running for reelection. up next, those who want to replace them are facing off in a debate. then there is a debate between the two republican candidates of california. then, remarks from mahmoud ahmadinejad at the united nations in new york. we go live to the kentucky senate debate, courtesy of kentucky educational television. this is live coverage from lexington on c-span. >> i am bill goodman. we will talk with the u.s. senate democratic candidates. we have james buckmaster, jack conway, daniel mongiardo, darlene price, maurice sweeney. thank you for joining us. welcome once again to our kentucky today program. let me begin by asking you to give us a brief biographical

sketch of who you are and what you do. how does what you do contribute to why you are running for the u.s. senate democratic nominee spot? >> i am a family doctor. i run a clinic for the uninsured. i have eight children. i have been watching them grow up and wondering what their future is like. .

>> for all the candidates in this race, i the only one that was born into a working-class family. i grew up in a small apartment over a laundromat. my father dropped out of high school. i learned the daughter of hard work and faith in god at a young age. it was because of the sacrifices of my family that i was able to graduate from high school. i made it through college and medical school working summers busing tables throughout the year. i am here because washington is

broken. it works great for wall street and the corporations. it has become about the case of money. until we change that culture, we are in trouble. i am running to change the culture in washington. >> i had a different career than most politicians. i am proud to say i am not a professional politician. i think washington is full of professional politicians. i began my career by serving my country in the military and became a special agent on the front line on the war on drugs. i ran counter smuggling operations against some of the most dangerous cartels known to mankind. along the way, i found that i had exposed major corruption in my agency when my managers allowed what would have been the largest seizure on record for any agency, 40 tons of narcotics, and that turned into a 10 year battle against a government corruption.

from there, i came to the conclusions that our elected officials are not voting in the interests of we the people. they are voting the interests of who is funding their campaigns. i decided to run a different kind of race. i have vowed that i will not take a dime of corporation money or bank money into my campaign. that can be verified. i am not anti corporation. corporations and banks should not own our government. that is what is broken and that is what i aim to fix. you cannot be drinking from the corporate kool-aid and asked everybody else to turn in their cup. >> i am maurice sweeney. i was raised on it every form in eastern jefferson county. i came from five generations of farmers and community leaders. my father was born and was a teacher, principal, pullman

porter, and went to medical school to become a dentist. my mother is 91-years old and from this county. she raised me. my father died when i was 6. she put four of us through college. i did two different stints in state government. i worked seven years for the the -- for the lieutenant governor and governor. i went back for another stint and now i'm a small business owner. >> let me ask you to tell you what separates you from the rest of the candidates. what distinguishes you and why should democrats vote for you? >> i believe that you should not be a doctor or a lawyer or a baseball player to serve but you

should have a record of service. i served on 35 boards and commissions in this community and across the state. we ask people to serve every day. i like to think i represent those who volunteer and those people who have their year to the ground. there is a big difference between opportunist and a leader. an opportunist will tell you what you want to hear, a leader will tell you what you need to hear. if we have had too many opportunists. it makes you wonder whether it was about us and our sacred trust or was it about themselves and their own self enhancement and quest for something else. i am running because i believe that we have to empower other people to try and do what we are to win and that is to run for public office, to make a difference, and say no to career politicians. >> we are in three wars right now. to in the middle east and the

one on drugs. i have counter-terrorism and counter narcotics experience. this is not a state position. this is a federal government position. as a national security whistleblower and a federal agent, i have worked with every agency within the federal government and i am the only candidate that can say that. i put my life on the line for the country as a special agent doing some very dangerous narcotics work and undercover work and when i blew the whistle, i did not just write a memo. i did live testimony to the u.s. senate and congress. the cartels would love to have my head on a stick for exposing their huge pipeline of narcotics. i put my life on the line for the country and i am the only candidates that hinted that. also come from a family of veterans. our veterans need a voice on

capitol hill. i have for generations of veterans in my family and my son just joined. we need a voice for women. we have no women senators or congress people. our state is in the bottom 5% for just about everything on women's issues. we need some of my experience at the federal level and we definitely need somebody who has proven to be a real watchdog. why should democrats vote for you in may? >> i have a 25 year history of being on the front lines of health care. i have been chief of surgery, vice chief of staff, chief of staff, i have changed the culture to improve quality of health care. i have also been a three term state senator. i have a record of passing landmark legislation that has been identified nationally as landmark legislation. kentucky is being seen as a leader in health care delivery

reform because of the work i have done in the state senate. also with adventure tourism. we are making kentucky the number one destination for everything you can imagine because of the legislation i worked on. i have stood up for the working families across the state. i did that as a doctor and a state senator and i will continue to do that. >> i think i have been very up front in this campaign that this race is not about me. it is not about james r. daniel or more race or darlene. this is about a state of kentucky. we have 11% unemployment. parents worry about educating their children. we can do better. of the candidates here tonight, i have been the most up-front about a plan for jobs and accountability. our tax credit would go farther than the congress has already gone and puts forward a plan

where companies will take a 20% tax credit and create about 11,000 jobs in the commonwealth of kentucky. i want to see a top to bottom review of trade deals. but i want to see if lending program that focuses our community banks on lending. i have put forward some very specific ways that i would look to tackle out-of-control spending and bring some fiscal accountability back to washington. i have been very outspoken about that. it is not about me, it is about them. >> i think that my campaign separates from the others in that i am more or less the regular person. i have lived a life of sacrifice. i ran a clinic for the working poor before it was an issue. i have the vision to see what we can do to help the people around us. i have been endorsed by the kentucky right to life which is the first endorsement for a democratic candidate and a long time. i would like to see some light

breeze back into this party and to see it breeding out of both lungs, the left and right side. i am a conservative does -- conservative democrat. i'm a social conservative. i see things from a different perspective than the other candidates. i think i am more in tune with the majority of the kentucky democrats in the state's. >> we invite your questions tonight from kentucky viewers. you can send an e-mail and include your first, last name, town and county. you can also go to www.ky.org. or you can call us. 1-800-494-7605 >> you had a war of words on the air waves. i would like to give each of you the opportunity to clarify or refute some of the allegations

you have made about each other in a couple of areas. mr. mongiardo, you made the claim that mr. conway approved $120 million in utility rate increases, took thousands of dollars in campaign donations. mr. conway, you countered by saying you saved taxpayers on utility rate increases and accused mr. mongiardo about accepting donations from utility employees. who is right and who is wrong? >> he is not. let me start on that. i think this is important. right now, what we have is a dynamic phase of the campaign. we have seized all the momentum. what dr. mongiardo has been saying has been stretching the truth. he has been stretching the amount of campaign contributions tenfold from what i have taken. i do not approve rates.

the public service commission approves utility rates. two former attorneys general are calling on lieutenant governor mongiardo to knock it off. you can ask the aarp community action agencies, we have aggressively fought to save the rate payers of this state's over $100 million. i have not just on that with utility rates. pharmaceutical companies, i sued 47 different pharmaceutical collections. i have a record of taking on special interest. this is an effort by the mongiardo campaign to distract from the campaign. >> is he right or is he wrong? >> if you save us any more

money, we are all going to go broke. it is reported that he has taken $10,000 when he agrees to a $6 million hike. he agrees to a $22 million rate hike. just like the gospel of matthew says, you cannot serve two masters. the attorney general is supposed to be the guardian for ratepayers. you cannot be the person who protect ratepayers and negotiates with the utility companies when you take money. >> is that report and correct? they are incorrect. >> but those are reports. >> what you are doing is saying anybody who has ever had a contract with them or their sponsors and extrapolate it out to the point where they are trying to claim to have these outlandish contributions. the fact the matter is i have

gone in front of the public service commission and they set the rates. we represent low income constituents. i have saved them over $100 million. i actually got a decrease -- they actually got a decrease in the rate. his comments and allegations do not hold water. >> i do have to respond to that. he is taking money from their political action committee, from their executives, and from the registered lobbyists, and right now, kentucky utilities has a $262 million rate hike request in front of the attorney general. who is he representing? the rate payers or the utilities? you absolutely cannot serve two masters. >> how do you respond to that? >> i respond to that, they have

it $200 million rate hike request. as the attorney-general, we are filing a motion to dismiss the case since they will be acquired by an out-of-state company. i am standing up right now, as we speak, to dismiss a request for a rate increase because they are not entitled to it. >> moving on to another issue. >> a conway press release states that daniel mongiardo clams $30,000 of publicly held monday as part as a real-estate deal as part of its composition compensation and says -- of his compensation package and says that he is abusing the money. you claimed that, which is backed by wall street and banking interests. who is right and who is wrong? with the fact of the matter is

he has taken over $100,000 from executives from wall street, morgan stanley, bear stearns, merrill lynch, goldman sachs, as far as the housing allowance, it is a $2,500 housing allowance. i was listening to a new television ad with pigs. it reminds me of a saying that what he is saying is like shaving a pig. there is a lot of squealing going on but no walls. let me give you an example. when i was growing up recall that putting. he is attacking the on that. he charged taxpayers $28 for bottled spring water. but kentucky and are asking themselves is argue just too

good to drink water from the tap or are you to place it to walk down the hall to get it out of the machine for a dollar? >> bill, this is a clear abuse of the public trust. daniel mongiardo it's a housing alone $30,000 per year. that is going on $90,000 but the lieutenant governor used to have a mansion. now they get a housing allowance. daniel mongiardo has not been renting property in franklin county. he has been staying in his in- laws basement of what he claims he was doing was putting the money into a property. they have not lived up there. what is is a private real-estate deal for daniel mongiardo. he has been trying to develop this property in. it has been going on since at least 2003. he told a reporter that i am not a developer. the reporter came up to him and he says a different story.

what he has done has taken the taxpayer money and put it into a private real-estate deal. on to the spending. the recent the spending and -- the reason the spending and the creme brulee both of our spending and it is something like seven times what mine is. he has billed taxpayers for steak dinners. he billed them to go to a cosmetics searcher -- cosmetic surgery conference and las vegas. >> argue developing that property? >> no. when i first looked at that in 2003, i had a partner that we were thinking about buying that property. i decided not to. he went ahead and bought it years later. i had no interest in developing. i have been living there because the furnace was broken. here is the fact -- jack has run

a u.s. senate campaign for the last year and a half. he has not done the work it takes to build a winning campaign and he is attacking me and it does not add one job to the state of kentucky. it does not help fix health care. he does not have a vision for the future of kentucky. this is all he's got. i thought we were going to talk about other things. if he has scoured for my record for two years and this is all he's got, this is bad. >> cap and trade legislation. you said that jack conway supports cap and trade while investing millions in texas natural gas. is that true? >> that is not true at all.

