tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN August 19, 2011 2:00pm-8:00pm EDT
voters didn't vote for him or the roz well was an air force at that time. because ross well didn't vote for him he shutdown that other one. that's not me. that's what i would be as president of the united states. >> we would like to thank you for being here today. we would f you in the audience as well as our televised and radial ponces -- radio audiences for this meeting today -- for listening today. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]
>> watch more a video of the candidate is. track the latest contributions. this helps you navigate with updates from the campaigns, latest polling data, plus links to media partners in the early caucus states, all at c- span.org/campaign2012. it is a country fraught with islamic extremists. >> these assassinations were welcome, were congratulated by many pakistanis. these are not terrorists, not al qaeda, not taliban, but ordinary pakistanis who feel their
religion is threatened, who feel their country is becoming too secular, that the islamic values are under attack, and that blasphemy, which is anything that insults' the profit or islam, is something to be defended with your life. >> sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> craig fugate talked about his agency's community approach. the new approach includes engaging the entire community, including the public and private sectors in coordinating a federal response. this is just over an hour.
>> craig fugate brought to this job a wealth of experience, serving eight years in the florida division of emergency management, and during his tenure it was the first program in the nation to receive full accreditation from the emergency management accreditation program. dos to him, he began his career as a volunteer firefighter and served also as an emergency paramedic and finally as a lieutenant in a county fire rescue team. he has served in a wealth of relevant positions and brings a great deal of experience, and i think you will find him quite interesting.
[applause] >> good afternoon. for the purposes of this presentation, we are live or taped or however they are doing it. that is why i have three microphones on me. i was asked to talk about whole community, and this is something that fema is talking about, and people are saying, what do they mean about whole community? what does this involve? what are they doing different? it is not mysterious. what happened was my staff got tired of using my talking points, so they started calling it a whole community for sure can. i referred to it as emergency management. whole community is based on two things. one is when we respond disasters, who are we serving? a couple observations i started
making as i started looking at my job in florida, particularly in the aftermath of hurricane andrew. i came to the state in 1997, and i am always live in the aftermath of katrina, because it is you handle a few tornadoes, wildfires, tremendous amount of coverage of area, and you still have not done a katrina, and we are not sure you guys have fix anything. that was my situation in florida in 1997. we were under the shadow of hurricane andrew, how to a deal with this challenge, particularly when you have a state very prone to hurricanes, and one of the things we thought we learned after andrew was there was an initial report -- this is one of the things i learned -- when somebody can tell you the first 15 minutes
after some debate has happened that it seems like we dodged a bullet, run, because i have heard this twice now. i heard we dodged the bullet with andrew. the reason they thought they dodged the bullet was they were any 911 calls of9 significance. the assumption was in the absence of calls for help, it is not that bad pitcairn the reason -- it is not that bad. just about everything from 126th street south had just been erased. hurricane katrina -- remember the initial reports was it looks like we dodged the bullets because the water had not reached our ankles it. we thought we learned in hurricane andrew that the key to knowing how bats of the in is
doing a quick assessment. you need to get teams in there. rapid impact assessment teams. we got a bunch of subject matter experts to do a quick snapshot of how a community has been impacted, so we are trying to get experts from utilities, health, transportation, and we are going to put them on national guard helicopters and fly them over the areas, get them on the ground, they will meet with their counterparts, then send this back up to the state where they can act on it. if anything i ever found that was read about this was the him -- was rapid about this was the amount of time we were going to say we are going to do it. the teams had grown because everybody wanted to have somebody on the team. he had 18 experts you had to get somewhere. you had to match them up with helicopters. but the time they landed, they were linked up with people who
were busy dealing with the disaster. it was 72 hours before they got the reports of. in 72 hours, you are now trying to make decisions about what you are going to send, and that builds in another 24 to 48 hours. we are building in the same time we got there from andrew in the first place. maybe if we made the team smaller, focused in on a much bigger -- quicker response, and what was interesting was i kept finding ourselves the matter what we did we were getting things on the ground effective no earlier than 72 hours from the time it occurred. it took us about 72 hours to get critical mass to where we were starting to see stabilization. i asked a different question. i said, instead of trying to figure out how bad it is, let's
define what the outcome is we want to change. i started looking at the things at looking at disasters differently. we talk about we are responding, but nobody says what are we doing and how much time will it take it that done? i started dissecting these disasters. i looked international, a variety of things, and noticed the type of events hurricanes. i said there is a standard process we have to get to. you have to reestablish communication. most people think that as electronic. i am thinking logistically. you cannot get physically to the location to change that outcome. you got to be able to get in there. you think most cases you would just drive in, but in butida, you lose a bridge, you have to get to the area. the other thing i found his
safety and security. there is a tendency to wait or reluctance to use national guard in law enforcement until you have a security issue, a sense of lawlessness. i found talking to social scientists that you are doing more good getting people quickly by reasserting -- reassuring people they are not by themselves, and this is one of the things that is tagged presence is omission. when shots get fired, what is the team going to do? if they are not carrying guns, they stop. it does not take an actual situation. it takes a perception that it may be dangerous, and you can shut down almost all their non law enforcement response is disaster. the third thing was searched and
rescue. the injured did not have time, and a lot of the teams would get their 24, 48, 72 hours later. the reality is when you look at most earthquakes and other types of the events of large-scale damage, what is the survivor of number looking like after 24 hours? 48 hours? 72 hours? is it a stable population or is it decreasing rapidly? what you find is the sweet spot is the first 24 hours. if you want to change the outcome for the injured, you need to get there quick enough to intervene, because after 24 hours you are not -- the population is either trapped or they will make it without you. you start getting the central supplies and commodities in there. in other things i observed is 72 hours it took for us to figure out how bad it was was the time
frame we need it all the stuff there. i got to do the assessment to know how bad it is to respond, but the time it takes to do that is eating up the time i can use to change the outcome. i refer to some big that a lot of folks thought was radical, which was do away with the assessment. how do you know how bad it is? we will not. if i had a major hurricane impacting an area of population, why don't i just respond to what the potential impact is going to be and adjust downward if it is not that bad? they are seeing there is gone to be a lot of rest for waste. i have never seen a disaster go well when you do not have enough stuff out there fast enough. if you get there and you can overwhelm it, stabilize it, by time, a lot of times you may not use much and now he did not have ordered that much stuff in say up that much quicker. getting to the point of
stabilization -- i am not saying it is better, but you stop the loss -- that is a key element in how we approach and respond to four hurricanes. in the interval in 2004, to give you an idea of the fun we were having, a tropical storm that hit before charlie had was hit inconsequential. in each one of the later situations we were get -- we were able to get the response stabilized. if we were using a traditional model of using the assessment, we would have had overlaps where we could not have moved to the emergency phase for the next disaster while we were basically maintaining a steady state to get into recovery. i thought i had figured this out. i.t. was saying, this is good, but we can make this work. the next year you had a series
of hurricanes. most people forget we started out with dennis. it was one of the earliest major landfall hurricanes in florida's history. it was a relatively complex -- compact store. we had great success. we moved into recovery. we thought we had figured this out, and here comes katrina. as much as you read about katrina, what you did not realize is not only the have katrina and rita behind it, you basically set of resources out of the system. there was virtually at the point where this hurricane was setting off the yucatan peninsula, wilma, which got to have their magic pressure below that of katrina, moving toward florida. one of the situation where the country is focused on the katrina response, you have lot of resources committed there,
and i am looking at a substantial hurricane coming to florida, which fortunately weakens, but is not enough. we go on with our response, a responsetwo hitting the wall -- hitting the west coast, leaving the east coast. it did not weaken significantly, and we had greater impact on the east coast is because it took power out to 6 million people. we responded based upon the potential impact. we set up our distributions. we did not have all the distribution up in the first 24 hours. more heavily on
the west coast than the east coast. this is where i learned of other part, one of the building blocks of the whole community, we had learned the volunteers have to be part of the team. we cannot run the different organizations doing their response and we doing our spirit we have to work as a team. we have to figure out how to deal with unaffiliated volunteers. those were lessons we learned pretty good after andrew. where we had not built the team was with the private sector. based on previous history, early in 2004, the assumption was that the power was out, retail
was down. one of the things being government, and this is what i found the trap was, we looked at a problem and look at how government would solve it as if we had the total ownership and had to figure everything out. we have been responding to hurricanes that had been bad enough that government-centered approaches were getting the job done. when will my kids, it is a much larger area and we put out as much product in three weeks from wilma then we had done in the hurricanes in 2004. it did not have the damages that you had in ivan and charlie. as we are setting up and putting out distribution, the assumption that the private sector is not up and running, we got reports not give with that.
they started bringing in generators about halfway through the 2004 hurricane season, but we did not pay attention. from miami to palm beach county, we did a quick phone survey and started calling big box stores, where we new power was out. only five were not open. governor bush, jeb bush, likes to remind me with this because he was meeting with constituents who was complaining about the length of time, which we have located in areas that were central to the communities we were serving, with good road access, that works, had the parking. this is where they built the grocery stores. we were in the parking lot handing out free food, and he recounts they are eating fast
food and had just bought groceries at the open grocer's store in the parking lot where we are handed out supplies. you would think we could do a better job of coordinating next time. this threw me for a lu because up until this point we had been so focused on what government was going to do -- much the assumption was disasters, where volunteers and organizations, government was on behalf to do everything, take care of everybody, we were arrogant in making the assumption that if one minute of for a disaster happens most of the goods and services provided to committees is done by the private sector, why do we make an assumption that one minute after we are suddenly going to be able to do all this? we started sitting down with the ask a sector and question. first question, why don't we just contract with the folks who get it?
they got all the warehouses, supplies. why don't we give them the supplies to hand out? for a small fee, more than my annual budget, to have that much slack in their system, that that much excess capacity, they would be interested. operate in a system that does not have a lot of slack, did not have the capacity to absorb the demand they are doing for their and they could not do the things we were doing. let me change the question. what can i do to get you open? it dawned on me, i am competing with the private sector, something that they have perfected to the nth degree, and i'm trying to come in after a disaster and set up and operate and compete with them.
maybe i need to change the question and stop a competition going, what can i do to get you open, and where are you not going to be open? the first thing is, looking at what does their footprint look like? when you've met them, they are in the same places most of our local governments say are the points of the local distribution. where they are not, you look at things like inner cities, picking up areas like " the jovi -- like lake okeechobee, and those would have been the places we would have sent this applies to, because they did not and targets.t's perhaps this is a model we need to look at. how do we work as a partner? i want to be so operational i
know where your stores are and their status. i want you to know what i'm doing and i want you telling me when you have stores coming on line so i can shut down and do my distribution were targeted to those individuals that need it, that were not going to be able to come to that store. when i came to fema, i brought that philosophy. we have got to figure out how to bring the retail sector in as part of the team. if you are in government there are a thousand of reasons why people say you cannot do something, and i am cheerfully ignorant of that. we've worked to bring in those folks. we now have representatives on a rotating basis through a consortium of companies that actually have a position dedicated to the fema national response coordination center on a full-time basis that represents the private sector and coronation on a daily basis, not just when we are activated. the goal is looking at private-
sector as part of the team. not competing with them and asking a more simple question -- how can i get you open? what can i do support that? in fema i do not have as much control as local and state officials to, but i can set a tone, do a bully pulpit, i can work issues back to the state to open up lines of communication to get things done. my team started getting it that it was not going to the government center, we were going to embrace the volunteer organizations, and bring the private sector entere. we tend to call them victims, and here is a problem in calling people victims, that helping people deal with trauma, you have to empower them to give them control. loss of control, home loss of ability to make decisions exasperates and make the situation of recovery difficult.
they said sometimes words have power. i had adopted the term survivor, not victim. one of the things i did in florida was if we -- i like to use historical events -- and go, what if it happened today? we would take the great miami hurricane in 1926 and use all the predicted models we have and say, what does this look like? some of the research from the national hurricane center looked at this and he and a couple of folks look at the numbers and said this is about $120 billion to $150 billion
hurricane. population impact, 8 million people. housing losses, five times what hurricane andrew took out, much bigger than katrina, total area, everything you look at. as we are doing planning, we look at all the government resources come all the way up including dod, what we can bring their, even the private sector. we were running it against the month of how do we get these areas stabilized in 72 hours. the answer was we cannot -- it cannot be done. you have to look at this, what are you want to do differently? as we kept going through this, i said, what about the people living there? the answer was they are all victims.
guy, i have been to a lot of disasters. this tendency for people to portray that everybody is shellshocked, sitting around, not doing everything -- anything does not happen. people start trying to help each other. people will start doing things. i wanted -- there was this bias that look at the public as a liability. we tend to look at the public as a liability, there are to the bad things. when of the things after andrew was a concern about people who were just starting to cook, small groups, setting up little kitchens and feeding people, and the fear was that they were not licensed. [laughter] you are going to get food-borne illness outbreaks i read the reports. i did not see that anybody in
hurricane andrew died of food poisoning. i get the idea we are concerned about sanitation, food-borne disease, and they could be devastating, but wouldn't it make more sense to give them some quick instructions about if you guys have bleach kraft of sanitation versus saying don't do this, because if it is that bad, do you have the luxury of telling the public to stay on the sidelines and not help? there is a challenge here because the first thing people come out with is the liability. the other issue, they are not trained. we have developed this idea we are going to be credentialed and everybody is going to have chips on and so everybody will know who you are. again, if that is true, i am still waiting for that to get sold to somebody, but the reality is, every disaster is a, as you are, and if it is bad he
did not get the luxury of saying what you will choose to use and not use. it will be what it is. i started changing how we look at the public and said, look, we did not say this, but we tend to take a parental approach to the public. we tend to think that we are on have to tell what to do, how to do it, and make all these decisions for them. really antsy about that. most recently with these tornadoes, as much as we get the credit to the first responding community, who was doing the first rescues? the neighbors crawling out of debris, going over to the next rubble pile, looking for their neighbors. that happens time and time again. it is not a unique thing.
it is pretty much what people do. maybe we ought to change our messaging from being prepared, having a plan, to have one little thing -- check on your neighbor. during a heat wave, we again -- use of this message going out from red cross and other officials -- on your neighbors. you may save a life. if you go back three or four years ago, you were not going to see or hear that. we're starting to see it and more recognize that that we have to engage the public as a part of the team. i have gone for a circle from government center, we have to do everything, to recognizing that as a fine that capability, volunteers are those that had emerged, you have to give them a seat at the table, private sector in particular, and that
is an devolving process because you get into different sectors. the ability to focus on if you are the subject matter expert on since fema does not regulate private sector folks, did not talk to me. did not talk to us. how do we go through and look at getting critical services, delivery of resources online that are essentially a non- governmental, some kind of utility based or other things, and running. do that in such a way that we speed the recovery process. the private sector is starting to realize of the house. they cannot plan on autonomy from government. no matter how good their plans are, how well they planned for contingencies, if the community's plan fails, they may
not be successful either. is your community going to be able to deal with housing, schools open, get basic services up and running? if they fail, i do not know how your plan is going to cover that. it may be six months before schools reopen, and i have marketable schools to go somewhere else -- you still -- people cannot rebuild. this is the evolution we have gone through to get to what we have gone to the whole community, not saying that government is telling everybody you are on your own, but recognizing that each part of this team has roles and responsibilities, and you need to move away from a government- centered approach and recognize there are other models,
capabilities out there, particularly when they are doing everything in the community, but they know as little about us and how we operate as we know they do. this is part of our effort to bring them together. on the flip side, going back to being prepared, this is what i ought to get feedback, we do sound parental, the reason you are telling us to be prepared is we are all on our own in a big disaster, nobody will get us, we got to take care of ourselves, it is all smoke and mirrors. well, that would be the cynics' approach. let me be more pragmatic. if anybody in this room who lives in the d.c. area, something happened here like one of these freak storms that is up and as powerful and hits the area, power gets knocked out, you lose everything in your refrigerator, you lose water
pressure, and we set up supplies and commodities, to go get them, if you ask yourself, if he did not have others competing for supplies, would you not get them? this is where i focus on there is a shared responsibility in being prepared for disasters. it is not about you are on your own, his everybody needs to understands you need to prepare to the best of your ability. when we show up to get our supplies, who do we cut in line in front of? those parts of the committee who are more horrible, and are at greatest risk. for a lot of people, this is not something that is comfortable to hear. they say, i pay my taxes, what can i get the supplies? we did not respond to disasters in a format that everybody is equal and everybody gets
whenever they want. is based upon need. part of this is try to get people to understand in a disaster the more we have prepared are individuals and families, the less resources we have shipped in, the more we can focus on the war for oil, and the more we can get the central services up and move toward recovery. too often it sounds like this -- you need to have a plan, you need to have supplies for 72 hours, and thank you very much, you are done. that never tells people what people -- why is so critical, why there are members of the committee who do not have the ability to get ready, and are trying to get in day-to-day. the reality is the fastest response to any crisis is neighbor helping neighbor. we have gotten away from that. we talk too much about what government is going to do. part of this is being honest,
saying, the fastest response in joplin was not the fire department. it was neighbors helping neighbors. the fire department got there quickly, got to the injured, and within 24 hours they have gone the primary service done, but they found people several days later, but the bulk of the rest is was done in the first 24 hours. a lot of the credit goes to neighbors helping neighbors. people going in and applying skills that they have a pair -- that they have. there is one last piece. are planning we have overly identified what we were going to be based upon planning for what i call a generic population. if we were doing our job for a generic population, why do we
identify a group that was marginalized? in my time frame to be doing this, we have written annexes for people with disabilities, for people who have pets, people who had children -- [laughter] and i started asking myself a question, how much of the population is that? you are up to half the population have pets come up to 20% have children at home, depending on your committee, up to 10% are elderly. wait a minute. we are planning for the people who should have been prepared and not need everything w bringing. it hit me and i sat back and says, mark shriver was saying,
we got to address children's issues, because you guys are not getting these needs met. infants and children should not have to suffer these eight dignities that they suffered in katrina. i looked at mark and said, that sounds like that is our typical response, but i would ask a question, wouldn't it make more sense to put children in a special population about of the people who are going to need the greatest help incident marginalizing them and putting them in an ax? he did not -- he said i am not sure your on-the focus on children. kids are not small adults. their needs are different. if we put them in an annex, you will have people think that is done, and it will not be a part of the core process.
i give him the example, saying, here's the problem. in an annex, infants and children, if i get a request for meals, and they need meals for 1 million people, i will ship them 1 million shelf stable meals, and i will ship in mre's. my grandchildren still cannot gnaw through an mre. if we are sending supplies the first responders, i will do what is easy, i will go resources the stuff we have always done, what is that going to do to infants and children? we did not put any baby formula in there. if i write an annex, do you
think that is want to fix it? the committee says we have to plan for the whole committee. you've got to go from the infant youthe way through the in-- get the point. you are going to need diapers and adult diapers and the you will need bottles and disposable baby goods, bassinet and bathtubs, right? if you are sheltering people, people may show up in wheelchairs and may need assistance, right? our solution was to put them in a special needs shelter where we could bring the resources for their needs, but they could not go to a general population shelter because they were special. the disability community said we did not like the term "special needs to " t."
