same types of -- the same types who are demanding the united states somehow intervene in honduras are the same type of people who would
condemn long-standing security cooperation between colombia and the united states, which is being done for legitimate security and drug traffic reasons that are in the interest of all the countries of this hemisphere. mexico and canada are involved in the mediation effort in supporting -- directly supporting the mediation effort of president arias. i think the united states has been forcefully articulating its concerns and its desired outcome in that regard and has been very supportive of those of us who are working in the multilateral process to deal with this serious issue in the hemisphere. so you know, i think that's precisecally hi what we want to see from the united states is the united states that leads on issues of values but is very supportive of multilateral atmpts to deal with challenges that we all face.
>> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> we'll show you this news conference again tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. this week, "washington journal," we'll hear from four mayors on how the economy is affecting their city, beginning tomorrow with phoenix mayor phil gordon, youngstown, ohio, mayor jay williams on wednesday, greg ballard of indianapolis thursday, and from fort myers, florida, jim humphrey. >> this fall, enter the home to america's highest court, from
the grand public places to toe those only accessible by the nine justices. the supreme court, coming the first sunday in october, on c-span. >> a discussion now on the state of the world's oceans with alexandra and philippe cue stow grandchildren of filmmaker and explorer jacques cue stow. this is about half an our. ntinues. host: we are joined by alexandra and philippe cousteau, behind the effort on the planet discovery, but green planet, the month of august as blue august, all about oceans and water issues. welcome to the program. alexandra, i first have to ask the question about the legacy of the cousteaus. you are the grandchildren of job cousteau cousteau cousteau cousteau. what deal hope to have
accomplished by the end of august? what do you want viewers to know? guest: blue august is an exciting initiative my brother and i are pleased and honored to be hosting. it is a full month of programming highlighting the challenges and issues and some of the solutions are around conserving water on this planet, both motions and fresh water. it is very exciting programming indeed. host: you both grew up around water all of your lives. where do things stand, in your opinion? focus on the oceans. how bad is it, where is their hope? guest: we are facing a lot of problems with respect to ocean conservation. you have to remember that oceans of the life-support system of this planet. we lost about 25% of global coral reefs. many of the large fish are reduced by 90%. scientists believe fisheries will collapse in the next 40 years if we continue our current
behavior. climate change, melting ice caps. there is a lot of grim problems. i think one of the great messages and signs is we are having this discussion right now. we are having not only a whole month of television program but robust online initiative for blue august. it unprecedented to dedicate a whole month to these issues. i think and that can't, society is starting to change -- i think in that sense, society is starting to change. host: we will show a clip, a preview of what the series is about. the same thing i asked alexandra, what would you like viewers to take away at the end of this month that they don't know now or should know now? guest: certainly i hope the walk away with renewed appreciation for the oceans, understands how important are no matter how -- where we live. but one of the great things about blue august that planning
green offered online are easy things people can do to be part of the solution. hopefully they will understand the importance of the oceans and how each one of us can do good things to protect the ocean. host: alexandra, you are founder and president of guest: blue legacy is an organization that i started in the year 2008, and our mission to tell the story of our water planet and get water to be part of the discussion again. we just finished a 100-day journey around the world, going to all five continents, telling both freshwater and ocean stories. it's been very exciting. we've made other 40 short films that have been aired online and we are moving forward with discussions with experts and planning our next round of expeditions. >> there's a picture this morning, actually, two two, in the "wall street journal" about the typhoon hitting china and the collapse of a hotel in
china. has this been made worse in your opinion, by climate change? guest: i think there's very little question about the fact that climate is being exacerbated by climate change and oceans are the primary driver of our climate system and when we -- you know, the reason that climate change is a problem is because of what it's doing to oceans, and storms are increasing, desertification and droughts are spreading, and it's leading to conflicts such as darfur. >> "the new york times" reported on this on their front age, cly chat -- climate change seen as threat to u.s. security. they looked at the impact of floods in countries like india and parts of asia, what it would have on neighboring countries. guest: if you think about water
as our most important life support system and the vehicle through which we'll feel the impacts of climate change whether it's drought, desertification, seasonality of rivers, where before they ran year-round, all of that is going to change the world as we know it. host: we will get to viewer phone calls in a moment. i want to give folks a look at some of what blue august is about on planet green this month. here's a look. >> the ocean needs our help. time is running out. >> people have heard about global warming for years but it is only the past five years that experts really understood that carbon dioxide is causing problems for the oceans as well. what is worrisome it has not been on the radar. >> in a few decades it will profoundly altered oceans chemistry, rapidly making the water more acidic. >> scientists have demonstrated that if we continue to pollute
as we are now, the ocean as said it will double by the end of the century. >> and we are already seeing the signs. >> we are seeing water off the coast of northern california as sick enough to start actually dissolving seashells. >> if the smallest things and oceans are affected by acidifvcation, and ripples up the food web making the largest things even more endangers. >> we need to change. >> we've got the last decade in which weakened isn't about the problem. but it is very clear if we do not start to deal with that right now, with stern and cuts 2 emissions, we are going to condemn oceans to extremely uncertain future. >> we know how to solve all local and global problem, the question is, will we. host: how long did this take to prepare? guest: this whole month has been in preparation. multiple types of shows.
footage from the world premiere of the special next wednesday night at 10:30 a.m. on planet green called acid test, looking at the most shocking and relatively newly explored and understood issues. host: daytona, florida. good morning. you are first up. caller: good morning. so proud of you guys and what you are doing. i was very impacted by your grandfather when he came and did some work with blue springs state park. what i am really alarmed about -- this brings, compared to now, the levels have been drained so much. the footage your dad as i love to see on the show. i am also an uninsured americans so i am not pouring these pharmaceuticals and to blue springs and i am concerned about that impact and me on the
uninsured family. could you address -- are you addressing blue springs? guest: it is a beautiful place. it is sad, the changes that happen. i did a story for npr a few years ago. the development going into florida and our wasteful use of water, not just in florida but are around the country. we will not be covering tt the specific month, though. host: philippe mention of the wasteful use of water. what are you advocating in terms of methods of yours can take for yes wasteful uses? guest: so many things that people can do. some of the easiest things, turning off awesome when brushing your teeth or shaving. using appliances when they are full. host: such as dishwasher. guest: washing machine geared watering your garden and evening instead of the heat of the day. using pool covers.
but for the purposes of blue august, this is summer, everybody is going to the beach. packing out what you back in and making sure you leave nothing behind. and even picking up trash and that might not be your own, but leaving the place better than where you found it. an old boy scout creed. host: you brought a demonstration of something -- i will put this underneath the camera. guest: this is this plantgreen challenge -- band the bags, butts, and models. planted grain.com -- using reusable bag, did not throw cigarette butts on the ground. they can surprisingly take decades and decades to biodegrade. when it gets into the ocean, turtles and other marine organizations -- organisms can eat it. and tried to recycle as many plastic bottles as possible.
there is a challenge on the web site and the book and up load their own content of photos and ideas, a lot of fun. host: 4 myers. bill. -- fort meyers. caller: environment lists try to scare us when there are just as many scientists who say they don't have enough information and find out that al gore's tried to fake everything and took movies from home computers and stuff just to antagonize it and they want to get this cap- and-trade. what are tax is going to do to help the environment? meanwhile china is the biggest polluter in the world and they told the environmental is to get lost because they have 4 billion people to feed. we've got to do something -- just use common sense. that is all we need. you can't scare people, as they say. host: thank you for the call.