>> you did not support the capt. trade legislation? >> i did not. i have been consistent on this throughout. i have said that i will judge any energy legislation by four criteria. does it do the right thing by kentucky coal? does it do the right thing about electricity rate advantage? we have a lot of companies that are here because of our lower electricity rates. are we making sure that traders and brokers are not getting rich off of this team? four, off our china and other imaging activities playing by the same rules? what you put the cap and trade up, it does not pass. this will cost the average american family at least $1,700 per year. that is too much. i have been consistent. i did not care what any newspaper says, i have been consistent on this issue and i oppose cap and trade. >> why would you include that in an ad customer clicks his hometown paper -- why would you

include that in an ad? >> his home town paper said that he supports it. he may have changed his position but the fact is the fact. the worst kentucky coal dust, the better natural gas does. he has invested $5 million into a texas natural gas company that plans that up here to kentucky and exchanges at through a company he regulates but that is a clear conflict of interest and an ethical. >> is that true? " that is not true at all. he is fond of looking at the branches of disclosure reports. i have disclosed that i have invested in a company. this is a company that moves natural gas. the price of natural gas fluctuates. if he were in frankfurt, he would understand that. it is another fabrication. >> he has invested $5 million

into that company and we pay for that natural gas through other utilities. he has to direct oversight for us ratepayers' put the question is, is he representing the ratepayers for utility companies? he cannot have it both ways. >> on capt. trade legislation that passed the u.s. house, should there be legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by limiting carbon pollution'? it's absolutely not. i think cap and trade is based on bad science and that will hurt our economy. what these two gentlemen just demonstrated, we need somebody in washington that is a problem solver, not someone that causes problems but we need to have cap and trade taken care of.

it will hurt our economy, it will hurt our business and kentucky coal and everybody. right now, with the economy, we cannot have anything else on our backs. we need to help hope -- will need to help the consumer. >> i am against the cap in trade because it is a poorly written bill put it has many loopholes in it. there is no way to enforce this. it is it very badly written bill. i would not support a bill like this. there are other ways to reduce greenhouse gas and i am a firm believer that we need to be doing something about climate change. 111 generals from the pentagon who are anything but left leaning right of report that says climate change, global warming, a threat to national security. i think the cat is out of the back. we need to come up with a bill

that works and is not full of loopholes. " mr. sweeney, what about a bill to reduce emissions from coal- fired plants but of course i think people that are absolutely opposed to cap and trade are have a hidden slant. it is inevitable. kentucky can either did things change or cancel be dictated to us. we need a senator who is going to be able to get the attention of the senators, of its colleagues, and be able to demonstrate what kohl means to kentucky and what cap and trade can look like. we already have some counties that are trading carbon emissions from illinois to kentucky and back and forth. it is something that is coming. you are not going to be able to change it. what we need to be able to do is have a senator predicted a

senator that the rest of the country can listen to. one thing that is missing from kentucky is the truth. the fact of the matter is, the public should not have to decide which one is telling the truth. it is the simplicity of somebody trying to tell the truth. " this is our first web message. there is presently a obama- administration initiative for a high-speed rail corridors linking louisville to chicago. how do you feel about funding amtrak and other passenger rail initiative? >> i came out with a comprehensive proposal to make louisville the hub in kentucky. we are currently being left out because our leaders in washington to not believe in a high speed rail system. i think we need to be part of a

integrated transportation system including high-speed rail, light rail, and rapid access monorail put louisville can be one of the hubs. northern kentucky can be another hot. -- another hub. we are geographically blessed 5 being at the crossroads of our country. we are already paying for. for every taxpayer -- every tax dollar we send to washington d.c., 80 cents goes into roads and bridges. we get 94% of that back. 20 cents goes into a transit account and we get less than 20% back. if we had plans for rail, we can get that money back so it starts to pay for itself. we do not need another tax dollar but it will create jobs. it is the best creator of jobs that we can have for our nation.

it will create an infrastructure for our country. >> instead of spending money on and check on steroids, why don't we save the money and put it against the deficit and cut expenses? we do not need to spend our way out of this recession. we need to save money and pay down the deficit. amtrak has never been one of those things i have been impressed with. their efficiency or their ability to make money. >> i support the high-speed rail corridor coming from chicago. down toward the atlantic and coming to the commonwealth of kentucky. louisville would be a hub. that is a lot of money. those are good ideas but the fact of the matter is we have been through a 15 or 16 year conversation about our most pressing needs. we have decided that the most pressing needs are those two bridges in downtown louisville

to bring us together as a region. my first transportation priority would be making certain we get those bridges finally built. >> what jack does not understand is there are two different accounts. there is roads and bridges and i am all for that. not only in lower film but henderson and norther kentucky. there is a separate account for mass transit. if jack understood that, we are sending our money to washington which goes to new york and other states. we could start to build this. once we build this, we create the atmosphere to bring in private companies that will bring in high paying long-term jobs. it is the wrong direction to not be a part of this. >> i do understand the transportation needs of that committee to put on understand our first priority has to be on this bridges. >> i worked for the transportation cabinet for 4.5 years.

i can tell you that i and this guy sounds good. people telling you what you want to hear versus what you need to hear put it is not affordable. it is not a new idea for amtrak to come from chicago. it has failed before. dan is talking about a triangle between lexington, northern kentucky and louisville. that is the rich getting richer. what we need to do is figure out how we get to use existing rail and try to put people into those sectors where the jobs are. " let's take our first phone call. welcome to the program. >> hello. can you hear me? >> yes and the go ahead. >> my television is behind this phone call. " do you have a question or comment? >> yes. >> my question is for daniel mongiardo.

i want him to win because i think he's the best candidate. they are talking about a problem in kentucky with drugs. one of the biggest problems we have is prescription drugs. we have to organizations in the state which i will not name but i want to know what these candidates will do to stop some of that. how are they going to stop that? >> thank you for your question. the drug problem which you know about, ms. price, how would you do a better job? >> i know a lot about it. i was on the front lines of it for many years. several things, you have to back up the money. why is there so much oxycodone

flooding the market? pharmaceuticals on capitol hill. they buy off politicians and they know that they have weigh more options on the market for what they have prescriptions for it and they get away with that because they own capitol hill to campaign financing. if we cannot fix crony campaign financing, the legal bribing on capitol hill, it will and us. methamphetamine is a huge problem in the state. one of the fixes is drug court and the drug court works. the people that enter drug court have an 80% finished rate. we need to expand that. a lot of the problem with unemployment and people in jails getting full and counties are going broke. i have been to every county in the state of kentucky. almost every single county

executive will tell you that we are going broke because we cannot afford to house all of these drug people we are resting. these are oftentimes people whose only real crime is they are addicted to drugs. i am not saying that is good. when you take somebody who is in possession of drugs, you put them into jail, you are sending them to cram school, but they will get out. when they get out, they have a new set of schools. -- a new set of skills. the process in drug court works. we need to expand that. that is more important. the drug addiction and thievery, everybody in this state has been affected by this. >> let me move on to the arizona emigration law. would you be in favor of a state or national law based on what we

know has occurred in arizona? >> we already have a national law. we have a law that says it is illegal to be here. we need to better enforce the law we have. i lived on the southern border and in arizona and california. >> the lot on the books is adequate if we had enforcement? >> that is right. we have laws that state is illegal to cross the border and illegal to be here. the reason it is not being enforced is we have no ruler -- no real port or boarded security. we have window dressing. that is not the fault of the agents of the front line. we have agents sitting out in the desert doing very dangerous jobs. they are outgunned, outmanned, they do not have the proper vehicle for radios, and they are put into danger because we did not have enough manpower.

we did not have to interrupt for ability for them. that needs to be fixed. we have over 9 million containers coming into the skin -- this country every day and less than 5% of them get checked. >> i think we need to beef up our patrols. i think we need to enforce the laws on the book. if they come here and work, we need to find a source of with that are coming from and the employers that are breeding them in and supporting them. >> no new national immigration policy? >> i think that is set. we just need to enforce upon the courts were to suggest that illegal immigrants be arrested under the new law and immediately deported? >> what we do not need our state by state developed patchwork of

immigration systems. darling is right on this. we need the federal government to step up in an area where it completely abdicated its responsibility. we deal with immigration enforcement from time to time. kentucky is part of a several state region. what we need is immigration reform that is tough, fair, and make sense. for the 12 million illegals in this country, many of whom have kids that are born here, they need to get into the back of the line to be here illegally. >> we need to beat up the border and not let them in. if we are letting the illegals, and the potential terrorists, as well. when did not need state by state laws. arizona acted because the federal government was slow. this is a constitutional issue. the federal government needs to

figure this out in the courts what would you do to kentucky employers that employed illegal immigrants? what's that is what we need to do. we need to decrease the demand for those jobs. if the jobs go away, the illegal immigrants will go away. they are here for those jobs. because of the recession, they have gone down 10% or 50%. they have gone back to mexico. what we do need is legal emigration. there are a lot of employers across the state that need that work force that is not available. the first thing we need to do is make sure every american that want a job has a job. if we need more people, we need legal emigration to tighten up our borders. >> this e-mail is from chad in frankfurt. what current or former supreme court justice described a perfect justice?

>> i think clarence thomas is excellent. he represents many different facets of our society. he is well educated. he is well scripted in what he says. he is an excellent juror. >> stephen breyer. i have had the opportunity to meet him and talk with him. he is an amazing intellect. i think he is able to outthink an out right a lot of his colleagues on the other end of the spectrum. he understands that the great mantra of the supreme court, equal justice under law. he believes in giving opportunities to those whose need opportunities. " does anybody else have a choice? >> i like steven briar myself. >> what are the attributes of an ideal of justice? who should they be? >> i think we need to level the playing field.

the supreme court is too far to the right because of the bush appointments. i think we need to appoint somebody more left leaning to level the playing field. i think it needs to be an objective supreme court. right now, i do not think it is. >> i think it needs to be someone who interprets the constitution as the way it is. it needs to be something they look at and go through past standard and look at what is written and go buy it and not try to get international law affect what we have in the united states. >> you look at sonia sotomayor who is a self-made person. she interprets the constitution and has great character and great intellect. she was initially appointed by a republican president and is

appointed to the supreme court by a democratic president. there is somebody who can fix the entire spectrum. i will not have a litmus test when it comes to voting for a justice. the i will look at their character, intellect, and background to make sure they interpret the constitution right. >> a lot of people on the right side of the spectrum talk about activist judges. i believe in interpreting the constitution. in 2000, the u.s. supreme court, in the case of bush the gore, created an equal protection right, put it into protection and said courts could not rely on that as president. quick final word on this? part>> they have been more actie than just going by the constitution. in the last election of george

bush, we see that over and over again. the supreme court has gotten overly involved. >> the second phone call of the night. welcome. >> i want to ask -- everybody, you are democrats but you are from kentucky. once you get into the senate, just because harry reid pushing an agenda does not necessarily mean it is good for kentucky. >> thank you. >> i think what you are seeing is the beginning of the end of partisan politics as we know it. kentucky and are tired of partisan politics. we are tired of red vs blue. we want the best people who will

look up for the interests of kentucky. the listener is right. we need to have people that can think for themselves and are proven leaders. that is one of the things i am most proud of. >> i have a proven record of standing up in the face of extreme adversity against the federal government to the point of putting my life on the line. i have had guns pointed at me. a. senator waving his finger at me will not scare me. my leadership includes decisions that have lives on the line. i think i can stand up to harry reid. >> i have a record of being an independent democrat. i have stood up against the current administration when it comes to cap and trade. i have opposed ben bernanke and

his reappointment. i have also stood up and worked with the opposite party. the president of the senate and i co-sponsored our health bill. the adventure tourism bill went through both houses with zero no votes. i have a record of standing up and fighting for kentucky. i understand what that means. my first rate was against an incumbent democrat because he was not doing the job he should have been doing. i will continue to stand up and fight for kentucky. >> i would be an independent- minded kentucky democrat. i have taken on my party. on an opposite my party on the capt. trade issue. i am opposite my party of having the terror trials in new york city. i have also risked -- reached

across the party i all. i was able to work with republican senators to get bills through. you have to look at the collallr said you have to remember where you are from. you have to remember that when you are in d.c., you are representing the people that elected you and you are bound to hold up to that no matter how much pressure they put on you. if you sit in front of and a alcoholic and have a tough time to tell them that, you have to have the experience to say the hard things and stand by them. >> health care question. if you were have been in the u.s. senate when the health care bill passed, would you have voted for obama as bill as it is, not if it had assurances? this is a yes or no question.

