scholarship or your family -- whether it is the kids or your skull support your family, and i am at the age where you start thinking about your parents -- you can never be a good enough lawyer, a good enough lawyer, a good enough partner, a good enough friend simultaneously. so what is it that i am going to do today in a half-passed way? [laughter] if you can feel that you're at least doing it well all the time, it is very hard. .

>> she wrote a book called "in praise of imperfection." she described what she means by that title. she takes it from a poem by william butler yeats that says in light, one must choose perfection of work for life. she said that be she and her long life had come to agree with

the poet. but she said in her imperfect way, i have lived my life and arrived in estival -- inestimable joy from what i have done. i have strive for imperfection rather than perfection which is the way of human kind. >> thank you for coming. i am curious to hear your thoughts on why it increased the milpas a patient is a good thing. is it just a question of equality of opportunity or did you genuinely believe that more women participating in the creation and investment of law will have beneficial impact on society? >> i believe in the inherent

value of equal opportunity and equal precipitation. it is an inherent good. i cannot defend that other than my believing in it. i also find, and believe, that we bring to bear of the professions what we practice, women are watching us and we set an example and open opportunities for the generations that come after us for everybody to think they have the possibility to do whatever they choose. i think it is a good thing for people to feel like they have hidden -- they have an equal chance. >> to quote some of the words from jury cases, what difference does it make if you have a jury that is all male or all white as

opposed to a variety of races. a flipper gets lost and you cannot quite pinpoint what it is because you do not know where it comes from. that is true. did i argue one case differently than a differenct lawyer would have? it is not a different type of bankruptcy. i do not think it was that so much. over the course of dozens and dozens of cases, the fact that people are different from one another in a variety of ways will make a difference in the quality of the law. it is that flavor. it is not like chalk the chip ice cream where women are the

chip. it is more a blend of things. >> one more question. >> thank you for being here. i am curious about the contradiction between the nature of appellate work being well- suited for the traditional female and the fact that there are less applicants and the clinic. i am wondering if there is another aspect to appellate litigation that can explain it and that is there is no substantive expertise that you have to learn. there is, of course, i believe you have to be excellent but you have to have a skill and selling it and knowing a little bit about an area and pumping up so it seems like more. does that play into the dynamic?

>> when somebody asks me about a career and appellate law, i always say, in addition to this process, developed it substantive expertise of a particular sector because there is a great joy and expertise. i was a labor lawyer before the supreme court lawyer and i still love a labor law question. i can answer it without looking at anything. i know the answer. there is a joy and expertise that i think is extremely valuable and always worth doing in addition to your supreme court and most lawyers -- most supreme court lawyers will tell you that they have some sort of substantive expertise. i do not think i know very many supreme court lawyers who did not have underlying substantive expertise. >> the appellate advocate and

talking to a generalist -- in talking to a generalist, it is an enormous amount of this tiny corner of law. having gone through that learning process, maybe that person is better equipped to convey it to the court because the court is going to go through a similar learning process. if it is somebody that really knows the field, they may be too advanced for the bench. when i was growing up, i expected i would be a teacher. in my advocacy, i think that is mostly what i am doing, trying to impart what i know to people

who have not thought about those questions and to take people step by step to where i would like them to go. as i said, sometimes coming to it without knowing anything about the field can be helpful. >> i was making this exact argument the other day in a pitch for a case. i say my expertise is translation and how taking a complicated problem in a specialized area and translating it into the language of generalist judges and the legal concepts that they grapple with and how they are likely to approach the issue. this is what i think i meant -- i am a specialist in.

one of the reasons that i think gender differences is important because i cannot believe in reincarnation. i believe that we have one life and everybody should be able to take whatever it is they want to do and be able to do it. you should be able to do it regardless of your gender, ethnicity, religion, race, any of those things. that is the right way for the world to operate and if not, it does say enormous waste of human resources. i want my daughter to do whatever she wants to do as long as she can support may. [laughter] >> i hope you will all join me in thanking our wonderful

[applause] panel] -- [applause] >> thank you it for being here with us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] lough

what's all this week, we will have prime-time booktv coverage on c-span2. "game change" looks at the last presidential election. after that, a look at how caucasians are perceived worldwide and his book, "the history of white people." after that, one author talks about why she feels too much testing has destroyed the american school system. later, live coverage begins of the southern republican leadership conference. we will hear remarks from liz jenny, newt gingrich and j.c.

watts. it continues tomorrow and saturday. >> this weekend on c-span2 booktv, a correspondent on what happened to the sunnis after the fall of saddam hussein. sunday, the war on terror and india pakistan relations. but that book is "field notes on democracy." after that, a collection of particles called "endless war." find the entire schedule at booktv.org. >> this year's studentcam competition had students face -- take on an issue of

difficulties. " hundreds of elementary students file out of buses into classrooms. they're enthusiastic and excited and totally unaware that they inhabit the eye of the storm. adults are fighting over the funding of our public schools. education seems to be something nobody wants to pay for but everybody expects to be excellent. they recession reduced state aid and either increased property taxes or reduced spending put of budget cuts are nothing new. since 2001, the district has enforced significantly reduced services to the children. >> i believe over the course of 2000 until now, we have had a total of $16 million worth of reductions. it has hit all parts of our district. we have gotten rid of resource

teachers. they help the classroom teachers do a number of things. they help differentiate their teaching. >> the loss of resource teachers has impacted students who struggle and of those identified as gifted. >> president obama said that it was important to our economic future and country to provide a quality education for all students. i believe gifted kids are part of all students. currently, our country has been spending about 2 cents of every $100 from the education budget on gifted children. i have to believe that we can do more. >> the problem is not confined to the loss of resource teachers. the $16.50 million in cuts permeate the entire spectrum. >> we have eliminated a

librarian at the elementary level. we have want guidance counselor to serve 7000 students. -- we have one guidance counselor to serve 7000 students. >> school board members are expected to possess the wisdom of solomon but it is left to the classroom teachers to work with the consequences of those cuts. >> i am going to talk about my class. this year alone, two of our kids are going through a divorce right now. one of them had a brother who committed suicide. one of my boys is acting out because his dad is in iraq. but they have nobody to turn to. sometimes, the social worker will pitch in but our social worker and psychologist are only here rarely. >> we are split amongst two or three schools each.

the time that we have it any one school is not a big chunk of time. it is difficult to do a lot in that amount of time. they are left in class feeling frustrated or struggling and their teachers are having to deal with them and class and there are not paying attention. it is a struggle. >> you cannot always see. you can ask if you would like to go talk to so and so but they did not always happen. >> it is too soon to assess the impact of these cuts. educators agree that it's as the groundwork for learned to follow. what if students do not leave -- read on grade level by third grade, there is a 90% chance that they never will. >> if kids are not in a good place, they are really active loss for that academic progress because so much else depends

upon that process. >> president obama's raced to the top funds will award $4.30 billion to states across the country. >> we have a $7 billion that is now subsidized to banks. we need a much better use of taxpayer money to invest in children. >> could funds be used to restore guidance counselors, librarians, and resource teachers? it is not that simple. >> one thing the federal program to keep in mind, if you accept the money, you agree to a certain number of conditions. we need to study whether or not those moneys are worth the conditions that are attached to them. if i have to hire didn't administrator -- if i had to hire an administrator to make

sure we are meeting the reporting requirements, it might not have a payback there. we might be spending just as much money on the conditions as we are for the children. >> nonetheless, to become eligible for the funding, wisconsin passed a law allowing student test data to be used in edile awaiting teacher performance. >> it is going to become harder and harder to meet everybody's needs. test scores are always the thing that talks, how are we going to get these kids to the -- to talk through their test scores if we cannot meet their needs? it is like a domino effect. you take one link out of the chain, the chain falls apart. if you are taking your gifted

and talented person out, you are breaking the chain. if you take away the guidance counselor that will meet with that little girl whose brother committed suicide, you are breaking the chain. i want to hold the chain together. you just do it. if i do not do it, i do not know what will happen. >> what is happening here is not unique. the nation's 14,000 school districts are faced the challenge of increased expenses, declining revenues and higher expectations for student achievement. for generations, parents would say we did not have that when i was in school. now, it is the children who can turn to their parents and say we did not have that when i was in school. " the consumers are the children. not the politicians, not the labor using -- not the labor unions. if schools exist to make sure

that children learn as much as possible and as well as possible. >> we have 17 elementary schools and one librarian that service all of those buildings. >> the librarian, that was huge. when we had to those, i never felt so much like i was meeting kids the exception we had that trio of people in our building. it was fabulous. i really miss those. i miss the people. so do the kids. the library is closed. >> to see all the winning entries, visit studentcam.org. >> a look at how the tea party movement could be affecting popular opinion.

