with my boston accent urging the citizens of louisiana to take advantage of this program. do i need a lawyer, mr. feinberg? not to file. we will help you fill out your claims. i am not adversarial to the people here. i'm trying to get the money out. you do not need a lawyer. i want a lawyer. bring a lawyer, your priest, your wife. i do not care. bring your accountant. i do not care who you bring. i do not care who helps to. i will say this. you do not need a lawyer to fill out these forms. .

>> you cannot fish. if you cannot shrimp. you cannot process shrimp. you are a food processor. you are a wholesaler. file a claim. you will be eligible.

buff -- the amazing thing to lee of a number of people -- to me are the number of people who have not filed a claim so far. even for emergency payments. you are not giving up any rights whatsoever. the main reason i am here today at the request of gov. bobby jindal and all local parish is to promote this program and to urge everybody to take advantage of the program. if you are not eligible, you are not eligible. you still have all of your other rights. my goal is to make sure that

whatever you could get in court after years of litigation with lawyers, i am going to do better and i am going to do quicker. that is the overview of the program. i welcome the opportunity to respond to questions from this audience. yes, sir. >> i am glad you came to houma.

one of my questions is, i have 20 vessels. i am trying to get another one. i am still dealing with bull. almost every day i have called in. i have never talked to the same person. that is one of my questions. my other question is, [unintelligible] how do i collect when everything is shut down? >> you ask two questions. let me make sure i understand the questions.

i take it that the first question is that you are not getting any response from bp to your questions. is that the problem? >> yes, sir. >> there is a man here in the front row. he is going to talk to you. you are going to get responses to your questions. he is going to take down your name and get back to you so you will that some responses. >> i talked to daryl willis. i have never had a response. >> two answers. you are going to get a response. secondly, in about two weeks, i

am going to leave here today and you are going to give me whatever information you can. believe me, you are going to get a response. keep in mind, this is very important. are you going to be able to file a claim even though the oil has not reached your oysters? because they won't let you harvest the oysters or you cannot sell the oysters? yes. file a claim. i am not going to require that the oysters actually be harmed by the oil. that is not required. if you can demonstrate that the market for oysters has dried up because of the oil even though the oil has never reached your oysters, we will take care of you.

>> one other thing. i work on a barrier reef. we had all of our leases -- >> i do not understand the question. >> the oil came up to the -- >> filed a claim. you do not -- cannot get to the face. the fish do not need to be swimming in the oil. as long as you file a claim. >> so far, we are talking about income and it affected our revenue. my question is, should we be hit with a hurricane and our community be flooded and our

homes and properties are covered with oil, what happens then? i know insurance is not going to cover all the damage to our property. >> i will look at that problem. if a hurricane comes along and damages your home this summer with oil caused by the spill, because of that natural disaster, you have got a claim. >> the day, sir. my question is, i was employed by an oil field service company. i was laid off due to the business climate in the gulf of mexico. i would like to file a claim for lost wages. >> you have been laid off as a direct result of the oil spill. if it wasn't for the oil spill,

you would still be working. i will take a look at that. these questions come up. i think you are eligible. i think you are. you have been laid off directly as a result of the spill. you have a valid claim. >> sir, is your criteria going to be any different as opposed to the ndp program? -- as opposed to the bp program? >> our program will pick up where the bp program left off. i am hoping we will find more eligibility under the -- eligibility than the bp program.

right now, thanks to daryl and bp, bp has done a pretty good job of processing weight loss claims. they have not been as effect of as they should be in processing lost business profits and business claims. we are going to do better on that. it is fair to say that you do not have to refile. we will pick up where bp left off and accelerate the process, not only in individual claims but business and lost profit claims as well. >> my husband owned a crab dock. but he is a fisherman. crystal lake, they were -- originally, they were

compensated us for his fishing claims. >> file 1 claim. the claim form will say lost fishing and wages, oysters, shrimp. in one claim form, you will file both claims and we will process them together. >> i own the biggest soft shell crab firm in the state. i do not have a soft shell crab at all. i want to know that if i make a soft shell crabs, will bp the government come and eat those scraps. -- those crabs. >> i am not sure if i owned -- if i understand the question. you own a soft shell crab

business. >> it is the biggest one in the state. bp has only got 10% or 15% of that oil flow. are you going to eat any of those crabs > ? >> i do not know if i am going to eat bell whle -- eat the whole crab or not. when you file your claim, you state that you want to be compensated for the entire crab. your loss is because you cannot ship that crab around the country. >> bp is going to be out of business. i do not want to sell crabs like

that to the public. they have oil in the gulf of mexico. how are they going to get backoil -- get that oil out of the gulf of mexico? >> how long do you think it will be before you will be able to harvest those scraps? >> over 30 years. >> you have a total loss of your business. >> i used to work in the oilfields. bp and companies like bp called me to do a job. i went to bp three days after they had the oil spill. i showed them something that would help them shut off the oil

spill. i talked to bp on the phone. nobody ever called me. i could have stopped that leak a long time ago. >> i am not here to stop the leak. i am here to urge you to try to get compensated for your loss. that is what i am here for. >> it has destroyed my company. >> in spite of bp's assertions in the press releases that claims are being paid on an average of nine days from claims being made, all of the claims i have filed on behalf of my clients have not been paid. i am running an average of 53 days from the time of planes -- claims being filed and being

paid. secondly, will there be a standard set of the date the requirements? we have been sending tax returns. then they say they want pnl's. now they want three years of checking account records. it changes every single day and it is completely arbitrary. >> i agree with you that the current decentralized system is a shambles. i am agreed with you. in the next couple of weeks, not months, when we set up this centralized system, we will have systematically, consistently stated what we want. we are not going to change from

claims office to claims office. >> next question. is the third-party administrator going to remain the same? are those same people are going -- same people going to be in place? >> they need more direction. they are in louisiana company. we are going to set up a new infrastructure. we are going to set up an infrastructure that is going to systematically make it easier to file, find out where your claim is, and process that claim. >> are you going to make the computation process public? let's say one of my clients get a check. how do you come up with that amount to? i sent you $100,000 worth of

shrimp tickets? . >> the method i will use to calculate the claims will be public. you can challenge it if you want. secondly, if governor jindal has complained to me about anything, it is the absence of reliable detente. homeland security is very concerned about the lack of transparent, good data. we are going to make that data public. we are going to get the type of data that everyone needs to see that the program is working. >> i appreciate that. i am pulling my hair out. i have been dealing with this as an attorney with a different

skill set. all attorneys are not bad people. i would appreciate it if you take it a little easy on us unless you intend to bring in another legion of new lawyers. i hope they will have our -- >> we are caught in the middle. we cannot file a claim with bp because we are in the middle of a moratorium. there are thousands of us who are independent contractors. which cannot file unemployment. i am sure no one is going to what those numbers. i am not sure that businesses who have bid -- dealt with the

bp can get information from you. i want to tell you the scope of people who are affected that have nowhere to go. i do not know where we fall as businesses. right now, we are at 85% loss of business. most of the vendors we service are at 85% and 90%. some are moving out of the area and sending their people to taxes and divisions there. i want to know where all of us can go. >> them, you are in nomand' -- nomansland. if your business has been adversely impacted by the moratorium, not the oil spill, the moratorium, i think it is

fair to say that you are not eligible for any of the $100 million moratorium. you are not eligible under the program i am administrating. right now, your only hope is a lawsuit. i am not advising that because i am not sure you can win it. all i can say to you is, of all the questions i have heard here today, the one that is the most distressing to me is yours. i can only do what i can do. i can help fishermen shrimpers and people who are impacted by the spill. i can direct rig workers who are harmed by the moratorium to go to the $100 million fund.

i do not have a satisfactory answer to you, and it's not right now. i do not. >> my husband is a charter captain. he was in montana in the summer. he comes back usually in october and works the winter here. he has a plane and he is working on it. i have been told not to turn it in yet and i have been told to turn it in now and get it into the system. i question is when do i turn it in? >> turn it in now. >> my second question is should we go for two years? >> right now, come in and get

six months of emergency pay without raising -- waiving any rights. six months from now, when the oil had stopped, then you will sit down and you sitseek -- you will seek what you need to make yourself hold this year and the year after. >> thank you so much. >> i am a schrempp -- shrimp processor here in louisiana. when the oil spill started, we had inventory. we chose to work when the season was over. to make a point, we have been penalized for that. we sold product and we sold off inventory. consequently, in the month of

may and the month of june, we made a profit. bp is basing their claims of of profit and loss. we talked to them and we said, let's take a look at production figures, which are on off compared to last year, and inventory figures. i am at about 15% of inventory compared to last year. is your system going to take care of me.? ? i have no inventory now and i do not have a pot -- have the possibility of buying any inventory. >> i am surprised you had a claim denied. >> it is not a denied claim. they said we were not eligible for may and june.

but how do we survive until that point that we are eligible? >> you are already suffering losses. you have no inventory. i do not understand. you are already suffering losses. you have nothing to sell because there is nothing in your warehouse. >> you are as modern man than me. >> i think you have a valid claim. we should talk before i leave here today. >> we are in a areventure with -- we are in a joint venture with bp.

with all of the fishermen, there are at least 100 boats and i would like to talk to you [unintelligible] thank you, sir. >> i am a commercial fisherman. i have been a commercial fisherman all my life. [unintelligible] >> if i understand correctly, are you asking me if you need to

be filed for a claim? >> yes. >> it was denied. >> if you have filed a claim with bp and the claim has not been decided, you do not know what happened and it is sitting there and it has not been resolved, we will resolve those claims in the next two weeks. i cannot do it now. we are setting up the new system. you do not have to refile it. we will resolve that claim in the next few weeks. >> thank you. >> my question is about cash.

people have been working for cash. how are you going to handle that as far as the process being transparent? a lot of people might be afraid to file a claim with bp because they have been working for cash and the irs and taxes and all of those things in between. >> it would be amazed at how many times i get questions about cash. there is nothing illegal about being paid in cash. that is perfectly ok. nobody says that is illegal. when you file your claim with me and you say that you are out of pocket, you have lost wages and you only reseat them in cash, i need you to help me -0-

received them in the past, i need to know the amount. there are ways you can prove the amount. you can show me a tax return. you can show me checks or check stub . you can even come to me and say, here is my captain, who i work for. he will vouch for me. i do not care. but i have got to corroborate it somehow. listen carefully. let's say you are able to prove that cash. i will give you six months worth of cash. but you are going to get a 1099 from me. you are going to get the irs. i have to send you a form from the internal revenue service. i cannot violate the law.

