absolute ban on any arms exports from north korea which will tackle one of the sources of revenue that funds north korea's missile and nuclear programs. it also enhances significantly the inspection regime which enables the enforcement of that arms embargo. in addition, it calls upon member states to cut off any financial flows and any financial transactions which assist north korea's missile and nuclear programs. and indeed, to cut off all financial assistance aims at

humanitarian or development objectives. the resolution also requires the sanctions committee of the council, within 30 days, to designate further entities and individuals and goods which assist north korea's nuclear and missile programs. it strengthens the committee and a monitoring provisions and establishes a panel of experts for that purpose. the resolution contains a significant, robust set of measures to prevent north korea from continuing with its nuclear and missile programs, and to encourage north korea to return to constructive engagement with the international community. i should emphasize that these measures are carefully targeted at the nuclear antimissile -- to

the nuclear and missile production programs. we're not talking about general sanctions. they should not adversely affect -- affect the economic situation of the people of north korea, as we all know, it is already dire. in the interests of the people of north korea and in the interest in regional and global security, we call upon the government of north korea to abandon its current course and to engage constructively with the international community and to return to the six-party talks. thank you. >> north korea looks set to attempt a third nuclear test. is it fair to say that this resolution has done nothing to improve stability? >> de resolution has only just been passed.

it is far too early to tell. it has given the international community stronger tools with which to prevent north korea from continuing with its nuclear and missile programs. >> is a difficult to argue that the sanctions and financial restrictions will affect the beleaguered people of north korea who need help. >> if you read the resolution, the sanctions are very clearly targeted at the missiles and nuclear programs. >> a financial restitutions -- >> other than those with development and humanitarian objectives. >> with the exclusion of allowing the sale of small arms and light weapons to north korea, is that something that the u.k. supports? >> we would have preferred to see an even broader ban.

but this is what has been agreed to by the council. and questions? thank you. >> well, we have just voted in favor of the resolution. i hope you'll take note of the explanation i gave after the vote. i would just like to share a few parts with you. first, we are opposed to the nuclear test. second, we believe that the reaction from the security council has to be appropriate and earnest. as you can see from the languages, the resolution not only contains a sanction

measures, it also contains some positive messages to the pprk. it also addresses the importance of the nuclear issue peacefully through political and diplomatic means. third, i hope you have noticed that the measures contained in the resolution are taken in accordance with article 41 of chapter seven of the charter of the united nations. we believe that sanction measures such as cargo inspection are very complicated and sensitive. we believe that the countries concerned need to act prudently with an international laws and with reasonable that sufficient

evidence. under no circumstances should there be the use of force or the threat of the use of force. finally, we believe that it is very important for all parties concerned to keep, and restrained. not to take action that might aggravate the situation. china is prepared to work together with all parties concerned in a responsible and constructive manner to achieving denuclearization of the nuclear -- of the korean peninsula and establishing stability in the region. thank you.

>> the security council voted in favor of item 74, proceeding with conviction in the objective of the proliferation -- of the anti proliferation of nuclear weapons. we think it is a major can do sieve to the achievement of the final goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. it is a vital tool to be favorable for the promotion of the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. we have voted for the resolution because the resolution is balance one. during the process of deliberation on this issue, we have emphasized our view of supporting the measures at aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the

development of ballistic missile technologies. also, the implementation of those measures must not adversely affect the normal livelihood of the people and the legitimate humanitarian, economic, and development activities and then of the democratic people's republic of korea. it is to be in concordance with the principles of the united nations of the charter of the united nations. those principles are contained in resolution item 74.

>> a good afternoon. as you know, the security council has adopted, unanimously, i very -- item 74. i requested an urgent meeting of the security council to clear -- to send a clear message. on that day, the council has issued remarks that the council is united and result to issue, effectively, the response to that. during this time, a very serious and intense a discussion was going on. the content of this resolution is unprecedented. there are other resolutions passed by the security council. it has a very strong message, but not only that, we hope the

measures will be implemented effectively to control the flow of goods and arms and financial resources that are related to the wmd program and missile technology programs. the reason why it took a long time shows very clearly the importance and strong content of the resolution itself, the kind of technical, legal, and other examinations. the reason we ask for the special meeting was because of the nuclear program, and the ballistic missile technology is a direct threat to japan. we feel most threatened by the development of nuclear capability. therefore, it is with great satisfaction that the council has adopted unanimously with this element that has very

