tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN September 8, 2010 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
done -- they make a very logical argument. they make basically three arguments. one, there was an outside explosion. that outside explosion was a detonating torpedo, and that torpedo was made by north korea. therefore, the conclusion is that north korea and torpedo -- a north korean torpedoed destroyed the shift. .
the third claim has no evidence. the only thing that remained is j.i.g. conclusion without facts. that is a fact. >> thanks. let's open the floor to questions. if you will raise your hands before speaking i would appreciate it. tell us your name and any ebullitions you might have. please wait. we have microphones coming around to you. >> thank you. i am mike billington.
i do not know if you went to the conference in quantico last week, but at that conference are raise the exact question you have drawn, the elite of the chinese and russians and others that the evidence is an adequate. the response from different generals as we do not need no stinking evidence. [laughter] look at the provocations, it isn't their character, therefore we have to accept this is true. you did not mention the issue, which has concerned me about this, which is why in this area of very high south korean and u.s. and nato anti-submarine warfare facilities and sonar equipment and so forth there appears to have been no son are evidence whatsoever -- no sonar evidence whatsoever? we all know that north korea
said they had nothing to do with this, but i am wondering what you did north korea thinks about this. in other words, who could have done it, who in the west? is that the british? whaty is the view of the north koreans as to how this is being played and wide in terms of creating a disruption at a time when north and south korea were moving towards better relations when this happened? >> north korea is the bat boy in the neighborhood. i do not dispute that view. north korea has done enough bad banks in the past that it deserves that label. but that thdoes not give us the right to blame them for anything bad in the neighborhood.
it is still possible that north koreans actually did it, but is the burden of proof on the j.i.g. the burden of proof lies on the party that points the finger at north korea. even though i remain open to the possibility that north korea might have actually done it, i need to be convinced by taxes, and perhaps as others are also waiting to be convinced by fax. unfortunately, the joint investigation group has so far failed to convince me or some of the doubters with facts. now some of the facts that j.i.g. is sonar evidence of the
torpedo coming in. at the time of the incident, the u.s. military and the south korean military were engaging in joint naval exercises, precisely inside the submarine exercises. the main message region -- the main objective is to search a for submarines. there might be some evidence, sonar, radar, whenever that would show that north korean submarine or torpedo or both. but nothing has been made public so far. >> does anybody else want to address this?
>> in the back. >> i would direct my question to the professor. i have several questions. first of all, are you a physicist? i wonder what your major is. secondly, how many times did you make an experiment at the laboratory and what kind of a size did you make an experiment at the laboratory? if you believe it is so, why do you think the j.i.g. and south korean governments are fabricating fax? is it possible for almost 80 scientists to cover it the fax? lastly, if you believe it is so, why are other countries like the
united states, sweden, and australia, agreed to the conclusion? thank you. >> i am not a physicist, i am a political scientist. although i studied business -- physics as an undergrad, and i was not even as good . i can do simple arithmetic. it does not take an einstein to understand the scientific data, and it does not take einstein to do basic math to estimate the size of a shockwave and to estimate the size of a doubling that does not take a right which it rocket scientist to see the data from x.r.d. and
e.d.s. i stopped short of charging the j.i.g. of fabricating the data. all i said is the j.i.g. has failed to provide facts that would support its conclusion. as i said, i remain open to the possibility that north koreans actually did it, but what i am here trying to point out is there is a disconnect between the conclusion and evidence. as we are on the issue of credibility of intelligence, i did it is a more orderly prudent
that we look at the facts. we can talk about six action -- secession, but the facts are scarce. there are some facts that perhaps can be integrated in a different way as the professor suggested. when we look at other cases that involve north korea, we need to look at facts. again, north korea is a bad boy, but that does not exonerate as from the responsibility of supporting our claims with facts. >> [inaudible]
>> i do not know why they agreed, but you should perhaps ask them why they agreed and it they have facts that the j.i.g. has not released in public that i have not seen. if there are such facts, i would love to see them, and i might be persuaded by those facts. >> my question is for speaker # 3. you mentioned the observations of key military figures or were the younger military personnel
being introduced? >> that is a good question. it is a large number, 687 people in the north korea supreme people's assembly. half of them, 340 people, i was able to calculate that those people who are not reelected, at them important persons such as the husband of a the president's daughter. also, a former north korean ambassador to the un was not reelected. there were a lot of important
people that were not elected. i cannot give the reasons why. and i do not know the politics that went behind it. i am just giving you ideas that some of the important people or not reelected. also, younger people, i do think more in kim jong-il s's h that were collected for the first time. they have the statistics of the supreme people's assembly. as for that age group, how many people from what age group and how many people were college
graduates and how many were party workers and all of that? it gives you just a percentage. it does not even give you a number. it is hard to understand that. and >> finding what we can say is a it is a bad year for incumbents. -- i think what we can say is it is a bad year for incumbents. [laughter] >> bob hathaway at the wilson center. i have to say i am profoundly depressed by the cumulative impact the presentations because it suggests that we know so little and we're probably not going to know a great deal in the near term. my question is to bob carlin, in part because he was s regarded s
an expert in this category. are the problems you discussed about what you call the warping of the analysis taking place, are they particularly pronounced with respect to our analysis of d.p.r.k.? secondly, the problems you discussed, are they more prevalent than the u.s. intel community or are you talking about a set of problems, which characterizes the analytical process?
>> i cannot in good conscience comment on what goes on in the intelligence office and other countries. and i do not know of similar problems exist. i would say that the scary experience we had on the particular issue and i rackein t there might be some overlap. i do not think we are as hypnotized by many other countries as we are by north korea. as far as our allies go, i get
an inkling of the fact that in some countries similar problems exist. that it's very easy not to be rigorous and systematic and looking at north korea. it is easier just to fall into the bad, they did it, we do not need a listing and facts. that is always rewarded. the policy is to accept that whether than to go back and look at it again. and how widespread that is with allies, i am sorry, i do not know. >> this gentleman here.
>> returning to the sinking of the ship, what kind of alternative -- of north korea did not destroy the ship, has anyone come up with an alternative explanation? i am now thinking of an investigation the u.s. navy did in the late 1970's of the explosion of the battleship maine, which of course was the proximate cause of the spanish- american war. it was a torpedo set off by the spanish government, which really had no interest in its. the conclusion that the navy made was that it was of coal dust explosion. and it was generally an accident that caused the war.
they produced evidence that convinced most people who had the ability to test for it. i am asking if anyone has come up with an alternative explanation for this? >> there have been a number of alternative hypotheses. i would not call them explanations at this point because none of them have been supported by evidence. one hypothesis is grounding in this claims that the ship was too close to the island and went to the shallow part where there was corals and hit one of the corals and began to sink, and
because the water accumulated to the rear part of the ships so much at some point the ship could not sustain the wait any longer and grow. -- could not sustain the weight any longer and broke. there are some credits that land back to the hypothesis. the way the propellers on the back were bent, and the way the part of the bottom is deforms indicates that some kind of contact. another hypothesis that reportedly was proposed by the russians, since this was reported only in one newspaper, i do not know if it is true, but
what is being circulated is a sea mine theory. there were a lot of sea mines planted. and that some of them have been retrieved, but there are still some that have not been retrieved. there is a clear sign of an explosion were there is a torpedo or sea mine. unheard so i am not sure if this holds the water. this is one possible hypothesis. another hypothesis is a
[inaudible] theory. there was a u.s. submarine that was operating. a south korean submarine was in the vicinity. there were other ships operating in the vicinity. and it's possible there was some kind of collision. it is also possible that there were other types of accidents, and this is the one picture released by the j.i.g. said take a look and see what kind of hypophysis you would draw. what does that look like? what if i told you that the south korean submarine has the
immediately. can you estimate how many nuclear bombs and north korea has? >> i can tell you what steve heckler, the former director of los angeles laboratories now thinks -- we do not know how many bombs that have. we have an estimate on the amount of plutonium they have, which they might have let the nice. a-- might have weponized. whether or not they have turned any of those into deliverable weapons, i do not think anyone knows for sure. i can assure you of the ambassador to cuba does not know.
actually that as a line that came out in the foreign minister statement a couple of weeks ago. therefore, that becomes his talking points. he simply repeats what has come out of north korea. to go i am with the asia foundation. i have a basic question for dr. karlan. you mentioned the problem with analyzing north korea is how we perceive north korea and not the availability of sources. what are the most reliable primary sources on north korea that are readily available to the public, at the sides media, and even if there has been an increase in the sources of the time, have we seen an emperor in
the quality at the source is? if i could ask a question to the professor, is there anything you can say about current military contacts between north korea and china, especially if you look at the current domestic political transition in both countries where you see the growing assertiveness for military leaders? >> quickly, and an answer to your questions, you said other than official media, but i would real that back in again. there has been and continues to date to be no better source on a day-to-day basis about north korean thinking, perceptions plans. as well as some information
about events and economic development than their official media. and there is no reason not to pay great attention to that. you do not take everything bitterly obviously, but it remained a gold mine of information as a very good basis. as far as your second question goes, what has gone better -- there are many more people going in and out of north korea. we have a little bit of a cooling in that trend recently, but a number of n.g.o.'s that go in and out, photographs, lots of photographs on the web, so that compared to 10 years ago there is a lot more information from which a good analyst can
come up with the number of useful and pretty well based working hypothesis to give you -- we're not talking about the deepest secrets of the regime here. that is for someone else to figure out, but just to understand how it functions and moves from day to day. that information is out there and is increasing every day. >> i do not know the details of north korean military leaders cooperation with the chinese people's army. the significant difference between difference is they're all very political. they're not only military
officers, commander in chief of north korean armed forces, some of them commander in chief of north iran air force, and some of them in the navy. they are members of the national the fence council. their political position is more important for them than their military position. and one side comments, when the turnaround explosion came, north korean navy vice marshall five-
star retired. whether there is any connection between his retirement in the sinking of the ship, we do not know. nothing was mentioned. in his place as a member of the national defense council, he was a vice chairman. the brother and lot of kim jong- il replaced him. i do not know the kind of corporations between the north korean air lines jet -- i do not know any details of what transpired after that. >> i know there are several more
questions, and you're welcome to come up after the event and post them directly to the speakers. i am afraid, we had better wrap up now, because archemorus need to cut things. if you would like to join me in thinking and our guests -- me in thanking our guests. [applause] thank you for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]
obama host: news conference from the white house. we expect questions on the economy, iraqm, and iran and other issues. that is scheduled for 11:00 eastern. saturday marks the ninth anniversary of the september 11 terrorist attacks. we will be live with a discussion featuring aviation officials counting -- recounted their experiences from that day. from dallas that starts at 2:00 eastern. >> c-span2 local content vehicles are traveling the countries this summer and fall visiting communities and congressional districts as we look at some of the most highly- contested political races leading up to the midterm elections. >> nice to meet you. how are you? nice to see you. how are you? how are you doing?