i have to send the 1099. then it is up to you. i do not need a tax return to prove your cash. i need something. i will be as generous as i can. but i cannot pilot the law. -- violte the law. i cannot accept a claim from an undocumented worker. you do not have to be a citizen. you need to have a green card. i cannot violate the immigration law or the irs. i will work with you to try to make this program work. but understand that there are legal limitations. one other thing that is very important.

if you say, mr. feinberg, if i come to you with a file, are you going to send my file to the government? absolutely not. this is a continental submission. we are not going to send it to any -- this is a confidential submission. we are not going to send it to any government agency. we will provide some important data to the governor and others to make sure that they understand the overall program and how it is working and the general statistics. we are not going to disclose to anybody your private file. >> i would like to know how long it will be before the rig

workers get paid? >> how long before the moratorium rig workers get paid. not on my watch. i will try to get an answer to that question. i do not know the status of the $100 million. you are not the only person asking me that question. public officials are asking me that question. it is at the top of their agenda. i will try to get an answer for you as soon as i can. that is not part of my program. i am hoping it will be. i will let you know as soon as i can. >> everyone from bp is saying you are the one responsible for this. they say we should ask you when you are going to issue money to the rig workers.

they say they are waiting on your final word to issue out money to the rig workers. >> the question is, this gentleman says, when he tried to file a claimtriedbp -- file a claim, bp said he had to wait until ken feinberg takes over. >you are able to file the claim was bp, but they say they will not pay the claim because they are waiing for mr. feinberg. daryl willis is right here from bp. they have paid out $100 million in claims. you need to talk to daryl about getting that claim processed. if it is a problem area, i will

take a look at it. i am going to be up and running in the next two or three weeks. i will try to get a look at that claim as soon as i can. >> i am the principal chief of united home nation. it is a native american tribe the nation. nearly 6000 of our tribal families have been directly impacted as a result of the infiltration of the surface oil. i am requesting that our tribe leadership meet with you personally as soon as possible to explore the unique situation that the tribe is in currently. commercial fishing is the single

largest industry in our tribe. we have been fishing since before american history began and before there was an oil industry in this country. our very existence is being threatened by this oil spill. i ask you to schedule a meeting. we are a sovereign nation with our own constitution. >> if i understand this correctly, your concern, on behalf of indian tribes, is not simply loss of fishing rights. it is the natural habitat, the whole area, that has been adversely impacted by the oil spill. natural resources are threatened. absolutely you have a plan. you absolutely have a claim.

the individual members who are adversely impacted by the oil theruining -- by the oil, ruining swamp land and the physical injury to the land is absolutely compensable. you should file a claim. >> our indian and grounds are being adversely affected by the oil spill. the lady who spoke earlier talked about being a lawyer and going to the process. we filed a claim 30 years ago. everytime you get close to the mark, it changes. >> i cannot compensate for physical injury before the spill of years ago.

but to the extent that the oil spill has adversely impacted your use of the land and the fishing rights and the marshes and whatever else, that is absolutely invincible -- compensible. i do not know if you have filed a claim yet. i hope you file a claim because it is compensible. >> that is why we came to the meeting. >> mr. feinberg, you mentioned that you will be in operation in three or four weeks. will you have a home office? do you anticipate the same

office as bp presently has? >> yes. we will maintain the 35 offices that bp has set up around the gulf. we will at some. i got a phone call from the attorney general of texas. he said galveston needs an office. we want to make it as convenient as possible, including electronic online filing. we will do what we can to make sure it is accessible. >> second question. you managed the 9/11 disaster from start to finish. is that correct? what period of time did it take to complete that management? how do you envision this oil spill disaster with its width

and breadth of its impact compared to 9/11. ? >> this program that i am setting up will be in effect for about three years. you imply an interesting question. you are around for three years. but we are not sure how long the effect of this spill -- we may not be able to think -- to fish for six years, or seven years, or 30 years. how are you going to deal with this problem? here is we -- or is what we are

going to do. we are one to sit down with you or the crabber. we are going to say, how long do you think it will take before your business is restored? he says never. we will have experts from around the area. we think it will probably be three years. here is a check for three years. you do not need to take the check. if you take the check for three years, you are releasing bp. if you want it, you can have it. otherwise, you do not have to take it. >> i assume you communicate with the president on a fairly regular basis. since you are touring the entire gulf coast and he has also, i would ask and plead with you

that you, from time to time, reflect your ability to understand the tremendous impact to the people of the gulf coast and that the president which show some sympathy for the people here and realize some of the actions that his administration is taking is tending to possibly exacerbate the economic disaster. i wish he would voice those opinions to him whenever you have a chance. >> let me just say a couple of things about that. i do not speak to the president at all. that is because i am not working for the administration or bp. i am an independent -- i am is

setting up an independent process. i am working for you. there are people in this audience who do work for the administration. i am sure your word will get back to him. >> least three -- these three. >> last year, i made $8,000 fishing. this year, i have probably lost 50,000 because i am on a different about. i am wondering how i am going to determined by losses on my claim? last year, i had a small boat.

i only made $8,000. this year, i bought a bigger boats. i have lost about $50,000 in shrimp already. >> that you owned a small boat and made $8,000. this year you have a bigger boat and would have made it a thousand dollars. show us that you would have made $50,000. explain it and we will pay it. if you cannot prove it, it is $8,000 or something in between. >> how can i prove that? >> you have to sit down and prove to our people, here is how i would have made it a thousand dollars. it is real and not spent a tip, we will pay it. if it is to bank executive -- speculative, we will pay it.

>> also, on our claim, when we get the $5,000 a month, is that the same claim that you [inaudible] >> if you file with bp, you do not have to file again. we will take that claim and you do not have to -- and we will process it. two more questions. >> how long after the claim is filed will they get a check in their hands? >> if it is an emergency claim, we hope to process that claim within 24 hours and pay within two or three days thereafter. >> also, does a person have to be directly effected -- directly affected? if you have a restaurant and you can show that your sales have

decreased, can we file a claim also? >> whether a restaurant will be compensated depends on if it is eligible. we are going to have to make some judgment calls. i cannot pay a restaurant in boston that says s it thathrimp -- says it cannot get shrimp. if it is on the gulf coast, i will pay them. >> if someone goes to work for bp, will that,-- affect their emergency payment? >> we will deduct the amount you're getting from bp as wages as a substitute for being out of work.

if you are getting $3,000 per month from bp, that is a swing that you will not get. >> if you were able to learn something in this season, will that affect your final payment? >> will seasonal variations have an impact on your payment m.a. -- on your payment? yes. we will factor those into your final payment. >> which filed a claim on shrimp. the family, which is 10 brothers and sisters, has oyster beds. does each person have to file a claim? >> if they have their own income and their own share, they filed separately. if you have a business, you file

as a business. if it is not, you file individually prepared -- i'll it individually. -- file it individually. that just say this before we turn it back over to our leader. i will come back as often as is necessary. my frustration is if people do not file a claim. i want to try to help. i have this money to distribute. i can only help if the claim is filed. i am acting independently. i am enormously grateful to the governor, who helped set up this entire day of meetings. i will do everything i can to help you folks. i wish you well. i cannot imagine what you are

going through. i hope to be able to help you in some way. thank you very much. [applause] >> i think everyone agrees to thank mr. feinberg for being here. we want everyone to file a claim. mr. feinberg will be meeting right here with the media. if you want to start accumulating right here, that will be fine. we will have all the media right here. i want to introduce our elected officials. we have a senator and a representative. we have our councilman. we have a number of people on board and agencies. -- boards and agencies. >> one question i wanted to ask mr. feinberg. but i wanted the public to ask

questions first. we have a number of people, because their claims have been the late -- ben delayed, -- been delayed, we need a moratorium on foreclosures on businesses.

>> tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, the final debate between four of the candidates running for the michigan governor's primary election. we thought that with a debate among the three republicans and one democrat running to be tennessee's next governor. finally, at 10:00 p.m., a debate among candidates running for the rhode island senatorial rac.e

e. that is on c-span. >> they have the different talents and their different dangers. >> this weekend, i'll refer rober -- biographer robert service. sunday night on c-span. >> now andrew shapiro. he spoke friday at the brookings institution in washington, d.c. this is about one hour and five minutes. >> for those who do not know me, i am the director of the saban

center thethe brookings institution -- at the brookings institution. i will began buying -- i will begin by asking everyone to silence their cell phones. we are pleased to have an old friend of the saban center. mar -- he has been a friend of mine for many years. i think andrew has been a fixture for many years. he took over as one of senator hillary clinton's staffers.

that was a position where he was her primary policy adviser on a whole range of natural -- national security issues. he got to spend many nights in bad bad and kabu -- baghdad and kabul. he was an associate at covington and burling. please join me in welcoming andrew shapiro. [applause] >> thank you so much for that introduction and for your friendship and of the work you are doing here at the saban center. martin gave me my first job, my

first paying job in washington, d.c. more than 20 years ago. i was just graduating from college. i read an op-ed written by him. i wrote in asking him if he needed anyone. i was hired part-time in the fall of 1989. i was just out of school. i probably did not set a world on fire. i finally got hired full-time. i was there in august of 1990 in the days before iraq invaded kuwait. i remembered being at his house i and he house iraq would take some action against kuwait.

i learned about the importance of well thought out analysis. martin brought to those same qualities to the brookings institution. i am pleased to be at the saban center to address the obama administration's in during -- enduring commitment to israel. just last week, the president met with the israeli prime minister. he stated israel has unique security requirements. president obama has insured that is administration recognizes those requirements. he doubled our efforts to meet that. one of my primary responsibilities is to preserve israel's qualitative military

edge. i would like to talk about how we are preserving israel's qme. there is support for israel's new iron domed system and other new initiatives. israel is facing some of the toughest challenges in its history. this administration is focused on israel's purity because of the severe threat it faces in the reason. -- in the region. when talking about the threat assessment, we must start with the iranian nuclear program. there is no greater threat than the prospect of a nuclear armed

iran. iran and syria pose significant conventional security challenge. s. their rockets indiscriminately target israel. they rican -- they weaking -- weaken regional security. the effort evolving technology of war is making it harder to guarantee israel's security. advances in rocket technology require a new level in the u.s.- israel cooperation. the rockets with better guidance system and greater range are spreading across the region.

