over this? guest: that have been a couple of points that i have tried to make. one, there has been i think an attempt to say that if you pro- lifeers would just quit agitating about this issue, then this sort of thing would not happened, and i think it has to be said that it is true, if there were no pro-life movement, this sort of violence would not happen, just like if there were no environmental movement is less likely you have the unabomber or at least mentally unbalanced people would find some other outlet for their rage and violence. but you cannot legitimate ask people to give up their important ries convictions if they are working through the democratic process, passionate advocacy on these issues have to be allowed. the other point i was making, one of the things you see the debaters points on this issue is people say, well, you pro-lifer

s were serious, you would be shooting abortionists, too, approving of this. i think for a lot of reasons that is just absurd. the pro-life movement is about the sanctity of human life, about reducing the amount of violence, about restoring balad to the moral foundations and not abandoning the rule of law. host: james on the democrats' line calling from temple terrace, florida. good morning, james. caller: good morning? guest: yes? caller: i work for clinton benefits department for some of the major insurance companies and have a lot of knowledge as far as what goes on in the background, and i am also a veteran, and if we would look at the va system, they have electronic records, they also by durable medical equipment in bulk -- c o p d machine that

medicare pays a rental every month and pays, like, 2004 it and the va buys it for $200. they also have their doctors on salary is and on their medications, brand-name medications,, they make the brand-name manufacturers and a generous for the va. guest: we have had a lot of veterans calling in -- i said earlier, but i should also announce a, i salute your service. some the points he made a really good. the first point you made, essentially the va has integrated care, long-term information tracking technology to i think is an excellent argument for reforming the private marketplace so that it can do that as well. in terms of the bulk purchases

and cost savings, all of these government programs attempt to use the bargaining power of the federal government as a buyer of medical equipment and services to bargain prices down. the problem is, it leads to higher prices in the private market, and if you have a more government run system, how does the model work? the model work? where do you off load those >> every weekend, though it is non-fiction books and authors on c-span2's "book tv" twoonie cave hill gave an interview on sunday.

and joel rosenberg discusses his book. and what is next for the economy? stephen maur and former reagan economic policy advisor. and later, foreclosure nation, sherry olson on the housing crunch and where it is heading. look for our entire schedule online at booktv.org. >> here is our present policy. and we are really anxious and eager to stop the bombing, just as the reader to stop the war. >> telephone conversations with the nine final months of lyndon johnson cozy presidency on vietnam, you and appointees, and his troubles with picks for supreme court justice. listen saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span radio in the

baltimore area at 90.1 fm, online ad c-span.org and on xm satellite radio channel 132. >> how did house and senate negotiators were cut their key differences on the spending bill? >> in the house, the chairman of the appropriations committee said that this conference report was not going to pass the house if it went forward with the senate amendment that would ban the release of photographs dealing with prisoner abuse. and they needed democratic support to make up for the loss of republicans in the house. in the end, it was agreed that the sana amendment would not be in the final conference report. to get there, -- he said he

would do everything he can to block those photographs, but lawmakers will be looking for the executive order next week. >> in this case, the president got into the conversation, correct? >> last night, that is correct. he was talking with democrats about whether this bill could survive on the senate floor if it did not have that language when it came back from the house. >> do you think his compromise could help or hurt the process? >> i think is going to help because in the house, speaker nancy's will have the support she needs to pass it there. and in the senate, the primary sponsors seem as though now they might now try to block the bill. senator lieberman is really looking for obama to try to -- to sign the executive order.

what that would do is that would classify the photographs. they could not be released. >> another $5 billion for the international monetary fund. did that make the final cut of the compromise? >> yes, that is still in there and that is why house republicans now are not as likely to vote for the bill as before. when it first passed in the house in may, it had overwhelming republican support. but after conferees were willing to take this imf amendment from the senate, that is when house republican leader boehner and other republicans said they were not going to vote for the supplemental anymore. >> when it first passed the house it was at $83 billion. it is now at, what, $106 billion? >> that is what the ranking congressman says, $106 billion. that is a lot more money than

obama as requested. it is more than the senate had and where did it all go? well, among other things, they have double the funding for qjñthere are other things alonge way. they have added, almost out of the blue, $1 million cash for clunkers and to encourage people to give up their gas guzzlers and buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. that is also creating problems in the senate. and when you add up these creek -- these tweaking is, then you get up to $106 billion. >> does the speaker of the house have enough votes to get it through the house next week? >> from what congressman obey says, they will have the votes. >> thanks for being with us.