would you have voted for obama as bill as it is? >> mr. sweeney >> yes. >> yes or no. >> if i were there i would of had some influence on this bill. this goes a long way -- >> as is, would you vote to go this goes to make changes. unless we change the real problems. this bill will fail. >> i will give you one more chance. yes or no, what you have voted for. >> i would have not voted for it unless we had assurances we would do real health care reform to the courts there is a big difference. when health care reform passed, it was time for democrats to stand up and the democrats. this is a core issue. i would have voted for it. i would be seeking to improve it and seek to have purchasing power for medicare. daniel mongiardo said he would vote against it.

he says it is time to stop and start over. that is where the tea party movement is. >> when i said stop and start over, it was about to the basket deal that was a bad deal for all of us. that is what needed to be taken out. what i have also said is this bill will fail. jack wants to let this bill continue to see if it works for a period of years and if not, we will open up medicare. i am scared to death for our senior citizens. that will drive up the cost for everybody. if you are a senior or getting ready to be a senior, you should be scared to death of jack conway's approach. >> i think both of these are changing their spots frequently on this subject. i have consistently said that i would like to take the health care bill, put it on a table and drive a stake through its heart. we have to start all over again

and think about this before we start putting out a bill and passing it to see what comes out of the parts i think it is interesting that anything for the middle class or poor, we cannot afford it. we have 45,000 in this country dying every year because of lack of health care. >> we can make it affordable. >> we can afford it. let's get rid of these two wars that we have no business being in. thousands of our troops are dying over there and we are not doing counter terrorism. we need to end these two wars, bring these guys home, put them on the border, and use that money for health care. if it is for the middle class or poor, it is amazing that the average ceo of an insurance company makes about $6 million per year just in bonuses. why is this happening? because the big pharmaceuticals and insurance companies are the biggest contributors of

campaigns on capitol hill. this is the symptom. it is this chronic campaign financing. we have the bill we have because our elected officials were bought off by big pharmaceuticals and big insurance. >> if they did not have jobs, they cannot afford this insurance. we cannot afford to lose jobs with killing the economy. >> this is for the future of our country. between social security, medicaid and medicare, that as were 60 cents of every dollar in washington goes. we will not get the budget under control unless we lower the cost of health care. 50% of the money we are spending on health care is wasted. we need to do real health care reform. i've lost a brother because said the lack of adequate health care. i have been on the front lines of this for 25 years. we need to get our dollars worth of health care so we get the budget under control and have to

increase the quality so it is consistent. you get the same quality across the state. >> you do not do it by putting it on the shaft. what this really is about, just like the border, we need to take some time out and figure out what role we want government to play. right now, the same people that complain about the government being too big, they want government to pay for everything. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot say you want protected borders but less government. only the people that have health care seemed to be opposed to health care. >> we have 654,000 kentuckians without health care insurance. this is a positive first step. this is my concern moving forward. >> congress has been too vague about what they want to do. i have to ideas. -- two ideas.

let's have state-by-state medicare fraud units. we have increased collections 600%. you need to have a state-by- state unit. if we do that, we can save up to another $100 million -- $100 billion. something i proposed that has not been addressed in washington but i put that forward some time ago. >> welcome to the program. quick question. >> i would like to know what our attorney general did aid the taxpayers and the people of central kentucky and kentucky

american water. i was at every meeting. they handed a hundred $65 million to kentucky american water when it was -- when the kentucky river cannot be sustained 22 million per day. >> thank you for that question. i am glad i have the opportunity to address this point. the first meeting i took after being sworn in was on the kentucky american case. i inherited a brief that was due in 72 hours on that case. my predecessor was going along with the proposed treatment plant at the county line and was doing so without caps. as my first act, i said to my office of rate intervention, we are going to take an opposite approach. we will not sign off on this unless the public commission agrees to a cost cap because

lord knows what the brits will look like down the line when you try to recover costs. and i literally turned the position, let me be clear on this, we turned 180 degrees to oppose it. the public service commission went against our recommendation and approved the building of the new treatment plant. that was appealed to circuit court but the standard for overturning a public service commission decision is there can be no evidence and the record to support what they did. they rarely overturn them. the treatment plant went in and there is a huge rate hike for the ratepayers. as attorney general, we are opposing that rate increase and doing it actively. >> this is the lightning round. if you win the primary, would you want president obama to

campaign for you? >> i did not think we agree on too much and of course i would be happy to have the president in the state. i would tell us where i disagree but i would be happy to have come. >> this race is about kentucky. i have developed a campaign for kentucky. that is what we will do. >> would you not want the president >? >> i would love to have come here to discuss the issues that are affecting us. he needs to know what his policies impact us. >> campaign for you? >> this is about kentucky. >> i would be honored to have the president come here because it would bring attention to our state. we are the bottom 5% of just about everything because people on capitol hill are not voting our interests. >> i would also be honored. i am the only one who stood up when it was said that others

would not want him to campaign here. >> what do you think of his record in office to date? >> i think he has done some good things. his approach to finance reform is admirable. we have to stop this from happening ever again. the troupe surge in afghanistan i m four. he has fallen short in some areas. his opposition to kohl, i think he is wrong on that. " i think he has improved our image abroad. we desperately need financial reform. we need to bring derivatives out into the sunshine and have consumer protection. >> what one person living today would you want to come into the

state other than the president? >> frank serpico. he was a whistle blower just like i was. he put his life on the line. mark and his family to campaign for me across the state. he wrote me a letter last week, he sent 8 $3 money order. this is who i am fighting for. it is families like this all across this state that are suffering. this is what i get up every day to fight as hard as i can. >> i want my daughter to ֖+ like mother teresa. >> that is your one. >> thank you for being here. three more days to go.

our series with candidates continues with the u.s. senate republican primary candidates. we invite viewers to participate by sending questions. thank you for watching kentucky tonight. i am bill goodman, good evening. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> and a couple of minutes, a republican to make to be california's next governor.

two candidates hope to replace the governor arnold toward senator who is prohibited from running again because of term limits. >> the british election this thursday. c-span is covering the issues and process. we asked two british journalists about the impact on the election. >> we had an expensive scandal. there were revelations about the amount of money that members of the comments have been clamoring for their second homes. they were paid money so they could travel to their constituency. some of them were abusing that and getting far too much money. quite a lot of those people have not stood again put of they have stood down.

we have had a record number of retirements. those few mp's that state are in trouble. we may get some quite unusual results from people standing again. that goes with the anti politics feeling. that has been successfully exploited by nick clegg. the feeling of the anti- mainstream politics. he has capitalized on that much more effectively than the other parties. >> people often ask me that. i feel the scandal has really invigorated the british populace about politics. not politics as usual and unfortunately, that is still what is offered here. we did not get a candidates like

a barack obama but it is not possible for a candidate to come up the ranks in britain the way it is. instead, we see there is really only one outsider and the british political system and that is the head of the liberal democrats. he is getting most of the anti- politics votes with people that do not like the way things are done. it is just frustration that people feel that they want a more receptive and egalitarian government but the british rockers city is incredibly ancient and it has not adapted to modern expectations. whoever gets into power from the next election has to radically reform the political system of this country.

>> you can watch this interview and other british election events on our website, c- span.org. >> a debate between the two republican candidates running for california governor in june 8, primary. a former bbc ego and the and sharon -- \ this took place ovee weekend and was hosted by comcast. it is one hour. >> live from san jose, the 2010 republic and telephonic gubernatorial debate. -- california republican gubernatorial debate.

. . >> we have several reporters here with us. without further ado, let's bring out the two candidates you'll be hearing from tonight, vying for

the republican gubernatorial candidacy -- steve poizner and meg whitman. [applause] >> how are you? >> thank you very much. steve poizner is the california state insurance commissioner. meg whitman is the former ceo of which -- see all of the bay. let your mind you of the rules for the debate, negotiated by the sponsors of the debate and the campaigns. the candidates will be asked questions by the journalists. we have two minutes to answer each question. the challenger will have one minute for rebuttals. closing statements will be tw minutes -- two minutes each.

there are no opening statements. i know you are dying to thank everyone involved. let's assume it has been done, if we can, and just get right into the questions the californians want to hear about. the first question tonight comes from me. it is the only one i will ask. ms. whitman. last week the franchise tax board reported that in 2008, the median household income was just under $69,000. that same year, forbes magazine estimated your personal wealth at $1.3 billion. there is a vast difference between your life and those of the people that you want to govern. what you say to that average people who may doubt that someone as wealthy as you really understand their sacrifices? >> thank you very much for the cable tv broadcasters and the tech museum. it's fun to be back in my home town. i have been very fortunate in my career, but it was not always

like this. when my husband and i moved to california in 1981, he was a resident at uc san francisco. i was just a representative. we've been remarkably successful, but we embody the california dream. what i see every day on the campaign trail -- i have spent the last year and a half talking to people about their lives. i've gone to their homes and their places of business. i see deep anxiety around and plymouth. people are desperately concerned they're going to lose their jobs -- i see deep anxiety around unemployment. people are desperately concerned they're going to lose their jobs. people cannot go to college because their parents have lost their jobs. i see how tough it is for californians. in the end, that is why i am running for governor. i know california can be better than it is. we can create the california dream again. we can make sure everyone has a fair shot for a great education, the ability to greg -- get a

great job, the ability to move up and out. what is true about california is -- it is not about where you have been, it is about where you're going. i think california can be better than it is. i see it every day on the campaign trail. i deeply understand the challenges that every californian phases. >> mr. poizner, how do you relate to the average californian? >> i started small businesses in silicon valley. i know what it is like to start and nothing in bill the new company from scratch. i employed a lot of people -- nothing and build a new company from scratch. there is a big difference between meg whitman and myself, with regards to understanding what it is like coming from the trenches. i do not think the working folks in california is on the net meg whitman really understands how to relate to. that is why the goldman sachs

issue is a big issue. the fact is meg whitman has massive investments in goldman sachs, made huge amounts of money from the collapse of the housing market, and when it was time for goldman sachs to get bailed out by taxpayers, meg whitman actively campaigned for taxpayer-funded bailout to save them from going bankrupt. my question is, did she informed people that she had this massive conflict of interest? did she let people know that her investment portfolio was going to be saved at the same time? >> that is one minute. >> lots of people were damaged because goldman sachs and meg whitman was in the middle of it. that is a fact. >> let's move to the next question. please hold your applause. now to the panel for the questions tonight. a question from carla. steve poizner. >> good evening. the new era is a net immigration law is the toughest in the country. you said -- the new arizona

immigration law is the toughest in the country. you said you would watch this closely. you have come out in support of that law. why the shift? what about the charges that this encourages racial profiling? would you sign this lot as it now stands, yes or no? but yes. a few days ago, i was concerned about the -- >> yes. a few days ago, i was concerned about the racial profiling. the governor just amended the law. they have taken care of any concerns about racial profiling. i support what is going on in arizona. they have taken the power into their own hands to do something about the problems of illegal immigration in arizona. the federal government was not taking care of it. the people of arizona decided to take care of it themselves. if you been following my campaign, i believe there is a serious problem with illegal

immigration in this state. it is time that we had people run for office who have the guts to talk about the honest truth here. the truth is legal and attrition -- illegal immigration has been fantastic. illegal immigration though is a serious issue. billions of taxpayer funded benefits to people who we just cannot afford. you're bankrupt, out of cash, and we need to take steps to stop the flow of cash to people who come here illegally. meg whitman and i have very big difference is here. she believes in the amnesty. i do not. she does not want to stop the taxpayer-funded benefits for those to come here illegally, but i do. we've heard her priorities. i have heard so many times that i dream about it. one of her priority and is -- priorities is not dealing with illegal immigration. do you want to nominate a republican who will make dealing with the problems of illegal immigration of high priority, yes or no?

