tv Capital News Today CSPAN May 14, 2010 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
cord. any questions? did i depress everybody to much? back there. >> you talk about repaint the money there were lent by the government. david sent out a good blog about it. i thought it was outrageous. i would like to hear your comments. >> the question is about general motors running and ad say we pay that the government in kabul. that was when it the most despicably most dishonest things i've ever seen in washington. they lied more than a politician. it says something. they did no such thing. what they did was they access a different style of government money and moved it over to suppose that the off another government liability. it did not change the total amount of money that taxpayers
were involuntarily forced to put into general motors. it did not reduce the ownership of general motors. it did not reduce the giant subsidies it was really a spectacular level of dishonesty. it shows the dangers of going down this path of corporatism were government and big business climb into bed together you get some really nasty offspring o. >> you said it is an 99.9% certain that [unintelligible] could we try to do without experiment for a moment? what if we eliminated the income tax and corporate tax completely, every tax lawyer with is their job and replace its by 22%.
would that be more efficient way of raising money? >> there is no question that a value added tax per dollar raise is less destructive than the current monstrosity we have known as the internal revenue code. it is a single rate consumption based tax. it is just a flat tax in a different way. it taxes your income one time at one low rate but did i have no problem with a bat of a theoretical con job. i can size -- i fantasize about a world with a [unintelligible] if i'm not a fantasize about that, i will take a bat in stick. i would rather have the tax that the cayman islands with neither.
it to be big improvement. here is the problem if we were to go down that path, you have to make sure that the income tax is very -- buried 6 feet under the ground with a foot of stuff on top of this a will not spring up again. that means not as revealing the sixth amendment. in 1895, the supreme court only enroll the income tax unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote and that is when they considered the constitution. we will probably have our supreme court say it would be constitutional by a 7-2 vote. we will not have to repeal the
16th amendment, we will have to replace it with something so ironclad that even judges sotomayor when not be able to read the tea leaves. we would have to have strong language that would have to pass by a 2/3 boat in both the house and senate. it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. how many states do a half with estate market legislatures? what is that? we cannot even passed a budget. in reality, it is not going to happen. we have to stop it. we have to save america from becoming a welfare state. we are yardy halfway there anyhow. we do not want to go farther down the path.
>> they say that somehow they are being more efficient. the fact that they are paying at every stage of production, how did this to systems contrast? are we at a disadvantage? >> we are at a disadvantage in the sense the european nations have lower corporate tax rates than we do. every single european welfare state, even sweet, has a lower tax rate been america. the average corporate tax rate in the eu was 24.2%. we are at 35% at the federal level. we are shooting ourselves in the foot. that is just one letter of attacks.
when you factor in personnel income tax and capital gains tax, he can have income taxes as many as four different times. yet mr. adding the streets together. it is really penalizing american productivity and competitiveness and hurting american workers. some say that is a good reason to do a vat and making needed to lower corporate taxes. do not believe it for a second. even in the unlikely possibility, it could only be in the short-run. what do politicians to about tax policy? what motivated them? income redistribution tables. if we do tax policies a, the top
10% will have this offense and the bottom 10% will have this at that. with all is to make sure we are penalizing the producers and the entrepreneurs. i can guarantee you you are going to see them all say that this is going to tax poor and middle income consumers. how are we going to balance it out? where 20 tax those evil, bad rich people. that'll be the political map, some -- political mechanism that will lead to excessive risk- taking in on japan nation. poor people will be paying a higher value added taxes. then we will have a weaker economy. every economic theory known to
man and women say the same thing, you have to have capital formation the marxist and the socialists have an idea that government can do the saving but of we have seen that it does not work so well. everyone agrees to have to have saving and investment. what is it that is subject to the most onerous and punitive taxation? it is income that has been saved and invested. they will go out along with the value added tax. heaven forbid you do not maintain that distribution of tax. you continue down the slippery slope. that terrifies me. that is why we are fighting against it. thank you very much. [applause]
>> as you can see, a number of our policies that are quite passionate about the policy areas they were again and what they do. barnett speaker does so in a slightly different way. chris preble happens to work on my floor which i used to dominate with my booming voice. i was completely superseded by chris. whenever he sees an editorial, he will be off to the races for a good 20 minutes that is because chris cares about what he does. he is a very productive member of the cato team. it was published by cornell and university president. interposes a new grand strategy to national security. he is the author of "editing
existing iraq." he has published over 100 articles and major publications including all the major newspapers and magazines that to hear all familiar with. he is one of our most popular speakers in the national press. before, chris taught history at st. cloud university. as he mentioned, he was a commissioned officer of the night states navy and served aboard the uss navy. he does look a ph.d. in history from temple. he will be talking to us about
america's approachhto combating terrorism. [applause] >> thank you. dan mentioned he is going after johan. i hate going after dan mitchell. he is known as being very funny and engaging, even when the subject is really depressing. he was less money today. maybe that is because the subject is really, really, really depressing. that is where we are. i am always stealing with depressing topics. today is no different. as we approach nearly a decade of aggressive u.s. policies to combat terrorism, the results of these policies should obtain still belugas. americans are still not feeling as secure as they feel they
should be. terrorism is still very much with us. though they pale in comparison to the 911 attacks, new attacks reminded that terrorism continues to do us harm politicians remain enthralled by the specter of terrorism. alarm is them and fair makes any reaction to terrorism seem a viable and politically callable. rather than dispassionately address this topic, our national leaders often hyped threat for political advantage by anticipating terrorist strikes. this struggle we are engaged in to address this problem exists for a good reason.
policymakers, the media and the public black a strategic understanding of terrorism. the lack an awareness of the appropriate responses to it. terrorists have many different motivations. we should not assume that they all approach these issues in the same way. there is often a common strategic logic. understanding this can help rebuild some strategies to dissipate their efforts. consider the obvious the do terrorism is political violence that is byron's that is politically motivated, a directed at civilians primarily. it is typically used by non- state actors. the intent is to raise the cost of the state's policies and to convince that state to take actions that ultimately harm the state and help the terrorist
group. they also hope to increase their power and prestige. their goal is to elicit a response. these are very weak organizations by their nature. they count on a very strong country like the united states to lash out and respond in misdirected ways. a lot of times that violence is directed inadvertently to the communities in which the terrorists operate and hide. by doing so, they elicit additional support and drop in new recruits. we know we have these great ambitions. they left the means to achieve them on their own unless their target alters their behavior in ways that are down to the terrace.
this is the central theme of a new book that just came up that second-edited with my colleague. "terrorize them ourselv >> which i think is very ambitious. we think it is doable. at the outset, this project is kind of the culmination of a three-year initiative that we launched, funded with generous support from the atlantic philanthropies, and we have organized a number of meetings and many of you probably heard of me talking about this before. the book draws on many of the people who participated in this initiative from the outset.
it includes chapters on a whole range of different subjects about homeland security spending, communication strategies, thinking about the root causes and the misconceptions about what drives people to engage in terrorism and the first places. i will not go in the details but i will answer any questions. beyond those specific proposals, it documents the many ways in which this climate of fear mongering that we are insisting under exacerbates the threat. it should be obvious but it sometimes bear repeating. terrorists get their name for a reason. fear is there coin. the benefit enormously by the nightmare scenarios and self- defeating concepts of horrible things that can happen to us. they see the way in which our actions have been so self- defeating, we brought needless force, less freedom and we did
wealth. we explore all the strategies in this book. we try to undermine support for the counterproductive approach and build support for a constructive one. the specifics that we go into in the book document what 8 unwise and effective counter strategy -- counters and strategy would look like. providing absolute weapons against all attacks is impossible. a government that is trying to protect everything is protecting nothing. although there are not as common as they are made out to be, terrorist will bide their time and seek opportunities to stage a dramatic attacks and all that we can expect this to prevent what can be prevented and recovered well from what cannot. that means we have to prioritize. counter-terrorism strategy must include policies to ample trade and disrupt their organizations. control access to weapons of
mass destructions and their precursors such as nuclear materials is vital. target unlawful surveillance is essential. we can rely on technologies to do that in an efficient and lawful way that does not undermine our liberty. we also need to take reasonable cautions against certain sectors of attack but we need to think about this carefully. the federal government could not secure thousands of bridges, sports stadiums, airports, subways, shopping malls, skyscrapers, nuclear power plants, i could go on and on quantum think about all the different things that we could classified as critical notes of infrastructure. yet, the federal government assumes that they have the ability to do these things and they're well suited for dealing with these challenges half and can do so in an efficient way. in many cases, they cannot. one last thing.
policymakers who promise perfect security are committing the leadership of practice. likewise, threat exaggeration is demonstrably harmful. pandering to fears about terrorism should be a political liability. the ultimate outcome that we should see is that the political climate where fear mongering is virtually absent and people are punished at the ballot box for exaggerating the threat that is posed by these weak and ineffectual groups. this will occur naturally. and we talked about it in the book. if we disseminate information about groups, they're likely ability to carry out attacks and to dial down the rhetoric. i will close with this. the approach that we have seen here in washington since 911 is counterproductive and should be aaandoned.
policy must be presented on the idea that a response to terrorism does most of the work of terrorism. carefully measured responses tonight terrorists the upper hand they seek and cannot achieve on their own. to teach counter-terrorism will deny the false perception among the groups in which the organizations an audience from which there are appealing that there are powerful. they are not. instead of overreacting to remotely possible war and possible apocalyptic scenarios, the nation should addressed real threats while existing the confidence and resilience befitting a great and powerful nation like the united states. the new world of the patients that makes information essentially available instantaneously will convey this confidence very quickly terrorists will learn that their approach cannot be successful. to the extent that we could ever said that we have truly defeated
terrorism, it will occur when we understand that terrorism cannot defeat us. thank you. [applause] jerry was very good that the cue cards. that means i have lots of time for questions. i would be happy to take questions. >> you did not mention the professor from the university of chicago. he says that the number one cause of terrorism is injecting your troops into another country. thus putting troops into saudi arabia might have had something to do with 9/11. is he right? is that the prime cause of terrorism? >> i know his work very well. he has been a participant in our discussions from the very beginning. he published a paper for several years ago. in fairness to other key to work, we have focused on this concern to win back to the late
1990's. the goal of the placement of u.s. troops on foreign soil and to the extent it can in gender terrorism. the simple fact that the evidence is almost incontrovertible that the presence of foreign troops on soil, especially of foreign troops that are perceived to be of a different culture, religion, outlook, is particularly conducive to generating support for terrorism, including transnational terrorism. not just terrorism directed at the troops themselves but directed at the country from where those troops come. i do think that he is right. it gets interesting. it gets interesting when you consider the way that people who have not lived under foreign occupation themselves do sympathize with their brethren
in some odd sense of the term. that is how you can have british citizens, born in the u.k., but whose parents came from pakistan, for example, perceived some kind of oppression by a second order effect. that is for the interesting work is being done, i think. take those initial insights and apply them to this second and third generation tide of terrorism we are seeing. other questions? that puts us back on time. thank you, very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]
>> coming up, president obama comments on the oil spill in the gulf of mexico. secretary of state clinton meets with britain's new foreign minister. sarah palin talks to a meeting of the susan b. anthony list in washington. the head of the u.s. chamber of commerce at the national press club. on tomorrow's washington journal, we will discuss the gulf oil spill with houston chronicle reporter, a look at britain's new coalition -- government and arizona cost state rep talks about her state's new immigration enforcement law. it begins live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. our public affairs content is available on television, radio,
and on-line. you can also connect on twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for our schedule alert e-mails @ c-span.org. following a cabinet meeting on the response to the gulf of mexico oil spill, president obama issued some firm words for the oil companies involved. he also vowed to end what he called a cozy relationship between oil companies and federal regulators. here is the president's remarks after that meeting. i have been meeting with my cabinet and officials about efforts to stop the bp oil spill. i want to give the american people an update on these efforts. i also want to underscore the seriousness and urgency of this crisis. the potential devastation to the gulf coast, the economy and its people, requires us to continue our relentless efforts to stop the leak and contain the damage.