guest: certainly would face challenges. a lot of points the caller made their but respect to china. it is not an excuse to not do something in this country because other countries are not doing enough. guest: and china only just out ranked the united states in emissions, very recent. we were ahead of the pack. guest: for a very long time, exactly. i would disagree that there is not a consensus on climate change, and i think that research and science is pretty clear that a vast majority, over 90% of the world's finances certainly disagree. they may -- certainly agree. they may disagree on but pays, but certainly a problem. host: north carolina, go ahead. caller: thank you so much for bringing this issue. i would like to make it, and about republicans. they don't care anything about
anything go along. just let them wait when they died and the water, and nothing is safe and we will say. i have a question for you. africa -- you tested oceans and five continents. africa and somalia -- have you tested it or do you have information and could be let us know what is true and not true and i appreciate it and thank you so much for democrats bringing this issue. thank you. guest: africa certainly has a lot of water issues. we did not go to somalia on this expedition. we went to botswana and south africa. i think it is fair to say that everywhere where we traveled and did research on water is an issue and conservation of this resources and better management practices is pretty much a universal need.
host: "the financial times" has a picture of the drought in india. the monsoon season delivering far less rain than anticipated. guest: i have to say, first of all, i think the worst thing that happens to the environment issue is it became a blue or red issue, it is not about republican and democrat, it is clean air and water. one out of four kids in the city has asthma. it is not a political issue. i would say that first. but i think you point out an issue with oceans changing, desertification, not just in india but places like africa, darfur is essentially a water crisis. host: we have never seen drought levels at these levels? you are talking about, but this perk -- picture is india. guest: india facing critical water issues, just weeks after we left india on the first part of the expedition, over 1000
farmers committed suicide because the drought that had ravaged their land made it impossible for them to make a living and they committed mass suicide. i think we are seeing increased severity water issues and is impacting communities. host: are their drought concerns of the u.s.? guest: absolutely. atlanta, two years ago -- guest: 6 weeks away from being out of order. guest: the leg that they depend on, six weeks before being a munhall -- the lake, that they depend on, six weeks before being a mudhole. the governor was praying for rain. when the practices have not been able to ensure water supplies we are looking at a series issue. host: virginia beach, good morning, on the republican line.
caller: or you folks today? the earth sustains us and we have to take care of it, but, you know, more people will take you seriously if you expose the biggest sources, of not only corruption but of pollution and that is the federal reserve and the stimulus -- 24-7 stimulus that they create bubbles with and all of this overbuilding. host: what is the biggest source of pollution in the u.s. and the world? guest: in terms of our water pollution, urban runoff is not a worse problem than industrial run off. we have a tendency to think water pollution comes primarily from big companies and corporations, but actually people who don't take care of what they put into their water shade and for toxic chemicals
down the drain and things like that is actually a much bigger problem. host: mission, dave on the independent line. caller: first time caller. you were talking about earlier in the show that you were showing, that things start with the smallest things in the ocean and then go on board. i watched a special on television where they were talking about plankton being one of the smallest creatures that everything feeds on. and there were talking about we were starting to lose the plankton and that kind of thing, and they were going to be feeding the plankton with iron oxide to try to get more plankton into the oceans to help everything survive. i wish you could make a comment, and i will take the answer of the air. guest: iron oxide, i have heard
that, dave, that theory if they use iron oxide it will increase plankton blooms. but there are a whole host of problems and we moved away of that kind of engineering of the environment. but you are right, the ocean is like land, it starts with the smallest creatures and goals of the food chain did i recently wrote an article about ocean -- it could lead to no more wells in the oceans. the new imagines ocean without whales? the small shelve creatures disappearing. little ones, they are out of sight but they should not be out of mind. host: define dead zones in the ocean. are there more now than there were 20 or 25 years ago? guest: of their over 400. host: what does that mean? guest: the gulf of mexico has one of the largest debtor zones, the result of tons of chemical fertilizers that float down the mississippi river into the gulf. it creates algae blooms that the
loan and then die and when they die they go to the bottom and a absorb the option in -- oxygen. and the summertime, of 8000 square miles where nothing can live. they told me about shrimp that jump out of the water into the beach and try to breed because there is no oxygen. host: abc and a couple of other news organizations reported on the great pacific ocean garbage patch. do you look at this in your series? guest: yes, a special looking at that. it is an area in the central pacific ocean where circular currents concentrate debris and it is roughly twice the size of texas, literally a soup of plastic, 95% are plastic. it is just a reminder that every single piece of plastic still exists that has ever been created. we had a saying at the nonprofit i run, everything we do makes a
difference. as my sister point of earlier, it is about reusing plastic bottles and not taking things for granted. no such thing@@@@@@@ @ @ >> what does -- caller: what does overpopulation have to do with the problem we was today? guest: chast a -- that's a great question. we're looking at a world where our population will continue to grow and we need to be ever more vigilant about how we manage the limited resources we have from arable land to water to clean air, to energy, so the people who are coming next have the same quality of life and the psalm access to life that we've had and that we've been blessed with. that's increasingly a challenge that we all need to work
together to solve. host: pr, from a sound one, on the international line. caller: my name is daniel. i want to congratulate you for having such great-grandparent's. he was absolutely great. since i was about seven i used to watch the shows every thursday night. he definitely planted a great seat. i live in port doh rico. -- i live in puerto rico, we are competing for one of the natural wonders of the world. this brief is so great -- reef is so great, it is becoming tammany -- contaminated. basically wasting what you see there. also on the south side we have a bay that is dying.
one of the two in the world. the only other one is in japan. nothing being done about it. the government doesn't care. i was wondering if there is some way someone could get involved, to kind of promote these efforts to protect our resources. otherwise we will be, like some predict, in a war that will be for water. family has brought some lands and argentina -- my family has bought some land in argentina where there are great lakes. some don't realize or don't care. for host: thank you for the call. we will get some answers for you. guest: this is a story happening all over the world, water contamination and pollution. it is a shared resource, and it belongs to no one. it is part of a problem because
it is not monetized and people did not view it as they should. while we don't do any work in puerto rico, i am sure there are outstanding organizations that do and i think a quick search on google could find the organizations. host: an oceanographer has said in speeches and writings that with the budget of nasa, you could fund noaa -- guest: a thousand times. the federal budget for space exploration is a thousand times of ocean exploration. and knowing about whether there is water on mars is not necessary for surviving the planet. i'm not saying it should be in a minute. maybe a little more parity because there is healthy oceans and water in this planet. guest: and i was just going to say that in puerto rico, one not not only depend on the
government and organizations but there is a huge old for people to get involved in their communities and just learning about the issues and finding ways to get friends and families involved in taking action at the local level. it is one of the most powerful things out there for environmental conservation. we can never underestimate that. host: have a link to the blue august site on c-span.org. guest: and a lot of wonderful organizations like ocean conservancy that is part of the mission. host: green bay, wisconsin. bruce on the republican line. guest: good morning, sir, -- caller: good morning, sir, good morning, man. united states would -- if they would go back to paper instead of plastic, stop dealing with countries -- how would that
change the environment? guest: banning plastic bags would be a big step in the right direction for sure. whether are not going back to paper bags as an answer, because of still consumes energy -- as bill pointed out, we have a little back from the campaign, it is a reusable bag. that is what people eat should go back to. that is how we used to go shopping. but certainly applying pressure on countries to clean up their acts would be a tremendous step in the right direction. this country has an opportunity to take a leadership role, to retake a leader roll and we need to do that. guest: i was going to say, i don't see the downside to using recycled bags, to recycling plastic bottles, to try to limit the amount of waste we create, to six -- take simple steps. there is no downside. even if the skeptics were right and it was not going to save the
world and do all of these things that make our quality of life better, there is no downside to it. it is what people in the 1950's, and that is what people harken back to as an ideal time. they use recycled milk bottles, they used recycled back and they had much less waste. host: in your putting together this program, do you see areas around the world of hope where areas are being cleaned up? guest: absolutely. the one thing i noticed as i traveled around the world and talked about issues, from spiritual leaders to government ministers, to students and and people on the street, is that they all value water and they all see it as their source of life. it is the one thing that connects every single individual in this planet, is our need for water, both the oceans and on land. the level for commitment and activism i saw everywhere, from people who live in grass huts
and had little access to education, to some of the most educated and well known people in the world, that is the one thing everybody agrees on. and they all agree it needs to be protected and managed for today and for tomorrow. host: west virginia. good morning to jail. caller: i am retired coal miner , and our big issue is the mountaintop removal issue. i was curious as to whether or not you guys would do anything on your program on it. we have had over a million acres of one of the most their verse ecosystems and the world destroyed from a mountaintop removal mining. it heard over 12 million -- 12,000 miles of -- 52% of the streams in west virginia that are known to be or thought to be contaminated with heavy metals and other things.