hamas has a substantial number of rockets in gaza. they all pose a serious danger. these and other threats to israel's civilian population are real and growing. they must be addressed. we are standing shoulder to shoulder with our israeli partners to do so. coming into my current job after eight years with senator clinton, i can attest to hurt deep sense of pride in being a strong voice for israel. i travel to israel with senator clinton in 2005. i join her on her first visit to israel as secretary of state in march of 2009. when it comes to the u.s.-israel relationship, the policy

guidance secretary clinton has given me is no different from the guidance she gave me when i worked for her in the senate. in a recent speech, she asked me, coming from this experience of working with her, to make the management of our security relationship with israel preserving israel's military edge among my top priorities. the unique relationship between the united states and israel is rooted in common values and mutual interests. the u.s. support for the idea of a u.s. -- jewish homeland can be supported in the letters of abraham lincoln and theodore roosevelt. president truman famously extended official diplomatic recognition to israel. america's commitment to israel

has extended over many decades and administrations. our leaders have long understood that a request -- a robust relationship is good for us and good for regional stability. president nixon made the first official visit to israel to help bring about peace in the region. this began a long bipartisan effort to work toward peace. president nixon's effort was continued by president carter and president h.w. bush, president clinton, and the previous administration's engagement at the annapolis conference. this is a top administration

priority. secretary clinton, in her speech earlier this year, explained the imperative of pushing the peace process forward because the status quo is unacceptable. in addition to a nuclear arms iran, israel is under threat from the dynamics of demography, ideology, and technology. the obama administration is working with the parties to restore direct negotiations to the comprehensive peace as soon as possible. . .

d it to an unprecedented level. our work is rooted in knowledge shared by policy makers on both sides of the aisle. it is critical to the interests of israeli is, but also to america's interests.

secretary clinton said the status quo is unsafe. this poses serious challenges. regional peace must begin with the recognition that the u.s. will always stand by israeli security. know which will be driven between us. israel's right to exist is not negotiable. no lasting peace will be possible unless that is accepted. it is our hope that the commitment to security will advance the process to take tough decisions necessary for peace.

the cornerstone of our commitment has been an assurance that the u.s. will help israel attain its military edge. this is their ability to counter and defeat credible threats from any individual state. the obama administration imitated the commitment by not only sustaining -- undertaking new initiatives. each every request is evaluated in light of our policy. at the same time, consideration to extend with other governments in the region.

we will not proceed with the release of -- contribute to instability in the middle east. the primary tool the u.s. uses to ensure the military edge is security systems. israel receives almost $3 billion per year for training and equipment. the total account is $5 billion annually and distributed among 70 countries. that accounts for 50% of the funding distributed. the obama administration is proud to carry on the legacy of

robust security systems. we are carrying this legacy to new heights at a time when israel needs our support. for 2010 the administration requested 2.7 $5 billion in assistance funding for israel. the largest such request in u.s. history. we requested even more for 2011. these requests have filled the idea to implement the memorandum of understanding with israel to provide $30 billion assistance. this supports israel's security as it allows them to support

sophisticated equipment. i can assure you that even in challenging budget times this administration will continue to honor this $30 billion commitment to future fiscal years. our unique relationship with israel extends beyond raw numbers. this provides a significant boost and is one of many ways we demonstrate our commitment to meeting israel's procured a -- security requirements.

he also have training and military exercises. more than 1000 u.s. troops participated which was the largest u.s.-is really exercise in history. focus on urban terrain and counter-terrorism options. militarynce israel's capabilities and improve our own ability with the israeli defense forces.

the u.s. supports the defense needs through government sales programs and through direct commercial sales, including the closest of allies and partners. we have notified congress of a number of significant sales, most notably teh strike fighter. this will prove a key contribution for many years to come. israel benefits from a war reserve stockpile and used to boost israeli defenses in case there is something -- in case there is an emergency.

the u.s. and israel have cooperated in research and development. israel air and missile defense systems are an area of particular focus. for our part, we were working with israel to upgrade its system that was first deployed in the gulf war and has advanced radar systems to provide early warning of upcoming missiles. they are protecting troops every day.

is specifically designed dressing he treated -- widely used by our men and women in iraq and afghanistan. it includes sensors, surveillance equipment and detections for ied's. they had yielded important crown breaking innovations that ultimately make us all safer. what i have laid out represents the pillars of the corporation. given the breadth of our relationship, i have only begun to scratch the surface. the u.s. and israel are working closely to enhance our shared security.

counting and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related military materials. a prime example can be found at -- the paulison tracking -- illicit trafficking and weapons into gossip. the u.s. and israel began ideas to address this threat. these efforts have expanded into a international effort under the smuggling of initiative. under this partnership the u.s. joined canada denmark, , and the u.k. to employ a broad range of diplomatic and law-enforcement tools to block the shipment of arms.

what i really want to emphasize this the commitment to israel security is more than a continuation of policies. we have been cultivating new ways to get -- enhanced our political relationships. during the past year there has been an unprecedented invigoration of [unintelligible] through continuous high level discussions. i lead the discussions within the joint political group which includes representatives from the state department and foreign and defense ministry.

the policy advisory group provides -- this only reflects what we have been doing publicly with our israeli partners. our regular meetings have recently been supplemented by an unprecedented numbers of -- these small sessions allow us to discuss a wide range of security concerns. these consultations provide an opportunity for governments to share perspectives on policies,

and identify areas of cooperation. let me turn to another area we are deepening our relationship. the rocket threats from hezbollah represent the immediate challenge. this is a daily concern for israelis living in border towns and know a rocket can come crashing down every minute. senator obama met with families whose homes were destroyed by rockets. the president understands this threat. that is why this prank the president asked congress to authorize $205 million to support the production of a

short-range rocket system. this has been authorized in the house and is above the $3 billion that the administration requested for israel. one of my colleagues had a chance to see this and was able to witness the new capabilities. it will be a part of a defense against the threat of a short- range rockets fired at the population. this will allow israel to accelerate production and provide timely improvements. this demonstrates the strenth and show how serious we are this

translates in actions. israel has conducted thorough tests and and and valuation. we are confident this will provide improved defense. helping to make the population more secure is not only the right thing to do, but is teh step that is good for israel's security. bolstering the security will not facilitate a solution to the conflict. aid to state solution will not bring an end to these threats -- a two-state solution.

u.s. support for security is much more than a simple act. we are committed to their security because it enhances our own security. we cannot entrust israel's future to the status quo. we will continue to support our words with concrete actions. the relationship is too important to be anything less than a top priority. our commitment to the military edge has never been greater. under the leadership of president obama, our relationship will always receive the time and focus it deserves.

thank you for your time and attention. [applause] >> thank you. it is a pleasure to see you here in your new position. it makes me feel very old. [inaudible] i don't think anybody would it met you referenced twice the tough decisions israel will make. that this it sounds like the presumption of your approach is that you make israel a strong in

order to take risks of peace. there are others recently who have made the argument that israel is not a strategic asset of the u.s., they call them a liability. all the support we give israel does not take those tough decisions and engages in activities that create problems through some strategic level. i wonder how you respond to that counter argument. >> i think the administration projects that you. we think our relationship is

important not just because they share our values but they are a strategic benefit. i think that type of argument is a zero some argument. i don't think it is a zero sum for us. we have relationship with allies in the gulf. a lot of the threats they are concerned about are the same once israel is concerned about. the notion that there is zero some nature to our relationship with israel and mrs. our dynamics in the region and the possibility that common interests can bring this together. it does not have to be either or. >> you also talked about commitment to maintaining the military edge.

that is clear in the conventional area. to insure that it [unintelligible] there is a potential for a nuclear challenged to israeli security that comes from iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. i wonder how you -- what the commitment means in this nonconventional context. >> i think the potential for iran to develop nuclear weapons is not just a threat to israel,

but the u.s.. there are important reasons for i s to address the nuclear program -- reasons for us to address the nuclear program. our policy has been designed to put pressure on them through sanctions and diplomatic efforts to choose their security calculus so they understand their security does not benefit by developing nuclear weapons. we have had success in building consensus through security council resolutions. there is a consensus it would not be desirable for iran to develop nuclear weapons. the issue is broader.

all efforts have been geared towards putting pressure on them. >> one other aspect of maintaining teh qme relates to armster sales -- arms sales. this was a delicate balancing act. we have commitment to the security of our arab allies in the region. that also requires arms sales and security cooperation. how do you balance those competing demands in the current environment in the middle east?

we have not seen the arms sales battles on the hill in a 1980's when we battled the reagan administration. we are not seen major arms sales to the aerospace, or is it because israel understands there is a real commitment to maintaining the military edge, but there is a more common interest between israel and these arab states, then used to be the case. >> we want to make sure our partners in the gulf and the region -- in another region have the resources they need and the

ability to defend themselves. there are not susceptible to iranian pressure -- they are not susceptible. there is a commonality when i had these discussions with israel and they are concerned about threats to the region. they can deter aggressive action by iran or counter threats. there is a development of commonality of interests. by law locke, we have to take you up -- take the military edge into account. that is part of our consultation with our partners

is to try to fully understand what are the threats that they face andy what are the best means to be able to address them? >> israel is more sensitive to our needs? >> i don't want to get too much into this, but the proof is in the pudding. we have been able to provide our partners with what they need. and we are continuing to engage in discussions to ensure we know what future needs will be. >> one last question. that relates to your remarks about the thousands of rockets that are built up by hezbollah.

they confirmed that being provided to them, which crosses some kind of pink line, in terms of israel's security concerns. how do you view that rocket build up? is there another conflict in lebanon? is it stirring up tensions? >> we are very worried about that. they were concerned about the transfer of weapons from syria to 11 on. the transfer -- from syria to let non -- labanon. and we very much think it is not

in either nation's interest to add fuel to the fire. we raise this in our diplomatic discussions with both governments. >> let's go to the audience. please identify yourself and actually ask a question, which means you actually have to have a question. >> [unintelligible] >> identify yourself. >> [unintelligible] 4 these strategic interests of the u.s. in a strong relationship with israel, you

also referred to the [unintelligible] i would like to emphasize -- would like you to emphasize of the thinking of the u.s. in the two-state solution. can you give the complete assurance given to israel [unintelligible] the painful concession that -- will it make it easy for israel to not make those tanks -- make those? . this administration from the beginning has -- the very first day secretary clinton was at the state department they announced george mitchell as special envoy for mideast peace. we have made a commitment to reenergize the middle east peace

process and go towards a two- state solution. we believe it is good for parties and regional partners. senator mitchell is at the region right now. in terms of the way you characterized our assistance, it is not an inducement in my view. israel's security is important for u.s. interests, but it is also important for -- if we are to engage in a peace process if they feel confident in their security they can make tough decisions that will be required in any peace agreement.