there has already been a loss of life, and damage to our coastline, the fish, the wildlife, and the livelihoods of everyone from fishermen to hotel owners to restaurateurs. i have seen the frustration and anger myself, and it is an anger and frustration i share as president. i am not going to rest or be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil in the gulf is cleaned up, and the people of the gulf are able to go back to their lives and their livelihoods. the most important order of business is to stop the leak. i know there have been varying reports over the last couple of days about how large the leak is, but since no one can get down there in person, we know there is a level of uncertainty. our mobilization and response efforts have always been geared toward the possibility of a catastrophic event. what really matters is this, there is oil leaking and we need
to stop it. we need to stop as soon as possible. with that source being 5,000 ft. under the ocean's surface, this has been extremely difficult. scientists and engineering experts are working to contain it as quickly as possible. our second task is to help the people who live in the gulf coast. we are using every available resource to stop the oil from coming ashore. over 1 million ft. of barrier booms have been deployed to keep the oil back. hundreds of thousands of dispersants have been used to help break up the oil. about four million gallons of oil-free water have been recovered. 30,000 people have been mobilized to protect the shoreline and its wildlife, as has a the national guard. this week, congress presented legislation to provide us with additional resources.
i ask for prompt action on this legislation. it would help with cleanup effort, provide unemployment assistance and job training to folks whose jobs are affected by this crisis, and it would help the region's economic recovery. that is why this legislation is important. it would also help ensure that companies like bp who are responsible for oil spills are the ones who pay for the costs incurred by these oil spills, not the taxpayers. this is in addition to the low interest loans that we have made available to small businesses that are suffering financial losses from the spill. let me also say, by the way, a word about bp and the other companies involved in this mess. i know bp has committed to pay for the response, and we will hold them to their obligation. i have to say though, i did not appreciate what i considered to
be a ridiculous spectacle during the congressional hearings into this matter. the executives of bp, transocean and halliburton were falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else. the american people could not have been impressed with that display, and i certainly was not. i understand that there are legal and financial issues involved, and a full investigation will tell us what happened. but it is very clear that the system failed and it failed badly. for that, there is enough responsibility to go around, and all parties should be willing to accept it. that includes, by the way, the federal government. for too long, for a decade or more, there has been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agencies that permit them to drill. it seems as if permits were too often issued based on a little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies. that cannot and will not happen
anymore. to borrow an old phrase, we will trust, but we will verify. from the day he took office as interior secretary, ken salazar recognized these problems, and he has worked to solve them. oftentimes, he has been slammed by the industry for trying to create reforms that would impede them economically. well, as i just told him, we are going to keep on going, to do what needs to be done. i have asked secretary salazar to conduct a top to bottom reform of the mineral management services. . .
this is a responsibility that all of us share. the oil companies share it. the manufactures of this equipment share it. the agencies and the federal government in charge of oversight have that responsibility. i will not tolerate more finger pointing. the people of the gulf deserve for us to stop this spill and compensate for those who have been harmed already. it's our job to make sure this kind of mess doesn't happen again. it's a job we've been doing. it's a job we'll keep doing until the spill's cleaned up and all claims are paid. thank you very much.
>> britain's new foreign minister william haug is in washington on his first overseas trip. he met with secretary of state hillary clinton at the state department and the two of them they would joint press conference. the it's 25 minutes. >> well, good afternoon. i'm delighted to welcome secretary haug in his new position. i was pleased to host him when he was in his shadow stage some months ago. so this is not the first time that we've had the opportunity for a substantive discussion about a very broad range of important matters.
the election of a new government in the you nighted kingdom and the smooth transfer this week were two powerful symbols of the enduring democratic traditions that our two nations share. we're very intrigued by and follow closely the latest encarnation of this long democratic tradition. we're reminded again that our come mon values are the foundation of a historic alliance that really under gerds our common as per rations and common concerns. the obama administration looks forward to working with the new british government. we will continue to build on the deep and abiding trust that has existed between the british and american people for a very long time. the foreign secretary and i had a lot to talk about today. we discussed our shared mission in afghanistan. and he reaffirmed his
government's commitment to achieve long-term stabilities there. united states is deeply appreciative of the british contributions in afghanistan and we honor the sacrifices of the british service members who serve their country with such distinction yor overseas. the united states and united kingdom are firmly committed to the nato mission in afghanistan. and we support the efforts from by afghan government to build a stable and secure country. we will continue our consultations going forward. we also remain united in our assistance that iran fulfill its international onablyization and prove that its nuclear program is for peaceful operations only. >> iran has not accepted the
standing offer of the p five plus one to discussion international concerns over its nuclear program. rather iran's senior officials continue to say they will not talk about their nuclear program with us. so we are working closely with our u.k. and other partners on a new security council resolution afimpling that there are serious consequences should iran count to flout its international onablyizations and fail to comply with both iaea resolutions. our countries will continue working together to encourage all parties to resume direction negotiations. we seek a two-state solution to the israeli-palestinian conflict with the overall goal of securing peace in the middle east that requires everyone at the table.
and of course there are so many other issues that we touched on. we share a mutual interest in restoring confidence in the financial sector in europe and in the rue yo -- euro zone as well as the global economy. we will continue to work to together to restore a strong economy. i look forward to working with the foreign secretary. and it is a great pleasure for me to have this opportunity to begin what will be long, close, and at times intense consultation over the months and years ahead. >> thank you. well, it's an immense pleasure for me to be here today. i was here not so many months ago as a shadow foreign secretary and we had a very good meeting then. but it was always one of my hopes that we would work together in government. and now we do have the opportunity to do so. it's been an extraordinary week really in british politics. it's only a week since the election results were coming
in. and now we have a new government created a new way in britain. one of the things that has struck the prime minister and i are the sheer warmth of the welcome we've had from the united states, the first person to call, david cameron when he entered office was the president of the united states. and the first person to call me was secretary clinton and vice president biden has had an excellent chat with new deputy minister nick claregg. we are looking forward to exactly that relationship which the secretary of state has been describing. this new british government has some real ambition and energy and determination to rebuild our economic strength at home, which is of course, the foundation of any successful foreign policy but also to deliver a distinctive british
foreign policy abroad. and i'm aware coming into this job that the-the challenges of foreign policies are uniquely tricky. i've always had such huge admiration for secretary clinton, the leadership she's provided to the international community as secretary of state, the energy, her ideas, her advocacy of women's right, education, development and effective diplomacy are an inspiring example to other examples and would be ministers around the world. we pay tribute to that. we have had very reflective talk which reflects a very wide agenda of issues on which the united states and britain work together. we talked about afghanistan in which the prime minister has made our top priority in foreign affairs, where we will give the strategy, the nato strategy and the agreements
made of the conference, the time and support to success. we discussed the closely related situation in pakistan where we in the united states share common goals and indeed of being -- we've already started discussing ways to enhance and strengthen our corporation and the support that we do to pakistan. we discussed iran where we, of course, send a strong signal about iran's nuclear program to secure the passage of a u.n. security council resolution and the united states kingdom will there after, of course, play a key flole ensuring that there is determined action by the european union to follow-up such a resolution. we spoke about the middle east, peace process where i express my firm and full support for the president's efforts to relaunch negotiations and we as the leading member of the e.u.
can do to but tress these efforts. we'll work together on the nuclear proliferation and the progress that we've made in new york and we discussed dopments in europe. and reiterated our determination ha the european union should be a strong partner with the united states to meet the determination of the new british government to play a highly active and activist role in the european union from the very beginning. finally i want to say a few words what the president talked about it the extraordinary relationship between britain and the united states. and we're very happy to accept that description and to agree with that description. the united states is without doubt most important ally of the united kingdom. fundamentally it is a relationship rooted in a strong alignment of our national interest and the scope o our corporation is unparalleled our military, our diplomats, our
intelligent agents work hand in glove together. it's not a nostalgic relationship. it is looking to the future to combating extremism to combating poverty around the world. so i believe the u.k. and the u.s. share common priorities to an extraordinary degree. and we will continue to pursue these priorities. and what i think we can confidently say is an unbreakable alliance. and it's on that basis that i've so much enjoyed our talks today. thank you. >> madam secretary, spent a lot of time talking about afghanistan. so for give me if i talk about iraq. there's been a lot of turmoil in iraq. is the ministration concerned
about this? how deeply are you concerned? and how might it affect the timetable of the troop withdraw? >> charlie, of course, we're concerned any time there is the level of violence that we've seen and the loss of life and destruction that it has caused. but we are not worried about the ability of the iraqi people and their institutions to work together to overcome the threat that the extremists are constantly presenting them with. in fact, we also have seen signs of al-qaeda in iraq becoming much less of a threat overall. but the spate of recent bombings, you know, has certainly been heartbreaking for those who were affected. but what is heartening to us is
that the government and the people seem undetermined -- has not been a reaction that has pitted communities against each other. there has not been recriminations even in this difficult period of government formation that is ongoing. so overall, we are, you know, very convinced that iraq is certainly able to deal with these in both the military and police functions, but also equally importantly and their political structures. and we see nothing that would in any way interfere with our timetable for with drawing american troops. >> the b.b.c., you talked about
being sbreegged by this new spirit of democracy. i wondered if i could ask you two quick questions. is there any part of you worried about any possible fracture, leading to a lack of solidity in your relationship with britain in which you can rely in britain as a partner and afghanistan particularly are you concerned as many seem to be in britain that the surge simply isn't delivering fast enough and president karzai is hardly delivering at all? >> as to the first question, the answer is no. i have absolutely no concerns whatsoever. we don't formerly have a coalition government in the way that you have formed one in the u.k. now. but we have enough of our own
internal differences that we have to sort through. so i see nothing at all unusual about this new government and from our perspective it is off to a very strong start and certainly on the foreign policy front which i follow very closely, obviously, we are extremely pleased. and this meeting and discussion just confirmed our close partnership and our commitment to working together. and afghanistan is in one of those areas. i would beg to differ with the premise of the question. i think that the actions that our coalition forces the nate owe y sap force -- nato isap forces are conducting their own. we conducted our own review. and in the course of that review we made three conclusions. number one, what happened in
afghanistan was critical to america's security interests. in our own home country and beyond in the countries of our friends and allies like great britain. number two that the taliban had after having been dritch out of the afghanistan regained momentum. and that that momentum had to be broken and that it would require from the u.s. and from our allies, you know, more troops on the ground in order to achieve that objective. and i am, you know, seeing signs of that. but that thirdly, there had to be a very close civilian military partnership because you do not expect to win what is called a counter insurgency by military means alone. the military commander who is are in charge of this on our side general petraeus, on the international side general mcchrystal are taking all the
lessons that they learned from iraq and applying them in afghanistan and i think to good effect. but we also know that we have to strengthen the capacity of afghanistan. and i would add for a little bit of context here, you know, this country was so ravaged by not only war, but the most intense conflict and de pridations that destroyed some much of their infrastructure. it may seem like a long time for us in tust and the u.k. but the eight-plus years that have gone since the routing of the taliban have seen significant improvements in the lives of the people of afghanistan and the creation of a democratic government where there had been none. so are we satisfied, no.
that was the substance of our lengthy meeting with president karzai and naurm of his key minister -- number of his key ministers many of whom reported on the economy, on agriculture and education. so part of what we will be doing with our counter parts, with the foreign secretaries and others is to be working to review where we are, what more we need to do, and how we can better coordinate our efforts. i think our military efforts are very well coordinated. but on the civilian, the government side, the development side, we want to make sure that we are making the best investments and so all in all this is a big challenge. i'm not going to under sell that. but it is in our interest or we will not be there. and we are making progress and we have a very clear understanding of how much more we and the afghans also need to be doing.