>> yes. >> i have a four-part plan. stock those benefits. as governor -- stop those benefits. if you hire people when i am governor, they better be legal, or i will revoke your business license. number three, i will crack down on sanctuary cities. they should not shield criminals from law-enforcement officials. last but not least, i will do a much better job of securing the border. i will send the national guard there, if that is what i have to do. >> miss whitman. >> i think u.s. in a classic case of steve poizner changing his mind. -- i think you have seen a classic case of steve poizner changing his mind. this is the record you have seen since 2004 where he has changed his position on virtually everything. he was against the bush tax cuts for lower personal income tax. he is now against it. he was against prop. 13 and now he is for it.

he was the only person who got 100% planned parenthood approval ratings. he now says -- that requires that you agree with partial- birth abortions and other things. he is now against them. let me tell you what i would do. i understand the frustrations that arizona has on this law. it came to me, i would actually opposed the law, because i have a better plan to stop illegal immigration in california. first of all, you are dead wrong. and 100% against amnesty, no exceptions. -- i am 100% against amnesty, no exceptions. i will keep employers from hiring illegal aliens. i will make sure we eliminate sanctuary cities. we will solve the immigration problem in a way that uniquely suits california. >> thank you. let's move on to our next question. it is for meg whitman. >> good evening. your campaign website states that you are 100% opposed to any form of in this need for

immigrants -- of amnesty for immigrants. 7% of voters support the recent reform -- 70% of voters support the recent reform. are you on the wrong side of the voters when it comes to this issue? >> i do not think so. i talk to voters about this every day. people are desperately concerned about the fact that our borders have been open for many years. the federal government has not stepped in in the way that they should. that is what you saw what happened in arizona. we have to get control of the illegal immigration problem. as i said, what i wanted to -- i am 100% against amnesty. i want to secure the borders, build an economic sense, and eliminate sanctuary cities. i cannot leave this up just -- i cannot leave this subject without reminding everyone that illegal immigration built this country we need more -- built

this country. we need more h1b visas. we have to prove to the american people that that federal government can secure these borders. that is the most important thing we can do. the steve poizner. one minute. >-- >> steve poizner, one minut. >> you believe people should have a pathway to citizenship. that is amnesty. you can deny that is what the word means. but look it up. the fact is that you support amnesty. i know what polls say, but last time this country provided amnesty was in 1986. there were 3 million people here illegally who were granted amnesty and that was supposed to take care of our problem once and for all. what happened? we have 12 million people here illegally. amnesty is a huge magnet and a mistake. so are taxpayer funded benefits. that is a huge mistake.

allowing employers to hire people who are here illegally is a mistake. as governor, i am going to take steps to address the problems of illegal immigration once and for all. there is a choice here. clearly, meg whitman has not made this a priority. clearly, meg whitman supports some form of amnesty. she does not support stopping all the taxpayer-funded benefits. this is different between the two as. >> thank you. the next question is for steve poizner. >> the tea party movement has been the top of the nation. it has rarely been mentioned in this race. a question for each of you -- are you a tea partier, yes or no? will the ideas promoted by this movement be good for california? >> i have been to a whole bunch of tea party events. i have spoken at least five. -- spoken at at least five. i find myself in sync with the

movement. they're passionate about the free market system. they are angry -- not just republicans. there ares democrats and th independents alike. they're frustrated with a dysfunction in sacramento. this is the worst economic crisis in the history of our state. our unemployment rate is close to 20%. that is 4 million californians that are either underemployed or unemployed. this is depression-level missouri. people want change. -- this is depression-level misery. people want change. this is another difference in our vision for california. i love going to the tea party events, because i outlined a passion for taking california in a completely different direction. that is what people inside and outside the tea party are looking for -- bold change. half measures will not do.

>> meg whitman, are you a supporter of the tea party movement? >> i am supportive. they are, at their core, fiscal conservatives. you will not find a more determined, more tough fiscal conservative than the in this way. there are desperately concerned about the debt that we're running up. they are desperately concerned that we're by gleaning the cardinal rule that you cannot spend more money than you take -- that we are violating the cardinal rule that you cannot spend more money than you take in. steve poizner date to wonder thousand dollars of his money to weaken -- gave $213,000 of his own money to weaken proposition 13. he bought nearly $2 million worth of cars in a recession or should not have been buying any cars at all. if anyone is looking for the tough fiscal conservative industries, i promise you that it is me. i have balanced budgets.

i have made those difficult trade-offs. i know how to do more with less. i know how use technology to make us better. i have outlined a plan for cutting $15 billion worth of spending out of the california budget. >> that is one minute. >> i will get it done. if we can get our fiscal house in order by cutting spending, i think every californian will be delighted. >> thank you. our next question is for meg whitman. >> you have accused steve poizner of increasing spending by 14% at the department of insurance. his predecessor proves that spending they're actually dropped 13%. you are referencing old budgets. given that, do you believe you are presenting an accurate picture of his spending record? >> two minutes. >> absolutely, i do. there has been a lot of

controversy. if you look at the numbers and the entire budget that he was responsible for, you can apply sacramento games where you only talk about part of the budget that you were responsible for. you have to talk about the whole thing. the truth is the budget went from $190 million to $216 million. budget cuts were made by arnold schwarzenegger. the truth is that ackerman to politicians and bureaucrats can make -- that sacramento politicians and bureaucrats can make all kinds of claims, but the numbers do not like. my view is that is the truth. i think you have to look at the two candidate and say, who do you trust to be the fiscal conservative? i was successful in business for 30 years, because i stopped to corp., a conservative, the school principals. i know how to do more with less. i will take on, by the way,

public employee unions. we will not be able to stop the red ink in california unless we stand up to the unions, decrease the number of state employees, revise the entire pension program. that is part of the way we are going to get back to fiscal health. we also have an opportunity to reform the welfare program. with about 12% of the population in the united states -- and 30% of the welfare cases. we have five times the welfare of new york, even though we have a portion of the population. we have to reform this program. if we do not, we will have weaker communities and will not be able to afford what we do have. with the government cannot afford. we have to take this -- we have a government that we cannot afford. we have to take this up. if we do not decrease spending, we will not be able to have this government. we need to achieve that $15 billion worth of cuts. >> steve poizner, your rebuttal.

>> that is a lot to cover. meg whitman, you do not know what you're talking about. "the sacramento bee" audited my information more than once. they called you a liar. that is their words, not mine, not once, but twice. my operating budget has shrunk permanently by 15%. come on over and i will show you. my budget is down. i have a huge surplus at my department. i passed that surplus back to my marketplace with tax cuts -- close to $20 million worth. i think you're looking at the only person in sacramento history who has ever downsized anything. i am proud of that. i would do the same thing to the other departments and agencies that i did at my department. let me talk about the tax from 2004. those are also false. misleading half truths. we saw the mudslinging going on in this campaign. she spent $10 million to try to

smear my reputation about 2004. >> that is your minute. that is a good spot. [laughter] >> to be continued. >> i think you'll have more time to talk about those issues. the next question is for you, steve poizner. >> steve poizner, gun enthusiasts say their exit using -- exercising their constitutional rights by carrying a loaded firearms in plain sight in public places. one pending bill supported by groups including the california police chiefs association would make this practice illegal. are they wrong to support this ban? >> let me finish and then get your answer. the fact is, it is preposterous that someone like meg whitman would be attacking me for my record in 2004. in 2004, i was here and running for the state assembly, proud to be carrying the republican banner. i knocked on over 10,000 doors

and registered 10,000 republicans. it was a seat that was considered to be impossible to win by a republican. i am proud of my republican credentials. >> i think that is a point to end that. >> she endorsed paul board. -- al gore. she endorsed barbara boxer. >> can we get to the question about the gun law? >> there are a lot of attacks and i just wanted to correct the record. you should insert for the republican base why you supported those people. with regard to guns, i am a proud supporter of the second amendment. i think it is crystal clear. people are right to own and bear arms. i recall -- i oppose any law that order stick -- that would restrict people's rights. >> you support the idea -- this

proposal on concealed weapons? >> i do not support any more gun laws. we have plenty of them. we should focus on implementing the current set of laws. we did not want to restrict the rights of people to fulfill their second amendment rights. i am passionate about that. >> ms. whitman? >> i agree on that issue. i do not think we need to spend much time on that. there is only one liberal republican onstage tonight. it is not me. steve poizner calls himself an arnold schwarzenegger republican. that was when he ran for the assembly -- the insurance commissioner. now that governor schwarzenegger is not a popular, he is actually running the opposite direction. he has changed his position on virtually everything. he will say and do anything to get elected. what happened in 2004? he was running in a democratic district. he was against taxes, against the iraq war. -- he was for taxes, against the

iraq war. it is and the remarkable where he has gone down the line -- it is simply remarkable where he has gone down in changed his mind. it is absolutely true. -- he has gone down the line and changed his mind. barbara boxer was on the right side of the issues. it was essential to ebay employees and shareholders, as well as the sellers. >> that is your one minute. thank you. that is the first round of questions. we're having a good time, so let's keep going. [applause] will begin the second round of questions -- we will begin the second round of questions in this debate. we begin with a question for meg whitman. >> in 2005, you settled and ebay shareholder lawsuit regarding the spending of ipo shares

offered to you by goldman sachs? in your book, you said the board urged you to site -- fight those suits because they knew you had done nothing wrong. you said you would not do it again. you noted that it was legal at that time. do you still believe, as you said in your book, that you did nothing wrong? was your behavior unethical, yes or no? >> i am main street executives, not a wall street executive. i have spent my career at hasbro, procter and gamble, and ebay. here are the facts on goldman sachs. i was on the board eight years ago for 15 months. i got off. as donald trump says, i fired them. i did not like the culture or the management. with regard to ipo shares, i did receive those. we had a brokerage account with

goldman sachs. we did make money on that. about $1.8 million. it was a very legal, a very standard practice at the time. when it was called into question, i actually ended up giving those profits back to charity and to the company. you have to be above reproach. legally -- leaders have to always look for conflicts of interest and perceived conflicts of interest. i did not see a conflict of interest here. it was a completely separate account and had nothing to do with ebay. leaders have to be above reproach. there can be no real or perceived conflict of interest. in my administration double we will put our assets into a blind trust -- in my administration, will put our assets into a blind trust -- we will put our assets into a blind trust. >> you do not believe you did anything wrong? >> no.

it was a legal and standard practice. with 20/20 hindsight, i would not do it again. i could see afterwards what the conflict look like it. -- look like -- looked like. >> steve poizner, your rebuttal. but you really do not get this. you were the ceo -- >> you really do not get this. where the ceo of ebay. goldman sachs -- you were the ceo of ebay. goldman sachs started the new these sweetheart deals. you did not think anything was wrong until you got caught. the s.e.c. immediately declared what you did in legal. the shareholders investigated what you did and they sue you for a huge conflict of interest -- sued you for a huge, but

interest. only reason you pay back any money is because you had to pay back a lawsuit -- for a huge conflict of interest. the only reason you pay back any money is because you have to pay back the lawsuit. you made millions from it and that is just wrong. >> but move on to our next question for steve poizner. >> when you're running for the 21st assembly district, you said, i am republican. you're in support of raising taxes. now you are different. a few years ago, you were totally different. >> thank you for asking. i have always been conservative. i will tell you this -- i have gotten more conservative since i have been the insurance commissioner. i have been insurance commissioner for three and a half years.