from this morning's "washington journal" this is 45 minutes. and follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. host: familiar face back with the "washington journal." we will start with the tea party and your april 2 column. among the things you write is democrats cannot capture the elections without capturing the moment of independent minded the swing voters. tell us more, please. guest: if you look at the numbers this morning, they're pretty overwhelming. at the end of the bush administration it was close to 80%. no it is close to 60% off track. we are at 4 in afghanistan and

iraq. the we have gone through a recession. -- we are at war in afghanistan and iraq. we've gone through a recession. but it is not just that. if you look at the numbers in terms of the people losing their discontent with congress, it is very high, both republicans and democrats. the percentage of people that say they do not want to see most members of congress reelected, the number of people that say the government has become too big and is a threat to my personal liberty, again, well over 50% of the country. all of those concerns are reflected in the tea party mantra. if you understand that, then they become mainstream concerns and to ignore that is to risk losing touch with the populist energy. that would be a threat to democrats because they just say that the tea party people are

just a bunch of kooks or they are racist or violent. the folks have to be concerned about their rhetoric feeding the kind of anger. but there is something much more about the two-party reflecting mainstream -- the tea party reflecting mainstream discontent in america. there are folks trying to figure out how to use two-party energy going toward the midterm elections this november -- tea party energy going toward the major elections this november. some were looking for sarah palin to be the leader because they don't currently have a leader right now. others were saying dick armey. but what we are seeing is it is really a grass-roots movement. and again, the concerns are across-the-board and across political as well as racial lines. when you ask americans about the

tea party itself, you find that it is about 25% who say that they disapprove, about 30% who say they approve, but most americans do not have an opinion or have not even heard about the tea party. that itself is not the issue. i think it is picking up on this anxiety about the direction of the country is going in with regard to the economy and politics. praise comes into it only in this regard -- race comes into it only in this regard, that when you look at health care, polling comes from older, white americans who are worried about their entitlements being cut, social security, medicare, taxes being raised. only 20% of white americans think that health care reform is going to help them or their families.

if you go to blacks and hispanics, it is almost the opposite. they see health care reform as fulfilling a necessary part of a whole that existed in the social safety net in the u.s. there is a big difference there. when you look at long-term unemployment, you realize that especially blue-collar white males have been hit hard. they, too, have a concern that the government is out of control, not responding to their needs, not talking about jobs. a lot of that anger gets picked up in the prison that is called the tea party. the tea party becomes like a tea pot that holds all of this anger that has been swirling around. it becomes the repository for all. and people who want to write it off as something less than serious risk losing touch with that energy, with that boiling energy that exist right now in the american body politic.

host: a number of polls have been cited that suggest the state of the public. last thursday there was one in of a " usa today." in this poll last week, which is a gallup poll, 65% think members of congress do not recall -- do not deserve reelection and those who support their own member is now below 50%. and 28% say they support the anti-government tea party movement. for the first time, both major parties are viewed unfavorably by most americans. the tea party has a favorable rating, almost as much as they do. guest: it is incredible because

there is a sense that, especially among tea party people, that there ought -- they are under assault. are under assault. the poll that >> this large percentage of americans that have not heard of it or do not have an opinion. i think the tea party should be held up -- should not be held up as the problem or issue. it is this anger among americans about the direction of politics. people are upset not only with health care reform but the deficit, the bailout, wall street is very unpopular, and i think that there is this a wider sense that somehow there is a disconnect between what is going on with american leaders and what is called on with the people. host: you also write where race comes into this is the majority of whites say they see health

care reform as helping the poor and a lot of racial minorities. only 20% of whites say the reform will help their families. the majority of blacks and hispanics see this bill helping their families. i want to overplay that with the "los angeles *" from this morning. it suggests that obama sets sites on which to fill agenda. it is a beginning plan to alter tax benefits. you suggest that race and economics makes and i would like you to comment on the specific policy that they are pursuing in many layers and what that means for party politics. >guest: you have to take a broader historical perspective. if you look at u.s. politics over the last 20 years, under

clinton, bush, and the second bush, what we have had is a series of serious tax cut bush, what we have had is a series of tax cuts for the rich. the idea being -- i guess it is a reagan idea -- that the rising tide will help out. you have to tax the levee in this country in order to generate that kind of growth. in the clinton years we had surpluses. but at the moment we are dealing with tremendous deficits. i think the president obama's position is, you know what, it is time now to do some preparing of things like the social safety net, health care reform, of infrastructure. we have got to do something in terms of the large deficit that has built up because of the wars in afghanistan and iraq, things like unfunded prescription drug benefit that was passed under

george w. bush. who is going to pay these taxes? president obama promised during his campaign that nobody who made less than to a hundred $50,000 would pay additional taxes. -- less than $250,000 would pay additional taxes. and he has kept that promise. but i think is political of buyers are saying, well, someone is going to have to pay taxes if we're going to have entitlements and those entitlements are going to have to remain solvent. we will also have to pay off some bills because the deficit is also a tremendous concern if we are talking about public anger. the most recent idea that has been floated is a value added tax european-style. critics say it is more socialist type thinking coming from the administration. but the economic people i've spoken with at the white house, they're thinking is to the

contrary. we are trying to balance of this tremendous benefit that has been given to the rich over last 20, 30 years in this country with no things -- with things that would now reinvest in america, american education and american workers to make sure that the country has what it needs to move forward. that is going to require that the rich pay a bigger toll. host: levittown, pa., catherine on the democrats line. caller: i want to know, the tea party people were the last eight years. in 2008 we lost 500,000 jobs each month and i did not see any of them protesting then. and i think we should give the

president a chance. guest: i think we definitely should give the president a chance. i think the difference here is that the tea party really has gained momentum around the health care debate. in all of the town hall meetings, the sense that the tea party people were born to have demonstrations in the street and come to washington, i think they have come to represent overwhelmingly a suburban white older concern about health care reform, and as a result of that, spending about taxes, about deficits. that has become the spark that has set the tea party on fire. at this moment, it has not been -- as you rightly point out -- it was not deficit spending previously over a prescription drug benefit or the costly wars, none of that.

they did not see the prescription drug benefit as a threat. they see health care reform as the potential for future cutbacks in medicare and medicaid spending. that is a direct threat to their pocketbooks. host: north carolina, nancy on the republican line. caller: mr. williams, i want to say, why you think the two-party is buoying the route that they are going -- a tea party is going the route they are going? it is because the government is saying we're going to do what we want to do no matter what you say. people have finally woken up. one thing after another they are taking over everything.

i watch the news, but i go other routes to get news. you can go to international news and get things you do not get here. host: nancy, let me ask you a question. are you actively involved in the tea party movement? caller: no, not really, but i agree with them. why are you putting people down in the t parties because we stand up for what we believe -- tea parties because we set up for what we believe? i watched on tv the thing with. and they tried to make him look like [unintelligible] host: nancy, i'm going to jump in. tired of the hypocrisy in the coverage. guest: i think she said she

feels like the government is taking over everything. if she is thinking about health care reform and taking over the health care system, to my mind, the plan is not a radical plan in any sense. it is a plan that people like tom daschle and others are looking for as a mainstream alternative. it certainly keeps in place the private insurance host: other people have -- the private insurance. host: other people have made that claim, that we made the wall street allowance. guest: you have to balance in your mind, do you believe we were headed toward a depression? are their financial industry -- entities in this country that -- are their financial entities in this country that are too big to fail?

clearly, our political leaders, both president bush and president obama, made a decision they had to engage in helping with the troubled assets and even going beyond that in looking for a stimulus for the american economy and doing things for companies like the auto companies. is that the government taking over things or the government acting as a sort of beneficial force for good? trying to moderate the excesses of capitalism that would have crashed this economy because there were people who abused mortgages and got into gains on wall street that ultimately turned out to be a house of cards. obviously, there were people in leadership that felt they had to intervene. but is that the government taking over? i do not think that is the case, but i understand her anger. i hear it all the time, the people think government has gotten so big that it is now a

threat to their personal liberty. host: customers, this is frederick on the democrats line. -- boughton ridge, louisiana, this is frederick on the democrats line. -- baton rouge. caller: everybody supports the troops, but there is anger a about the war. where were those people? mr. obama did not create all of these problems. he is just trying to take care of it. guest: i think there was lots of anger over the war. if you look at the polls on the war, the war is very unpopular,

especially the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. it was a big issue in the election of 2004 and led to the shift of democrats seeking control of the house and senate in 2006. and it was the heart and soul of the complaint that barack obama used in his campaign to say that is why he was running for president, that he wanted to stop the war and bring it to an end. there was lots of anger about the war ended was evident in the body politic. it did not emerge from the right. it certainly did not generate this tea party anger that we are seeing out that many people came specifically at obama. but i think putting a lens on it is dangerous for anyone interested in politics because it would allow you to marginalize the tea party rather than see you -- see them as reflecting the mainstream bankat

over the economy and the size of the government and like of leadership in the country. host: next call from louisiana. caller: i do not necessarily agree with what your best to say about the mainstream. in my opinion, it is really a moderate and they are not with the tea party. i see the mainstream as being shut their own. -- shut down. most people see that where the country is going erica sustained -- cannot sustain.