it is not either or. >> [unintelligible] >> thank you very much. congratulations. i wonder if i could build on martin's first question, asset liability and ask you if you could clarify your view on whether the u.s.'s relationship has any negative impact for what the u.s. tries to do in iraq, afghanistan or other security interests elsewhere. >> i think that in a certain sense -- it does not matter because there are commitments to -- our commitment to israel

is rock-solid. part of our effort is to try to get the parties to understand that peace is in everyone's interests. it will enable us to make progress towards building a better future for all people. from our perspective, to other countries talk to us about it? yes, but we also make clear that our commitment to israel is unshakable. that is a fact that it is a reality of our engagement. it does come up in discussions. there are a number of nations

eager to make progress. we point out that we are here to make progress as well. >> george. >> i have a request and question. can we get [unintelligible] h[unintelligible] sensed our initiative with israel is so generous and effective, [unintelligible] do you have an explanation for that? [laughter] >> on the first one, i have talked in other contexts about what we have done in the gulf dialogue, the relationship with

our gulf partners, but it is a good idea for a speech. i may have to give another one about what we are doing. one of the things -- we are providing a lot of assistance for security forces which is an important building block for a palestinian state. we do a lot with our gulf partners to provide weapons systems and consultations, so i will take that under advisement. i am not a student of israeli politics. martin is probably better able to answer questions. the president was asked about it himself. no one could speak better on

channel 2. i would leave it to the president to describe his own views and not to second-guess what the president said. >> i would just say it is more about love and substance of the strategic relationship. they feel they have been abandoned after 16 years of unrequited love by american presidents. >> we had a good business between the president and prime minister netanyahu. there were positive comments back and forth. whenever the secretary has gone from let israel has been warmly received. -- secretary has gone, israel has been warmly received. those types of feelings may be

emotionally-based, but the strength of relationship is quite strong. >> let's take one down the back. >> i am with radio free europe. i saw a report saying if israel did a pre-emptive strike against iran that it would lead to a long war. would the united states support such actions if israel were to strike against iran? >> i will not get into hypothetical. the bulk of our strategy is to avoid going down any path that requires military action. our hope is our pressure and sanctions will enable the iranians to understand it is not

in their own interests to pursue nuclear weapons. we have worked with the europeans on additional sanctions. they hope is that that will work and we will see the results of that strategy true. >> we are very glad to have the syrian ambassador in the audience. >> i have two questions. why is it that whenever [unintelligible] and the cutting edge of technology that they never discussed the israel nuclear arsenal that exists. they never mention this. everybody in the world knows israel possesses the world's largest arsenal in the whole

world. what is your position on when israel uses the same weapons you have described to kill civilians in palestine? thank you. >> just a quick answer, i will not be the first u.s. official to discuss israeli nuclear capacity. [laughter] on the second point, i would say that when we sell weapons to any country we require any assurances that they will be used properly. we take seriously any suggestion they have not been used properly.

i will just leave it at that. we require commitments to not miss use them with all our partners. >> i am with the group code pink that has been trying to push for a real peace process. it pains me to hear you sound more like an agent of the israeli government then a u.s. rep. you see the special relationship in dangerous us and makes us more hated are around the world. -- it endangers us. i will if you would be willing to go to gaza and see the results of the israeli invasion, talk to people in gaza, at talk to the elected government, which is hamas. i also wonder if you have spent any time with people in the west

bank and east jerusalem to feel -- see what it feels like for these people? given the financial crisis here at home and the needs of the impoverished nations, couldn't you think of it better use of $3 billion and giving it to a wealthy country like israel that is abusing human rights of palestinians on a daily basis? [applause] >> you raised a number of issues. the u.s. from the very beginning has been committed to a peace process between israelis and palestinians which will lead to a two-state solution. we have provided a great deal of economic and security

support in the west bank and for palestinians in gaza. if it is very much on our minds the human plight of those who are currently in gaza. the u.s. has made commitments to provide resources to that plate. the administration has taken seriously its desire to invest in the building blocks that will be necessary for the creation of a palestinian state. we will continue to do so. >> he did not answer. >> thanks, gary mitchell. there is probably no element of american foreign policy that is

more like groundhog day and the israeli-palestinian situation. you come to these meetings and you listen and you have a hard time remembering whether you have been there before. in looking at the history of the relationship, it seems there is one thing that is clear. that is that the only times when there have been genuine breakthroughs in israeli-arab relationships is when a strong leader broke from old. i am thinking specifically of king hussein. i think if it is an understatement to say we don't enjoy that situation today in

the middle much to deal breakers or elements that could change the valence. if the united states agrees

that iran is the last -- that iran the nuclear is the last thing we want to see, in exchange for iran agreeing to halt all of its efforts on the nuclear weapon range, we will do two things, finally admit that we got them and that we are willing to disarm if we have the same agreement from the arab states in the region. >> the second one is a hypothetical that i am not in the position to respond to.

from our perspective, you never know when the opportunity is going to rise. that is where you have to keep in gauging and working at it. it can take a long while. he was able to make progress. the secretary, when she was in her confirmation hearing, she talked about how effort is tremendously important. it can enable you to opportunities that may arise. general mitchell is out there, trying to take steps to talks, and who knows where it will lead. we hope it will lead to good things in the peace process. we will continue to work at it. >> i want to come back to

something you talked about in your speech. it is a strategic dialogue is taking place between the united states and israel. you talk about the committee, the defense bill dialogue. at the beginning of the clinton administration and then in the bush administration, there was what was referred to as a strategic error log. strategic -- a dialogue. >> there is still strategic dialogue. we went to israel for a strategic dialogue talks. the talk about security. it is talking about energy, water, other issues that

encompassed the whole range of issues in the region that the united states and israel want to exchange views on. the dialogues are referred to are more security, military and assistance-focused. obviously, there is some overlap, but it still exists. the conversations that i attended in israel were quite robust and useful. >> what is the point of all of this dialogue? the chairman of the joint chiefs and the army and the national security advisor talked with the defense secretary and the defense minister. there was an awful lot of talking. >> the u.s. government is big. we have a lot of people who are involved in this. there is no substitute for

talking with your counterparts on the other side, understanding their concerns, and understanding their challenges. by the same token, there is a lot of decision-makers and their government. the israelis find value to be able to interact with that number of decision-makers. there are a lot of challenges in the region right now. we have iran, we have hezbollah a loshamas. it takes a lot of people throughout our government to make sure that we are in full sync. >> as you think about the comprehensive peace we're trying

to achieve in the region, would we be prepared to play a role on the ground, guaranteeing the implementation of that agreement should it come down to it to? >> first of all, we are already involved with general dayton who is involved with training of the palestinian forces. i think we just need to see how the process develops. hopefully, this will have to be a decision between the parties themselves. how we get to a place where each side feels comfortable that their security needs are being met, that is a discussion that takes place in this process. it is not something that has come up thus far.

i think we just have to see how the process plays out. >> my question was related to what brown -- to what martin brought up. does the administration still supports sending an ambassador back to syria? are you prepared to make what would be a significant amount of capital investment to move that border on the hill? premature, it is still with the confirmation. yes, we do support sending an ambassador. an investor is not a reward.

we send them to discuss some of our shoes. we would like to build on that progress. we are interested in a regional peace. we would like an ambassador with [unintelligible] this should not be used as we are ok with them. it is a tool to use that raises concerns that a higher level. we are encouraging the senate to act on the nomination of our ambassador nominee for this area. >> [unintelligible] i agree with the general

proposition. this will have to be our last question. >> i am going to be a graduate student at george washington university. we just heard you speak about how the relationship between the u.s. and israeli security is a rock-solid. it would not make any sense to stop that corporation and the u.s. cannot withhold a missile system for israel, for example. what other examples of carrots and sticks can you use? does it mean israelis moving out of various a and b? >> i think that is the very essence of diplomacy. senator mitchell is engaged in

discussions with both parties to try to bring them closer together. ultimately, it is in the interests of both parties to make peace. i made the point in my speech, something that the administration is doing. this is a peace process and ultimately the peace agreement would benefit from both sides. the goal of the negotiation is to try to resolve those issues and it will take dialogue and discussion. the goal right now is to move into the proximity of direct talks show that we can move forward down the road using that kind of dialogue between the parties. crushed andrew, -- >> andrew, i think i can speak on behalf of kevin pollak and say that we would love to have you back.

secondly, thank you for your prepared remarks and your answers to some very tough questions. you have done very well. we're very grateful for you taking the time to share your thoughts with us. thank you. [applause] on tuesday. 3 learn more in c-span's newest book, "the supreme court."

with congress back to workers, we have added a new feature to the video library -- bill search. you can search for any congressional bill, learn its status come and watch a video of the debate and the house and senate floor. click on the converse cabot. make your search as general up or specific as you want. -- click on the converse tab. it is washington your way. >> on monday, nicolas sarkozy sat down with france two television for an interview on the government's proposal to raise the retirement age. he also denied allegations that he accepted illegal donations from loreal heiress to fund his 2007 presidential campaign. this is one hour and five minutes.

>> for the last three weeks, one waste of time -- what a waste of time and we have so much to do -- unemployment, deficits, retirement, immigration, and security. has he committed anything that looks closely or not likely. -- like a crime? no. as to his tenure as minister of the budget, that has been settled. he is innocent. in terms of the preliminary inquiries on the political financing, the truth is appearing every day. every witness that has been asked to talk to show that there was proof.

you talk about conflicts of interest. talk about the reforms that have been working at for the last 3.5 years, especially retirement. when you start reforms, you're talking about entrenched interests, you are changing deeply entrenched situations. we have seen this before. three months ago, my wife and i have been the victims of the worst tales, the worst lies about our private lives. >> were you hurt? >> yes. three years ago, or four years ago, when i became the president of the party, now with the retirement reform i am someone

who would go visit mrs. bettencourt. i was ready for that. what i want to tell you is that it is a waste of time when you see what people are expecting. they are expecting something is reversible -- let's get this out of this crisis. >> on this precise point, mr. president, two people, two witnesses who worked with madame that court said that for years political leaders -- madam bettencourt came and left with cash. were you a good friend? >> have the people mentioned in my name? >> know, the have nots. >> they have not mentioned by name. it is one more live. -- one mroe lie. -- one more lie.

i read what the valet of men them bettencourt wrote. he says in 17 years i have sent -- i have seen president sarkozy and mad them bettencourt proxy housed two or three times. either time it was for lunch or dinner with several other guests. can you imagine me going to a dinner in front of the other guests and leaving with some cash stocks -- leaving with cash? in humans and someone saying i am an intimate friend when for 17 years i've been there twice or three times? even if it is true, i think everyone needs to come back to reason and go back to the essentials. back to mr. wirth, he is the treasurer of your party and

minister. he said he might resign as treasurer of the partner. -- of the party. do you encourage him? >> was the clear. has been named treasurer -- treasure of the party eight years ago. i did not name him to the post. he has been there for 8 years. he didn't bother anybody. quite by chance, it becomes a problem the minute when he defents the retirement reform project. .