from the navy as an admiral and decided to come back to his home town in the district where he had not lived for many years and run for congress. he did such a phenomenal job fund raising that rahm emanuel and other party elders told him to go away. we have somebody with a lot of money. he was an admiral so he is like a macho democrats. he is perfect for this district. he did go away like a dutiful guy that wanted to have the future and the party. he ran for the state house. he has been there for a couple of terms. the republican candidates was the u.s. prosecutor under bush. u.s. attorney for southeastern pennsylvania, and he wrapped up several major convictions with political corruption and philadelphia. he has great law enforcement
credentials. he is a local boy. he has deeper roots. he was not the party candidates for district attorney in delaware county. he also has a lot of experience as a political operative. he ran the campaign's of arlen specter when he was a republican, and the very conservative rick santorum. he has ties to all wings of the republican party, and he is very well connected. >> i think one of the reasons that this race is so interesting is because it is a case test for the messaging that republicans are trying to put across in these types of districts that they think are. >> people on the street will come up and grabbed him by the hand and you have to help me get a drum.
and they're worried about where am i going to find the next opportunity to get back to work. >> our economic policies for the past 10 or so years have been very focused on wealth creation. the stock market went through the roof, and a lot of people made money, but there was not enough focus on jobs. particularly jobs here. >> a little bit about the seventh congressional district. it is unique in the fact that it has been a republican stronghold since the civil war. delaware county is the main county in the seventh congressional district. it is right outside the city of philadelphia. it includes ethnically diverse old, port towns and the main line. the philadelphia story and grace kelly and all that kind of stuff.
republicans still have registration edge, but it is shrinking quite a bit. and delaware county in particular, which is 70% of the district, has been voting for democrats in national and statewide races for a long time now. the court representative from the seventh congressional district -- career representative from the seventh congressional district is the first democrats in 26 years to have won an election there. the democrats that preceded him was from the water gate area. it took water gate to get another democrat in there. it really does encapsulate all of the competitive dynamics piercing, and you add to the fact that these are good candidates and that is what makes a really competitive. when you've run for congress in the philadelphia area, these races are won and lost on tv.
this is an expensive place to run. it costs half a million per week to be on the air. this could really come down to who has been more compelling narrative to put on tv and who has the money to put it into people's home on tv. >> secretary of state clinton gave a foreign-policy address this morning discussing negotiations concerning iran and north korea's nuclear program. and from the council on foreign relations, this is one hour 15 minutes. >> want to welcome the more than 500 council members for joining us through modern
technology. the meeting is on the record. for those of you who are not familiar with the council on foreign relations, we are now independent non-partisan membership organization. we are think tank and publisher. we're dedicated to increasing understanding of the world and the form policy choices facing the united states. we all gathered this morning at a critical time, the last american combat troops were just withdrawn from iraq at a time when thousand american troops are helping to stabilize and afghanistan. we're in the early days of the israeli/palestinian peace talks. we continue to contend with a growing threat posed by the north korean nuclear program. wheat basis of full set of global challenges. -- we face a full set of global
challenges. there are countries that have yet to determine the global rules or objectives. all of this is taking place against the backdrop of a weak u.s. economy and soaring debt that has a major adverse consequences for the future prosperity of the united states and for our capacity to lead in the world. fortunately, today speaker, secretary of state hillary clinton, it has experienced the me in managing the most difficut of situations, and i am referring of course, to our situation this summer as mother of the bride. [laughter] as you all know, she has not limited her travels. since she became secretary, she has visited at last count 64 countries. that amounts to one at of every three countries in the united
nations. she has racked up 350,000 miles in the process. she has done all of this in just over year and a half. still well more than half a year longer than that john c. callaghahoone. i could not help notice the speculation on some parts that secretary clinton might just find herself trading places with vice-president biden, becoming the democratic candidates for vice president in 2012. all i can say is this is precedent for this. there were some fellows named the jefferson and then gearan and it worked out pretty well for them. and [laughter] speaking of the past, today also marks the seventh time she has addressed the council on foreign relations, the sixth time she has done so without a broken
arm, and the second time she has been near as secretary of state and the united states. secretary clayton, it is a privilege and pleasure to welcome you back to the council on foreign relations. [applause] >> thank you very much, richard. it is a pleasure to be back of the council with two working arms. that is something that i am very happy and grateful for. i kept telling people as i traveled around the world to all of the hot spots, pulling off my daughter's wedding was much more stressful than anything else on my plate. it is a real delight to see so
many friends and colleagues and to have this opportunity here once again to discuss with you where we are as a country and where i hope we are headed. it is clear that many of us and many in our audience are just coming off of summer vacation. in yesterday at the state department, and felt a little bit like the first day of school. everyone showed up for the morning meeting. looking a lot healthier than they did when they left. [laughter] it is also obvious that there is not rest for any of us. the events of the past few weeks have kept us busy. we are working to support direct talks between the israelis and palestinians, and next week i will travel to egypt and jerusalem for the second round of these negotiations. in iraq where the combat mission
has ended, we are transitioning to an unprecedented civilian-led partnership. we are stepping up international pressure anhalon iran. we're working with pakistan as it recovers from the devastating floods and continues to combat violent extremism. and of course, the war in afghanistan is always at the top of our minds and agenda. none of these challenges exist in isolation. consider the middle east peace talks. at one level they are bilateral negotiations involving two people and a relatively small strip of land. step back and it becomes clear how close the regional dimensions of what started last week are. what a significant role institutions like the quartet, consisting of the united states
and russia and the european union and the u.n., as well as the arab league, are playing. equally, if not more so, how vital american participation really is. solving foreign-policy problems today requires us to think regionally and globally. tuesday the intersections and connections linking nations and regions and interest to bring people together as only america can. i think the world is counting on us today as it has in the past. when old adversaries need an honest broker or fundamental freedoms need a champion, people turn to us. when the earth shakes or rivers overflowed their banks, when pandemic st. george simmering tensions burst into violence, the world weeks of -- looks to us. i see it on the faces of the people where i travel.
whether or not they admit it, they see the principle commitment and can-do spirit that comes with american engagement. they do look to america and not just to engage, but to lead. nothing makes me prouder than to represent this great nation in the far corners of the world. i am the daughter of a man who grew up in the depression and trained young sailors to fight in the pacific. i am the mother of a young woman who is part of a generation of americans who are engaging the world in new and exciting ways. in both those stories i see the promise and the progress of america. i have the most profound faith and our people. it has never been stronger. i know these are difficult days for many americans.
difficulties and anniversaries have never defeated or depleted this country -- difficulties and anniversarieadversaries have ned or depleted this country. we have always risen to the challenges we have faced. that is who we are. it is in our dna. we do believe there are no limits on what is possible or what can be achieved. now, after years of war and uncertainty, people are wondering what the future hold at home and abroad. so let me say it clearly, the united states can, must, and will lead in this new century. indeed, the complexities and connections at today's world had yielded a new american moment, a moment when our global leadership is essential, even if we must often lead in new ways.
a moment when those things to make as who we are as a nation, our openness and innovation, determination, and devotion to core values, had never been more needed. this is a moment that must be seized through hard work and bold decisions. to lay the foundations for a lasting american leadership for decades to come. but now this is no argument for america to go it alone. far from it. the world looks to us because america has the reach and resolve to mobilize the shared effort needed to solve problems on a global scale. in defense of our own interests, but also as a force for progress. and this we have no rival. for the united states global leadership is both a responsibility and an unparalleled opportunity.
when i came to the council on foreign relations a little over a year ago to discuss the obama administration's vision plus global leadership, and called for an architecture that could help nations come together as partners to solve a share problems. today i would like to expand on this idea, but especially to explain how we're putting it into practice. architecture is art and science of designing structures that serve our common purpose is built to last into withstand stress. that is what we seek to build. a network of alliances and partnerships, regional organizations, and global institutions that is durable and and i met -- and dynamic enough to help us meet today's challenges and adopt a threat that we cannot even conceive of, just as our parents never conceived of melting glaciers or dirty bomb spirited we know this can be done because president obama's predecessors in the
white house and mine in the state department did it before. after the second world war, the nation turned its attention to constructing the pillars of global cooperation. the third oral war that so many feared never came. -- the third world war that so many speared never came. this architecture served a different time and a different world. as president obama has said, today it is buckling under the weight of new threats. the major powers are at peace, but new actors, good and bad, are increasingly shaping international affairs. the challenges we face are more complex than ever, and so are the response is needed to meet them. that is why we are building a
global architecture that reflects and harnesses the realities of the 21st century. we know that alliances, partnerships, and institutions cannot and do not solve problems by themselves, only people and nation solve problems. an architecture can make it easier to act effectively by supporting the coalition forging and compromise building that is the daily fare of diplomacy. it can make it easier to identify common interests and convert them to common action. it can help integrate emerging powers into an international community with a clear obligation and expectation. we have no illusions that these goals can be achieved overnight or that countries will suddenly ceased to have divergent interests. we know that the test of our leadership is how we manage those differences and how we colonized nations and peoples
around their commonalities, even when they do have a perverse histories, unequal resources, and competing world views. we know that our approach to solving problems must vary from issue to issue and partner to partner. american leadership, therefore, must be dynamic as the challenges we face, but there are two constants of our leadership, which lie at the heart of the president's national security strategy released in may, and which runs through everything we do. first, and national renewal aimed at strengthening the sources of american power, especially our economic moral authority. this is about more than ensuring we have the resources we need to conduct foreign policy, although that is critically important. i remember when i was a young girl, i was stirred by president eisenhower's assertion that education would help us win the cold war.
