young people pointed and vote in that party suggested that we may have a democratic party that's ideology as the republican party. that's not going to work in the constitutions. >> it's hard for me saying they're making the predictions as the future. i will say it this much, half of what has to happen and here at the abstract level and it's flushed out is and we have to have ways and that goes beyond the boundaries. so much of what is discussed is the boundaries and about police and boundaries you have to jump

the fence and it has to be and trying to encourage of the common good and do so by advocating. as i think one of the ways to go for it is leaving the borders and boundaries and to ask for anything encouraging, fighting for and thinking in a theological way and then just, you know, leave us alone. one way that works in new york we take the seven train and notice that you get off the end. you land in a marvellous neighborhood. it has a range of the most culinary delights.

get some tea and walk way. stop in the streets and see the flood exploration and there are people that are even there that are funded organizations back home and at each other tloetds but they coexist. it's in a name for this person that become a signal for religious freedom. in a hindu temple and in a mosque with the sin gods and a

baptist church and then a ten name service in mandarin and then followed by an english service and they have added another language now. they're flourishing and i was asking a couple of years ago -- of course muslims were involved in the bombing of the towers and of course all muslims are terrorists and that's the logic. bloomberg appealed to that and then flushing it elsewhere and they said it was not enough that we tolerated each other. we have to fight for different

opinions. we thrive on opinions. that was the way of thinking. what was the police and boundaries? it was a deep belief that we actually want opinions and disagree with because we become better by having the opinions. >> i know that train and the number 7 and that's a great image to end on and the flushing and pleurales and so that's the train that we have been on this morning. it's been a really great panel on issues. i want to thank the federalist society and then john for presenting a bit of thoughts from the book. i hope that you have enjoyed the panel. thank you very much. [ applause ]

here is a look at the live program today across the network. join us in 15 minutes or so for sylvia burr well. she is going to talk about the affordable health care. that's live on the network on c-span. then we have nancy pelosi. watch that live at 1130ti:30 th morning on c-span. then we have john king and he will discuss the corner stone of the democracy and the roles that students have to be active citizens. watch that live at 1:00 p.m. >> watch the live coverage of the third debate of hillary

clinton and donald trump tonight. for a live debate preview from the university of of las vegas starts at 7:30. the briefing is at 8:30 p.m. eastern and the debate is at 9:30 eastern. watch the debate live or on-demand using the desktop or phone or tablet on c-span.org. listen to the live debate on the radio app. download i had from the app store or google play. c-span created by america's cable television companies and brought to you as a public service by the satellite provider. now with the third and final presidential debates hours away, we're showing you past presidential debates.

we have ronald reagan against mondale and it's about 90 minutes. [ applause ] reagan. good evening. the panelist on defense and foreign policies are gorgi anne dire, marvin cal chief diplomatic corr spontaneous department for nbc news, mortin

executive editor of the new republic magazine and henry trout diplomatic for the sun. formally of nbc news and now a sin da kated is the moderator. >> dorothy, thank you. brief word and the first question is going to go to mr. man dale, he will have two and a half minutes to reply. there will be a follow up and then there's a one minute rebuttal. the second question is going to go to president reagan first. at the end there's four minute summations with president reagan going last. we ask the questions to be brief. let's begin and now your

question to mr. mono dale. >> you have said that the only policy toward the civil wars in central america should be the economic development and do you believe that these answers would in any way solve the bitter conflicts there? we believe that there's no need to resort the force at all or not the solutions to knowing the problems and simply again too weak and too late. >> i believe the question over sympathy la identifies the difficulties of what we must do in central america. the objections is the strengthen and to stop the commune you mist and other influence and stabilize the community in that area. to do that, we need a three

prone attack. one is military assistance to the friends that are being pressured. and then a sharper alternative to the alternative offered by those that oppose us and then finally a strong diplomatic effort that pursues the possibilities of peace in the area. that's one of the biggest disagreements that we have with the president and that they have not pursued the diplomatic opportunities either within el salvador or as between the countries and have lost time in which we were able to achieve peace. this brings up the whole question of what the leadership is all about. i think the lesson in central

america and this receipt embarrassment where we're giving instructions for hiring assas n assassins and criminals and arrest, and all of this is straig strengthened the opponents. they have to assure that we're tough but we have to be wise and smart and exercise that. we saw the same thing in lebanon where we spent a good deal of america's assets because the leadership of this did not pursue wise policies. we have been humiliated and the opponents are strong. the bottom line is that the president must be in command and lead. when a president does not know that submarine missiles are recallable and says that 70 percent of the forces are con vensal, discovers three year into the administration that the arms control efforts have failed because he did not know that

most soef edit missiles were on land. these are thing that is the president should know. he is called the commander in chief because he is supposed to be in charge of the facts and run the government and strengthen the nation. >> mr. mondale if i can broaden it. since world war ii every conflict that we have been involved with is nonconventional or irregular terms. we keep on fighting in conventional or military terms, the central american wars are in the same pattern as china, lebanon, iran and cuba in the early days. do you see the possibility that we're going to realize the change or react to it? >> we absolutely must. that's why i respond today the question the way that i did. it's much more complex and you have to understand the region.

you must understand the politics and you must provide a strong alternative and you must pick the strength and follow the time. that's why i object to the action. that's a classic example of a strategy that's embarrassed us and strengthened the opposition and under mined the moral authority of the people in the region. strength requires knowledge, command. we have seen in the nicaragua the policy that's hurt us, strengthened the opposition and undermined the authority in the country in that region. >> mr. president, in the last few months it's seemed more and more that your policies in central america were beginning to work. just at this moment, we're confronted with the extraordinary story of the cia gorilla manual for those that are we're backing and advocates not only assassinations but the

hiring of criminals to assassinate the gorilla's that we're supporting in order to create mortars. is this not the only supported state of terrorism? >> no, and i'm glad that you asked the question. i have ordered an investigation and i know that the cia is already going forward with one. we have a gentlemen down in nicaragua is on contract with the cia advises on the military tacti tactics. he drew up this manual. it was turned over to the agency head of the cia in nicaragua to be printed. a number of pages were x'd by the man in charge and they september it up with more pages kpied and there were 12 of the

original cop approximate pis that got out thrown and not submitted for this printing process by the cia. now those are the details that we have. as soon as we have an investigation and blame for the few that did not get changed, we certainly are going to do something about that. we will take the proper action at the proper time. i was very interested to hear about central america and the process down there and i thought for a moment that instead of a debate, i was going to find a complete agreement with what we're doing because the plan that he has outlined is the one that we have been following for quiet some time including diplomatic processes throughout central america and working closely with the con at that door group. i can only tell you about the manual. we're not in the habit of

assigning guilt before they're proper evidence and proof of that guilt. if guilt is established, whoever is guilty we will treat with that situation then. they will be removed. >> mr. president, you're imply thag the cia in nicaragua is directing the contra there. i want to know if having the cia investigate it's own manual in a sensitive area is not sort of like send issiing the fox into chick chick chicken coop. >> there's not someone there directing the activity. there are cia men stationed in other countries in the world and certainly in central america. so it was a man down there in that area that this was delivered too. he recognized that what was in that manual was direct contra

vengs of my own order that we would have nothing to do with the regard to political assassinations. >> mr. mondale your rebuttal. >> what is the president charged of doing when he takes the oath of office. he raises the right hand and takes the oath to take care and faithly execute the laws of the land. president cannot know everything but a president has to know those things that are essential to his leadership and the enforcement of the laws. this manual several thousands of which were produced was distributed ordering political assassinations, hiring of criminals and other forms of ter r richl. the part with terrorism, was continued. how can this happen? how can something this serious occur in the administration and have the president of the united states in a situation like this say he did not know.