>> the topic is sensitive. can this be under the unique responsibility of the prosecutor? if the prosecutor is linked to the executive branch. should we need an independent judge? how bizarre. at the beginning of last week, all the accusations were again -- nobody had questions back then. quite by chance, the judges were

independent. now that all the witnesses are recanting, one after the other, the honesty is quite obvious. all of a sudden, we are suspecting the impartiality of the prosecutor, justice, and a magistrate. he is said to be very honest. he was a judge against corruption for years and years. he was sent to jail or to the court of justice. politicians from the conservative party -- the think that as president of the republic of pick judges? quite the contrary. at the time, he was asked by the daughter of liliane bettencourt to deal with the fact that somebody had abused liliane bettencourt.

do you think it would be independent, here on television, for me to say i would like the judge to be removed and i want another judge? this is not the way i see justice. there are other affairs in another plane which have also said discussions -- cigar's, luxury apartments, free automobiles, private planes. how can you explain this draft, when during a campaign had promised an irreproachable republic? >> to ministers have made mistakes. t -- two ministers have made mistakes. i told them immediately they would face the consequences. the test to resign. we accepted it. a few days later, some people

said, "why has the president not reacted immediately? we know how quick he is on the draw." a lot of people say i reacted quickly, because in terms of human questions ,mr. pujada, i am always trying to understand why somebody made a mistake. i want to know why he did that. is there really a fault? my duty is to be just, to be cold-blooded, to be balanced. ministerial reshuffles do not happen because the journalists want it. ministers are not kicked out because one commentator or another once the role. a look at things equally and to draw my conclusions. second remark, a promised an irreproachable republic, and that is what we are doing. for example, and mr. pujada,

e haslyse -- never has the elysee palace been governed by the court of auditors. the president of the republic could do what he wanted. no one could audit his account, his travels, his public life, the way he paid his garage or himself. the first president of the republic to brought in a court of auditors is mean, in 2007. even better, every year there is an audit of the presidential palace. between 1958 and 2007, there was not a single auditing of the french president. since i have been here, it is the third one. second remark on the report or public -- since i insisted for the president of the court of auditors to come from the minority, he is a great person.

i wanted somebody from the minority. i could have done like all the others, a friend of the president. it does not mean there is anything wrong with them. they are quite remarkable persons. but i wanted to name a member of the minority. do you not think that is being irreproachable? the chairman of the finance committee, the most prestigious committee of the national assembly, against my own friends, i insisted for the chairmanship not to be in the hands of a majority member but a minority member, so that the accounts would be certified. that is what i did. france is not the corrupt country. there are politicians, left, right, generally speaking they are honest. we are people of the great

river. but you understand how unsettled people were when they saw what happened. it is true. let us say it, in our country there were habits, it is true. too many for to apartmentso man,y -- too many free apartments, too many official cars. it is true. i recognize it. is it because for centuries we had their sights vers we haveaille -- is it because for centuries we had versailles? political campaigns, generally speaking, are not troubles and more. the big scandals, we do not have these anymore. but these bad habits we have to stop. i have decided that from now on the ministers will no longer have an official apartment, except if they absolutely need it for their activities. for instance, i make a difference between the police

minister, who is mobilized 24 hours a day, and the secretary of state, who does not obviously need an apartment. why after three years? you could tell me that it started in 1958. i know i have a lot of things to do. installing government ministers who were not in my party, i tried to bring honesty and transparency it. there is lots of stuff to do. we implement it. i think when we go outside of france, the ministers must go to the embassies, or the prefectures, rather than a luxury hotels. we got rid of 10,000 luxury cars. we are limiting the number of private secretaries, except prime minister. it is not true. we have decreed for the presidency the number of people.

but you have to understand the prime minister needs were collaborators than the less secretary of state, even if he has an important responsibility. my wish is that france should come back within criteria that are common to all democracies, especially to anglo-saxon democracies, although i will observe the last great scandal was in great britain, and not in france. so, you want to restore the action of the government? we have heard rumors there will be an important reshuffle. >> i am president of a country of 65 million. i cannot yield to indian education. i cannot yield to the fever of commentators. if i had to listen to all the advice that is being given to me, there would have been the reshuffling after the general elections and a second reshuffling now.

probably the same people would have asked for a third reshuffling after pension reforms. what would you have? it gives a ridiculous image to the country. it will be a new stage of my political action. i will do pension reform at the end of october. i always said it. that stage will be lead last third of my five-year term, and i will announce that when the pension reform is signed, immediately after that i will start the dependency reform. in france, we have 1 million dependent people, 200,000 alzheimer's victims every year. it is a national disaster. i was flabbergasted to notice that only 20% of old people were dependent, and could pay to be in a retirement home. i am going to settle this.

it is the duty of government to settle all the concrete questions. lester mark on this topic -- >> are you going to a smaller team? some people are asking you. >> they are right. anyway, that is going to be a job for the end of october. anyway, we are at the end of july. the overture to the minority will be different. >> if you are nice enough to advise me, i will answer your question then. we're coming to pension reform. that is going to be presented tomorrow in the council of ministers. it is still being discussed. the french are reserved. for you it is the main reform. it is an essential reform. >> i will explain. it is not because it is a great pleasure that i do this.

two major mistakes have been committed in the last 20 years. first of all, it is when the retirement age -- and the democratic evidence against anything that happened in other countries, we went from 65 to 60. it is great on the social level, but we do not have the means to afford it. second mistake, when the country last started this incredibly insane economic policy, where we started working less with every single country in the planet working more, the famous 35 hour week led us to a regression of competitive bid to. who paid? the poorest. when companies move out of trance -- out of france, when factories are closed, the workers suffer. the choices were to economic

disasters. -- work two economic disasters. there are 15 million retirees in france, 1.5 million of them not covered. we do not have the money to pay their pensions. retirements are paid by boeing. do you think it is reasonable? i have been elected to solve the problem. let us look at it. everybody agrees that we have to work more because we live longer. since 1950, our life expectancy -- it is great news -- which gained 15 years. we are going to live 50 more years. you have to work two more years. >> you decided to take the age from 6262, but it is unfair,

because it is not going to -- 60 the age from 62 to, but it is not fair because it is not going to change for the leader. but for the worker, who started to work at age 16 or 17, do you not think that these poorest are going to bear the whole burden of the reforms? think,stice, don't you it is a system where you do not have the money to pay a pension? the people who are watching me are made up of people who are already retired. do you think they are happy to know we do not have the money? in 2020, we are going to need 40 billion a year. this is the first time that a pension reform is dealing with the public sector and the private sector. but the first injustice is to let people believe that their pension is funded. it is not.

we have been talking about pension reform since 1991. since 1991, we are in 2007. you know what we are in 2010? this should have been done a long time ago. second remark -- a system is a system through repetition. you need enough paying into pay the pensions for those who are already retired. that is the system we have. by its very definition, if you have such a system, all french citizens are concerned. third remark -- in order to find the funds to guarantee our pension system and intergenerational solidarity, the decree retirement pensions. i am telling the 50 million retirees we are not going to touch their retirement pension. i have decided since i have been

elected to increase or widows' pensions from 54% to 60%. they tell me, "all you have to do is increase taxes." the socialist party proposal is 37 billion more tax revenue. i will come back to that. 37 billion more tax revenue. tax increases, especially in that volume, either citizens pay or companies pay. let us see what happens then. if tax increases come from the citizens, what happens? you decrease their purchasing power. there will consume less. the economy is going to slow down. there will be less growth, more unemployment. if you increase taxes on companies, on corporations, companies are going to leave the country. already, our taxes are the

highest in the world. if i increase corporate taxes, they will leave. there will be less jobs, more unemployment, less growth. there are some salaries and some incomes, financial income. things are quite clear. 4.5 billion, we are going to let the corporations at 4.5 billion. we are going to have taxes on civil servants. they used to pay 7.5%, where in the private sector they paid 10.5%. over 10 years, this is a big difference. that is justice. on any sector, private or public, you are going to pay the same. but two more years at work will bring back to the coffers of social security 22 million euros. what i propose -- what we

propose together -- everybody has done it. look around, in germany 67 years. in spain, they go beyond that. in italy, you have 65. there is not a single country in the world that thought they did not have to make the effort that the french will have to make. here is another topic. the unions are asking to maneuver in difficult jobs coming in top jobs. do you realize that some jobs are tougher than others? perhaps in every job there is a position that is harder than the others. do you not think these people do not have to work as long, maybe? >> first of all, i have to pay a much to the unions -- i have to put -- i have to pay homage to the unions. it is not their role to work for

pension reform. it is my role. it is easier to tell people they have to work less than to say that the world has changed and we all have to work more in order to save our pensions. so there are two parts. first, citizens who started working early, before 18, for these people we guarantee that they will retire before 60. >> not 19? >> will you know, in the reform they insist 17. every year that we add, it is 1 billion year rose. so we decided with the prime minister that 18. i do not feel it is late, 18. but let a sick people to start working at 16, 17, all the way to a team. if people will keep on going and

retiring at 60, some even before. difficult jobs -- the did not exist until now. it is social progress. it did not exist until now. after the 2003 law was signed -- of course, every time it is difficult. what do we do? any worker who, because of his professional activities, has been incapacitated, as defined by doctors, 20% can retire before 60. it is not tough work. "it is people who have been victims. maybe they will suffer later. it has to be professionally valid. >> you will not yield? >> i did not say that. i am trying to be somebody who is fair. it is not easy.

i must both guarantee the general balance of my reform -- we decided with the government to do so with pension reform. it will give us a pension regime that is balanced, and even beneficiary in 2020. they trust us with the growth that may be is a bit optimistic. unemployment is 9.5%. unemployment is 955%. if we are at ninth with 5% after two years of the worst economic crisis in the century, the fact that we might reach 6.5% unemployment is reasonable. let us be fair. it seems to me that long careers, the question of a difficult job, and the very difficult questions of the thousands of french citizens who paid in different retirement funds because they of change

jobs, have changed regions, have changed careers -- that is another problem. we are going to work on this the whole summer. i am going to talk to social partners. the prime minister will work real hard. we are going to listen to parliamentarians. i am more to say 62 -- we are not going to touch that. i am saying the balance between the private sector and public sector is a question of fairness. for the rest, we will listen to everybody. last question -- some people say, "i agree to work until 62, but i notice that between 55 and 64 only one-third of people are working because companies do not hire." >> it is true. you are putting your finger on the difficulty of more reform. i am quite aware of that. as yourself -- why have we waited so long to have such a

reform? because it is extremely difficult. but good news -- until now, the entire strategy was to put people in pre-retirement, preventing them from work, taking them out of companies. it is a social disaster, what we have, which we do. look. at age 58, you do not want to stay at home doing nothing with a pre-retirement pension that does not even allow you to live. 2009, for the first time in 20 years, the number of seniors at work has increased by one point. in 2010, same thing. what have we done? we made it much more complicated to go in pre-retirement. and by pushing the age to 62, companies now must keep seniors longer. other countries did that. when retirement is at 60, they get rid of the workers at 58.

when retirement is at 62, they get rid of the workers at 60. it is absolutely capital to understand that 50-year-olds must work longer. we are the country in europe that had the least seniors at work and the most young people unemployed. sharing the work is a strategy error. it was historic wrong. last thing on this topic. >> you say the government will talk to you as social partners, but they want to demonstrate in the streets, go on strike in september. are you expecting the fall will be full of demonstrations? do you fear it? >> i expect it. i expected demonstrations in the street. i know that people suffer. >> does it have an influence on the final version of your form?