why can we just be part of the community can be integrated in? the ada does not have an asterisk that says this does not apply in disasters. for peopleriting who had access to mass transit, had resources, insurance. not exactly the most vulnerable folks in the room. that is who we were planning for, and we put everybody in the too hard to do in an annex. we have taken our guide and said, no, that approach is failing and it fails every time. we are calling to plan for the committees we live in, not the
communities that fit our plan. we know we are going to have to address these issues and the response, so let's address that , so we now maintain infant and baby supplies in our staging areas for logistics'. we are going to look at instead of just having special needs shelters, working daffodil access shelters were people are not turned away because they may present with a disability and sent somewhere else. how to do incorporate some of these issues in the planning phase and bring the folks together who work with these various committees and work as a team? i have gotten pushback saying this is too hard to do, it is an unfunded mandate, unrealistic to expect we can do this for populations. how many people -- not exactly
disaster central. i went to joplin and i was a pretty quick because my president said to get pretty quick. i was there the night after it hit. i was there the second day, i get over to the red cross shelter. there was no special needs shelter. there was a red cross shelter. people were on oxygen, getting medical attention, they were not being turned away. they were providing crisis counseling and basic medical services. infants and children with supplies that were being cared for by adventists and southern baptists. you had companies whose got smart and fitted out not only do
more need to set up f cell sites. you had pets being children with the same campus, not with the same people, but they were not turned away from the shelters. your pet could be housed there or if you wanted to stay with your pet, there were areas he could stay with your pet. how does this happen? they took all the challenges people said are too hard to do and said, who does this every day? we will plan if we have to open up a shelter, how we are going to work as a team and bring resources gathered. a couple weeks after that meeting, they got practicing, and when people tell me this is too large to become i go to joplin and said they did it and did it under the worst situations you can. a tornado debut barely any
warning, destroying key areas of downtown, killed hundreds, destroyed one of the major medical facilities for the region, and yet in spite of all that, they operated a shelter that was a textbook of how we plan for the communities we live in, not what is easy to make them fit into our plans. fema is try to -- is trying to be forward thinking. think big, the gobi, be smart about it. trust me on this, if you do not plan, respond like, you get behind, it is going to be far more costly and this situations. when we have it is because we cannot get enough information to
say it is not bad so we will respond like it is bad. we are not want to do it as fema. we have got to bring people in to the table so you have a full team there. do people think this is brand new? this is pretty much in emergency management, but it was forcing ourselves to recognize that emergency management is not just what government does. it is how you bring in the whole thing, because the real goal here is we lose fewer lives, we get to the injured quickly, we stabilize, recover, rebuild, and restore communities in a rapid manner. that all tends to be set in the first couple days of response. failure of their can prolong, protract, and increased cost of to theato caost committee.
we look at things like this anomaly in japan and say these things can happen here. he bents -- events of that scale are within possibilities. they are going to happen again. based upon our infrastructure and population and vulnerabilities -- so with that, questions? [applause] >> can you address how you would use a mass media as an enabling of supporting functions instead of being them in the react mode? i have read books were the medial would come into the
emergency management and learn what it took to run a response and then help them give instructions to the public? >> if you try to coopt the media to be part of your mouthpiece, they will rebel and you'll never get there. if you look at what that media has, they have two things. their primary responsibility is to report that could, the bad, and the ugly. the other part is they can be great communities -- communicators about what to do. what you end up having to understand there is a balance there that you need to educate, provide information had of time because just in time is free of all. you build relationships, makers of available, and understand their role. marlowe i will do -- tomorrow i will do a chat with the weather
channel about hurricane preparedness and will be talking my answers. you have to build that on the front end. he got to understand if you tried to coopt the media that they are part of the team, they go, we got to maintain some separation and independence because we are going to be reporting the good and you're bad. we got to be seen as impartial. what you end up having to understand is what their job is on the front and, but they can educate and each of yours, and that comes up to, key you make yourself available to them, do you provide formats that are useful to them, the workers have lost? this is classic, they did a press conference at 5:00. for the tv guys, you are killing me. can you move it earlier?
can we put it during our show instead of doing it when we are not in the show? this stuff like that that a lot of times seven people get and the media and say, what works for you, because i need to get this message out and when will it be best to get something out what is the best format? recognizing that i am not trying to do their job, i am just trying to make my information user-friendly. what i found is the more friendly i was the greater fear argues information and get it out in a manner which benefits the public. there is a nucleus of this. if the public are survivors and we got to look at them as part of a team, maybe they are not a liability, they are a resource. the best information i've gone in these recent disasters has either come from weather channel for other folks on the ground
doing social mcneill -- media or the public themselves. when you look at individual information about everybody is weirded out with bad information. this idea that only the official information is actionable, got to build relationships at a time, but you have to remember if they think you are starting to call them or try to control them, show them the good news, you are bound to lose what relationship you have, and if it is bad news, you might as well get it out there because they will find it anyway. sir? >> what kind of relationship does fema have with foreign governments, particularly with recent incidents with japan, to make sure that lessons learned
there are applied to tout country? >> a lot. we just signed agreements with indonesia, russia, apac countries. we have had staff go there in the aftermath of that. the other part is not everything that happens may be applicable to us, so we go to the process of what happened, how the you deal with it? what was interesting about the earthquake, tsunami, the power plant which took most of our attention in the u.s. chemical which was tragic because of loss of life in a tsunami was the real story. looking at all this from the standpoint of are we planning for things this bad. we released our strategic plan leading up to that. we did not know if this economy was going to occur.
-- we did not know tsunami was going to occur. in some cases we found they start delegating the things we're talking about because people say you are not going to have something big or it will not be 3 erratically possible. -- not be theoretically possible. we look at the lessons learned, the date. one of the interest and conversations with australia, australia has a similar federal government system, but there emerges a management program is similar to the u.s. in that their territories and their local governments, have more authority like a state does. we found ourselves talking, australia, that merely similar issues they run into were similar to issues we were running into, particularly in
the recovery phase three is ongoing and pretty much something that we invest time in, and sometimes it is validating, not relevant and sometimes there is stuff that this is something we are going staff to prepare for. >> you mentioned national guard, what are some of the key areas of the parma of defense might be of the support you? >> status commanders. this is one of breakthroughs of -- congress passed a law that formed a council of governors to look at ongoing issues of the national guard, with a focus on the challenges we have had, when we brought in -- we would do the mission assignments -- if we
brought in forces to a state of having to have dual command structures and structures that go into the management and control of that response. from a state perspective this had been troublesome, many of the commanders had served overseas, and that meant title x commanders come about when they came back stateside, baker said they cannot be in the legal chain of command for title x force. working with a policy, we introduced a concept of tool status command, which has allow governors to nominate five officers serving in their car to be dual fight to command state active duty and tettleton forces -- and title x forces. this is the niece of a
breakthrough and is part one of part two, being able to bring in title x forces and integrate them. the other piece of this is something that we face as a nation. we cannot reach out and touch our reserve forces in a disaster without a presidential mobilization, which has a time commitment and takes them away from being able to do any other duty for a time frame of that activation. many of our combat support forces in the states of impact could be faster and more responsive if we had congress giving the authority to provide that presidential callups can be less than that of the reserve act. the secretary of homeland security can do reserve callups
of the coast guard, where the secretary of defense cannot. the next thing is to provide for the ability to bring up the reserves for deployment for short-term durations in support response.ers of spi although they are out there, the article to bring into response in a situation we face. longer term, again, we have been looking at a tendency for us overthink problems. when we look at the earthquakes, the tendency is that special teams that are designed to the collapse complex structures. we will get a lot of suburbia impacted, and how do you do that? we need force multipliers.
we try to tell you what we want to get used to do in the sitting back, here's the outcome i want, what do you think would work? we said we want engineering units to move stuff, they would know how to do this. they could do a search and rescue. it came back with our guys and said that is not what you need. you've got to go house by house and a quick search. you do not need those engineers. how tolike don't tell me solve the problem. tell me what the problem is and let me apply a solution. we have written so many mission assignments that we are finding what we need to do is step -- we need to give greater flexibility to figure out how to meet those needs. you do not know who is available
for the next disaster. also writing mission statements that are broader in scope that give the commanders more flexibility and how to apply the tools they have got. these are things we are working on, but the biggest thing is speeding up the process. mission assignments, getting units on awarding >> that is one of the things that i was really pleased with, and now with the joint chiefs -- he shares my passion for it. there is a lot of process we have to speed up to get things going faster. we are going to change outcomes in 72 hours, we need to really speed up that process. the problem on our in is making the mission assignments more flexible and more based on outcomes.
>> my question is about the whole community concept. can you speak to the feature of the private sector preparedness program and how it integrates into your vision of the whole committee concept? >> the private sector in general? i am finding that if i want to get the private sector engaged, have to do something different. i have to talk about return on investment. i am taking a little bit different tack. people are focused on credentialing and access, and that is great. what i am finding is, if you want to get to the heart of businesses, it is all about the bottom line. unless that are non-profit, what is the return on investment? if you cannot answer that question, they will do some stuff for good well -- for
goodwill, but it won't be a sustained investment. a lot of companies would be better scrapping contingency plans and does have enough insurance to reject what they fell to do is they do not plan for what the community is going to do, and if the community is not ready, they are better off not reopening. their interest in the government's ability to respond -- when i started this business, most everyone i ran into in the private sector was business continuity planners. there were more focused on data and things like that. you are starting to see more and more emergency managers. i am way past that, looking at how you integrate the private sector as part of a team responding? town down the -- area tech --
tear down the walls of government and private sector. i am not contracting with them, i just don't want to compete with them. it is very useful to be able to share data across open data systems. we are pretty close to where several of the major retailers are going to give us live day to beat oregon ashley map and see store status is in real time in a disaster. there are some good start there, but we have gone way past that to really look at how we work and respond and support each other in a situation where you are not going to have clear lines between government and private sector. >> there are a lot of us who are involved in the study of homeland security or emergency management. what were those areas which we can focus on that would help you
do your job better? are there gray areas are gaps that should be looked at? >> i think we put too much emphasis on the hazards themselves and less on the societal impacts and how people deal with things. in my profession, there are a lot of people, the hard science, engineering, the forecasting, meteorology, and this is what i have always questioned. we will spend more money on coming up with the perfect forecast, but it does not change the outcome 3 or using the right terminology and methods to get people to change? if we issue a warning and people still die, -- we often spend so much time on the science, we forget about the people. i think this is probably -- the societal aspects of how
population reacts, how do you change behavior over the short term and the long term? how do you take things that are not the norm? there are to make very successful campaigns that have changed. when i was growing up, not wearing your seat belt and smoking were the norms. today is the other way around. when we talk about preparedness, most people, if they have a flashlight and some very basic stuff, that is about as good as it gets. but you are and out liar if you really got ready. how you change that? what we find is, if you try to do a lot of things, you'd end up diluting yourself -- deluding yourself. with seatbelts and smoking, but bad things happen if you it did it. since disasters are such a low frequency event, it isn't
thought of. i think we need more social scientists and we need to fund social science research, which is not hard engineering and hard science. is not as glamorous. many think it is often not as relevant. but if the populations -- if we end up talking at them and they do not hear us, we do things and we expect certain things to occur and they do not, and we cannot figure out why. i think it is because we don't look at marketing, research, social sciences. we don't look at how the behavior of individuals versus communities work. we don't understand the demographics of the community. ondon't live based government structures except for those of us in washington d.c.. people do not live in a city. they live in a neighborhood. people don't really a identify with government structures.
to me, that is a big area. it is not glamorous, it tends to not get the funding, but that is where we have to change outcomes. we don't have the ability to provide him permission in a way that will get people to behave differently, to do things to save lives and protect things. it it does not matter how good the forecast is or how fast respond. to many people that could have changed the outcome did not, and we don't know why. i got the hook. [laughter] [applause] >> actually, i am just giving
you a graceful way out, because these people would sit with you here for another hour, easily. i want to thank you. that was terrific. it is clear that you are a national asset and we are delighted to have you inside the beltway, although you may not be glad. [laughter] but we are honored to have you come talk to us today. it was a wonderful presentation. it is very clear why you are where you are. you bring a wealth of experience and talent, so thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]
shocking to meet and to many others, was that these assassinations were welcome, were congratulated by many pakistanis. these are not terrorists, not al qaeda, not taliban, but ordinary pakistanis who feel that their religion is threatened, that the country is becoming too secular, that the islamic values are under attack, and that blasphemy, which is anything ort insults' the profiet islam is something to be defended with your life. >> pamela constable on this sunday's "q&a". >> blog social security is so clear that if this schedule benefits cannot be paid, and that is a clear work, they will give only the payable benefits.
that may sound like garbage, but that is a real gut renter because that is the one that is going to hit in 2037. last may there was less coming in than going out. this last may. so we get to this point and you are going to get cable benefits and not scheduled benefits, and you can sue and you can moan and tree, and it will not do a lick of good. that is absolutely goofy to meet. we went to the aarp and we said look, we think you ought to help. 38 million people are bound together by a well of airline discounts, insurance discounts, and their magazine has really picked up. sex over 50 was the cover, and not is sex over 60 and 70.
and the asks are about how to get something and not have to pay for it. medicare will pay for it. ads on sexual dysfunction. read the aarp magazine, is a marketing instrument. i said to the top guy, or they patriots in here are just marketers? that is a harsh statement, and i intended to be just exactly that, and they have not helped one bit. they say we have two things we can suggest, just modest changes will take care social security. we say what are they, and we are still waiting. >> watch work from this event on line at the c-span video library. next, south carolina governor nikki haley at a gathering in her state. from charleston, this is about 25 minutes. >> i have always thought this.
i have met a lot of politicians in my life, and you know the typical stereotype of a politician is real. it was one of the weirdest things when i met the future governor of south carolina, that she and her family are actually real people. it is a surprising concept. governor haleigh and her family are normal people. they are real people, but beyond the normal people, they live in the governor's mansion, and governor haleigh fights the good fight, and she wins. it is my pleasure to introduce her. >> good to see you. thank you. it is such a pleasure to be here. it feels like home. i think the reason it feels like home is you always go back to the people you are with in the very beginning. what i loved was, right after i
had announced, we had the center explosion, and everything fell apart. i was already an underdog by major means. i was just a little house member running against a congressman, lieutenant governor, an attorney general, all who had been very well established in the state. they certainly had more money than i could even think about. we just did not have a lot going for our campaign. erik erikson invited us to come to atlanta and we had nothing to lose at that point. so i went and spoke to the people at red state, and i will never forget that i truly felt home. these were people that all like me. these were people that saw where i wanted the country to go. these were people that had the energy that i knew felt like we could move the country and they were going to help us do it. so what i did was, i told all of you my story. i told you what i wanted. i told you it was not about
being a republican, it was about being conservative, and wheat were no longer about republicans and democrats. we are about people who understand liberty and are going to fight for it every step of the way. [applause] i told them that i wanted every state in the country to show what the she rejectsd.c. should look like. -- to show what d.c. should look like. more than anything, what i said is, i want the people to understand the power of their votes. i want them to understand that elected officials work for them and not the other way around. the only way we are going to do that is to get louder, the transparent, and be accountable. what i love about all of you and about redstate is, it is not about who could win, it is about who should win.
and you carried me the whole step of the way, that when the press said i did not have a chance, you fought and said i should win. with a started throwing bullets, you aimed and fought back for me. you sent me $5, $10, $50 donations, and when i could not even get $1,000 together, 46 states donated and abroad in over $60,000, all within 48 hours. [applause] ithin a few hours. i love that you are here in south carolina. i want you to know that this is a state that is conservative and is getting more conservative by the day. we wt you to be here every year. let me tell you a little bit about where i think that we are. i could talk about the state and south carolina and what we are doing. somef the lettuce --
legislators say is unconstitutional to know how they vote, we were able to push through anyway and now every legislator has to put their vote on the record on every piece of legislation, and every section of the budget. we now hold elected officials accountable and we can see their spending habits. this is the key at the end of the day. there is someone i want to recognize. he is running for congress. wave your hand. a good conservative and a strong fighter, someone you should pay attention to. appreciate this very much. while i will also tell you is that we haveegislative votes
on the record, and we also told people that this is a very simple decision, this is either about lawyers or business. and we also got medicaid reform. the biggest surprise for me as governor was how much the federal government would not let me do my job. they were involved with every step of the way. people stopped talking about health care but this has not gone away. we will show that this is unconstitutional for us to tell us how to take care of ourselves. this is a bigger decision. people have divorced themselves from the cause of health care. they go to the doctor and get whenever the doctor tells them to, and 30% of the service tha we get is not even needed.
the president says that he knows how to take care of you. people in the city taxes are like those in the state of california. when you go to get your car fixed, they show you the charges before you pay for this. this is what i want around the country and in south carolina. we have to let people get involved with their decisions on their health care needs, because guess what happens when we do that? we start to pay more attention to the health, more attention to the cost of health care. we get costs out of the system because we say, i don't need this at the dentist i have this at home. the goal we have in south carolina is we will make this transparent, from the patient to
the doctor and we will focus on health. this is when we will have healthy people, paying less money. and we will make certain the insurance company will let us choose the insurance policies that we want to have. so this is amazing to me that we have a president, trying to mandate services, when all that we need to do is make our own decisions and make those decisions by ourselves. medicaid is a major part of the budget of every state. obama is actually mandating more costs into the system, which is taking us in the wrong direction. we had a law that was in place and wanted to be able to enforce this. we had two dozen immigration inspectors not allowed to do their job.
my labor relations director said we have to do this. we just need one piece of paper. we have to be able to see this. they would not answer us. they did not call me back. do you know what happened? i had a press conference and i said, do you know that this is going on? we have a state that cannot enforce the law because the president will call me back. and then janet napolitano called me back. [applause] within one week, we have what we eded and now we are enforcing this in south carolina. and this is a great thing.
and then, the unbelievable happened. the president and the national labor review board did a lawsuit against a great american company. south carolina was saved when they decided to cut operations in south carolina, and they created 1000 new jobs in charleston. we were so excited and this led us know that we were going in the right direction. they expanded their operations in washington state by 2000 jobs. they sued boeing and said that they had no right to do this. this is the most un-american thing i have ever heard of, and
we cannot have that. because when you allow a company to come in and say, we want to create jobs in this country and you tell them they cannot do this, you incentivize them to go overseas. this is from the sam. when this is coming from. i am sittin there, -- they're trying to relevant and they are not. so what happens, the unions filed a lawsuit.
if there would give me a reaso i wod quit talking. we will let ourselves known in south carolina and there is nothing we can do about this. but this governor will do something about it. god bless the judge. she said she is exercising her freedom of speech. that is why conservative governors matter, and they need to understand that as unions try to mandate, our rights mean something. that judge stood up for me, and they have not heard anything now.
we have the huge planes ready to go. go, and we will continue to hire people. we will make certain that we can do this for america. when we have some of his understand what we need in this country, we have a group in washington who does not understand our spending situation. every governor, every governor has had to tell their people about the value of a dollar, and how thisas meant to secure the rights of the people. this was never intended -- in south carolina, we fought against the arts commission, and
against educational television and all kinds of things. this is an $800 million shortfall. this is what i am trying to tell the leslators in this state. whever you have money, you do not spend this, you pay down the debt we give this back to the taxpayers. these are your only option. now we have a washington that decided that they would do this fabulous debt deal. we came together with the people in whington and everyone in the world was looking at us, and theyame out and they got a resolution. where was this. this was not enough to make the credit ratings fall.
when will washington learned that this is not an option anymore? they will understand this later. you did this in south carolina -- and i will say that what happened, this is nothing more than a waste of time. my daughter is in eighth grade. i bet tha they could find somebody very quickly. i was with a couple of governors not too long ago.
if you put us in a room we ll take care of this very quickly. spending is the number one priority. we have to make certain that the people we send to washington understand that this is not the two-party ruining what is happening in washington. we bring a constant to a group of republicans who need this. we are running the -- we are trying to stop them from running the economy into the ground. and this leads us to the presidential. what a great policy debate that this is going to be. it does not matter what the personality will be like. we want for them to understand that all they have to do is talk about policy. talk about illegal immigration. talk about securing the borders. talk about how the cost of gas is ridiculous.
we would not need any of this. this is our money, not their money. america's credit rating fell. it is up to th governors, in every state to be loud and talk about our problems with what is happening in south carolina, and give these presidential candidates every ounce of support that they need. i will continue to be allowed against president obama, but we need for them to understand that this presidential election is th most important that we have ever had. we will all get loud, to get 10 people involved who have not
been involved in elecons. and i will tell you, i have great faith in the people in this country. it's no longer about who could win. it's about who should win. we get it. so make sure that when you leave today and we've got the aim straw poll and you've got a super star coming here today, let's not forget the message. we've got a president who doesn't want ttalk about policy. he's going to get on a bus and start campaigning but what is going to happen? he's asking for a redo. we don't need for you to mess up again. we just have to decide who that person's going to be. [applause]
somebody told ne other day, well, i'm just not excited about the republican candidates. are you kidding? i'm excited about the issues we have to discuss. we've got great candidates. the combination is magical because you're going against a president who has failed. he has failed this country. god bless him. we wish him well. but it's time for him to leave. [applause] so do what i know you can do, get out there. god bless you for every one of your bloggers that blogged. let's get involved with these candidates. let eco's make sure you get involved -- let's make sure you get involved in the grass roots effort. so know that i love you. i appreciate you. i will keep fighting for you every day and my number one goal is to continue to make you proud. god bless south carolina. god bless you very, very much. [applause]
>> you can tell a speaker has been at a red state gathering because she says time for questions. we're having to transition some mics here. i may have to point you out and eept question so the other side can hear. let's start right here. >> [inaudible snched -- [inaudible] >> where is she on nullification? >> i want to focus on the value of the dollar. i want to focus on the liberties and being strong. nullification is something that we talk about when we're not sure -- we're frustrated. we talk about nullification
when we're frustrated. what i want us to do is talk about how we're strong. we want to keep our core beliefs. i want to stay very focused on the value of a dollar and how we make our elected officials accountable and what we're going to do about that. >> [inaudible] >> when it comes to states rights, a lot of what we're talking about states right, is that state rights trump everything. the state's rights trump everything. [applause] but part of the way we show that is understand for every federal dollar we take, we end up spending more money down the road trying to match the federal government. where as if states would focus on their money, time and freedoms, then the federal can't seep in. it's always something i'll fight for. it's always something evybody in this room should fight for. >> next question? yes, ma'am.