a president must know these things. i don't know what is worse. not knowing or knowing and not stopping it. what about the mining of the harbor in nicaragua that violated international law. this has hurt this country and the president is supposed to command. >> mr. president, your rebuttal. >> yes, i have so many things to respond to. i'm going pick out what you said earlier. you have been all over the country repeating something that the press is repeating. that i believe that nuclear missiles could be fired and called back. i never conceived to such a thing and never said such a thing. in a discussion of the arms negotiations, i said the submarines carrying missiles and airplanes carrying missiles were more conventional type weapons not to destabilize the land base missiles and that they were also weapons or carrier that is if

they were sent out and there was a change, that you could call them back before launching the missiles. i hope that from here on, you will no longer be saying that particular thing which is absolutely false. how anyone can think that a sane person could call back a nuclear missile is as ridiculous as the whole concept has been. thank you for giving me the chance to straighten the record. i am sure that you appreciate that. >> mr. kale, your question. >> you have the world domination, but this year you have said and i quote if they want to keep the mickey mouse system, that's okay with me. do you want to contain them within the present quarters and try to establish for detente --

>> i have said a number of the occasions what i believe about the soviet union. i retrack nothing of what i say. i believe what they have done are evil in any con septembcept have. i recognize that the two great super powers in the world, we have to live with. i said that we do not like their system and they do not like ours. we're not going to change their system, and they better not try to change ours. between us, we can either destroy the world or we can save it. i suggested that certainly it was to their common interest along with ours to avoid a conflict and save the world and remove the nuclear weapons. i think that perhaps we establish a little better understanding. i think that one has to be realistic. i know that he has made statements as if they were people like ourself and if we

were kind and did something nice, they would respond accordingly. the result was yuan lateral erie and we cancel the b 1 in the administration. what did we get for it? nothing. the at the same time that we tried the policy of weakness if you will. now we have a defense of our own. i made it very plan to them. we seek no superiority. we are going to provide a deturant so it's to costly to them if they're nursing any ideas of aggression against us. i made a claim, and there's no change in my attitude at all. i thaurt when i came into office it was time there was some realistic talk to and about the

soviet union, and we did get their attention. >> perhaps the other side of the skpoern the questions. since world war ii the vital questions have been by the treaty and proclamations. aside of what is obvious like nato, which regions in the world do you regard as the vital national interest meaning that you would send american troops there to fight if they were in danger? >> well you added a hypothetical there in the end. i'm not going make the decisions as to what the tactics could be. there are a number of areas that are importance of us. one is the middle ooeeast. that's an interest to the whole western world and industrialized nation because of the supply of energy that so many depend

there. our neighbors here in america are vital to us. we are work rg right now and trying to be of help in the southern africa with regard to the independence and the removal of the cuban surrogates and the thousands of them from angola. i can say that there are a great many of them. i am not going to pick out one and advance hypothetically say that we're going send troops there. i don't want to -- >> sorry mr.me president. your time is up. >> mr. mono dale, you have suggested a total lack of trust in them. in that case, what makes you think that the annual summit meetings that you propose would satisfy this country?

>> well, it's subject to full verification and we know everyday if there leading up to it and then follow up where we mind the surgss if they're violating it and the strongest possible terms. i have no illusion about the soviet union leadership or the nature of that state. they're a tough and a routhless adversary and we must be prepared to meet the challenge, and i would. despite all of the differences, we must as past presidents and this one meet on the ground. that's where the president has imposed every arm's control agreement by every president and both political parties since the bomb we want off. he now completes this term with no process to the arms control at all but with a very dangerous

arm's race under way instead. there are no over 2,000 more war heads points at us today than there were when he was sworn in. that does not strengthen us. we must be very very realistic in the nature of that leadership. we must grind away and find ways to reduce them and particularly where they're in the soviets power. there's no unilateral disarmament. i will keep this nation strong. i understand exactly what the soviets are up too. that is apart of the national strength. to do that, a president must know what is ensensual to the command and leadership and strength. that's where the president's failure to master in my opinion

the elements of the arms control has cost us dearly. these three years into the administration he said that he just discovered that most missiles are in the land and that's why the proposal did not work. i invite the american people tomorrow because i want to issue the statement and quoting and he said exactly what i said he said. he said that these missiles were less dangerous than the ballistic missiles because you can fire them and recall them if you decided that there was a miscalculation. ament must know those things. >> i'm sorry. related question on eastern europe. do you expect the dislo mat i can wisdom that it's a influence. if you i don't do, what could a mondale administration do to help those achieve the human rights that were guaranteed to them to help sink the accord? >> well, the essential strategy

ought not expect any control over eastern europe. we have to deal with them separately and do it and the rest will help them pull away from the dependents and is soviet union where they have acted irresponsibly. i believe that we ought to insist that western credits extend to the soef yet union and bare the market rate and make them pay for the responsibility. that's a very important objective and make certain that we continue to look forward to process towards the greater independence and work with each of them separately. >> mr. president, you're rebuttal. >> yes, i'm not going to respond to the falsehoods that have already been stated. with regard to whether mr. mondale would be strong, i know that he has a commercial out where he is appearing and

watching the f 14's take off. that's an image of the strength. if he had his way, he would have been deep in the water out there because there would not have been any anymore mitts to stand on. he was against the f 14 fighter and the m 1 tank and the b 1 bomber and he wanted to cut the salary of all of the military and bring home half of the american forces in europe, and he has a record over wakeness with regard to our national defense that's second to none. indeed he was on that side throughout all of his year in the senate and opposed the president carter when towards the end of the term carter wanted to increase the budget. >> mr. mondale, your rebuttal? >> i expect the commitment of peace, but i ant you to accept my commitment to a strong national defense. i have proposed a budget that

would increase the nation's strength by real terms double that of the soviet union. i will tell you where we disagree. it's true over ten years ago i voted for the delay of the f 14. i will tell you why. it was flying the way that it was supposed to be. it was a waste of money. your definition is to throw money at the defense department. my definition of national strength is to make certain that a dollar spent buys us a dollars worth of defense. there's a big difference in the two of us. a president must mange the budget. i will keep us strong and you will not do that if you command the budget and make certain to get the strength that we need. you pay $500 for a $5 hammer, you're not buying strength. >> i would ask the audience not to applaud. all it does is is takes up time that we want to devote to the

debate. >> mr. mondale, in an address earlier this year you said that before the country resorts to military force and i'm quoting american interest should be defined, and militarily feasible and international defensible and opened to independence and alert to regional history. now, aren't you setting up a gant let that adversarying could say that you would never use force? >> no, i believe that a standard is essential for the exercise of the power by this country. we can see that in both lebanon and in central america. lebanon thisment exercised power all right. the management of it was such that the marines were killed. we had the leave in humiliation. the soviet union become stronger. terrorists become imbolded and it was because they did not think through how the power should be exercised and not have

the american public with them on a plan that did not work and ended up in a way that they did. in central america, what we're doing in nicaragua with the covert war which the congress and including many of the republicans have tried to stop is finally end up with a definition that hurts us and we have to decline for the first time in modern history and the jurisdiction and that will find us guilty and then the enemies are strengthened from all of this. need to be strong and need to be prepared to use this strength, but we must understand that we're a democracy & we're a government by the people. when we move, it should be for very severe and extreme reasons that serve the national interest and end up with a stronger country behind us. it's only in that way that we

can persevere. >> you have been quoted as saying that you may quarantine nicarag nicaragua? would you stop the ships and wouldn't that be more dangerous than reagan's war? >> what i am referring to there is the several defense provisions that exist in the inner american treaty that permits the friends in that region to combine and take the steps diplomatic and otherwise to prevent nicaragua when she acts irresponsibly in asserting power outside of the border. to take the steps whatever they maybe to stop it. they must know that it's the policy of our government that those people -- that that leadership must stay behind the boundaries of the nation. not interfere in other nations. by working with all of the

nation in the region, un like the policies of this administration and un like the president said they have not supported the negotiations, we will be stronger and we will have a moral authority that goes with the efforts. >> president reagan, you introduced the u.s. forces into lebanon as the neutral peace keepers, but then you had the government. eventually you were forced to withdrawal them and now the syria is dominant in the country. doesn't lebanon represent a major failure and have serious questions on the capacity and the strategist and as commander in chief? >> no, i don't agree to all of those things. first of all when we and the allies italians, french and united kingdom went into lebanon, we went in there as the request of what was left of the lebanese government to be a stabilizing force twhiel they tried to establish a government.