i really took it to heart. i did not like mathematics, but i figure i had to study it for my country. [laughter] i also believe we needed to invest and our people and their talents and in our infrastructure. president eisenhower was right, america's greatness has always flowed in large part from the dynamism of our economy and creativity of our people. today more than ever, our ability to exercise global leadership depends on building a strong foundation here at home. that is why rising debt and crumbling infrastructure posed very real long-term national security threats. president obama understands this. you can see it in the new economic initiative that he announced this week, and his relentless focus on turning the economy around. the second constant is international diplomacy, good
old-fashioned diplomacy aimed at rallying nations to solve common problems and achieve a shared aspirations. as dean acheson put it in 1951, at the ability to invoke support from others is quite as important as the capacity to compel. to this end, we have repaired old alliances and forged new partnerships. we have strengthened institutions that provide incentives for cooperation, disincentives for sitting on the sidelines, and defensive against those who would undermine global progress. which can be and the values that are at the core of the american character. -- we championed the values that are at the core of the american character. after more than a year and a half, we have begun to see the
dividend and this strategy. we are enhancing america's interests and making progress on some of our most pressing challenges. today we can say with confidence that this model of american leadership, which brings every tool at our disposal put to work on behalf our national interests, and is offered the best hope in a dangerous world. i would like to outline several steps we're taking with respect to implementing the strategy. first, we have turned to our closest ally, the nations that share our fundamental values and interests and commitments to solving common problems. from europe and north america to east asia and pacific, we are renewing and deepening the alliances that are the cornerstone of global security and prosperity. let me say a few words in particular about europe. in november i was privileged to help mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall, which closed the door on
europe's broken past. this summer in poland we mark the 10th anniversary of the community of democracies, which looks ahead to a brighter tomorrow. at both events i was reminded of how far we've come together, what strength we draw from the common wellspring of our values and aspirations, the bonds between europe and america were forged through court and watch for peace, but they are written in our shared commitment to freedom, democracy, and human dignity. today we're working with our allies there on every global challenge. president obama and i have reached out to strengthen our bilateral and multilateral ties in europe. our relationship is growing and changing as a result. there will be some challenges as we adjust to influential new players such as the eu
parliament, but these are debate among friends and that will always be secondary to the fundamental interests and values we share. there is no doubt that a stronger eu is good for america and good for the world. nato remains the world's most successful alliance. together with our allies, including new nato members in central and eastern europe, where crafting a strategic concept that will help us meet not only traditional threats but emerging ones like cyber security and nuclear proliferation. just as to the president obama and i discussed these issues with the nato secretary general. our allies invoked article 5 for the first time after the attack on september 11. they joined us on the fight against al qaeda and taliban. there refocused the mission in afghanistan in contributed
thousands of new troops and significant contribution. we recognize that we are always strong this when we work together. a core principle of our alliances is shared responsibility. each nation must step up and do its part. we contribute our share, often the largest share, but we have high expectations of the government and people we work with. helping other nations develop that capacity to solve their own problems and for dissipates in solving other shared problems has long been a hallmark of american leadership. our contributions are well known to the construction of europe and transformation of japan and germany, we move them from aggressors to allies. to the growth of south korea into a vibrant democracy that now contributes to global
economics. in this connected age, america's security and prosperity depend more than ever on the ability of others to take responsibility for diffusing threats and meeting challenges in their own countries and regions. that is what a second step in our strategy for global leadership is to help develop the strategy of developing partners. to help countries obtain the tools and support they need to solve their own problems. to help people lift themselves, their families, and society's out of poverty, away from extremism, and towards a symbol progress. -- and towards sustainable progress. it is central to advancing american interests, as central as diplomacy and defense. our approach is not development for developments six. it is an integrated strategy for solving problems. look at the work to build institutions and spur economic
development in the palestinian territory, something that jim will send knows firsthand. the united states invest hundreds of millions of dollars because we no progress on the ground improve security and helps lay the foundation for a future palestinian state. it creates more favorable conditions for negotiations. confident that the new palestinian force has displayed has affected the calculus of the israeli leadership. the united states was behind a building that security force, along with other partners like jordan. the principal responsibility rests on the decisions made by the palestinian authority themselves. with our help and their courage and commitment, we see progress that influences negotiation and pulled out a greater promise for an eventual agreement. . . but make no mistakes.
it is rooted in our understanding that when all people are given more tools of opportunity, they are more willing to actually take risks for peace. and that's particularly true when it comes to women. you knew i would not get through this speech without mentioning women and women's rights. we believe strongly that investing in opportunities for women drives social and economic progress, that benefits not only their families, and societies, but has a rebound effect that benefits others, including us as well. similarly, investments in countries like bangladesh and ghana bet on a future that they will nnly solve their rather difficult challenges of poverty, but then helping to be bulwarks that send a different message to their regions. we take in to account also the countries that are growing rapidly and also, exercising
influence. countries like china hand india, tuey, mexico, brazil, indonesia, south africa as well as russia. our third majortep therefore has been to deepen engagement with these emerging centers of influence. we and our allies, and indeed, people everywhere, have a stake in their playing constructive, regional and global roles, because being a 21st century power means having to accept a share of the burden of solving common problems. and of abiding by a set of the rules of the road, so to speak, on everything in intellectual property price to fundamental freedoms. so through expanded bilateral consultation and within the context of regional and global institutions, we do expect these countries to begin to assume greater responsibility. for example, in our most recent strategic and economic dialogue in china, for the first time, development was on the agenda. something that the chinese are
doing, in conjunction with their commercial interests, but which we wanted to begin to talk about. so that we could better cooperate and we could perhaps share lessons learned about how best to pursue development. in one country in africa, we're building a hospital, the chinese are building a road, we thought it was a good idea that the road would actually go to the hospital. it's that kind of discussion that we think can make a difference for the people that we are both engaged with. india, the world's largest democracy, has a very large convergence of fundamental values and a broad range of both national and regional interests, and we are laying the foundation for an indispensable partnership. president obama will use his visit in november to thank hour relationship to the next level. with russia, whene took office, it was amid cooling to cold relation he is. and a return to cold war
suspicion. now, this may have invigorated spy novelists and arm chair strategists, by anyone serious about solving global problems, without russia and the united states working together, little would be achieved. so we refocused the relationship. we offered aelationship based on not only mutual respect, but also mutual responsibility. and in the course of the last 18 months, we have a historic new arms reduction treaty, which the senate will take up next week, cooperation with china and the u.n. security council on tough new sanctions against both iran and north korea, a transit agreement to support our efforts in afghanistan, a new bilateral presidential commission and civil society exchange that are forging closer people to people ties and of course as we were reminded this past summer, the spy novelists still have plenty
to write about, so it's kind of a win-win. working with these erging powers is not always smooth or easy. disagreements are inevitable an on certain shall use suchs human rights with china horrussian occupation with georgia, we simply do not see eye to eye and the united states will not mess hesitate to speak out an stand our grounds. when these nations do not accept the responsibility that accrues with expanding influence, we will do all that we can to encourage them to change course, while we will press ahead with other partners, but we know it will be difficult, if not impossible, to forgehe kind of future that we expect in the 21st century, without enhanced comprehensive cooperation. so our goal is to establish productive relationships that survive the times when we do not agree, an that enable us to continue to work together. and a central em. of that is -- element of that is to engage directly with the people of these nations. technology and the speed of communication, along with the
spread of democracy at least in technology has empowered people to speak up and demand a say in their own futures. public opinions and passions matter even in authoritarian states. so in nearly every country i visit, i don't just meet with government officials. in russia, distrution centers an interview on one of the few remaining independent radio stations. in saudi arabia, i held a town hall at a women's college. in pakistan, i answered questions from every journalist, student and business leader we could find. while we expand our relationships therefore with the emerging centers of influence, we are working to engage them with their hone publics. -- own publics. thyme and time again, i hear as i do interviews from indonesia to the democratic republic of congo to brazil, how novel it seems to people that an official would come and take questions from the public. so we're not only engaging the
public, and expanding and explaining america values and views, we're also sending a message to those leaders. and as we do so, we are making it clear that we expect more from them. and that we do want the kind of challenges that we face to be addressed in a regional context. think about the complex dynamics around violent extremism, both in afghanistan and pakistan, and emerging out of those two countries to the rest of the world. or the process of reintegrating iraq into its neighborhd, which is a very tough neighborhood indeed. regional dynamics will not remain static, and there are a lot of other players who are working day and night to influence the otcomes of those particular situations. and we know too that other erging powers, like china and brazil, have their own notions about what the right outcome would be, or what regional institutions should look like,
and they are busy pursuing them. so our friends, our allies and people around the world who share hour values depend on us to remain robustly engaged, so the fourth step in our strategy has been to reinvigorate america's commitment to be an active transatlantic, transpacific and hemispheric leader. in a series of speeches an ongoing consultation's with our partners, we've laid out core principles for regional. look at the asia-pacific region, when we took office, there was the perception, fair or not, that america was absent. so we made it clear from the beginning that we were back. we reaffirmed our bonds with close allies, like south korea, japan, and australia, an we deepened our engagement with china and india. the asia pacific currently has few robust institutions to foster -- reduce the friction of
competition, so we began building a more coherent regional architecture with the united states deeply involved. on the economic front, we've expanded our relationship with apec, which receives 60% of our exports. we want to rlize the benefits from greater economic integration. in order to do that, we have to be willing to play. to this end, we are working to ratify a free trade agreement with south korea, we're pursuing a regional agreement with the nations of the transpacific partnership and we know that that will help create no jobs and opportunities here at home. we've also decided to engage with the east asia summit, encouraging its development into a foundational security and political institution. i will be representing the united states, at this year's east asia summit in hanoi, loading up to president -- leading up to presidential participation in 2011 and in southeast asia, osion actually encompasses more than 600 million people in its member
nations. there is more u.s. bills investment in the asean nations than in china, so we have bolstered r relationship by signing the treaty of cooperation, announcing our intention to open a mission and name an ambassador to asean and a commitment to holding an hume u.s.-asean commits, because we know the asia pacific region will grow in importance and developing these institutions will establish habits of cooperation that will be vital to stability and prosperity. now, effective institutions are just as crucial at the global level, so our fifth step has been to reengage with the global institutions and to work to modernize them, to meet the evolving challenges we face. we obviously need institutions that are flexible, inclusive, complementary, instead of just competing with each other over turf and jrisdiction. we need them to play productive patrols an enforce the sysms
of rights and responsibilities. now, the u.n. remains the singlemost important global institutions. we are constantly reminded of its value. the security council enacting sanctions against eye rnbs and north korea, -- iran and north korea, peacekeepers patrolling the streets of monrovia and port-au-prince. and most presently, the u.n. general assembly establishing a new entity called u.n. women, expanding opportunities for women and girls and tackle the violence and discrimination they face, but we are also constantly reminded of its limitations. it is difficult, as many of you in this audience know, for the u.n.'s 192 member states, to achieve consensus on institutional reform, including and especially reforming the security council. we believe the united states has to play a role in reforming the u.n., an we favor security
council reform that enhances the u.n.'s overall performance and effectiveness and efficiency and we equally and strongly support operational reforms that enable u.n. field missions to deploy more rapidly with adequate numbers of well equipped and well trained troops and police, and with the quality of leadership and civilian expertise they require. we will not only embrace but we will advocate management reforms, and savings that prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. now, the u.n. was never intended to tackle every challenge, nor should it, so we are working with other organizations to respond to the global financial crisis, we elevated the g-20, we convened the first ever nuclear security summit, new or old, the effectiveness of institutions depends on the commitment of their members and we have seen a level of commitment to sees enterprises, that we will continue to nurture. now, our efforts on climate chang and i see our commercial envoy, todd stern here, offer an
example of how we are working through multiple venues and mechanisms. the united nations framework convention on climate change allows allf us, developed and developing, authority, south, east and west, to work within a single venue to meet this shared challenge. but, we also launched the major economies forum to focus on the biggest emitters, including ourselves and when negotiations in copenhagen reached an impasse, president obama and i went into a meeting with china, india, south africa and brazil, to try to forge pa compromise, and then with our colleagues from europe and elsewhere, we fashioned a deal that while far from perfect, saved of the summit from failure, and represents progress we can build , because for the first time, all major economies made national commitments to curb carbon emissions and report with transparency on their mitigation efforts. so we know that there's a lot to be done on substantive issues, and there must continue to be an
emphasis on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, so at they are cemented in to the foundations of these institutions. this is something that i take very seriously. because there's no pointin trying to build institutions for the 21st century, that don't act to counter repression and resist pressure on human rights. that extend fundamental freedoms over time, to places where they have too long been denied. and that is our sixth major step. we are upholding and defending the universal values that are enshrined in the u.n. charter and the universal declaration of human rights. because today, everywhere, these principles are under threat. in too many places, new democracies are struggling to grow strong roots. authoritarian regimes are cracking down on civil society and pluralism. some leaders see democracy as an inconvenience that gets in its
way of the convenient exercise of national power, so this world view must be confronted and challenged everywhere. democracy needs defending. the struggle to make human ghts a human reality needs a champion and this works starts at home, where we have rejected the false choice between our security and our values. it continues around the world, where human rights are always on our diplomat eck and development agendas, even with nations on whose cooperation we depends for a wide range of issues, such as egypt, china and russia. we're committed to defending those values on the digital frontiers of the 21st century. a lot has been said about our 21st century state craft, and our e diplomacy, but we really believe that it's an important additional tool for us to utilize. and in krakow this summer, i announced the creation of a new fund to support civil sew seat and embattled ngo's around the world. a continuing focus of u.s. pol civil -- policy.