we have acid drainage. over 150, what they call coal slurry impairment in west virginia. host: -- calling in. we just have a couple of minutes left. guest: i testified in front of congress on offshore drilling and nrg exploitation -- when you look at coal and these polluted cost of energy, we are not factoring into the true costs, the kilowatt hours. i encourage the committee to think there renewable energy is artificially expensive and non- renewable is artificially cheap. one out of four children out of new your city has asthma. and magic of the environmental degradation. there is a tremendous price we are not factoring into carbon- based forms of fuel that is
killing us and telling the resources we need to survive. last summer when gas prices were so expensive, people were screaming to, isn't it terrible. it is tough to live without gasoline but a lot harder to live without water, three days, that is it. i think you bring up a great point in terms of realizing the true cost of the exploitation of those kinds of resources. host: wisconsin on our independent line. caller: first, i want to thank you for c-span. i want to thank the two young people for being on the air. it is so important. i don't remember if it was discovery, national geographic or the history channel but they showed a program where countries -- several countries in the world where they are playing with our weather and putting some kind of gas pump up into the ozone layer and it is affecting the way in that gulf stream patterns and other
patterns, and it is influencing -- excuse me -- influencing our weather. and also, why can't governments all over the world outlaw plastic? it would create jobs and get rid of all of this crap all of our water? host of you address plastic -- but what about the issue of government controlling the weather or other efforts? guest: a lot of that is happening in china. i understand -- i think it is silver oxide that they are seeding the clouds with to actually cause rain. the jury is out i think on how wellhe technology works. as far as i understand, it is pretty local as far as the impact. it does not really change weather on a large regional or certainly not a national scale. guest: you know, we have a lot of projects in the works around the world to try to find
solutions to some of the problems that we have created, like seeding clouds were covering glaciers with an enormous part to prevent them from melting. -- with enormous tarps keep them from melting. but the best idea is prevention. that is something that, again, we all have a role. guest: isn't the singing, ounce of prevention is a pound of cure? host: road island, joe. caller: the real pollution is not really coming from the people, but rather through the government and through the people from planet gren blew the mines. host: on that note, i will give you a chance to promote your show. starting when? guest: blue august is happening all month long. all august is a series of programming, intelligent intelligent and online.
hopefully we can help to inspire people to think differently about the problems we're facing. and there are a couple of premieres next wednesday, a special with bob woodruff. guest: host: philippe and alexandra cue stow, thanks for being with us this morning. guest: thank you so much. >> president obama is on his way back to washington after a news conference in mexico with the mexican president and the canadian prime ministers. you can see this press conference tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. this week, "washington journal" will hear from four mayors on how the economy is affecting their cities, starting with phoenix mayor phil gordon, on wednesday, mayor jay williams
from youngstown, ohio, on thursday, greg ballard, mayor of minneapolis, and on friday, jim humphrey from fort myers. now a tribute to phyllis shaff lee, the clare booth luce club gave her a lifetime achievement award today. >> let me finish with a quote about ms. schafly from his book "men and marriage." when the histories of this era are seriously written, ms. schafly will be listed among the leaders who made a decisive difference she changed the ideas of her country. now it's my pleasure to present ms. phyllis schafly with the
claire booth lewis -- clare poothe luce lifetime achievement award. [applause] >> thank you so much, michelle. thank you, alyssa, for all your kind remarks and for this award. i'm honored to be here today. the last time i saw clare boothe luce was when we attended a reception at the white house with ronald reagan, she gave me a lift back to her -- to my hotel in her limb southeastern and eblings pressed that she was supportive of my work, i'm proud for that i want to thank roger mikk --
millican for organizing this. he's been on the right side of the abortion issue for a long time, maybe longer than i have. i i want to address my remarks today, particularly to the young people. we need you to restore the america that we have known. you need to find your place in the conservative movement. i think maybe if what you learn from my life is, first of all, that anybody can be a leader, you can be a leader, i wasn't born that way, i developed it, i worked at it, and also that the grass roots can organize and take on all the power that be and defeat them. that is the lesson. you need to understand how
destructive the feminist movement is. the movement that teaches young women that you are victims in an oppressive, unjust society. that is simply ridiculous. american women are the most fortunate people who ever lived on the face of the earth and you need to not be prop began diesed against that by any women's studies courses. in fact, don't waste your education dollar on any of those courses. and american women have always been fortunate. the feminist movement didn't start life for women just in recent years. my mother got her college degree in 1920, followed by a graduate degree then. and i worked my way through college in what you might say a nontraditional job, i was a gunner, testing ammunition at the largest ammunition plant in
the world in st. louis. i tested 30 and .50 caliber ammunition with all the tests the government needed to run before they accepted it for world war ii. accuracy, penetration, velocity, aircraft function, the tracer bullets -- they trace your bullets in flight, did they go off? examining the misfires, when they didn't go off. of course the velocity. i worked half the time midnight to 8:00 in the morning and the other half 4:00 to midnight and went to college in the morning and got through in three years and i don't know what college students do in college these days. i worked a 48-hour week. but i've been a volunteer in politics all my life. i took political science, they fit it into my schedule, that's where the action is. that's where it's going to
depend what kind of country we have. and you have to take your opportunities when they come along. now i guess some leaders are born, but i was not born a leader. i grew up very shy and it's been a learning experience. i figure if i can do it, any of you can do it. we certainly are desperate for leaders today. at the present time, you find that the conservative movement in this country is kind of depressed about the way things are going. i want to remind you young people that we have been through other times of significant depression by the conservative movement. this is the way it was in the years preceding the goldwater nomination of 1964. that's why i wrote my book, a choice not an echo, to describe how the northeastern
establishment country club type republicans had been dictating our nominees. now out in the midwest where i lived, in st. louis, the republican party was very, well, today you might think of it as almost right-wing. we didn't use the word conservative, but it was genuine conservative. we were tired of these new yorkers telling us who our nominees should be. i wrote this book to describe what went on at previous republican national conventions. most of the people who go to republican national conventions have never been to one before. it's a first-time experience for them. at that point, i was housewife in a little town called alton, illinois work some young children and of course nobody is going to publish a book by someone like that who had never published before, so i
published it myself and it sold three million copies. and every week, i hear -- i'd meet some public official who said i came into a conservative movement reading "a choice, not an echo." is showed how established republicans were forcing their views on us when we wanted barry goldwater. at any ate we got him nominated but we had a devastating defeat after that. and conservatives went into a period of great depression. dewe didn't think we could ever elect a real conservative like goldwater. so we went with richard nixon and that was a bad idea.