i have seen the culture of corruption. i have seen the wasted taxes and the out of control spending. i have gotten more conservative since 2004. there is no question about it. compare what i was doing in 2004 to meg. that is why i find it really amazing that she would criticize me. she was not even a republican in 2004. she only wanted it -- she did not want to join the republican party because it might hit her business career. she said she endorsed barbara boxer in 2004. that was while i was carrying the republicans like, registering republicans. she endorsed barbara boxer for one reason -- you just heard it. barbara boxer -- she convinced her to take a certain position on an internet tax that would personally benefit her and her investor friends at ebay. that was reason to endorse barbara boxer, one of the most liberal senators in our country?

a senator who has 100% approval ratings from the unions. a senator who supports all of these tax increases and is an extremist in many ways. is that how you make decisions about who to endorse? to endorse barbara boxer and campaign for her, after she endorsed al gore in 2000 -- who are you really? the republican base is looking for republican with a track record. actions speak louder than words. how does your endorsement of al gore in 2000 -- you're campaigning for barbara boxer in 2004, your support for dan jones -- van jones -- how does not fit into being a republican? >> ms. whitman, your rebuttal. >> he is an engineer. he engineers the new position for every office he runs for and

every election cycle. whatever sit-in at the time, to see whether he can elected -- whatever suits him at that time, to see whether he can get elected, that's what he does. i did not endorse al gore. i give money to the bush campaign. steve poizner wrote a $21,000 check to outboard and $10,000 of that went to the recount -- check to al gore and $10,000 of that went to the redoubt in florida. this race -- recount in florida. this race is about cutting government spending, getting californians back to work, and this -- and fixing our education system. we have to focus on what matters. the legislature has a 9% approval rating. we're not doing the business of californians. let's focus on what really matters to californians --

getting them back to work, improving economy, and this -- and fixing our education system. >> thank you. the next question goes to meg whitman. >> california has more than a million people without medical coverage. last week, governor schwarzenegger said it was time to stop the political fighting. he announced his support for washington's health care overhaul. if elected, would you dismantle the system that schwarzenegger is now setting up? if we repeal the federal law, what should replace it? >> i am not for the federal health care bill, as you might imagine. i am not for the individual mandate. it is because of what it does to california. this will put a $3 billion unfunded mandate on our budget, which already has a $20 billion budget deficit over the next 16 months. it is also a tax on small business. if you own a small business with more than 50 employees, you have to provide health insurance in

the way the public cannot afford right now. i would encourage our attorney general -- jerry brown has no intention of doing this -- he should actually join the lawsuit to repeal this lot and start again. we should try to cover more americans. we should allow people to get insurance who have pre-existing conditions. there is no question about it. i think health care in three ways -- access, cost, quality. if all you do is increase access and you do not work on cost and quality, you will get into a program that you cannot afford. my view is that this is going to cost america over $1 trillion. it is going to actually continue to hurt california, from a budgetary point of you. -- of view. i would have said people with pre-existing editions -- but let them into insurance. we should have more competition. there should be cross-border competition in california, with

high standards. that would make a big difference as well. we should put technology to work on electronic, medical records. we need to identify the best practices across our system. we need to start to bring down the cost of the system, increase the quality so that we're in position to improve access over time. cannot afford program right now. >> steve poizner. >> have mentioned barbara boxer? she is one of the people in the u.s. senate that led the charge on this obama-care overhaul. thanks for that. i think it is one of the worst pieces of public policy coming out of washington in 50 years. $1 trillion of new spending and billions of dollars of additional unfunded mandate and california. we now have a $24 billion budget deficit.

this reform is wrong. it violates the 10th amendment to the constitution. i support the other 19 attorneys general that want to try to repeal this law. we should return power back to the state, where it belongs. you may have all of my work with and the blue cross. i do appreciate getting an insurance question here. and the blue cross has 57% market share 0-- anthem blue cross has 57% market share. they tried to play with the numbers, i would not let them. we need to drive down costs and increase quality. i also support the interstate sales of health-insurance that would instantly increased competition. >> thank you. the next question is for steve poizner. >> you are backing a voter initiative that would require the state to cap carbon and other gas emissions.

do you believe human activity is causing global climate change? how does that influence your position on that initiative? >> first of all, global warming is called global warming, right? it is not called state warming. when we tried to put in place these extreme environment or rules that stick out like a sore thumb, we pay the price. no other state is following in our path to implement these draconian, global warming rules. india and china have made it crystal clear that they will not, either. california is by itself. what happens when we impose these new taxes and restrictions? jobs leave the, the manufacturing sector will not put up with it. they go to the midwest -- the jobs leave. the manufacturing sector will not put up with it. they go to the midwest.

ab32 will make our economy a lot worse. jobs will leave. they are leaving at a rapid clip now. it will celebrate that. it will mess up the environment. we will use more coal-burning. i am for suspending it until our unemployment rate is 5.5% or less for four straight quarters. if not, it will crush our economy. you have heard plenty about our differences. here is another area where meg needs to make clear where she stands. she to go global warming boat crews during the presidential election -- took a global warming boat cruise during the presidential election of 2008. she said she is a big fan of jones. you said you liked his work. he is such an extremist when it

comes to the environment. he is out of sync with anyone who wants to have balance when it comes to environmental policy. >> that is your two minutes. the question was climate change -- man-made or not? >> the science is still out on that. i do not think it matters whether it is or is not. we need a new energy policy and we need to become energy let's go back to anthem. he give the federal government exhibit 8 to help pass this overhaul bill -- exhibit a to help pass this overhaul bill. if he had been on the job, that would not have happened. with regard to global warming, i think the scientists say the earth is getting warmer.

whether it is man-made or not, i do not know. i am not a scientist. we're at a disadvantage in california once again. the biggest problem we have in the business climate is that you're a high-cost state. it will drive businesses away. we can be smart and green. let's put a moratorium on ab32 for a year. let's make sure we know what is happening here. i think we have to compete for the green jobs in a very different way. colorado and texas want those jobs. the no. 2 city for those jobs is houston. they have nothing like this bill. we need had targeted tax cuts -- we need targeted tax cuts. >> the next question is for ms. whitman. >> you spoke earlier of education. california ranks towards the bottom of the heap forkfuls bending- heap for school

spending. how do you and your parents who are concerned about increases to class sizes -- how do you answer parents who are concerned about increases to class sizes and the elimination of summer school, as well as other cuts across the state? >> we have enough money to educate our children well. the problem is how the money is being spent. we have to get more money into a classroom. of the $70 billion that we spend at the state, federal, and local levels, only 60% of it goes to the classroom. -- only 16% of it goes to the classroom. only 40% of it goes to the -- that means over 40% of the coast to the administration. we have an education code that is 5000 pages long. they tell our school districts how to buy blackboards. let's allocate the money on a per child or pork -- or perp

claustrum -- let allocate the money on a per child or per classroom basis. let's give parents the tools to hold the school district's accountable. i am in favor of reading every public school with a simple letter grade -- every school. we need to tell the parents. they did was in florida. -- did this in florida and they are now nubmer 6. diversity is not a challenge -- they are now number 6. diversity is not the challenge. let's increase the number of charter schools. in florida, if you fell for three years, you automatically turn into a charter school -- fail for three years, you automatically turn into a charter school. we have to pay the teachers more. they are doing the job with the children every single day.

that is the plan. i think it will work. worked in florida. it went from being -- it worked in floriday. -- florida. we can and must do better. america's about where you're going. our public as it is an -- our public education system is essential. >> steve poizner. >> we will never fix california schools until we take some big steps to change the way we run these schools. there are teachers out here. one reason i am running for governor is that i'm going direct control of the school's out of the hand of sacramento politicians to micromanage. i will go downhill local level where it belongs. i am so passionate about this. we used to have the best public education system in the country.

i'm helping pioneer the charter school movement. i am the founder of the charter school foundation. i help build a bunch of those. it is not just rhetoric to me. i have done it as a volunteer teacher and a pioneer in the movement. charter schools are public schools that have been granted waivers from the 2000-page education code. it is the ultimate and local control. there are over 800 charter schools in california. i'm going to get all public schools the same type of freedom and flexibility that charter schools have. >> more questions. the next question is for steve poizner. >> mr. poizner, a big problem is pension reform. the state has an estimated $500 billion unfunded pension debt. there have been many proposals about this. given the fact that only two states have managed this kind of

reform, what is your plan to get this under control? the thing public safety employees should be exempt from the -- do you think public safety employees should be exempt from some of these plans? >> $500 billion is the latest number of unfunded liabilities. when you have people like willie brown stepping up and saying, this is unsustainable. the public employee unions have taken advantage of their power and have negotiated contracts that are going to bankrupt the state. even the treasurer, lockyer, says the same thing. we have to change the structure of the compensation. they are great people. we should not criticize public employees just for being a public employee. they are very passionate public servants. the unions have taken advantage of their power and have negotiated compensation structures that fundamentally need change. i support the idea that these

pension structures should look more like what you would find in the private sector. in the private sector, there are defined contribution structures. we should have that in the public sector. i would like them to have their current compensation tied to the help of the economy. when the economy does well, they feel the joy of that year when it goes down, they feel the pain -- they feel the joy of that. it will go down, they feel the pain. they should be in sync together. when i am governor, i will look at what i can do to enforce the laws, as stated in the constitution of the state. article 16 says that voters need to approve any liability greater than $300,000. these pension deals have a liability much greater than that. i am going to take any new pension deal to voters to approve.