>> just to add to that, i share this perspective on afghanistan. that is why i say we will give our time and support for the strategy in afghanistan to succeed. we will take stock on how we can best do that. and that includes enhancing and reinforcing the corporation between the united kingdom and the united states so we have a cleared perspective on what we're doing. on the first question of the nature of the government in britain, i think it's very important for our partners and friends around the world that what we've set out to achieve here is a particularly stable period in british politics and government. two of the three political parties in our election have come together to put the national interest ahead of the party interest. -- creating as we have done so a sizable majority in the house of commons to sustain a government over a full
five-year term. and i think there has been a strong welcome for that around the world because it does mean stability in britain to pursue the kind of objectives that we've been talking about today. and everything i've said today about our approach to relations with the united states is an approach shared by the whole cabinet and i'm speaking on behalf of a united government. >> secretary clinton, you spoke to the chinese state counselor on tuesday night. did that conversation bring you materially closer to a consensus on an iran resolution? and related it seems inevitable that the iranians will try to use this weekend's visit by president lula to try to blunt the momentum toward additional sanctions of the security council. what have you told the foreign minister of turkey?
and also what is the administration telling the brazilians to try to prevent that from happening? >> first, i did have a very lengthy and substantive conversation with the state counselor. and we covered a lot of the negotiating points that are being pursued in new york. we are making progress every day. this is a -- the highest priority, not only of the united states but of many of our partners and allies like the u.k. and we believe that the case is being made perhaps most effectively by the iranians themselves because when the united states and allies like the u.k. began pointing out starting last fall that the iranians were not responding to our offers of engagement that the offer that was made through
the iaei for the tehran reactor approach was not accepted that there had been no meeting since the meeting in geneva in october that the iranians unilaterally said they would start enriching at 20% when the undisclosed facility of gome was revealed and the iaei, every step along the way has demonstrated clearly to the world that iran is not participating in the international arena in the way that we had asked them to do and that they continue to pursue their nuclear program. so yes, we're aware of the fact that there will be a meeting in iran. i also spoke at thronthe the brazilian foreign minister. and most significantly the
interchange between president lula and president medvedev illustrated the hill that the brazilians are hoping to climb. the brazilians are hopeful that because of president's lula's meeting that they will accept the tehran research reactor proposal, that they will begin to abide by the international obligations. and in fact, president medvedev told president lulov that he didn't give him more than a 1-3 chance. so the world leadership as evidenced by the security council has moved in the same direction, some perhaps more quickly than others. but in the direction of reaffirming the authority of the security council of putting some real teeth into the sanctions of uniting the world in a way that will send an
ungive cal message to the y -- unequivocal message to the iranian counter parts. i believe we will not get any serious response from the iranians until the security council acts. >> mr. haug, i've seen several foreign secretaries under the preeve use government to grapple with the iran issue of and over -- over time. i just wondered what you might bring that might be different? and looking ahead at what point do you think we will goat that stage of some sort of military strike will be discussed? >> i'm not looking for differences with previous british ministrations. we supported the labor government working with the
united states on this subject. and so there will be a strong continuity of british policy on this matter. and i fully endorse everything that secretary clinton has just said about it. the united kingdom will work soldly along the united states to secure the security council resolution you've been speaking of. we'll play the role within the european union that i spoke of before. and we will do everything we can as a -- as a new government in britain to persuade our partners in europe that it will be necessary to show europe's determination and to take some similar steps -- many similar steps by those taken by the united states to intensify the peaceful pressure on iran. i've long advocated that the european union should adopt financial sanctions. but we'll have to get into that
after the security council has passed. there is no magic to this approach. it requires percent sys tense and determination and united strength in the international community to tackle this problem and so we will buttress that as indeed our predecessors have tried to do we are not calling it -- we've never ruled out supporting in the future military action but we're not calling for it. it is precisely because we want to see this matter settled peacefully and rapidly that we call for the sanctions that we support the idea of a security council resolution. so that is our perspective. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you. thank you all.
>> coming up next on c-span, sarah palin talks to a meeting of the susan b. anthony list in washington. the head of the u.s. chamber of commerce tom donahue. and later the space shutsle atlantis begins its final mission. >> sunday, david cameron and deputy prime minister nick klag. also remarks by gordon brown as he left number 10 downing street. sunday night at 10:00 on c-span. >> former alaska governor and vice presidential candidate sarah palin was in washington to talk to the susan b. anthony list a group that supports
anti-abortion. this is 45 minutes. >> well, wasn't that beautiful? thank you. just beautiful. well, good morning. i'm jane abraham. i'm general chairman of the susan b. anthonyist and i chair our candidates' selection committee. so good to see so many old friends and so many new friends this morning. i want to thank you for your commitment to this noblest of causes, protecting the sanctity of life. here in washington, we have a lot of issues that come and go. some come around every year during the budget fights. some come around when a crisis occurs. some come around because the press needs to fill their news cycles but fighting to protect the unborn isn't one of those issues. we don't just fight for life on mondays. or every march, or when the
cameras are on, or when we have a little extra time on our hands. ours is a 24/7 mission and it is the cause we will fight for every day, every hour, every minute until ery baby in our great country comes to term and enjoys god's blessings of life withou the threat that some abortionist will terminate that life prior to birth. [ applause ] and that's what we're here for. and that mission is one we will all embrace until it's accomplished. well, the susan b. anthony list exists to help elect pro-life officials to office. we ses erbilly spry to support pro-life women because there simply aren't enough in federal office that are pro-life. we strongly believe that our cause is strengthened when a pro-life woman stands up against
barbara boxer or nancy pelosi or emily's list and goes toe to toe with them on this issue and thank you, michele bachmann and all our other pro-life elected officials for your advocacy o our cause. when we began, there weren't many, but we had hopes and dreams. the dream to ad more pro-fe women to the house, a dream we accomplished. the dream to elect a pro-life woman to the senate, a dream we accomplished with the election of elizabeth dole, and this year we're going to go a lot further. we're going to elect a pro-life woman from colorado to the u.s. senate. [ applause ] we're going to elect a pro-life woman from nevada to replace harry reid. [ applause ] and, ladies and gentlemen, we're
going to elect a pro-life woman from california to replace barbara boxer. and we have another dream. one that seemed a lit unrealistic that one day we'd see a pro-life woman running on a national ticket for president or vice president of the united states, and thanks to our guest speaker today that far-fetched dream became a reality in 2008. [ applause ] when sarah palin was nominated for vice president, we were overwhelmed with excitement from our members. within weeks, we had 77,000 new recruits who joined our team sarah project to work to help elect senator mccain and governor palin. most importantly, we had a champion on the national stage whose passion for and commitment to our cause of life gave
incredible momentum to this cause. what makes governor palin so important to the cause of life and to so many other issues is her character and courage. the mainstream media and the left have taken their best shots month after month to bring her down. no attack was too cheap. no topic too personal, no family member too young or vulnerable to be spared. had any of these assaults been leveled ainst the average politician, they would have buckled. some would have begun trimming and hedging and compromising their positions, but not sarah palin. others especially those on the left would have cried foul and had the eire mainstream media demanding apologies calling for resignations threatening sponsors of cable news networks or whatever else it it took to stop the onslaught. but not sarah palin.
sarah palin is not the typical politician. she is a woman of courage and character. she took all their attacks and never changed her views on an issue. instead, she stood up to her adversaries and said, bring it on. governor sarah palin more than any single figure on the national stage today has proven what toughness and conviction is all about. toughness and conviction is not pushing through an unpopular health care bill that will fund abortions with all the money to interest groups and national press corps on on your side. toughness and conviction is not spenng our grandchildren's gacy to bankroll favored industries and friends with government handouts in the name of economic growth. toughness and conviction is not launching round after round of talks and negotiations when adversaries are building nuclear arsenals designed to threaten america's security.
toughness and conviction is withstanding the unrelenting attacks of the mainstream mea, the left wing interest groups, the late night comics, the democrat establishment and the president of the united states and holding one's ground. continuing to fight for one's principles and not backing down one inch. and that is what sarah palin has done in the battle for life and the battle to protect the economic and national security of the united states of america. [ applause ] and that's why so many americans love sarah palin. and we in the pro-life community especially admire sarah palin. we do so because of her unequivocal commitment to o-life policies. we do so because of her willingness to help pro-life causes across america, and we do so because she has shown in her own experience that every human
life is beautiful and special and deserving of the protection that we are fighting to provide. over the next few years the future of the pro-life movement will be deeply shaped by who wins and who loses some those campaigns will determine who sits in the white house, who controls congress and most importantly who fills the swing votes on the supreme court. for us to prevail it is essential we have the support and manpower to wage the kind of aggressive campaign needed to overcome the advantages the prabortion side enjoys. and thks to the help of sarah palin today, we will have more of those resources and support as we go forward. one final point, as many of you know my husband and i have been in the political arena for 30 years fighting for life and other issues of importance to us. we know more than most what it's like to be part of these battles and what it means to families and friendships and futures.
and i just want to finish my inrowduction today by thanking governor palin and her family for being willing to do what they have done for these causes we care so much about. you have given all of us more courage to keep fighting. you have set an incredible example for people like my twin 16-year-old daughters who need to see strong role models like you fight for what is right. and you have proven tt in a profession that is all too often judged by who is up and who's done, not who's right and who's wrong there remains a place for people of faith and fortitude to stand tall andead america in the right direction. and we know you will keep leading these efforts as we enter this crucial point in america's experience. for all of this, i just want to offer my sincerest thanks to you, governor palin, thanks for what you've done. thank you for being here to help
us today and thank you for what i know will be your unrelenting commitment to the struggle ahead. and now, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming our guest speaker, governor sarah palin. [ applause ] >> thank you so much. thank you very much. thank you, sisters. thank you. it is great to be here and i appreciate that warm welcome. thank you. thank you. oh, thank you. god bless you. oh, i appreciate so much that warm welcome. thank you all. it is great to be here. good morning, sisters and i see some brothers out there too. glad you made it.