>> how can we help boeing? what can we do to help them in their fight? >> the best thing to help boeing is to get every single presidential candidate to talk about it because president obama has said it's an independent agency. i can't control what ty do. i'm a governor. i have agencies and i appoint people to those boards if they do something wrong, you can bet i'm going to call them and speak out against that agency. he's been unbelievably solid. i would rather him stand up and say, i believe in what they're doing than to be silent. slip not silence. leadership is fighting and saying where you stand and he has not done that. let's get every presidential candidate to say where they stand. [applause] >> next question.
>> right here. with your fundamental transformational quality why even talk in front of a teleprompter? >> when you've got the passion -- and thas what i want. we've done enough of the establishment thing. we've done enough where people have groomed themselves and they worry about whether it's politically correct or not. look at the real rock stars in this country. look at the martha rubios and all these people. the one thing they have in common is true passion. we believe it. we want -- and we know the people of this coury believe it. so anybody that use as teleprompter, let's ask twheam they believe. -- ask them what they believe. [applause] >> my friend and i are the only yankees. >> god bless you. welcome to pennsylvania. >> [inaudible]
how do we bring that to pennsylvania - >> yes. great e. great one. >> how do we bring you and red states intpennsylvania and to light us up? we do have a tea party. there are two women up there that are fantastic. we need a little bit of juice. >> tell us when you'll be there and we'll be there. we've got great conrvatives. don't look at the majorities. don't look at where people stand. make your voice knowns in the days of internet and facebook which i am on facebook, by the way, in the days of that, get your voice out there. i'm going to continue to speak as loud as i can against the unions, against health care, against federal government intruding in. but the more of us that say it, e more people feel it. look at what happened in washington. that debate never would have
even happened a few years ago. you know who did that? conserve tiffs did that -- conservatives did that. the tea party did that. you hold on in pennsylvania. we'll come take care of it. >> folks, a round of applause for governor nikki haley. [cheers and applause] >> blog social security is so clear that if this schedule benefits cannot be paid, they will give only the payable benefits. now, that may sound like garbage, but that is a real gut- wrencher because that is the one that is going to hit in 237. last may there was more coming
in than going out. you are going to get payable benefits and not scheduled benefits, and you can sue and you can moan and you can treat, and it will not do you a lick of good. that is absolutely goofy to me. we went to aarp in said look, we think you ought to help. there are 38 million people bound together by love of airline discounts and insurance discounts, and their magazine has really picked up. sex over 50 is a cover, and now is sex over 60, 70, and even 80. and the ads are about how to get something and not have to pay for it, medicare will pay for it. ads on sexual dysfunction. we the aarp magazine.
it is a marketing instrument. these people are not -- i said to the top guy, or they patriots in here, or just marketers? that is a harsh statement, and i intended it to be exactly that. they have not helped one bit. they say we have two things we can suggest, just modest changes that will take care of social security in three years. we are still waiting. >> what's more from this event on line at the c-span video library. >> it is a country from with corruption, natural disasters, and islamic extremists. >> what was really shocking to meet and to many people was that these assassinations were welcome, were congratulated by many pakistanis. these are not terrorists, not al qaeda, not taliban, but ordinary pakistanis who feel that their religion is threatened, that the
country is becoming too secular, that the islamic values are under attack, and that blasphemy, which is anything that insults' the prophet or islam is something to be defended with your life. >> pamela constable, tonight on "q&a" 3 -- sunday night on "q&a". >> as vice president biden continues his far east trip, he is in china until sunday, "washington journal" this morning bogus on the developing economies of china, india, and brazil, starting with the focus on china. " continues. host: our look at the first of three economies around the globe doing better in this global economy, the first is focusing on china. our guest is yukon huang, a senior associate at the carnegie endowment asia program. he will be with us for the next 20 or 25 minutes. we will get you involved in this
discussion about china possibly economy. this week when the vice president joe biden is there to help shore up the economic relations between our two countries. it was a snapshot. what is the state of china's economy? guest: it country growing at 10% a year worries more about inflation than doubled it recession. rather than dealing with high unemployment, it actually cannot find enough workers because the economy is booming, exports surging. the real concern is how to maintain double-digit growth for the next decade. host: where is the investment money coming from? guest: they generate a lot of savings from households. households save about 30% of their income and americans say about 4%, or 5%. the government surplus is used for investment. the corporations generate a lot of internal profits which are reinvestment. the consequence is china invest about 45% of gdp.
compared to the united states, investing about 20%. so twice as much as a share of the economy of the united states. it leads to very high productivity growth and profits. host: let me just show you some headlines. this is from "international business news." the head line -- "china's big economic bubble." five reasons it is sure to burst. guest: people are concerned about the property bubble. prices increasing about 10% to 50% for the past five years -- every year for the past five years. residential property, which seems to be empty. the government is concerned about overbuilding of the high end and they are trying to encourage more low-cost housing. there is a legitimate concern about the housing bubble, just like america here worried about a housing bubble four or five years ago.
host: headline in "the atlanta." the new five-year plan focuses on rebalancing and investment driven economy. the need to create more consumers. guest: this is the great irony. here in the united states we are concerned about overconsumption and not investing enough, and when people look at china, they say here is an economy that does not seem to be consuming as much and seems to be investing too much. from a chinese perspective, they are a little skeptical about this argument because what they see in the west is they got into a lot of problems by trying to encourage consumption and they did not invest enough. here in china they are consuming relatively speaking to little and perhaps investing too much. what is the right balance? i think that the domestic consumption needs to increase. if an happen -- if it happens, it will moderate investment and they will probably need to. with recession in the western world, exports become more
limited and in which case not a need to invest as much as in the past. host: phone lines are open and you can send us a message by email and also a twitter message, a tweet. chinese economy, especially how it compares to hours and the allies in the west. let me ask you -- an early -- in order to create consumers, one needs the middle-class. what is happening to the population? 1.3t: china's population, billion people, because of the one-child policy, population growth has slowed. that is one reason why the labor force is not growing and they are running out of labor. nevertheless, because of rising incomes, the double-digit growth for three decades, get an emerging middle class, essentially from nothing to about -- another fiber 10 years, it may be 500 million people. that is a huge market. that is why firms are investing
heavily. in asia -- large rise in the middle class with a large consumption needs. host: here is an example of that. this story here suggests that the chairman and chief executive of coke says it plans $4 billion of new spending in china the next three years, the biggest investment by multinational food and beverage group targeting the world's number two economy. he says the money will be used to add bottling plants, expand facilities, fund distribution and marketing and development of new drinks -- the third largest global market growing in double digits. not on the agenda is acquisitions. it is no longer on the radar screen because we are seeing so much potential for organic growth. those are the kinds of stores people want to read about in this country. so, the population there is ready to consume? what is keeping them back? guest: like any former developing country, you have to
realize that per-capita income is about $4,000, and united states it is over $40,000. but if you are growing at 10% a year, you would be upper-middle- class economy in five years and by then you would have a very large middle income class. this has become a very urban economy. a 10 or 15 years ago, 75% in the rural areas, and then a few years and now they will be in the cities. they are drinking coffee, moving away from t. buying cards, basically buying more televisions. so, this is a huge consuming class and you see retail sales growth of 15% to 20% a year and in the united states we are hopeful we can get sales growth of 3% to 4% a year. for american companies, this is what we see is a huge business opportunity. host: manufacturing and exports -- export sector. we hear about china that a lack
of trade and copyright law. in fact, the risk of the products being copied and manufactured at a cheaper price and no redress in chinese courts. can you talk about that trade? guest: i think this is a big issue. the chinese economy and society is not used to legal protection, intellectual property rights. there is a lot of infringement and illegal copying. there is piracy of software and records and bbb disks throughout china. there are copies of western purses, designs, fashions. the other day there was huge publicity surrounding the fact that there are fake apple distribution retail stores and merging in china. the whole store is a fake store. they will sell your legitimate apple products but the store itself is an illegal store. this is the issue. this is what i call an aspect of what you see in terms of a developing country. they don't have the
institutional structures, the legal framework. host: do they have the incentive to created? guest: it will. because at some point in time it will be chinese doing chinese. if years ago 99% of the lawsuits were foreigners the sewing chinese company and now today it is 50-50 because chinese companies are becoming established and they are worried about piracy. you give it another five or 10 years, you will see the bulk suing are chinese firms suing other chinese firms. at that point, i would say the politics will change dramatically. host: i want to get to calls. one question more before we do that. of the three -- three countries we are profiling, china is the only one with a communist government, central planning. how does it make it different from other emerging countries with good economies? guest: they can make decisions frankly democracies cannot. win xiaoping -- he needed
decision to channel investment and production along the coastal areas because he saw that as the greatest potential. this is why china is so productive. in the united states or europe, before you took the policies and i will concentrate my resources or capacity and opportunity is greatest, you had this huge outcry about what about the neglected areas, hinterlands, central and middle america. once they lose out? and china, what they said it is those people need to move. 300 people move from the central portion of china's along the coast -- china along the coast. there are rules against people relocating to other places. that is why have the migrant workers, single people, they let their families behind. the families now are slowly being allowed to join them. this is the big difference. you can do something credit be quickly. but there is a cause.
high-speed trains -- they are able to do this in a short span but they sacrificed some kind of regulatory safety considerations. so there is a cost to this kind of speed and forceful decision making. host: one story related to that -- high-speed rail crash that killed 20 people. this also goes back to the centralized planning part of the government. it is an "the new york times" today. fiat of -- fired official gets a new post.
guest: i don't think what you would call public accountability in china. host: isn't it changing with the internet? guest: in the past the person would not have been fired, he would be wrong -- relocated -- now there is a necessity. why is given something else? he actually felt a was responding to what the government wanted. he was working for a ministry whose sole responsibility is to build a high-speed railroad as quickly as possible. the consequence being safety and regulations were ignored. now that's the public realizes the problem, the realize they have to do something about it. they would say he was following the government's objectives in some way and therefore he should not be penalized and he will probably show up in another job. host: mesa, arizona. anthony is on the air. we will move on to woodbridge,
virginia. marcella, independent. guest: i was wondering to ask your guest -- in 1972 when president nixon opened up trade with china, everybody was excited because they said we would sell 1 billion toothbrushes to the chinese. now it seems like the tables have actually turned and they are selling 1 billion toothbrushes to us. we import more than we export to china. also, i wondered how is health care administered in a country with such a large population? thank you for the time. host: thank you for the question. guest: i think we need to put the trade, which is a highly emotional issue, into proper context. actually the eu and the u.s. is china that the biggest export markets but china is also america's biggest export market.
there is a huge deficit in terms of u.s. trade, as it is shows up as a huge surplus in terms of time a's trade. but china's trade is unique. it accident doesn't produce much of the stuff exported to the united states. if you take the ipod, $150, exported to the united states. of that, $5 actually goes to china for chinese labor. $80 actually goes to apple, copyright, marketing, distribution. the other $65 comes from components made in hong kong, singapore, taiwan, south korea. the big irony, the $150 exports from china is not actually really a chinese products. many parts made -- products made in china, a lot produced elsewhere and a large part -- proportion produced in the united states, so the exporting is exporting to itself actually
three china. it is complicated. host: what policy governs the relationship? guest: trade policy negotiations are being complicated by the fact that really trade is carried out by companies, not countries. multinational companies. 50% of if it% are managed by u.s. companies. all the computers are made over there, and they get the malt -- the bulk of the money. this generates jobs in terms of marketers, accountants, lawyers. effected turned to the question about health, china has -- if i could turn to the question about health, when they move from a socialist economy to a market economy, all of the rural people
lost health insurance. in the urban area, they all still -- also lost health insurance. now, china is as that which in urban and rural health insurance programs. host: corpus christi, texas. arthur, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. your guest seems like a very good person to ask my question. do you think that this global economy is just too complicated for human beings to manage? guest: nobody is managing the global economy. it manages itself in ways said no one knows how what will happen. 20, 30 years ago, when you have a financial crisis in one country, the crisis was pretty
much restricted to one country. now, a problem in europe effects everyone but when the interest rate goes up in china, it effects the stock market in new york. there is no such thing as an american company or a chinese company, for a european company. take general motors. they get most of their profits from china. is that good for the united states? in no way, it is, because that allows them to retool in the united states, -- in a way, it is, because it allows them to be told in the united states. host: called the telegraph co- called in london had a story -- "the telegraph" had a story this morning that suggests the future is difficult to call because of a looming clashes between china
and america. the easy thing to assume -- continued slow growth in america juxtaposed with rapid growth in china. it's hot -- it hardly seems like equilibrium. america's patients is wearing thin. he thinks it will end up with a trade battle. guest: if you go to any big shopping mall in china, you'll be struck by the fact that everything is imported. people find the sirenic. -- find this ironic. 95% of the goods are european. there's hardly anything from the united states the europeans have figured it out. they have to cater to a chinese market that wants high-and
quality goods, and they're concerned with designed. host: what are we doing? guest: what is the number one category? the first category is aircraft. boeing airplanes, understandable. the second largest category is scrap materials. then you get food products, rice, soybeans. then when you get to category four and five, you get to things like electronics and machinery. this is the opposite of europe. the real issue is can we get into this market and can these low-cost mass-consumer items, can i get into the high-end materials and machinery? kenneth starr exporting services?
-- can i start exporting services? how much of this is being used to sell to foreigners? one of the foreigners actually doing? they are trying to set up health services in their own country and bring the americans there. i find this an example of a great irony. host: is it a challenge to the manufacture high-and goods when they are manufactured in europe as well? guest: why have the europeans chosen that and? they are a collection of wealthy, small countries, so they have to go for specialized lines. one of the great strengths of these -- of this country is technology. indeed a high-level investment. how do we gear up?
how we make education institutions more effective, and increase production capacity in the high-tech, innovative product lines? host: let's take a call from pennsylvania. joseph, a democrat. caller: thank you. in the harrisburg paper this morning there is an article about the state-department sponsored exchange program from china. it turns out that they have employed at the hershey chocolate co. in a warehouse that -- warehouse that is operated by an ohio-based company, and the staffing is done by a third company, and
they're now protest in, saying they should belong to local, american workers. why are we being held as slaves here? the state department is investigating. it is the irony of the american economy, and in my opinion, underneath it all is the drive to maximize the bottom line for the stockholders that has corrupted the entire economy. they do not care where they have to go to make it cheaper to max out stock values. host: i read that article, and i read that the students were protesting that they had come for an american experience and were doing menial labor. caller: there is a direct quote the says why are we taking these jobs from american workers?
guest: i think the challenge for america and for china is not so much jobs, cut jobs that pay a reasonable wage. -- but jobs that pay a reasonable wage. when people say we should be manufacturing more, they should realize that most manufacturing jobs and not paid that much. they are automated. the question is how do we know generate high-value jobs? they tend to be services, but there are different levels. this is the same in china. they do not t want to foster a more >> by the way, a vice-president joe biden is on his first vice presidential trip to the far east. he is meeting with business
leaders and the new chinese ambassador. next week on "washington journal die as they will talk about a focus on medicare starting on monday. wednesday of next week, it is an examination of the medicare prescription drug program and the close at the series with the discussion on medicare's fiscal challenges, hal it is paid for and proposals to reduce cost. americas 9/11 foundation does an annual motorcycle ride, a fund- raiser that takes participants by the september 11 crash sites at the pentagon and new york city. they are making their way just outside of washington. you see the tail end of the motorcyclists as they make their way.