then you'll put the spotlight on it and let the public employees have to explain to the voters why they're certain compensation structures are being advocated. that is the way to get this done. >> thank you. meg whitman. >> this liability may be the single biggest problem facing california. we spent $3.3 billion of the general fund to pay these pensions. imagine what we could have been doing with that money. we have to take this up. as governor, i will. we have to increase retirement age. it has to go to 55. for non-public safety, 65. we have to extend and increase employee contributions. for all new employees, except in public safety, we have to go to a more traditional 401-k like program. for public safety, they should be allowed to keep their

defined-and the program. they are supporting. the first of government is to keep safe our schools, homes, and streets. that is why i have made that exemption. we have to stand up and fix this. it won't be easy. this is the train coming down the track at every single californian. we have to stand up and be counted on this issue. it is absolutely essential. you know what is not fair? it is not fair to ask average californians to fund these lavish benefits for public employee unions. >> thank you. >> you have been asked about their voting records several times. you said there is no excuse for your voting record, which you called atrocious. you said you did not vote because you were focused on raising a family and your career. you said what changed was that at ebay use of government got in the way of small business and

realize that it really matters "who we elect." it to keep coming debate to understand that -- coming to ebay to understand that. why did it take so long? >> i did not vote as often as i should. i apologize for that and take responsibility for that. i was not as engaged and connected as i should have been. there were lots of things going on. i am 100% engaged now. what i saw an ebay -- at ebay -- small business will lead us out of this recession. this is the most difficult state in the country in which to do business. politics may be the only way to write this ship that has so many challenges associated -with challenges- right this -- right this ship that has so many

challenges associated with that. -- with it. i want to insure we have the very best business environment. -- ensure that we have the very best this is an army. we need to spend taxpayer money efficiently and effectively -- that this is the very best business environment. we need to spend taxpayer money efficiently and effectively. >> you cannot just wash it away with a simple apology. when you live in massachusetts, you did not vote for your good friend, that romney -- mit romney, even when he was running against kennedy. she was not registered to vote. she did have two live-in employees -- cook and home manager. they had time to register. the notion that you were too

busy -- i do not think that is a good excuse. the campaign comes down the track are heard, -- track record, ethics, and character. over the last 30 years, i have accomplished a lot more than people thought was possible. i have 20 years of being very successful in the private sector. i know how to create jobs. i have eight years of success in politics and public sector service. i am not a rookie to voting. >> a question for you, steve poizner. >> public confidence in government is that one of its lowest points in 50 years. many voters no longer believed that they can trust government leaders to fix problems, whether that is are jammed highways, endless deficits in sacramento, or illegal immigration. as candidates, you have both

made promises. why should voters trust you to be different? >> it is an excellent question. voters are very cynical and skeptical. they've heard a lot of this before. people ask me often, if arnold could not do it, the action hero, why can you? no one has ever confuse me for arnold, that is for sure. i do have a black belt. i think i could take him if i had to. i am not like governor schwarzenegger or most people who have run for office. i have to order, tenacity, and backbone. i can get done what i am going to get done. i've been crystal clear about my conservative principles, too. it is important for the republican primary base. what are your principles and will you stand by them? my principles have to do with my passion for individual liberty and personal responsibility. i have a passion for free markets and smaller, more accountable government. the legislature is going to have

to approve a lot of the things i'm talking about. people also ask me what i would want to be governor and have to deal with the legislature. honestly, ladies and gentlemen, this is the best time to run. it takes a real meltdown, are real crisis, in order to galvanize voters. they need to get behind a new leader who can take advantage of the crisis, in order to get at these big, bold, a structural reforms required to get our great state back on track. >> meg whitman. >> steve has been part of sacramento for eight years. i do not think it has been successful. he is part of the problem, not part of the solution. what we need is someone who brings a fresh perspective. it was interesting -- jerry brown said, you want someone with an insider's knowledge and an outsider's mind. that sounds like someone who used to work at a bank who came back to rob the bank.

we need an outside perspective. the number one issue facing this state is the economy. i have balanced budgets. i have created jobs. i have run large organizations. i deliver results. the state of california wants someone who can come in and is not beholden to special interests. someone who can pioneered a way forward around things that matter. my focus is on three things. we have to get californians back to work. if we do not, there is no way out of this mess. what happens with high unemployment is revenues go down. unlike businesses, when your revenues go down, costs go up. that is what californians will trust me to restore california. >> we have a short amount of time left. i want to give you 30 seconds to round out our hour of discussion. the state has a $20 billion budget problem. there are laws that have been

passed by voters. what one budget-related initiative needs to be reexamined, given what is going on? >> i am supportive of the initiative process that gave as proposition 13. the initiative process needs an overhaul. we go to voters and we say, would you like high-speed rail? we do not tell them what needs to be done. we have to reform the initiative process, so that when we go before the voters, there is a very clear cost. that is the perform. >> is there one specific one? >> not right now. >> steve poizner? >> i disagree. we should not touch the pro cess. i will give you two. i would put in front of the voters a constitutional change to put a spending cap in place

so that we control spending in sacramento once and for all. republicans and democrats cannot control their spending. i would convert the legislature from full-time to part-time and cut their sovereign in half at the same time. -- their salary in half at the same time. >> is there one on the books that he would reexamine? >> [laughter] >> let's move on for closing statements. it is the speed round. you a two minutes each. meg whitman. >> i'm running for governor of california because i refuse to let california fail. i know california can be better than it is. make no mistake, we have an enormous challenge. the biggest challenge is that california has a crisis of confidence. every day, people ask me, can

california really be fixed? the answer is yes. it will take a very different approach an entirely different leadership. einstein had it right when he said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results. i think it is better to get three things done at 100%, as opposed to trying to boil the ocean in sacramento. my leadership approach will be incurred in fiscal discipline -- anchored in fiscal discipline. i know how to stick to core financial principles. i took ebay to a fortune 500. i know what is required for small businesses to grow and thrive. all californians want california to be great again. we have the chance to turn the state around.

we have a destiny in california. we used to be that ended asian capital of america. today, we are not. -- be used to be the innovation -- we used to be the innovation capital of america. if we can return to our core values of hard work, freedom from excess, and investing in the future, we will be unstoppable. we can make a huge difference. i asked for your support as we go forward into what i think will be one of the most important elections in our lifetime in california. thank you for coming. >> steve poizner. >> the surtax to support mental health funding -- i would repeal that. our tax is already too high. [laughter] i think california is headed in completely the wrong direction. i want to take it in a different direction. that is why i am running for

governor. bold, sweeping changes are required or we will be steamrolled by india, china, nevada, and texas. we need fundamental reform of our tax and regulatory system, or we just will not make it. half measures will not suffice. what track record do you have so that we can believe you have a chance of getting these things done? look at my track record. 30 years of experience at starting in running companies. -- and running companies. i am an engineer who knows how to build things from scratch. combine that with my success in the public sector service. i was in the classroom as a volunteer teacher. i am one of the pioneers of the california charter school movement. i am one of only eight elected statewide officers and i have downsize my department by 50 percent -- by 15%.

you have jerry brown on one end of the spectrum. he is a career politician for 40 years. we have meg whitman. she is a rookie. she has connections to goldman sachs and wall street. i do not think people are ready for that either. i am here in the middle with the rights of experience and the right value and the right track record to get this goods the back on track. i thank you for organizing this debate. -- to get this good state back on track. i thank you you for organizing this debate. >> thank you both. thank you to the journalists for being part of this. thank you to the sponsors prefer comcast customers, are rebroadcast is available on demand. to our audience here at the tech museum and across california, election day is tuesday, june 8. california faces a number of serious challenges.

your vote is a vote for the kind of change that you would like to see. thank you very much for watching and listening. good night. [applause] host[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this debate was sponsored by comcast, time warner cable, cox cable, charter cable, the silicon valley leadership group, and the california cable and tele-communications association.

..

>> there are nearly 6000 references to abraham lincoln in our video library, and if you are one of the millions who enjoys our 16th president, you will find the programs online, and for contemporary perspective in print, there is a book now in paperback at your favorite book seller. >> now i un conference in new york on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. mahmoud ahmadinejad spoke for 35 minutes. >> good morning, ladies and

gentlemen. i would like to say a word about the statements by the secretary general. the secretary general said the iran muscats of the fuel exchange end of the -- must accept the few exchange and that the ball is now in iran's court, and i would like to tell you that we have been accepted the from the start, and i would like to announce that for us it is an exempted deal. therefore, we have now from cobol in the court of those who should accept our -- thrown the ball in the court of those who should except our proposal. in the name of god the compassionating, the merciful, all praise be to allah and peace and blessings be on our master and profit mohammed and his household and his noble companions.

hasten the arrival and grant him good health and victory and make his followers and those who attest to his rightness. i thank the almighty god for granting an opportunity to have a dialogue about one of the key issues of common concern. this is one of the most important international meetings. sustainable security is an inherent and instinctive part of human beings and the historical quest. no country can afford to ignore security.

the divine profits and righteous men also sought to offer guidelines in light of their faith in god and divine teachings, to assure a safe answer real-life in both worlds, year and thereafter. -- here and thereafter. to them, an ideal society is one of global scale based on monotheism, justice, replete with security, affection, and brother leanness, -- brotherliness, led by the noble servant of god and jesus christ. peace be of talk -- peace be upon him as well as righteous people. may i underline that in the absence of sustainable security, it is impossible to adopt

comprehensive measures for development and promoting welfare. a substantial part of national resources are allocated for national security, but there is hardly any sign of improvement in the ability -- hardly any sign of the ability to improve security in the face of perceived threats, and that continues -- that effort continues to defy us. as some states shoes to part from the teachings of divine process -- shoes to part from the teachings of the vine pro -- chooose to part from the teachings of divine prophets, some states define the use of nuclear bombs as an element of

stability and security, and this constitutes the world's mistake. the production and possession of nuclear bombs under any pretense is hazardous first and foremost to the production in the country and stockpiling. you may recall the perilous and unintentional transfer of a new missile on a bomber from a military base and other bases in the united states, which became a matter of concern to the health and security of americans and its government. the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to annihilate all living beings and destroy the environment, and its radiation could affect future generations, and leaving a

negative impact on the environment that remains for centuries. the nuclear bomb is a fire against humanity, rather than a weapon for defense. the possession of nuclear bombs is not a source of pride. its possession is disgusting and shameful, and even more shameful ais the threat to use such weapons, which is used, the scale is up in comparable to any crime committed throughout history -- is not unbearable to any crime committed throughout history. for those who carried out the first atomic bombardments are among the most hated individuals in human history. the united nations in particular the security council have for the past 60 years been unable to establish sustainable

security, let alone give a sense of security to nations and their international relations. the current international situation seems far more challenging than previous decades. wars, and acts of aggression, and above all, the shadow of thread resulting from the stockpiling of nuclear disarmament, and even worse, unfair policies applied by a select group of expansionist states have obscured the prospect of international obscurity. these days -- these communities largely carry a sense of insecurity as a result. nuclear disarmament and non- proliferation have failed to materialize, and the international atomic energy agency has been unsuccessful in

discharging its mandate. during the past four decades, some states, including the zionist regime, have been eclipse -- = with nuclear arms, despite international efforts to promote disarmament, so what really is the cause of failure to disarm? to answer this question, one should look into the policies and practices of certain states as well as the efficacy and the imbalances it curtails, some of which are followers -- are as follows. first is what i label as a domineering influence. from the perspective of the vine process -- divine profitphets te prosperity is measured by his

modesty and devotion to other fellow human beings. unfortunately, by relying on a theory that stayed -- that states struggle is survival, some states seek their superiority through the power to express and to suppress others, so the seeds of hatred they promote -- arms race in the international arena. their gross mistake is their assumption that might makes it right. second is the misperception that there should even be a policy that allows the production and use of nuclear weapons. the first nuclear bomb was produced by a previous government of the united states. it seemed apparently it would provide the united states and its allies the upper hand in world war ii.