those of us who worked in the anti-communist movement, through the 1960's, when i was writing about the strategic missile defense, and so forth, never could have imagined that the soviet union would collapse. we thought it would always be there and not only did we think that, but the whole intelligence apparatus of this country was convinced the soviet union would be the great superpower. henry kissinger said, he was the chief advisor for nixon and others, that he thought his job was to negotiate the second-best place we could for the united states of america because these people believed the totalitarian government was more efficient, could get things done better and could produce better. well, now we know that's not so. it's the free market that
produces better. better things, more inventions. better quality of everything. and of course, in the years after ronald reagan failed to get the nomination in 1976, he and others were traveling the country talking to little groups, redefining their conservative image, and he had a different view. he thought when it comes to dealing with the soviet union, he had another message. we win, they lose. and he made it work. and so -- [applause] despite our belief that we couldn't win, he did win. it was a big shock to a lot of us in 1980 when ronald reagan actually won. then the same thing happened after clinton won in 1992.
we couldn't believe it. two years later we came back and had the biggest republican victory in, i think it was 40 years in 1994. so that can happen again. but we need the young people to become leaders and to take on an active role in the whole political process. it's really fun. now you've got to be kind of tough, too, because sometimes it gets a bit raucous, as we saw last week in one of these town hall meetings at the town hall meeting of a missouri congressman where the union goons came in and beat up a black conservative who was passing out flags. that was his offense. they didn't like the idea that an african-american could actually be conservative. but we know there are a lot of conservatives and -- who are of all kinds and we need to
educate them and train them and stand up for them and attend these town meetings and let the groose roots be heard. i believe the grass roots can defeat all the powers that be. that's what we did with the equal rights amendment. it was a 10-year battle. we had everybody against us, richard nixon, gerald ford, jimmy carter, all the magazines, 99% of the media, all the governors who marched and protested against us, all the money, all the hollywood stars, we beat them all. [applause] they've never forgiven me through that, but you can keep in touch through the phyllis
schlafly report. i hope you'll enjoy being in the process that keeps our country great. and remember, those who wait upon the lord will rise up with wings like eagles and they will run and not be weary and don't you ever be weir ray because the battle goes on, year after year, and we need you young people to join us in the battle. thank you very much. [applause]
>> you're such a nice audience. it isn't exactly that way on the college campuses. >> no. but you're so good on the campuses when you go. you're always an inspiration phyllis and phyllis agreed to answer some questions here. we have a little bit of time there's a microphone back there, if you wouldn't mind ladies, line up and give your name and your affiliation if you would, and we'll do some questions. >> you can even ask hostile questions. >> hi, there, my name is brooke, i'm with the clare boothe luce institute, i was inspired by your work even
before i was involved with the institute. still, always going back to mrs. schlafly, they love your work. as a woman who's been involve sod long in the trenches of these debates but also raised a wonderful family and clearly you have a strong faith, how did you, back in the days when it wasn't as common and as accepted to be raising a family and in the trench, how did you balance that and do you have any words of wisdom for the young women who now see that -- are almost encouraged to put aside family for career? >> you have to structure your life to accommodate what's important to you. now, i did not have any full-time job, or any paid job, after i was married. i spent about 25 years raising my six children and politics was my hobby. a lot of which was done on the
telephone, by mail, a lot of it was pre-internet, pre-fax machine. when i ran for congress, i ran in districts where i never had to be gone overnight and so -- i guess i'm a workaholic, too. but it was fun. my husband was -- my husband was extremely supportive, he enjoyed what i was doing so it all kind of fit in together. when i would go out for some meeting, whoever was the oldest one in the household was the one in charge. but, of course, a full-time job is very difficult in that, and back before you came along, you know, it used to be that your average middle class, blue-collar guy could make enough to support a full-time
homemaker and that seems to be an america that is slipping away from us with the jobs going overseas. you find out what you're most interested in and what you can develop as your particular space in the conservative fight. but i would say marriage and family are certainly -- they were certainly at the top of the list for me and everything else had to blend in underneath it. yes. >> hi, i'm kelsey from the college of william and mary. an overarching subject today is health care, what are your thoughts and feelings about it? >> the health care bill is as bad as the one we beat when hillary clinton had her plan. it is a government takeover of the health care industry.
it is complete paying for abortion on demand, any time, any place. we have recently learned about these counseling sessions they'll give the old people and basically, they are sessions, why don't you hurry up and die, take a painkiller, because you're costing us too much money and anybody who thinks that health care is going to cost less if the government runs it must believe in the tooth fairy. it isn't going to happen, and the idea of letting the government run all of our health care industry and -- is simply unacceptable. . unacceptable and i think we would be better off if we defeated a whole thing that is proposed and then if there is some particular revenues have -- remedies we can work and we can
try that everything obama is promoting on health care industry is bad, it is government controlled. which is what he wants. he never had a real job before he bought and politics. he was a community organizer and this is a process of making people believe that they live in an unjust and discriminatory society and they should organize into protests and a man to take money away from the taxpayers. one of the big problems we face is that now about half of the people did not pay income tax so his plan is to take money away from the taxpayers and give it to the non taxpayers and i think we have to call him on every turn. i am hopeful that we can defeat the healthcare bill. [applause]
>> i'm eva molina, i go to amherst college. i want to know to think about the resurrection of seven equal rights amendment that they are talking about in resurrecting the and and for those of us who weren't around it can you, please, elaborate on what it was you did with the first equal rights amendment and? >> i didn't hear the last part of your question. >> and you elaborate on how it is that you defeated the equal rights amendment? >> it was debated for 10 years in this country, had completely their representation at the hearings. that was the only place where we had a 53d chance to get our message out in the u.s. defeated. the american people did not wanted. and, for example, illinois was in the front line in it was voted on every year for 10 years and defeated.
the attempt to resurrect its is i think principally a fund-raiser for the feminist movement. and they tell a lot of women who don't know any history that send your $25 and will put you in the constitution. of course, they don't tell them that men are not in the constitution so why should women be in the prosecution -- that isn't the way the constitution is written. you can't believe how many times i went to pot -- testified and my opponent is saying that they need and the equal rights amendment because we want to get rid of all men are created equal. i am sure you smart young people know that is not in the constitution, that is in the declaration of independence and fortunately we are not trying to amend the declaration of independence. [laughter] if it had passed we would have had a same-sex marriage 25 years
ago, and i testified in 41 state legislative hearings. there is no benefit to its. there was only one case where somebody came in and said our state has a state law that discriminates against women that era will remedy. their state had a lot less than that wives could not make homemade wine without their husbands' consent. [laughter] for this we need a constitutional amendment? you've got to be kidding. it had no other -- when i went on television and they would say they would make women think they weren't paid enough but, of course, in the employment laws are already sex neutral so it would do nothing in employment so they were never able to say that anything in the hearing is going to give you a raise or help you with employment.