around the pentagon before heading to new york city tomorrow. we have an dodd camera crews keeping an eye on the motorcycle ride as it comes in to the nation's capitol. we are streaming the ride live at c-span.org. we are going to take you back to our conversation this morning, looking at developing economies, this time the economy of india. global meltdown, our next look is that india, and we are joined by arvind panagariya, who is an economics professor at columbia business school. give us a snapshot of how the economy of india stands today? guest: indiana is far below which an apparent -- far below china. average income is $1,300 per
capita, but it has grown rapidly. it is grown about 8%-9% in the next 10 years. the rupee has been appreciating in real terms. e economy has grown in the last eight years at about 15%. host: we would like to hear that sty in the united states. what has been the source of that growth? guest: a lot economic reforms started in 1991, and continued imminent -- into the 1990's, until 2000, which included the end of the light -- import licensing, opening up to four investment, privatization in the communications sector, and so forth. so, lots and lots of economic
reforms took place. they finally came together. they began to escalate a little bit in the 10's, and roll back up in the 1990's, but it took off after the reforms were in place starting i2004. it is really a good example of where good policies have actually resulted in very substantial escalation of growth alongside major reductions in poverty. host: can you tell us what important policies governing u.s.-india trade? guest: on the trade side, india manufacturing dynamo, like china is. they can export services. on the manufacturing size, it is
more capitalintensive, so you see engineering goods. and pharmaceuticals, is doing well. software, i mentioned, and those other types of products. the u.s. imports largely machinery. u.s. serces, of course. beijing services coming in, insurance services -- banking services coming in, insurance services. there is another sector where u.s. companies are active within india. host: we will invite our viewers telephone calls, twitter messages, and e-mail about the u.s. and india trade, and the
state of india put the economy. we have heard growth numbers, and are envious. our guest, mr. arvind panagariya is here to take your telephone calls. let me ask you about the consumer class in india. as you just heard, in the chinese economy they're trying to convert to more consumption. give us a look at the indian population, and how it has changed in this growing economy. new guest: as in china, the middle class is growing very rapidly. you can see the impact within india in the last four or five years. indian cities are populated by these mega-malls. some of these in bombay look more impressive than the ones
here in the united states. about 200 or 300 million consumers. a lot of these are very young. one of the things about india is the population is extremely young. i should also mention of what will have important implications --. demographics are there -- the demographics are there. the populaon in the age group 24-49 will rise by 100 million. it is my prediction that in a less -- next 15 years we will see a lot more indians. sometimes i'd joke that if you see to many people like me
around here, wait 15 years, and you'll see many more. as in china, the western goods are in demand. a lot of people have thephone in india before i had it. host: if you go into the shopping malls and pick up products, where did they mostly come from? guest: they come from all over, including from within india as well. there are also a lot of chinese products. there's a little bit of fear in india as well [unintelligible] they tell me when they go and open up with indian counterparts, the reaction from
the other side is often why are you asking for it because it is awfully the chinese will take over the market. -- likely the chinese will take over thearket. the u.s. major auto companies are very much present. with harlan,in indiana, carroll is a democrat ere. good morning. caller: i noticed the quality. u.s. consumers pay attention to the quality of what they are presented with, and i have noticed most china, and i do not know about india so much -- one thing i would like to understand is i think a lot of medications are made inndia, where a lot of textiles and such are made in china.
are there manufacturers- are the manufacturers through multinationals, do they set the standard ohow things are made and the quality? we have had a big drywall thing where people cannot even live in houses where these things have been made in china. some have invested a lot of money, and some cannot afford to replace it. the same way with textiles. i have had things, and i got things that the u.s. made, and there are quality. i washed them thousands of times. yet stuff like bedding and competitors, they just fall apart within a couple of years.
host: let's jump in. the quality of manufactured products? new guest: when developing countries start, they're bigger advantage is the cost, and they are able to provide low-cost product. when i was growing up, chinese products were very low quality. i think we have seen the quality improved dramatically over the last 20 years. the u.s. is a high-end market, and a much higher-wage market, so you will see that commitment in the quality. there is no question, and that is really the u.s. strength, but a lot of people are looking for bargains, and that is where the imports help out. h., a question about indian
consumers -- host: a question about indian consumers demanding more wages. that is the natural cycle of things. how does that effect india's competitiveness, and it creates, i mentioned to more consumers? est: which is to drive the competitiveness down. in ways where india has been the exporter, and might china, india has been in the software services and called centers and so forth, but skilled labor has been in short supply. you' not seen reports where companies are same -- seen reports were companies are saying that the cost differences have been reduced. they say there is no way 10% difference in the costs between
indian labor and corresponding u.s. labor. you're beginning to see that, and part of that is the failure of the indian high education system. on the supply side, the creation of additional skillets has been much slower than demand. in the indian market, for skilled labor, uc wages rising faster than almost anyowhere else. on the demand side, that is leading to a rising middle class. h., if there is on it and% differential -- host: if there is some a 10% differential, might they have exported their cost centerobs? might they start coming back to the united states? guest: i think ultimately they will go away from india also.
in the u.s., the wages are too high. [unintelligible] by the time the indians started getting the call centers jobs. a lot of the jobs here are actually taken by machines. press one, pressed to the below. it is mechanization, -- press two. it is mechanization. when -- will the jobs come back? maybe some, but not a lot. host: the next caller is from lake charles, indiana. ernie, an independent. ernie, are you there? he is listening to the program and not ready to be done, so we will move on toimmy, a democrat in chicago. caller: one issue we continue to
debate is health-care costs, and i'm hoping people that are against the obama administration attempts to have universal health care understand that one of the reasons why companies are leaving the united states is because of our health-care costs. so what we are trying to do is take away that cost from private companies, and putting more towards the government, which would to a certain degree may keep some jobs here. professor, i like you to comment on that. it continues to be a debate, but we cannot compete with wages and unless we cut waste. we cannot compete with health- care costs without taking the burden off of companies. if you do not want jobs overseas, i understand, 01 of the reasons they leave it is because of the rise of health
care costs, the one the government tries to take that away, we fight back. i am hoping we do not -- we understand it. these growing economies offer universal health care, and they take that away from private corporations. can you comment on that? guest: this is a complicated question. i am a trade economist. from a social perspective, you ought to have universal coverage, and i support that, but from a trade perspective, if we try to equalize everything, i think we get into a very difficult problem, right? everyone would say that wages are higher in one place, therefore if they're to be equalized, capitalized [unintelligible]
prices of electricity differ across countries. the moment we get into this equalization game, that is really ultimately cutting out the sources of competitive advantage. we are able to trade beneficially because of these cost differences that exist. ultimately, these differences, exchanges take care of. if we have a competitive advantage, that is just telling you the u.s. dollar ought to appreciate and compensate for that difference, rather than going item-by item. host: the next caller is also from chicago, michael, an independent there. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about one of
the things facing the indian economy. there is a big movement against all of the corruption going on in all of the different sectors of the indian economy, and all over the place. one of the big concerns is they want to send a bill with a loophole regulating the corruption in the indian parliament. my concern is how do they know it will not become another bureaucratic, corrupted sort of institution itself, rather than focusing on abolishing institutions to create the most corrupt -- corruption? guest: this is an issue.
if you actually go through the route of appointment, there would have to be a mechanism in place that insures it is above suspicion, completely. even given the number of very large corruption cases that we care about in india, and there aren't very many of them that have come to the fore in the black -- and there are very many of them that i've come to the four in the last 10 years -- that have come to the fore in the last 10 years. there are lots of people with integrity, people who are respected everywhere for their of brightness, honesty, and integrity. those are the kind of people that we have to appoint. issueer, they're also
says the key issues of justices in supreme courts and high court's. you have to ensure they are honest people and people of integrity. it is not always happen, but by and large supreme court judges are honest. there are exceptions. the bigger question is really precisely on what kind of ability to you have within the purview [unintelligible] that is where the current struggle is going on. the parliament wants control of that, and this is a movement coming out of society, so there are issues in a democracy where there is a parliament, there ought to be supreme. sometimes a civil society seizes control. that is a struggle going on in india. host: related to the struggle, this profile on the front page
of "the new york times." he writes that he has emerged as the on likely face of an impassioned people's movement in india, that is cost around fighting corruption and tax into deeper anxieties in a society buffeted by change. do you have any comments on "a society buffeted by change?" gee, i think this is a healthy moment. : i think this is athi health a moment. and there are some echoes of the golden age, and hopefully some cleansing will happen. i did not think corruption is about to disappear.
the incomes will rise quite a bit before corruption since the beginning begins to disappear. when people see opportunities a lower levels of income, and the economy is growing rapidly, people see ways to make fast money, and that is by expanding corruption, which is what we have observed. at the same time, as they rise, i think there is good scope, and the use of technology becomes easier corresponding to education. the movement itself is a fairy welcome -- a very welcome. host: we're talking about the indian economy. "the economic times" has this story -- and it could be a $5.60 trillion dollar economy.
our next call, lake charles, louisiana, bernie, an independent. caller: it is evelyn. host: i'm sorry about that. caller: i'm calling from phoenix, ariz., and i have a hard time accepting that our ceo's our outsourcing jobs that could be given to americans to give to china, india, brazil, or any other country. i'll tell you my personal experiences. they have taken over the telemarketing business, and when i call and have a problem at my bank, i get somebody in that does n speak english well, does not care whether you can understand them or not, and these men hang up on women traditionally, a lot, because they did not respect them.
why are we giving money to these countrs when we are bleeding? we are hurting for these jobs kept on the other end, -- jobs. on the other end, i am for entitlements. if you need them they should be available. there are a lot of americans that could be put to work, and certain jobs they could do partially. everyone should work if they can't. then the government subsidizes the rest. there is so much corruption within the entitlement programs. i am on social security disability. i can not waste your time in talking to you, because you're talking about other countries, but there corruption comes from -- they are stealing money from apple when they do lookalikes, or whatever they call them, and try to sell them off as the real
thing. that hurts america. host: evelyn, thank you. dr. arvind panagariya, anying for evelyn and her concern about outsourcing jobs americans can do? guest: those jobs are there because the wages there are lower, and it is really the services that evelyn has described the there is no reason to doubt. i think eventually those called centers will get shot down. there are firms that have shoddy products. as consumers, if we refuse to buy their products, they get shut down, and the same goes for call centers. we should have some sense of numbers. the entire software industry in india is not too large in terms of numbers. it is a little over 2 million
people. when we talk of jobs, it isot so large, but the numbers are not as large as we think. it has a lot to do with the technology changes. that does lead to a lot of lost jobs. host: let's close by puttg numbers about india on the screen. there unemployment rate is currently 10.8%, higher than the united states, and the major indudustries and textiles, food,
>> and next week, a look up at medicare, starting monday with the history of the program, then to save medicare advantage. on wednesday, a look at the medicare prescription drug program. the series closes out on thursday with a look at its fiscal challenges, how it is funded and a proposal to reduce cost. that is monday through thursday next week on "washington journal." in a city that averages 250 murders a year, a former baltimore homicide detective and an investigative reporter take on the question "why do we kill ?" including a book launch for armstrong williams and his latest "reawakening virtues."
court tv founder steven brill on "aferwords." you can watch all of our nearly nine dozen programs online. august 16 marked the anniversary of elvis presley's beth. on c-span3, his confidante talks about events that led to the death of the king and his meeting with president nixon. we will also go to mount vernon. warrior, a statesman, president, and susan eisenhower talks about dwight eisenhower. get the complete schedule at c-
span.org/history. and back to this morning's "washington journal," this time talking about brazil. joão de castro neves, thank you for being here. tell us about brazil's economy today. guest: brazil has been known for having an unstable economy during the 1970's and 1980's '80s with one of the largest of inflation and -- with one of the largest inflation rates in the world. there is no plan of macro- economic stabilization that has been successful, and in the last seven or eight years the economy has grown consistently. the economy is very dynamic. it is the eighth or seventh largest in the world, and the brics acronym are not considered
the emerging economies. in the case of brazil specifically, there is also a great importance on agriculture. if you take the most important crops like sugar, corn, brazil is the top producer and exporter of these products. host: give us a sense of the civilian population, and what has been happening to them. guest: because of sustainable economic growth and stability, in the sunset inflation is under control, there has been -- and in that inflation is under control, the largest class in brazil is the middle class. for the first time in history, brazil is an unequal society, and the middle class is the most represented in brazil.
that is a positive sign for brazil. if you go to brazil, and compare it to date to 10 years ago, it is a much better brazilian the political sense, political stability, and it is a market economy. there are many challenges, but there's a general sense the country is moving forward. host: the brazilian president is instituting a series of austerity measures in the country right now. given all of the robust reporting, what are the concerns? guest: the general concern is curious because brazil has been accustomed to dealing with a lack of resources, economic problems, inflation, as i mentioned before, and the lack of resources to invest in the government, mainly. now, we have enjoyed the stable
economic environment not only inside of brazil, but also outside brazil before the economic crisis of 2008, so brazil has learned to deal with an abundance of resources. we have put in place checks and balances in order to fight corruption, and increase production. the challenges facing this and administration are those facing many other emerging economies -- transparency, corruption. when you talk about emerging economies, there is a sense of its dynamic, and you have to take it with a grain of salt. there are still considerations in absence of this rise parity in the case of brazil, these -- rise. in the case of brazil, there is a constant need for economic reforms. so, the main problem is to try to not only maintain stabilization, not only keep the
reasonable and sound economic policies in place, but also that deal with the political scenarios, the political manse -- landscape there is in brazil. is a multi-party system, and the governing coalition is composed of 15 parties. there are a lot of political challenges, and the economic challenges that face any emerging economy. brazil is a major exporter of primary goods, and with a downturn in the global economy, the resistance brazil could be hurt, and their main partners today is china. brazil depends on china. there is a plus side to that, and there is also a negative side, which is this something goes wrong with the chinese economy, its seven-to impact. host: here is a look at brazil by the numbers.
host: 20% agriculture, 66% in services. mineral, fuel, organic chemicals. commercial services exports, el, mineral, fuel, organic chemicals mineral, fuel, organic chemicals. commercial services exports $12.7 million. what trade agreements govern a u.s.-brazilian trade? guest: brazil and the u.s. are the main economies in canada and the western hemisphere -- and canada, also, are the main economies in the western hemisphere.
there are always challenges of intent to have a trade deal. in the 1990's, they try to put a free-trade agreement with the americas, which was basically an extension of the north american free trade agreement that includes canada and mexico, and a united states now has a bundle of agreements with chile, and columbia, which i think congress is supposed to ratify. with brazil, there is a different scenario because it is part of a customs union, the common market of the south along with argentina, paraguay, and hear a glide along with -- year ago why, along with venezuela. it is somewhat similar to the european union. they do not have specific trade deals. they have an issue-by-issue our
arrangement with the united states appeared in the case of brazil, there is -- . united states. in the case of brazil, there is intense trade, but in terms of a major comprehensive trade deal, there is not one. but, it has been one of the major priorities in the u.s. and brazil's administration during the 1990's, a hemispheric trade deal that would include all 34 countries of the americas together. that did not succeed well. as a result, the united states has its own trade deals with the region, and brazil exits on trade deals with a region, but if you look major economies, did not have a comprehensive trade bill in place. host: let's go to your telephone calls beginning with one from georgia, john, a democrat.
go ahead. caller: good morning. brazil is a gorgeous country, and i enjoy visiting. i think some of the viewers would be interested in hearing some of the differences between brazilian workers and american workers, such as how many paid holidays brazilian workers get, and if i were to open a company and i wanted to order -- hire 50 people, but brought in all hundred to keep the best 50, how much left to pay the 50 that i dropped? guest: one of the challenges brazil still faces is labor reform. it is very expensive for you to open a business in brazil today. there is bureaucracy there are many faces of government you have to deal with, state,
federal, municipal. i do not know the exact numbers, but brazil is one of the slowest countries when you want to open a business parity will take a year or so to do so. -- businesses. it will take a year or so to do so. the average price for labor is cheap when you compare to the united states in general, but compared to other developed economies, there are many other .exaaxes it is very complicated. there are many similarities between brazil and the united states in the economic sense, a set of a dynamic agricultural sector, and industry, but also in the sense that they share
many values -- many cultural traits, including people from all over the world that went to brazil as emigrants 100 or two hundred years ago. it is a democracy. when you compare the two, many of the problems that the u.s. faces in dealing with its economy and unemployment, brazil also faces. it is very similar. the challenge for brazil today is trying to make it a better place for people to do business. the size of brazil's government, the state, is very large. the state has a dominant presence in the economy in brazil, and that is seen with concern. taxes in brazil are sky-high, and the government does not give many public services in
exchange. there are many challenges, so much to the united states. host: next call and question comes from richard, watching us in new york city. caller: good morning. i have a question about the effect of the imf on brazil, argentina. before that, i have a brief comment. you had three countries there are rising economies -- china, india, and now brazil. i do not fault their governments for outsourcing or anything of that kind. i mean, they are basically looking out for the best interests of their citizens. i wish our government would do the same thing. as these countries are rising, our country is falling, and their root cause of this is in washington, d.c., and they're both democrats and republicans.
now, what effect is the imf have been on brazil, and especially argentina? in argentina, i know the country is in a mess. i know these imf loans are just ruinous. host: thank you, richard. guest: imf has been an important part of brazil's economic history, and in the 1990's, and early-2000's, brazil was going through the stabilization, and developed -- and dependent on the imf and other multilateral institutions to gain support of the international community to put in place its own domestic plan that changes brazil's currency. brazil had two or three imf loans in the past 15 years, but
as i mentioned in the beginning of the program, in the past six or seven years, the environment has been so favorable that brazil does not have any deal with the imf. quite the contrary. its share of imf is bundling. it is a favorable situation between brazil and the imf. argentina's economy still inspires some degree of concern, but the situation today is much better than it was 5 for 10 years ago. host: more on the brazilian economy. consul, alabama. ned. good morning. caller: you said in the 1990's there were efforts to make it like a european union for the
americas, and it did not succeed. first of all, who is they? who started the motion for that? second, why did not succeed? guest: there are many -- the sense of having trade deals in the americas, there are many countries in the region that once you have trade deals. the differences what kind of trade deal you put in place. there is a european union model that is a more comprehensive model of a common market, and a common currency, even. simplee more, let's say, or superficial trade deal said simply cut tariffs down. there are 34 in the hemisphere, 35 if you count cuba, and each has their idea of what an ideal
trade would be in the region. there were many initiatives in bush990's, but the administration in 1991 lunch in the initiative of the americas and debt -- that launched this idea of a free-trade from alaska. what came of it, basically, was only nafta, the north american free trade agreement. it stopped in mexico. in 2000, with the second bush administration, they united deals tcap on signing with some south american countries. why did the 34 countries and not
a range this major free trade deal with america? there were 34 different formulas, and in the case of brazil, they did not like what the u.s. put on the table to negotiate. keep in mind, bilateral, or even regional trade deals are not the only trade deals that exist. simultaneously, you negotiate trade in the world trade organization, a multilateral level. when some negotiations fail, bilateral negotiations between two countries or regional negotiations, sometimes they fell, and you try to take them to negotiate with all countries of the world. it is hard to pinpoint a reason why they failed, but the important thing is that these
economies are more dynamic today than they were 10 or 15 years ago. host: here are a couple of different headlines captured in the brazilian economy. this is from a local brazilian and financial news." below that, reuters. this one, from "the economist." host: finally, brazil contel president crisis message -- do not spend. host: when you study --
guest: when you study international relations, every decade or so there is a rise of countries, in the 1970's, or 1980's, in japan, and afterwards there are newly- developed countries in south asia, and now brazil, russia, india, china, and south africa. it is important to take with a grain of salt that this rise is not necessarily inevitable. it might be reversed depending on what happens in the global economy. in the early-1970's, brazil was growing at a pace of 10% a year in gdp, and then came along the oil crisis in the middle east, and basically everyone stopped
talking about rising brazil. when you read the papers, when you read official speeches in brazil in the early-1970's, you see that rise in brazil, the term "emerging power" you begin to see that in a official rhetoric. 20 years after that, there was not talk about emerging brazil. it is always important to take it with a grain of salt. the situation is much better than it was 20 years ago for many reasons. political stability, democracy, stabilization on the economic front, and the social the mention, in terms of poverty. that is a very important issue for priscilla and major in emerging economies. it is an overall sense -- and for major emerging economies.