>> thanks for having me. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> barista o kotb -- time to get your copy of c-span 2009 congressional directory with information on house and senate men -- members, the nation's governors, the district maps and how to contact committees and caucuses. it is $16.95 online at c- span.org/products. >> and after the united nations security council agreed to a new round of sanctions against north korea, u.n. ambassador susan rice spoke at today's white house briefing. she is joined by press secretary robert gibbs. this is one hour.

>> in my debt -- endeavor to bring you another special guest, ambassador susan rice from the u.n. is with us. i think that many of you know that the resolution that was crafted on north korean sanctions passed unanimously. ambassador rise will talk to as a little bit about that. >> thanks very much, robert. good afternoon, everybody. the we are very pleased that the security council just within the last hour and a half passed unanimously a brand new resolution imposing tough, new, meaningful sanctions on north korea in response to the nuclear test and its other provocative beaters and activity. this resolution is unprecedented. it is innovative.

and it will cause the sanctions racine on north korea to be structured in at five critical areas. first, it begins by condemning their actions in the strongest possible terms. and demanding that north korea halt all nuclear activity, halt all missile activity in return unconditionally -- and return unconditionally to the six party process and the negotiating table. but to take cognizance of the provocative and threatening behavior of north korea, these five measures include the following -- and i will step you through them one by one. first, it will impose a complete embargo on the export of arms by north korea up to the rest of the world. arms exports have been a major source of revenue for north korea and have fueled it wmd and proliferation activities. it also massively broadens the scope of items that are banned to be imported by north korea.

and it requires that member states to exercise vigilance in any sale of small arms or light weapons and related material. the only imports they are now allowed to make in the realm of military material and the states that do sell to north korea have to notify the u.n. sanctions committee that was established under a previous regime in advance. secondly, the sanctions regime imposed broad, sweeping, new financial sanctions to prevent north korea from engaging in transactions or activities that could fund its wmd or proliferation activities. it broadens that responsibility to all member states, any entities and individuals, institutions, transactions on its territory and calls for states to freeze and those transactions and any asset related to them. in addition, it calls upon all memberç states, as well as

international financial institutions, to cease from providing any new concessional loans, grants, export credits, trade credits, or the like to north korea. with a narrow exception for humanitarian purposes, or forgo of mental activities that benefit directly the civilian population -- or for developmental activities that benefit directly the civilian population. third, it establishes innovative and expansive new regime for export -- for inspecting cargo that is suspected of being contraband under this resolution and prior resolutions that could benefit north korea's wmd program or be part of this proliferation activities. i would like to explain a little bit about how this inspection regime will work. the first, member states are expected to inspect any vessel on land, air, or see in their territory that they have reasonable grounds to believe is

carrying contraband material that is prohibited by this resolution and the prior resolution. secondly, it calls upon all member states to inspect outside of their territorial waters any vessel they believe with reasonable grounds to be carrying this contraband. it calls upon all of the potentially suspect vessels to submit consentual lead to that inspection -- conceptually to that inspection in open waters. if that m.s.o. refuses to submit to inspection, it is required that the flag state -- if that vessel refuses to submit to inspection, it is required that the flag state report that vessel to mandatory inspection. any contraband materialdr that s found following that mandatory inspection is required to be seized and disposed of. there is an additional provision, which i think is new for any u.n. sanctions regime, and that is a prohibition -- a

mandatory prohibition -- on providing what is called bunkering services to any suspect north korean vessel on the open seas. bunkering provisions are fuel and other support that a ship needs to carry on. that is designed to make it more likely that a ship has to return to port, at which point it would face that mandatory inspection. the fourth element of the regime is a decision to add additional companies, entities, goods, and individuals to the list of entities and individuals that are subject to an assets freeze under the prior resolution. within 30 days, we and other states will add to that list new companies for north korea, new individuals, new goods that will be provided in trading in the case of goods, and assets frozen in the case of individuals.