however, the class and discriminatory law is the draft registration law which says that male citizens of age 18 must register and i have sons and daughters of that age when era was alive and my daughter thought this was the craziest thing. you're going to put this in the constitution and the first thing is you have to sign up for the draft like our brothers? it was an hon saleable proposition. we were just coming at of the vietnam war and, of course, you young people are fortunate to live in a post reagan era where you don't have the draft hanging over your head and so there are all kinds of bad things and then there were no benefits. they were trying every precut idea to bring it back, but you need to let your legislators know there is no benefit to have it wrong to anything good for women, and it does a lot of bad
things. thank you. >> my name is katie walker with american life league. i wanted to get your thoughts on the role of the pro-life movement within today's larger conservative movement in the fight against feminism. >> wealth, the pro-life movement is very essential in one of the things that's my represent my contribution to the movements, you see we have in the fiscal conservatives the 27 million of us who voted for barry goldwater in the 1960's and that was not enough to elect a president. ..
and so the republicans in name only, very mistaken in trying to get rid of the social conservatives guess we need to pro-lifers, and we are very proud of the republican national platform adopted a national convention. every time since roe v. wade has taken a strong pro-life position, and i believe always will. [applause] >> i am with the clare booth policy institute. we can all agree how important it is to have a model for young people these days. i wanted to hear your opinion on who in congress or who in the public sphere we should looking to as leaders for the future. >> well, i am not ready to pick a candidate for president. my opinion is that anybody who thinks he might be a candidate
should travel the country and meet with small groups. and that is what ronald reagan did. he wasn't all that conservative when he started out. but listening to the people, he redefined his conservative views. and that is so essential. we can't wait until the primaries in iowa in 2012 to find out who these leaders are. you know, and the last time around john mccain who comes from arizona went up to iowa where they do meet with little groups. that is the primary system up there. and then he said and was quoted in "the new york times" as saying i didn't know integration with such a big issue. now, we can't afford to wait until the primaries in iowa and new hampshire and south carolina
in 2012. encourage everybody, and there are a lot of good people. congressman steve king, congressman michele bachmann, congressman tom price, just to name a few. and they are articulate defenders of the conservative position. and i urge them all to get out and travel the country. get out of washington and find out what the grassroots really want. go to some of these town hall meetings. [applause] >> i noticed that after in saint louis last week, that the senator from missouri, claire mccaskill, has announced that at her next town meeting she will not take any life questioned. she will only take a few written questions. >> hello there i have a comment
and two questions. first of all, the young lady who just preceded me, one of four daughters that i have, and i'd just like to thank you as a parent for being the role model that you have been for peeping like my daughters to look up to and see that it can be done. [applause] >> and the question i would like to put forth, it's more if you would just perhaps, it most recent appointment to the supreme court. and the supreme court in general appears to me, it is my sense, that over the years congress and the politicians are politicians. but the real direction downhill,
as i see it, has been a large impact of the decisions of our supreme court setting out what their opinion is for the rest of the country. >> well kaw it sounds like you read my book. because that is the theme of it. i trace most of the bad decisions by what i call supremacist judges because they do believe that they are supreme over the other branches of government and the will of the american people, can be traced to the erlewine court. and the whole line of cases, cases against religion, the cases to let the illegal aliens and, the cases against property rights, the feminist cases and
abortion cases, the case is signing international law. all of these things, bad decisions, what we call activist decisions stem from the lower untrimmed war in court because ward was a first run one to write that whatever the supreme court says is the supreme law of the land. and you all read the constitution. you know that is not true. the supreme law of the land is the constitution itself, and laws that are made in pursuance thereof, and all the laws are supposed to be made by the legislative body. now, i do urge you to get a whole picture, to answer your question, by looking and reading that book. but i will also point out that barack obama -- you know, the internet is so great to get things that you might have been buried in history. but he gave an interview on a
chicago radio station a couple of years ago in which he said that the court didn't go far enough. all it did was change some of the law. but they didn't address the economic issue. they didn't transfer the wealth from the non-taxpayers to the taxpayer. and his motive is to find people with judges with empathy. that means the ones who really want to move the money around, just decide to lower laws. who cares what the law says. move the money around. and that is his purpose. and this is a very dangerous thing. and that's why with all of george bush's failures we can thank him for alito and roberts, and we can be worried about who obama may appoint next, and be ready for a fight.
and i will also mention for your four daughters, you give them a copy of my book, there are about a hundred of my@@@@@ >> my name is stella healy, and i have more of a comment than anything, because i was part of the central virginia feigns the e.r.a. black with flo traywick. but i wanted to thank you, and really how it was being on that committee that initiated me that the import of action. the import of action and doing something. and i would just commend to everybody, be a part of reform
and read all her books. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate that. [applause] >> well, yes, it is enjoyable. and it is more fun to win than lose, and we have had some defeats, but we have had some very significant victories. which when you get active, you learn about our other victories. it wasn't just the era. we have had a lot of other very significant victories. >> my name is rachel. i would first like to say it i have been a lifelong supporter of yours and you have inspired me and so may ways and i credit for you why i am here today. your gumption, you go out, a woman, you might sincerest guidance. my question deals with your
fight against era. i see today the importance of grassroots efforts, and i'm sure all of us conservatives are as worried as i am about the future. i really would like to know how was it that you took on the nation and change everyone's mind about equal rights amendment? how did you break through the brick walls of congress and gain medias attention? how did you do it and how can we work alongside you and do the same for a lot of the problems that we have going on today? keymac thank you for your kind words. well, there are a number of elements in that. i chose the battleground that we thought that battle on. in the battleground that i chose to fight on was the legal rights that women will lose if this is ever ratified. and so i showed how they would lose the right to be exempt, and if they are in the militaries as
volunteers they would lose the right to be exempt from combat. a wife would lose a right to be supported by her husband and have her children supported by her husband. these are discriminatory laws. that we would lose the right to legislate against same-sex marriage, that the era would transfer all laws about marriage, divorce, family law, child custody, everything to the federal level instead of the state level. and so i forced the other side into kind of dividing up to the report and come into the hearing and say they say so and so, and it isn't so. but that was the whole defensive game. it's like a football team that never goes over the 50-yard line. and they were not able to show any affirmative case. so i would say that was a main
thing. also, we had the committee in each state that was fighting it. we drink them, how to make the arguments. how to make them calmly and respectfully and truthfully, and not to say anything that was exaggerated, or not to use other arguments like it was caused by the un or some other argument like that. just stick to the legal arguments. and the one place where we got fair treatment was in the hearings, because your typical state legislators, when they hear about a bill, we need to hear from both sides. of course, the media doesn't think that way at all. the media were 99% against us. and it was pretty funny. a lot of those shows that i was on, and so you will have to see
-- i didn't speak a couple years ago called doing the impossible. it has some clips from some of those shows, and you will see how we handled it. and we just simply kept presenting the truth. and that was the thing the other side couldn't get a handle on. of course, the most frequent question i get is how you stand it when they are so ugly to you and say such nasty things. well, i just did not going to let those lobs ruin my day. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> griffin communications, and i go way back with bill as to when i was chairman in illinois and phyllis was very, very supportive to us. at that time, phyllis, the
hippies were the counterculture. and thus people wanted to have regular marriages and family. and everything kind of flipped in a way, you know, the hippies sort of won that battle because even some young people i know now are so conservative, they want to limit their family to one child. you know, they are kind of accepting maybe these homosexuals want to live together, this kind of thing. how do we go about sort of, you know, influencing this mentality, especially this homosexual marriage movement which seems to be on a steamroll. not only that, but also convincing our young people that children are a blessing and that every child that is born have something to contribute. there are so many scientists and people, number 10 or number 11 in their family who aren't being born today.