i am angry with them as i do not see the republicans doing anything but complaining -- because i do not see the republicans doing anything but complaining. guest: i think the people are concerned about politics and the direction of the country, concerned about their economic well-being. we have talked about the size of government, the intrusiveness of government. but when you look at that, that is just the american people 2010. the tea party, when you described it to my you said that they were extremists or violent. again, i think there may be people on the fringes of the tea party and some of the rhetoric clearly made verge over that and feed that angewr. there were those that

caricatured obama and there were those events during health care reform where the "n" word was used. that stuff is despicable and is to be condemned. you have to be careful about your rhetoric because they could easily be painted as extreme, but i think is dangerous not to exceed the angst that is represented in the mainstream american body. it is the people who are concerned about taxes or concern about policies with regard to health care or the bailout with wall street, that is what i think is the heart and soul of the tea party at this moment. host: a polling group called itself identified members of the tea party and they found 57% republican. not surprising, but 28%

independent and 13% self identified as democrats. guest: to me, what this indicates is there are a lot of people -- there were a large number of independents that you just cited. i wonder if a large number of republicans became that swing republicans became that swing that went -- they worry about the direction in general. i think those people are going to identify with that. it might be a larger number of people that will sell to identify as republicans who are really tea party members. even so, why you get is a large number of people who say i am searching. i am looking around. those are the people who determine outcomes of elections. it is not the people who are the hard right or hard left. i think the key party is picking

up on some of the pulse of that american middle and of their discontent. >> why you think the t party fails to attract more diversity? >> there have been poll numbers about this. they come back to say diversity is not representative of the diversity in the country as a whole. what i have seen on the streets is this white, older, suburban and rural group of people. if you went down to nevada overwhelmingly white, older, suburban crowd. even the people who were energized by the argument over health care life lady we just heard from who thinks the government is taking everything over, that group of people is becoming the face of the tea party. is that the extent?

my guess is no. -- the government is taking over everything. is that the extent of the two- party? i do not think that is the -- of the tea party? i do not think that is the exclusive realm or the extent of the tea party, and again, it could lead people to the conclusion to raise -- to dismiss them. host: next call from jason on our democrats line. caller: i read your book about -- very quickly, i do not want to get off the subject. it was about third marshall. it was just great. -- a thurgood marshall. it was just great. with respect to this

discontented the middle -- discontented middle, i know a guy that went to a rally in washington. he happened to be black. he liked it until he saw some of these signs and people carrying ak-47s. those are the extremists. i happen to think that the tea party is onto something. i'm just worried about the discontent or the increase anger spill in over -- or the anger spilling over. and then you have people like john barringer talking about armageddon. -- john boehner talking about armageddon. people need to ratchet down the rhetoric. guest: i could not agree with you more. and i wrote this in the peace, that the tea party has to be

very careful about spurring the rhetoric of the militia type mentality that could lead to violence in this country. i do not think it is a joke after the reform bill was passed we have seen death threats to people. in the last few days, senator patty murray of washington state, there was a death threat against her. nancy pelosi apparently received some sort -- some sort of threat. i think these things are very real. and i think that cements -- that is that this immense in the american mind that is what the tea party is about then it will go nowhere. people do not want to be associated with that militia type development. people do not want to be associated with a mockery of the president or anything that could be perceived as a racist attack

or things that are racist in their roots were in their thinking. -- or in their thinking. i do not think there's any question that there is a racial issue in thinking about how the benefits -- how the benefits affect the country. there is a lot to be said about white men, especially older white men feeling threatened. about one-third of the jobs lost in this recession have come from blue-collar white males. and they're worried about who in washington is representing them as opposed to wall street, or presenting those minorities because among minorities, they view health care reform as an essential part of protecting them and giving support to basic

needs. this is all part of this conversation. i think race is an element here that cannot be ignored. but is the tea party to be viewed as simply some sort of racist, violent group? but think we have to be very careful because people on both sides, republican and democrat, will not appreciate the power of the tea party at this moment. host: in the usa today, there is an article that the say it -- that says it is the third time in two weeks that someone has been arrested for threatening a member of congress. someone on tuesday was arrested for threatening voice mail at the office of patty murray from washington. we have about 10 minutes left in the in withjuan williams --

juan williams. next call from new york. caller: if you could address the previous callers comments about clarence thomas. i think you're missing a key point here concerning the populist anchor. -- anger. the federal government was never constituted to be the originator of consumer loans. it is not so much going to war -- know, people are angry about war, but that is the proper function of federal government, not been the guarantee of mortgages or banks or any other institution.

furthermore, the whole notion that i can be taxed, let me tell you [unintelligible] speaks clearly to the taxation clause and governmental power. these are things that say the commerce clause is limited in its scope. i do not want -- if i do not want to participate in commerce, i do not have to. that is between me and my state, not between me and the federal government. host: let's pick that up into various parts. first, and responding to the comments made about clarence thomas, let me tell you, one of the interesting things about having this computer on the desk and having the twitter of feed

opened, there is a secondary conversation going on. the rhetoric about race this morning is really amazing. once you start talking about the tea party, all of the accusations about who is a racist start flying back and forth. what you think the state of racial dialogue in america is right now? guest: when you are looking at race in america today, you have to look at the demographic shifts that are taking place and there are profound shifts. the country is in the midst transformation, and there are people who are uncomfortable. you hear things like "i want my country back." again, this is an older, white segment of the population. people who are going into 7/11 or to the store and remember, joe biden said he cannot find a dunkin donuts that is not owned by east indians, and that kind

of thing. what is going on in this country? the top tv or radio stations are sometimes spanish-speaking. you turn on cable and there are stations for people from nigeria or korea or japan and. i think, wait a minute, this is america. what about english speaking people? remember, there are going to be even more seniors coming -- i think 2011 is the first year that most of the baby boomers turn 65. at the other end of the demographic is a barbell. you have about one-quarter of the population under 18, and disproportionately young people -- just the other day it was reported dead soon it is willing to be the case that children of color will -- it was reported that soon it will be the case that children of color will be the majority of children born.

i think there are some real tensions there and they get played out in lots of different are rena's. -- arenas. health care is one where people might think it is a threat to their health care or social security. they're living on fixed income. young people are not even sure it will be a rare for them. you can interpret that as a racial argument, but it is also important to see it in terms of a generational tension. there are arguments, i think, that have to do -- and they surrender even president obama. how much should he do when it comes to -- and they surround even president obama. how much should he do when it comes to things like employment programs. he says he wants to help an entire economy and he is not going to get locked into helping

one group of people. of course, i think that when you look at where the real root of the anger that comes out sometimes, again, it is people who are economically distressed, so class issues. many people would say that there has never been a time that we have been more color blind in this society. there's more opportunity for people of color, for women. we are making tremendous progress, but i do not expect that we will ever get beyond it, but we will always have this extreme racial consciousness. and at the moment is being irritated, if you will, by the fact of recession and high rates of immigration and the fact that we have this weight of the older

population being overwhelmingly white and the younger population being more people of color. host: we are going to move on to another call. from rhode island, this is chris. caller: i have two points to make. african-americans are joining the opposition to obama's socialist, fascist agenda on abortion. obama does not represent the poor or minorities. what he really represents is the elite and corporations and banks. i have two points to make on health care and unemployment. this health care bill funds abortion. this -- abortion is an ethnic cleansing effort started by racists. most abortions are done by

african-americans when you only make up 12% of the population. this health care bill is unconstitutional. it violates the first amendment clause and free expression causes. on unemployment, you have people in rhode island and california who i've already reached the maximum weeks of unemployment benefits. 99 weeks is the maximum. obama is now pushing forward '85 program for long-term unemployment. he does not care about -- a tier 5 program for long-term of a security does not care about the poor. host: we are going to stop it right there. you are doing far and on policy and when it gets light that, you

do not have guest: to me, that is the french. -- that is the fringe. again, it is very scary and when you talk about the things like the threats and people cutting gas lines and during breaks through windows and engaging in such heated rhetoric, that stuff is very scary. is very scary. there is real populist anger -- good morning. i watched every sunday but the -- i watched every sunday. a lot of what you say is commentary. i kind of resent that you always refer to the two-ea

partyers as the old white people. i am 46. i went to one last summer and there must of been 5000 people there and they were people just like the ones you see on capitol hill, holding signs, singing god bless america. last week, people burning the flags, the leftists, the crazies, when somebody said something and it gets repeated, people believe it. tea party people are not racist. they voted out the republicans. what we have now is it is a tripling of what has been going on. that is why the tea party people are all upset. it is not anger. we are worried. we are wondering what is going to happen.

host: let me jump in and let you respond. . . anger. it is worry. host: let's begin and talk about -- let's break in and talk about this description. guest: i have seen in the marching on the hill and without a doubt, as a group, you could characterize them and say that characterize them and say that is an older, suburban group of people. and you were talking about the anger on the far left. i think the far left does things that are extreme as well, but you do not have to characterize them as all flights burners and heaters. -- flag burners and haters.

host: next up is jacksonville, fla., howard on the democrats line. we're almost out of time. caller: i will make this quick. i was raised in the cradle of the fellow that wrote the crowd -- the constitution and x. four under years down the road -- that is why -- 400 years down the road. that is why they made the constitution flexible. and they provided for elections. they knew things were in inconstancy of change. -- in a constant sea of change.

i didn't make it to washington and i did see a -- i did make it to washington and i did see a lot of ugly stuff going on up there. i did not see one of left winger -- i did not see one left winger there. and just like that fellow that calls confusing terms calling them communists, fascist, socialists. people don't even know the definition of the words anymore. host: howard, and roy to jump in because we are running out of time. guest: part of what he talked about is a point of fascination for me because the founding fathers, i think there genius was to create a system that was sufficiently flexible and allowed political debate so that things will shift and change

over time. we are a different people with different experiences. it is a different age and economy. we face different challenges. that is key. i think a lot of these people touring around words like fascist and socialist do not know the definition of the terms and they use it to try to caricature their opponents. i do not think that is fair. it undermines the ability to really join the debate, to have spirited, intelligent, discussion as we try to effectively move the country forward. when you lose that debate and the intelligent discourse, you do damage to the democracy. host: i'm about to show you one of these wonderful c-span moments. my job is to throw to an event next. let's show what it looks like. there's hardly anyone in place. that means we have time for another quick call. . .