strong messages and measures in controlling arms materials as well as in the area. we must stress that the measures are not really intended to make innocent people in north korea. -- to make it difficult for the innocent people of north korea. also, it has to be done through diplomatic and peaceful ways. particularly, six party talks. the message is that if they appeal, it will be ok. please listen to us, the voice of the international community, reflected in today's resolution. come back to the table to settle these issues. if they do not do that, then the council and the

international community have to impose upon them with these measures. [unintelligible] we want them to come back to the negotiation table. thank you very much. >> is it fair to understand that compared to three years ago, the international community is shifting from more pressure as an approach? >> whitney dprk launched the first nuclear -- when the dprk launched the first nuclear test, they took measures including sanctions. you can see most of the work has been done by the sanctions committee. we came up with a list of products and people. until last month when the dprk law launched ballistic missile,

the committee has come up with a list of three entities. until this century, the committee -- not really in a much effective way. [unintelligible] together with the act. it has strengthened the resolve of the members of the security council, particularly the countries in asia that are directly threatened by this. not only japan, korea, china, russia, and also the united states and other european countries as well. it threatens not only the security of us, but internationally. it is a very serious issue.

it has a global impact, global implications. that is why the council has adopted this resolution. >> the ambassador just said that the cargo inspection should not involve the use of force or the threat of the use of force. is that your understanding of the resolution? if that is the case, how will cargo inspection be accomplished if they do not submit their ships? >> of the picture is not so black and white. how to control the nuclear weapon program, how to control ballistic weapon programs, we need to stop the flow of materials which are new for this. but also, those things that aren't needed it for financing the nuclear weapon problem. that is one thing. but also, the flow of financial resources is also very important. there is the controlling good of

the flow supply, -- there is controlling the flow of a good supply. back to the inspection regime. primarily, it would take place in the inspecting countries. airports, railway stations, all of these places. this is according to a national regime. the important thing is that all countries, including those countries like china and russia has agreed to this language. as long as there is good information of the suspicious -- to be contained in the cargo. what is going to happen?

it is true that this resolution provided member states to inspect the cargo as if there is a suspicion of prohibited cargo. we need to have consent of the country. i think this is extremely important and effective, so long as the countries concerned have the willingness to do it and they will cooperate together. my impression would be, if they refused to cooperate, what happens? this resolution says it gives the security council director shipped to go to the nearest port. this is the language included. the inspection will be carried out in the port or whatever. obviously, the question is, if

the cooperation is not taking place, what happens? the first option is to authorize all possible measures. it involves, potentially, use of force. we took a long time to discuss this one. we talked about all of the legal and political implications. it has prevailed at the inspection regime should be on the basis of cooperation and consent. we hope that these countries that have the capacity and willingness to do, joined the other with the inspection regime. the think it is extremely important to prevent loopholes of prohibitive goods. but nisei, very briefly in japanese, because it has

affected. >> you're saying that it refuses to let it go to another port, you have no other powers to force them. this resolution is really very strong. it shows the position on these experiments. what else do have in your bag if they continue their provocation and policies? >> the resources adopted in item 74 reenforce the kind of scenario the you're asking in your question. [unintelligible] what of the country does not cooperate or provide consent? what happens?

we have included the provision that if the inspecting state does not give cooperation, this country will report to the security council. [unintelligible] it is up to the security council and the committee to reflect upon cooperation, among other things. i am not saying that one refusal will create the action. i am not saying that. but think if your fusil is going to be reported to the committee, there would be a scenario where the council may have to deal with this issue. therefore, although this resolution doesn't provide all the measures, including the use of force, it is true.

i think the action should be resolved. in the future, i do not want to predict what the council is going to do. what i want to emphasize here, because we should not be directed by a responsible, provocative announcement coming from many quarters. it is very serious, no doubt about it. i think what we should do is, after this resolution, as he said, -- as you said, sending messages. i hope we're going to reach this message to the political leader of the dprk. i hope to make a strategic choice.