>> you have raised some very important points. i think it's important for young people to understand that it isn't just the gays who are pushing the same-sex marriage. it is the feminist movement to. and the feminist movement is really anti-marriage. you have an element of the libertarians that do not want the government to establish the rules for getting a marriage license. now, i believe we have to have the definition of marriage, that we have to have laws saying polygamy is a crime, bigamy is a crime, marrying a child is a crime, marrying a sibling is a crime. and i would point out that the republican platform since the very first one in 1856 said that
we are opposed to those twin relics of barbarism, slavery and polygamy. and the aclu is openly supporting polygamy because it goes along with this idea that marriage is just a private matter. now, marriage is not a private matter. the definition of marriage is society's way of dealing with these helpful little creatures who appear when men and women do what comes naturally. and somebody has to be responsible for taking care of them. and marriage should be the institution that isn't legally designated to take care of that child. and then you've also brought in, you have a population control movement, that these are the people who think the earth is more precious than people. i mean, you can get rid of the people and just have, just have
natural order here. know, people are good. and i am quite sure that god provides enough resources for whatever population this earth has. and so we need to identify the distractive miss of the feminist movement and where the anti-marriage and anti-children propaganda is coming from. and it isn't just the gays. thank you. >> elizabeth cordova with clare boothe luce. i was wondering if you could share one of your favorite experiences from being around college campuses. [laughter] >> most of the bad experiences were a number of years ago. it has really gotten more civilized in the last few years.
but there were several where a bomb set was planted so we had to change the location at the last minute. there was one where they all lit up marijuana as protests when i started to talk. there was another one where, when i started to speak, they were very noisy and raucous. and i shifted immediately to q&a and that didn't calm them down. and then the guy who invited me came up and said i see a spray paint can in the front row, let's get out of here. [laughter] >> so we left the platform. but i would say the most amazing was at the university of wisconsin, in madison, which may be the leftmost left wing college in the country. i apparently was the first conservative who had ever spoken there. and a lecture series. and the university was so
apprehensive about my coming that they assign an armed guard to meet me at the plane and stay with me the entire time, to check into the hotel under an alias, and to have 22 security people on duty that night i spoke. of course, nothing happened with all that security. but it's amazing. this is the united states of america. it has become more civilized in recent years. and so when i fell recently at berkeley, it was not the students fault. [laughter] >> well, you have been a lovely, lovely audience. i thank the clare boothe luce institute for inviting me today, and i thank all of you wonderful people for coming. and again, i am challenging the young people, go out there and be leaders. be active in the political process. maybe you will enjoy it as much
president obama is on his way back to washington, after wrapping up meetings in mexico with felipe calderon and steven harper. topics at the north american leader summit included trade and the world economy. you can see it tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. and this week "washington journal" will hear from four mayors on how the economy is affecting their cities. beginning tomorrow with phoenix mayor, phil gordon and youngstown, ohio, mayor jay
williams on weds. indianapolis mayor greg ballard on thursday, an friday, mayor jim humphrey of fort myers, florida. "washington journal" every morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> how is c-span funded? >> by donations. >> federal funds or grant funds. maybe some private contributions. >> honestly, i don't know. >> i would say from commercials. >> advertisement. >> something from the government. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. >> topics at today's state department briefing include an update on three americans reportedly held by iran, the rise of violence in afghanistan and reports that the u.s. will share military bases in venezuela with columbia for anti-drug operations. spokesman robert woods speaks with reporters for about half an hour.
>> happy monday, everyone. i've got a couple of items. we'd like to extends our condolences to the victims of the recent plane collision in new york city and also the people of italy at this very difficult time. item number two, i'd like to run down the secretary's schedule. as you know, earlier today secretary clinton was in rwanda, angola, where she participated in the partnership framework with the angolan prime minister. she also met with the angolan president. the secretary then flew to the democratic republic of the congo where she visited the mutombo hospital and research center. the secretary is also scheduled to participate in a town hall
discussion with former nba star dikembe mutombo at the college there. she will also later today participate in a meeting and go to a dinner with the prime minister. with that, i'm ready to take your questions. >> nothing. >> nothing? wow. >> do you have any updates for us on the three americans in iran? we heard general jones say he believes they are in iran. have you heard this from the source? >> as general jones said yesterday, the iranian government confirmed that these three individuals are being held in iran. that, however, has not been communicated through our swiss protecting hauer. so i know that the swiss are trying to gain consular access, but have not been able to do so. we would remind the iranian government of its responsibilities on consular
arrangements, and that's to provide access to those who have been detained in what we call "without delay." so we believe that these people need to have -- receive consular visits, and we await official confirmation from the iranian government. >> as that been put forth through the swiss or no? >> the swiss have been trying -- tried a few times to get information and get access to these individuals. >> can you confirm that they've been moved to tehran? >> i cannot confirm that at all. >> the iraqi foreign minister today asked iran to release the three. although you haven't been officially notified of their detention in iran, could that have been the iraqi request at the behest of the state department? >> the swiss government serves
as our protecting power in tehran. so i've seen those reports as well, that the iraqis have gone in to ask for information regarding these three americans. but, again, we have not yet received that official confirmation that they are in tehran. no reason to doubt what the iranians have said publicly, what others have said. but until we have that official confirmation, we can't confirm it from here. >> then how come general jones -- how did he -- on what basis did he announce the -- >> general jones said basically what i said, that the iranians have confirmed publicly they have these people. but that communication has not been made directly to the united states government or through the swiss intermediary. >> do you have any update on mehsud, any confirmation? >> no, i don't have any confirmation. >> and what effect would this have on your operations in afghanistan?
>> well, again, we are engaged in a long-term struggle, as i said before, against violent extremism. whether he is dead or alive doesn't impact our understanding of what continues to need to be done to fight extremism. so as i've said before and as others have said, we're going to continue to work with a host of governments and to do what we can to try to prevent these types of terrorist acts from taking place, to try to bring to justice these individuals who perpetrate these terrorist acts. but we're under no illusions. this is a long-term struggle that we're engaged in. and i might add that it's not just the united states, but it's a number of governments around the world. so we have to strengthen our cooperation and do what we can to discourage it. >> do you think the security position is conducive enough for the people to go and cast votes without any fear? >> the security situation in
afghanistan is problematic, but the afghan forces, forces from other governments, are doing their best to provide adequate security to go forward. we want to see them take place in a fair and transparent manner. but security is something that's going to be a challenge for afghanistan for sometime to come. but working with other countries like the united states, we believe in the long run that afghanistan will be a better and more secure place. but it is indeed a challenge and we'll continue to work with our afghan partners. sir? >> columbia and the u.s. are -- i'm sorry. columbia and the u.s. are talking about some leasing of military bases in venezuela. chavez is seeing this as a direct threat. is the u.s. willing to forego these bases or offer some sort of diplomacy to reassure of venezuelans that it's not anything beyond fighting drug traffickers that we've proposed this?