fannie mae and freddie mac. we have a corn, wonderful groups like acorn, protesting in front of beckham -- in front of banks in 1993 to basically say, i am black, and that is why i am not getting a loan for my house. actually, you do not have any credit and you are a bad risk. things like that, it snowballs. we have the housing collapse in 2007. host: we understand your point. we have the event to get to. guest: he is saying acorn and

the likes, people were pressing for increased homeownership opportunity. the bush administration had an ownership society, trying to encourage people to become homeowners. when i look at what happened, i would not blame government for trying to make more loans available to people who were on the financial edge. i would say that i am outraged at rating agencies who would allow these loans to go through and say that the credit rating these people had was sufficient, or the banks who were anxious to get in on the sub-prime markets, i think they were violating basic rules in order to make loans, and then bumbling them and selling them to wall street. everything came tumbling down on our heads. i would be careful not to blame the poor. if you have the opportunity to get a house, you can understand

why you would want to do it. i think there would have to be obstacles in place, and they should be in place from people who are reaching your loans and credit, and people at the banks, and people involved in real estate transactions, who would say this is not feasible. they got greedy. they ignored the red light. i think there are lots of people to blame. you do not want to simply blame the poor. host: thank you. we will see you sunday on fox and regularly on national public radio. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you can connect with us on twitter, facebook, and you too, and sign up for our scheduled alert e-mails @ c-span.org. >> today in prague, president obama and russian president

dmitry medvedev signed a new strategic arms reduction treaty that would limit long-range nuclear weapons. the u.s. and russia signed the original treaty in 1991. the leaders take questions from reporters following the signing. this is 55 minutes. >> [speaking russian] >> ladies and gentleman, the president of the united states, barack obama, and dmitri medvedev, are signing a treaty on measures for the further reduction --

>> [speaking russian] >> the president of the united states of america, barack obama, and the president of the russian federation, dmitry medvedev, are signing the treaty between the united states of america and the russian federation on measures for the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[applause] [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone.

i am honored to be back in the czech republic with president medvedev and r chour czech host for this treaty. happy to be back in the beautiful city of prague. the czech republic is a close friend and ally of the united states. i have great admiration and affection for the czech people. their bond with the american people are deep and enduring. they have made great contributions to the united states over many decades, including in my hometown in chicago. i want to thank the president and all those involved in helping to host this extraordinary event. i want to thank my friend and partner dmitri medvedev. without his personal efforts and

strong leadership, we would not be here today. we have met and spoken by phone many times throughout the negotiations of this treaty and we have developed a very effective work relationship built on calendar, collaboration, and mutual respect. one year ago this week, i came here to prague and gave a speech here to prague and gave a speech and seeking the ultimate goal of a world without them. i said then, and i will repeat now, that this is a long-term goal, one that may not even be achieved in my lifetime. i believed then, as i do now, that the pursuit of that goal will move us further beyond the cold war, strengthen the global nonproliferation regime, and make the united states and the world safer and more secure.

one of the steps that i called for last year was the realization of this treaty. it is very gratifying to be back in prague today. i also came to office committed to reset in relations between the united states and russia. i know president medvedev shared that commitment. as he said in our first meeting, our relationship had started to drift, making it difficult to cooperate on issues of common interest to our people. when we cannot work together on big issues, it is not good for either of our nations, nor is it good for the world. together, we have stopped that drift and proven the benefits of cooperation. today is an important milestone for nonproliferation and for u.s.-russia relations. it fulfills our common objective to negotiate a new strategic arms reduction treaty.

it includes significant reduction in the nuclear weapons we will deploy. the cuts or delivery vehicles by roughly half. it includes a comprehensive verification regime, which allows us to further build trust. it enables both sides the ability to protect security, as well as -- as well as america's commitment to the security of our european allies. i look forward to working with the senate to achieve ratification for this important treaty later this year. finally, this they demonstrate the determination of the united states and russia, the nation's that hold over 90% of the world's nuclear-weapons, to pursue responsible global leadership. we are keeping our commitments under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which must be the foundation for global nonproliferation. while the new start treaty is an important first step forward, it is just one step on a longer journey.

as i said last year, this treaty will set the stage for further cuts. going forward, we hope to pursue discussions with russia on reducing our strategic and tactical weapons, including non- deployed weapons. president medvedev and i have agreed to expand our discussions on missile defense. this will include regular exchanges of information as well as the completion of a joint assessment of the merging missiles. as these assessments are completed, i look forward to engaging in a serious dialogue about cooperation on missile defense. but, nuclear-weapons are not simply an issue for the united states and russia. they threaten the common security of all nations. a nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist is a danger to people everywhere from moscow to new york, from the cities of europe to south asia. next week, 47 nations will come together in a washington to discuss concrete steps that can

be taken to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years. the spread of nuclear weapons to more states is also an unacceptable risk to global security, raising the specter of arms races from the middle east to east asia. this week, the u.s. formally changed our policy to make it clear that those nuclear weapons states that are in compliance with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and their nonproliferation obligations will not be threatened by america's nuclear arsenal. this demonstrates once more america's commitment as a cornerstone of our security strategy. those nations that follow the rules will find greater security and opportunity. those nations that refused to meet the obligations will be isolated and denied the opportunity that comes with international recognition.

that includes accountability for those who break the rules. otherwise, these are just words on a page. that is why the u.s. and russia are part of a coalition of nations insisting that the islamic republic of iran face consequences because they have continued -- continually failed to meet their obligations. we are working together at the united nations security council to pass sanctions on iran, and we will not tolerate actions that flout the agreement. they threaten the security of our international community. while these issues are a top priority, there are only one part of the u.s.-russia relationship. today, i again express my deepest condolences for the loss of russian life in recent terrorist attacks. we will remain steadfast partners in combating violent extremism. we discussed the potential to

expand our corporate regional cooperation on behalf of growth, trade, and investment. i look forward to discussing these issues further when president medvedev visit the united states later this year. there is much we can do on behalf of our security and prosperity if we will continue to work together. when one surveys the many challenges we face around the world, it is easy to grow complacent, or abandon the notion that progress can be shared. i want to repeat what i said last year in prague. when nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens. when we fail to preserve peace, it stays forever beyond our grasp. this majestic city of prague is in many ways a monument to human progress. this ceremony is a testament to the truth that old adversaries can forge new partnerships.

i could not help but be struck by the words of one who helped build the soviet union's first atom bomb. at the age of 92, they lived to see the horrors of a world war. he said, "we hope humanity will reach the moment when there is no need for nuclear weapons, when there is peace and calm in the world." it is easy to dismiss those voices. doing so risks repeating the words of the past while ignoring the history of human progress. the pursuit of peace and calm is the work of both leaders and peoples in the 21st century. we must be as persistent and passionate in our pursuit of progress as any who would stand in our way. once again, president medvedev, thank you for your extraordinary

leadership. [applause] [applause] ">> dear colleagues, dear members of the media, i fully agree with the assessment that has just been made by my colleague, president obama, concerning the fact that here in this room a truly historic event has taken place and the treaty has been signed for a further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms. this treaty has a 10-year duration. it will supersede the start treaty which has expired as well as another existing crushes-u.s. treaty on reduction of strategic

defense capabilities. first of all, i'd like to thank my colleague, president of united states of america, for successful cooperation in this very complex matter and for the reasonable compromises that have been achieved thanks to the work of our two teams. the aborted a bank to them, but let me do it once again in the presence of the media and the public. we thank them for their excellent work. i would also like to thank the leadership of the czech republic, mr. president, you, for this beautiful city and this beautiful springtime, thereby creating a good atmosphere for the future. and i believe that the this signature will open new cooperation among our countries and will create safer conditions for life here and throughout the

world. the negotiating process has not been --, but we have been working in a constructive way that has been a lot of work and very often are teams worked 24 hours a day. that enabled us to do something that just a couple of months ago looked like a mission impossible. within a short amount of time and be prepared a full-fledged treaty and signed it. as a result we have a document that maintains the balance of interest of russia and the united states of america. what matters most is that this is a win-win situation. no one stands to lose from this agreement. i believe that this is typical of our cooperation. both parties have taken into

account this victory of ours, the entire world community has one. this treaty has strategic ability and at the same time enables us to rise to a higher level of cooperation between russia and the united states. also, the contents of the treaty -- let me point out once again what we have achieved, because this is very important, 1550 developed weapons, which is one-third below the current level. 700 deployed icbm 's. and heavy bombers. this represents more than two fold reduction below the current levels. deployed and non deplore launchers for such missiles as well as deployed and non deployed heavy weapons, which presents a two-thirds reduction below the level that existed

prior to this treaty. at the same time can use its own discretion to determine the makeup and structure of its strategic defense potential. the treaty also includes provisions concerning -- change. we are quite experienced in these two matters. experts on these matters, they have the greatest experts in the world. the treaty also includes provisions concerning conversion and elimination, inspection provisions, as well as confidence-building measures. the verification mechanism has been significant and simplify compared with the original start treaty. it insures proper verification, irreversibility, and transparency to reduce strategic

offensive arms. we believe and our american partners are aware of it, this is our open position, we believe that the treaty can be viable and can operate only provided there is no qualitative orix quantitative increase in -- or quantitative increase in capabilities. this is the gist of the statement made by the russian confederation in the signature. in the post-senator period, we will achieve the ratification of the treaty, as mentioned by my colleague, mr. president of the united states. if it is also important to synchronize the ratification process. in terms of proceeding quickly to present this document to the senate for ratification.