the first time that we went in, we went in at their request because the war was going on between israel and the terrorists. isra israel could not be blamed for that. they were violating and israel chased them all the way to there. then we we want in with the moment of force to help remove and did remove more than 13,000 of those terrorists from lebanon. we departed and then the government of of lebanon asked us back in as a stabilizing force while they stablished a government and sought to get the foreign forces all the way out of lebanon and that they could then take care of their own borders. we were succeeding. we were there for the better part of the year and the position was at the airport. we did not engage in conflict that was out of line with the mis. i will never send troops

anywhere on a mission of that kind without telling them that if somebody is shootds at them, they can darn well shoot back. this is what we did. we never initiated any kind of action. we defended ourselves there. we were succeeding to the point that the lebanese government was organized and there were the meetings in which they began to meet with the forces and tried to put together a peace plan. there were forces there that do not want us to succeed and have a dominant over the territory. so the terrorists angts began and lead to the tragedy when they were killed this the suicide bombing. then the multilateral force with drew for only one reason. we with drew because we were no longer able to carry out the

mission for which we has been sent in. we went in with the interest of peace and to keep israel and syria from getting into the sixth war between them. i have no apologies for us going on a peace mission. >> mr. president, four years ago you criticized carter for the diplomat diplomates, haven't you done the same thing with 300 americans not hostages but dead. >> morton, no. there's a great difference in the government of iran threatening the personnel. there's a government that you can see and put the hand on. in the terrorists situation, there are factions in the resent 30 day period and 37 terrorists act in the country has been commit and the most resent is in

briethden. in dealing with the terrorists, yes, we want to retaliate, but only if we can put the finger on those responsibility and not i have just signed legislation to add to our ability and to deal with the terrorists problem. it's going that i can all of the nations together just as when we go together, we resolve the whole problem of high jet sky jackings some time ago. well, the red light we want off. i could have gone on for ever. >> mr. mondale, your rebuttal. >> well, she they said who do you believe me or your own eyes the joint chief has urged the president not to put the troops

in that because they're un defensible. they're five days before they were killed and please take them out of there. once gain none of the steps that were taken should have been taking and we were warned five days before that the explosives were on the way and not taken. the terrorists have won each time. the president told the terrorists he was going to retaliate. he didn't. they called his bluff. the bottom line is that the united states lefts in humiliation and the enemy's stronger. >> mr. president, your rebuttal. >> mr. mondale should know that

i did not order them that was made by the commanders on the spot and what was best for the men there. that was one. the other things that you have just said on the terrorists i'm temped to ask you what you would do. these are un identified people and after the bomb goes off, they're blown to bits because they're suicidal individuals that think that they're going to go to paradise if they do an act while doing it. we're going to -- as i say we're busy trying to find the centers where the operations stem from and the rial yags is going to be taken. we're not simply going to kill some people to say look, we got even. we want to though when we retaliate, we are retaliating to those responsible for the terrorists acts. there's such that the own united states capital has been bombed

twice. >> your question to president reagan. >> i want the to ask a question that's been there for two or three weeks. you're the oldest president in history. some of the staff say that you're tired after the encounter with mr. mondale. is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances? >> not at all. i want you to know that also i will not make age an issue of this campaign. i'm not going to exploit for political purpose my opponents youth and in "the insider" ex p

rans. i might add and if it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there were be no state. >> i would like to head for the fence and catch that one before it goes over. i will go to another question. you have disagreed on what you had the say about the missiles. there's another similar missile out there that relates to and is un aware of the soviet or that a power was based on land based missiles. first is that correct, and second if it is, have you informed yourself and third is it necessary for the president to be so involved with the strategic details? >> yesz, this had to do with the

talks. we thought it would be easier and then to take up the s submarine launch. they made it plan when they brute it up that they placed a greater alliance and there have they wanted to pick up all three. we agreed. we dead if that's what you dwant to do. it was a surprise to us because they out numbers us and 20 percent more bombers carrying the nuclear weapons than we have. why should we believe that they placed more reliance on the land base. after we gave in, they walked away from the table. we did i want.

>> mr. man dale, should the president's age be an issue? >> no, it's what the president should know to lead the nation, secure the defense and make the decisions and the judgments that are necessary i want to quote someone closer to home harry truman. he said that the clock stops here. we gijust heard the president's answers or the problems in the barracks at lebanon where 241 marines were killed. what happened? well the joint chief of staff went and said don't put the troops there. they did it. five days before the troops were killed, they went back to the president through the secretary of the defense and said please mr. president take the troops out of there because we can't defend them.

they did not do them. this is the fourth time this is happen in the same region and despite is the warnings from the public terrorists. who is in charge and handling this. that's my main point i now in the arms control we're completing four years and this is the first administration since the bomb went off that made no problems. we have an arm's race under way instead. a president has to dead his government or it won't be done. different people with different views fight for each other. for three and a half years, this administration avoiding it and there was no hope and then to 1981 when he came close to the

principal on the medium range of weapons. then we have an arm's way and then the nations most respected author and thisment has failed to master the details needed to command and lead us in term of the security in terms of arm's control. that's why they call the president commander in chief. good intentions i grant. it takes more than that. you must tough and smart. >> the next question of leadership keeps on arising in different forms in the discussion already. president, mr. mondale has called you whining and weak i believe. it is a question of leadership. he has made the point that you have not reputed some of the semidiplomatic activity of the reverend jackson. did you approve of the activity

and are you prepared? >> i don't mind castro at all. i know the cuban state as a police state and all of my life i have worked in a way that demonstrates that. jessie jackson is an independent person. i don't control him. let's talk act people that we do control. in the last debate the viets preside vice president of the united states said that the marines died shamefully and died in shame in lebanon. i demanded an apology from vice president bush because i honored those young men and grieved for their families and think that they were wonderful americans that honor wered us all. what does the president have to say on taking the responsibility

for a vice president that will not apologize for something like that? >> i know it's a surprise but i'm in charge. we avoided the arm a's controlled talks very early in my administration. i proposed something that was not proposed by any administration. i proposed a total of elimination by the range of missiles that the soviets had a to ton and still had advantage of the allies in you are proeeurop. when they protested that and a smaller numb e, i went on with that. the number that you say i walked out was the walk in the wood between one of the representatives and one of the soviet unions, and it was not me that turned it down but the soviet union diced about it. >> mr. mondale, your rebuttal. >> there are two officers of arm

control in the country. one is strobe and that's a classic book deadly gap mitt and then john knnew house that's an armed specialist and both said that the administration turned down the walk in the woods agreement first. that would have been the perfect agreement of the standpoint of the united states and europe and the security. a good negotiator was rebuked and his boss was fired. this was the kind of leadership that we have had in the administration and the most deadly issue of our time. now we have a run away arm's race and all that we have to show for four years in the u.s. soviet is one meeting and the last weeks of an administration and nothing before. they're tough negotiators. >> your question to mr. mondale.