when you look at what is happening in the global economic crisis and problems in the united states economy and the european economy, it is a concern because all of these economies are linked. it is not a matter of competition between brazil and the united states or india and the united states. it is a more complex interaction. in the long run, if one of these major economies toth down, it will effected the others. -- go down, it will effect the others. host: good morning, rowdy. -- robbie. caller: i noticed your collar -- your guest skirted around the question of if a country had to hire 50 people, took in 100, and
had to get rid of 50, how much would they pay both? guest: in brazil, the market operates by similar rules that operates here. it is expensive to hire legally because as i mentioned, there are many causes, many social causes and labor contracts in brazil that give workers a lot power. labor unions have considerable power as well. for example, for you to hire someone, you pay a specific salary for them, and you have to pay the same amount in taxes and benefits for that person. there are contracts where you can have a temporary labor. i do not have the exact numbers of how much you have to pay, but
there are challenges in brazil's labor market for you to make it more flexible. the problem is that part of the unemployment has to do with the fact of the labor market in brazil is -- and out-dated. labor unions are concerned, and skeptical of legislation, and that will lead to unemployment, and more exploration of a labor by the private sector. host: here is a question from twitter. guest: brazil is one of the major producers and exporters of sugar. today, brazil's sugar producers actually have two options -- either producing and exporting
sugar, or ethanol. brazil's ethanol is different from u.s. ethanol. brazil's is made from sugar cane. most exports are ethanol and sugar, but for the past year or so, ethanol has been consumed in brazil. it buys everything it produces. but, sugar, brazil exports sugar to the whole world. i did not know if mexico is the main market. part of the european union is an important market. if you look a trade relations with the world, brazil is very balanced -- 80% of mexico's trade is with the united states. brazil has 20% within united states, 20% with the european union, 20% with china. it is very balanced. there is not a big issue. trade with one specific country
is not an issue that causes concern with brazil, as it does in the case of mexico with the united states. although, china became brazil, the major trading partner, but that does become an area of concern. brazil and mexico do not have a free-trade agreement. host: let's get a couple of comments from our twitter community. host: let's take our last call on this topic of the brazilian economy and its relation to the u.s.. west know, andy jersey. good morning to helen. caller: i was wondering if the
gentleman could comment on what entity decided to cut the world into economic blocs? all of these trade agreements have been disasters for our our economy. i think he would look into having brazil uses many resources to become independent, and strong, and tout its own citizens. guest: the idea of free trade began in the united states. the country that put in place multilateral institutions was the united states. it was an agreement that established not only the creation of the world bank, and the imf, the international monetary fund, but also an idea of an organization that would deal with trade in the sense of liberalizing trade all over the world. bad idea with a jen -- at that
idea was a general agreement on iffs. if you want to find a source of free-trade ideology, much of it came -- from the united states, and the wto operates multi lateral. it involves every country in the world. every decade or so, they have the negotiation rounds. if the negotiation rounds succeed, you have low tariffs all over, across the line. the when you look at the 1990's, you look at the map of the world, many free trade agreement's going on simultaneously in asia,
europe. the idea comes from many places, but when each of these regional blocs expand, they start touching each other, basically, and with different formulas, and that creates tension. the sense that nafta is a different trade deal that south america and the european union. one of these blocks begin to talk to each other -- when these blocs began to talk to each other, the differences show. but overall, countries benefit from free trade. american multinational organizations operating in brazil >> next week, a history of the
medicare program. medicare advantage on tuesday. wednesday, the prescription drug program. and thursday, the physical challenge s. "washington journal" gets under way at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> what was really shocking to me in pakistan was that these assassinations were welcome, were congratulated by many pakistanis. these are not terrorists, not al qaeda, not taliban, but ordinary pakistanis who feel their religion is threatened, that the country is becoming too secular,
the islamic values are under attack, and that blasphemy, which is anything that insults the profit or islam, is something to be defended with your life. pamela constable son tonight -- sunday night. kelvin sewell and -- how unlikely allies got together to try to change the school system. it the complete "book tv" at
here. i came straight from the airport. i was in the mexico this morning talking about safety issues, and we had a productive meeting. it is always great to come home, although i cannot say that of a lot places i speak, this is home for me, and it is great to be here with all of you. [applause] a lot of what i do now i do not get to go and see this many friendly faces, so it is for being ourhers allies on so many fronts, especially during the last trying four to six weeks. as most of you are aware, we have been through a very challenging time with our lapse in the reauthorization. that authorization failed to be continued, and the subsequent effect of that is we have to
furlough 4000 faa employees. we had to issue a stop work orders, we had to issue more than 250 of those across the country. we also had to ask people working on contracts who had no ability while the money in the trust fund to issue the checks, and that affected 70,000 jobs in the construction industry. all this was over a political fight. this affected what people do in the construction trades, the broader economy, and when you put 75,000 people out of work and stop another 250 contracts, it as a consequence, and it was very unfortunate that congress did not have the wisdom. we also lost $400 million in uncollected airline ticket taxes.
this is money that would have gone into the trust fund. this is money that is collected and designed to build our infrastructure. this is what is building our next generation of air traffic control systems. we did not collect this because we did not have that authority. we had 21 short-term extensions in the last four years, and i will tell you here without any reservation that parceling the money to run the faa 21 different times instead of a five- or six-year authorization is no way to run the finest french decision -- the finest transportation system in the world. [applause] it makes it difficult for us to do any long-range planning when the last extension only goes to the 16th. tell somebody who is building a $5 billion project that it will
take seven years that they can borrow three weeks' worth the money and maybe you can pave one apron. we need to have a longer sighted vision by congress. it has become increasingly aware to me that congress needs to understand there are real costs and real consequences associated with failing to reauthorize the faa. the restart costs, the costs of moving equipment in and out of the projects. several vendors we work with went bankrupt. these projects are designed not only to improve in the short -- improved infrastructure, but are designed to improve the economy. our current authorization expires on the 16th, and i am here to tell you a lot of racket that we cannot have another one
of these for lows. this cannot happen again. we had people working without knowing they were going to get paid to, some of the safety inspectors. they went ahead and did their jobs. it was amazing to me, but we would do everything we can to prevent congress from using the faa as a bargaining chip when they have political disagreements. [applause] we recognize the country is in a difficult economic time. we appreciate that. we at the faa have tried to do more with less and no we are going have to do more with less, and also there can be political disagreements. but there is a forum for political disagreements tree is called the house floor, and is called the senate floor. you can debate and you can solve your issues on those floors. i found it absolutely
unconscionable that you could take a political fight and used as political leverage 8 -- the livelihoods of 75,000 people to push a political agenda. that is just not right. stay tuned. we will see what happens when the come back after august. alfa has been and i love -- an ally on a number of important fronts. one of those fronts is the issue of pilot fatigue. i've been pushing for the time change is since i was president of alfa back in the 1990's. their rule is now in its final stages. we're working aggressively to get it out. we're committed to making certain that pilots are arrested, fit, and had the allocated amount of time that they need to be ready to go to work when they report for duty.
it has been a long time in coming, and we're close enough. we would have the best trained and best prepared polyps in the world, and the current -- prepared pilots in the world. they're dedicated to one level of safety, and we want to make certain that all pilots have the right qualifications experience to handle any situation they might encounter, and that only comes from good training. skills and experience are the bedrock of any good pilot career. also, dedication to professionalism is a key important piece of that. i want to ialfa for having played such a big role in keeping professionalism on the front cover. labor organizations have a special ability to reach members, and you can motivate them in a way that no one else
can, and to live by the professional standards you have generated. you have helped us -- and proud that all the professional unions set the the plate and helped us recognize to reinforce with codes of ethics, codes of behavior. alfa has been key in us achieving one level of safety, and indeed the effort, we need to create and expand and add these standards spread internationally. we need something we can all count on, and the standard we know is going to be uniform across the globe. we have had successes working together in the past, some very important areas. certainly, the commercial aviation safety team,. for those of you here, sounds like i am going to recite the program -- asap -- all of these
have one thing in common -- they give us the data, which will be the key for tomorrow. the things we will find by analyzing data and the ford an active one of for training and safety improvements will be the key to the future. we have gone from a forensic approach in order for improve safety, to a far more data- driven preventative approach in identifying trends and making changes to mitigate potential hazards. you know what? we have improved safety. we also through international standards another, area ,alfa continue to lead its expertise, and giving us wiser decisions and save the changes, spanning the globe. they set the foundation on an international basis for safety, and that is where our next set of significant improvements can be made. we made significant progress there, but we have a lot more to do, and our continued action will improve aviation safety literally for generations to
come. as we move from a ground-based navigation surveillance system in last century, forward into the next generation, creaking international standards that are in harmony, are going to becoming even more critical. it is up us to make certain that those standards are molded properly and that they help us lead the way. as a former president of alfa, i gave these awards for a number of years, and i have to tell you, it is one of the things you do, this is one of the great evenings. this is what alpa is all about. it truly is the core of the air line pilots association, and having given these awards and seeing the work that so many of you do, we will recognize some key people, but what i always appreciate your was the people that did not get recognized, the
people that wrote all the rules, missed the dinners, did all the things like that, that is the fuel and the engine andalpa and safety. let me give you a thank you for the work you do, and i will come up here, but everybody in this room knows you are the ones who make it run. so i thank you. [applause] i have been up here for incredible displays of airmanship. i have had a lot of time to think about the superior airmanship that the pilots who crossed the state over decades have exhibited over the years. the winners tonight continue to exemplify the type of leadership, professionalism that we have been talking about, clear thinking under stress, and doing the right thing, instinctively, because they are so well trained and trained the
have had to their careers. i want to give particular congratulations to the crew of alaska flight 68. also congratulations to the crew of the airtran flight 981. i would also like to thank the sake of security pilots sc system winners, to their dedication for furthering our profession in supporting filed -- fellow pilots. i met mimi -- i will not say how far backs -- 25 years ago -- and that sure most of you thaknow mimi was an officer on a white
airlines flight, which shed light on something else, the need for critical incident response, and her involvement for 25 years is a testament to the dedication alpa representatives. these people's actions are a testament to improvements we have made an improvement see the helped bring about in training. we have made these changes of the years of people are equipped to handle these situations. almost nothing can happen in a cockpit where a pilot has not had some type of training. i pondered the meaning of professionalism for something -- sometimes, and we show professionalism not when we are dealing with an emergency, we demonstrated more when everything is going perfectly fine, and when things are
smoothes, that is not what professional relaxes. a professional never relaxes. that reminds me of the advice that an old friend of mine was given when the captain -- who passed away earlier this year. his son was the vice-president of the flight safety international. you hear a lot of things from the older pilots, and you realize they were worth listening to. in closing i would like to share what he had to say. jim said his dad was always full the fis, like always read instructions before you a symbol -- always full of advice, like always read instructions before you assemble something. his first and foremost action
applied to the cop had to. trust thatonor the the passengers have placed in you by being prepared for each flight, and at the completion, always leave a cockpit in a safe configuration so if the next crew is in a hurry they will not hurt themselves." with more than 1400 -- 14,000 hours myself, that is something i can listen to myself. i want to thank all of you for the kind invitation to be here tonight. i enjoy coming back and see so many familiar faces. congratulations again to the winners. my sincerest appreciation to all of you for what you do, when you have done for making this the safest air transportation system in the world, bar none. thank you.
[applause] >> in a city that averages to hundred 50 murders a year come a former baltimore homicide detective and an investigative reporter take on the tough question, why do we kill? this includes a book launch party for armstrong williams and his latest book. and how unlikely allies got together to try to change our nation's school system. it a complete booktv schedule at booktv.org.
august 16 marked the 34th anniversary of elvis presley's death. this weekend, jerry schilling talks about the king. we will also visit mount vernon whernt des have shed new light on george washington, the gardener, warrior, a statesman, a painter. susan eisenhower talks about her grandfather, dwight david eisenhower. it the complete schedule at c- span.org/history. organizers say their aim is to empower conservative women. phyllis schlafly spoke to the conference about what she " the lies of feminism and the-impact
of obama administration policies. from st. louis, this is an hour and 10 minutes. med by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> hey, what's up, smart girls? i'm here from new york. i said what's up, smart girls? and the smart guys. [laughter] well, my friends, we are here today because of government gone wild, the spending, the debt, the deficit, the regulations. it's progressive gone wild because they want to control every aspect of our lives. you see, the progressives don't think you're smart enough to run your own life, smart girls.
they want you to be dependent on the government for all of your wants and needs. but we the people will not stand idly by and allow this assault on our liberties, not on our watch. [applause] and i admire your courage to stand on the front lines to defend liberty. you are here engaging in educating yourselves, to empower yourselves by attending this great smart girl politics summit. and make no mistake about, my friends, we are in a bat. and it's -- we are in a battle. and it's a battle for the direction of our country. but what troubles me about president obama and his
progressive allies is that they want to fundamentally transform our country, transform it into tee ball nation. everyone know what is tee ball is? no one wins, no one loses. in obama's tee ball nation there are no winners and losers and all our wants and needs would come from government -- energy, jobs, health care, education from cradle to grave. and such a system will reduce our liberty and sap our prosperity and block the engine of enji -- enginuity. this will segregate our country from the elites and the
independents, the haves and the have-nots. ironically the first black president wants to put all americans on the government plantation. [applause] here are some numbers to back this up. in 2010, 66% of the federal budget was for entitlement programs. in 1965 that number was 28%. today, there are over 50 million americans on medicaid, over 44 million on food stamps, over 46 million on medicare, over 52 million on social security. we spent over $2 trillion a year on redistribution programs.
too many americans are depending on the government. obama's policies will only drive more americans to depend on government driving them to the plantation ofment bama's energy policy is a great example. obama is waging a war on fossil fuels and that, my friend, is a war against all americans. we can't say we're surprised. we can't say that. when he was running for president, obama said and i quote "under my energy plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." when cap and trade legislation died in the senate, obama shifted gears to run his toxic energy policy through the environmental protection agency, stepping up their efforts to kill jobs.
in the face of our daunting economic challenges, the e.p.a. is advancing new rules under the clean air act which will dramatically, dramatically increase the compliance costs for coal-burning utilities. now here's a list of some of the regulations the e.p.a. is pushing. cross state air transport rule, green house gas rule, boiler macked rule, rule after rule after rule. and what does that mean? to many costs coming from these rules under the e.p.a.'s actions. it will destroy the industry, the economy, and these costs are real. the american electric power of facility, an ohio-based
facility announced in june just this year, just last month it was closing five power plants and will be scaling back operations on six additional power plants. american electric power estimates its actions will cost about 600 jobs in our country. naturally, american electric power will pass on the additional cost to the consumer and who will bear the brunt of
war on fossil fuel is blocking development of our natural resources. our country has more natural resources than any other country. fossil fuels provide about 85% of our nation cost energy needs. they also create good jobs and tax revenue. american petroleum institute reports that oil and gas industries together provide $2 trillion annually for the american economy. it also pays approximately $85 million a day to the u.s. treasury. the american people support the development of our natural
resources. 50% believe the united states should promote more domestic oil by drilling in anwr. anti-y, president obama's fossil fuel economy is on a collision course with the american people. we desperately need to reverse course and adopt pro-growth energy strategies, and that means we need to challenge president obama, corporate elites, and the environmentalists before they continue to keep advancing this harmful policy agenda. energy costs for all americans, grow our economy, and become energy independent, we need to have a new energy policy that
will encourage development of our own natural resources. there is wrong -- something wrong when the police can use the power of government -- when the leaks -- elites use the power of government to harm hard-working americans. this the knights of of our right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. my friends, fighting for liberty is not easy, and being a target of the left comes with the territory. i have been called all kinds of names -- a token, traitor, sellout, because i believe in limited government. yet i am target because i am expressing my views about
"obamacare" and fur-coat and economics. this tells me my message is getting through and it progresses do not like it. personally, i will not stand idly by and allow this assault on our liberties. i will not. i am committed to reach all americans to instill a sense of hope that we can rein in this government gone wild. we need to hold those elected accountable to preserve the constitutional right of liberty where anyone can succeed, because our country does not success, butyou
liberty guarantees use the -- guarantees you the opportunity to succeed. my friends, the progressives better get ready for more for me -- from me. because my first book will be out in january, 2012. are you ready for the title? "blacklash." how the left is driving americans to the government plantation. in the closing, for the sake of liberty, i hope each and every
one of you will search york got this given talents to continue to empower yourself, because we all have a role to play in this fight for liberty. we all have a role to play, and it is time for us to stand together for this fight for liberty, stand together. i have a question for each of you today. are you with me? are you with me? stand together, my friends, to cherish the constitution, the blueprint of our country. let stand together to challenge those progressives with our ideas and our principles. stay together to rein in this
early book quarters. that was amended. -- that was tremendous. the next person is one of our original smart girls. she is not a clounty clerk from bowie texas. please help me welcome natalie nichols. >> i probably need a booster seat up here. i want to thank you all for asking me to speak and for being my sisters throughout all of this. this is my sorority. it is an honor to be here standing and speaking here with you.
i am excited this time as i have been every time. i cannot wait to come back and see my family. i was never involved in politics before. i've lived in texas, and in my night to take, i assumed we are a red stain and they will vote the way that we voted anyway. that was until i saw sarah palin come on to the scene. i assume they wanted a girl on the ticket. i did not think they would give the floor to a woman with a voice of their on. i did not think they realized she had won. she was the complete opposite of what i had assumed she would be. she embraced all things feminine. she was a wife, mother, leader, and a fighter, and she did not apologize for it or hide from it. she was bold and in your face and came out saying this is a lamb, and i hope you like me, but if you don't, i am still ok
with that. this is me. that was a cake in order -- k ick in the rear for me. i created a website with my husband. we started planning tea parties. we tried to move to get people elected into office. i went back to school for political science, because i wanted to learn everything i could. i never intended to run for office. i was going to the summit so i could learn how to help other people who run. we wanted to get the right people in office, and then one day this friend of mine printed out a list of the local offices up for election in 2010, and she said pick one, you are running. i laugh, too. that was my first reaction, and i said that does not meet. i have four kids, i am a wife
and mother. i am not a politician. i did not get into it for that, but by some twist of fate i can across the quote, "if not you, then who? i knew if i was not to talk about it and i had good ideas, then i darn well better get up there and do it. i did, and i became the first republican woman ever elected to a county-wide office hin bowie county, texas. the platform was really simple -- transparency, integrity, and accountability. those are the things we were fighting for all along they were a belief system. part of my job as county clerk created the official court record based on the official
actions of the court. we say the pledge of allegiance at every meeting and i record it. they did not want to stop saying it. they did not want you to know that they said it, and you have heard of before, we might get sued by the aclu, might offend someone. i could either sit down and shut up or i could say that is not on to happen on my watch, and that is what i did. there was not even a choice for me. it is that what you do as an american. i knew it might be an unpopular decision, and i knew the court probably would not let me get the words of my mouth before i wrote it out, citi it out and planned to hand it to the meeting. they let me get it out, and i said there was no way on earth that i would not say that we had a prayer and pledge when we did, and that the media attention, and it through in support from all of the country, and luckily
we have veterans speaking at the meetings same cannot the summer my husband. hit did -- if it did when it was supposed to do, the citizen spoke out and the court backtrack and wanted to put the plotrayer and the pledge back io the record. she also left off a devotional where they had never even said the word devotional. i said you are lying. that is how loud it was, you can watch the video of yourself. i said you were lying. that is what we're supposed to
do, as moral people. three days later i got a letter from a reporter. apparently, it is a crime in the state of texas to disrupt the meeting. i do not think i disrupted it. i disagreed with his lies. that is what i am doing right now. i am facing criminal charges, that, if convicted of a misdemeanor, when you are a county official, a result in immediate and automatic removal from office if that confession is related to your official duties, which this would be. now there is a huge battle brewing. i have talked to the alliance defense fund, and they said they will offend me, and they would like to come into our county and write a plan to make sure we are not sued by the aclu.