>> we've said very clearly that we are not, at the first point, creating or establishing any bases in columbia. we are working with our colombian partner to deep with a problem that you see in the hemisphere, and that's narcotics trafficking. and we said very clearly that this should be viewed as nothing more than that. narcotics trafficking, as you know, is a very, very big concern not only for the united states government, but other governments in the region and around the world. and we have to strengthen those partnerships if we're going to defeat and rid our hemisphere and the world, frankly, of narcotics trafficking. so i have nothing to add to what's been said about that. we've made our position very clear with regard to our intentions in colombia. >> what if venezuela picks a site with any u.s. troops it happens to encounter in colombia? >> that's all speculation. i don't deal with that from the podium. at least i try not to. >> following up on his question, there was considerable concern from leaders of at least seven countries in larm about what the -- latin america about what
the u.s. is trying to do. some leaders have indicated to us that they're concerned, really, about obama's commitment to being open and working fairly with these countries. is this the time for the u.s. to actually follow on president uribe's trip from last week and try to talk with the president himself about what the u.s.'s intentions are in the drug-trafficking war? >> we talk to leaders all the time about this issue. there have been many summits and other vehicles for communication that we have used to communicate what we are trying to do in the hemisphere. we have a very positive plan for the hemisphere. we're working to try to bring prosperity, to try to fight narcotics trafficking, to try to bring about justice, equal opportunity. but these are very, very difficult and challenging problems. although we've been very clear of our support and we've been very transparent in terms of what we've been trying to do.
as i said, we talked to ministers, heads of state all the time about our vision for the hemisphere. we want to see a hemisphere that is more democratic, more prosperous and more at peace. and we'll continue to work toward those objectives. but i think we've been very transparent and open in terms of what we're trying to do in the region. >> have you expressed some of their concerns, given the track record in the hemisphere, support for coups and planned assassinations or alleged assassinations during the 1960's and 1970's? have you dealt with some of those historical concerns and fears that seem to be popping up because of this deal? >> well, i think one of the things you can judge what we're doing in the region and what our aspirations are for the region -- we use the example of honduras. we've been very clear in
condemning the coup that took place that removed president zelaya. we're working through the o.i.f. and we've encouraged others to support their courts, and we've been very clear we want to see democratic and constitutional order return to honduras. and we've made that very clear and there should be no question about that. what you have to do is judge us on our actions. it's pointless to go back in time, but we certainly understand that there are these historical perceptions and views about the role of the united states. but this administration, i think, has been very clear in wanting to have a very strong partnership with countries in the region to help bring about democracy and economic prosperity. >> since you brought up honduras, the interim president of honduras rejected the arrival of an a.o.f. delegation over the weekend. has the u.s. communicated to
his regime that was inappropriate, that was wrong, this is not going to restore zelaya to power? and to follow on, are you afraid that his regime is trying to find a way to entrench itself because we're now going on, i believe, six weeks? >> well, i know there's been a lot of back and forth. and my understanding now is that there's an understanding that o.a.s. team will go to honduras. i'm not sure what the travel plans are, but certainly i believe the regime has agreed to let that team in. i'm sorry, what was the seconds part of that question? >> are you concerned that it's now been coming on six weeks, we might be getting closer to seven weeks. zelaya is still flying from capital to capital trying to get support and he has not been able to return to the office that he was elected to. >> well, we've been working very, very hard, as you know, to try to see what we can do to have the democratic and constitutional order
implemented, meaning the return of president zelaya as best we can. and we continue to work that issue very strongly not only in honduras, but also here in washington at the o.a.s. and we're going to continue to do that. we've made very clear what our position is. we are a strong supporter of president zelaya and we want to see him return. we've made that very clear. there should be no doubt about that. we will continue to work with our other partners in the hem steer to try to bring -- hem steer to try to bring that about. we call on all of the parties to support. we believe it's the best mechanism of getting back the democratic order in honduras. >> under this process, the fatah movement has adopted a new political plan in bethlehem . saddam maintains the right of
resistance by all means possible. >> i haven't seen the plan. but i would reiterate the importance of both parties, the israelis and the palestinians, implementing their obligations, not tacking any steps that pre-judge the outcome of future negotiations and senator mitchell, as you know, is trying to create the conditions on the ground so that we can move to negotiations. it will eventually get us to a two-state solution. so that's where the parties need to be focused, on living up to their obligations, implementing those road map commitments, and that's where our diplomacy is focused right now. >> but israel's foreign minister has said today that attempting to implement this deal, that israel will be against attempting to force a middle east deal and he added that the most peace talks can achieve for the coming year is improving security and the
palestinian economy. >> one of the things we try not to do is respond to every single comment made by leaders of the region. what we're doing is staying focused on trying to create those conditions on the ground so that we can go forward and have negotiations. you have to have -- you have to have a situation where there's a bit of trust between the two sides so that they can get forward into negotiations. and confidence-building methods are critical to getting the parties to the next step, which is negotiations. so senator mitchell, the secretary, the president, have all spoken about the need for the parties to not take steps that are in any way going to pre-judge the outcome of negotiations and to also work on confidence-building measures so that we can get to that next step. and without being able to -- without the parties taking the essential steps in terms of confidence-building. it's very hard to see getting to the next step.