>> and finally, the fifth element is a step up implementation and monitoring mechanician mechanism so that we and others have the ability to more effectively track potential violations and bring that before the international community fraction. with that, i want to conclude by saying this is a very robust, a tough regime with teeth that will bite in north korea. we had good cooperation from all of the permanent members of the security council, plus japan and south korea, and ultimately all of the members of the council who came unanimously behind this tough resolution, which we believe sends a strong message to north korea that they need to change course. thank you. >> i wanted to ask you about the introduction portion. what is the u.s. doing to -- the interdiction portion.

what is the u.s. doing in international waters to take part in interdiction, and how aggressive is the administration going to get on that front? >> let me explain to the steps we will take in the event that we have reason to believe that a vessel is carrying suspect cargo first, we will ramp up and intensify our existing efforts to gather information that would allow us to determine if there is a suspect vessel on the high seas. when we have that information, we will endeavor to make its immediately available to all states concerned. so, the flag state, the potential port state, the state of --ç the potential port of origin, and all of the states in a rout that the ship is travelling, so that they do not provide the bunker in services, so that they uphold their obligations to inspect in their territorial waters. if a vessel is designated as one

we are concerned about, we are prepared to confront that puzzle and to seek to board it consentual lee. if that -- to confront that vessel and seek to board it consensually. in the event that vessel refuses to consent and divert to port, we will take the necessary action to make it plain whose vessel is, what is believed to be carrying and to shine a spotlight on it to make it very difficult for the contraband to continue to be carried forth. >> is there the need to mobilize additional resources to the region to carry these actions are? >> i am not going to get into the disposition of a military assets. suffice it to say, they will take what steps are necessary and they have the ability to do so. >> how do you expect north korea

to respond to these expanded sanctions? do you think it is likely that they will -- that another provocative action like a nuclear test or perhaps in a storm? and if they do, what can the world community do at that point? >> based on past experience and the pattern that north korea has of reckless and dangerous actions, it would not be surprised if north korea reacted to this very tough sanctions regime in a fashion that would be further provocation and further destabilizing. in that event, we will continue to do what we committed to do today, which is to implement to the fullest extent what is the strongest, toughest sanctions regime -- sanctions regime on the books for any country today. these measures, if fully implemented by us and others, will buy it in a substantial way. and we are going to focus -- will bite in a substantial way.

and we're going to focus that implementation is fully achieved by us and others, that the bite is fully felt. we're not going to get into a tit-for-tat reaction to every north korean provocative act. they know what they need to do to uphold their international obligations. we are intent on ensuring this tough regime is fully implemented. and correct it sounds like you said that there is no legal authority -- >> it sounds like you said there is no legal authority in the resolution to force a vessel back to port in the event that it does not submit to inspection. >> that is correct, there is not an authorization to use military force. >> do you wish that you had it? >> i think it is fair to say that we want, and we got a substantially enhanced inspection regime. there has never been before a regime with such clear-cut obligations and responsibilities for member states. it is a binding obligation for

states to direct suspect vessels to port for mandatory inspection. obviously, as is the case in any instance, there are countries that gave something and got something. we feel we got a lot and we are pleased with this outcome >> when does it take effect? >> today. >> [inaudible] of all humanitarian aid? >> know, there's nothing in this resolution that cut off heat of humanitarian aid, or any humanitarian aid. -- that cuts off any humanitarian aid. >i'm not going to get into the negotiations up the table. we worked very closely with china, russia, japan, south