first i'd like to thank jane and marjorie for their wonderful work and for their boldness, their courage, they're not backing down when they take at. sometimes i know if my name is associated with something, you take a little bit of extra heat. i appreciate so much that you taket anyway and thank you, emily, buchanan, fo all of your hard work with this organization and marie, the most beautiful song, that was gorgeous. thank you so much for your talent sharing that. and then the founders and the members of team sarah who are here, i can't tell you how much i appreciate you and i would ask that you would stand up so that i can put some faces out there to names and i thank you so much. [ applause ] thank you. woo, talk about courage and boldness, you all. thank you for the great work you did in '08 during the campaign and since then even continuing to support and advate for good commonsenseolutions and helping me get the message out
there. i appreciate you so much. you know what i would always like to do when i'm in any kind of gup is acknowledge those who allow us to be here free and secure, the members of our united states military. i know we have a lot of spouses of military members and moms of military members and daughters too. those of you who are serving today in uniform or perhaps have served in the past, our veteran, you are who we want to thank and salute and i would ask that members of our military past or present would stand up. we will thankyou, salute you and say god bless you. [ applause ] thank you. thank you. america's finest. our men and women in uniform who are a force for good throughout the world and there is nothing to apologize for that. god bless you, veterans. thank you. and we do have these good candidates. i thoughhis they have been
listed today, robin smith a pam bondi and jane norton and kel i aot. so happy you're here and putting it on the line. i thank you for the courage you're showing in running for office. this afternoon, i'll be with nikki haley in south carolina doing an endorsement there and, of course, carly fiorina, it was, you know, the credibility there that sba allows a candidate to have knowing that, oh, okay, i'm safe, they're endorsing carly fiorina. you all have endorsed her. you all get it. you understand that they're in deep blue california. anyone who i running f office bold enough to declare their pro-life stance, they're pro-nra and pro-business and anti-big government principles that they stand on here she proudly
proclaiming that yet some wanting too accuse her of being a rhino. no, no, no, they're in the deep blue california. if she's unabashedly pro-life and all those other commonsense conservative things she stands for, she's the real deal and i appreciate you too being bold enough and strong enough to take a stand in that race and take a stand in so many races across the country. i'm especially glad to be celebrating life. it's an honor to speak in a building named after one of my heroes and one of your, ronald reagan. this is an honor. president reagan was always so supportive of women leadership. in fact, he often liked to tell a story about his good friend and another hero, margaret thatcher. he first met her before she became prime minister and it was
a trip he took to england while governor of cale. reagan loved to tell a story about that trip. apparently he wa the guest at a reception hosted by members of the british conservative party. and reagan's own words, he said, lord, somebody or other come over to him and asked, well, what do you think of our mrs. thatcher and reagan said, i think she'd make a magnificent prime minister and the british lord said, oh, my dear fellow, a woman prime minister? and reagan replied, well, you had a queen named victoria who did pretty well. and, of course, reagan was right about what a magnificent prime minister margaret thatcher was and i admire the fact that mrs. thatcher never set out to be a woman prime minister, just a prime minister and one of the greatest ever to have served perhaps because she was a woman of action. thatcher liked to say in politics, you want something said, ask a man.
you want something done, ask a woman. that was her quote. so, folks, i 2010 we'll remember this year because we're going to accomplish a lot together this year. this year will be remembered as a year when commonsense conservative women get things done forur country. [ applause ] all across this country women are standing up and speaking out for commonsense solutions and many of them are grassots activists leading like the tea party movement which i'm excited about because it's a beautiful movement. it's a movement of the people. these women are getting involved because they want a better future for their kids. pore all of our kids and these policies coming out of d.c. right now, this fundamental transformation of america that we were warned about in the campaign, well, a lot of women who are very concerned about their kids' future saying we
don't like this fundamental tra transformation of america. this road we're on towards national insolvency. we being beholden to foreign cotries in so many respects now. we bei under the thumb of big government with more of a disrespect for life, for the sapt hit of life. we don't lik that transformation and to me it seems like it's kind of a mom awakening in the last year and a and we will put our efforts into these midterm elections to turn things around and put government back on our side to respect the will of the people, not allowing government to make us work for it but for our government to again work for us. the policies coming out of the d.c. are allowing us to feel
empowered, allowing us to rise up together because mothers just know when something is wrong. that is a mother's intuition thing, i think. we are not afraid to roll up our sleeves and get to work and get the job done and set things straight. part of the fight has to do with the grass-roots movement that is full of tea party americans, those who are saying enough is enough. d me about the tea party movement is how the media has reacted to the people who are involved in -- just want their voice heard and saying, no, government, you're overreaching. you need to abide by our constitution and you have limited powers, federal govement, and we're going to kind of explain to you and remind you what the constitution is all about. that's what the tea party movement is all about. so they're the media and they crack me up because the embed
themselves in the tea party rallies and they try to figure out just who are these creatures who are a part of this, these moms, these grandmas, these teens and college students, these doctors and daughtlawyers such. both genders. people of all races being a part of this movement and, yet, the media has tried but i think they've failed because americans are smartnough to start holding the media accountable, but people there in the media trying to portray tea party americans as racists and violent and all those things that they are not, that we are not. just average every day hard-working patriotic liberty-loving americans who again have said, that's enough, federal government. that's enough of your overreach and we're going to do something about it. now, it's been clever too being a part of these tea party rallies, seeing some of the signs in the aurd jens and some of your signs today too. you can learn a whole lot about
what the sentiment is out there the american public just by reading the signs and in some of these movements. i think one of my favorite was a mom carry agent sign saying "my kid is not your atm." i do like that billboard too, though. that billboard that the college ki have up that was just recently unveiled, it says "mr. president, i need a frickin job, period. that was a good one i buffalo. oh, of course, i always like seeing though too the sign of the billboard george bush saying, miss me yet? i love that one. we do because when washington goes on a spending spree and starts borrowing money to take over and bail out insurance companies and financial institutions and the banks, the automakers and keeps spending
endlessly and running up dangerously unsustainable debt and deficits and expected our kids and grandkids will p the bills for us for our overspending today, i think at's immoral. it's unethical, it's not right and i think that all of us agree on that and when that happens, i think a whole lot of moms who are concerned about government handing our kids the bill, this generational theft too we're stealing opportunities from the future of america, we rise up and moms say, come on now, that's enough. that is enough. and we're going to do something about this. and washington, let me tell you, you no doubt don't want to mess with moms who are rising up, they're in alaska i always think of the mama grizzly bears that ride up on their hind legs when somebody is a coming to attack their cub, to do something adverse to their cub, no, the momma grizzlies rear up. if you thought pit bulls were tough, you don't want to mess with the mama grizzlies.
i think already a whole lot of those in this room. [ applause ] >> that's why we're seeing with all these women banding together rising up saying, no, this isn't right forrous kids and for our grandkids. and women leading the grassroots people's movement, many of the tea party leaders, most of them are women. so some commonsense constitutional conservative women taking to the streets right now, organizing on that grassroots level. this is so good for our republic. it's so good fora republic within a democracy to have this -- have this rising up, this awakening, it's very, vy healthy for o republic. others are putting it all on the line, as i say, running for office, being so bold and those who are endorsed and nurtured by theusan b. anthony list, we so appreciate you. when i see how many great women candidates are running, kind of reminds me of that campaign button that we had in 2008. it showed a pink gop elephant on
it and it said "it's a girl." maybe that was a single girl reference then but this year look out, washington, because there's a whole stampede of pink elephants crossing the line and the eta stampeding through, the eta is november 2nd, 2010. [ applause ] a lot of women coming together to take that countryack. organizations like the susan b. anthony list are leading the charge too thankfully. you play such a crucial and unique role in the pro-family, pro-woman, pro-life movement because you support pro-life women candidates. and that is a group that must contin to grow in numbers. you sponsor candidates who will not vote present on those issues of life, and your support for the culture of life, you know that it's not above anybody's pay grade.
we proudly stand up and we speak out for those most in need of our protection. those most vulnerable. and we're not shy about doing so. and being a pro-life politicia is more than just a convenient title come election time. it means making tough decisions, even if that means bucking your party once in a while on these issues of life. even if it means standing up against that machine that's running a party. the susan b. anthony list was fron and center duringhe obama care debate and we were also grateful for your leadership in typing the private funning in the bill during the obama care debate. we were saddened to see so many so-called pro-life democrats cave on the issue though but we're not discouraged. far from being discouraged we need to be energized. we need to be really fired up and not be demoralized but get organized. elections have consequences. and we've seen some of the man
necessarytations of that already in the recent elections and in me of the recent pollse've seen the consequences of those who said that they were something, get into office, cast their votes and prove that they're something else. we won't forget those who promised to hold firm against government funding of abortion. but caved at the last minute i exchange for a nonbinding executive order promised by the most pro-abortion president to ever occupy the white house. we will not forget. we won't forget and come november our new pro-life, pro-woman majority will actually be pro-life when it cnts when those votes are needed. [ applause ] but your work is more than just keys, sba. you act as a represent sensation of all feminists.