>> mr. mondale many are saying that the number one foreign policy today is one that remains un recognized, massive illegal immigration and from the collapse in the countries. they're saying that it's the only real threat to the nation's state. you said in the 1970s that we had a hemorrhage on the borders, today you have backed off any i78 gra immigration reforms. why? what would you do instead today if anything? >> this is a problem and i reject that part of the bill that's un fair. that's the part that requires employers to determine the citizenship of an employee before they're hired. i am convinced that the result of this would be if people that

are hiss papanic or people thate a different language or speak with an accent find it difficult to be employed. that's wrong. we never had citizenship tests in our country before and i don't think we should have a citizenship card today. that is counter productive. i do support the other aspects of the bill that strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen other ways of dealing with undocumented workers in this difficult area, and dealing with the problem of settling people who have lived here for many, many years and do not have an established status. i strongly recommend that this administration do something it has not done. that is to strengthen enforcement at the border. strengthen the officials in this government that deal with undocumented workers, and to do so in a way that's responsible and within the constitution of the united states. we need an answer to this

problem, but it must be an american answer that is consistent with justice and due process. everyone in this room practically here tonight is an immigrant. we came here loving this nation, serving it, and it has served all of our most bountiful dreams. one of those dreams is justice. we need a measure and i will support a measure that brings about those objectives but avoids that one aspect that i think is very serious. the second part is to maintain and improve relations with our friends to the south. we cannot solve this problem all on our own. that's why the failure of this administration to deal in effective and good faith way with mexico, costa rica, with the other nations in trying to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute in central america has undermined our capacity to effectively to deal diplomatically in this area as

well. >> sir, people as well balanced and just as father theodore at notre dame who headed the select commission on immigration have pointed out repeatedly there will be no immigration reform without employer sanctions because it would be an unbalance lapsed bill. putting that aside for the moment, your critics have also said repeatedly that you have not gone along with the bill or with any immigration reform because of the hispanic groups -- hispanic leadership groups who actually do not represent what the hispanic americans want. because polls show that they overwhelmingly want some kind of immigration reform. can you say or how can you justify your position on this and how do you respond to the criticism that this is another -- or that this is an example of your flip-flopping and giving in to special

interest groups at the expense of the american nation? >> i think you're right that the polls show that the majority of hispanics want that bill. so i'm not doing it for political reasons. i'm doing it because all my life i've fought for a system of justice in this country. a system in which every american has a chance to achieve the fullness in life without discrimination. this bill imposes upon employers the responsibility of determining whether somebody who applies for a job is an american or not. and just inevitably, they're going to be reluctant to hire hispanics or people with a different accent. if i were dealing with politics here, the polls show the american people want this. i am for reform in this area, for tough enforcement at the border and many other aspects of the bill, but all my life, i fought for a fair nation. and despite the politics of it,

i stand where i stand, and i think i'm right. before this fight is over, we're going to come up with a better bill, a more effective bill, does not undermine the liberties of our people. >> mr. president, you too have said that our borders are out of control. yet this fall, you allowed the simpson bill which would have at least minimally protected our borders and the rights of citizenship because of a relatively unimportant issue of reimbursement to the states for legalized aliens. may i ask what priority can we expect you to give this forgotten national security element? how sincere are you in your efforts to control and effect the nation state which is the united states? >> we believe me supported the bill strongly. and the bill that came out of the senate. however, there were things added in in the house side that we felt made it less of a good

bill. as a matter of fact, made it a bad bill. in conference, we stayed with them in conference all the way to where even senator simpson did not want the bill in the manner in which it would come out of the conference committee. there were a number of things in there that weakened that bill. i can't go into detail about them here. it is true our borders are out of control. this has been the situation on our borders back through a number of administrations. i supported this bill. i believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally. with regard to the employer sanctions, this -- we must have that. not only to ensure that we can identify the illegal aliens, but also while some keep protesting about what it would do to employers, there is another

employer that we shouldn't be so concerned about. and these are employers down through the years who have encouraged the illegal entry into this country because they then hire these individuals and hire them at starvation wages and with none of the benefits that we think are normal and natural for workers in our country, and the individuals can't complain because of their illegal status. we don't think that those people should be allowed to continue operating free. this was why the provisions that we had in with regard to sanctions and so forth. and i'm going to do everything i can and all of us in the administration are, to join in again when congress is back at it, to get an immigration bill that will give us once again control of our borders. and with regard to friendship below the border and with the countries down there, yes, no administration that i know has established the relationship that we have with our latin friends. but as long as they have an

economy that leaves so many people in dire poverty and unemployment, they are going to seek that employment across our borders. and we work with those other countries. >> mr. president, the experts also say that the situation today is terribly different, qualitatively different from what it has been in the past because of the gigantic population growth. for instance, mexico's population will go from about 60 million today to 120 million at the turn of the century. many of these people will be coming into the united states as illegal workers. you have repeatedly said recently that you believe that armageddon, the destruction of the world may be imminent in our times. do you ever feel that we are in for an armageddon or a time of

anarchy? >> no. as a matter of fact, the population explosion has been vastly exaggerated. over exaggerated. as a matter of fact, there are some pretty scientific and solid figures about how many more people can have. it's almost like going back to even then they were saying everyone would starve. but the problem of population growth is one here with regard to our immigration and we have been the safety valve whether we wanted to or not with the illegal entry here in mexico where their population is increasing and they don't have an economy that can absorb them and provide the jobs. this is what we're trying to work out, not only to protect our own borders, but to have some kind of fairness and recognition of that problem. >> mr. mondale, your rebuttal?

>> one of the biggest problems today is that the countries to our south are so desperately poor that these people who will almost lose their lives if they don't come north come north despite all the risks. and if we're going to find a permanent fundamental answer to this, it goes to american economic and trade policies that permit these nations to have a chance to get on their own two feet and to get prosperity so that they can have jobs for ther themselves and their people. that's why this enormous national debt engineered by this administration is harming these countries and fueling this immigration. these high interest rates, real rates that have doubled under this administration have had the same effect on mexico and so on. the cost of repaying those debts is so enormous that it results in massive unemployment,

hardship, and heart ache. that drives our friends to the south up into our region and we need to end those deficits as well. >> mr. president, your rebuttal? >> i've heard the national debt blamed for a lot of things, but not for illegal immigration across our border and it has nothing to do with it. with regard to these high interest rates too, at least give us the recognition of the fact that when you left office, they were 21.5, the prime rate. it's now 12.25. it will be coming down a little more shortly. so we're trying to undo some of the things that your administration did. >> mr. president, i'd like to pick up this armageddon theme. you have said you believe we are heading for some kind of biblical armageddon. your pentagon have plans for the united states to fight and

revail in a nuclear war. do you feel we are heading for perhaps some kind of nuclear armageddon and do you feel this country and the world could survive that kind of calamity? >> i think as what has been hailed i'm discussing as principle is the result of philosophical discussions with people who are interested in the same things, and that is the proficiencies down through the years, the biblical proficiencies of what would portend the coming of armageddon and so forth, and the fact that a number of theologians for the last decade or more have believed thatess proficiency -- prophecies are coming together. i have never seriously warned

and said we must plan according to armageddon. of course we would survive. but let me also point out that through several parliaments around the world, i have made a statement to each one of them, and i'll repeat it here. a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. and that is why we are maintaining a deterrent and trying to achieve a deterrent capacity to where no one would believe that they could start such a war and escape with limited damage. but the deterrent and that's what it is for, is also what led me to propose what is now being called the "star wars" con sent, but propose that we research to see if there isn't a defensive weapon that could defend against incoming michessiles.