now, how do all these steps, deepening relations with allies and emerging powers, strengthening institutions and shared values work together to advance ou interests? well, one need only look at the effort we've taken this past year. to stop iran's nuclear activities and its serial non-compliance with its international obligations. now, there is still a lot of work to be done, but we are approaching of the iranian challenge as an example of american leadership in action. first, we began by making the united states a full partner, an active participant in international diplomatic efforts regarding iran. we had been on the sidelines and frankly, that was not a very satisfying place to be. through our continued willingness to engage iran direct lurks we have reenergized our considerations with our allies and are removing all of those excuses for lack of progress. s.e.c., we have sought to frame e issue within the global
non-prproliferation regime. we have renewed our own disarmament efforts. our deepened support for global institutions such as the iaea underscores the authority of the i want national system and iran on the other hand continues to single itself out through its own actions, drawing even criticism for its refusal to permit iaea inspectors to visit from russia and china in the last days. itand third, we have strengthend our relationship with those countries whose hp we need, if diplomacy is to be successful, through classic, shoe leather diplomacy, we've built pa broad nsensus that will welcome iran back into the community of nations, if it meets its obligations and will likewise hold iran accountable if it continues its defiance. :
>> the international financial and commercial sectors are also starting to recognize the risks of doing business with iran. sanctions and pressures, however, are not ends in themselves, they are the building blocks of leverage for a negotiated solution to which we and our partners remain committed. the choice for iran's leaders is clear, and they have to decide whether they accept their obligations or increasing isolation and the costs that come with it, and we will see how iran decides. now, our task going forward is to continue to develop this approach. to develop the tools that we need. and we have to strengthen
civilian power. now, when i was here last year, we were just at the beginning of making the case to congress that we had to have more diplomats and more development experts. we had to have greater foreign service and civil serce personnel. congress has already, then, appropriated funds for more than 1100 new foreign and civil service officers. usaid has begun a series of reforms aimed at reestablishing it as the world's premier diplomatic agency. in a time of tight budgets, we not only have to assure our resources are spent wisely, we have to make the case to the american taxpayer and the members of congress that this is an important investment. that's why i launched the first-ever quadrennial diplomacy and development riew, a wholesale review of state and usaid to recommend how we can better equip, fund and organize
ourselves. i'll be talking more about that in the coming weeks as this review is completed and published. but we recognize the scope of the efforts we've undertaken. i had a lot of wonderful advice from my predecessors, and one of the most common pieces was you can either try to manage the building or manage the world, you can't try to do both. [laughter] we are trying to do both which is, you know, an impossible task to start with, but we're not trying to do it alone. we are forging a closer partnership with the defense department. bob gates has been one of the strongest advocates of the position that we are taking that i'm expressing today. he constantly is encouraging the congress to give us the funds that we asked for. but there's a legitimate question, and some of you have raised, i know, in print and elsewhere. how can you try to manage or at least address and even try to solve all of these problems? but our response in this day where there is nothing that
doesn't come to the forefro of public awareness, what do we give up on? what do we put on the back burner? do we sideline development? do we put some hot conflicts on hold? do we quit rying to prevent -- trying to prevent other conflicts from unfreezing and heating up? do we give up on decracy and human rights? i don't think that's what is either possible or desirable, and it is not what americans do. but it does require a lot of rategic patience. you know, when our troops come home as they are from iraq and eventually from afghanistan, we'll still be involved in diplomatic and development efforts trying to rid the world of nuclear dangers and turn back climate change, end poverty, you know, quell the epidemic of hiv/aids, tackle hunger and disease. that's not the work not of a year or even a presidency, but of a lifetime, and it is the work of generations. america has made generational
commitments to building the kind of world that we wanted to inhabit for many decades now. we cannot turn away from that responsibility. we are a nation that has always believed we have the power to shape our own destiny and to cut a new and better path and, frankly, to bring along people who are like-minded from around the world. so we will continue to do everything we can to exercise thbest traditions of american leadership at home and abroad, to build that more peaceful and prosperous future for our children and for children erywhere. thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you, and i will ask a slightly longer first question than i normally would
while you fumbl with that. >> thank you very much. very kind of you. >> the old stall tacc. filibustering. you may recall that. >> i do. but i never knew it would be so common. [laughter] >> yes. foreign relations, we're trying to keep up. we're trying to keep up. touche. let me start where -- you okay? >> yeah. >> let me start where you begin -- where you ended, rather, which is with all these things we want to do, and you called for strategic patience in afghanistan and so forth. yet the united states is soon approaching a point where the scale or size of our debt will exceed our gdp. it's a question of when more than if. where does national security contribute to the solution to running deficits of $1.5 trillion a year, or do we continue to carry out a foreign and defense policy as if we were not seriously
resource-constrained? >> richard, first, you know, as i said, i think that our rising debt levels poses a national security threat, and it poses a national security threat in two ways. it undermines our capacity to act in our own interests, and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable. and it also sends a message of weakness internationally. i mean, it is very troubling to me that we are losing the ability not only to chart our own destiny, but to, you know, have the leverage that comes from this enormously effective economic engine that has powered american values and interests over so many years. so i don't think we have a choice. it's a question of how we, how we decide to deal with this debt and deficit. i mean, you know, it is -- we
don't need to go back and sort of relitigate how we got to where we are, but it is fair to say that, you know, we fought two wars without paying for them, and we had tax cuts that were not paid for either. and tt has been a very deadly combination to fiscal sanity and responsibility. so the challenge is how we get out of -- challenge is how we get out of it byaking the right decisions rather than the wrong decisions. i mean, it is going to be very difficult for those decisions, and i know there's an election going on, and i know that i am by law out of politics, but i will say that this is not just a decision for the congress, it's a decision for the country. and it's not a republican or a democratic decision. and therare a lot of people who know more about what needs to be done and who, frankly, have a responsible view whose voices are not being heard right now. and i think that is a great
disservice to our nation whether one is a republican or a democrat, a conservative, progressive, whatever you call yourself, there is no free lunch. and we cannot pretend that there is without doing grave harm to our country and our future generations. so when you specifically say, well, what about, you know, diplomacy, development and defense, you know, we will have to take our share of the burden of meeting the fiscal targets that can drag us out of this deep hole we're in, but we've got to be smart about it. and i think from both my perspective and bob gates' perspective -- and we've talked about this a lot, you know -- bob has made some very important recommendations that are not politically popular but which come with a very well-thought-out policy. and what i've tried to do is to say, look, we're going to try to
be smarter, more effective in our qddr. we're recommending changes in personnel policies, in all kin of approaches that will better utilize what we have. but we need it to get a ltl bit more robust in order to catch up to our responsibilities. quick final point on that, you know, when our combat troops move out of iraq as they've been, that will save about $15 billion. that's a net win for our treasury, and it's the policy that we have committed to along with the iraqis. the congress cuts my budget of the state department and usaid for trying to pick up the pieces that we're left with. you know, we now have responsibility for the police-training mission, for opening up consulates that have to be secure. so even though our troops are coming down and we're saving money and what we're asking for is considerably less than the $15 billion that we are saving by having the troops leave, the congress cuts us.
and so, you know,e have to get a more sensible, comprehensive approach. and, you know, bob and i have talked about, you know, trying to figure out how to present a national security budget. it's a mistake to look at all of these items -- foreign aid, defense, diplomatic aid -- as stove pipes because we know that you have to be more integrated. so let's start thinking from a budget perspective about how to be more integrated. so there's a lot that we can do on our side to help, but the bottom line is that the public and the congress and the administration have to makesome very tough decisions, and i hope we make the right decisions. >> let me just follow up on that because you broached the political issue. i don't have a chris call ball -- crystal ball better than anyone else's, but let's assume republicans pi up quite a few seats in the house, a few in the senate, so government is more
divided come the new congress when it takes office early next year. what does that mean for you? what are the opportunities, what are the problems in that for being secretary of state? >> well, i won't answer that as a political question because i don't want to cross my line here. but i will say that, you know, i have fou a lot of support for what we're trying to do on both sides of the aisle in both houses. and i think we will continue to have that, and i'm hopin that we can maybe reestablish something of a detente when it comes to foreign policy that cuts across any partisan divide. like take the stark treaty. you know, we have unanimous support for that. our two chief negotiators, rose and ellen are here, and they did a terrific job, and we've had a very positive endorsement of it
by former secretaries of state and defense of both parties, the joint chiefs have come out, everybody's come out for it. and, you know, it's a pitical issue. i wish it weren't because most of these treaties, you know, pass 95-0, 90-3. they have huge overwhelming majorities in the senate. but we know that we have, you know, political issues that we have to address which we are and talking to those who have some questions. but i hope at the end of the day the senate will say, you know, some things should just be beyond any kind of election or partisan calculation and that everybody will pull together and we'll get that s.t.a.r.t. treaty done which i know from my own conversations, it'seen as a really important symbol of our commitment to continue working with the russians. >> just one last question, then i'll open it up to our members. you're about, as you said, to
head back to the middle east for the resumption of the israeli/palestinian talks. the op-ed pages have been filled, i woulsay the majority of the pieces have been quite pessimistic. why are the pessimists wrong? [laughter] >> well, i think they're wrong because i think that both sides and both leaders recognize that there may not ever be another chance. i think for most israeli leaders that i have known and worked with and especially those coming from sort of the right of israeli politics which the prime minister does, you know, it's like mario cuomo's famous line, you know, they campaign this poetry, and they govern in prose, and the prose is really challenging. you know, you look at where israel is and the threats it faces demographically, technologically, ideologically, andhe idea of striking a peace
deal with a secular palestinian authority that is committed to its own people's economic future makes a lot of sense if be it can be worked out. from abbas he was probably the earliest and at times the only palestinian leader who called for a two-state solution going back probably 20, 30 years, and for him this is a culmination of of a life commitment. and i think that the arab league initiative, the peace initiative put the arab, most arab and muslim countries on record as saying that they could live with and welcome a two-state solution. fifty-seven countries including some we know didn't mean it, but most have followed through in commitments to it has changed the atmosphere. so i know how difficult it is,
and i know the internal domestic political considerations that each leader has to contend with, but i think there's a certain momentum, you know? we have some challenges in the early going that we have to get over, but i think that we have a real shot here. >> great. let's open it up, and what i'll ask is people to identify themselves, wait for a microphone and, please, limit yourself to one question and be as short as you can. sir, i don't know your name, but right there. >> how are you, secretary clinton? my name's travis ains, i'm with the council on foreign relations focusing on sudan this year, and my question is you mentioned darfurnce in your talk. if you could elaborate a little bit on our ramped-up efforts in sudan as weead towards the referendum there in january. >> well, thank you, thanks for asking, and thanks for your work on sudan.