we will also work with our federal assembly to maintain the necessary dynamics of the ratification process. by and large, we are satisfied with the work done. the result we have obtained is good. but today of course we have discussed not only the fact of signing the treaty. we have also discussed a whole range of important key issues of concern to all the countries. of course we cannot omit the iranian nuclear program. regrettably, iran is not responding to many constructive proposals that have been made. we cannot turn a blind eye to this. therefore, i do not rule out the possibility that the security council of united nations will have to review this issue again. our position is well-known. let me briefly outline it now. of course sanctions by themselves seldom obtained specific results.

although it is difficult to do without them in certain situations. those sanctions should be smart and name not only at nonproliferation but also to resolve other issues. rather [unintelligible] >> [speaking russian]

>> this contact should not only be between the presidents, which is important by itself, but presidents must address the issues to be worked out at executive level. >> [speaking russian]

[continuing to speak russian]

[applause] [applause] >> the chicago tribune, christie

parsons. [no audio] >> thank you very much. thank you for taking my question, mr. president. how will the two sides get around differences on missile defense to work out a fall on a treaty, since that seems to be the biggest problem, for their arsenal reductions? can you work out a cooperative agreement on missile defense? >> one of the things that we discussed when we first met in moscow was the relationship between offensive and defensive capabilities. and what i made clear was that

our missile defense systems were not directed at changing the strategic balance between the united states and russia, but instead were directed at protecting the american people from potentially new attacks from missiles launched from third countries. we recognize, however, that russia is a significant interest in this issue. and what we have committed to doing is engaging in a significant discussion, not only bilaterally, but also having discussions with our european allies and others about a framework in which we can potentially cooperate on issues of missile defense. in a way that protects u.s.

national security interests, preserves russian national security interests, and allows us to guard against a rogue missile from any source. i am actually optimistic, that having completed this treaty, which signals are strong commitment to a reduction in overall nuclear weapons and that i believe is going to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation treaty regime, that sends a signal around road that the united states and russia are prepared to once again take leadership in moving in the direction of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons as well as nuclear materials, that we will have build the kind of trust not only between president but also between governments and between peoples, that allows us to move

forward in a constructive way. . ,, we think missile defense can be an important component of that. we want to make clear that the approach we have taken is not supposed to change the strategic balance between the united states and russia. i'm confident that moving forward, it will be part of a broader set of discussions about, for example, how we can take tactical nuclear weapons out of theater, the possibilities of us making more significant cuts not only in the -- not only in deployed, but non-deployed, missiles. there's a range of issues i think we can make progress on.

i am confident this is an important first up in that direction. >> i would like to say a few words on the issue. doubtless, the relation between missile defense and start was one of the most difficult objects to discuss. at present, the language that has been in the treaty was signed. it's sad if -- it satisfies both parties. it will proceed on the basis that it will be a newly signed a treaty. it matters to us. we will watch how these processes develop.

it is a language that extends and replicates [inaudible] the interests remain close to the partners. the administration has made decisions and this has led to progress.

[translator and medvedev audio overlapping] i am an optimist as well as my american colleagues. >> i have two questions to reach of the president's. -- to each of the presidents. to agree on reduction of the offensive arms. but as you mentioned, russia and the united states are not the only countries who have nuclear weapons. how specifically can it be achieved similar to today's documentation on limitation of nuclear arms.

how soon will we see others sign the document and will you move with the russian federation? president of the russian federation, a dimension -- you mentioned not able to agree on anything else except reduction of mutual arms. will we see any counter -- anything that counter such a statement and what will be agreements be? >> first of all, as i mentioned in my opening remarks, the united states and russia account for 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. and given this legacy of the cold war, it is critical for us

to show significant leadership. that, i think, is what we have begun to do with this follow on start treaty. other countries will have to make a series of decisions about how they approach the issue of their nuclear weapons stockpiles. as i repeatedly said -- and i am sure dmitri feels the same way with respect to his country -- we are going to preserve our nuclear deterrent so long other countries have nuclear weapons. and we will make sure of the stockpile is safe and secure and defective. i do believe that as we look out into the 21st century, that more and more countries will come to recognize that the most important factors in providing security in and peace to their

citizens will depend on their economic growth, will depend on the capacity of the international community to resolve conflicts. it will depend on having a strong conventional military that will protect our nation's borders and that nuclear weapons increasingly in an interdependent world will make less and less cents a as the cornerstone of security policy. but that would take some time. i think each country will have to make its own determination. the key is for the united states and russia to show leadership on this friends because we are so far ahead of every nation with respect to possession of nuclear weapons. the primary concerns we identified in a recent nuclear posture review essentially a declaratory statement of u.s. policy with respect to nuclear weapons.

our biggest concerns right now are actually the issue of nuclear terrorism and proliferation. more countries obtaining nuclear weapons. those weapons being less controllable, less secure nuclear materials floating around the globe. and that is going to be a major topic of the discussion we have in washington on monday. the united states and russia have a history already come a decade-long history, of locking down loose nuclear materials. i believe that our ability to move forward already on sanctions with respect to north korea, intense discussions we are having with respect to iran, will increasingly send a signal to countries not abiding by their nuclear nonproliferation treaty obligations that they will be isolated.

all those things will go toward sending a general message that we need to move in a new direction. i think leadership on that front is important. the last point i would make is, i would anticipate or approach the question about other areas of cooperation. our respective foreign ministers -- secretary of state hillary clinton and foreign minister lavrov have been heading a bilateral commission that has been working intensively on a whole range of issues. president medvedev and myself identified a series of key areas on the economic front, a trade relations, essentials for joint cooperation on various industries, how we can work on innovation and sparking economic growth. we already worked it gathered -- together closely on the g-20. i think we can build on that bilaterally.

there are issues of counterterrorism that are absolutely critical to both of us and i just want to repeat how horrified all america was at the recent attacks in moscow. recent attacks in moscow. we recognize that á,@@@@ @ @ @ there is more interaction and exchange between our countries on a range of issues with in civil society. i am optimistic that we are going to continue to make progress on all of these fronts. i think we should take pride in this particular accomplishment because it speaks not only to the security of our nations, but the security of the world as a whole. >> [speaking russian]

[interpreter] yes, we have 90% of the stockpiles which is from the cold war legacy. we will do what we can to be taken in mind the special issue of the united states and russia on the issue. we do care about what is going on with nuclear arms and other countries of the world and we can't imagine a situation between the russian federation and the united states, taking efforts to disarm and the world will move toward a different -- printable different direction. we are in charge of our peoples and the -- so all the issues related to the implementation of the treaty and nonproliferation

and the threat of nuclear terrorism stood be in a complex and integrated way. i would like the signing not to be regarded by other countries as stepping aside from the issue. on the contrary, they should be involved to the fall and take an active participation in it. they should be aware of what is going on. so, we would welcome the initiative that has been proposed by the president of the united states to convene a relevant conference in washington and i will take part, which should be a good platform to discuss nonproliferation issues. as far as the linkages in nuclear arms that are concerned. in this world we have a lot that brings us together. and today we have had a very good talk that has started not

with a discussion of the documents -- they were coordinated -- and not without discussing iran, north korea, middle east, and not other press shrink -- pressing issues of foreign affairs but we started with economic issues. i said there is a gap in our economic cooperation. looking at the figures of you would've investment of the united states in russia. -- cumulative investment of the united states and russia. it is small and the figures have decreased a bit in terms of russian investment into the u.s. the line it is nearly the same. with all countries would not have such a volume of investment. but if we can compare the figures with figures of foreign investor presence in the american comment -- economy,

other countries, including states that can be compared with russia. it is a difference of 20 or 30 times. so we have a field to work upon. to say nothing about the projects we talked about, high- tech economy establishment and russian federation. we are open to cooperation and we would love to use american experience -- issues of energy, cooperation in transport, and i suggest that some time ago returning to issue of creating a big cargo plane as such a unique experience. only two -- u.s. and russia. issues of nuclear cooperation are important. there can be a lot of economic projects. it is not the business of

presidents to deal with each of them but some key issues are to become told -- controlled by us. relations between business, between those depend on business ties. people to people context are important. it is significant that we do our best so our citizens respect each other, understand each other better, so they are guided by best practices of american- russian culture and not perceived each other through the lens of information that sometimes is provided by mass media. so we should more attentively, more forcefully in -- have more

-- and i count on this. >> thank you, president medvedev and president obama. for president obama first. could you an elaborate on how the year-long negotiations over the new start treaty had advanced u.s. cooperation with russia on iran and give us a sense of when you will pursue or move forward in the united nations or next week with sanctions discussions and what those sanctions might look like? for president medvedev, could you address whether russia could accept sanctions against iran, specifically dealing with its energy industry and energy sector? thank you. >> discussions about sanctions on iran have been moving forward over the last several weeks.