organizations like the susan b. anthony list are returning the woman's movement back to its original roots, back to what it was all about in the beginning. you remind us that the earliest leaders of the woman's rights movements, they were pro-life. women like your nameke and like elizabeth katie stanton, sarah norton and alice paul, who of course was the author of the original equal rights amendment back in 1923 who said abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women. today, polling shows that more young women agee with these feminist foremothers than ever before and believe in that culture of life. empowering women by offering them a real choice. in fact, a gallup poll showed for the first time in 14 years there are more americans proudly proclaiming themselves as pro-life understanding the sanctity of life than ever before. the majority of amerins and that's a huge victory -- [ applause ]
today they're telling them they're strong enough and capable enough to handle an unintended pregnancy and sti be able in less than ideal circumstances no doubt but still be able to handle that give their child life, in addition to puuing career and pursuing education, psuing avocations. though society wants to tell these young women otherwise. even these feminist groups want to try to tell women, send this message that, no, you're not capable of doing both. you can't give yourhild life an still pursu career or education. you're not strong muff. you're not capable so that's very, very hypocritical of some of those pro-life groups -- i mean pro-women rights groups out there who would claim such a thing and that's as opposed again to susan b. anthony list, another pro-life women's group
saying no, no, women, you are strong muff and if motherhood isn't an option, raising that child after you allow it life, well, then adoption is a beautiful choice and we need to pursue more opportunity in that arena. [ applause ] so even in less than ideal circumstances, these pro-life groups are empowering women, letting them understand that, yeah, there's goingo be some help and some support and resources out there for you in order to give your child life. and i understand those challenges in less than ideal circumstances. i've been there. you know, i had never ordered up, planned on being the pom of a son with special needs, you know, i thought, ooh, you know, god will never give me something that i can't handle and when i found out at about 12 weeks along through an ultrasound that my baby would be born with down syndrome, i thought immediately,
okay, god, remember, you promised this, you will never give us anything that we can't handle. i don't think i can handle th. this wasn't part of my life's plan. i had no idea how i was going to handle the situation in raising a special needs child as a very busy governor, busy with four other kids, husband away quite often, commercial fishinging and up on the north slopen the oil fields working there and just, you know, the circumstances not -- and not knowing if my heart was ready, n knowing if i was patient and nir turing enough. my sister has a child with autism and we've always said, see, god knew what he was doing, the autistic child would be for heather my sister heather because she is the more nurturing one. she'd be able to handle this but when trig was born then, i understood then that, no, god knows what he's doing and what seemed like -- what would be such a challenge has turned into
our greatest blessing. and i believe that one of the whispers in my ear during -- after that ultra sound and the weeks of the pregnancy, the months of the pregnancy was, god kind of whispering in my ear saying, are you going to trust me? and, are you going to walk the walk or are you just going to talk the talk? and he so prepared my heart though i didn't know preparation was even being done in our family and in my heart but the minute that trig was born and they lay him in my arms and he just kind of mted right on into my chest and looks up at me and it was just like he is saying, see, god knows what he's dog and this is going to be good and, mom, he gave me to you and he gave you to me and this is going to be -- this is going to be a wonderful journey and truly god is so overwhelming us with joy and the recognition of his perfection, trig's perfection has been nothing but blessing and i so want to help
other women who are in that situation thinking these are less than ideal circumstances. what am i going to do about this? maybe i can change those circumstances? maybe this can all just go away and we'll pretend it never happened. i want to encourage these women, oh, my goodness, give this life a chance. you will be blown away, overwhelmed. yo life will so change for the better in allowing the life of someone even with special needs, especially someone with special needs. todd and i know know in our family trig will teach us more than we'll ever be able to teach him. he allows such awesome perspective on what really matters and i think too in ts political arena is, oh, all the stuff on the periphery that just wastes time, doesn't matter. they don't amount to a hill of beans. trade is in our life showing us the golden heart that god would
want us to embrace and emulate. he has been the best thing that has ever happened to me and to my family. [applause] thank-you. thank you very much. let me share quickly that my son does well that the rest of us can learn from. and loved challenges his entire life, probably greater challenges than the rest of us. trig, you can already see this sort of perspective in this child that i think the rest of us are supposed to understand
and emula too. trig in the morning he'll wake up, he's 2 years old now. he pulls himself up to the top of the crib there, he looks around and rubs his sleepy little eyes and even though the day is going to be challenging, he starts applauding, first thing in the morning. leeing around clapping like, woo-hoo. what are you going to do now? i'm like, man, shouldn't we all -- shouldn't we all? that's what we're learning from our boy. but my daughter bristol too. she didn't expect to become pregnant at 17 and those were less than ideal circumstces. there bristol having to endure some public humiliation. it was an embarrassing time for her and bless her heart. they are out on the national stage and she and the rest of the family saying this wasn't supposed to happen. no, you don't -- you don't think that it will happen in your own
family and bristol though being so strong and independent and knowing what choosing life was the right road, the right choice, she knew it wouldn't be easy and it hasn't been easy, and society, culture sure hasn't made itasy on her, and her message now being, hey, other teenage girls, don't do what i did. this is not easy. you know, it was a premature ending of her adolescence and it was -- you kn, the beginning of a whole new life, absolutely living now for someone else. she is livingor her son. but, wow, our culture and the media has made it rough on her and they're kind of sending a message i think to other girls that, hey, it probably would be easier if you just abort your child and not haveo go through what bristol is going thrgh but bristol too is saying, no, these are less than idea circumstances, her message now is don't do what i did. abstinence is the only 100%
foolproof way, of course, of preventing pregnancy. she though is getting clobbered for that message and she's kind of new to all of thisoo obviously and she's like, why would i get clobbered out there in our society for using myself as a lesson is what she's saying and just, you know, warning other teenagers i think the phrase s uses is pause before you play, which is that's good for them too. but bristol knowing too that it was the right choice and she now seen and the rest of us seeing that there again what seemed like life's greatest challenge and an impossible situation to get through right out of the chute when you hear the news, no, her baby having turned into such an awesome blessing and we here at the -- a year and a half later looking at this child saying what would our life be
like if he were not here in our life? again, not an easy road for bristol, not an easy road, but the right road andim very prouof her decision. it's important to know that i am and always have been unapoletically pro-life so when i talk about trig and i talk to other groups about what kind of went through my mind and the feelings that i had when the doctor was telling me about what could be the results of the tests with the down syndrome tests and all that, i have to be really careful in how i explain my feelings, because some people say, oh, you know, she considered abortion or she, you know, how can that validate her pro-life position and i say, no, what bristol and i both have been through has not changed that belief, but it has changed my perspective on the whole situation. our experiences gave me tremendous empathy for the woman who does find herself in less than ideal circumstances. i now understand why a woman
would be tempted perhaps to think that, well, it might just be an easier way out to try to chge the circumstances, to take the situation in my own hands and change this. i understand what goes through other mind even for a brief moment a split second because what i've been lew but what my family experienced through the last few years reaffirmed and strengthened my unweavering support for life at every stage and choosing life may not be the easiest path but it's always e right path. [ applause ] and i've had that conrmation. the timing of the circumstances may not be perfect, but god sees a way where he cannot and doesn'make mistakes so bristol and i both putting that faith in that belief and learning what are life's greatest challenges turn out to be life's greatest blessings and though it took me time to get my arms around being
the mom of a special needs child, as i say, the moment that trig was born, it was truly the happiest moment of my life and things came together for me then. it was life-changing and truly teaching us more than we'll ever be able to teach him so i think the sba list for allowing women to receive that message about the sanctity of life, about giving life a chance and being a pro-life, pro-woman organization that has thi growing voice because more and more americans are looking to the sba. they're looking to see who it is you endorse. they're looking to see what the message is coming from the a because there's a craving, there's yearning out there in our society out there in a culture for truth. and for people who are those with that stiff spine and won't shy away from talking about the issues that some want to kind of consider off base or too controversial or too politically
correct and don't want to engage in the conversation about the sanctity of life sba is bold enough, courageous enough to empower other women to have the stiff spine and awk about those other issues and i think the list too for being a home to a mu conservative feminist movement is how i look at this. it's an emerging conservative feminist identity. far too long when people heard the word feminist they thought of the faculty lounge at some east coast women's college, right? and no offense to them, they have their opinions and their voice and god bless them. they're just great, but that's not the only voice of men in america. i'd like to remind people of another feminist tradition. kind of a western feminism. it's influenced by the pioneering spirit of our pr formothers who went in wagon trains across the wilderness and theyettled in homesteads and these were tough, independent,
pioneeng mothers whose work was as valuable as any man's on the frontier and it's no surprise that our western states that gave women the vote, the right to vote way before their east coast sisters in a more general till city perhaps got it right. these women had dirt under their fingernails and could shoot a gun and push a plow and raise a family all athe same time. these women are frontier foremothers, they loved this country and they made sacrifices to carve out a living and a family life out of the wilderness. they went where no woman had gone before. i kind of feel a connection to that tough gun-toting pioneer feminism of women like annie oakley and them. [ applause ] maybe it's that i'm bringing in alaskamaybe too it's because later on today i do a speech for the nra and again in the group, yeah. i'm proud to call myself a western conservative in the
tradition of ronald reagan. ronald reagan -- [ applause ] -- understanding those western values too. those small town values and as an alaskan woman i'm proud to considered myself a frontier fp nis like the early women of the west. now, maybe my jumping on a national stage was a bit of a shock to some people. some people may not have considered what an independent pioneering spirit -- how i was brought up with, what that could look like. maybe there was a lot of shock out there jumping on that national stage, but i know that some left wing feminists, they sure didn't know what to make of an alaskan chick out there talking about the second amendment and talking about raising family and kids, the more the merrier and, you know, well, some of them even refused to admit i was even a woman, geez. that's one of the reasons why i'm s grateful for the support of this organization.
oh, my goodness. the rd work, the graciousness. even the diplomacy, how you're able to engage in the issues, in the debate with healthy debate, so diplomatically, so professionally with so much wisdom and intelligence and, again, with grace. i' grateful to have a place like this full of sisters who are not put off by a gun-toting pro-life mom of a fun, full family, never dull and i so appreciate the support that you all have shown. so our work together, together with susan b. anthony is to grow and expand this organization so that it too will be a foundation in our work to build a culture of life because america's going to be an even more exceptional place as that culture of life is embraced and as we make manifests the efforts in our intentions and our commitmt to
kind of open the eyes of others to let them see that importance of protecting life, really it all comes down to life and how we're going to take a stand on protecting innocent life and deciding, you know, that nobody is beneath the protection of our laws. a better america in this most exceptional country still we're going to be able to do it better. 're going to be even more exceptional with that culture of life being ushered in. it too must be a foundation for a new revival of that original feminism of susan b. anthony. together we're showing young women that being pro-life is in keeping with the best traditions of the woman's movement and this year the susan b. anthony list and its great women candidates are going to prove margaret thatcher right. if you want something done, ask a woman. we'r getting the job do, sisters, one life, one activist,
with governor palin, do not let it end here. let's keep moving together until election day and beyond. god bless you and get to work. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] c[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tomorrow, we will discuss the gulf oil spill. a look at the new coalition government in britain. also, we are joined by a
representative from arizona discussing the state's new immigration law. >> in "the relentless revolution," capitalism is described as a cultural system not just an economic one. >> now, the chairman of the u.s. chamber of commerce talked about the global economy and world trade at the national press club in washington. this is an hour. >> good afternoon.
on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome and attendees which include tested are speaker as well as working journalists. after the speech concludes, i will ask as many questions as time permits. i would now like to introduce our head table guests. a student of politics at american university. the director of the u.s. chamber's ruth's. the senior business editor for national public radio. the vice president of
international affairs for the u.s. chamber of commerce and. turning over the podium, we have andrew snyder, the associate editor of the speaker's committee. the managing editor of the americas for bloomberg news. the president of the trade partnership and a guest of our speaker. a reporter with the fiscal times. reporter in the washington bureau of "the wall street journal." thank you. [applause] for the past 75 years, the u.s. chamber of commerce has occupied one of the most enviable physical locations. the sight of what was once the
home of daniel webster, the chamber's headquarters stands right across from the white house. no president can look out his front window without it by demanding his attention. the relationship with these papers might be described as < harmonious. president obama and the chamber have clashed often but they have found common ground on the capacity of jobs. both speeches called for the doubling of u.s. exports in the last five -- net five years which is a bold target. factoring out inflation, the last time expanded that quickly is world war ii. no one has ever accused our current president of lacking vision.
the chamber was suffering badly from defections in the aftermath of its partial support of the clinton health-care plan. today, the chamber can once again claim the mantle of the it world's largest federation. please welcome, tom donahue. >> thank you very much. i am very pleased to be here. a special and to all of our friend that were able to join us.