we have, we have a very fficult set of challenges in sudan. some of you in this audience, both those of you who were in government before like john negroponte and others, u know, you know this firsthand. the situation in the darfur is dangerous, difficult, not stable. but the situation north/south is a ticking time bomb of enormous consequence. so we are rampingp our efforts to bring the parties together, north and south, the african union, others, to focus on this referendum which has not been given the attention it needs both because the south is not quite capable of summoning the resources to do it, and the north has been preoccupied and is not inclined to do it because
it's pretty clear what the outce will be. the african union chief under um becky has been working on it, so we are upping our diplomatic efforts. we are increased our presence in juba, we have set up, opened a kind of consulate there. as some of you know, prince has signed on to help with scott and his team -- >> until last week, a senior fellow here. >> that's right. and assistant secretary johnny carson. it's really all hands on deck so that we're trying to convince the mort and south and all the other interested parties who care about t comprehensive peace agreement to weighing in to getting this done. the time frame is very short, pulling together this referendum is going to be difficult. we're going to need a lot of help from ngos, the carter
centernd others who are willing to help implement the referendum. but the real problem is what happens when the inevitable happens and the refer dumb is passed and the south declares independence? so simultaneously we're trying to begin negotiations to work out some of those intractable problems. what happens to the oil revenues? i mean, if you're in the north and all of a sudden you think a line's going to be drawn and you're going to lose 80% of the oil rev knews, you're not a very enthusiastic participant. what are the deals that can possibly be made that will limit the potential of violence. and even if we did everything rfectly and everyone else, you know, the norwegians, the brits, everybody who's weighing in on this did all that they could, the reality is that this is going to be a very hard decision for the northo accept. and so we've got to figure out some ways to make it worth their while to peacefully accept an
independent south and for the south to recognize that unless they want moreyears of warfare and no chance to build their own new state, they've got to make some accommodations with the north as well. so that's what we're looking for. if you have any ideas from your study, let us know. [laughter] >> turn to carla hills. >> secretary clinton, first of all, thank you for a really far-ranging, extraordinarily interesting talk. you mentione strategies that are regional, and i'd like you to just say a word more about this hemisphere. you gave a wonderful speech at the border of mexico where you asserted that we had responsibility for the drugs coming north and the guns going soh. talk a little bit about how we are implementing strategies to turn that around and, also, to
gain friendship that would be helpful throughout latin america. >> well, first, carla, thank you for asking about this hemisphere because it is very much on our minds, and we face an increasing threat from a well-organized network drug-trafficking threat that is in some cases morphing into or making common cause with what we would consider an insurgency. in mexico and in central america. and we are working very hard to assist the mexicans in improving their law enforcement ask their intelligence -- and their intelligence, their capacity to detain and prosecute those whom they arrest. i give president calderon very high marks for his courage and
his commitment. this is a really tou challenge, and these drug cartels are now showing more and more indices of insurgency, you know? all of a sudden car bombs show up which weren't there before. so it'secoming, it's looking more and more like colombia looked 20 year ago where the narco traffickers control certain parts of the country. not significant parts. in colombia it got to a point where more than a third of the country, nearly 40% of the country at one time or another was controlled by the insurgts, by park, but it's going to take a combination of improved institutional capacity and better law enforcement and, where appropriate, military support for that law enforcement. you know, marry the political will to be able to prevent this from spreading and to try to
beat it back. mexico has capacity, and they're using that capacity, and they've been very willing to take advice. you know, they're wanting to do as much of it on their own as possible, but we stand ready to help them. but the small countries in central america do not have that capacity, and the newly-inaugurated president of costa rica, president chinchilla, you know, said we need help, and we need a much more vigorous.s. presence. so we are working to try to enhance what we have in central america. we hear the same thing from our caribbean friends, so we have an initiative that caribbean basin security initiative, and our relationship is not all about drugs and violence and crime. but, unfortunately, that often gets the headlines. we're also working on more economic programs, we're working on millennium challenge grants, we're working on a lot of other ways of bolstering economies and
governments to improve rule of law. but this is on the top of everyone's mind when they come to speak with us. and i know that plan colombia was controversial. i was just in colombia, and there were problems and there were mistakes, but it worked. and it was bipartisan, started, you know, in the clinton administration, continued in the bush administration, and i think president santos will try to do everything he can to remedy the problems of the past while continuing to, you know, make progress against the insurgency. and we need to figure out what are the equivalents for central america, mexico and the caribbean. and that's not easy because these, you know, you put your finger on it. i mean, those drugs come up through bolivia, peru, colombia, through central america,
southern mexico to the border, and we consume them. and those guns, you know, those guns legal and illegal keep flooding along with all of the mayhem. it's not only guns, it's weapons, it's arsenals of all kinds that come south. so i feel a real sense of responsibility to do everything we can. and, again, we're working hard to come up with, you know, approaches that will actually deliver. >> speaking of guns, i'm going to be shot if be i don't ask a question that comes from one of our national members, and thanks to the ipad, i can ask it. several have written in about the impact of the mosque debate in new york, about the threat to burn cu rans, how does this complicate your life? [laughter] >> well -- you know, i mean, we're a country of, what, 310 million plus right now, and, i
mean, it's regrettable that a pastor in gainesville, florida, with a church of no more than 50 people can make this outrageous and distressful, disgraceful plan a get, you know, the world's attention, but that's the world we live in right now. i mean, it doesn't in any way represent america or americans or american government or american religious or political leadership. and we are, as you've seen in the last few days, you know, speaking out. general petraeus made the very powerful point that as seem seemingly, you know, small a group of people doing this, the fact is that it will have potentially great harm for our troops. so we are hoping that the pastor
decides not to do this. we're hoping against hope that if he does, it won't be covered. [laughter] as a, as a, you know, an act of patriotism. but i think that it, you know, it's unfortunate. i mean, it's not who we are, and we just have to constantly be demonstrating by our words and actions. and as i remind, you know, my friends around the world, in the environment in which we all now operate, anybody with an iphone, anybody with a blog can, you know, put something out there which is outrageous. i mean, we went through the cartoon controversy, we went through the facebook controversy in pakistan, ewe kit mchal who's our undersecretary for public diplomacy is on the front lines o you know, pushing back on all of this all the time, and so we want to be judged by who
we are as a nation, not by something that iso aberrational, and we'll make that case as strongly as possible. >> time for one more? >> sur >> okay. let me, first of all, apologize to the 283 of you whose questions will not get answered, and let me also say that after the secretary completes her next answer, if people would just remain seated while we get you out quickly and safely. >> safely, do you think they're going to storm the stage? [laughter] >> this is the- >> i don't know. i'm looking at this audience, there's -- [laughter] there's a few people i think that might. [laughter] >> thanks, richard. secretary, it's a pleasure, and i appreciate the responsibility on my shoulders. i have two very quick ones. >> actually one quick one. >> very easy ones. is it the rolof the united states to support the green movement, the opposition in iran? and if so, how should we be
doing that? and secondly, you hardly mentioned north korea. is u.s. policy now just to let north korea stew in its own juices until the next kim takes over? thank you. >> well, with respect to the first question, it is definitely our policy to support freedom and man rights inside iran. and we have done so by speaking out. we have done so by trying to equip iranians with the tools, particularly the technology tools th they need to be able to communicate with each other to make their views known. we have strongly condemned the actions of the iranian government and continue to do so. i don't thinkhere's any doubt that iran is morphing into a military dictatorship with, you know, sort of religious ideological veneer. it is becoming the province of the iranian revolutionary guard,
and in concert with some of the clerical and political leadership. and i don't think that's what the iranian revolution for a republic of iran, an islamic republic of iran was ever meant to become. so i know there's a great deal of ferment and activities inside iran that we do try to support. at the same time, we don't want to either endanger or undermine those very same people. so that it becomes, you know, once again the u.s. doing something instead of the u.s. being supportive of what indigenous efforts are taking place. we know that iran is under tremendous pressure. early returns from implementation of the sanctions are that they're feeling e economic effects. we would hope that that would
lead them to reconsider their positions not only with respect to nuclear weaponsbut, frankly, the export of terrorism. and it's not only in the obvious places with hezbollah and hamas, but in trying to destabilize many countries in the region. and beyond where they have, you know, provided support and funding for terrorist activities as far away as argentina. so i think that there is a very, you know, very sad confluence of events occurring. inside iran. i think eventually, but i can't put a time frame on it, the iranian people themselves will respond to. and we want to be helpful, but we don't want to get in the way of it. so that's the balance that we try to strike. now, with respect to north korea we are continuing to send a very
clear message to north korea about what we expect and what the six-party process could offer if they are willing to return and discuss seriously denuclearization that is irreversible. we are in intense discussion about this with all the other six-party members, and we're watching the leadership process and don't have any, any idea yet how it's going to turn out. but the most important issue for us is trying to get our six-party friends led by china to work with us to try to convince who's ever in adership in north korea that their future would be far better served by denuclearizing, and
that remains our goal. >> as always, tnk you so much. [laughter] for coming here, first of all, but also giving such a thorough and complete d comprehensive talk about american foreign policy. and i know i speak for everyone that we wish you godspeed and more in your work next week and beyond. >> thanks, richard. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]
>> joined us on friday, when president obama hosts a news conference from the white house. we expect questions on the economy, iran, iraq, afghanistan, and other issues. that is scheduled for 11:00 a.m. eastern. you can see it live. >> tonight, "afterwards" an interview with arthur brooks on "the battle." and on "fast forward -- ethics and politics in the age of global warming." a discussion of race and reconciliation. the tea party movement in "that's no angry mob, that's my mom."
tonight at 8:30. >> saturday marks the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. this weekend, pilots, air traffic controllers, and aviation officials gathered at the university of texas at dallas to discuss their experiences from that day. more from the faa officials who called for the grounding of all flights, and military pilots who had orders to stop any aircraft. we will bring that to you saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> the father of modern community organizing. his 1971 book is still used as a blueprint for social change. >> he define what a rebel rouser is supposed to be. >> "radical -- a portrait of saul alinsky" on "q&a."