however, it became the main source of encouragement to others to develop nuclear weapons and brought the world to the brink of a nuclear arms race. the production, stockpiling, and qualitative assessment serves as a justification for others to develop their own arsenals, a trend that has occurred over the past 40 years. 3, the misperception that nuclear weapons is a means of deterrence. this misperception, which has in fact translated into policy, is the main cause of the escalation of the arms race. it requires an eds both in quality and quantity of weapons, -- it requires an edge

in quality and quantity of weapons. there are more than 20,000 nuclear weapons worldwide, half of which belong to the united states. the other competing groups continue to develop nuclear weapons under the pretext of deterrence. those trends constitute a violation of obligations under the treaty. 4, -- for this is a misperception that is ok to use nuclear weapons. regrettably, the united states has not only use nuclear weapons but continues to threaten to use such nuclear weapons against other countries, including my country. might remind you a few years back another country from europe also made another nuclear threat. the zionist regime consistently

threatened some middle eastern countries with its nuclear arsenal. the fifth issue is what i call the instrument of exploitation of security council and the international atomic energy agency. by enjoy a special privileges and the highest decisionmaking body, certain nuclear weapons states widely exploited these platforms against non-nuclear weapon states, contrary to the spirit of the npt. this unjust practice, repeated over and over, has turned into a pattern. so far, none of the non-nuclear weapons states has ever been able to exercise their inalienable and legal rights to

develop the peaceful use of nuclear energy without facing pressure and threats, despite clear provisions of article 6 of the treaty -- that is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty -- and the statute. not a single report has been issued by the iaea inspectors on nuclear-weapons facilities of the united states and its allies. nor is there any plans for their disarmament. numerous resolutions are adopted against non-nuclear weapons states under pressure by the same states which used false pretext which the clear intention of denying other member states their legal rights for nuclear energy. six is the prevailing sense that

is all right to use double standards. although the zionist regime stockpiles hundreds of nuclear warheads, wages numerous wars in the middle east region, and continues to threaten the people in nations of the region with acts of terror and threats of invasion, it enjoys the unconditional support of the united states government and its allies and receives the necessary assistance to develop a nuclear weapons program. the same states impose various pressures on other members of the iaea by using false pretext of probable divergence on their peaceful activities. failing to provide even a single credible proof to substantiate their allegations. 7, equating nuclear weapons

with nuclear energy -- nuclear energy is among the cleanest and cheapest sources of energy. severe climate change in environmental pollution caused by fossil fuel has intensified the need to expand the use of nuclear energy. almost 7 million barrels of oil are needed for the continual generation of 1,000 megawatts of electricity annually, which by today pause crude oil price, which cost over $500 million -- today's crude oil price, would cost over $500 million. the cost of the same capacity with nuclear energy is $60 million. generally, the investment needed to construct and build -- start a power plant is half the cost of a power cut operating with fossil fuels during its life span.

moreover, nuclear technology can be effectively and widely applied in the production of medical isotopes for diagnosis and treatment of life- threatening diseases as well as in the industrial and agricultural sectors and other fields. one of the greatest injustices committed by nuclear weapons states is equating nuclear arms with nuclear energy as -- nuclear energy. as a matter of fact, these states seek to exclusively monopoly of those nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, because by doing so they can impose their will on the international community. these acts are against the spirit of the npt and in flagrant violation of its provision. last is the issue of like to address, which i call the imbalance in the tellers of the

mandate -- the pillars of the mandate. the key mandates is the prevention of nuclear arms race. the promotion of nuclear disarmament, and non- proliferation, as well as the implementation of the inalienable rights of member states to use peaceful nuclear energy. very difficult conditions have been put into its mechanism and regulations to supervise countries seeking the peaceful use of nuclear energy. no effective mechanism has been devised to adjust the actual threat of nuclear weapons, which should be the most important mission of the iaea half. all efforts in this respect have been limited to talks that like any binding force of guaranteed or effectiveness. the iaea has been placing every possible pressure on non-nuclear

weapons states under the pretext of proliferation risks, when it should have been doing otherwise. this is where those having nuclear bombs continue to enjoy full immunity by the a e i a and exclusive rights. -- i ada and exclusive rights. it is now clear the policy practices by some nuclear weapons states as well as with the weakness and imbalance in the npt provisions are the main cause of insecurity and serve as an incentive for the development of nuclear weapons. nuclear disarmament, the elimination of nuclear threats and non-proliferation are regarded as the greatest services establishing sustainable peace and security. the question is whether it is appropriate to grant extraordinary authority in the

iaea to the nuclear weapons states and in draws them with a critical issue of nuclear disarmament -- entrust them with a critical issue of nuclear disarmament. it would be naive and irrational to expect an effective and voluntary initiative towards disarmament and non- proliferation. some the because these states consider nuclear weapons -- simply because these states consider nuclear weapons as an evidence of their superiority. there is an iranian statement that read, a knife never cuts its own handle. expecting major arms dealers to work for security is illogical. the government of the united states, which is the main subset in the production, stockpiling, use, and threat of the use of nuclear weapons insists upon

assuming the leadership role in reviewing the npt. the u.s. administration in its recently released review has announced it will neither produced nuclear weapons, nor will it attack non-nuclear weapons states with nuclear weapons, but the united states has never respected any of its commitments, so one may ask, how much can nations possibly trust the united states do to implement this -- its commitments? what are the tools for independent implementation? they should bear in mind that in previous decades the united states has had most of its wars in conflict with those who were once its friends. furthermore, under the same initiative, some member states, which are also committed members of the of npt, have threatened to be the target of nuclear strikes.

the united states government has always tried to divert public opinion's attention away from its non compliant and unlawful actions by bringing into focus misleading issues. they have recently raised the issue of nuclear terrorism as part of their efforts to maintain and upgrade their nuclear arsenal on one hand and the verge of the world public opinion from the issue of disarmament and direct them toward sony matters on the other hand. -- towards phony matters on the other hand. farming terrorists with nuclear weapons are only conceivable -- arming terrorists with nuclear weapons are only conceivable by those countries that have nuclear weapons and have used them and also have a long record of supporting terrorists. . npt -- in its npr, the united states has kept quiet in order

to concentrate pressure on certain independent nations. this is why major terrorist networks are supported by the united states intelligence agencies and the zionist regime. credible evidence is available in this connection that will be publicized is needed during the forthcoming conference on the globe will fight against terrorism in tehran. -- the global fight against terrorism in tehran. it is noted the united states will not develop nuclear weapons, but it will continue to improve them qualitatively. the qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons is tantamount to the increasing destructive power of such weapons, which is a vertical proliferation. its stated policies are non- verifiable, because there is no

provision by any independent authoritative body on the nuclear programs of the united states and its allies. by comparing the washington nuclear security summoned with the tape run nuclear disarmament and non- proliferation conference -- with the tape ran region tehr -- tehran nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation conference is to preserve their superiority over -- over other countries. all the participants sought was a world free from nuclear weapons. the motive of the conference was nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for nine. -- none. to realize is your main aspiration to disarm the world from nuclear weapons, to engage in non-proliferation and promote

peaceful use of nuclear energy, i would like to offer the following proposal. one, review of the achievements of the npt. npt should lead to the nuclear disarmament and non- proliferation treaty, and nuclear disarmament must be put at the core of its mandate through transparent, binding, end -- mechanism supported by solid guarantees. the establishment of an independent international communique with full authority to prepare a set of guidelines for the provisions of article 6, including planning and fully supervising nuclear disarmament and preventing proliferation. the group should conduct its work with the effective participation of all independent countries by setting a deadline for complete elimination of all

nuclear weapons within a specified time table. in other words, all these nuclear weapons should be eliminated within that time table. 3, the introduction of legally binding comprehensive security guarantees without discrimination or preconditions until the achievement of full nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapons states. if four, the immediate termination of all types of research, development, or improvement of nuclear weapons and their related facilities, as well as the introduction of a mechanism by the above-mentioned group. 5, the adoption of a legally-

binding instruments on the full prohibition of production, stockpiling, improvement, proliferation, maintaining use of nuclear weapons. 6, the suspension of membership in the board of governors of the iaea for those states which use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. the presence and political influence of these states has so far prevented the iaea from performing its mandates, particularly with regards to articles four and six of the treaties and has caused the agency to deviate from conducting its authorized mission, in particular, how could the government of the united states be a member of the board of government while it does not only used for -- it has not only use the nuclear bomb against japan but has used

depleted nuclear weaponry is in the iraq war? seven, the sensation of all kinds of nuclear cooperation with non-member states and the adoption of the fact of punitive measures against all these states, which continues their cooperation with such non-member states. 8, considering any threat to use nuclear weapons or attack against nuclear facilities as a breach of international peace and security and swift reaction from the united nations through the termination of cooperation of member states with the threatening aggressor state. 9, immediate and unconditional instrumentation of the resolution adopted by the 1995 review conference on the

establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the middle east. 10, dismantling of nuclear weapons stationed in the military bases of the united states and its allies in other countries, including germany, italy, japan, and the netherlands. a 11, a collective effort to reform the structure of the security council. the current structure of the security council is extremely unfair and inefficient and mainly serves the interest of the nuclear weapons states. reforming the structure of the council along with reviewing the achievement of the npt are interrelated and essential for the realization of the iaea's objectives. .

a nation that has produced great celebrities, intellectuals, and

wise personalities, a nation which has always called for love, compassion and peace for mankind, a nation, the palm of who is great poet -- the poem of that says the human race has creation at the base. an asian which -- a nation which abolished slavery 2500 years ago. i speak of a great nation of iran. it is not one that needs a nuclear bombs for its development. it does not regarded as a source of its honor and dignity. the largesse and will of the

iranian it nanation -- all nations love freedom, brother of, and monotheism, and suffer from injustice. many of the justice-seeking dignitaries and commentators in talks with me have shared this view, that there is a dire need for global disarmament and the expansion of peaceful use of clean, nuclear energy for all, by breaking the monopoly imposed in these fields. and as was contained in the foregoing proposals. this is the heartfelt command of all independent nations, that nuclear energy for everyone, nuclear-weapons for no one.

accordingly, my presence and the essence of my statement here in this conference is only a representation of -- their presence in demands. dear colleagues, now may say a few words to those that still maintain that the production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons are sources for power and dignity? they must understand that the era of relying on nuclear bombs has already passed. the production, stockpiling, and the threat to use weapons, in particular nuclear weapons, is for people characterized by a lack of consistent logic and wise behavior. using threats against a stronger -- logic and belongs to the past and is not viable anymore. in the current era, we speak of

the age of nations, thoughts, and cultures, relying on weapons and international dialogue is a legacy of unwise states. it is crystal clear that the hegemonic policy is thus far have failed, and a dream for establishing new empire a are vain hopes. rather than continue with the failed policies of the past, it would be better to join the wide and transparent ocean of nations, beyond the borders, of independent states carried hand- in-hand with human wisdom and culture. this would be in everyone's best interest. the future belongs to nations. security, peace, and justice would be established by

righteous people throughout the world. the power of logic could prevail over the logic of power. there would be no room in the future for bullying and arrogance. the common movement of the nation still well the world for fundamental reforms -- nations throughout the world for fundamental reforms and has already begun. i invite mr. obama, the respectful president of the united states, to join this humane movement, if he is still committed to his motive of change. system r will be -- since tomorrow would be too late. here, i would like to acknowledge and express my appreciation for the efforts of the president of the

conference, the distinguished audience and participants, and all those who strive for the establishment of peace and justice in the world. dear friends and colleagues, through cooperation and the solidarity of our hearts and with harmony, our aspiration for establishing a world blessed with justice and peace is indeed an achievable. the motto of nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for nuns is the basis -- weapons for none is the basis. let us hope for a day when no one would be infuriated. it so happens, let's hope again no weapon to beat -- would be found to satisfy this. greeting to love and affection. greetings to the followers of

the school of compassion and human beings who love to humans. i wish you all every success and prosperity. [applause] >> now remarks from secretary of state clinton of the un at nonproliferation conference. she spoke for 20 minutes. >> i want to thank the secretary general, director general amano, ambassador cabactulan, for their outstanding leadership in pulling together this review conference and addressing the challenges of nuclear proliferation. as you know, president obama has made reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons and materials a central mission of our foreign policy, and the npt lies at the core of that mission. i want to begin by reading a section of the message that

president obama has sent to this conference -- "for four decades, the npt has been the cornerstone of our collective efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. but today, this regime is under increasing pressure. a year ago in prague, i therefore made it a priority of the united states to strengthen each of the treaty's key pillars as we work to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to pursue the peace and security of a world without them." today, the eyes of the world are upon us. over the coming weeks, each of our nations will have the opportunity to show where we stand. will we meet our responsibilities or shirk them? will we ensure the rights of nations or undermine them? in short, do we seek a 21st century of more nuclear weapons or a world without them?"