if such a defense could be found, wouldn't it be far more humanitarian to say that now we can defend against a nuclear war by destroying missiles instead of slaughtering millions of people? >> mr. president, when you made that proposal, the so-called "star wars" proposal, you said if i'm not mistaken that you would share this very super sophisticated technology with the soviet union. after all of the distrust over the years that you have expressed towards the soviet union, do you really expect anyone to take seriously that offer, that you would share the best of america's technology in this weapons area with our principal adversary? >> why not? what if we come up with a weapon that renders those missiles obsolete? there has never been a weapon invented in the history of man

that has not let to a counter weapon. but suppose we came up with that. some people have said, that would make war imminent. but why not do what i have offered to do and ask the soviet union to do. say, look, here's what we can do, we'll even give it to you. now, will you sit down with us and once and for all get rid, all of us, of these nuclear weapons and free mankind from that threat? i think that would be the greatest use of a defensive weapon. >> mr. mondale, you've been very sharply critical of the president's strategic defense initiative. what is wrong with a major effort by this country to try to use its best technology to knock out as many incoming nuclear warheads as possible. >> let me sharply disagree with the president on sharing the most advanced, the most

dangerous, most important technology in america with the soviet union. we have had for many yeersz understandably a system of restraints on high-tech and any research or development would inevitably involve our most advanced computers, jeerenginee. and the thought that we would share this with the soviet union is a total nonstarter. i would not let the soviet union get their hands on it at all. what's wrong with "star wars"? there's nothing wrong with the theory of it. if we could develop a principle that would say both sides could fire all their missiles and no one would get hurt, i suppose that's a good idea. we're so far away from research that even comes close to that, they said to get there we would have to solve eight problems each of which are more difficult

than the atomic bomb and the manhattan project. it would cost something like $1 trillion to test and deploy weapons. the second thing is, this all assumes that the soviets wouldn't respond in diekind. and they always do. we don't get behind, they won't get behind, and that's been the tragic story of the arms race. we have more at stake in space satellites than they do. if we could stop right now the testing and deployment of these space weapons and the president's proposals go clear beyond research. if it was just research, we wouldn't have any argument. but to commit this nation to a buildup of anti-satellite and space weapons at this time in their crude state would bring about an arms race that's very dangerous indeed. one final point. the most dangerous aspect of this proposal, is for the first

time we would delegate to computers the decision as to whether start a war. that's dead wrong. there wouldn't be time for a president to decide. it would be decided by these remote computers. might be an oil fire, it might be a jet exhaust, the computer might decide it's a missile and off we go. why don't we stop this madness now and draw a line and keep the heavens free for more. >> mr. mondale -- [ applause ] -- in this general area of arms control, president carter's national security advisor said a nuclear freeze is a hoax. unquote. yet the basis of your arms proposals as i understand them is a mutual and verifiable freeze on existing weapons systems. in your view which specific weapons systems could be subject to a mutual and verifiable freeze and which could not?

>> every system that is verifiable should be placed on the table for negotiations or an agreement. i would not agree to any negotiations or any agreement that involved conduct on the part of the soviet union that we couldn't verify every day. i would not agree to any agreement in which the united states security interest was not fully recognized and supported. that's why we say mutual and verifiable freezes. now, why do i support the freeze? because this ever-rising arms race madness makes both nation less secure it's more difficult to defend this nation. it is putting a hair trigger on nuclear war. this administration by going into the "star wars" system is going to add a dangerous new escalations. we have to be tough on the

soviet union. but i think the american people -- >> time is up, mr. mondale. president reagan, your rebuttal. >> yes, my rebuttal once again is that this invention that has just been created here of how i would go about rolling over for the soviet union, no, mr. mondale. my idea would be with that defensive weapon that we would sit down with them and then say, now are you willing to join us, give them a demonstration. and then say, here's what we can do. now, if you're willing to join us in getting rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world, then we'll give you this one so that we would both know that no one can cheat. but when you keep star warring it, i never suggested where the weapon should be or what kind c i'm not a scientist. i said it was time for us to

turn our research ability to seeing if we could not find this kind of defensive weapon. somebody said it's got to be up there in the "star wars" and so forth. i don't know what it would be. if we could come up with one, i think the world would be better off. >> well, that's what a president's supposed to know, where those weapons are going to be. if they're space weapons, i assume they'll be in space. if they're anti-satellite weapons, i assume they'll be anti satellites. now, this is the most dangerous technology that we possess. to give them technology of this kind, i disagree with. you haven't just accepted research, mr. president. you set up a strategic defense initiative, an agency, you're beginning to test, you're talking about deploying, you're asking for a budget of some $30 billion for this purpose.

this is an arms escalation and we will be better off, far better off if we stop right now because we have more to lose in space than they do. if some day somebody comes along with an answer, that's something else. that there would be an answer in our lifetime is unimaginable. why do we start things that we know the soviets will match and make us all less secure. that's what a president's for. >> mr. mondale, you say that with respect to the soviet union you want to negotiate a mutual nuclear freeze, yet you would unilaterally give up the missile and the b-1 bomber before the talks have even begun and announced in advance that reaching an agreement with the soviets is the most important thing to the world to you. aren't you giving away half the store before you even sit down to talk? >> as a matter of fact, we have a vast range of technology and weaponry right now that provides all the bargaining chips that we

need. and i support the air launch cruise missile, persian missile, trident submarine, the midget man. we have a whole range of technology. why i disagree with the mx, it's a sitting duck. it will draw an attack. it puts a hair trigger and it's a dangerous destabilizing weapon. the b-1 is similarly to be opposed because for 15 years the soviet union has been repprepar to meet the b-1. instead, i want to build the midget man, a weapon that will give us security and contribute to an incentive for arms control. that's why i'm for stealth technology to build a stealth

bomber, which i've supported for years, that can penetrate the soviet air defense system without any hope that they can perceive where it is. in other words, a president has to make choices. this makes us stronger. the final point is that we can use this money that we save on these weapons to spend on things that we really need. our conventional strength in europe is under strength. we need to strengthen that in order to assure our western allies of our presence there, a strong defense, but also to diminish and reduce the likelihood of a commencement of a war and the use of nuclear weapons. by making wise choices, we are stronger, we enhance the chances of arms control. every president until this one has been able to do it, and this nation or the world is more dangerous as a result. >> i want to follow-up on mr. kalb's question. seems to me on the question of

verifiability, that you do have some problem with the extent of the freeze. testing would be very difrlt to verify. research would be impossible to verify. numbers of warheads and production of any weapon would be impossible to verify. now, in view of that, what is going to be frozen? >> i will not agree to any arms control agreement that's not verified. the warhead principle they've been counting rules for years. whenever a weapon is tested, we count the number of warheads on it. whether they have that number or lesson it or not. these are standard rules. i will not agree to any production restrictions or agreement unless we have the ability to verify those agreements. i don't trust the russians. i believe that every agreement

we reach must be verifiable and i will not agree to anything that we cannot tell every day. in other words, we got to be tough, but in order to stop this arms madness, we've got to push ahead with tough negotiations that are verifiable so that we know the soviets are agreeing and living up to their agreement. >> mr. president, i want to ask you a question about negotiating with friends. you severely criticized president carter for helping to undermine two dictator. now there are other such leaders heading for trouble including chile and the philippines. what can you do to prevent the philippines from becoming another nicaragua. >> i did criticize the president because of our undercutting of what was a stalwart ally. i'm not at all convinced that he was that far out of line with