the greatest priority is to get jobs. we have lost roughly 8 million jobs in the last two years. by the u.s. chamber's estimate, we need to create 20 million jobs and the next decade to replace those lost during the recession and to keep up with a growing population. we have created 145,000 jobs per month on average this year, this is not near enough. under these circumstances, this is the perfect time to point out that expanding american exports makes more sense than ever. unlike past recoveries, we cannot simply rely on domestic consumption. american consumers are tapped out in some ways and the u.s. government is maxed out. if domestic demand is weak and
the ability to stabilize the economy minimalize is, who will buy our products and services? 95% of the world's consumers, and the of its economic growth reside outside of the nine states. -- said the united states. there was a national goals set of doubling u.s. exports in the next five years and then doubling them again. if we succeed, this would put us well along the way to creating those 20 million jobs. we were pleased that this was echoed in the state of the union message.
countries all over the world continue to raise tensions must barriers. they do this to keep their markets closed. this happens in every recession. here at home here at home, a u.s. trade policies seems stuck in a state of ssspended animation. it has been a lot of great talk but precious little action. what does all this mean as we attempt to assess the state of the world trade system today? on one hand, there is plenty of trading today. after a sharp decline during the financial crisis, global commerce is now recovering. yet, that is only part of the picture. the rest of the picture is not so attractive.
in fact, if i had to describe the state of the world trade today, i would do so in two words. missed opportunities. missed opportunities to create new jobs, to lift millions out of poverty, to raise the global standard of living and to bring people and nations closer together. the good news is we have the capacity to recapture these opportunities and unleash a new wave of growth, progress, and prosperity here in home and across the globe. we must begin with the reality that global markets are not as open to american products and services as we are to theirs. the playing field is not level. in fact, since the financial crisis, the playing field has become even more unlevel. we are aware that the wto has
found that new protectionist measures enacted since the financial crisis, began to cover just 1% of the world's merchandise trade. it has done little to gauge the impact of the behind the border measures that countries around the world are deploying at an alarming rate. there are the visible obstructions to trade and the quiet, hidden ones. at the forefront of concern is the resurgent of -- resurgence of state-owned enterprises which are bestowed with preferential treatment that puts foreign enterprises at a disadvantage. china is using industrial policies and an array of regulatory tools to foster a national champions and to promote the transfer of technology and innovative capacity to their country. the case in point. china's so-called indigenous
innovation strategy. i will be going to china next week. to meet with the leaders and address are growing concerns of our members on issues ranging from innovation, procurement, i.t., and currency. looking beyond china, india, brazil, korea, and other emerging and developing markets also need to play by the same rules that we play by. they should take steps to further open their markets. india, for example, from which i came back a couple of weeks ago, needs to open its markets to services, retail, insurance. japan post, a government owned enterprise that supplies of insurance and banking and supplies delivery services has
unfair advantages over its private competitors. nearly 90% of the oil production are in countries where production it is dominated by state monopolies. how did brazil respond to its new large offshore oil finds? my lane plans for a new state owned company to control it all. -- by laying plans for a new state owned company. some are using policies to protect domestic producers and keep competitors out are not playing according to the rules. there's also an ongoing assault against intellectual property around the world. in addition to criminal enterprises, i.t. is under threat by some governments that promote the view that rights are
an obstacle rather than a catalyst to economic development and growth. the u.s. must continue to work with like-minded nations to raise standards for the protection of i.t. by concluding a robust and comprehensive anti counterfeiting trade agreement this year. this array of obstacles facing american exporters and investors abroad raises a critical question, how should we as a nation and as a business community responds? let me begin to answer by first stating how we must not response. we must not respond by closing our own markets, there is too much at stake and it will not work. even with all of the obstacles that the u.s. has, we are the largest exporter of goods and services.
measures are therefore much more likely to destroy jobs than to create them. american workers are also paying a high price for the u.s. failure to open our highways to save mexican trucks. -- safe mexican trucks. they have imposed and billions of dollars in -- they have imposed billions of dollars in retaliatory tariffs, costing united states an estimated 25,000 jobs. there are other proposals and policies in our own country that throw sand in the gears of commerce and destroy the u.s. competitive advantage. we have an uncompetitive corporate tax system. yet we keep hearing about some new punitive tax proposal that would put the industries at a disadvantage globally. banks, insurers, energy companies, firms that defer interest on taxes abroad. bigger target and pick your poison. furthermore, our immigration and visa policies are plainly broken, a complex and emotional subject that requires a whole other speech. i would like to come back and do that someday. there are suggestions that we should lashed out at the wrongs and others with high tariffs -- lash out at the wrongs of others
with high tariffs. i fail to see how that will help families or create new jobs. these measures will do nothing to expand our own sales abroad. we're smarter, boulder, and more -- we need a smarter, boulder, and more comprehensive approach -- bolder, and more comprehensive approach. we need to seize the bull market place -- the global marketplace. it was built on the ratification and negotiant of trade and investment agreements across the globe -- and negotiation of trade and investment agreements across the globe. we do not have such an agenda today. the reason is clear and indefensible. organized labor spent in excess of $400 million in the last
election to help elect the current administration and the congressional majority. for reasons that defy logic or common sense, they vehemently opposed the very policies that could create millions of new jobs for american or purse, many of them unionized -- for american workers but, many of them unionize. america is being locked out and left behind. according to one survey, there are 260 to free trade agreements enforced around the globe today, but the united states, the largest economy in the world, has just 11 of those agreements covering 17 countries. america is a party to only one of broad agreement. we're far behind in the race to enact bilateral investment treaties. the unions do not like these
either. it is inexcusable for congress and the administration to sit on three excellent free trade agreements with colombia, panama, and south korea. they released a study which warned that the u.s. could suffer a net loss of more than 380 billion dr. leonard 80,000 jobs and $40 billion in lost -- 380 billion -- 80,000 jobs and $40 billion if we failed. the scenario is already unfolding. the e.u. will sign its fta with colombia. the canadian parliament will give final approval to an fta next month.
canada and panama are signing a new free-trade agreement today. let us be clear. what does all this mean? it means that the eu and canada will be able to sell their products in those markets at a much better price. we will lose market share and jobs. simple as a-b-c. but that is not all. the south korean pact has the potential to be a model for others in the region, which now accounts for half of the global economy. we are talking about the future.
there is -- there are the people of colombia. they're good friends and regional allies, who have stood up to the drug laws, -- drug lords, and reclaim their country. that united states gives them the back of their hand is unconscionable. i hope those who oppose these market openings and jobs- creating agreements will listen closely for the results of the new study we commissioned and are releasing today. we looked at the fta's implemented over the past 25 years in 14 countries. here's what we found. they created 5.4 billion american jobs. the overall trade relationship with those countries supports a grand total of 17.7 million american jobs. i defy anyone in this town to name another budget neutral, a government initiative that has generated anything like this number of jobs. what about the trade deficit?
trade skeptics site the trade deficit as the reason not to negotiate fta's. taken as a group, the united states is running a trade surplus in manufacturing goods with our fta partners. that is on top of our global trade surplus in services and agricultural products. let me and under -- let me underscore a critical point. we will not only lose out on new jobs, we will lose existing jobs as well. how can congress and the unions, thinking about the members represent, sit by and allow this to happen? bilateral trade and investment agreements are critical. we must take other vital steps
along the way. we must not give up on doha, a global agreement, no matter how many obituaries are written about it, a global pact covering goods, agriculture, and services, is essential to the opening of markets and leveling of the playing field for the united states. regional pacts also hold promise, especially a trans- pacific partnership agreement and other arrangements designed to expand our presence in the world's fastest-growing region. we need to enforce our existing trade and investment agreements. they're not worth the paper they're written on if we do not act to enforce them. let's work with allies around the globe to combat economic nationalism.
we must resist economic isolationism. the year to comply with our own principles or obligations -- failure to comply with our own principles or obligations endangers american jobs and undercuts our effortt to open markets around the world. we need to modernize the u.s. export control system. at this point, i want to give the administration an important credit. we know they are reviewing this matter and crafting a proposal. we like what we have heard so far. we look forward to progress in the future. we need to do a better job of promoting exports. more than 280,000 u.s. small and medium-sized companies export, accounting for nearly 1/story of all u.s. merchandise exports. -- 1/3 of all u.s. merchandise exports. we need to change the number of people who do not export. we need to get our own house in order. to compete globally, fiscal discipline is critical. run away, entitlements spending
might be the biggest challenge we face -- domestic or national. our country is at the top of the list. port education systems, inadequate infrastructure -- ineffectual education system's going to -- we're working to forge positive solutions to these problems. let me conclude and do so where i began. we assessed the state of world trade. there is a lot going on around the world all the time. it is growing. it has got to keep growing. we need to be part of it. policymakers at home and abroad can act to celebrate this growth -- to accelerate this growth or stand in its way, meaning fewer jobs, less prosperity, and missed opportunity. the global business community
could be doing a lot more to create jobs, to lift people out of poverty, to raise the standard of living, and to bring greater understanding and stability. if only our government and political leaders would let us do so. leaders from beijing to brussels, to new delhi, to washington, they must raise the banner. they must foster a positive environment in which capital goods, services, and people, with all appropriate ground rules and safeguards, can flow freely across the globe. leaders in the business community and the labor movement have responsibilities as well. businesses must refrain from running the government to seek unfair competitive images in the global, competitive marketplace. union leaders must accept that their members' livelihoods rely on the growth of world trade and can no longer be allowed to dictate our global trade and commercial policy. those of us who believe in free
enterprise and free trade have a responsibility, too. we must do a far better job of explaining the benefits of open markets, while not glossing over the distractions -- destruction that affects some communities. make no mistake, we have to do something. we must devise ways to support effective programs to help people who are disenfranchised. that is no excuse to turn our backs on trade expansion and the new jobs and opportunities it can provide across the country. friends and allies abroad are starting to wonder and worry and ask, where is the united states when it comes to a bold and visionary trade policy? we understand the political pressure facing the administration and congressional leaders. understanding does not mean we
should accept it. jobs are at stake. competitiveness is at stake. our role in image in the world is at stake. waiting until after the next election is neither possible -- plausible more defensible. there is always another election. the business community and our current national leaders clearly differ on some issues. i am here to say that bold and positive action to move the nation's trade agenda forward would receive the enthusiastic support and praise from the chamber and the american business community. not only would we support it, we would praise when it appeared we or our hearts out across the country to move it forward. the world economy is clearly
not what it was 50 years ago, 20 years ago, or 10 years ago. it is time that we embrace the future. we have the best products. we have the best service. we have the most innovation. we have the best workers and the best companies in the world. we have more and tougher competition than we have ever faced before. with been sitting on the sidelines for too long. -- we have been sitting on the sidelines for too long. it is time to get back in the game. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much for your time. we have many questions to ask you this afternoon. they're related to current events. i do not know if there is a day when we could not say that. there are so many business issues happening in the world 24/7.
one of the big issues right now is the euro and agreed debt crisis and the impact that could have on u.s. exports. european union continues to live much of the world in recovering from the global recession. the budget cuts to contain burgeoning debt loads may hamper growth. how will europe's situation affect the prospects for doubling u.s. exports within five years? >> your introduction to the question is something i have been thinking about a great deal. the last sentence, i was not sure where you were going. were you asking at trade question or the future of europe or the currency? let me make a couple of comments.