in fact, they have been moving forward over the last several months. we are going to start seeing some ramp up negotiations taking place in new york in the coming weeks. and my expectation is that we are going to be able to secure strong, tough stank -- sanctions on iran this spring. now, i think there are two ways in which the start negotiations have advanced or at least influenced russia-u.s. discussions around iran. the first is obviously president medvedev and i have an able to build up a level of trust and our teams have been able to work together in such a way that we can be frank, we can be clear, and that helped to facilitate

than our ability, for example, to work together jointly to present to iran reasonable options that would allow it to to clearly distanced itself from nuclear-weapons and the pursue a path of peaceful nuclear energy. that wasn't just an approach that was taken by the united states and russia, but an approach taken by the p5 plus 1 and the international atomic energy agency. iata. -- iaea. what we have seen from the start is a host of country is -- countries, led by united states and russia, have centered around, we are willing to work

through diplomatic channels to resolve this issue. unfortunately iran consistently rebuffed our approach. i think russia has been a very strong partner in saying that it has no interest bringing down iranian society or the iranian government but it does have an interest, as we all do, making sure each country is following its international obligations. the second way in which i think the start treaty has and will start discussions around iran is it sent a strong signal that the united states and iran -- the united states and russia are following our obligations and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. and our interest in iran or north korea or any other

country following the mptnpt, is not signalling out one country but sends a strong signal that all of us have an obligation -- each country has an obligation to follow the rules of the road internationally to ensure a more secure future for our children and our grandchildren. so, i think the fact that we are signing this treaty, the fact that we are willing as the two leading nuclear powers to continuing the work of reducing our own arsenals indicates the fact we are willing to be bound by our obligations and we are not asking other countries to do anything different, but simply to follow the rules of the road that have been set forth and have helped to maintain at least a lack of the

use of nuclear weapons over the last several decades, despite obviously the cold war. and the concern i have particular, and the concern that i think is the most profound security threat to the united states, is that with the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, with the state's obtaining nuclear weapons and potentially using them to blackmail other countries or potentially not securing them effectively or passing them onto terrorist organizations, that we could find ourselves in a world in which not only state actors but also potentially non-state actors are in possession of nuclear weapons. and even if they don't use them, would then be in a position to

terrorize of the world community. that is why this issue is so important and that is why we will be pushing very hard to make sure that both smart and strong sanctions end up being in place soon to send a signal to iran and other countries that this is an issue that the international community takes seriously. >> [speaking in russian] >> [interpreter] let us ask ourselves the question. what do we need sanctions for? do we need them to enjoy the act of imposing reprisals or is the object of another one? i'm confident all those present here will say we need sanctions and ordered to prompt one or another individual or state to behave properly, behaved within

the framework of international law while complying with the obligations. therefore when we are speaking about sanctions, i cannot disagree with what has just been said. and this has been the position of the russian federation from the very outset. although they are not always successful, those sanctions should be smart sanctions capable of producing proper behavior on the part of the relevant sides. what sort of sanctions? today we had a very open-minded, frank, and straightforward manner discussing what can be done and what cannot be done. let me put it straight forward. i have outlined our limits for such sanctions, our understanding of these

sanctions, and i said in making decisions like that, i, as president of the russian federation, will proceed from two premises. first, we need to behave properly. secondly, but not least, is to maintain the national interest of our countries. so, smart sanctions should be able to motivate certain parties to behave properly. and i'm confident that our teams that will be >> [speaking russian] >> now, everyone is concerned whether the treaty will be ratified by the parliament. you mentioned you will be meeting with the parliamentarians. what difficulties do you see

along this road? how do you assess the chances for success? the question is addressed to both presidents. >> by all appearances, barack believes we might have more problems with ratification. perhaps that is true. but, let me say what i think about this question. of course, such agreements of major importance, international agreements, are subject to ratification by our parliaments. of course, for our part, we intend to proceed promptly and to do all the necessary procedures to ensure that our parliament start reviewing this treaty, discussing this treaty. i will proceed from the following. yet i believe that we have to ensure the organization of the

ratification process so that neither party feels compromised. we do not one state to ratify and the of the party to say, sorry, something has changed. we want to avoid that. we have to proceed simultaneously in the conditions of an open-minded and straightforward discussion. . parliaments. that is what we need. and we will not be found amiss in that regard. >> the united states senate has the obligation of reviewing any treaty and ultimately ratifying it. fortunately there is a strong history of bipartisanship when it comes to the evaluation of

international treaties, particularly arms control treaties. and so i have already engaged in consultations with the chairman consultations with the chairman of the relevant committees the united states senate. we are going to broaden that consultation now that this treaty has been signed. my understanding that both in russia and the united states, it will be posted on the internet, appropriate to a 21st century treaty. so people not only within government but also the general public will be able to rebuild it and open and transparent fashion what it is we agreed to -- review in an open and transparent fashion. they will discover this is a well crafted treaty that meet the interest of both countries. that meets the interests of the world. and the united states and russia, reducing its nuclear arsenals and setting the stage

for potentially further reductions in the future. so i'm actually quite confident that democrats and republicans in the united states senate, having reviewed this, will see that the united states has preserved its core national security interests, that it is maintaining a safe and secure and effect of nuclear deterrence, but that we are beginning to once again move forward, leaving the cold war behind, to address the new challenges in new ways. and i think the start treaty represents an important for step in that direction. and i feel confident that we are going to be able to get it ratified. all right, thank you very much, everybody. >> [interpreter] thank you, see you next time. [applause]

,, >> this week, we will have prime-time booktv coverage. the book "game change" which looks at the 2008 presidential election. after that, eight professor looks at how caucasians are perceived worldwide and her book "the history of white people." the former assistant secretary of education explains why she feels too much testing has destroyed the american school system. that begins at 7:00 eastern on c-span2. later, live coverage of the southern republican leadership conference. we will hear remarks from liz cheney newt gingrichnew, and jc

watts. it continues tomorrow and saturday. the u.s. is talking to both sides of the conflict and the central asian country of cared kickstand -- cared extend -- kygrstan. this is 40 minutes. >> could afternoon and welcome to the department of state. a few things to open up with. the signing of the new star treaty as a opening for non- proliferation and u.s.-russian relations. reduces drastically the number of nuclear weapons both sides may deploy. it can be effectively verified with lessons learned from 15

years of implementing the start treaty and that allows us to build the trust. it enables both sides the flexibility to protect their own securities and not think diminishes our ability -- our ability to defend the u.s. or our unwavering commitment to the treaty. it represents the determination of the u.s. to pursue responsible global leadership. we are keeping our commitments under the non poor philippe -- non proliferation treaty and disarmament. secretary clinton is on her way back as we speak and has landed at shannon airport to refuel. she will be back here later on this evening. speaking of travel, the deputy secretary for management and resources will soon travel later

this reek -- later this week to pakistan and afghanistan on separate but coordinated trips. this will ensure the prosperity of both afghanistan and pakistan as one of the u.s.'s highest priorities. the secretary and president obama both said albert diplomatic efforts reflect a full government approach. they will assess staffing and budget resources and efforts to promote governance and economic reform. in pakistan, table build on the positive momentum generated from the u.s.-pakistan strategic discussions and in afghanistan, they will meet with members of the afghanistan government and key partners to continue our on going engagement on a range of priority issues on which we

collaborate and cooperate. the deputy secretary is in serbia today for meetings with the president and representatives of serbia pfft and he is following up on vice- president biden's trip last may. it is progress towards european practical cooperation. the assistant secretary is in colombia where he visited the usaid center for displaced persons. before leaving bogota yesterday, he had a meeting with the colombian president. regarding the middle east, we are stirred by comments of palestinian officials about

reconstruction and refurbishing of jewish settlements in jerusalem. remarks by the palestinian ministry of information denying jewish heritage and links to jerusalem undermine the trust and confidence needed for some stance of -- for a substantial progress. we condemn the glorification of terrorists who have murdered innocent civilians other by official statements are the dedication of public places. we will continue to hold palestinian leaders accountable for incitement. we have some visitors from russia for mass communication efforts. we have had them the sitting at the state department's underid 8 department's partnership

program. -- usaid partnership program. we express our condolences to the russian government and to the russian people for a tremendous loss of a figure who worked for decades to help stabilize u.s.-russian relations. finally, you are aware of richard holbrooke having a medical procedure in new york today. the angiogram showed the best possible results of no significant obstruction. he has been in touch with secretary clinton and has been cleared to travel with general petraeus to afghanistan tomorrow night. regarding kyrgyzstan, we

continue to closely monitor event on the ground. today, the assistant secretary met with kyrgyzstan's foreign minister. the purpose was to inform him that we would not be having a scheduled dialogue as was originally planned. officials at the embassy in kyrgyzstan with officials. our message in both cases was that we hope that column will be restored in a manner consistent with democratic principles -- that calm will be restored in a manner consistent with democratic principles and order will be established in accordance with the rule of law. we continue to reach out to government officials and opposition leaders in every way

that we possibly can. we have no information regarding any specific threats to americans who are there. the safety and security of our personnel is of paramount importance and we will continue to monitor the situation. this evening, there are some crowds that are assembling on the streets. we have ongoing concerns about luting even though the situation on the ground was relatively peaceful -- about lottoiningotin though the situation on the ground was relatively peaceful. the embassy was closed but special appointments can be arranged. operations are ongoing at the airfield. >> what can you tell us, was there any substance in the conversation you had with the

foreign minister and the opposition leader in kyrgyzstan? did they talk about what kind of solution the u.s. could recognize or what type of solution would not result in you finding this a coup d'etat? >> i do not think it was it substantive conversation. >> do you have any concerns about what i just ask about or you think everything will be fine. >> run it by me again. >> what are your thoughts on how you are going to deal with the situation. there are statutory requirements that you are obligated to uphold although the argument did not go exactly as planned. >> let's start with this point. the situation is ongoing.

we will be governed by the facts and operate in accordance with u.s. law. one of the important factors is the question of a military cuoo. there is no indication that the military or security service has played any role in what has happened in k. kyrgyzstan. our interest is in seeing a peaceful resolution and we will worked with the government ministries and kyrgyzstan officials to see the restoration of democratic rule as quickly as possible. we want to help kyrgyzstan continue on a path toward democracy.