>> can you comment on the upcoming launch by south korea of a communication satellite? the north is said to be watching it very closely in terms of the reaction from the international community. do you have any comment on that? >> no. i don't. i wasn't aware that there was a launch. >> has there been any meeting since president clinton's trip between the u.s. and north korean officials or any communications any other way? >> not since his visit. >> what are the plans, or if there are any, to do a debriefing with the two journalists? is that actually going to happen? >> at some point it will, but i don't have any details on that for you. sorry. >> what about the press release? >> my understanding is that the white house is in the process of debriefing president clinton. i don't have any of the details of that. but we'll refer you to the white house on that. yes, sir. >> general jones said that during president clinton's visit to pyongyang, they
indicated that they wanted to improve ties with the u.s., and the uggs's position is that north korea won't be -- u.s.'s position is that north korea won't be rewarded and they should commit to their denuclearization process. my question is beyond that, is there any other conditions to ensure that there won't be any cycle of north korea ratcheting up tensions and provocation followed by renewed negotiation agreements broken by north koreans? >> i think the president and secretary clinton have spoken very clearly on this, that the north cannot be rewarded for its past behavior. simply what the north needs to do to live up to its obligations. if you remember, they signed on -- the north signed on to the joint statement in 2005 committing to a verifiable denuclearization of the korean peninsula. the international community expect the north to live up to
its obligations. these are obligations it took freely. they are not going to be rewarded for their previous behavior. the north has said it wants good dialogue and good relations with the united states and on the members of the international community. it's not going to have that kind of relationship if it continues along the -- the behavior along the lines that it's exhibited in the past. we want them to come back to the table and negotiate based on the commitments that they've made. and the ball, we believe right now, is in the court of north korea. >> there's been some criticism about president clinton's trip validating north korea's past behavior. do you have any response to that? >> no. i don't believe that at all. it was, as we've said before, this was a private mune
mission. a very successful houston mission, and -- humanitarian mission. so i don't accept that criticism. >> is there going to be a chance to finds out what clinton and kim jong il talked about? is it going to come from the white house, is it going to come from you guys? >> it could very welcome from -- >> it's a private mission. >> president clinton may at some point decide to talk about it. some of our officials that were involved in the debriefing might decide to do that, but i don't want to commit to anything here at the podium. yes, sir. >> north korea might -- do you
have any comments on the reaction? >> we certainly want to see the release of all people -- >> north korea. there has been a ship within its territory. have they informed you about this? >> we're certainly aware of it, but i would refer you to the indian government with regard to the particulars on it. but we are indeed aware of the steps that india took. please. >> yes. secretary clinton said yesterday that the u.s. showed support to the iranians. she said behind the scenes. can you comment or clarify on what she meant? >> what was the last part of that? i'm sorry. >> the u.s. showed support to the iranians "behind the scenes." quote. >> let me just say this. the united states condemns the
arbitrary arrests or detentions that are continuing to take place in iran. among those on trials are student, lawyers, human rights activists, journalists, academic as well as ordinary citizens who are simply seeking their universal right to express themselves peacefully and live their lives free of intimidation. of particular concern is the continued detention of an american scholar. we are urge iran's leadership to release him without further delay. the iranian government's decision to hold individuals on groundless charges and without the benefit of legal representation clearly violates its international obligations. yes, sir. >> can you just clarify the u.s. government's position on -- >> what about the support that they have provided to the opposition in iran? is that the same question? >> we've been very clear in terms of our support for democratic activities not only in iran, but in other places
around the world. i don't have any specific comments with regard to the iranian opposition. >> how does this complicate the administration's attempts to broker some kind of outreach with iran? is there now a mid-september deadline? does the fact that there are reports now coming out of iran that perhaps some of the protesters may have died while in custody complicate the situation? really, where is the u.s. attempt to reach out to iran, in light of the political events of the last two months? >> well, clearly our offer still stands. we made a very strategic decision sometime ago to engage iran in delect diplomacy. we stand by that decision. we decided to do that because we have very, very strong and serious concerns about iran's nuclear activities. and i might add it's not just the united states, but a number of countries around the world share that concern. iran has shown no interest in wanting to engage the united
states or other members of the p- plus one. the invitation to the iranians to participate in a meeting with the united states as a full partner, iran has not responded to that. clearly we have spoken out against what's happened in the aftermath of iran's elections. in the end iran is going to have to deal with the concerns of its people and in terms of whether it complicates our ability to go forward, we will deal with whatever authority emerges in iran. if indeed iran is interested in engaging the united states. so, again, as with north korea, we believe the ball is in iran's court and we hope that iran will take up our offer of direct dialogue. but that remains to be seen. >> do you worry -- does the u.s. government worry, i should say, that those who have been protesting might feel that they're being abandoned for the
sake of this political and diplomatic opening that the u.s. is seeking? >> well, i don't think the iranian people view the united states has having abandoned them. basically what the iranians are fighting for within their society is the ability to express themselves and to be able to peacefully demonstrate. they have some clear, serious concerns about people who run their affairs. whatever authority is there will have to deal with these questions. the united states is not involved with this. this is something that is transpiring between the iranian authorities and their people, and we will continue to speak out when we see human rights violations committed, where freedom of the press, freedom of assembly is violated. but in the end, this is something that the iranian people are going to have to deal with. this is a question between those who govern and the
governed, and that's where it stands. >> ok. >> yes, sir. >> can you clarify the u.s. government's position on the implets c.c.? last week secretary clinton seemed to make some comments in in joining it. has there been a policy shift? >> our policy toward the i.c.c. is currently under review. so i really can't help you very much on that at this point. but clearly the secretary spoke out about the international criminal court and this review is underway. we'll see where that comes out. >> it seems like she would be in favor of the u.s. ratifying that. >> she indeed said that. and the secretary is a key player in this overall review. but at this point that review is underway, and hopefully will
be completed soon. but i don't have anything further on it. >> well, you're blocked by u.s. law from ratifying this. >> well, there are a number of issues. clearly with regard to congress, we are not a party to their statute, and we obviously would need to have consultations with congress and others. and the pentagon will clearly have some strong views on this issue. all of this will be factored into our view and we'll be able to go from there. >> and just the last one. have you talk to members of congress? do you think -- have you already talked to them? do you feel that you've been able to allay some of their concerns? >> well, i don't want to get into discussions we've had with individual members of congress. but we're certainly aware of the concerns that we have, and we'll continue to work with congress. but we haven't made a decision in terms of where we're going to come out on the i.c.c., and that won't happen until we've
completed the review. yes. >> over the weekend, as you know, al jazeera released a poll conducted by gallup pakistan unit and found that 59% of pakistanis consider the u.s. the greatest threat to their country. five times as many people voting that way as they did for india, their traditional rival, or even the pakistani taliban. what is the u.s. government's reaction to this finding? >> well, i saw that poll and it's obviously very concerning. we clearly have a lot of work to do. but i think the united states has been one of the largest contributors of assistance to pakistan. we need to obviously do a better job of telling our story to the pakistani people and to others around the world. but the united states is committed to a set of values.
we promote those values worldwide. we want to help pakistan improve its economy, its security, to try to help the pakistani people. i think this administration has done a lot to address a lot of concerns in not only the muslim world, but in other parts of the world about our sincerity in dialogue and reaching out and trying to make the world a better place. and we'll continue to do that. and i know the secretary is very committed to that. whenever she travels she engages with citizens from all parts of society, and i think that's a strong example of this administration's commitment. if you look at our aid numbers, they're up. if you look at what we're trying to do in afghanistan, other places around the world, i think the u.s. has a very good track record. we'll continue to work on trying to tell our story better. there's no question we need to
do a better job at that. but that's a work in progress and we'll continue to work on it. >> is that work undercut, though, by the ongoing drone attacks going after the taliban either with or without pakistan's tasked agreement to have those go forward in search of extremists? >> well, standards practice, i don't comment on that particular -- we don't comment on that particular issue. but let me just say we're well aware of the challenges that the people of pakistan face. and as we've said, we're pakistan's partner. we're with pakistan in this battle against violent extremism, and we will be with them every step of the way. but, you know. the problems -- the challenges we face in the muslim world, we're under no illusions. they're difficult. but as the president said, the
united states is its partner and wants to engage muslims around the world. the president is very sincere in that, and we will continue to do what we can to address their concerns and to tell our story a bit better, because we do have a very positive story to tell, not just in the middle east, but in other parts of the world. >> and one more. and what do you say to ordinary pakistanis who may be concerned about the u.s.'s growing relationship with india? we saw the secretary and the foreign minister sign a series of accords just a couple of months ago promoting better economic and other ties between the two countries. how do you address that anxiety that pakistanis have about india? >> well, the first thing i would say to pakistanis is that this isn't a zero-sum game. we have a very strong and growing partnership with india. we have a partnership with pakistan that we're trying-time prove on and we need to get away from these views of -- you
know, if we're a supporter or we have a good relationship with india, that impacts the relationship with pakistan. i understand that that's how people in the region see it, but i think we really need to move away from this type of view in the 21st century. countries of that region have some very difficult challenges to face. as i've said, we are doing what we can to try to support them as they confront these challenges, not only from terrorism, but from poverty, literacy, drought, disease. we'll continue to work with india, pakistan and other countries to try to deal with these challenges. but we have to move away from these old stereotypes and work with one another in the 21st century to defeat these common enemies that we do face, as i've said, drought, disease, hunger, illiteracy, poverty, terrorism. >> thank you. >> thank you all.