>> topics at the state department briefing include sudan, north korea, and the koran-burning ceremony on september 11. >> good afternoon and welcome to the department of state. you heard during the secretary's q&a this morning about foreign relations. we continue to do everything we can to promote full implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement within sudan. after giving her remarks at the council this morning, the secretary has just completed phone calls with the sudanese first vice-president and vice- president taha.
she encouraged them to continue to do everything they can do in the coming weeks and months to promote full implementation of the 2005 comprehensive police -- a comprehensive peace agreement and make arrangements for the referendum in early january. as a follow on to those calls, our special envoy for sudan will travel back to the region tomorrow to continue the dialogue the secretary engaged in today. >> just on that, very briefly, the secretary has commented on not just the upcoming referendum but an upcoming war. is that what you are preparing for? >> we are now preparing for war. the comprehensive peace
agreement ended conflict and created an opportunity for stability in darfur and peace between north and south. if, for some reason, implementation is not forthcoming were credible, there is the risk of further conflict. both north and south have a lot of work to do. that was her message to both the vice president's. there are outstanding issues that need to be resolved, including border issues. as the secretary reflected today, understanding on revenue sharing from natural resources -- there is no time to waste.
>> correct me if i am wrong, but doesn't full implementation of the 2005 agreement mean there will be a referendum? >> there is that. >> and it is your judgment -- the government's judgment -- that's the referendum -- that in a referendum, the south will vote to secede? >> it is our expectation. that is obviously a choice of the people. >> you're working assumption is that -- >> we have to be prepared for that likelihood. obviously, it recognizes that on the timetable that was laid out by this time next year there could be the makings of a new country. >> but in your judgment, if
this likelihood is secession, is the likelihood also an inevitable renewed conflict between north and south? >> we do not see renewed conflict as inevitable. >> it sounded like it. >> but we recognize that absent effective action by both north and south, conflict looms out there, unfortunately, as a possibility. >> all experts expect saddam to break up. not necessarily into to. it could be three countries. you said they had a lot of work to do on outstanding issues. can you be more specific about what they need to do? >> given the possibility or probability that south sudan will vote to secede, it is one
of the reasons why we have beefed up our presence in juba to begin to help south sudan with what we know will be a lengthy process to get the institutions so it would be able to govern itself. there is a lot of work to do to prepare for the referendum. in the most recent town hall elections, there were irregularities. we hope the parties will take advantage of lessons learned from the recent elections. the election rolls -- polling places -- all the arduous work of preparing for a credible referendum. there is a question of borders. as i mentioned before, recognizing the most of the oil
resources from the south -- are in the south. most of the oil in the structure is in the north? how are these entities, if secession is the judgment of the people of south sudan -- how are they going to cooperate? how are they going to share these revenues for the benefit of the people of sudan? there are a number of issues. we do recognize that action leading to implementation of the cpa -- a credible referendum is the most effective means to forestall. we also believe there are steps that need to be taken to continue to stabilize the situation. >> are you in any kind of dialogue -- discussions with the african union?
government. and while we do in fact here in the state department and elsewhere make sure that we are effective storage of the taxpayers' money, we have to make sure that we are able to make the needed investments only in our capability and the development capability. also critical areas around the world. we would like to shake the world and build partners who can shoulder their share of the responsibility. >> this morning, there is an
indispensable partnership and the countries concerned about the banning of outsourcing. these are the kind of issues that we are laying the foundation for? >> we do have an ongoing strategic dialogue with india and we believe earnestly that the world's oldest democracy and the world's largest democracy have a great deal in common. new partners are able to assume greater responsibility for the future.
we will have issues that crop up from time to time. we are in an effective dialogue to resolve those issues. india will have to play a significant role in the global actions to combat climate change. india can play a leading role. the institutions and the regional architecture that we hope to build off to be able to address regional and global issues. >> how do we address the concerns of the businesses in india and the u.s.? >> we will do this by what we are doing now. we believe that this agreement
is in the interest of the united states. we are having discussions with india. we recognize that there are other countries in india. >> palestinian and israeli sources say that the prime minister netanyahu that of the settlement must be maintained under palestinian sovereignty in the event there it there is a palestinian state. >> we will continue our discussions next week. >> you are not aware of this? >> we will not get into any issues that may or may not have
been discussed. >> senator clinton is going to israel and jerusalem. is there any reason not -- >> the egyptians have volunteered to hold a round of direct negotiations. during the course of the discussions, we agreed to the arrangement next week. >> i'm wondering if you have anything to say about the iranian entities? >> we welcome the actions by the republic of korea. this demonstrates the growing
international resolve by the international community sending a strong signal to iran that not only do we continue to have concerns about the nature of their nuclear activities but we are taking aggressive action to further isolate iran. we believe that this concerted action short of full implementation as well as the national steps that were announced will put additional pressure on iran and we hope to engage constructively and address the concerns that the national community has. >> are you aware of any movement in getting them to the table? >> no i do not. >> going north, do you have any expectations at all of what will
come out of this workers' party meeting? >> we will be watching closely to see whatever does have been and the consequences. >> does it make any difference of the change in leadership and the definition of succession and affecting u.s. policy towards north korea? >>if something was done in terms of identifying the future leadership that this congress, this might not have any impact? >> leaders of all stripes change
around the world. leaders don't live forever. at some point whether seeing sooner -- it is sooner or later, there will be a change in leadership. we are looking for a change in north korean policy and action. whether that is done by the present leadership or by future leadership is really difficult but not impossible for us to appreciate. >> you want the same thing a matter who is in charge? >> correct. >> [inaudible] >> i'm not sure i understand a new approach. >> maybe you're thinking about
more friends approaching. >> we will continue our consultation with countries in the upcoming days. we are looking for specific actions by north korea. we are willing to engage north korea. there are things that want to see in terms of the seriousness of purpose and then we will respond to north korea. >> [inaudible] >> we will do what needs to be
done. we will engage north korea. we don't rely and just one tool. we are aggressively pursuing sanctions against korea. we want north korea to change their behavior. we are prepared to adapt as we see change in north korea's behavior. ouof the onus is on north koreao take steps to show its commitment to its international obligations and to be a more constructive neighbor. >> the you have any predictions
about the latest leader? >> at juneau's will be happening in the coming days. i would assume that there are many many people who will be watching p'yongyang to try to understand what the implications are. >> what about an announcement from the government that they will try three people related to the times square attack? >> in the aftermath of the failed times square attempts, we believe that they had helped within pakistan. they have worked on this investigation. we are gratified pakistan has
made some arrests in this case. this is in the hands of the pakistani officials. >> there was an outcry over the stoning sentence for this woman in the run. you came out with some tough language about it. do you have anything more to say? >> we would expect the run to live up to its international obligations. >> why would you expect them to live up to their obligations? they have not lived up to a single international obligation, why do you expect them to now? >> what they do is up to the authorities. iran is a signatory to the
international convention on civil rights. we don't think that those standards have been met in this case. stoning is a barbaric and abhorrent act. we have joined with many voices around the world in condemning this prospective action by iran. "clearly this is in the hands of the iranian authorities. >> : back to the danish cartoon and the consequences of that. is he administration possibly considering meeting with them and trying to convince them to not go ahead with this idea? >> i believe that many people
have called him and talked to him and he is very well aware of the political and religious voices which has suggested that they not take this proposed action this weekend. it was said compellingly yesterday. america is not a country that is built on he to. i am not sure that we have any plans to talk directly with them. there are local authorities to have done so, there are many who are voicing their very strong concern. we have talked about this issue today. we are encouraged that while the world is paying very close attention to this particular
case, the commentary thus far has been straight forward. in most communities around the world, they have heard or statements of strong condemnation and we continue to hope that we can resolve satisfactorily within our own country but should we fail to do so, we hope that the world will appreciate that this is the action of a very small group and does not represent the views of the united states or americans as a whole. >> actions have been taken against the u.s., should this become an excuse for them to take another action wouldn't this be considered against the national interests of the u.s.
if we go through with this idea and is the gate? >> we spoke to that yesterday. general petraeus spoke about his concern about his troops and we have broader concerns about the welfare of diplomats and american citizens traveling around the world who might be caught in a tragic reaction to whatever might happen this weekend. that is exactly why we are expressing as strongly and as clearly as recanted this seemingly and others that we not want to take actions. we do not want to feed extremism around the world. >> the killing of an american soldier by an iraqi soldier, will this impact the situation? >> as the president and others
have said, we have moved beyond the combat phase in iraq but iraq is still a dangerous place. we will continue to work closely with the government to take action to try to make a raucous as secure as it can be. -- to make iraq as secure as it can be. >> the iraqi militaries dependent upon the american military. will this impact where they are? >> no, that is why we have maintained 50,000 troops in iraq to continue to support the military and increase the capability of the iraqi military the.
on the civilian side, we are building up the capacity of the iraqi police said the government to. -- police and government. we have another 16 months in this particular phase of our operation but we will continue to work closely with iraq to help them secure the country for their citizens and to be a stabilizing force in the region. >> was there any diplomatic engage would between the ambassador in iraq? >> our ambassador is in daily contact with the government. >> the stewardship of taxpayer dollars, are you concerned that the safety of a 5 billion l a contractor.
-- are you concerned about the safety of a contractor who was awarded $5 billion? >> we engaged in a contract and we received the goods and services ever called for under that contract and the contract was not renewed. >> are you going to explode whether this was awarded under false pretences? >> to the extent that the circumstances surrounding our contract will play a role, we will not comply with whatever the government is trying to do. we had a contract in is called for the delivery of glassware and we received what was called for. >> how much have you received? >> all i can tell you is that the contract was there, we got what we paid for. >> has any other government
entity ask for e-mail? >> all referred to the department of justice. >> will the president be going to china? >> no, he will not. >> what about north korea and sanctions. >> the prime minister of lebanon says that his accusation that syria was behind the assassination of the late prime minister were political. these are now -- >> we will defer comment until the tribunal. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] caller[captions copyright natiol cable satellite corp. 2010] >> saturday marks the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. this year, the pilots, aviation
officials, are gathering at the university of texas at dallas to discuss their experiences from that day. we will hear from the official called for the grounding of all flights and a military pilot who was under orders to stop all aircraft. >> tonight, we interview albert brooks on "the battle," how the fight between free enterprise and the government will shape america's future. then "fast forward," politics in the age of global warming. then "race and reconciliation," with george lewis. then we will discuss the tea party movement with the author
of a new book. >> at long last, the united states of america joins every other industrial nation in the world that says health care is a right, not a privilege. >> senators and congressmen have been holding town meetings in their states and districts and we have been covering them. watched them on line and see what your elected officials have said from a quash -- from across the country. >> c-span's local content of vehicles are visiting committees and congressional districts as we look at some of the most hotly contested horaces leading up to the midterm elections. >> hello, how are you. nice to see you. >> how are you doing?