that was not ever the issue. it was a power struggle. it is the good old boy system and i was little old lady that never had any business and being there in the first place and was going to stand up to them. i am still standing up. i've gotten calls and support, emails kamal faxes, post cards from all over the country, and they are inspiring me and it makes me cry a lot at night because they are so heartfelt and sincere in what they're saying. they are standing out with me have their community. i think the whole thing is retaliation, and is intended to do what they have all done. lyell establish a system has done for so long, and that is to scare the crap out of you into never stand up against them.
we cannot do that. none of that got involved in activism, politics with the intent to sit down and shut out. we darn well better stand up and make our voices heard and let them know that we are watching, and even if it is unpopular, a little bit rude, a lie is a lie, a distortion is a distortion, and it does not matter, we are gone to hold you accountable. i want to be held accountable in the same way. i had a funny thing i wanted to tell you. the day i found out i was possibly facing these charges, i am a woman, it was not the best day. there were a lot of tears, and i am getting at here, and then i had some chocolate and i decided i was going to fight back, by golly. i just want to close with
letting you know i went to college made in life. i have four children, and i did not do it in the right order. it is made me who i am, and i never had the chance to have this girardi and the sisterhood that he might have when going to college in your use, and that is what this is then for me. you are all my sisters. as soon as this got out in the media, you were the first ones running with her heels on the ground, and same cannot -- and saying, no, you didn't. we can really cause a change. i knew there were risks involved in standing up. your mind when you take the stand in might not be popular. we wonder if we will be the only one. we wonder when we stand up if it will make a difference three then in that 32nd time friend,
we come to the realization that some things are bigger than we are. the prayer and pledge are two of those things. i have not been alone. there been people all over saying we are with you. it is times like those when the words of the pledge ring very true and clear. we are one nation under god. we are indivisible. and we are americans. and sisters in conservatism. thank you. [applause] >> i feel so lucky to be here
and so lucky to introduce these speakers, and the next speaker is from the susan b. anthony list, marilyn musgrave. >> how wonderful to be here. a few days ago we had another grand baby born, a little girl, and when i was holding her, here came the sisters, and they all gathered around me. my daughter was trying to take a shower. as i was holding on to that precious little baby and the little girls were loving on her, they were not even calling her name yet. they called her new baby. i thought camara wow, -- -- i thought, wow.
i told my son-in-law you will always be blessed by being surrounded by beautiful women. i was a member of congress. as i was in the state legislature, and a senator, and then i went on to congress, and the life issue is what got me involved in politics. when i was at home with our little kids, and who said it, i was lobbying from the kitchen table -- it was because of life. i knew if that candidate was pro life, it spoke volumes about their stance everywhere else, because you can count on the social circuit -- conservatives in all the areas you are concerned about. as i work for other candidate, i would like to say one day i got a virus and i became the candidate, when the youngest of our children was 14. i was elected to the house.
the first advice i got when i was there, cannot talk about the abortion issue. did not talk about that. i was called into the majority leader house office, and he gave me that advice, and i sat there, and something started rising up in me, and you know exactly what i mean. i looked him in the i come across a huge desk, and said, but it is the pro-life people who put me here. what kind of a person would i be if i did not stand for life? i love those moments where you have a baptism by fire, and your strength rises up, and as i look out at a room full of ladies, and you wonderful man, too, i hope there are women in this room that decide one day they will be the candidate, just like our wonderful speakers same, well, i feel like i am called to do this. i hope there are ladies in the room, and if that is not your thing, an activist supporting a
candidate get there. what a wonderful experience to be in congress and start the pro-life women's caucus, and then to go on to be the project director for a group with susan b. itanthony list. i worked with them closely, and pro-life women in congress are worth their weight in gold, because always, and we applaud the pro-life women in congress? always the women on the left when they were talking to henry hyde or chris smith or joe pets or mike pence, they say, what tea you know about it? you are not a woman. those men carrying the pro-life banner have done such a yeoman's job, but what a special voice a pro-life and has. where all about electing pro-
life women, and did we ever have success in the last election. called the year of the pro-life woman? the american people said no to "obamacare." american people have an aversion with tax dollars going for a portion. we spent over $8 million and countless efforts fighting " obamacare." and i love this figure out in the hallway, repeal "obamacare." after that "obamacare" was front and center. what happened with that?
what was the issue in the end that would see it pass or fail? it was the life issue. you talk about heartbreaking. we at susan b. anthony list support pro-life democrats, republicans, but we have this group of pro-life democrats we thought we could count on. remember that to remember bart stupak? i had a call from market stupak before the vote. he said, thank you for what you are doing. he said i will not cave. whenever the pressures were, he caved, obviously. it came down to the life issue. those pro-life democrats in is why "obamacare" was signed into law. we were on a bus and was going into the districts of the pro-
life democrats reminding their voters of what the person in office had said and what they had done, and we were very successful in defeating many of those democrats that cave on the big one. [applause] i have to tell you, i on the go on bus tours when it is below freezing or when it is incredibly hot. i told my husband, i always paid the house on the sunny side, it is my makeup. we have had our job cut out for us, and did you ever think that you would see the united states congress voting on defunding planned parenthood? 240 votes in the house. when a hero for our site in mike pence. i wanted him to vote -- to run
for president, but maybe that is down the red. they went after him. they are going after any one that would want to defund planned parenthood, saying it is a war on women. can you believe this? on one of those bus tours, i was privileged to be with action falls, and you talk about a police, fearless, beautiful young woman, and getting people to go into these planned parenthood clinics and give us a hellish columns of what they are really like. can you just see that one in new jersey, where the clinic director, celebrating as she helped the person that she thinks is a sex trafficker? this stuff is biondi pale. here we see planned parenthood workers, clinic director on down engaging in these reprehensible activities. planned parenthood has had this
image. we're helping poor women, we're offering health services, and i did not mean to offend anybody, but listen to this -- calling a doctor in one of these so-called clinics a health-care provider -- you know when the first time he sees that woman, when she is lying down on the table -- we as women get all this picture -- ready that an abortion. he has not had a discussion with her. that is our health care provider? we will not let planned parenthood get away with this. they talk like they are are the only game in town. that is not true. we have community health centers. we have other services available, from places that do not provide abortion, and again, american people do not want their tax dollars going for abortion. there was a poll recently that
was so encouraging. americans, a large majority support parental notice. they support informed consent, and you get to the question about defunding, and 40% support that. you know what? i want to encourage you, because they have had 25 years. 25 years to reject this wonderful image, and we have only had a few months where we have been chipping away at it. i am telling you, 40% be with is a huge increase, and as we continue to damage their brand, we will be successful, even more so, defunding planned parenthood at the state level. there was an executive council that voted to defund planned
parenthood to the tune of $1.8 million. if you look at that scorecard now, you will see over $61 million has been taken away from planned parenthood in the state's come with courageous people on executive councils, courageous governors, courageous state legislatures, and we will continue that effort, because when you defund planned parenthood, you save the lives of innocent unborn looks we will continue it in the of record giving in to this political a limit, let me give you a hypocrite cut stores will be used to go for to approve for
abortions -- it is an emotional time for me because it is always a spiritual thing when you are going after abortion. he is a hero, i can't sing his praises enough. when he gives his opening comments, he says s a few things. but what he has on the screen is a 3d ultrasound. it would have been poingant enough but a week before that i was at the 3d ultrasound of one of my grandchildren.
as i sat and looked at that, i thought of a grand baby that i already cherished. i looked at a democrat controlled committe, i said to him, congressman, i applaud the human rights that you have done, but with all due respect, human rights begin in the room. that is where they begin, and we all know that. little children know that because it is true. we are involved in this presidential riace, too. we have the most pro abortion president in history. inees,look at the nomo
we have the most pro-abortion president in history. somebody will be prolife in it that they will throw you a vote once in a while, but they will never go to the microphone, never break a sweat. we want a presiden twho will lead on life. listen to this. this is our pledge. i would nominate u.s. judges -- we don't want a president who would nominate anyone who would
>> we are very excited that these people have taken our pledge seriously. and again, the pundits will say the social issues do not matter in this race. it is the economy. you have heard that, have you not? but i will tell you we have a woman, the only pro-life women serving in the united states senate right now, it was the life issue that made the difference in her race. it propelled her to the united states senate. you take the economy and again, you can count on these social conservatives to be good on fiscal issues of corporate when you add the like issues into the race, it is a political winner. i think of the incredible potential here.
all of us can make a huge difference. it is a great nation we live in. i stand for life. i know that you stand for life and you want candidates that stand for life because laws and save lives. do you know what i think of? i was honored to serve with the chairman of the judiciary committee. i have never heard a man speaks so eloquently as he did. to paraphrase him, when we stand for life, and millions of voices who have never been heard in this world will thank you. god bless you. thank you so much. [applause] >> picture in my sonogram
pictures that are framed in my house, thank you again so much pickin we have from the eagle forum, ruth carlson. >> it is my honor to introduce phyllis schlafly. phyllis has continually stood up for the importance of the full- time home maker, the united states constitution, and a host of other issues. she started a volunteer organization called the eagle forum in 1972. she is the author of over 20 books. you can follow your activity at eagleforum.org. please welcome phyllis schlafly.
[applause] thank you. thank you very much. i am so happy to be in the presence of so many smart girls who are not only smart but do not mind being called girls. the years ago probably the greatest orator of his time back in the 1940's and 1950's was the senator from illinois. he used to open all of his speeches by saying in his low voice, "girls" --and we did not mind that at all. we liked it very much. you have a wonderful group.
your speakers some incredible one after another. it was 40 years ago that i invited 100 women from 40 states to come just a few hundred feet of this location here and meet me on the showboat right on the river. i invited them to join my organization, a newly founded, and it to go home and the leaders. basically, my message was to be leaders in the political process because our country needs you. as it has fallen to our responsibility to be a leader to tell you how feminism has been such a destructive force and our society. i do a great deal of speaking on college campuses, and i speak on a lot of different subjects. it is interesting that the speech i am most frequently
asked to give is a speech about feminism. the women's studies department always turns out. feminism has been a hot topic. every few years, time and newsweek asks the question, is feminism dead? feminism is something that they are talking about all the time -- and the blogs and the magazines and pages of the wall street journal. perhaps one reason for this is sarah palin. you see it one of the lies that feminism tells women is that women cannot be successful because they are victims of mean that men and this society. whenever you think about sarah palin, she is obviously a success. she is a success in politics, she is a success with a whole bunch of children. she has a cool husband who supports her and what she does.
on top of all that, she is pretty. the feminist cannot stand it. they absolutely keep attacking her all of the time. but it has made feminism something that they talked about in the media all of the time. feminist to dominate the discourse in the media. we need to be understanding about the lies that they tell young women. for example, this idea that women are victims -- the american women are the most fortunate class of people who have ever lived on the face of the earth. i am sure in other countries women are badly treated. not here. what ever the current cost of the feminist is, women are portrayed as victims. in the 1960's when they put through the unilateral divorce because they used the word
liberation. what did they mean by that? it means being liberated from home and husband and marriage and children. in the 1970's, it was the equal rights amendment. they needed to be liberated from this terrible discrimination that was allegedly visited on women. then in the 1980's, they demanded government funded day care as a middle-class entitlements because they thought one of the examples of oppression of women was a society that expects women to take care of their own babies. we have to lift that oppression from their shoulders and turned over to the taxpayers. in the 1990's, it was their domestic violence carry-on. you know, it is funny, after claiming that the sexes are completely interchangeable, they were never for equality. there were four selling the idea, and there is no gender difference. in fact, and women study courses
in the colleges, you are absolutely required to believe that god did not make us in two different times. we really are the same. the only difference is you think you see are a social construct. it is because terrible parents give dolls to girls and trucks to boys. when it comes to passing the violence against women act, all of a sudden they do believe in sex differences. women are naturally victims and men are naturally batterers. it is a very sex discriminatory law. in the obama administration, they are for the paycheck fairness act which basically is to set up government commissions to give the jobs to women and not to men. you know when obama passed a stimulus bill for these shovel ready jobs that did not exist, the feminists have a tantrum and went down there and demanded that the most jobs that were
given were given to women. they got the majority of jobs. we know the majority of jobs were lost by the man. the best definition of feminism was given by a current feminist writing in the "washington post." she says feminism as an ideology based on the position that patriarchy exists and the need to end. so the feminist really want to get rid of patriarchy and give us a matriarchy instead. you know, they have one conservative professor at harvard university. his name is harvey mansfield. he wrote a splendid book in which he identified the current women's liberation movement as they now call it. he said, "it is anti men, and tea masculine, anti marriage,
and teen motherhood, and anti morality." it is amazing that any woman today would want to call herself a feminist. this so-called liberation movement started with the book in 1963 called "the feminine mystique." she said the homemaker was living in a comfortable concentration camp. she was doing duties that was not worthy of an educated woman. she should move out into the work force. the big mother of women's liberation who has taught at all of the woman study class's calls the home maker a parasite because she was not doing anything useful. gloria steinem just a few weeks ago said, "when a woman gets married, she becomes a seven-non person.
of course, she did not get married until she was elderly. she said the only reason she got married was so she could put her boyfriend of her health care plan. ok. all right. so the devaluing of the full- time homemaker has really become part of our culture. it is constantly reiterated on the media. so that is why they -- they do not talk so much about liberation anymore. they want to call themselves feminists. the real thing that has made life so much better for women is not the feminist movement at all, it is just the laborsaving devices true when i got married all i wanted was a dry air. now, it is a different world. you can get you caught up onions at the grocery store. utah have to slicer onions anymore. the heritage foundation printed
a list of the 25 amenities that people have who are assigned to the poor status as below a certain income level. i read that list. when i was going on that list, i only had one thing on the list. we did have a stove. we did not have anything else. we were not claiming we were victims. we were not getting government handouts. it was my generation that grew up to be the greatest generation. [applause] the national bureau of economic research has reported that as women had gained more freedom, more education, and more power, they have become less happy. they are not as happy as they used to be when they were in that comfortable concentration camp. i have to point out that the feminists are not only anti men, but they are a very anti- masculine. they want men to be flat --
manley. this is why they have used their most ruthless feminists to go after getting rid of college men's sports. they have made ecologists cancel hundreds of men's sports. the once that have particularly irritated me is they have made colleges abandon 450 wrestling teams. wrestling is a very masculine sports. feminists cannot stand it. getting rid of the wrestling teams does not do anything for women. all it does is heard men. my e-mail boxes filled with students from various colleges like brown and other places that says, can you please help us save our rosslyn team? this proves it does not have anything to do with equal spending of money. it is the cheapest sport and the colleges. all you need is a map.
they are determined to get rid of them. as a several speakers have commented, feminism inevitably leads to big government. all of their problems that they claim they have calls for a government remedy. when the walkout on marriage and kick out their husband, they wanted the big government to beat their provider. the obama administration knows this. one of his chief advisers who was also an adviser to bill clinton, podesta, who has his own think tank now. he has 83 bills to challenge tax payer money -- channel taxpayer money to unmarried women. they know where their constituency is. when you kick the man out of their life, you look to government to take the place and the provider. we now have nearly half of our
people who are getting all or part of their living expenses from the taxpayer. that means we have a two class society -- people who pay taxes and people who vote for their living. the vote for democrats who will give them the biggest hand outs. that is what is going on in our country today. that is another confirmation of the fact that you cannot separate the fiscal and social issues. you have to ask people who say they are concerned only about fiscal issues, what are we spending our money on? we are spending it to support the broken families and the children who do not have fathers in the home. now, another one of the lies that the feminists tell is that they have created these opportunities that women have today. that is a bunch of nonsense. i have already mentioned how it is with all of the wonderful
inventions that have made a difference in women's lives. once when i was in england i bought a functioning spinning wheel. when our country was founded after they have done their daily work, and the evening they would sit down at the spinning wheel and spin the cloth to make it the close. i have the spinning the wheel to remind me of what used to beat before the american private enterprise system created all of these wonderful inventions that have given us the highest standard of living in the world. all of this attack on our energy is to reduce our standard of living. what president obama said he wanted to redistribute the wealth, he did not just me from taxpayers to non taxpayers, he means to the rest of the world. that is what he is trying to do. you know, we live in a society where we have single-family dwellings which are heated in
the winter and cool in the summer. the rest of the world does not have that. this is because of our great supply of energy. he is trying to reduce it. he said you cannot keep your thermostats set at 72 any more. who is he to tell me i cannot keep mike thermostat at 72? he wants to take away our light bulbs -- the edison light bulbs -- one of the greatest inventions and all of the world. has helped close all of these plants that makes edison light bulbs. he has opened plants in china. that is obama's on the job sarre, fretting jobs in the china and not in america. the feminist cannot create all of these even educational opportunities. i worked my way through college and got my master's degree in 19
-- when was it? i already forgot. i have forgotten what it was. it was 1944. that was before morse -- that was before most of you were born. no problem. at washington university is just right here, a great to win university. i worked my way through. i worked half of the time from 4:00 until midnight and the other half from midnight until 8:00 in the morning. and i went to college in the morning. i got my degree in three years. then i went to the harvard graduate school. there was no discrimination against women. i competed with all of the guys and got my master's degree in 1945. what was the problem? any of my classmates could have done the same thing if they
wanted to. i did it. anybody else could have done it. those opportunities were there. my mother got her bachelor's degree at washington university in 1920. no problem. she competed with all of the guys. where is the problem? [applause] it is just a big lie that the feminist treated this opportunity. i think we need to remember that attitude is everything. if you wake up in the morning thinking you are a victim, you probably are not going to accomplish anything whether you are a man or a woman. we have a great opportunity to build a kind of life that we want to have. when i was working my way through college, i had to take classes to fit into my work schedule. that is when i got into political science. i have been a volunteer in politics ever since. i enjoy it. i think it is terribly
important. what the founding father said it wanted to leave liberty to our prosperity, that means you and me. they wanted us to carry on. we need you to be involved in the process. it is so exciting to hear the speakers who have had at this conference. it is so exciting to see you smart girls who are willing to be active in the process. that is what we needed to make sure that our country can exist. we do not want to live in a country that is run by executive proclamations that obama is giving out and buy his bunch of cookie czars. where did we get this idea? he has appointed more than russia did in a millennium. some are really crazy, too. got the one band jones
who said, admitted, he was a, but did a communist. they have the one who said he wanted dogs to have lawyers so they can sue us. then the one who said, did your body parts really belong to the government. if you are in a hospital with a life-threatening ailment, the government can take your body parts are now and give them to somebody else who will find them more useful. these are some of his czars. then the ones who have been teaching little kids -- i hope he saw the one on youtube for the second graders were taught to sing the new words to the battle hymn of the republic that go like this -- hello mr. president. we honor you today. for all your great accomplishments, we all say core rate. mr. president, you are number one. we are really proud of you. for some reason, i do not think
that is what are second graders ought to be doing. and the high school once have trading courses to invite him -- to invite them to join his organizing for america. they can be brought into the political process to reelect obama. it is true what he says that he wants to fundamentally transform america. he is doing it very rapidly. that is why we need you and your energies working between now and the election next year. we are going to have a book signing of my new book this afternoon. i think right after this program called "the flipside of feminisim" my co-author has come in. she is giving the young woman's
point of view that is extremely important so you do not get -- i invite you all to joint eagle forum sold you can come to our counsel and come in and september in washington. you can get all the facts on our web site, eagleforum.org. we will have training sessions on how to grapple with these issues. our leaders have been in this fight for 40 years. this is our 40th annual legal counsel of eagle forum. all of whom are volunteers in the political process. that way you can be a defective part of the political process.