his people or that they wanted that to happen. the shah had done our bidding and carried our load in the middle east for quite some time. and i did think that it was a blot on our record that we let him down. have things gotten better, the shah, what he might have done, building low cost housing, things of that kind. but we turned it over to a maniacal fanatic who has slaughtered thousands and thousands of people calling it executions. the matter of simosa, no. i never defended that. as a matter of fact, the previous administration stood by and so did i know that i could have done anything in my position at that time, but for this revolution to take place. and the promise of the revolution was democracy, human

right, free press. then just as castro had done in cuba, they ousted the other parties to the revolution. many of them are now the contras. they exiled some, jailed some, murdered some. and they installed a marxist government. many times, and this has to do with the philippines also, i know there are things there in the philippines that do not look good to us from the standpoint right now of democratic rights, but what is the alternative? it is a large communist movement to take over the philippines. they have been our friend since their inception as a nation. and i think that we've had enough of a record of letting under the guise of revolution someone that we thought was a little more right than we would be, letting that person go and

then winding up with totalitarianism pure and simple as the alternative. i think that we're better off, for example, with the philippines trying to retain our friendship and help them right the wrongs we see rather than throwing them to the wonderflve then facing a communist power in the pacific. >> since the use has two bagses in the philippines. if so, what would you do about it? >> we have to look at what an overthrow would mean and what the government would be that followed. there's every indication that that government would be hostile to the united states. and that would be a severe blow to our abilities there in the pacific. >> and what would you do about it. >> sorry. mr. mondale, your rebuttal. >> perhaps in no area do we

disagree more than this administration's policies on human rights. i went to the philippines as vice president, pressed for human rights, and made progress that had been stalled on the airfield bases. what explains this administration cozying up to the dictators after they took over? this nation was embarrassed by this current administration's adoption of their policies. what happens in south africa where, for example, the nobel prize winner two days ago said this administration is seen as working with the oppressive government of south africa. that hurts this nation. we need to stand for human rights. we need to make it clear we're for human liberty. national security and human rights must go together. but this administration time and

time again has lost its way in time again has lost its way in this field. >> president reagan, your rebutt rebuttal? >> well, the invasion of afghanistan didn't take place on our watch. i have described what has happened in iran and we weren't here then either. i don't think that our record of human rights can be assailed. i think that we have observed our sever ourselves and done our best to see that human rights are extended throughout the world. >> mr. mondale announced a plan of his to get the democracies together and work with the whole world to turn to democracy. and i was glad to hear him say that. that's what we've been doing. and human rights are not advanced when at the same time you then stand back and say, woops, we didn't know the gun was loaded and you have another

totalitarian power on your hands. >> in this segment because of the pressure of time, there will be no rebuttals and no follow-up questions. >> one question to each candidate. >> one question to each candidate. >> mr. president, can i take you back to something you said earlier? but i understood you to say that the development of space military technology was successful, you might give the soviets a demonstration and say here it is, which sounds like you may be trying to dictate terms which i would then suggest to you might mean scrapping a generation of mutual strategy called nuclear deterrence. is that your intention? >> i can't say that i have roundtabled that and sat down with the chiefs of staffs. this could be a logical step in my ultimate dream. that is the elimination of

nuclear weapons in the world. it seems this could be a great assisting agent in getting that done. i am not going to rollover as mr. mondale suggests and give them something that could turn around and be used against us. but i think it's a very interesting proposal to see if we can find first of all something that renders those weapons obsolete, incapable of their mission. mr. mondale seems to approve mad. mad is mutual assured destruction. meaning if you use nuclear weapons on us, the only thing we have to keep you from doing it is is we'll kill as many people of yours as you kill of ours. something that would destroy weapons and not humans is a great step forward in human rights. >> mr. mondale, could i ask you

to address the question of newark strategy then? i'm going to does you to deal with it anyway. do you believe in m.a.d., as it has been practiced for the last generation? >> i believe in a senszbible ar control approach that brings down these weapons to manageable levels. i would like to see their elimination. in the meantime, we have to be strong enough to make sure that the soviet union never attempts this. here, we have to decide between generalized objectives and reality. the president says he wants to eliminate or reduce the number of nuclear weapons. in fact, these last four years have seen more weapons built, a wider and more vigorous arms race than in human history. he wants a system that will make nuclear arms wars safe so nobody's going to get hurt. well, maybe some day somebody can dream of that.

why destabilize our relationship? why threaten our space satellites upon which we defend. why pursue a strategy that would delegate to computers the question of starting a war? a president, to defend this country and to get arms krcontr, must master what's going on. we all accept his objective and his dreams. we all do. but the hard reality is that we must know what we're doing and pursue those objectives that are possible in our time. he's opposed every effort to do so. if you want a tough president who uses that strength to get arms control and draws the line in the heavens, vote for walter mondale. >> we've arrived at the point in the debate now where we call for closing statements. you have the full four minutes, each of you. mr. mondale, will you go first?

>> i want to thank the voters, good citizens of kansas city, and president reagan for agreeing to debate this evening. this evening, we talked about national strength. i believe we need to be strong and i will keep us strong. but i think strength must also require wisdom and smarts in its exercise. that's key to the strength of our nation. a president must know the essential facts, essential to command. but a president must also have a vision of where this nation should go. tonight, as americans, you have a choice. and you're entitled to know where we would take this country if you decide to elect us. as president, i would press for long-term vigorous economic growth.

that's why i want to get debts down, interest rates down, restore america's exports, help rural america which is suffering so much, and bring the jobs back here for our children. i want this next generation to be the best educated in american history, to invest in the human mind and science again so we're out front. i want this nation to protect its air, its water, its land and its public health. america is not temporary. we're forever. and as americans, our generation should protect this wonderful land for our children. i want a nation of fairness where no one is denied the fullness of life or discriminated against. and we deal compassionately with those in our midst who are in trouble. and above all, i want a nation that's strong. since we debate the two weeks ago, the united states and the soviet union have built 100 more

warheads. enough to kill millions of americans and millions of soviet citizens. this doesn't strengthen us. this weakens the chances of civilization to survive. i remember the night before i became vice president. i was given the briefing and told that any time night or day i might be called upon to make the most fateful decision on earth, whether to fire these atomic weapons that could destroy the human species. that lesson tells us two things. one, pick a president that you know will know if that tragic moment ever comes what he must know because there will be no time for staffing committees or advisors. a president must know right then. but above all, pick a president

who will fieght to avoid the da when that god awful decision ever needs to be made. that's why this election is so terribly important. america and americans decide not just what's happening in this country. we are the strongest and most powerful free society on earth. when you make that judgment, you are deciding not only the future of our nation in a very profound respect, you're providing the future -- deciding the future of the world. we need to move on. it's time for america to find new leadership. please join me in this cause to move confidentially and with a sense of assurance and command to build the blessed future of our nation. [ applause ]