these are the questions we must answer and the challenges we must meet. at this conference and beyond, let us come together in partnership to pursue the peace and security that our people deserve. now, president obama and i know that there are many different perspectives and historical experiences represented in this room. we know there are doubts among some about whether nuclear weapons states, including my own country, are prepared to help lead this effort. i am here to tell you as clearly as i can: the united states will do its part. i represent a president and a country committed to a vision of a world without nuclear weapons and to taking the concrete steps necessary that will help us get there. and along with my delegation, i come to this conference with sincere and serious proposals

to advance the fundamental aims of the npt and strengthen the global nonproliferation regime. now, president obama and i have spoken often of rights and responsibilities, and for us that's not just a slogan; it is the guiding principles of our efforts. we recognize the rights of all countries in compliance with the treaty to realize the benefits of nuclear energy. and we recognize our responsibility to commit the resources that will help spread those benefits as widely as possible. we also recognize our responsibility as a nuclear weapons state to move toward disarmament, and that is exactly what we are doing. and as we work to uphold our end of the basic bargain of the npt, we are asking all signatories to do the same, to work with us to strengthen

global nonproliferation rules and hold accountable those who violate them. so as we begin this conference, let's remember why we are here, because it is easy to get lost in the jargon and the technical disputes. but there is a deeper mission here to create a safer world where all of our children and grandchildren can realize their god-given potential without the threat of nuclear proliferation. this meeting comes 40 years after the npt first entered into force. at that time, the world was at a crossroads. president kennedy had warned that by the year 1975, up to 20 countries might have nuclear weapons, and many said that nuclear proliferation was inevitable. well, today we can be grateful

that this treaty helped dispel the darkest predictions of that era and that a nuclear weapon has not been used in those four decades. yet as we recognize the significance of the npt, we must also acknowledge that like our predecessors 40 years ago, we stand at a crossroads too. once again, we face the prospect of a new wave of proliferation. once again, we hear claims that the spread of nuclear weapons is unavoidable. and once again, some say we must learn to live with the fear and instability of a world with more and more nuclear-armed states and networks. now, today, the vast majority of states are living up to their nonproliferation obligations. but a few outliers have demonstrated a determination to

violate the rules and defy the international community. during the past decade, one state said it was withdrawing from the npt after being caught cheating and subsequently announced two nuclear tests. another has cynically claimed to be abiding by the treaty while violating its safeguards, expanding its enrichment program, failing to cooperate with the iaea, and ignoring the injunctions of the security council. but amid these challenges, once again, most nations have the opportunity to choose a different path. and the message that president obama delivered in prague last year has a new urgency. rules must be binding. violations must be punished. words must mean something. and the world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. now, at this conference, it is

time for a strong international response. these review conferences have been held every five years for the last four decades, but too often they have fractured along familiar lines: nuclear weapons states versus non-nuclear- weapons states, or the western group versus the non-aligned movement. instead of working together to meet a common challenge, we have retreated into predictable positions to protect our presumed interest. this time must be different. as one minister said to me, "we not only must think out of the box, we must think out of the blocs." we know there are some countries who will choose not to be constructive. this morning, iran's president offered the same tired, false, and sometimes wild accusations against the united states and other parties at this conference. but that's not surprising.

as you all heard this morning, iran will do whatever it can to divert attention away from its own record and to attempt to evade accountability. ultimately, however, we will all be judged not for our words but for our actions. and we will all be measured not by how assertively we claim our rights but by how faithfully we uphold our responsibilities. and as the secretary general said, in this regard the onus is on iran. so far, it has failed to meet its burden. iran is the only country represented in this hall that has been found by the iaea board of governors to be currently in noncompliance with its nuclear safeguards obligations the only one. it has defied the un security

council and the iaea, and placed the future of the nonproliferation regime in jeopardy. and that is why it is facing increasing isolation and pressure from the international community. but iran will not succeed in its efforts to divert and divide. the united states and the great majority of the nations represented here come to this conference with a much larger agenda: to strengthen a global nonproliferation regime that advances the security of all nations, to advance both our rights and our responsibilities. so now is the time to focus on promoting practical solutions, not pursuing unrealistic agendas. now is the time to build consensus, not to block it. and i call on iran to join with all the other delegations represented at this meeting to go ahead and fulfill our international obligations and

work toward the goal of a safer world. the stakes are as high as they were at the dawn of the npt. and we cannot fall into the ruts left over from old divisions. so rather than allow a small minority to focus attention on our differences, we must acknowledge we are all in this together and set a course for 40 more years of progress to stem the tide of proliferation, prevent the use of these weapons, and use nuclear power for the purpose of peace and prosperity. so to realize this goal, we must recommit ourselves to strengthening the three pillars of the nonproliferation regime. and with respect to those three pillars nuclear disarmament, access to civilian nuclear energy, and nonproliferation this administration, the united states has led through deeds, not simply through words. our commitment to the npt begins with our efforts to

reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons in our own arsenal. when president obama came into office, he recognized that the greatest potential danger facing the united states comes from a terrorist group like al- qaida obtaining a crude nuclear device, not from a global nuclear war. and we know that the threats of the 21st century cannot be addressed with a massive nuclear stockpile. so we are taking irreversible, transparent, verifiable steps to reduce the number of the nuclear weapons in our arsenal. our new start treaty with russia will limit the number of strategic nuclear weapons deployed by our countries to levels not seen since the 1950s. this agreement is consistent with the secretary general's call to pursue nuclear disarmament through agreement on a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing

instruments. our nuclear posture review ruled out the development of new u.s. nuclear weapons and new missions and capabilities for our existing weapons. it also stated we will not use nuclear weapons against non- nuclear-weapons states that are parties to the npt and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations. we have made a commitment to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty, and we are ready past ready to start multilateral negotiations on a verifiable fissile material cutoff treaty. and today, i am announcing we will submit protocols to the united states senate to ratify our participation in the nuclear-weapon-free zones that have been established in africa and the south pacific. upon ratification, parties to those agreements will have a legally binding assurance that

the united states will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them, and will fully respect the nuclear- weapons-free status of the zones. and we are prepared to consult with the parties to the nuclear-weapons-free zones in central and southeast asia, in an effort to reach agreement that would allow us to sign those protocols as well. we support efforts to realize the goal of a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the middle east, in accordance with the 1995 middle east resolution. the middle east may present the greatest threat of nuclear proliferation in the world today. adherence to the npt is not universal, and a few countries that are parties to the npt have violated their treaty obligations. but in spite of these difficulties, we want to reaffirm our commitment to the objective of a middle east free of these weapons of mass

destruction, and we are prepared to support practical measures that will move us toward achieving that objective. president obama has made clear the unites states will retain a nuclear deterrent for as long as nuclear weapons exist, one that can protect our country and our allies. but we will continue to seek further reductions and we will pursue concrete steps to improve the transparency of our nuclear arsenal. beginning today, the united states will make public the number of nuclear weapons in our stockpile and the number of weapons we have dismantled since 1991. so for those who doubt that the united states will do its part on disarmament, this is our record, these are our commitments, and they send a clear, unmistakable signal. we are also committed to bolstering another pillar:

access to civilian nuclear energy. we unequivocally support the rights of states that are in compliance with the treaty to access nuclear technology and energy for peaceful purposes. the iaea's high-end projection for new nuclear capacity has nearly doubled since the last review conference five years ago. and the united states wants to help expand the ability of all states to utilize peaceful nuclear energy. over the past decade, we've provided nearly $200 million to support the iaea's technical cooperation fund. we are the largest contributor to that effort. and it has helped more than 100 countries develop or expand the peaceful use of nuclear energy. today, the president has asked me to announce that the united states will make an additional commitment of $50 million over the next five years for a new iaea peaceful uses initiative.

we hope other partners will match this contribution with an additional $50 million. we will use these resources to improve health care and nutrition, manage water resources, increase food security, and help countries develop the infrastructure for the safe and secure use of nuclear power. we are pleased that the iaea's director general has made expanding use of civil nuclear energy for humanitarian purposes one of his signature initiatives. the united states is also strengthening bilateral technical cooperation arrangements with more than 40 states, particularly in the middle east, north africa, and southeast asia. but this treaty is weakened when a state flouts the rules and develops illicit nuclear weapons capabilities. so as we pursue progress on these pillars, we must recommit our nations to bolster the nonproliferation regime. when leaders of the iaea ask

for more resources and authority to carry out their mission of verifying compliance with nonproliferation obligations, we must respond. when the iaea calls on states to sign and ratify an additional protocol to ensure that parties to the npt are meeting their treaty obligations, we must act. but improving the iaea's ability to detect safeguard violations is not enough. potential violators must know that they will pay a high price if they break the rules, and that is certainly not the case today. the international community's record of enforcing compliance in recent years is unacceptable. so we need to consider automatic penalties for the violation of safeguards agreements such as suspending all international nuclear cooperation or iaea technical cooperation projects until compliance has been restored.

and we must use all of the possible financial and legal tools to disrupt illicit proliferation networks. that means tightening controls on transshipment and enhancing restrictions on transfers of sensitive technology. we should also find ways to dissuade states from utilizing the treaty's withdrawal provision to avoid accountability. now, i am not proposing to amend the treaty to limit the rights of states to withdraw. but we cannot stand by when a state committing treaty violations says it will pull out of the npt in an attempt to escape penalties and even pursue nuclear weapons. parties to the npt have invested decades in building a global nonproliferation regime, and that work will be rendered meaningless if the international community continues allowing nations to break the rules of the npt with impunity. our work at this conference must provide a foundation for

future actions, including strengthening iaea safeguards, negotiating a fissile material cutoff treaty at the conference on disarmament and toughening enforcement against proliferation violations at the un security council. the last 40 years have proved that nuclear proliferation is not inevitable. we believe it can be stopped, but it will take all of us here recognizing common dangers and finding common ground, rolling up our sleeves and getting creative, taking practical steps together in the next month. a lot of skeptics out there say that when countries gather at the united nations, nothing happens but a lot of words are used up. well, it is up to us at this conference to prove those doubters wrong. forty years from now, our successors will mark the 80th anniversary of the nonproliferation treaty.

and the men and women, who gather on that occasion in the new building, once it is finally completed, will not remember the words we speak today unless those words are matched by actions. but our children and our grandchildren will live with the consequences of what we decide this month. whether the world is more or less secure depends on the path we take, and there is no greater reason than that to find a way to act together and to act decisively. thank you very much. [applause] >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and on line. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube.

sign up for our e-mails at c- span.org. >> education secretary arne duncan talked about parental involvement. he spoke at what is called a mom congress with delegates at -- from every state chosen by "parenting magazine." this is just under an hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> thank you for joining us. i would like to recognize our special guests who are here with us today. secretary of education, arne duncan, our keynote speaker. the editor in chief of "parenting magazine." the group publisher of the parenting group. the dean of our school of continuing studies. and the members of the mom

congress. this is a collaboration between "parenting magazine," in the georgetown university school for continuing studies. the mom converse celebrates, connects and supports a mother's interested in education advocacy and reform. parents play a primary role in their children's educational success. it is heartening to see so many of you who are interested in providing stronger and better education for all of our children. of course, not just parents and educators, but all community members have a responsibility to ensure that every student has the opportunities and resources necessary to achieve his or her fullest potential. this is an enormous responsibility. but one that has transformed a potential. through quality education, we enable students to achieve better