>> where do you live? >> prospect park. >> thank you. >> nice to see you. >> good. >> nice to see you. >> the lawyers are in town. this is an up-and-coming democrats. he was a prosecutor in the city of philadelphia. an army ranger. he has served in iraq. he was very ambitious, he was going to run for congress in 2006. he retired from the navy as an
animal and decided to come back to his hometown in the district where he now had not lived for many years and run for congress. he did such a phenomenal job of fund-raising that rahm emanuel and other party elders told him to go away. we have someone with a lot of money. also he is like a macho democrat, perfect for this district. he wanted to have a future in the party. he ran for the state house and has been there for a couple of terms. the republican candidate was the u.s. prosecutor for southeastern pennsylvania and he racked up several major convictions for political corruption in philadelphia so we have great law enforcement credentials, he
is a local boy, he has deep roots and he was the party candidate for the district attorney in delaware county. he also has a lot of experience as a political operative. he ran the campaigns of both arlen specter when arlen specter was a republican and which santorum. he has ties to all wings of the republican party and he is very well connected. >> one of the reasons why this race is so interesting is because this is a taste test for the messaging that republicans are trying to put across in these type of districts that they think are -- >> people by the street are grabbing me by the hand and saying, you have to help me get a job.
where am i going to find work? >> our economic policies for the last 10 or so years have been very focused on wealth creation. the stock market went through the roof and a lot of people made a lot of money. we did not have enough focus on jobs, particularly jobs here. >> the seventh congressional district, this is unique and this has been a republican stronghold since the civil war. delaware county is the main county in the seventh congressional district and this is right outside of the city of philadelphia and includes ethnically diverse old towns and the home of the blue bloods and the philadelphia story and grace kelly and all that kind of stuff. >> republican representation is
shrinking quite a bit and delaware county in particular which is like 70% of the district has been voting for democrats in national and statewide races for a long time now. the current representative from the seventh congressional district created to the open seat. he was the first democrat in 26 years to have won election there. the democrat that preceded him was from the watergate era. it took watergate to to -- to get another one in there. >> we have seen some competitors entrances and these are good candidates. >> when you run for congress in the area, these races are won and lost on television.
this is an expensive place to run. it costs about half a million per week to be on the air. this could really come down to has -- to has the more compelling narrative and he has the money to put it into people's homes. >> on "washington journal," a look at the obama administration is foreign policy. then we will discuss food safety legislation. later, a discussion on the economy and the current employment situation. we will be joined by an economics professor at the university california at berkeley. "washington journal," picture calls and e-mail every morning
at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> saul alinsky is considered to be the father of modern political activism. >> he is not what you would expect him to be. he discusses him in "radical," which is based on his time with salt alinksky. relation to alleged efforts on behalf of united one bank in california, her husband is a stock holder in that company. we've been looking at issues facing congress as they return from their august recess. we're going to open our phone lines to get your thoughts on the issue of congressional ethics in particular with the house ethics charges.
202-585-3885 is the number to call if you're democrat. republicans 202-585-3886, independents and others 202-585-3887. mute your television or radio when you call in. if you called any c-span program in the last 30 days, give others a chance to call in this afternoon. joining us to help understand some of the issues involved not just with waters and charlie wrangle is devlin barrett with the "wall street journal" who has written about the issue as of late. thanks for jning us. two different approaches there. we've showed our viewers today, on the ethics charges facing charlie rangel and maxine waters. charlie rangel with a fairly passionate speech in the well of the house and maxine waters with a power point display a logical step by step approach to the charges she's faced with. >> yeah, it's very interesting how different the tactics are,
but also there's one similarity between those two, and that's that they're both decided to fight publicly right before an election cycle. that's pretty unusual. >> why did charlie rangel decide to go all the way to a trial? >> his argument is that whatever mistakes he made, they were honest mistakes and he wasn't trying to mislead anyone or create or have some ulterior motive on his part. that has been a sticking point in the negotiations with the house ethics committee. both sides don't like to talk publicly about those negotiations but they haven't succeeded. >> what about waters? will she face a house trial as well? >> she is scheduled to face similar proceedings as soon as the rangel wraps up. it's not clear how long the trial or hearings will ke. >> over the weekend, you wrote about the hearing facing charlie rang rangel. the headline rangel hearings to test his party too in "the wall street journal" this week. you quote aid republican source
as saying in this is not a court of law. this is more like a condominium association you. sit on the board, you still want your neighbor to check the mail while you're away." what did you take from his comments? >> his point is that while there's sort of of the trappings of a trial in this ethics trial that he faces, it's not really a trial. you don't really have a formal judge and a formal prosecutor in the sense that you do you in an actual court of law. and you're being judged by lawmakers who you will presumably go on the house floor and vote with and negotiate deals with as soon as you lk out of the ethics committee room. that's not a trial by most lawyers views. >> and the headline to your story the hearings to test his party too, the house leaders obviously have no choice or say on when these issues come up, do they? >> well, the calendar has be a big bone of contentionhere. and generally speaking, the ethics committee isn't supposed
to make a big move just before an election. that hasn't worked in this case. there's going to be, if the schedule holds, a prettyig trial just before the election. that will proposes some real challenges for both the people going on trial, in this case mr. rangel and then mrs. waters and the people doing the trying because they haven't done this in a very long time. >> calls waiting for you on the issue of house ethics. let's hear from phoenix first. this is jen on our republican line. go ahead. jen in phoenix, go ahead. >> y, thank you. i don't have anybody right now in oz on ethics but it does make you stop and think and it's amazing listening to congressman rangel and congressman walters both think they're above the law. they made mistakes but that's okay, vote me in again. i watched waters before. she was always, it's just like
that, what is it, a school in california she wants named after her, get mother money. they all want something named after them. give these kids an education. this is sad to watch her. she protests too much i think. but they're just likes congressman rangel, he's the head of the tax things like timothy geithner and they can't figure this out. >> you rangel lost his chairmanship earlier in the spring over that. address her point about being above the law. do you get that sense from what they were saying? >> one of the things that's sort of interesting about both cases is that both of them have completely justified in their own minds their actions. and maxine waters believeshe has a very powerful paper case to make to prove she didn't do anything wrong. rangel's argument is quite different. his argument is yes, there's all these documents i didn't do correctly or should have filed. but i really didn't mean anything by missing them.
that may be a tougher. >> in fremont, california, bobby on our independents line. >> hello. >> make sure it you mute your set. i'm going to put you on hold and go on to david new pennsylvania. also an independent. hi there. >> how you doing? >> fine. >> i think that my answer to that question is, is that my vote is always affected by the ethics bause i find the democrats and the republicans to be professional politicians and without some kind of term limits and legislation, thatmakes them subject to the laws that they pass for other people i'll always have a problem with the ethics of democrats and republicans. >> devlin barrett, any thoughts on bobby's comments there? david's comments? >> i think that's a very common perception among the public that no one party has a monopoly on good or bad behavior. there is something endemic to the actual function of politics
in washington that creates this kind of bad behavior, at least in these two cases bad alleged behavior. part of what the democrats came to power on in 2006 is a promise to stop at. >> i want to see if you can explain this two-tier sort of system in the u.s. haas. you've got the office of congressional eics, then the ethics committee officially called the committee on standards on conduct. how do two the bodies work together? >> the office of congressional ethics is the new creation. that is one of the things that's being tested here, although the public test will definitely be for the committee, not the office. i know that's a little complicated. the oce makes the preliminary investigation and then makes a referral to the committee. now, in the case of maxine waters, the oce made that referral to the committee and the committee then acted on it.
in the case of charlie rangel, his issues were essentially he brought them to the committee after newspaper reports. >> charlie rangel actual asked the committee to investigate him, right? >> that's right but did he so after reporters started writing stories about problems with his paperwork, problems with his apartments, problem with his taxes. >> there's a story today in the hill newspaper whether or not the republicans would keep that office of congressional ethics, that new body we were talking about was created saying that pressed for comment, gop leadership described -- declined to directly answer the question presumably seeking to avoid politically damaging headlines about how republicans want to strip the power from that office of congressional ethics. what's your take on whether that office would stick around if the republicans gain the house? >> i think that office is still in -- i think everyone sort of looks at that office and thinks i don't know if this guess to work.
but at the same time, you've got lawmakers, no one wants to be the person credited with shutting down ethics investigations in the house. that would be a pretty bad thing to try to live down. so i think they're basically both parties would rather just wait and see h it plays out and see if the answer sort of presents itself without the eier side having to take a political hit for it >> we're talking about charlie rangel and maxine waters t the office of congressional eics has indicate that had they have asked thethics committee to look into representative tom pre, republican of georgia, john camp bell, republican of california, and joe crowley of new york in relation to some fund-raising events around the time of the financial regulations bill. what are they concerned about? >> that's a pretty interesting issue because what they're concerned about is the timing of fund-raisers right before or after key votes. and there's two schools of thought on that. there's an old school sort of
capitol hill view that sa you know, lawmakers make a point of not -- used to make a point of not scheduling fund-raisers right around the time of big votes because they don't want to the create the appearance that their vote is for sale. on the other hand, you've got a younger or newer generation of political aides and politicians who say wee fund-raising all the time. so if you, if i have to start canceling fund-raisers just because the leadership moves a vote, that's a big problem. if i schedule a fund-raisers three months in advance not knowing when the vote is going to be, why does that make unethical. >> joe crowley daily news saying he's clean in that ethics probe. it the office of congressional ethics submitting crowley's case to the committee with a recommendation its members order an investigation. joe crowley the quantity county democrat denied any wrongdoing and said he's always comply with
the letter and spirit of all the rules regarding funds raising and standards of conduct. back to the cellphones bobbi, an independent. go ahead. >> yes. the ethics will not affect my vote at all. i think that most of the congressmen and senators are unethica i'm following their vote. i want you to know that most people are going independent now. we're not sticking with any party. republicans stink. democrats are not strong enough. that won't affect me. i'm going with progressive voters. i need a person voting progressively in the congress. >> let's go to joe in michigan on our democrats line. hi there. >> hi. you're talking to me? >> we sure are. >> okay. i just heard the michigan part. i don't think it would affect my voting like the previous caller. i'm a democrat but also independent. i vote on the individual. and i have to commend the obama
administration and the democrats for bringing this out in the light. i don't think the ethics commission is going to be stopped soon. i think there's going to be a lot more probing and investigations into a lot of underhand dealings that everybody's aware of but nobody wants to bring forth. thank you. >> devlin barrett, any thoughts on that? >> well, you know, i think in a lot of ways, voters' minds may be set on some of these issues. like i said, there's a lot of skepticism towards congresses in general. one of the things that the democrats have pledged to do is create the most ethical congress. that's going to be put to the test i think with these sflils these trials, this legal representation costs money. weekenthat charlie rangel had spent so far $110,000 on legal fees over two months and word today that maxine waters is forming a legal defense fund.
where does this money come from? >> it's from campaign donations sentially. candidates and lawmakers can use their campaign funds to pay for legal fees. and charlie rangel's legal bill is about $2 million at this point. he has publicly i think you played it a little earlier in that floor speech, he complained publicly how much his lawyers cost and doesn't understand why he needs so many. at the same time, he's hired them and he's paying them because he wants to fight. that is an expensive process. that is a process that ultimately gets its money from the fund-raising process that in some cases like you mentioned before is already under investigation. >> next up is calvert in west palm beach in florida. democratic caller. go ahead. >> hello. my name's herbert in west palm beach. >> go ahead, herbert. >> i was just calling because i watched the explanations given by congressm rangel and congressman waters. and it appears to me that they
made their case. if there was no benet, then it seems to me they shouldn't be having toeal with these charges from what it looks like appears be for political reasons. they are trying to drag,ou know, one side is trying to drag it out to get a litical benefit but it doesn't appear that they actually did anything wrong. >> yeah, and i think that's an interesting point, and that's definitely what the lawmakers are trying to convey is that this is a raw deal that they're getting. i think when you look at rangels and waters, their cases are quite different in that rangels issues range more than a decade whereas watereds is under scrutiny for a very specific period of time and a very specific action. ultimately i think those two factors are goingo lead to two very different cases and two very different defenses.