>> does that mean if any group of people gets big enough and storms government buildings and declares they are in control and will form a new government, as long as they did not have anything to do with the military, that is ok with you? >> we have concern about the situation on the ground. we deplore any violence. but we have concerns about ongoing looting and disorder. we stand with the people of kyrgyzstan. we understand there were specific grievances that resulted in the demonstrations that have produced an opposition that now says it has effective control of the government. we recognize states and will deal with governance -- governments.

we will continue to work to help kyrgyzstan and the people of kyrgyzstan have a government that they can support and functions in accordance with democratic principles. >> are you operating with the idea that the president is still in charge? >> we are in touch with government ministries and are in touch with opposition figures. >> on that, do you believe that kyrgyzstan was on a path to democracy before this whole incident? if you had a restoration of the status quo, would that be a return to democracy? >> we have expressed our concerns kyrgyzstan concerns -- we have expressed our concerns about kyrgyzstan and corruption in that government. we want to see them develop a path to democracy. >> was it on that path before

last week? >> there was an election in kyrgyzstan not so long ago. we stated our concerns at the time about the manner in which that election was conducted. at the same time, the recognize there is a government in kyrgyzstan and we have been dealing with that government. we are closely monitoring the situation. we are talking to all of the figures involved in this situation and we will continue to encourage them to resolve this in a peaceful way. >> we have not been in touch with the president. >> he is supposedly in the southern part of the country. he is rallying support for himself. >> it is not for us to advise him to do anything.

we advise government officials to resolve this peacefully and with the interest of the people of kyrgyzstan at heart. >> you said that the foreign minister and the son of the president was going to make. >> i said the for mr. and the son -- i said that the foreign minister and the son were on their way. >> can you verify they are on the right? >> we have not had any contact. >> can you fill me in on what was said in that meeting? did to send any messages for him to send back? >> no. we talked about our goals being peaceful resolution of this, respect for democratic principles and respect for human rights of those who are demonstrating.

beyond that, we did not send a message to the president. >> do you still recognize him as the foreign minister? >> there are, as you have just said, there is a president who has not yielded power. if there is an interim leadership that claims -- there is an interim leadership that claims to be in charge of the government. we are talking to both. it is not for us to take sides either way. our concern is for the people of the kyrgyzstan and a peaceful resolution of the situation. we met with the foreign minister -- i'm meeting with the foreign minister has been postponed. -- 8 meeting with the foreign minister has been propostponed. we know that the foreign

minister that served at the un during the 1990's so she is a figure known to us but how this is resolved, it should be resolved with the interest of the kyrgyzstan people the in mind. we will continue to work with all sides. >> is it just the fact that the military was involved that makes this was unacceptable? >> we prefer to see changes in government through democratic and constitutional means. that is clearly our preference.

that happens in many places of the world. unfortunately, it does not happen in all places. the facts in that case are well known. the military charged into the presidential mansion, took the president out of the country against his will and put into place a defect go -- da de facto regime. in the case of honduras, we also have the ability to work effectively within the organization of american states, an organization that was founded on democratic principles and and cysts in its charter that those countries that are -- and insists in its charter that

those countries must follow those principles. >> do you know were the president is? >> we have seen the same reports as you have. he is still in the country and moved into a part that he is from but beyond that, we have not had any contact. >> have there been any phone calls to putin? >> she has been with her foreign counterparts. it would not surprise me if this was part of the conversation but i have not had a readout of her contacts. >> you said earlier it is not your place to take sides but you are clearly on the side of the democratically elected governments. are you suggesting this was not

a democratically government and you are willing to let it be toppled. >> it is not for us -- this is a sovereign country and we respect that. we do recognize that the various ministries and security services have pledged their allegiance to the opposition group that has emerged. it is not for us to take sides. we are watching closely what is happening. we will continue to encourage everybody to follow the interests of the kyrgyzstan people. >> the impression you leave it is entirely the opposite. by not taking sides you are taking sides. you are saying you can accept this. >> we will continue to deal with the government of kyrgyzstan and

we are following closely what is happening. we understand what is happening. we will watch and see how events unfold. >> with reference to honduras, you have a multi-nation organization that can deal here and an illustrious ambassador. i am sure he is thrilled that his first couple of weeks or so exciting. what would you like them to do? >> let me reiterate, the situation is fluid. there are competing claims as to who is in power and we will watch as carefully as it continues to unfold. we will note that the un is spending -- sending a special

envoy. the new ambassador is on the case in providing information to us. we will watch this carefully and continued to remain in contact with the government ministries and various figures in kyrgyzstan and see how events unfold. >> there are reports that there is a high probability that the base is going to be shortened. could you react to the possibility of that? >> i think we are getting way ahead of ourselves. we have an existing agreement with kyrgyzstan the government with. -- with the government of kyrgyzstan.

it contributes significantly to stability in the region. it continues to operate and we have seen reduced operations there in the last day. we will continue operations of their and we will continue to discuss this government ministries. >> are you saying that if you lose the base, it will not have a significant -- >> you are leaping ahead. >> if it has not had a significant effect yet, would this have any sort of impact? >> you are leaping to a conclusion that i do not think we are prepared to drop. -- to draw. >> have you moved any americans to the base for safety?

>> that is an option. i cannot tell you if we have gone through that process. we are monitoring the security situation closely. we remain concerned about the welfare of american citizens in kyrgyzstan. we are taking the appropriate security cautions to protect our families and diplomats that are there. we have the option of moving personnel if we think that is necessary. we have a dog with that option. i cannot say if we have done that. we also have other facilities if needed. at the same time, the situation

was calm during the day. we are not aware of any specific threats to americans in kyrgyzstan but we will continue to consider it. >> where is he now and how do you plan to address this with him and can he be expelled from the country? >> let me go back. you are aware of the basic circumstances. there was an incident on board the airplane last night and we are grateful to the action by the crew and the federal air marshals on board. when it landed, authorities questioned all passengers to determine what happened,

including the qatari diplomat. he was brought to a hotel in denver where we were able to determine what had happened. once we determined there was not an ongoing threat, this morning, he was linked up with a team from the qatari embassy that traveled to denver. my understanding is that he is on his way back to washington as we speak. we have been in touch with the qatari ambassador a number of times over the past few hours. the ambassador in doha has had conversations with senior leaders in tehe qatari government and we expect this to be resolved very rapidly. >> what does that mean?

it does not look like any charges will be filed. you have the option to declare him persona non grata or say no harm, no foul. qatari government could withdraw him. >> we have options. we expect it to be resolved quickly. >> would you say you were examining your options? >> i will just repeat what i just said. >> this is a felony. any other person got to do when this -- >> you are right. this is a very serious issue. any of us who travel on air lines were reminded of that every time we take off. we have, in our communications with their embassy, fully

understood the seriousness of the charges. we are satisfied with the seriousness by which they take what has occurred that is why we have confidence that this will be resolved. >> some say that a deal has been made. they will send him back home and we will filed no charges. is that correct? >> this is a qatari diplomat. he has diplomatic privileges. just as our diplomats do in posts around the world -- hang on a second. he has diplomatic immunity. we have been proceeding in accord with diplomatic practices that have legal force. we have every confidence that this will be resolved quickly.

>> making a joke about letting a shoe bomb? >> i believe that to law enforcement. we received full cooperation from him. i will leave it to others to describe what happened on the airplane. >> is it your understanding that charges will or will not be filed? >> that is for domestic law enforcement to determine. i am not aware that any charges are being filed. >> you said you expect this to be resolved rapidly. do you mean you expected to be resolved without the u.s. having to take any formal punitive steps? >> given that the diplomat is in the air right now, we understand that we have options. the qataris have options and we

fully expect that this will be resolved. >> what time does that flight doesdulles? -- what time does that flight leave dulles? did you expect this to be resolved today? >> i do not know when the flight leaves. >> there is a direct flight to doha.' >> i expect it to be resolved quickly. today or tomorrow. >> why can do not expect -- why can you not answer a few expected to be without or with the government taking any formal steps. >> i understand the question. i understand that we have options available to us and the qatari government has options. >> do you expect to use any of

the options you have available? >> i expect it to be resolved very quickly. >> do you have an expectation that this will be resolved? >> based on your understanding, do you understand that this will be resolved quickly? >> yes. is there any consideration and asking them to reimburse the government for the thousands of dollars of scrambling jets and the law-enforcement required? >> not to my knowledge. >> was there a previous incident involving this diplomat? there was a stunt by a guy who knew better and it cost thousands of dollars of taxpayer

money. why not? >> we took the actions we took in responset to the security of that particular airplane. i would not expect that we would seek compensation. >> yemen. a couple days ago, there were reports that the president authorized the assassination of u.s. citizens. what is the state department's position on that? >> without going into particulars, we are in active

consulate with a global terrorist network, al qaeda, and those who are actively engaged and a part of that network put themselves at risk. does the state department support the assassination of u.s. citizens? >> it a u.s. citizen is part of a global terrorist network, due date forfeit their right to be an american citizen? >> that is a good question. [inaudible] >> i do not know the schedule of general petraeus.