>> no. will have an influence on the final version of the reform is that we will have justice. it is not demonstrations in the street. if we have to withdraw the useful project every time somebody goes in the street, it will never work. i respect demonstrators. i understand it is a form of social expression. for the last two years as president, i did everything to avoid social drama. we've never had any violence. but i know people are worried. i know people are troubled. people say, "we do not want to work two more years." i am telling them, "this is the only way to guarantee your pensions." if people go into the streets am i going to back down? no. i do not do that. with the streets are empty or full, i do this because it is an idea i have of my duty to the state. i want to be able to say to french citizens, "we have been

working for your children's future. france must change. we cannot keep working less when everybody else is working more. we cannot go on spending more when we have a huge deficit and debt." this is the conception i have of my duty. >> let us go straight to the economy. we of said there is a new deal, with a question of a public and sovereign debt all over europe. can you give us a definition of your plan, starting with what you called the rupture, and then the crisis from the united states? you had recovery, stimulus. today, are we getting into what is called rigor? our neighbors are using it, and france does not seem to want to. >> the first episode of the

financial crisis, a 2008. second economic crisis of the century. third episode, the agricultural crisis. all commodities, all regions -- i want to defend them as well as i can. fourth is the euro crisis. so, in two years, for crises. france is not a country that is easy to manage in colorado waters. in calm waters. in europe, at two countries are holding us together -- germany and france. i will do everything so that is always the case. some countries have been attacked in europe because there were weak -- greece, portugal, spain. and germany did not react. that is another topic. i do not want for france to

start the same downward spiral. is there a reason? we are reforming our pensions and we took the decisions we took. what would be the risk if the whole world stopped trusting france? interest rates would go up. we would be ruined by trying to pay prohibitive interest rates. and you will no longer be able to borrow in order to invest and buy an apartment. i told the french in september 08 in, "not a single one of you will lose 1 cent of your savings." i kept my promise. not a single bank went bankrupt. the bank support plans did not cost a cent to taxpayers. it even got the money. our strategy is to bring back competitive 82 the country by letting people work more. the end of the 35 hour week.

over time, the end of the 35- hour week. over time, numbers going up, it is excellent news the french were working overtime, paying no taxes on these hours. in all the countries that decrease unemployment, these are countries that allow their economy to work hard, not less. we have to catch up with the backlog of investment. that is our stimulus plan -- paying our universities that finally have come autonomous, independent. research since i have been president -- there was no strike by researchers. why? because finally we give them money. in france, we spend too much for the administration and we have not invested enough. and then i committed myself with the prime minister of the

government in order to reduce our deficit. listen, for the last 40 years budgets in france have been in deficit. it is no longer possible. our deficit is a% of gdp. it is set to reach 3% in 2013. it is 100 billion year rose. >> where are you going to find 100 billion euros today from the state budget? >> re-decrease the number of civil servants in the country. >> but it is only 1.5 billion. >> that is not how it works. 1.5 billion the first year, but since the government pays the retirement pension of a civil servant, if you hire a civil servant it is four years of payment and 20 years of retirement. if you want to calculate it, you have to multiplied it by the number of years the civil

servant should have paid. we did away with 100,000 jobs of civil servants in 2011. we are going to stop 34,000 more. i have a proposal. local government should use the same rules as the central government. why should the central government the very rigorous and local governments, especially the regional ones, would keep the policy that keeps on increasing civil servants? 34,000 more civil servants every year for the last 10 years. we are not giving them any new tasks. since i have been president, we have not transferred any new tasks. but i have a proposal. to be extremely honest, everybody accepts one out of

two. we are only going to replace one out of two civil servants that retires. >> what prevents french provinces from applying the same rules? are you sending them an appeal? >> i call on the responsibility. second, the court of auditors -- i heard their report a couple of days ago. they are analyzing the different tax advantages that people have. 75 billion year rose -- euros for the prime minister, we have decided to try to find 10% of savings. that is 8 billion savings. it is all the advantages. we have not decided yet. some will be done away with. with the fact that the state

pays for employees in companies until 1.2 times the lowest wages -- we are paying the social expenditures. we are paying 12 months out of 13. for workers at home that are so useful for some many families, we are going to guarantee this with a few technical details. generally speaking, we have to make an effort. france can no longer live above its means, including our social expenditures. because as we know more, people are saying it is the middle class that is going to pay. they are going to pay more for students' dorms. we're going to tell the families, "other students of a home -- in that case we give you

half of it -- or they no longer live at home. then they are going to live with storm help." you can have half because they live at home plus the whole share that they live in a dorm. we are trying to be fair and balanced. france will reduce its deficit to 6% in 2011. 3% in 2013, we will get there. there is no other choice. >> economists and a lot of people around you say you cannot do that without increasing taxes. >> i sadly refuse. i will tell you why. in a similar way with sweden, we are the countries in europe where taxes are the highest. the highest. if we keep on going in this crazy race toward hiking taxes,

we will have no company left in france if we of corporate taxes. and we will have no consumption if the taxes are levied on taxpayers. you yourself were talking to me about the middle class. all you can do is increase taxes. not only did we not touch the texas, but we decrease them by 16 billion euros bee. the time when there was a computer, no internet -- this is over. i must prepare france for today's world, not the world of the '60s. >> we talked about taxes, the bridge, the wealthy. could we keep this fiscal shield that france invented in full growth?

30 billion year rose is the discount you have given liliane bettencourt. you look like the president of the rich. >> you are a very serious journalist. let us not use formulas. it is useless. just ask the right questions. i will answer. i have nothing to hide, absolutely nothing. of all the countries in the world, france is the one that taxes the most rich taxpayers. there is not a single country in the world -- not united states, not germany, not great britain, not spain, not italy -- there is not a single country in the world that has the tax burden on the wealthiest that is heavier than in france, because of everything. second point -- i am not an

ideologist. i am trying to tell the truth, at least my truth. i am not somebody who is hiding things. in 1997, the german socialists canceled the tax on the wealthy in germany. why? because the german officials said, "if there is no longer any capital in germany, there will not be any companies, and companies belong to pension funds and to the banks." the german economy is prosperous. they have more companies than france. in 2008, spanish socialists sequestered tax on the wealthy in spain. why? they understood that if nobody has any money this is not going to the profit of the poorest.

i do not want to be too long, but let me explain myself. i refuse to do away with the tax on the wealthy in france -- the wealth tax. i refuse. we are the last country in europe to have a wealth tax, because i insisted on that. i wanted it because i think that in my values that when you have money it is normal to pay taxes. you should not wine about it. and i will not suppress that wealth tax. finally, the fiscal shield is not an idea i had one morning when i woke up. where did i find this idea? what is our main competitor? it is germany. what is our main customer? germany. who is our main neighbor? it is germany. i admire the german model. i mean the economic model. i would love it if the french economy would have an

inspiration. let us see what is the strength of germany rather than cut the other countries that i will not mention. the fiscal shield has existed in germany for over 20 years. the german socialists have been in power eight years in germany. they have not touched the fiscal shield. i believe in europe france is competing with germany. i think we should do the things they do in germany in france. the fiscal shield -- what does it mean? it means nobody in france can pay more than 50% of their income to the government. utah liliane bettencourt to about. -- you talked about liliane bettencourt. let's be honest. i understand why you keep talking about her. we are in the country of human rights, so be respectful. i know she has said it herself, but i cannot tell you how much she has paid.

she pays several million euros a month -- a month. the fiscal shield -- before i was elected, there were taxpayers who were paying 100% of their income in taxes. there were earning 1000, and paying 1000. they all left the country. in france, we had nobody left, no investor, nobody who spent. the people -- if all we have is people who have nothing, how do you think the economy is going to work? we are in the new world. employment is leaving. capital is moving out. young people travel. images go around the world. the views are international. one last point, if you allow me. what has happened in the last few weeks? what is this attitude toward money? i hate people who say how much they hate money.

my god. money corrupts. you can say that. i remember that. i am sure you remember that 2. we have the same memories. a distressed people who make money as an idol, but i distrust as much people who hate money. it is the same thing. it is an unhealthy relation to money. money is not an end in itself. it is a means. and any family that wants to go up the social ladder -- you want to have a better apartment, better living position for your children. let us stop with this and help the relation with money. as for me, when i see what people are saying -- to the non- have something else to say about my policy besides this lie that if i were a moneymaker of would have had another career.

i would've had another career than the political life i have had for 34 years. i have never been in trouble with the law. i have never been accused of anything serious. never ever. i like people who do things. i like journalists when the are passionate. i like entrepreneurs. it is a difficult job to be a journalist. it is not easy. i am just saying. but all that has been said. >> what about what has been said about your fascist methods? >> this is not my role. i have enough for to do myself. i am not an idle. i see behind those bars people in little cells, politicians, people who think, the whole

political class. there are some behaviors of some people who dishonor profession. but usually most journalists to a very tough job. but let me say i realize that people suffer in france. but i must be a balanced person. i must tell french society that accusations, denunciations', hatred -- prove your virtue or go to jail? no. we are in a real democracy. liliane bettencourt l'oreal who owns liliane bettencourt -- liliane bettencourt, who owns l'oreal, i hope she does not leave the country.

who would lose their jobs if she did? it is not the journalists. >> what about the g-20? you are going to chair the summit in france. can you tell us in a few words what are you expecting from the g-20? are we still on this theme of trying to regulate world finances? is there anything left? i am not talking about tax payments. >> i will not go into details. i have three goals. first, a new world monetary order. in bretton woods, 65 years ago, there was only one currency, the u.s. dollar. we cannot go on with the monetary disorder we have right now. our companies have to be able to work on a new level playing field. when the euro is 1.2 u.s.

dollars, how do you want us to sell anything in countries that use the dollar? no. 2, and want us to regulate the price of commodities. i'm talking about especially food. i will defend the french food model. number three, we have to change world governments. why? because you cannot go on with the p-five of the security council. africa must be able to have a seat as a prominent member. 1 billion people. latin america must have a seat -- 450 million people. they need a seat 30 years from now. india will be the most populated country in the planet. it is not reasonable. she-20 was invented by the french. g-20 was a french presidency. we are going to work hard to regulate the world. we are in the 21st century.