i had a debate with a feminist one time. the moderator said to my opponent, she said i do not understand what you guys did not win. he had all of the prominent people, the president's, the political people, you have hollywood and the money, why did you not win? she answered, and i think it was a truthful answer. she said, it took us several years to learn how the process works. we know and eagle forum because we have had victories. our victory over the equal rights amendment is one of the most incredible proust's about how the grass roots can rise up and a takeover. nixon, ford, and carter ran the campaign ran out of the white house when they were there. some walked the picket line against the security had 99% of the media. they had plenty of money. when we beat them all. you can do that to you.
you need to learn how to process operates. i invite you to associate with our eagle forum leaders. i will just remind you, our national anthem is different from every other national anthem in the world because it is the only one that ends with a question. you are there to provide the answer. the question is -- will not star spangled banner -- so say, does that star spangled banner still wave for the land of the free and the home of the brave? that is our question. we need you to provide the answer. thank you for coming. [applause]
coffe>> easy to use, it helps yu navigate the political landscape with twitter feet and facebook updates from the campaigns, candidates bios and links to c- span media partners in the early caucus states. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> thank you for being with us. looking back at some history over this, it seems like any time the president takes a
vacation is cause for controversy. am i right on? caller: you are right. this goes back their history. president eisenhower in the 1950's was criticized for going to his gettysburg farm too much. the chairman of the democratic national committee said he was a part-time president because he was going away so much. this is very common no matter who is president, no matter the ideology. the opposition always jumps on the president for going on vacation. it is a ritual in the summer in washington. >> we do have a few numbers that have been circling about the number of days that the president has taken. we will put them on the screen. the president's 04 for 31 months has launched 31 vacation days. -- 61 days. george bush at 180 degrees. bill clinton was the lowest at
20 days and ronald reagan at 112 days. what are your thoughts on that? >> president obama illustrates that he is sort of in the middle in that lineup. he is not really a frequent vacationer, but he does go on his vacations. it is not that he is way up there in the numbers as you say. but i think the problem right now is -- i have written a book about president on vacations and their retreats, americans are pretty tolerant and understanding of a president goes the need to get away on vacation just as people in their everyday lives know they need a break from work. they understand the president does as well. right now, the problem obama has is all of these economic problems that we haven't a lot of people under employed -- i think it is not just a question of going on vacation but where
he goes. i think going to martha's vineyard which is sort of generally billed as a haven for rich folks and celebrities and so on might not be the best optics as they say. it might not look very good. i think that is the other problem. not just going away on vacation but where he is going. there are a lot of other places president can go. martha's vineyard is a lovely place. i have covered presidents there. i think the idea that it is an exclusive playground -- that might be a bigger problem than simply getting away. host: here resent earlier example. here is a tweet from a viewer that says -- to you hear me complaining that the president is spending 10 days with the masses at a snooty, high-priced martha vineyard, massachusetts? caller: i think he made it worse
for himself what he called for sacrifice in dealing with the economic problem and so on. he is going to martha's vineyard. what can he do about it now? he is there with his family this morning. he is starting to vacation. i think the house is going to try to prohibit photography of the president on the golf course and relaxing on the beach and so on. one thing from the president's perspective that is good about the place he is going is that it is a very private. they might be able to get sort of a limit on the images that are treated and control those images. once he leaves that compound, they go out to dinner or a golf course, the photographers are to have their lenses trained on him. i am sure we will see some images of him at play. host: let me have you explain
please to our audience -- you mentioned he will be staying at a 28 acre estate. whose property is that? who is paying for it? how does it work? >> president obama has stayed at this is state before. it is called the jig is from an associate of his. the white house is not mention how much he is paying cordis, but it has swimming pools. is a lovely property. one reason the president likes it is because the secret service can keep a secluded. he can have privacy. the amount of money that the white house -- that president obama is paying is not known. similar properties we are told go for $40,000 or $50,000 a week. it is very expensive. the white house is saying that he is paying his own expenses for leasing the property. of course, the taxpayers are paying for security and communications and flying up there.
there are expenses associated that the president is paying and there are others of the president is not paying. >> mr. walsh, thank you for being with us. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," robert rector of that the money being spent on the social programs. then daniel serwer talking about the call for the removal of the syrian president. then a look at the obama administration's plan to waive the math and reading proficiency division. sam dillon is our guest. we get underway at 7:00 p.m. -- 7:00 a.m. eastern. america's 911 foundation does a
fund-raiser that takes participants by the crash sites. the foundation uses that money to provide scholarships to the children of firefighters and police officers and other first responders. this is a look at the writer traveling late this afternoon just outside of washington to wind up at the pentagon. [honking]
like to welcome you here at the memorial for our cameras -- commemoration on the vacation of the anniversary core the wall which was built 50 years ago. your presence underlies the importance of this date to four european history as well as your commemorating deep victims of the world -- wall and barbwire. after these remarks we will be able to dedicate a memorial. for that reason, we will have an intercity tomorrow which was only possible because of the mass demonstrations by east germans and other cities. the memorial was also a site of individual grief. at the same time, it is symbolic
for our collective memory of the communist it is foremost a symbol of a division of germany and europe into a free part. you can only guess the extent of the suffering related to this wall. based on state order, families were torn apart. desperate individuals jumped out of their windows or barbwire at the last second as the young reporter soldier. others tried to escape to underground tunnels or the appearance. today, they are among get least the 136 victims. last night with demoralized
their biographies in the chapel and nature -- last night we memorialized their biographies. his trip even crossed cemeteries and eventually the chapel of conciliation. today, the former site of the berlin wall is actually a site to learn about the importance of the principles of freedom and democracy as well as the certainty that these important goods are not self evident. it is also a sign to remember those who go to the wall as a political solution only were buying themselves time. it is also a site at gives us hope that freedom as possible in this world where we still have crises.
the constitutional bodies, honorable citizens of berlin, missed clear, representatives of the association of the victims and the ladies and gentlemen, dear friends of germany of berlin and to germany and the rest of the world, today we are commemorating the saddest day in the most -- the more recent history of berlin. the streets have become a foremost symbol of the tragedy of our city. after august 13, 1961, nothing was the same again. the conception of the wall in us to the court. we, the berliners, were helpless watching how it
cemented the division of our city. we were shocked and desperate. many individuals at the last second to try to the state to the west. the images are still overwhelming today. they are telling us the story of the need and desire of the berliners to want to be freed. the injustice as represented by the wall. my personal comment is this was . bitter experience [applause] 128 individuals died between 1961 and 1969 at the wall because they tried to reach freedom.
it was a dream of freedom only, and it was terminated because they were shot at by the east german border police on august 13, 1961, the regime lockets people in. in this way, it took a way the life and perspectives of so many individuals. it bought them some time, already it was a bankruptcy declaration of a system that people tried to escape from. today 50 years after the construction of the wall, we demoralize and commemorate the victims. but we also remember all of those on another side of horror, in prison, were treated unjustly only because they wanted to be free. we are commemorating the
dedication of so many berliners who maintained in their faith in the future of berlin and did everything for them. we are also thinking of willie brunt and governing mayor is achieved for all of us. we are reminded today of everyone who supported us including john kennedy who said, today i am a berliner. he encouraged us to persevere. we are especially grateful to all of those who were members of the civil rights movement which was housed by the protestant church. their desire to over, a communist, there were also the ones who opened the paths for us
to reach freedom. we are particular grateful to one of our onerous citizens -- michael gorbachev. on november 9, 1989, the wall fell and berliners were overjoyed. we hugged each other and we celebrated the end of a very sad era of having an locked in and havingwhatsoever. the entire world celebrated with us. berlin has changed very quickly. today, it is considered one of the most interesting capitals and the world. we can be proud of all of this trip on the other hand, there are still individuals and eastern germany whose lives it went off track -- they deserve our solidarity. whatever they achieve, we must be very respectful of.
we do not understand those who still feel nostalgic towards the wall. the ball was part of a dictatorial system. this was not a safe place in the road of law. [applause] it is frightening that today still some feel that the est had had good reasons for blocking the east berliners -- the east germans -- there is no justification for the violation of human rights through killing, through barbwire, for death there is no justification for any of it. [applause] he wall has become history that we may not forget that. whoever studies it becomes very sensitive towards on justice and
totalitarian ideologies. this is a focal point of what happened in 1961. we are recalling and demoralizing the history of the wall. we are adding an additional memorial. we have more than 500,000 his sitters, and still polls show time and again that there is an increasing lack of knowledge of what the construction of the walt really meant. 50 years afterward, the time has come that this important era of our most recent history should be taught more to school children. parents need to discuss their memories with their children. we need to talk to contemporaries who are still among us. one day after the construction of the wall, someone wrote, "we
will never forget this day. this is unforgivable to us as berliner's." this is 50 years later. it is our joint responsibility to pass the memory on to the next generation. freedom and democracy must be preserved. we will do everything in order to prevent such injustice from ever reoccurring. [applause] >> ladies and a gentleman, dear fellow citizens.
on august 13, 1961, it was a sunday morning. a young couple living in their apartment and west berlin, they heard on the radio that a wall was being built. they were very fearful and he immediately went to east berlin where her small child was staying with her parents. her husband remains in the western part of the berlin. their family had been torn apart. they were arrested after desperately trying to come together through an underground tunnel. both were arrested, and the small son was taken over by the state. the parents did not know where their child was. under which conditions is he
held that? only two years later the family was freed. in 1973 they were given the permission to leave which was 12 years later after they left their student apartment in west berlin. this is an individual fate -- is this is an over wrong mate sad fate. there are thousands of examples of this. we are assembled here in memory of a fateful day of our history. at the same day the jig at the same time, we know there was a happy ending to that. that was not something we were necessarily able to expect. there was a time where we almost ceased to expected that. please remember the highly armed blocks that the world was divided into the very different
systems of government. germany was divided right on the border between a divided world. here in the center of east germany we had berlin which was a symbol of freedom, but at the same time a symbol of the failure of a dictatorial regime. today we remember the suffering of the wall to numerous individuals. also in the unjust state run by the party. it tortured individuals physically and emotionally and prevented them from having basic rights. we remember crimes that were subtle and also very brash. those who were fleeing the were killed, and at the same time there was the emotional
distress and intentionally induced. the families were destroyed and torn apart. there were many ecumenical fates on both side -- families being torn apart, friends being torn apart, neighborhoods were cut in half. even villages were cut in half. hopes were lost. lives were destroyed between two confronting political systems. time and again blood was flowing from the beginning on until 1989. at least 136 individuals died of according to my knowledge because nobody knows the real number. the first become was eda said monday on august 2, 1961. she wanted to escape from her
apartment at the -- she was living on the third floor. she threw mattresses and betting on the ground in order to have a softer landing. she died in one day before her 59th birthday. t -- days later, the next victim. he tried to find a gap between the harbor and the role workstation. he swam through the canal. he was shot in the head and killed. we will also never forget peter, also an apparent sense, who on august 17 -- and apprentice, he bled to death. i also would like to remind you
of chris, he died on february 6, 1989. he tried to over, the wall at the canal. he was shot. he was completely paralyzed. then he was killed by a shot to the head. i am very grateful that you as his mother and sister that you have joined us today. we are expressing our grief. we are expressing this to you, but we are also expressing our grief and regret to all of the victims of the wall. [applause] we are plowing before all of those who were killed at the wall and -- we are plowing before all of the people who were killed at the wall and in
it was an expression of the fear against the east german people and many thought nothing will ever change, but we saw once again freedom is invincible. no wall will be able to resist the will to freedom and the violence and oppression -- regression cannot resist the will to freedom of so many. on the evening of august 13, no one could ever retain anyone in slavery. the citizens of the gdr during
the days of revolution in 1989 were heroically courageous. the determination of the security forces was unquestionable, but the love of freedom of the individuals triumphed. during the decades of division, this love remained. there were many individuals who wanted freedom. they dared to risk their lives to escape. there were many individuals who got together in small circles discussing changes, and many times they were christians who were not willing and able to accept the conditions. there were ministers, congregations that protected them and allowed them to pray for freedom.
in 1953 there was revolution and in 1968 in check and slovakia, and 1970 and 1980 and 1981, we observed it in poland, our immediate neighbors. part of the truth come the whole truth is also that -- too many accepted the division and accepted the wall. the east germans were faced with the alternative either to adjust or to be imprisoned. wherever was possible, individuals withdrew into their private lives. these were lives that were very impressive under the conditions of a criminal state. at the same time, however, what was shameful wasn't increasing in difference in west germany.
there was intellectual and personal complacency and injustice committed on the left was more acceptable than in justice from the right. there was more of focus for the west germans and the wall, and many became indifferent to the fate of millions of germans on the other side of barbwire. some demanded even that the mandate of unification should be in deleted from our constitution, even in 1989, and for many politicians, the german question had been closed and the subject of one single nation became the cause of many, and whenever the officer was commemorated, fewer and fewer individuals listen and even the media turned away. that is nothing but the truth,
and whoever says there is an injustice here, barbwire, a wall, that individual actually was not recognized and called an intruder and someone who was forever note wedded to yesterday. our country owes so much to the citizens of the former gdr for their efforts in order to reestablish freedom and to have germany reunited. they said we are one people. [applause] >> michael gorbachev really was the one who began the opening. there were changes. there were the churches in hungary, and everyone cooperated to bring down the division of
the continent and demonstrated what can happen when one group won in freedom symbols with others, to have fought for freedom oneself and achieve freedom in our country, that is the gift that our east germans gave us. the injustices of the wall still appeals to all of us not to leave those alone to fight for freedom, democracy, and human rights, and civil rights. that means we have the obligation to make sure that history will not repeat itself. we have to remember that we have to enlighten and teach, especially at a site such as this. it represents the efforts of so many museums, victims associations, and others who were very committed to this memorial. such dedication was absolutely necessary because on the other side of the wall, it was a
totalitarian state. many germans had begun to forget that, especially in this cause, we have to make sure that history not be falsified and that ignorance be prevented. i would like to thank all the teachers who are very committed in this direction and i would like to appeal to you, please use the opportunity to educate more students when you come to a site such as this. i am convinced that it is just not possible as a citizen tell me that we have never had an east german class of visiting the memorial, which memorializes the victims of the wall. the city state was dictatorial and to emphasize it does not mean the citizens there did not live of worthwhile like. there was injustice committed before 1945 and such suffering
must continue it and transfer on to the east germans who also lived in a totalitarian state. their desire to become free is very impressive, especially when you look at individual biographies. the state committed crimes, and millions remained morally strong and accomplished very much in cooperation with neighbors and friends. we need to talk about our recent history and we also need to ask where the perpetrators adequately punished? many victims they know. they are very bitter about this. we understand that from a human point of view. what we wanted was just this, but what we received work rule of law. those who suffered in the gdr, please let me say to you, please try to recognize the value of this sentence, because it does have about you.
just to only punish when a punishable act was committed, and at one time there was a law that declared that to be a punishable law. in this day, under the rule of law, we also have to look at the perpetrator as a victim and not everything that is morally wrong can actually be criminalize. the gdr system was unjust, and after 1990, the statute of limitations with extended, and under that law, also penalties and punishment was meted. but this was a signal to the entire world that crimes committed against human-rights have to be punished. the constitutional state is not necessarily always just, but it is a major achievement as civilization that is not emotion
that judges, and for that reason we should be proud of our constitution, of the rule law, and for that reason we should wonder today what we can learn from the wall and what can we transfer to our future? metaphorically, we now are beginning to talk about laws in the mine, lost in the hearts, at a loss in our society. i would like to refrain from even addressing that or defining that because that really means minimizing the horror of this real loss. yes, we have problems today, but it is not even close to the suffering that we are memorializing today. we can resolve all these problems because we had the freedom to act, and that is what matters. our future is up to us, and democracy takes effort and
energy. but the end of the wall is also an encouraging event because this repeated history was written by human beings. the ball did not fall, it was toppled, so we can make changes. for that reason, we are working towards more freedom in our reunited country. today that means in particular that everyone has the opportunity to self actualized. those who are coming to us must be integrated more successfully, and everyone in our society must be given the more opportunity to self actualize, to try to develop and sell. that must be open to everyone. that is a demand of justice. that was also something and continues to be something that our east germans are asking for. we have individuals of different origins. they have come to us and they said this is a good country, we want to defend this and work for it because we are seeing
opportunities here. when individuals say that, we are successful in terms of integration and better education. our national community which is free and based on the principle of solidarity should meet with such acceptance. it is the attitude of citizens themselves that matters. this is a national community and we should make our own even more. when we do that we take responsibility for our common cause for serving our society, whether we are volunteering for the new volunteer army or simply a human being held in another one. remembering the wall, reminds us how important it is to be freed and also tolerate something that is different, even when that requires energy. the willingness and ability of society to change will even
reward those who were not willing to change. that requires courage, of course, but we have no reason to be afraid of it. we germans have been courageous since 1945 on numerous occasions. in east and west we rebuild our country and millions of displaced individuals and refugees were integrated successfully. we founded democracy, we took down the regime and what we have achieved now is to make this country a joint project. we have achieved to make it our own and whenever it -- wherever someone comes from is increasingly important, especially among the younger generation. german reunification was surprisingly successful. observers abroad see that often more clearly than we do
ourselves and i hear on a day- to-day basis, germany is a fantastic country. citizens all over germany are still contributing to unity. so many new initiatives were taken, especially on the part of east germans since the wall was toppled. we are facing worldwide competition and we actually survived the fiscal and economic crisis better than other countries. we have shown that we are courageous to change things and we will have to continue to do that. our society is growing older. there are debts but we have to limit them with a view to future generations. those are the terms of our national anthem and have been it for 187 years. we only really have achieved
this over the past 20 years. it is my desire that are portion of being free and unified and living under the rule of law that we truly appreciate that and that are united germany continues to develop and flourish as inscribed in our national anthem, imbedded in a strong, unified europe which will serve and continue to serve freedom at the preamble of our constitution demands. to appreciate and protect freedom, that is something that we need to do and something we finally achieved here in germany. [applause]
>> in 1988 i was imprisoned by the state police. there was a crying yana architectural student who shared a cell with me. she had tried to sleep. she was captivated and she had just been investigated. together with a couple and their young son, she had tried to flee. there was a two-kilometer, underground concrete tunnel for
the river. the flight plan had been transmitted to the student by telephone. he already was on the western side and maybe today we think this was not very cautious, but the telephone was not bugged. his girlfriend's is in was called upon to follow him towards the west, but it was very difficult to overcome the border. for that reason, that architectural student approached of family that owned a car because she knew this couple had enough of the gdr. this was a small group and they had rubber boots and black clothes with them, and compass, a torch, and a rope. the 8-year-old son was accompanying them, and he was told there is a secret adventure for you that will be very
exciting, and for that reason he maintained his spirits. they drove through the village in the middle of the night. the refugees parked their car within the interdicted zone around the water and they walked across frozen fields and silently along of forest. the adults tried to locate the sounds of the underground river and they could not find the man whole. the child was tired, and all the sudden they felt less adventurous. had they lost their orientation? the watch tower could be seen in the middle of the night, but a manhole is difficult to find somewhere in a grassy field. so they went back to the car and tried a few hundred meters to the north. the job was getting tired so this would be the last attempt.