korea, britain and france, and ultimately others in the council to put forward an extremely robust prejean -- regime vote on the -- robust regime, both on the front end back end. we are pleased with the outcome. cannot think is fair to say what others gave up and what was the substance of the give and take. what is important is that from the u.s.ç -- from the united states point of view, we have gotten all the countries involved to speak unanimously in the council today in support of it and we are all committed to its effective implementation >> the north has already said that it would consider any future sanctions as an act of war. how you respond to that? but i think i just responded to that because we have -- >> i think i just responded to that

because we have said clearly that we will not respond directly to every provocative north korean statement or potential action. there is reason to believe that they may respond in an irresponsible fashion to this. we are not going to jump to their drummer. we're going to implement this sanctions regime to the fullest extent instead, along with others, and we expect that will have a very substantial impact on north korea's ability to finance these programs, to proliferate its wmd missile technology. we are confident that this will be a powerful impact as well as a powerful signal. >> ambassador rise, what will it take for a military option to be considered? as you have said, north korea has been very provocative. you have said in his press conference on a couple of occasions you are taking a very big bite. you know, something with teeth.

what would it take for the military option to be a consideration? >> i would not want to get into speculating about a hypothetical. the bottom line is that president obama and his administration will take whatever actions are necessary to protect the united states from this and any other threat to our national security. i will not go beyond that. >> last week in france, president obama said that it was clear that diplomacy was not working with north korea and he wanted to talk about the resolution that resulted today and he said we would take a hard look at north korea. does the passage of this resolution to fill out, or is that very hard look still under way and we shouldn't be expecting possible future action -- and we should be expecting possible future actions? >> our actions today is -- our

actions today are one element of dealing with the north koreans. we have other abilities to act in different realms -- economic, diplomatic, and the like. obviously, those options remain available to the u.s. >> are those being considered? >> i think our approach to north korea remains under active consideration. >> how concerned were you about whether or not north korea would take action against the two american journalists they are holding as punishment? >> we view the situation of the two american journalists as being separate and apart from the actions that we are discussing and that we took today in new york. obviously, there's is humanitarian. -- there's is a humanitarian matter and we think the one that

ought to be addressed in that context by north korea. we seek their immediate -- we seek their immediate release. >> ambassador, what makes the u.s. and the world think they can enforce sanctions against north korean vessels when they have difficulty with a rag tag group of pirates off the coast of somalia? >> these are very different cases. first, in the case of north korea, we are not talking about small boats armed with individuals trying to climb up the side of massive vessels. we're talking about ships capable of carrying significant cargo with the wmd or missile technology on them. that is a different endeavour. this regime, as i have

described, lays out a series of steps that ought to be followed -- that are to be followed by vessels, by member states, and the aim is to ensure that these vessels will end up ultimately, is not inspected, then in international waters -- ultimately, if not inspected in international waters, then in port where they can be seized responsibly. >> will there ever be north korean vessels in the u.s. ports? >> noty,k to my knowledge, but y could be in any number of states territorial waters. >> should iran take any lesson away from how the north korean situation is being handled here? and as a corollary to that, do you believe a diplomatic perspective makes any difference in these actions? >> in terms of the ron's

response to this century -- in terms of iran's response to this sanctions regime, i would assume they have been following this closely and when they see a country such as north korea acting in defiance of international law and their international obligations and illegally testing weapons launched missiles, the international committee has been very clear, very firm, and very meaningful and united. that is an important signal to any would-be proliferators. >> and the second question? >> on the second question, we will wait and see what transpires. it has been encouraging to see a relatively robust debate and quite high turnout. we will wait for the results. >> p'yongyang is a hard to penetrate regime.

how big are the concerns that these sanctions might push them over the edge to do something dramatically bad? what was the catalyst that caused you to take the action by you did, and what are you doing to try to prevent or monitor their actions from this point forward? what are your conversations with china about that? they're obviously concerned about destabilization. >> first, it would be unwise for the united states or other members of the security council to fail to take strong action in response to a very provocative and illegal action on the part of north korea. out of concern that they may take strong action. the point is that we needed to demonstrate, and today we have demonstrated, that provocative, reckless actions come at a cost