we need to have institutions that are worthy of the century. you are talking about germany -- >> you are talking about germany. you need an ally. >> it was our feeling that during the euro crisis, germany was way behind. >> what about the franco-german engine? is it working? >> mr. merkle and i had to learn to know each other. we trust each other. public opinion in germany and in france, especially toward the questions of austerity and money, is completely different. we had to bring our public opinions together. finally, we did a good job, with some delay. it is my defect. but we made it. >> you are not worried? >> i am not. >> you do nothing that germany

is falling upon itself? >> no. i would say that today's germany is a country like all the others. we are not going to ask germany to pay for nazi germany forever and ever. germany saw that europe was a way for it to go back within the international community. germany is an incredible country. it is a very big come tree that once to exist. france is a huge country. france must make an effort. if i want this reform policy, if i want to modernize my country, it is because i love my country. >> austerity does not scare you? >> what does not scare me is to be rigorous. austerity means to bring down payment, increase taxes. i will not do that. but rigorous -- it means going back to balance. i will do that. insecurity is one of the

markers of stockholm syndrome. we have results on crime. >> we have a high level of street crime. is there a limit to your will? isn't there a limit to the accumulation? >> you know i am a team leader. i wanted to limit the number of terms to two for the president. i worked with the prime minister, the ministers, the interior minister, the whole team. we got spectacular results. but we have to go much further. three examples. we have decided with the interior minister that security in the department and difficult suburbs will be local. the prefect does a remarkable

job. i went with him at night. people were wondering, "what is the president doing in the dangerous suburbs at night?" i need to be where people suffer. people can die from high-rise buildings, saying, "we no longer want to live like." this." they are right, and there will be results. now the parents will be accountable when miners of 12 or 13 years of age are out at 1:00 a.m. by themselves in the street. they patrol the buses or threw molotov cocktails on passing cars. this will go on if the responsibility of the parents is not at stake. what does not exist is that the parents of delinquent miners are

called upon to repair the damage. the should be criminally responsible. it is an automatic. i was in a middle school the other day and i was told that two of the students among themselves collected over 600 things a day without the parents knowing anything. we're going to apply the cancellation of family allowances. when the kids go back to school there will get their money. fourth, in difficult high- school, there are young students. nobody wants them. they spread chaos in the school. it is unfair for the others. as soon as september, we're going to create new schools that will be adapted for school reassertion -- re-insertion for these delinquent youths.

we have strengthen supervision. dropouts -- i am very impressed to see the number of kids who at 16 leave school. between 16 and 18, they do nothing. we do not know where they are. i want to file so that every young person leaving school at 16 will have to have some training or a job. if for two years you are in the street, loitering, doing nothing, this prepares you to do what? nothing except for crime. >> will be in charge of that? >> we will do it with all the educational teams. but i have decided to really take charge of this. i want to support this. we need results. i am going to support the agricultural minister.

we have a structural crisis. we have to defend the farmers. and i want to define a new from work -- a new framework for doctors who are in a difficult situation. we do not have new doctors. nobody wants to have the job. that is a problem. >> three questions. you decided to name yourself the leaders of radio and tv. when you see the situation in radio france, what do you tell yourself? the fact that you have named yourself the ceo of radio and television -- do you not think it is a burden for the ceos? whatever they do, there will be linked to the fact that you named them. >> to remarks. first, i wanted an irreproachable republic. irreproachable means transparency.

remember, one of my predecessors had to resign because he displeased the president. remember that? we thought we could make progress. >> do not tell me that i started the problem. >> you did not say that? >> no. we need transparency. it is not only my choice. i consulted lots of people. i consulted a lot of people. the french know that the radio and television authorities met and have decided to rectify my choice. -- ratifiy my choice. >> but you have a crisis.

>> white. it was proposed by the cultural affairs committee in the assembly. the cultural affairs committee in the senate could refuse. do you think the president after me could tell the parliament that the power against the parliament to give its advice on the president of radio and tv would be withdrawn? >> the majority cannot act by itself. >> it forces the president to find equality. let us always be honest. first of all, i pay homage to the team. they did a great job. but i am not one of those who think that before me was darkness and with me the sun rose. it is a new stage. i talked to him. he did not learn he was fired like that.

i am a courteous person. and he did a good job. and mr. fimla seemed to me to be the man for the situation. he is a remarkable professional. he has been late to apply the reforms. he will do it. >> talking about french television, two of our journalists have been kidnapped for over 190 days. do you have any news? has france had proof of life from our colleagues? >> we are going to do everything to bring them out of the situation where they put themselves. everything. as i am talking right now, let us be careful. we are not worried. but i have a much bigger worry for another one of our citizens who was kidnapped.

that is the truth. >> one letter question -- lat ighter question. on the protest against the pension reform, you received a football player who came back from south africa after the disaster of the world cup. why did you receive him that day, and what did you want to tell him? >> i did not want to receive him. he asked me. >> we had two versions. >> there was only one person. he is an honest person. on the day of the vast demonstrations, i received last year 18 times the union. the one day i do not receive them is the data demonstrate. for them, it was a successful demonstration. if i receive them afterwards, what did you tell me?

if i do not withdraw my text, what is the point? on that date, i have lots of the activities. i received thierry because i love sports. he wore the french jersey with dignity. he shot the most goals for the french. the image given by the french team in south africa -- disaster. i told him, "the leaders must go." he said, "let us not talk about them anymore." with the prime minister, we asked the sports minister to organize a huge soccer assembly so that all good will -- we want to rebuild the french national team. there is the whole problem with the governors of the sports federation. it is great to be a volunteer. it is fantastic.

let us encourage volunteerism. but i think volunteerism was not adapted to the federation and had such powerful economic interests. >> we're almost at the end of the last question. you said yourself -- you were not scared by international crisis at the beginning of your term. things did not quite happen the way you expected. does it mean that you now wish to have another five-year term in order to achieve things you were not able to do in the first one? "said things did not have in the way i expected. when i became president, i was confident nothing would happen the way i expected. there would not be in the daily routine. it is such a special job. it is such a heavy charge. these are such difficult decisions to take. overnight, you have this huge

weight on your shoulders. the next presidential election will be in a little less than two years. i have been elected for a little bit more than three. all politicians have the right, perhaps even the duty, to think about the presidential election. the only one who cannot think about it is me. i am not excited to think about it because my entire energy at the second must be reserved for the french citizens, to take them out of the situation they are in. we will make it. mark my words. we will come out of this crisis. i cannot waste one crumb on my energy to wonder what is going to happen in two years. the french could not care less. they want results -- concrete results of action. they want to know whether i have a goal, whether there is provision. that is where my energy goes. the decision would be taken not

before the fall of 2011. >> if i am not allowed to talk about it, i understand. do you mean you never think about it? >> not at all. but would be using my days are like? >> that are heavy. >> it is not only in my agenda. lots of people have a hard job. . .

>> see you tomorrow. thank you. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, the final debate between four of the candidates running in next month's michigan republican primary election. we follow that with the debate among the three republicans and one democrat running to be tennessees next governor. that is at 9:00 p.m. eastern tonight on c-span. by lee, at 10:00 p.m., the debate among for democratic candidates running in rhode island's first house district to replace the retiring patrick kennedy. it all begins tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> there are the towering figures. and they are all different.

they have their different talents. they have their different dangers. >> this weekend, biographer robert service on his trilogy of books on russian leaders, lenin, stalin, and most recently, leon trotsky. learn about their relationship and roles in developing their form of communism. robert service, sunday night on c-span q&a. >> former cuban president fidel castro, rarely seen in public since 2006, was interviewed on cuban national tv on monday. and the public affairs show roundtable, he criticized u.s.- release policy and warned that tensions between iran and the u.s. could result in a nuclear war. mr. castro, now 83, did not mention the 52 political prisoners the cuban government recently promised to release. so far, 10 have been released to spain. this event is courtesy of cuba vision, kibo's state run

television. >> we would like to welcome him , and his presence here with us is a cause of joy for our people. i would like to say that with us also, the historian dr. rodrigues, director of the world economy [unintelligible] the director of scientific research. we have been celebrating important scientific events. maybe you can tell us -- the objective now of the subject you

have investigating recently is the subject of a war in iran. this can be a disaster for mankind. there have been the -- i would like to go deep in your appreciation of what is happening now. many people believe that this war is going to be imminent. you think there has been some extension for the possibilities of this work. here is the article here.

>> i agree fully with the imminent risk of a war. i began to write this after the accusation against north korea about the sinking of the vessel, a very sophisticated vessel. one of the most modern vessels that the american industry possesses. he uses german steel and north

korea is being accused of using torpedoes in 1950-something in the war in korea. you can figure it out that a vessel sophisticated of that quality releases a torpedo like that. that would be awful, and america gave a logical explanation, they were conducting a maneuver with the allies, the u.s. and south

korea. it would be difficult for the u.s. to it meant that they were the ones to sink the sophisticated vessel of south korea. 46 men died. they would have discovered [unintelligible] how could that be installed in the ship? this is what they did. they were interested in promoting conflict between the south and the north.

you should remember what they were concerned about. the mastered the technology and they are worried about this. they attribute north korea the relationships with myanmar or romania. they are conducting research and they are very much worried about this. they want to have it out of combat. they said that the [unintelligible] would be the basis in japan and there is a coincidence with the situation in japan with the new leader.

after many years, the prime minister of japan wanted to have opened our opposing territory given back. -- wanted to have okinawa's territory given back. that was not accepted by the u.s. that to take some action, and they had been promised that they would return the base to japan. the marines, you know, they do whatever they won, they offend the population, and there was a promise and it was not met. the u.s. has not met this. the defense of japan defense on

sophisticated weapons from the united states. that means the japanese have already experienced to nuclear explosions -- two nuclear explosions. they are fearful of any nuclear development on the part of north korea. the men said you cannot resign. that was a party that had a lot of support from the people. they were from the same party, but that the same promise. the relationship and one point that is out of question -- the japanese, north koreans, that

they have the speakers and the first line and some years ago they agreed not to use them, not to put them in place again. the flagship of south koreans -- they were installing the speaker's. the russians had to respond. this was manufactured by the russians at the end of june. this security council would have to examine this thinkinsinking.