>> i foundyself surprised in your article you point out, this is the first time that there will be a house ethics trial since 1987. i believe it was representative austin murphy that you talked about in the article. what happened with jim traficant? there was not a trial? >> no, that's an interesting dynamic and what will be tested here. in jim traficant's case he was accused of all sorts of criminal wrongdoing and the fbi investigated him and he was convicted and sent to jail. del have a kind of ethics trial but all that eentially was done is the transcript and record of his criminal case was entered into the house committee. that's not really what's going to happen here. in this instance, the committee does not have the fbi or the justice department to give them a road map to the rangel case or the waters case. they're going to have too the investigating and the lawyering on their own. they haven't done that as the story said, since 1987. >> so when people see jim
traficant went to jail, he didn't go to jail on the ethics charges but the charges by the just department? >> correct. >> this process does not send people to jail. this house ethics process at worst can lead up to a vote to expel someone from congress but the only way you send someone to jail in political terms is when the fbi and justice department get involved. and that's what happened in the traficant case. >> devlin barrett is our guest, "wall street journal" talking about house ethics issues. your comments too on facebook at c-span org. janice johnson writing dnc, democratic national corruption, phillip byron writing democrats all the way. the age of conservatives has come and gone. betty in dallas, texas, good afternoon on our democrats line. >> hi. i may be calling you as a democrat but right now it seems like from the discussions that i
heard, i'm going to be pretty much changing the way i knew things as a democrat. i'm looking at this i guess definition of what the ethics committee is, the body of people that will represent whether or not someone has committed some wrongdoing in their political career. as you mentioned, it's been since 1987. >> correct. >> okay. i was a school teacher for 38 years. i'm looking at the fact that in the political arena of this country, it seems like people -- everything is brought out as wrongdoing and people following this or that process. this country needs to look at so of the other entities, some of the major entities in this country where people are just really raping this country finances, raping this country of its characterization of our
freedom being at bay. and i'm often wondering what, are we conveying to the young people this next generation? are we setting them up to say, well, i want to be a part of politics because if i forget to sign a document or if i can get to do this process, then five years down the road, somebody's going to say you know what? you didn't follow this procedure, you didn't do that procedure. why is this so, to me, it's so bogus. it seems like there needs to be a whole change of the mind-set of the way politics is ran in this country. it's like we take things back to george washington's era when someone makes a mistake. >> you made your point. we'll hear what devlin barrett has to say. >> that' a lot of charlie rangel's argument is. his argument is i didn't do a very good job with my paperwork. i admit that and take whatever punishment i deserve for that.
he's point is i'm not going to admit to willfully lig on paperwork because i never did that according to him. i think it's an interesting argument. the problem he has on a political level and also a legal level for that matter is that he was a very important person in the tax writing committee. it's a much harder argument for him to make that he didn't understand what his tax and paperwork obligations are. that's what he lives and breathes and has done so for years and years. so it's more difficult for him to make that claim than another lawmaker. >> ron in new york is next up. go ahead, independent. >> first, thank to you c-span for bringing real news to the american people. it's about the only place you can get real news anymore. and ethics have always and always will affect my vote. but i think the real ethical division in this country is between those hose think that
we're all in it together, which i think is represented by the democrats, and the republicans who pretty clearly state that it's every man for himself. and those are the kinds of ethics that will affect my vote. ethics that take nook account future generations, again, democrats do that. the republicans don't. real issues, and i think that will maxine waters and charlie rangel are red herrings to republicans have always been good at throwing up nonissues when serious things are happening. remember clinton was bombing osama bin laden and republicans claimed he was trying to divert attentioning from prosecute monica lewinsky. >> ron, dein barrett, a red herring he called it. >> right, and this is one of the things you see is that because we're operating and we're
covering and talki about a political environment, everything's going to be seen through the political lens. it's impossible to take the politics out of the political discussion and in some ways to take the politics out of the ethics trial. but that's what they're attempting to do, and one of the things that will be tested is what is everyone's definition of unethical behavior? people do have different definitions for that. >> rick, republican in california. what's your town there? >> beck caville. >> go ahead. >> yes, i didn't catch you from the beginning, but you stirred me up a little bit. >> glad you weighed in. what are your thoughts? go ahead. >> thank you. >> i'm hear listening to somebody talking about the stock market and stuff. when i look at it because i was in it and got out of it before the bond rating came in and countrywide because i saw what was happening. i started looking further around
me and i see a group of bankers that want to take over our country. they're using the congress to do it. some of e congressmen are just comreshlgs they're ignorant. the other ones are tolly liars. this is what's going on in our country. they're trying to steal it. >> devlin barrett, he talks about bankers. specific charge on congresswoman waters is about that bank in california where her husband owned stock, correct? >> right. the issue there is that she's accused of using her position to help get financial aid, get government aid, millions of dollars for a bank that her husband had a significant stock holding in. she will -- her contention is that all she was ever doing was trying not to help a specific bank but to help a group of minority and women-owned banks that were not geing the attention they deserved from the federal government in the midst of the financial crisisnd the financial meltdown. you know, as you showed earlier,
she went through a whole power point presentation and she has some e-mail evidence to back that up. but at the same time, people say, well, why would you spend so much time on a project that ended up getting a bank that your husband owns shares of help? >> marvin in texas, go ahead. democratic caller. we'll move on to john in lakewood, florida, also on our democrats line. hi? >> how are you today? >> i'm fine. >> i was wondering if i could ask an ethics question b not dealing with rangel or waters but the ethics of republicans and demoats working together. >> explain yourself a little more. what do you mean, john? >> well, i was on ed henry's cnn radio lk show and i also met with ted deutsch's chief of staff here in south florid with an idea to create 4 million jobs from the publicect sector in
about six months. and they both were very excited about the idea. i'm wondering if you think that in this climate, would this idea, if it ever you know gets to anyone's attention, if republicans and democrats, do you think they culd ally bridge what's going on now and be ethical and do what's best for this country? >> do ethics issues make it easier or harder for republicans and democrats to work together? >> i think as a general rule, they make it harder because anyoneho's charged, anyone who's investigated takes usually those lawmakers take it as a very personal attack and i think and say look, forget what we're doing onhe investigati. weigh need you on this bill. it can be done but i think it's hard and i think you know, a full-blown ethics investigation ratchets up the tension for everyone involved. >> i want to venture over to the senate side. this is a question about john ensign, a blog posting at "huffington post" this afternoon
about some comments john ensign made "if you don't hold us accountable, we'll do some bad things in d.c." he's facing ethics concerns as well, but that hasn't gotten to the committee level on the senate side, has it? >> no, one of the interesting things that happens with allegations of lawmaker misconduct is sometimes it sort of goes into a funnel toward the criminal investigation side. and sometimes it goes into the funnel of the internal congress willing ethics investigation. what you will see in ensign's case that, funnel really headed toward the criminal side fairly quickly. and in rangel'sase that, has pretty much as best anyone can tell always stayed in the congressional committee level. and part of that's based on the facts in dispute. and part of that is also just based on how these things come to light in the first place. >> washington state, kevin, independent line. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i guess my comment is this. ethics in washington is pretty
much gone at this point. democrats, republicans, across the board. it's gotten to where america does not trus the people who are sent there to serve them. okay? i think term limits would probably be a good idea. charles rangle has been there for years. i'm not even sure how many years at this point. >> about 40. >> and he's written these tax laws thahe screwed up. does that make any sense at all? he's the one writing these laws, yet he screws them up. >> want to mention term limits, but that discuss does not seem to come up in this election cycle, devlin barrett. >> no, and i think part of that reason may be because the ethics stuff has not taken center stage just the way the economy has. i mean, what most voters really talk about are the economy, are the economic issues. and i think part of that, when ethics does come into play, i
think oftentimes what you hear from voters is part of the reason why we have such a bad economy is because the lawmakers are not paying close enough attention and they're acting collectively or individually unethically. >> a couple more calls. one next is alan in texas on our republican line. hi there. >> hello. how are you today? >> fine, thanks. >> just a couple of comments. number o, i believe that america has gotten into a situation now where we're picking sides as opposed to taking a look at who can honestly serve our area better than the other. and because of that, the co of running campaigns now almost forces our politicians into a situation where they're willing to bend the rules to enable themselves to get the kindf money they need to run their campaigns. that's all i have to say. >> richard, thanks for that. devlin barrett, the influence of
money. >> yeah, it's interesting. that's a big factor inhe oce investigation we talked about about the lawmakers raising money during key votes. it's actually less of an issue in terms of the rangel and waters cases although one of the things congressman rangel is accused of dng is improperly using his office to solicit money for separate outside entity that he was trying to get created with his name o it, but one of the things that you heard in that call and that you hear a lot even from some lawmakers is that there is so much money need in the system now to run for ofce, that even if they can findthe unethical quality of it, they believe it's there. >> the amount of money, what was roughly the amount of money that this money for one united bank, the xine waters charges where her husband's a stockholder, how much were they looking for from that t.a.r.p. fund. >> i believe the initial ask was for $50 million. i believe that was the number suggested and bandied about at
first. i believe what they took away from t.a.r.p. in the end was $12 million. >> $12 million in the overall t.a.r.p. spending was how much? >> it was t.a.r.p., if i remember correctly was in the hundreds of billions. this was a relatively very small portion of that. and you know, waters' argument is just look at that and why is it that you know, the smaller institutions had so little benefit from t.a.r.p. >> let's hear one more thought. this is john in lakewood, florida, on our democrats line. >> hi. i asked a question earlier and i got my answer and i want to know if you can give me lis -- listen to my idea about creating 4 million jobs. >> thanks for weighing in. thanks for all the callers. devl