in other words, this resolution is effective. in other words, it is not simply the wish list or hope of cooperation. as you can see, that is not white -- that is why it took so long. [unintelligible] is not just a message. it is important had ago about this affectively. the dprk needs to cooperate with the council and to stop developing nuclear weapons and missiles. what is the choice? i do not think we should do is to take the situation -- i think we should do is to take the situation calmly and hope the

dprk positively and constructively. i think that is what i think we should see. >> every weekend, the latest nonfiction books and authors on c-span 2's "book tv." saturday, afterwards, had he run for congress with $7,000 in your sixth grade students met managing the campaign. she is interviewed by washington d.c. delegate eleanor holmes gran home. then, how the followers of jefferson, and jesus are battling to transform the world. then, what is next for the economy? the former reagan economic policy adviser on taxes and the end of prosperity. later, "for closure nation." the housing crunch and where it is headed. the weekend is filled with books

and authors on "tv." look for our entire schedule online at booktv.org. >> here is our present policy. we are really anxious, willing, and eager to stop the bombing, just as we are eager to stop the war. >> telephone conversations from the final months of president lyndon johnson's presidency. vietnam, and his troubles for the supreme court chief justice. listen on c-span area -- radio in washington-baltimore area, or nationwide on ex-im satellite channel 132. -- xm satellite channel 132. >> there's still time to get your copy of the c-span's 2009 u.s. congressional directory. district maps, and how to contact committees and caucuses.

it is $16.95 online at cspan.org/products. >> next, a look at the economy, the future of health care, and the federal deficit. our guess is the single editor @ "the national review. from today's washington journal, is 40 minutes. host: our guest, rush ponnuru -- rahm-ponnuamesh ponnuru. >> people will also say that the deficit and the debt are skyrocketing, and that is the reason why we cannot afford to do health reform. i just want to repeat, the single biggest problem we have in terms of the debt and the deficit is health care.

is medicare and medicaid. that is -- when you hear all these projections about all these trillions of dollars and red ink got out as far as the eye can see, almost all of that is because of the increase in medicare and medicaid costs that are going up much faster than inflation. host: what is your reaction to the president's speech yesterday? guest: there is no question that health care expenses are a big driver of federal debt and federal deficits, but i think what he said is true but it is misleading because his plans and the plans being circulated on capitol hill by his allies, do not have much in the way of cost control. it is hard to come up with an example of a country that has expanded coverage while cutting costs. he may talk a lot about cost

control, but the driving force on capitol hill is to expand coverage and that will cost serious money. host: what do you envision health care reform looking like? guest: i would like to see an end to the tax penalty for buying insurance policies yourself, as opposed to getting them through your employer, so a switch away, at least a gradual switch away from employer-based insurance to individually purchased insurance, along with forms to be able to buy more affordable product on the market. host: the republican-202-737- 0001, and democrats is 202-737- 0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. you have been writing about

health-care concerns. there is a lot of talk right now of course about how the government will be feeding into this. do you see any of the plant on the table right now, being able to work out a compromise with what you're looking at? accusing the democrats will be able to negotiate blue dog coalition? guest: i think the democrats are not particularly eager for the -- i think that is understandable. they have huge margins in congress, if they want to go with what they think is the ideal policy and shut out the republicans, that is something that they can do. host: an opinion piece in "the wall street journal," the cost estimates for the democrats' health care reform have hit $1.50 trillion over a decade. guest: that is right, and government estimates tend to be underestimates.

almost without exception to the initial estimates people make it and being wildly low. host: you have also been looking of course at the nomination of judge sotomayor. what do you think it -- what effect do you think the words of newt gingrich and rush limbaugh will have on the gop electorate? there has been some backlash by republicans in elected office who are concerned about their comments. guest: newt gingrich initially described judge sotomayor as a racist and back off on that charge, and rush limbaugh has also spent a lot of time talking about her comments, about how wise latina judge would it -- would eventually make better decisions than a white male judge. i think it is a tricky issue for conservatives, and i think one of the things that is going on here is that this is a huge

distraction because in fact, whether or not it makes any sense to think in terms of race and judges this way, i do not think it is even true that her decisions had been affected by her ethnicity. she is in essence a conventional liberal, and if she were a conventional white male liberal, she would be making the same decisions on affirmative action, for example, ended is a mistake strategically for republicans to look at the first latino judge who is nominated, and end of making it a debate about race. making it a debate about race. guest for senate republicans, that has always been the focus. as they become more center stage of the conservative concerned, that is going to happen.