what is going on in europe is really serious. the whole concept of the euro and some of the issues about the you -- the e.u. are being challenged. i'm concerned about chancellor merkel losing that election the other day. we need her in europe right now. we saw the new coalition formed in britain. we're looking at what happens in greece, in portugal, spain, italy. we cannot bail all of the amount. it will affect our currency. we are already involved. it is going to effect our -- affect our trade. we have a massive trading and investment relationship with the e.u., although a large portion of it is with germany, france, and the u.k. finally, i do believe it is going to have an affect on the geopolitics we are all engaged in. europe has a fundamental problem in demographics. we all read an extraordinary social compact can cost a lot of money. we have to be thoughtful. we have to look down the road and ask a question, do we look like greece?
do we look like germany? do we look like something else that we want to look like? we had better learn from this and do so quickly. >> many european countries are experiencing difficulties and are considering -- or are being ordered to carry out fairly substantial tax increases to balance their budget, on the understanding that near-term economic pain is necessary if they're going to avoid worse in the long term. what affect would that have on u.s. government deficits? >> there are a number of things that the imf and the contributing nations are demanding of the countries that are going to get their share of this $1 trillion money. they're demanding to change the cost basis. that is the big argument and the violence in greece right now. the free lunch is going to start changing. there will be increasing taxes.
the major increase in taxes that i would support in greece is the idea of people paying taxes -- on the about 30% of people in the country pay taxes. we have a much more vigorous payment system in the u.s. we of the history of understanding what happens when you raise taxes. you critical of the money that the people of means have in this country -- you could take all of the money that the people of means have in this country. if the president did the right thing and appointed a really good commission to look up the deficit, there want to have cost cuts -- they are going to have cost cuts. we will have to deal with them. we will have to work on the tax side. there'll be some places we can reduced and some places we can increase. -- we can reduce and some places we can increase. we need to look at resources and whether we can sell them around the world.
that has provided a way for brazil to change their economic equation. it is going to become a more current issue. americans are concerned about fiscal deficits and long-term debt. we have a hell of a problem here. i hope we can all work together on it or certainly try. >> following up on your remarks on greece -- do you think enough people in the u.s. are paying taxes? should more americans be paying taxes? >> most people that make -- that are well-compensated or have their own businesses, the payment rate is in the high-90%. the other people usually find
their way to jail. we have an extraordinary compliance system. when you get into small companies and entrepreneurs -- what do we have? 26 million or 30 million small companies? i would suspect that the irs is right, that some of those guys are not paying all of their taxes. there was a thing in the health care bill that there will be all kinds of new irs agents. it will require companies, after they buy more than $600 worth of goods or services from someone or some company, to file their tax number as well as their own. at the end of the year, they will give a cumulative amount of money. they think there is a lot of money there. it will be interesting to see what those companies think about that. >> the european debt crisis shows that that can be a major problem. what u.s. spending -- cuts to u.s. spending with the chamber
cut if tax rights -- if tax hikes would be problematic? >> if all we have to do was fined $500 billion, that is probably easy. when you get to $600 billion, it would probably be hard. let's just think about that. 62% of the federal budget is entitlements. medicare. veterans' health care. that sort of stuff. when you go to the states, we have huge medicaid costs. there are pensions, social security, and social security stops giving us money -- we have been spending the social security payments. we have many issues here. we have to start looking at ways -- by the way, there have
been great efforts. we have to have means testing. we have to have some people working longer. when they put social security and medicare together, the average age of death was 62 years. it is now 79. let's keep working. i take responsibility for lightening this stuff up. people live so much longer, that is the problem. i like it. [laughter] you have to look at entitlements. we're building these deficits while the interest rates are way low. suppose we go back to 5%, 6%, 7%, and you're looking at annual payments that will scare you to death. we need to look carefully at this. what spending cuts would you support? i will support more than you think if we're going to have a real legitimate program. >> many congressional democrats have opposed ratification of free trade agreements like you discussed, negotiated by the
bush ministers and, on the grounds that they do not adequately addressed labor or environmental concerns. are they legitimate concerns back crafting free trade agreements? if so, is middle ground there that can be found in support of future trade accords? >> environmental and labor issues are legitimate questions between nations and among nations. i personally do not think they ought to be in free trade agreements. if you listen to the arguments the unions are making about the labor issues, i can tell you that the countries we trade with all of the world are not going -- i am not talking about health and welfare -- but u.s. labor standards and payment levels, because their economies are much lower.
we're taking people and moving them, with all this trade got out of serious and challenging positions. we're taking more people out of poverty and near-poverty than you could imagine. we're negotiating to environmental issues of the world come here, in copenhagen -- impairment issues all around the world. if you -- we are negotiating environmental issues all around the world. you could solve one issue now and tomorrow morning the labor unions would have a new issue. they're very concerned about jobs. i respect that. i'm concerned about jobs. but they are not helping jobs. when you look at organized labor in this country, are public employees -- they are worried about trade. if you want to make a note of what is going to happen in the
next five years, there will be a war between public unionized employees and private, unionized employees, as the public employees require more and more tax increases and other payments to pay for their very, very attractive pensions, health, and welfare, huge salaries, to be paid for by a lot of people, including only 7% of the work force that is unionized in the private sector. >> following up on the fault line that you expect to happen in the labor movement, are the front lines within the business community that you are dealing with now? >> people ask me that often appear talking in have 300,000 members -- people ask me that often. how can you have three and a thousand members yet 3 million companies and not -- how can you have 300,000 members and 3 million companies and not have disagreements? we of disagreement every day. we tried to get them to -- we have disagreements every day. the difference is, in the business community, they are driven in a natural way. there are differences between people in service, manufacturing, technology, agriculture, and when are great challenges in strengths is the
breadth of our membership. we're doing well and holding it together. i spend as much time doing that as i do negotiating with congress. >> you have talked about exports today. are you forgetting about imports and its effect on jobs in manufacturing? what are you doing to police bad guys dumping? >> imports are very important. there are a lot of commodities we cannot get from our own country.
there are a lot of products that we want to have that we cannot get. by the way, these labels for the union guys and their leaders that complain about trade -- they all go to wal-mart to shop. you get quality products at lower prices. it sets up a lot of competition. that is good for a competitive economy. in terms of dumping -- i am opposed to dumping. we have taken significant steps under the bush administration and the obama's administration to respond to some of the places where there is obvious dumping. there are some people around the world that think that some of the things we are pushing are coming in great numbers. you cannot get to be the largest exporter in the world without selling a lot of stuff to other people. ballads and quality are important. safety is important. that is not a reason not to negotiate an agreement and stick with it to create more
american jobs. >> there are several questions dealing with china. the exchange rate of the dollar and the renminbi have been a source of tension with beijing. how significant a factor is currency in driving the growth of the u.s.-china--- u.s.-china deficit? >> china is a complex, fascinating subject. let me say a word about the question and the value of the currency. i have long associated myself with those that the believe -- with those that believe the currency ought to be adjusted. the chinese want to keep these hundreds and hundreds of millions of people employed. their system of government requires them to do that.
otherwise, they do not know how to deal with that many unemployed people and the unrest that goes with it. i am probably more concerned about the stuff of our intellectual property and the changes that the chinese are making on the innovations side, trying to domestically control a lot of that, the counterfeiting of american products, which happens in the united states, just so you do not get too excited. it is the theft of intellectual property and counterfeiting of the united states which is a quarter-trillion dollar problem to our economy. we will talk about currency. they are getting -- i hope something happens at the g-20. my own view is that you make a moderate adjustments. it will not have a lot to affect the trade balance agreement. the chinese, to keep those people working, one they will do, if it gets difficult, it is dropped the prices.
that will help us on what we import and hurt us on what we're trying to sell competitively around the world. their economy is getting more sophisticated. they are getting more middle- class. the cost of doing things is going up. countries all around the world -- china is taking some of their production down the daisy chain -- vietnam, cambodia. the other issue, which is very important -- i talk all the time around the country. people said, all of these jobs -- michigan, pennsylvania, new york -- they went to china. the hell they did. they went to atlanta, texas, and arizona. there were some very visible exceptions, but most of the jobs that have gone to asia have gone there to try and take advantage of half of the global economy and to go in there and
make business and keep the intellectual property and engineering and all that stuff in the united states. it is clear that companies who can get greater efficiencies of scale or over in china and other places. they want to try and provide a better product at a lower price. >> u.s. trade is measured by fiscal exports and imports, about a fraction of u.s. sales through foreign-based affiliates. how much attention should be paid to these sales when assessing the size and impact of the u.s. trade deficit? >> that is a great example. you can see it in three places. our largest trading partner is canada. a lot of that is in the automotive and heavy industry area. you just go back and forth across the bridge. if you to the border away, it is an integrated system. how much of the in and out is
really being done across the border that is really an integrated system? when you look in china and other places in asia or the americas, there are some -- i mentioned the box scores and others -- box stores and others who are doing a lot of producing in other countries. we have been working on this immigration -- maybe i will come back and talk about immigration -- since we were working on this and tightening the border, it is much harder to get seasonal workers and agricultural workers, legal or illegal. what are the farmers in california doing? they have gone to mexico. they are renting space in mexico -- land in mexico to grow their crops there and export them into the united states. you have raised a very good
question. i do not have the exact numbers. we have been doing this for many years. the best place to look is mexico and canada. >> let's talk about immigration. what is your reaction to arizonas immigration law? what effect will that have on u.s. labor cost and business? >> first of all, let me say what i think about immigration. there may be one american indian in here, but the rest of cost are all immigrants. i had an extraordinary experience on saturday night on ellis island. i got an award for something as the chamber had been doing over time. immigration is not why i went. i took the award because my wife's mother and father separately came to this country from challenging circumstances through ellis island. you can imagine that i have some very emotional feelings
about this. so many people in this country made some in the great things happen here. they arrived in the same way. i think we need an immigration bill. we need to find a way to have workers come back and forth to this country. we need seasonal agricultural workers. we desperately need to find ways to keep the these the people that come here -- keep the visa people that come here and get their ph.d.'s -- ph.d.'s. there are millions of illegal workers. now, you cannot find them. there would be telephone calls saying you need to bring your mother-in-law home from the nursing home. it would change a lot of people use -- people's views on this. we need a rational immigration program. we have 12 billion or 13 billion people working who are hard- working -- 12 million or 13 million people who are hard working and trying to make a
living. we do not have the people to replace them. by the way, we have to protect our border. i'm not worried about the people coming here to work. i am worried about some of the crazy people and the drug people and those people. let's go to arizona where the argument was because of this drug violence. president calderon will be here on wednesday for the whole afternoon. we are trying so hard to help him. he betz's life everyday on trying to stop he bets -- he bets his life every day on trying to stop this. my final view is that arizona went too far. we do not associate ourselves
with those that want to stop the all-star game, or stop trading with people. everybody else can say, let's not trade with california because we do not like their environmental rules. we need to fix the arizona thing in a hurry. it is fundamentally un-american. >> you made a reference to native americans. we have a native american question. do you include native american tribal businesses and can you demonstrate the benefits of free trade agreements with them? >> let's separate that. native american companies are certainly welcome on our travel deals. we have a little conversation with some people before. i am not on a trade promotion deal. i am encouraging my members to go.
i will encourage them to have some very serious, in-your-face conversations that you cannot do with a group that is big enough to be here in this room. i welcome any native american companies who are members of the chamber, who played by the rules, and i would be happy to have them. i am not sure -- i know something about the report issues, but i do not know enough. if the person who wrote the question will grab me on the way out, i will get myself educated. >> moving on. we had ron kirk here a few weeks ago. he talked about one of the problems being that his deputies are not being approved to implement trade policy. is that causing any problems for you in terms of your efforts and relations with the
government? >> ron kirk is one of the best people the president appointed. he was a mayor, right down on the border with mexico. he is a good man. he is trying very hard. he certainly should have is people confirmed. it took awhile to get him appointed. now we are trying to get him confirmed. we are encouraging those confirmations. we generally do not oppose any of those. congress is playing some games on that. part of it is on the trade deal. part of it is the same problem that i've articulated before. he has a problem. i hope he is going to get a winner really soon on the whole issue of contracting arrangements that we're going to make on sensitive bids. i am hopeful that will be a winner. he needs help from the white house and from congress, starting with the white house, or we'll never see these trade deals. by the way, his patients will wear thin pretty soon.