>> president reagan. >> my thanks to the league of women voters, to the panelists, moderator and to the people of kansas stay. i think the american people tonight have much to be grateful for. an economic recovery that has become expansion, freedom, and most of all, we are at peace. i am grateful for the chance to reaffirm by commitment to reduce nuclear weapons and one day to eliminate them entirely. the question before you comes down to this: do you want to see america return to the policies of weakness of the last four years or do we want to go forward marching together as a nation of strength and that's going to continue to be strong? the -- we shouldn't be dwelling

on the past or even the present. the meaning of this election is the future. and whether we're going to grow and provide the jobs and the opportunities for all americans that that need. several years ago, i was given an assignment to write a letter. it was to go into a time capsule and would be read in 100 years when that time capsule was opened. i remember driving down the california coast one day my mind was full of what i was going to put in that letter about the problems and the issues that confront us in our time and what we did about them. but i couldn't completely neglect the beauty around me. the pacific out there on one side of the highway shining in the sunlight. the mountains of the coast range rising on the other side. and i found myself wondering what it would be -- wondering if someone 100 years from now would be driving down that highway and

if they would see the same thing. with that thought, i realized what a job i had with that letter. i would you be writing a letter to people who know everything there is to know about us. we know nothing about them. they would know all about our problems. they would know how we solved them and whether our solution was beneficial to them down through the years or whether it hurt them. they would also know that we lived in a world with terrible weapons, nuclear weapons of terrible destructive power aimed at each other, capable of crossing the ocean in a matter of minutes and destroying civilization as we knew it. and then i thought to myself what are they going to say about us, what are those people 100 years from now going to think? they will know whether we used those weapons or not. well, what they will say about

us 100 years from now depends on how we keep our rendezvous with destiny. will we do the things that we know must be done and know that one day down in history, 100 years or perhaps before, someone will say thank god for those people back in the 1980s for preserving our freedom, for saving for us this blessed planet called earth with all its grandeur and its beauty. you know, i am grateful to all of you for giving me the opportunity to serve you for these four years. and i seek reelection because i want more than anything else to try to complete the new beginning that we charted four years ago. george bush, who i think is one of the finest vice presidents this country has ever had, we have crisscrossed the country

and had in these last few months a wonderful experience. we have met young america. we have met your sons and daughters. >> mr. president, i'm obliged to cut you off there under the rules of the debate. i'm sorry. >> all right. i was just going to -- [ applause ] >> perhaps i should point out that the rules under which i did that were agreed upon by the two campaigns. >> i know, yes. >> thank you, mr. president. thank you, mr. mondale. thanks also to the panel. finally to our audience, we thank you and the league of women voters asks me to say to you, don't forget to vote on november 6th. [ applause ]

[ applause ]

here's a look at some of our live programming today across the cspan networks. join us this afternoon for education secretary john king. he'll discuss civic engagement and the roles schools have in preparining students to be acti citizens. later, it's a discussion on money and politics posted by the american constitution society. that's at 6:30 p.m. eastern on cspan2. watch cspan's live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump tonight. our live debate preview from the university of nevada las vegas starts at 7:30 p.m. eastern. the briefing for the debate studio audience is at 8:30 p.m. eastern and the debate is at 9:00 p.m. eastern. stay with us following the

debate for viewer reaction and watch the debate live or on demand using your desktop, phone, or tablet at c-span.org. listen to live coverage of the debate on your phone. download it from the app store or google play. cspan, created by america's cable television companies and brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. now, journalist, editor and author tina brown recently talks about women and global leadership. this is from the john hopkins school of advanced international studies. it's called women who inspire. it runs about an hour and 15 minutes.

>> good afternoon, everyone. i'm vali nasr, dean of school of advanced international studies. it is my distinct pleasure to welcome you all to a conversation with award winning journalist, editor, author, and entrepreneur tina brown. miss brown has been one of the most influential voices in american media. in this role she initiated tremendous change in advocacy on behalf of important social and political causes and has also spoken to important international issues and global trends. in 2010 she launched annual

women in the world summit to begin a dialogue and offer solutions on building better lives for women and girls. the summit has hosted conversations in london, dubai, sao paulo, new delhi, and throughout the united states and has featured extraordinary leaders such as hillary clinton, christine lagarde, barbara bush and oprah winfrey. they represent what miss brown does best, elevating a critically important conversation to a profile and stage that has no equal. her example is one we strive to attain at john hopkins sites. that is why today's conversation is part of the school's women who inspire series on the topic of women leaders making a difference on the global stage. the series was launched last year at a time when there has

been a tremendous ground swell of interest from alumni and students in women's leadership. other programming at this school, such as the annual conference organized by the student group global women in leadership and women's alumni network allow the school to be an advocate and thought leader on issues of gender equality and the role of women in global leadership. as one preeminent graduate student of international relations, johns hopkins has been educating and empowering women. and -- excuse me. i lost my place. and has been educating students for years, preparing them for careers of leadership in public and private sectors. with this tradition in mind, we

established women's lead, a platform to promote women's leadership in international affairs across the school and beyond its walls. at the heart of our mission is the realization that women's leadership is not only an end unto itself but also a tool to realize many other global benefits. miss brown's impact is a perfect example of all that can be achieved with such leadership. and her illustrious career speaks for it's self. she has been founding editor of "daily beast," "vanity fair," "the new yorker." and "talk." she's also the founder and ceo of tina brown live media. she was inducted into the magazine editor's hall of fame and has been the recipient of four george polk awards, five overseas press club awards and

10 national magazine awards. miss brown is also the authorize of diana chronicles, best selling biography of princess of wales and in 2000 queen elizabeth appointed her as commander of the order of british empire for achievements in journalism. it is our immense pleasure to host her today in a conversation that will be moderated by our own ambassador shirin tahir-kheli, senior fellow at johns hopkins foreign policy institute. today's discussion would not be possible without ambassador tahir-kheli. so thank you. without further ado, i turn the floor to ambassador tahir-kheli to start the conversation. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you, tina, for being here. >> i'm thrilled to be here. by the way, this sounds a little iffy this thing. is this all right?

okay, good. >> i wanted to thank the dean, and of course the audience for being here to be part of our conversation. you've sort of offered us the opportunity to launch the women who inspire for 2016-2017, and it's a wonderful launch. at the end we're hoping we'll bracket this with another woman who inspires, ms. rice, who will come hopefully in may. so you know, the dean went through -- vali went through some of the highlights of your incredible high-voltage energy, career, and life. i've watched particularly since i had sort of a front row seat when you launched women in the world summit in 2010 and seen how you've energized a global

audience, not just those who are in a now large lincoln center hall, but around the world with the online viewing. but through that, i'm aware that you actually have a rolodex that could run a country, if not the world. because the issues that you have sort of made your own in some ways, and now of course because you've given them a platform and a changes for a public discourse, the marrying of the need for women's empowerment across the board -- political, economic, medical, you name it, through media, the legal justice

aspects -- and you've partnered that with not just giving a voice, but trying to find common solutions. which in my experience, i've lived long enough to have sort of seen movements and exposures is somewhat unique. i wanted to start this conversation with a question that has occurred to me i've not always had a chance to put it before you. what made you make that link, because clearly this very, very incredible women of all stat -- statures would come to such an event. but what made you focus on the solution part? >> well, i began the summit really in response to what i felt was a bubbling up of a global women's movement that other people weren't actually noticing. for many years i've been involved with vital voices, which is the wonderful nonprofit -- >> excuse me, is that microphone working?

>> it's little iffy isn't it? >> mine is still working. >> is this better now? no? shall i move it up? where is mr. audio? there, is that better? where is mr. audio? where did he go? >> that's much better. that's better? well, just start again. i started women in the world in response to what i thought was a bubbling, global women's movement, which i sensed through my work with vital voices, which is the nonprofit, which mentors women in emerging countries. in the spring of 2009, i went to a vital voices retreat in italy. florence, actually. and there was a whole group of women there from south america, from africa, all over the world, india, pakistan.

this was a local women grassroots leaders. i was completely blown away. every one of them seemed to me like a complete firecracker, a person of enormous stature, of big vision, because i feel, as we all are very hungry for leadership. we're not seeing much of it around in our national life or rather what is exposed to be leaders in our national life. i thought how exciting it would be to give these women a platform. what they didn't have was that. what they had was tremendous energy, great ideas in their own countries they were doing incredible things in their own sort of territory, but they didn't have any platform beyond that at all. nobody was listening to them. so i thought how interesting it would be to begin a convening where we would bring these women in, find them, and have them tell their stories. because i do believe tremendously in the power of narrative to move mountains.