at this time they could not find the man whole so that would just go back and spend the night and try again during the next night. when they came back to the forest, all of a sudden they heard motors. they heard the barking of dogs, and there were spot lights. someone in the village had called the border police. this is something that in the picture touched me deeply, when all of a sudden you are standing there, the dogs are barking, handcuffs are clicking, at the new are fingerprinted. all that was familiar to me because i tried to save myself. i was also thinking about the inhabitants of the village. two of them actually call the border police, and the car was
very quiet, but at the same time in the village, someone heard it and they saw that it had not a local license plate. i tried to imagine how individuals accident -- actually jump out of bed, look to the window, pick up the phone and make a call to actually have those stopped who wanted to leave the gdr. i also imagine them going back to bed and expecting accolades for the denunciation. so many denunciations' happened. those have become part of the history of germany. we also don't know what happened to the child. when i was 18 i also tried to flee. i was under a lot of emotional pressure and my brother had already been committed to a penitentiary for political reasons.
i wanted to leave on a swedish vote and i was already in my cabin, but one of the east german employees denounced me. those of us to try to flee the gdr will never forget the history of our clients, for the rest of our lives, we remember the worst times of our imprisonment. we remember being humiliated continuously by the guards, and they could act freely and brutally under this regime. that was reflected on their faces as well. on a summer day, we were transported as a group of prisoners and were brought to the railroad station at dresden. there were mostly men, but a few women, and we had been told before got out of the bus, do not look anywhere except for at the back of the person in front of you.
only out of the corner of my eyes, they were very close, those who by chance were waiting for a train, and they looked at us, who all the sudden escorted by police, by dogs, in handcuffs, and walked along the tracks. , some ofre shocked them turned away and some of them tried to figure out what happened. all of a sudden there was a young woman waving at us, and she moved her hands almost invisibly in front of her chest. i took this waving with me and just as a bunch of flowers. i was not injured physically. i survived the flight. i had a friend who was stepped on -- stepped on a land mine.
in 1970 my friend was captured and then shot by a special command of the secret police, and he shared a cell was someone who was highly disabled. this man had tried to flee with a friend. both were discovered and his friends were mowed down with guns, and he was able to drop to the ground, but he stepped on a land mine and he lost his legs. in addition, he was sentenced to five years in a penitentiary. that is the horrible system, and still so many think it was a good system. we may never forget the fate of our fellow citizens. [applause]
authority, we may never forget that a of our fellow citizens, whether they were killed at the wall of berlin, whether they drowned in the baltic, or whether there were killed at the albert preminger of the socialist state. i recently completed a documentary about two young individuals from a wide zig who tried to flee across the border of bulgaria. they wanted to avoid being drafted into the gdr army and they were captured at the border area with greece. they had already left -- lost their hands and feet when they were then killed with automatic weapons. it has the right to kill someone else? then they are dead bodies were fastened to donkeys and that were brought to a village on the border and they were shown on
the central market square in order to deter anyone who might ever consider or think of also wanting to flee. the horrors of the wall does not have an injured german faith only. our thoughts do not only go to those who were injured and killed, but also the remaining siblings and parents that were repressed by the state. children that were left behind in a state home while their parents were imprisoned. [applause] >> speaker of the upper chamber, speaker of the parliament,
chancellor, dear colleagues from a different parliaments, ladies and gentleman. especially here, where we formerly had the wall, we could still see part of it, and under the immediate impression of the moving remarks, we are becoming very thad allen that today still, those that who have political responsibility or minimizing the impact of the political system of the gdr. without any doubt, it was estate contemptuous of the rule of law. it was buying on its own people and then imprisoning them. -- spying on its own people.
those who had the courage not to just, those who were courageous enough to begin the bloodless revolution, we are grateful to them but also grateful to george bush, to gorbachev, and also the german politicians and chancellor kohl. we are very grateful to them, but we also now hto call a spade a spade and speak the truth. in the meantime, there are a number of frustrating studies that were published, indicating that fewer and fewer individuals know what the gdr meant, and for that reason, that part of our history is increasingly being minimized. we have to educate our young individual so that they can learn that no matter what extremist regime is, whether on the left or the right, leads to
nothing but oppression. this is mainly a task of the individual states and their school system, but at the same time, the federal government also considers this a task on a national level. for that reason, the governing parties have agreed in the coalition agreement that additional measures will be taken in order to teach children about recent history, including about the regime. the federal government supports a number of memorials that remind all of us of the brutality of the border, not only the berlin wall but the entire border dividing germany. of course here in berlin we have that street moral and memorials and elsewhere. we have a museum which is right on the border. we also have establishments that demonstrate the injustice of the gdr state in different contexts.
for example, the memorial today in the secret police prison, or for example, the association for historical research. we also have the former archives that are being researched. what we would like to see is in cooperation with berlin to maintain this memorial, and we contributed financially to its realization. in particular we want to memorialize those who have had to die. two years ago, we published research on who had died at the wall. 136 biographies are found in this book, 136 lives were terminated. they have a face now in this
book. their dignity has been restored, which the gdr regime tried to rob them of. we memorialize this part of history of our country. we are memorializing the death here at the nearby cemetery and it is particularly moving for me as a part of this memorial. one month from now, the house of german history will be opened at the former railroad station which is also call the palace of tears. madam chancellor, i welcome the fact that he will dedicate this especially important memorial. ladies and gentlemen, when we started to plan for this memorial here, the association for the berlin wall gave the
initiative as well as the minister of the conciliation congregation. i would like to thank them as well as the director on behalf of the federal government. sites such as this one impress upon us that freedom and democracy are the highest good that we have to continuously defend, protect, and preserve, today and into the future. [applause] >> former canadian prime minister jean chretien spoke at the american bar satiates in annual conference which was held in toronto. this is 30 minutes. [applause] [applause] >> welcome to canada.
>> because of this summer, i did not want to prepare a speech. i am here because i am forced by my partners. [laughter] they pay me. if it had been bill clinton coming here today, -- you know i come here free of charge. and i am happy to be here. as you know, we always have quite a good relation with the united states. i was the prime minister for it is -- for 10 years, but before that, in different portfolios, i met many of my colleagues from the united states and always managed to do good relations
with them. sometimes with some political problems, but my father spent the first 10 years of his life in manchester, new hampshire. i was debating with bill clinton on whether he was qualified to become the president of the united states. he told me that when france ceded louisiana to america, with somewhat -- he somewhat kept the right to be president of france. so i wonder if i can have that same privilege. [laughter] -- president of france i want wonder if i could have that same privilege. thank you, you confirm that we balance the books here, you know. in a much easier way than you do in the united states.
but even blaikie will not give meet permission for running to be president of the united states so i have to remain in canada. i'm here to answer questions. you know, in the great tradition, canada, when you're a minister and when you're prime minister, you have a question. the prime minister is expected to be there twice, three times a week, sometimes four times a week. the last 45 minutes and he answered most of the questions. they have the same tradition in england. in great britain. but the prime minister is invited there to do that once a week for twenty minutes and when you receive a notice of 48 hours of the questions. i never received a notice of questi before. and it is a one thing that i miss from politics. because you have to answer a question every day on anything.
that doesn't include it. and so you have to respond intelligently if you don't know anything about it. but politics is the art of survival. and i survive it. i used to do politics as the heart of skating on thin ice. and you never knowhen there will be hole that will gobble you up and you will disappear forever. and i survived 14290 days. after the day i would survive one more day. that's why i'm here today and to try my -- what i'm missing about politics is having to face an opposition. the members of the opposition right in front of you. and try to embarrass you and they have the help of the press to find a question that are embarrassing. but it's good for democracy
because the leader has to know what's going on in the country. so let's try it again. who shoots first? >> prime minister. >> what is your question? >> we will bring the microphone around if you have questions. i'm gene vance from lexington, kent kismt you worked over ten years with two presidents of the united states, presidents clinton and bush. tell us about your rking relationship with each one of them. relationship with each one of them. >> very good. [ laughter ] don't forget in the house of commons you havey 45 seconds to reply. they were different guys, though, but it will be a sulementary question, i guess. >> please raise your hand if you have a question. i'll bring the microphone to you. >> bonjour, mr. prime minister. >> (voice of translator): good morning, mr. prime minister.
(end of translation). i would like to solve how some commentators call the dysfunctional system of federal government in the united states. do you have any advice for our american friends? >> you know, the problem you have is your government, the way th it's organized. one day i got into some trouble. because my friend clinton sometimes will eh arrive a bit late. and he was late one morning, it was early in the morning, and the colleagues were not very happy at the nato meeting. so got them, you know to, relax relax a bit. i said, you have to understand these americans. bill clinton can be very nice but he cannot deliver anything. you talk to the president of the united states, always nice, he says always yes, but he says the bloo senators don't want to deliver. or the crazy congressmen are
not smarter. so, okay, guo see the senators. they say, we would do that but the president is not up to the job. so you go to the congressmen and they say, of course, the samehing about the president or blame the sators. in our system, that is the british system, the prime minister is running the executive and the legislative. so when he gave his word, it's the done deal. because if he cannot deliver, he goes to the house of commons, if the house of commons don't back him up, we have an election. so the member -- you don't want election too often. but sometimes if the prime minister goes too far and could lose the confidence of the house and would have an election and could lose his job. so we can deliver. your system, if you have fixed terms, the president is there unless you impeach him and he
has a veto right, bunt much, and the right to preach. -- but not much, and the right to preach. but he has the budget and he sums by the budget, by the end of the process, you have different dget. so it's wise why it's so complicated. remember, i was minister of finance one day and asked my american friends, one of my friends, had some american friends in hisome, and i was to deliver a budget and he said oh, my friend he's the minister of finance canada, and he will deliver his budget today. so i delivered my speech. and the americansere listening. so i would say tonight at midnight, this tax will increase or the other tax will decrease. they said, really? the americans, oh, yes, she means business, my friends. it's the way we operate. when the minister of finance presents a budget, he can
change -- it has to be eventually approved, but the change is effective that night. so it's the system you have that was designed by the fathers of your confederation, you know, to balance the power. but it is not working very well in the modern society like today to be objective. can you change it? i don't think you can. if you want -- you know, the worst -- when i tried to change a country is is a hell of a pblem. -- trying to change a country's constitution is is a hell of a problem. i got elected in '93 making one promise. if you want to change the constitution, dot vote for me. so because it's always the remedy, you know, if you change the constitution, you know, you would solve all the
problems. you won't. because the will and the personalities and the ambition and objectivesf everybody will always be conflicting in a democracy. so it's tough. but the people have to realize one thing, you know, i would speak very candidly, you know, you don't have service iyou don't pay taxes. you know. that's as simple as that. and you cannot only cut prms. you can for a while. but not very long. becausone day, the society will not function anymore. and you have to be responsible. you know, your system of justice that is filling the number of people you have in jail is irresponsible. everybody is elected that they
will be tough on crime. you know, you don't change human nature. and you have, you know, you have to pass laws, like us, we have gun control here. you know, and i have problems because we force theeople to register their guns. they say it's against my right even in canada, now, they're starting to do that. you know, it's my right as a citizen not to register my gun. but he goes and registers his dog, though. and he registered his bicycle, though. and he registered his cat. but not his gun. so we ha five times less people dying in canada from shotguns than in the united states. i have guns. they are registered. i'm not lost any freedom. but you cannot talk like that.
and because, like, the debate, i'm watching it on tv all the time. you know. everybody promised to tax cut. you know, it's like the laughter curve. if you don't have any tax anymore, you don't know what to do with the surpluses. that is the logic of the tax, anyway. it's more than 45 seconds, i guess. next. >> prime minister, what was the greatest source of diplomatic tension between the united states and canada when you were the prime minister? >> no. you know, we always have problems. but it's normal. when you have 5,000 miles ever border, when you have trade in the tune of 1 and a half of $2 billion a day. of course, you have problems. but none of these problems wi be a problem.
we can always solve it. at one time, for example, you didn want to buy our wood, our softwood lumber lumber, do you remember that? because the people from states and -- did not like the competition. i used to sell my friend george w., if i were not george to sell you anymore oil, natural gas and electricity, you will need a hell of a lot of softwood lumber lumber to you will need a hell of a lot of softwood lumber lumber to heat your home. [ laughter ] we had a free trade agreement, but we could not sell all the wood that we could sell, and will have made your house more less expensive. now, it's no moreecause the dollar is higher than yours, so we cannot talk like that
anymore. next? >> we have a question over here. >> prime minister, given the constitutional constraints that we're operating under, how wow have approached the recent debt ceiling controversy if you had been president of the united states? >>ou know, the problem is it's not the president who decides that. that is your problem. you know, you elect a president and he would solve all the problems and the day after he has only a veto right. ask that to the congressmen. you always blame whoever is the president for everything. but you don't realize that his power is very small, relatively speaking. of course, he can push the button on the atomic bomb. but that would not solve the problem of the debt.
>> prime minister, cow explain to our american friends how you got toake the decision not to participate in the iraq war. >> it was easy. they were wrong and i said so. (applause) i was with them and they pride tried to persuade me. my friend tony blair, in particular. and one day, he was telling me, jean, you know, saddam is a terrible dictator. i said, of course, he's a terrible dictator, but i said, if we are in the business of replacing those we don't like, who is next? and i said, by the way, you're the number one in the commonwealth, and am more or less the number two.
if there is a guy i don't like and you don't like very much by the name of mug abbey. why don't we go and solve the problem in the family in simpson bab wee? oh, he said, jean, you know, mugabe and saddam is not the same. i said, of course it's not the same. mugabe has no oil. and, you know, so they were not happy with me, i have to tell you. and tufs it ever for me because we're neighbours to america. the businesspeople were very scared. they were afraid of retaliation. and i asked them, i said, give me the list of the goods and all the services that the americans are buyingrom us and they don't need. there was no list because business is business.
and it turned out for me, you know, for my country, a great decision. when i made the decision the country was divided half an half more or less and now a few years ago, you have the same question more than 90% of the people said that i made the right decision. it was not easy but you're paid to make these decisions. >> we have time for just a couple more questions. >> mr. prime minister, i understand you balance the books here in canada. >> yes. >> how wow balance the books in the united states and what is the difference between the process, why you can do it here and not in the united states? or how wow fix that? >> what we did is when i became the prime minister in '93, canada was a candidate to become a third world nation.
i had been minister of finance anpresident of the treasury board, budget bureau and minister of finance, so i knew -- you know, i had been in government 30 years, twenty of these years, you know, as a cabinet minister. so i knew that we faced a lot. so we cut. we cut 20% of the budget. we went from 121 to 11 in billions of dollars. you know. it's small for you. but for canada, it was big, and it is in 1993 -- 121 to 101. '95 i let that. we let go 19% of the bureaucrats. we did not do it cruelly, you know. the peoe were early, close to row tirmt. we let them go. made special deals on their pension and is so on, and it
was a lot. as the economy was growing, you , it was less painful. but we did that. the only budget that was increased was the collector of taxes. because it's a good investment when you hire another tax collector. you know that, you lawyers. and other citizens. so we increase our revenue thay and we started to charge for things that we were not charging that were free before like national parks and all sorts of services, we started to do that. but i feel that t people felt that we had been fair. we cut national defence, everybody has a good case. foreign affairs. everybody had to contribute.
but anyway, we were successful. and another desion wee, we had that help and uss helping canada today because, you know, we are doing much better than we're doing. you know, we have 3% or less than 3% of gdp as a deficit. and so -- and we had a decision that i'm very proud of that is related to our success in relation to the united states is the banks in canada wanted to merge, and wanted to be deregulated. and my ministers who weren't pro business minister inside my cabinet thought that it was a thing that we should do to do what the americans are dog. and i said, no. and the bankers, you know, they were pretty mad at me. in fact, when these guys hired me, i said, don't call on me
to get clients from the banks. but now, you know, i met one the other day, and i said, now, you know, i was working on a file and i gave them my views. it was a big trial and i had to give my views what would be a reasonable settlement. so eventually, both parties accepted my judgment. it was not a judgment. it was an arbitration. it was -- they wanted to have my views. but i said to the president of the bank, i said, you know, 1995, i said no to the merger of the banks and relations and you were very unhappy with me. now you go around the world and they tell you that you guys, you're the best bankers in the world, and i said, good for you. of course you don't tell them it's because i stopped you from jumping from e bridge,
but i said this is my judgment in this case. you're not obliged to take my view. you have only to tell me i have no more judgment. he said yes. so that is what we did to maintain a situation. but you have to -- but your difficulties ishat it's a negotiatio there was no negotiation with me. every departmen which we had a very good minister whoad been a bureaucrat, marcel masse, who presided the committee. he had no ambition to become skplerd so on. he did have to have friends and he reported with -- appealed to me. and i had told him that trudeau, one day, had called me. my first cabinet meetinghe
had said jacques, you have not talked to me since a year. the minister of indian and northern affairs rushing mad at me? i said, no. he said, why are you not talking to me? but i said, i don't want to disturb you. and if you're not calling me, i feel good about it so don't call me. if they were all iq, it would be so easy to be prime minister. and you know i said to all the cabinet colleagues, i said, this is not what happened to me after that. you all know that iive job after job after job. so they were not calling me. so it was done that way. it will be -- you cannot do that in your system, unfortunately. because nobody is in charge unfortunately. what i find because i was meeting with president bush, president clinton, clinton was my counterpart for eight years. and this is one of the frustrations.
your president cannot deliver because of your em. and you blame him all the time. it's not fair. whoever is the president, he is -- he has power over war. but not even there. when george bush senior went to war, he had a vote of 51 to 49, something like that, in the senate approval. but in the case of the iraq, it was unanimous. but the congress could have blocked and can block not the congress but the senate, i guess, can block any war. because of your -- in canada, it's an executive order. but the consequences is if the parliament disagrees with you, you're out. if and youe looking for a law firm. (applause)
>> prime minister, i wonder if you could comment on the arab spring and what nato and the united states and canada is doing, pick a country, libya, egypt, syria. >> you know, it's very difficult. because we don't know what will be the result. i remember, and we were not good at judging these things. but when we realized that -- and i had located that and we had som initiate at the u.n., you know, right to intervene for the protection of human rights, it was one of the initiatives that we had. that.here is a reverse side to now they prosecute these former leaders in court. but as they know that are going to jail, they hang around. there was days whethe guys
would quit and go in exile and it's over now. more or less. so it's always two sides of these things. and one of the most telling stories was was the experience i the shah of iran when i was minister of trade. you know. lucky i was the minister a long time ago. and being small, dumb lawyer who acting in court, defending, i was on the defence side. defending criminals and so on. among other things. in a small town, you do everything. and so i told him that i would ask him questions about human rights situation in iran under the shah. and he said to me, young man,
if they kick me out, it will be worse with the replacement. was he right? i guess so. and so it's why when you ask me for a definitive answer, i'm alway ambivalent because you don't know what will happen next. and we have a good system that we call democracy, but it's not perfect either. as churchill said, it was the worst -- a terrible system but there is none better than that. but it's not perfect. and in some countries, you know, for us here, you know, i pass laws on spending, on elections. you know, but your court said that no limit to that. fine.
but, you kno, one election, i was talking when hillary clinton became senator of the state of new york, one senator in one state, i had an election the same year with 300 candidates. the national campaign and i had to raise two-thirds of the money that she had to raise to be senator of new york. here you have limits on contributions. nobody can give more than $1200 a year. there is during the time of election, there is a limit, you know, you cannot start advertising before so many days when the campaign. and you stop the last five days. and the campaign is only 35 days. and you, you guys start to run two ar