general petraeus and ambassador holbrooke travel to the region periodically. richard holbrooke is the chief overseer of the civilian component of the president's strategy for afghanistan and pakistan and he will be going to converse with senior officials in both countries. as to particular meetings, i cannot project. [inaudible] do you have any comments? >> no. >> an online magazine is a warning that the north african al qaeda it is threatening to

attack the world cup games in africa this summer. are you aware of these threats and is anything being done to protect u.s. interests? >> for any major sporting event, the world cup, the olympics, the super bowl, we are aware and other countries are aware of the ongoing threat to those games. collectively, we are taking appropriate precautions. >> we are leaving the last few minutes of the briefing to go live to the southern republican leadership conference. we have liz cheney, newt gingrich and others. right now, the louisiana republican party chairman is speaking. in a few minutes, remarks by mary matalin >> new orleans, did not forget those saints.

we have much more to offer in terms of culture and cuisine and common sense. thank you for attending and it is wonderful to see you here tonight in such a vibrant city and at such an exciting time. i have the privilege of chairing our louisiana republican party and with that privilege comes the honor of introducing our first speaker. she is saying louisiana resident and a political consultant. she has clientele that stretches from president's down. she has been active in politics since college and she started at the grassroots level and worked her way up. she has been at senior positions in the george h. w. bush campaign in 1998 and eventually was appointed to chief of staff of the rnc. she was a host for cnn and ran her own talk show.

she reinforced her position as an important voice on the right. without further ado, it is my pleasure and honor to introduce one of my great friends, our very own mary matalin. [applause] >> who dat? who dat? roger, who knows all things, did not say the secret code word. if you want to stay here tonight, you have to say laissez le les bon temps roulez. i am so happy to see you all.

we are trying to decide our conventions coming down the road. this place is really like the entire south. i am now an official steel magnolia. there is a yankee version of that. it rhymes with rich. the southern persian is more graceful and prettier. i feel like an adopted sister of the south. the many wonderful things of the south are on display here tonight. the richness and the heritage and the culture and the art and the music and the food is so much of what you will enjoy it. the grace and the character. the south is a place of character. so much so that i did not have

to explain my husband any more. [laughter] he just bonds right in. just because my kids still fill the need -- feel the need to make some explanation for their daddy. if you were here for our football season, every single day for about three weeks, james would chop off the kids at school, rolled down the windows and yell who dat. after three weeks, the 11-year- old could not take it anymore and said who dat always paris in may? you, -- always embarrassing me? liz cheney, known lovingly as

daughter of darth. i want to take a quick moment to reflect on something that roger has done adnd it speaks to our recent past as an operation -- as inspiration for our future. our optimism is based on knowing what our history is and knowing our recent past. what roger did is the most recent version of what happened in the last two decades across the south. when i first started working, there were not very many

republicans in the south. remember that? there was clarke reed and a handful of bourbon-drinking freedom fighters. we should all raise a glass to him. when he was at the republican national committee, he knew that his home in the south was in reagan paused heart. -- reagan's heart. there had been a handful of switchers prior to the first but the one that i remember so well was the one from louisiana. it was a very brave thing for body to do at the time.

-- for buddy to do at the time. when he took that plunge it started a trickle which became a deluge. it became a sea of red. [applause] we went from that trickle to what is the anchor of the republican party, to which some of our friends on the other side often speak to this or imply that having an anchor in the south is somehow a negative or an albatross. it is anything but that. what they do not get and what they will come to learn in a few weeks or months is the southern

thing is the american thing. [applause] i never have been visited here since i have lived here or any time that i worked here, i never thought twice about duty, honor, country, faith, family. there was no question about american exception alyssum. there was no debate on the constitution and how we got here. there was no call for fundamental transformations. there is a call anchored in the south that is about to explode all over the country of renewal, of revival, of to win back to where we came.

we know what the road map is. we have it. [applause] we are the anchor, the springboard. i will now introduce my hero and heroine. you know her resume. she is an attorney, an expert on middle east policy, she is also an expert on eastern european democracies and the former soviet union. she knows how to spread democracy. she is responsible for a cornerstone of spreading democracy which is growing human rights. because of liz cheney, there are women who are running and voting and being elected in parts of the world where most of the

women are veiled. that is our future. our future security is human rights and democracy spreading and she has been a key helper and that -- in that. you have seen her on tv. she is a must see tv. do you not just love it? [applause] >> she never raises her voice. she just sits and everybody starts quivering. you know how wonderful and particulate she says. you know how deep in her principles she is. i asked her sister for some family stories. she said let's tell some car stories like when she parked dad's prized sports car under a

truck. i remember the story about ramming into our husband's car not once but twice in 4 seconds. how about cooking? we cannot talk about that. during the transition from hell, dick cheney does the cooking in at family. he was busy with the transition which was being run out of this house. liz volunteered to do the thanksgiving dinner. everybody gasped. the vice president was so busy, he said he would give her

explicit instructions. please take the turkey out of the plastic wrap was the first instruction. they ended up catering that year. [laughter] she has five kids. she would have a kid, a week later be on the campaign writing policy. i have to and she has five -- i have two and she has five so if she gives me one, we will both have three. she can do anything with her kids. we had a shower and registered for a wipe warmer.

liz said any wipe in this house that is war was used on another kid. she is a patriot, practical, my hero, liz cheney. [applause] >> thank you. i just have a couple words for mary matalin. payback is hell. i want to thank you it all for

that warm, southern welcome. it is a real thrill for me to be here with so many friends and so many republicans who are going to work so hard to fight to prepare the way for the tremendous conservative victory coming this november. [applause] it is a special honor for me to be able to be introduced by mary matalin. she is a local girl. we have mr. very much since she moved from washington down to new orleans. we have especially missed her in the cheney family because we considered her to be the third sister. we all think occurred that way. every time i say mary matalin is my sister, i have to immediately remind my dad of something, that does not mean that he has to think of james carville as his

son-in-law. i am sure that he would be willing to do that because he loves marry as much as the rest of us do. she is one of the great ones. the first time that i really worked with her was during the 2000 campaign and i will never forget on election night in 2000 , watching as the networks called florida for al gore. mary matalin was the very first person i saw on television saying this is not right. it was about three weeks later, we were still in the transition period, my dad was looking for a communications director. he said why don't you call mary matalin and see if he is interested? he said make the call. i got her out of the beauty

salon. she agreed to come on board and the rest is history. mary matalin is the kind of person that i want my daughters to grow up to be. she is strong, tough, kind, caring, compassionate, and she loves her family and her country and her community. she fights very hard for the causes she knows are right. all of that is wrapped up in a fabulous republican package. you may have been watching last year as my dad has made a bit of news himself. [applause] we did not expect that would happen when he left office.

as he watched president obama reveal classified information about our interrogation techniques to the enemy -- to the enemy, reversed critically important national security policies and threatened to prosecute the cia officers and lawyers who kept a safe after 9/11, he cannot sit silently by. [applause] the media has played this up as a confrontation between dick cheney and barack obama. i prefer to think of it as a constructive dialogue between a two-term vice president and a one-term president. [applause] my dad asked me to say hello to everybody here tonight. he and my mother are both working on books.

his memoirs, the story of his 50 years in washington [no audio] >> you have been watching they conference from new orleans. we are having a technical problem. we are going to try to fix it and bring it back to you in a moment. [technical difficulties]

>> we are having technical problems with our live program. we are going to move on to programming from today. the financial crisis and corey commission is looking into the 2008 financial crisis. they heard from former citigroup board members today. >> i did not know that you can that thattwo ways. you were either pulling the levers or asleep at the switch. as we try to recover from this calamity, i am not so sure apologies are important as assessment of responsibility. that is the way in which we begin to move forward. as assessment of responsibility. because that's the way in which you move forward. in fact, instead of asking what did you do, what didn't you know and why didn't you know it? >> i think the board of which i was a part and me the other activities that i was involved in had a very serious commitment

to oversight and to assuring as best we could the institution conducted its business appropriately. but, mr. chairman, a board cannot know what was going on in the positions of an constitution, of a trading institution. there probably were some number. i would guess it was $1 trillion plus of transactions that went through citi every day , what you can do, and what in my judgment citi did as being a member of the board, is making sure you have the proper people in place, trading, risk management, checks and balances functions which included our internal auditor, legal council, cfo and the rest. and you can be sure that you have robust processes at board level. which i don't think is any question that we had. as i think i mentioned earlier, reports to the board at every

meeting about the risk and the institutions, and you were depending on those processes, on having the right people in those jobs, which i think we did, and depends on the processes be robust and active. >> aisle going to make the -- i'm going to make one more comment. you were a garden variety board member. you can characterize, i think to most people chairman executive of the board of directors implied leadership. certainly $15 million a year guaranteed assumes responsibility. i just think -- excuse me mr. prince, when he resigned said it was the honorable thing to do. i just my point i think that leadership and responsibility matters. >> i agree with that. if i may say so, mr. chairman, the executive committee is misconstrued in that continue. there was a formal