i think if you can engage people with a story, then once their head and heart is open to the story, then they will focus on the issue. they won't focus on the issue if you start with the issue. they simply are on their iphones or whatever. they want to listen and mean took listen and mean to read it but they don't. that's my training as a journalist. my journalist training is about seduction. my journalist training is how do i make someone read this, pick it up off the newsstand and buy it. the same is true in my view for anything you want to do, any issue you want to address, any solution you're looking for, first you've got to make people listen and pay attention. you can do that with narratives. the way i structured women in the world is have them come and tell incredible stories in their lives. when people's eyes are opened and heard this extraordinary story of how this person made her way through unimaginable challenges, whether it's education not available, honor

killings, absolute repression in so many places in the world, yet they manage to find a solution, they find a way out of it, you can have a discussion, what is this place, why is it like this. it's really about opening the eyes of women through their voices. we found tight off immediately the very first panel of the very first summit was rape as a weapon of war. you wouldn't think of that as a box office topic. but we had the most amazing woman who had started a radio -- a radio show in dlc to hear the stories of women who had been raped. she's a broadcaster. she began to broadcast the stories over and over again. the horrors of the stories seeped into the national conscious. they were no longer secrets. when she played the tape on a dark stage, it was very, very dramatic.

we had the doctor in the congo who operates on a lot of these women and stitches them back up again. and he was a remarkable voice. we had another couple of journalists on that stage. it was just very powerful. we also then brought in these women who were very prominent women. the very pleasing thing about it all was, in that case, hillary clinton, in that case, christine lagarde, condi, they all came in and understood speedily. which is why i understood this was a global movement. they knew. they like you had been operating in that space. they were delighted these women finally got a piece of the action. it really took off from there. >> it's interesting you mentioned that particular panel, because i remember that. it was particularly interesting to people like condi and myself, because we were very -- condi chaired the security council meeting for u.n. security

council resolution 1820, so all the ministers came, which passed the resolution against all odds. but unanimously that declared that rape as a weapon of war was henceforth going to be considered a human rights violation of the extreme and a war crime. with we took that back to the u.n. and those broadcasts to sort of say, look, there is an absolute -- between the legal institutional framework we were trying to create and the women on the ground at the receiving end trying to seek justice in there was a link. >> that's wonderful. that's the kind of outcome that happens. >> and that one is close to my

heart and i remember the next day we were e-mailing those people saying you want to create that list of potential war crimes, war criminals, here's a person, here's the stories. so that's -- it's, i think, in that sense continues. i also remember that it's been a space where you have brought women who have shared not just often our stories are not the joyful stories so in a sense maybe when there's just joyful stories we won't need to exist as promoters but the women from the middle east who both lost sons from the israel and palestinian areas who got together to start a movement that said enough. >> that's incredibly moving. one of them is an israeli activist and the other is a

palestinian woman and each of them have lost sons, each of them were killed by snipers. robbie's son was killed by a palestinian sniper, the other woman's son was killed by an israeli sniper. yet they have found a way -- they found each other in the circle which is called the parents' circle in israel and this circumstance is made up of parents from both sides who lost their children. and as they say the tears on the pillow are the same color. it was a very profound thing which made me weep when she said it. because as she said what we share is just what dwizs, what we share is pain. that's really when i first came to see what an enormous role women can play as peace makers. as robbie said today, why aren't these women more at the table? they bring that practical front line sort of emotional connection. instead of it being a talk ay on

this, a talk fest, what we're seeing in syria at the moment is i want to know where the women are. i'm just not seeing any in this proces process. >> they're not there. >> they're not there but they are there. in london last year we had an amazing woman, a journalist who does a radio broadcast from syria where she stayed in aleppo and did these broadcasts, incredibly brave and she was pregnant, too, and she was in the middle of all of this and i thought this woman is a total hero. but she's no where in any discussion. yet she knows so much. >> not everyone as a reference point for a reality check. even if it's not -- >> it's a reality check. >> but have you found as you've broadened the conversations geographically -- now you've done sao paulo, del delhi and os in the making.

do you -- does the same model work? >> it's very interesting. when we did deli, what we do is we decide -- if something has to be thought through -- obviously if you go to a foreign place you can't go and say "i'm going to talk about your problem which is would be as inappropriate as a bunch of people from pakistan arriving and saying "we're going to do something about ferguson and talk about gun violence." it would be like what have you got to tell me? it's insulting, almost. so what we try to do is showcase stories where we're more -- very sensitive about how we showcase their issues and do it in the context of successes. but at the same time bring in foreign women to tell those women. for instance, i did bring those two people to delhi and their story moved people in delhi exactly the same way because to them it was about kashmir. to them it was about the india/pakistan dynamic and it

would have been insensitive of me to do that there so i told that story through the other story and there was a great sense of connection to these stories. the other thing i was told is india is never interested in anything about africa and i decided to ignore that because there's a woman who is absolutely phenomenal who launched the movement bring back our girls" in nigeria and she's a powerhouse woman of such moral authority, she's an extraordinary speaker. so moving. she blew everyone away. she was the hit of the whole delhi summit. but at the same time i did a discussion about the way domestic sir vladimir putins are treated. so we told the story of the

young woman, a mother, a woman who wanted to fend for her children and she didn't have the money so she went to work as a servant in saudi arabia and she was horrendously mistreated to the point she had her arm cut off by the -- by the employer because when she tried to escape. and she then ended up in a hospital and amnesty learned who she was and brought her home and actually we did that by then bringing -- surrounding her with the people who work on those kind of cases and what was very gratifying was that the woman in the audience, from one of the richest families in india, she decided she would offer to educate the woman's children, five of them. which was very gratifying. she was so moved by the whole thing that she decided the foundation was going to write a check for all five children. which was thrilling. and it moved her enough that she was literally in tears in the

audience. so it's exciting what you can do with conversations and issues based on narrative. >> and that is the power of example because this sort of a philanthropic gesture does not occur as often, that part of the world as occurs in other parts of the world so you can have a ripple effect even there. i mean, she doesn't have -- the fact that somebody cared enough to do something. but you're right, the -- one has to be culturally sensitive because the idea is you want to showcase and change without turning people off. because you can easily find two kashmiri mothers on both sides of the divide. when i get into touchy conversations with indians in particular apropos of some of

these things/point out they accept it that india helps the u.s. in training the first all-female peacekeeping force. i remember dawn is in the audience trying to convince her because they have -- a woman in the police department, head of police, they had in enormous capacity so indians train this all female peacekeeping force to send to liberia and a couple of years later ellen johnson sirleaf, who was part of the first women leader's working group said that when this contingent arrived during a very beautifully done saris into monrovia, it did a number of

things. the violence against women dropped by almost 60% reporting doubled and the number of liberian girls willing to go into law enforcement tripled. and she said this was within a year so, you know, it e's. >> you want to imagine -- i remember a woman -- a woman from latin america -- beginning with g, what is the country in latin america beginning with a g. >> jamaica? >> no, no, with a g. >> oh, with a g. guiana? >> no. >> guatemala. >> guatemala, thank you very much. terrible senior moment about guatemala. this is a woman who has been exposing corruption and she did it online with pseudonyms and on

radio broadcasts where she went after corruption and she was talking about the desperate poverty and nature of things in that part of the world and she said what she found is these woman could not imagine success for a woman. they didn't know anyone successful and simply by going in and exposing them to women who hadn't risen in the smallest possible way into a different kind of life was for them an absolute revelation that until you could imagine the success of it you couldn't even think of aspiring to it. i thought it was a -- it stuck in my mind, i was thinking if that isn't -- we keep hearing about role models, it's become a cliche because if you can not imagine yourself in that role the pakistani filmmaker -- who is absel