>> does the chamber have any major objections to elena kagan as nomination -- elena kagan's nomination to the supreme court? >> i will answer that question at the end of the sentence. at every supreme court nomination, we have a system where we review their qualifications. we do that and in almost every instance, we support them. it is the president's choice. if there approved by the aba and they are competent people, we're pretty much inclined to support them. we do the process, however, and keep doing it for the occasion however many times. the chamber has not finished its process, but i have no objection to her. >> with the 2010 elections coming up, in what ways with the chamber to a good vintage of the supreme court ruling on moving corporate limits on campaign funding? -- take advantage of the supreme court ruling on moving corporate limits on campaign funding?
>> we plan to be in the election. the most incorrect information i have seen in a long time -- it is all the stuff that came out on the citizens united decision out of the supreme court. the efforts by members of the house and senate to construct a bill that would basically, if you look at the numbers and configurations, be aimed at one thing -- keeping the chamber of the midterm elections. there was testimony in the house the other day. our lawyer, probably the best constitutional lawyer in the country, who had won the case originally, when up to testify that -- went up to testify about the un-constitutionality. they want to delay and keep us out of elections.
we still have to get through the senate. it is so patently political. if those people were distinguished, long-term members of the congress and the judiciary committee arguing constitutional issues, it would be one thing. they are responsible for seeing who gets elected on the democratic side of the house and senate. it ought to be embarrassing. guess what? even the "washington post" thinks so. >> if you look at the polls for 2010, there should be significant gains for republicans in the midterm elections. if that were the case, would it be easier to get trade agreement passed in 2011? -- trade agreements passed in 2011? >> today is may. the collection is in november. there will be primaries. we saw what happened to bennett
in utah. what will happen in the pennsylvania election next week? what will happen in hawaii? the political pundits who are telling you who is going to get elected -- they get up every morning. there are about 1000 of them who call each other until about 11:00 in the morning. [laughter] great. we will be there when the primaries are happening. some, but not much. we will be there in the elections. with me, we support democrats and republicans. i get heat from some business people for supporting important democrats to vote with us, and i get heat from business people for supporting too many republicans. what we do, we have a system. they tell us who is important. the bottom line is very simple. we will be in this collection.
when you get finished, we will have some more of these or a few of those. you have to fight the same fight. you still have the unions around. i would say if we could balance the numbers and the toe, no matter who is in charge, we would have a better chance. >> we are almost out of time. there are a couple of important matters. i like to remind our members of feature speakers. next wednesday, we have the tim kaine, chair of the democratic national committee to talk about the prospects in the 2010 elections. on may 21, we will have the owner of the washington capitals. on may 26, barbara bush will be here discussing. second, we like to present our
guest with the traditional national press club mud. >> thank you very much. [applause] now at this time for the final question. i will read it word for word. ok, do not hold back, tell us what you really think of the u.s. labor unions. [laughter] >> we work with u.s. labor unions on infrastructure and on immigration, on national defense issues. many of them are made up of people that come from my family, extended family. i do not have any problem with labor union members. i have a problem of labor union leaders who have lost sight of
what is in the best interests of their members and are in this town holding back this economy and reducing the opportunities to create new jobs in labor unions members and non- labor union members. when the government gets bigger than the people they govern, we have a real problem. as i predicted, i think you are going to see some conflicts within the unions but if we me have any person running the seisu. to be an interesting time. i came here not to talk about them as organizations that to talk about the behavior that has caused us to leave a lot of jobs on the side of the road and a lot of americans wishing they had them. thank you very much. [applause]
>> thank you for coming, mr. donahue. would also like to thank the national press club staff for organizing today's event. for more informations about the national press club and on how to acquire a copy of today's program, please is our website at www.press.org. this meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> all this week, and the senate has been working on a regulation bill.
we talk to a reporter for an update. >> we are joined by stephen sloan of congressional quarterly. water summit the key changes? >> one of the most surprising changes that came through was an amendment from and dick durbin from illinois. he had an amendment that has been unsuccessful. it allows the federal reserve to limit the fees that debit card issuers can charge to retailers for processing a debit card transaction. when you go to the 711, the fed will be able to limit the amount of these that the data card issuer will charge 7-eleven to process the transaction. >> one of lead number of amendments.
how are the changes to the regulation bill? what is that going to do when it comes to a final vote? >> it remains to be seen. depending on how the changes are perceived, it could make it harder for people to decide. it seems they are making the bill more extreme. it has the potential to sway people. >> you wrote in one of your articles that the senate democrats have to overcome tension in their own party to win pashas of the bill. >> there has been frustration on how the amendment process has worked out. the senator from north dakota had an exchange with chris dodd on the senate floor on thursday. he expressed his frustration that the bill would have changed credit defaults what it was not being allowed against the floor. he said he understood the
position that he was in. dodd has to get the bill moving. we cannot be weighted down by everybody's amendment. >> what are we going to see next week as the senate returns? >> 1b from sheldon whitehouse from rhode island. that would allow each state to set a cap on excessive interest rates that are charged by credit card companies operating in that state. the financial industry will fight hard against it. it seems we are seeing tide shifting in the direction of an anti-bank sentiment. it is an amendment that may have seemed far-fetched at one point. it could garner support. >> what can you tell us about the latest timetable that senator reid has for the bill?
>> we expect him to file a motion on monday that would limit amendments to only those that are germane. the motion will be filed on monday. the boat may not happen until wednesday. we are thinking that this is something that can happen by the end of next week. we will be voting tuesday, wednesday, and thursday. but could still have voting on friday. >> where with stephen sloan -- steven sloan. >> defending the united states again cyber attacks. the department's work with the pentagon and white house. the role of private networks in cyber security brita "the communicator's" on c-span. joyce applebee's describes what capitalism is a cultural system. that is sunday night on c-span.
>> the space shuttle atlantis its final mission. the crew will spend 12 days in orbit and deliver a russian built research module to the international space station. 40,000 guests witnessed this launch including robert today and buzz aldrin. >> going to internal reactants. >> copy. close and lock your visors. initiate o2. >> t-minus two minutes and counting.
>> the sequencer will hand up to the flight computers at t minus 31 seconds. 15 seconds from now. rocket flight data activators are activated. t-minus 31 seconds. the handoff has occurred. >> 25. >> a rocket nozzle gimbel check. firing chamber is armed. sound supressiom is activated. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, at 3, 2, 1. 0. liftoff of space shuttle atlantis.
they will achieve historical accomplishments in space. >> houston is now controlling. the maneuver is complete. they have a 51.6 degree 36 by 36 statute mile orbit. the three main engines have now been throttled down to 72% as the orbiter prepares to pass to the area of maximum dynamic pressure in the lower atmosphere. it is just now beginning to throttle back up. >> the event you are go. throttle up. >> throttle.
>> all three engines are looking really good, back at full throttle now. the way it 4.5 million pounds. it has now burned half of the list of weight in propellant. one minute 30 seconds into the flight. all three of zadari power units in good shape as are the fuel cells providing electricity to all of the systems on board. atlantis is 19 miles in out in altitude. coming up on staging the point of which the solid rocket boosters burn out and separate from the orbiter.
booster separation confirmed. the onboard guidance system has done its job of settling out any of the distortions that have been introduced. the performance is exactly as planned, head down, wings level, on its 32nd mission. >> copy. >> coming up, part of the public policy conference at the qaeda winters -- cato institute. the space show atlantis begins its last spaceflight.
later, say lit -- sarah palin talks in washington. on washington journal>> we thank you for coming and look at the new coalition government from the heritage foundation. and arizona state representative kyrsten sinema discusses the immigration law. that is on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. today, the cato institute held a daylong series of talks on public policy, including a federal budget, fighting terrorism efforts, global trade, and the shares health care bill. first, the author of "financial fiasco." this is it to a half hours. -- this is 2 1/2 hours.
>> we thank you for coming today. i was tremendously proud last night at our end. i hope you were too to see what we were doing. it is incredibly impressive you hear from many colleagues this morning. i hope you are proud of the role you have played in making sure that a strong and intelligent voice for liberty, peace, and civil rights is available in washington where all too often it is not. let us move right to wrong -- right along with the program. our first speaker is johan norberg, a writer who focuses on individual liberty. he is the author and editor of several books. it include his newest book, "financial fiasco."
his book in defense of global capitalism has been published in over 20 different countries. he is the author of "when mankind created the world" in 2006. he is also the co-editor of the classics of freedom in 2003. all of them are available in swedish and online at his website. his articles and pieces of hair regularly in international newspapers. he is an international presence. he is on television and radio and print. here is the head of political ideas at a swedish free-market think tank from 2003 to 2005. he received his master's degree from stockholm university.
please join me in thanking him. [applause] >> thank you very much. good morning to you all. i hope you all had a good night last night. the hangover is not the problem. the party was. that really relates to the topic of my speech here about the next financial crisis. we are in the auditorium right now. hyatt reminded us that the recession is not the problem. the oom was. all the bad investments made we thought the good times with gee's keep rolling and rolling. that gives us a clue as to why the markets are in a little bit turbulent right now.
we never really did solve the problems that led to this crisis. whenever really lived with the hangover. instead, we tried to take a net a couple of shots of tequila and get on with it. a hangover that we believe in is not a good election slogan. saying that we will solve the problem and deal with it and the mccain get on, that is much more popular. that is why i have written this book on the financial crisis, also a film called "overdose" that will be screened here on monday about these problems that we are still living with and we might see the worst is yet to come. the recession is a time to rid ourselves of bad investments. the bad risk that we took on when we thought that they were
good risks. the recession is the time for creative destruction to make sure we dismantled the bad companies unveiled investments and make sure that work, of labor, and resources are transferred to more competitive businesses. that is not what we did. the government has tried to protect in bailout that investment. in the car industries, we are still living with that. we are still living with those bad decisions. it'll have a tremendous affect on our growth i think. worse than that, we are also creating new bad investments in the market. just as we encourage new bubbles in the housing market, we have now created new bubbles by