they said when they were accused, kim jong il took the train and traveled down and said i had nothing to do with this. [unintelligible] he did not have to do anything with this. they are concerned about this and the situation there. that was at the end of june, and since i returned i stated that

if the figures were excepted, they would be breaking the [unintelligible] now in the self, what they will do now, they cannot say the truth. each thinks it was the other one and now there are military exercises between north and south korea. this is continuing nonstop and there will be a sea of flames. south korea will be in a sea of flames. this is what i thought in the beginning, that the problem would be triggered from their. the revolution against iran was not there yet, and i thought

this was going to be the case. but then i got this resource here, china had not been recognized before, but now they are trying to veto, and before the situation was one that taiwan wanted to have the right to veto. they had a right to be recognized. [unintelligible] to the situation in korea now, china can veto. with iran it was something different. they should have vetoed, and they could gain time, at least

in the case of russia and china , they are truly concerned with peace. they try to prevent war from happening. so then the security council resolution is passed, and russia and china could have vetoed but they did not. if they don't want to respect the security council agreement, that the agency had done away with this agreement.

now we found that this was happening, there would be a conflict in iran and afterwards in south korea. the koreans are not going to wait for one minute to be attacked. the situation with iran, the north koreans can trigger another war. it may be that turkey also agrees with you, that theory of an immediate part of -- that have underlined some key statements [unintelligible] the crisis faced by the obama administration.

the u.s. may win -- i have reported about the sending of equipment to the island in order to provide support to the tomahawk missiles, submarines, referring to [unintelligible] that they persist. they had bases there, so the tomaawk missiles became the moorehead according to the report. i am sorry i do not have the

pronunciation in english. this military equipment includes 387 destructors to have underground structures explode and at an arrangement to destroy iran. this was reported to that paper by the director of the international studies center -- center on international studies of diplomacy in london. the bombers and long-range missiles of the u.s. have referred to destroying things in iran in a few hours. on the other side, the media

says that [unintelligible] has gone through to the persian gulf. they mention one, but there could be more than one. also, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. i consider that they have the elementary duty of -- this is the way [unintelligible] in direction to iran.

they were going to take positions there after the abduction with the security council, now this rate, according to the arab media, it says that they crossed in that direction to the persian gulf. applying sanctions against iran , coming in and of that country. this is the controversial issue, because it is true that they cannot inspect these vessels. years ago when they imposed a

chemical war on iran against the ayatollah khamenei revolution without any weapons. he did not have an army. but the western side towards iraq was being defended by an army in the city of -- under the orders of ahmadinejad. the calculation on the basis that they were going to run and

this is absurd. the pentagon does not recognize this edition military capacity with defensive character. what they are claiming now about the possibility of iran having an influence on the region and the subdued about nuclear weapons. for 30 years that have been preparing, the first time procuring aircraft and anti- aircraft weapons. the russians committed themselves to supplying the s- 300's, but they are slow. they have not given them any.

this one of the most modern and the latest defense weapons. they do not have these always, but they are developing this strategy because they have what all the aircraft that they have been capable of. they have weapons bought from the market, using a brush or from china -- usually from russia or from china. they have hundreds of missile launchers. but the army has their strength

in ground and sea weapons and the marines also have air, ground, and see weapons. the guardians of the revolution have 1 million soldiers. they are recruiting men and women. they have 20 million of them. how can they now say they are going to iran now when they are told they are -- who can sympathize with an enemy that wants to destroy everything?

they cannot be conceived. this is the situation there. now we can speak of the conflict. the top responsible person -- the joint chiefs of staff. there is a cable. this was published on the fifth. it is now six days. this is that detailed to meet

the head of israel -- proceed to a yearly strategic dialogue and they may focus on israel and the u.s. and the possibility of a nuclear able to iran. the challenge from israel and the perspective -- here is another cable statement on the american army military review.

an attack, not only against military but non military facilities including structures this type of military equipment includes 387 bunker destructors to explode underground structures. they are recruiting people for this, according to these papers. here is an authorize analysis on irani trade presented before congress last april.

military analysis of iran is reduced compared to the region. military training in iran is strictly defensive. to reject an invasion and to find a diplomatic solution to hostilities. the capacity in iran is an exercise of technology that interferes by the u.s. which has been stated by chomsky. it is a threat over the control of resources in the middle east. it goes beyond that.

they are trying to expand their influence in the region [unintelligible] presumably in contrast with the u.s. military invasion of iran was the neighbors. it is supporting terrorism, providing support to hamas, which is the stronger forces of lebanon and palestine. [unintelligible] and has about 200 million inhabitants they are developing

a contract with iran, and they were prohibited from doing this and doing that. they are also worried becauseyak they are worried about india joining this. the 2008 treaty between the u.s. and india supporting preventing this country from joining the calls, according to advisers of the peace institute, this is very important india and pakistan are to the three nuclear powers that have refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty. israel is the third country.

all of these have developed nuclear weapons in support of the u.s. according to chomsky, having taken the practical steps to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons in iran or any other area. the u.s. is moving to rein fourth controlling the oil improves -- oil-producing most important regions in the middle east in a violent way that they have no other means. this is the article by chomsky. there is an element there that

is very significant. chomsky talks about how the u.s. is preparing for this. hundreds of aircraft -- could that situation be repeated? >> well actually, the development is so fast, but weapons at the moment are more powerful than the ones used by bush when he launched the attack against iraq, and they talk about massacre. of course, iraq did not have the [unintelligible] it was a country divided among sunnis and kurds.

the worst is going to be the ones who are going to fight. the endurance is the one you think the commander is going to link to the possibility of an aid it -- israeli nuclear attack against iran. there are mistaken calculations by the two of them. it has to be nuclear. there is no way out. of course, we are just guarding this interview -- just starting this interview. that possibility of a nuclear attack that you have foreseen reflects the dynamics of what is happening there. it also leads to latest issue,

when it comes to the nuclear issue, they are forbidding iran to develop peacefully nuclear energy, but israel is doing it. all powers, 20,000 weapons. this is hilarious. there is the risk that iran could manufacture two nuclear artifacts into a three years. that is the pretext. where is the logic behind all this? all these huge problems are caused by this. they don't want things to happen.

a country that in a few years has become a nuclear power. we run the risk of being attacked from the government of reagan, they conducted a nuclear test on the sea in a battle, and we just guessed, but troops were arriving in namibia, and then through israel, they can supply iran those with more power than those in hiroshima. it is not new. we have been suffering this experience of nuclear risk when

up rockets here -- we did not like it. we did not want to change, but we came up with this revolution will not count on an alliance. before it was good for us -- we were given the sole supply. we are talking because we witnessed this experience in 1962, and we witnessed this in the 1970's in an internationalist miss andion. we adopted all possible measures to advance and go on the ground. even mandela knows that this was

done, because i asked him. he did not know. it was always a tree behind all this. they had never done is clearly -- 0 is a trick behind all this. we had to guess. we told the north koreans we had assisted them. we had offered them a nuclear power station that cost several thousands, and from chinese credits, we took 25 million, and we gave them light bulbs. we began to save energy, to replace the light bulbs here, and we gave them 30 million in the end. with this money, we were setting

much more fuel than what was produced by the nuclear plant that was supplied to them by the yankees. we know all the details of that operation now. the other experience, as to what is going to happen in iran. what could be the meaning of the consequences of these nuclear weapons there in the middle east and also for the entire world? here we have quite a few things here.

they are telling us about the military expenditure of the united states was $1,531 million. $1.30 billion. it also doubles the risk, an increase of 9% in comparison with 2008, and 49% higher than in 2000. although they are facing an

economic crisis, notice there is a 49% increase in new conceptions. there are more aggressive decisions in congress than the ones put forward by the president himself. yet in 2009, the military expenditures have continued to increase. the defense budget moved from $316 million to $161 million in 2010. this is the budget for an increase of over 2%.

i asked espaldo, where did to get this information? he said from the institute of research for peace. it is one of the most prestigious in the united states. here we see the budget -- it spends more than the rest of the countries together in the field of defense. here you have the data of the nuclear force that each country has. usa has strategic warheads, 2012. a total deployed of warheads

used by aviation, 2702. this is what this institute says. this data is taken from there, too. russia, strategic warheads,787. total, 834 strategic deployed warheads, over 7000. this is quite a few. this is insane. this is all totally insane.

now we see the number of 300 -- united kingdom, 160. china, 186. china has strategic warheads. russia also talks about these nuclear warheads in procession on the united states. let's see if we have a consonant here.

we are talking about american resources, right? the united states has 1150 deployed nuclear warheads. there is a smaller number here. 2200, according to some calculations, 3500 more, instead of 2200. and brown, underground, and submarine launchers.

so we see a small number. in the end, we don't know. they did not say this openly. they do not tell the truth. perhaps we are talking about 35 heard weapons there. we are talking about nuclear warheads. this is the data that i read before. we see less here, but we see a number that is fabulous. there have been talks an alleged political statements made by the united states and russia and the possibility to reduce this nuclear arsenal. if this has been reduced, why is it that they are using that budget of millions and millions

of dollars they were commenting on? the strategy of the united states -- that subject has already been dealt with in a very extensive way. i included this, i am making a synthesis in the reflection, published in [unintelligible] we just talked about the accords, the agreements. an agreement was signed in

prague, and it states, let's see how good an answer when you just ask the high command from russia. on the seventh of april this year, he wrote a column called the nuclear surprise of obama. that is what the head of the high command from russia -- with

regards of this in prague a year ago, thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the cold war. this is the start to agreement. in the same city on april the eighth, it was declared. we cannot discuss the history of the united states in the last century -- a single example of a sacrifice and service of the u.s. elite for humanity, for the peoples of other countries. would it be realistic to expect that the arrival of an african-

american president to the white house -- this is the question. would it be realistic to expect that the arrival of an african- american president to the white house might change the political philosophy of that country, traditionally aimed at achieving global domination? those who believe that something like that could happen should try to understand why the u.s., the country whose [unintelligible] exceeds all that of the other countries of the world combined, continue spending huge amounts of money in more preparations begin war preparations.

he goes on saying a concentrated attack in that military field and to widen the gap between that country and the rest of the world, in combination with the defense deployment of [unintelligible] that should from russia and china, it will turn washington into a " -- global dictator of the modern era. there is the last paragraph that reads, essentially, the new -- part of the new u.s. security

strategy, that could more adequately be described as a strategy of complete impunity. we cannot forget about that word. the u.s. increases its military budget, and it gives free rein to nato as the global gendarme and plans exercises in a real situation in iran to improve the efficiency of the global strike initiative. at the same time, washington talks about a world free of nuclear weapons. >> so for these generals, the iran war could be the first

rehearsal of a front global strike, and therefore we see these weapons taken to this diego garcia island as the -- there was an incident this monday that caught my attention. there's a u.s. nuclear submarine and out of the studies in that area, that a clash with the israeli marine shippe in ths attempt. this could have happened with an iranian vessel. they cannot give an immediate reason to have the spark that would lead to war. this is what they are obviously

trying to obtain with that military presence. there was an additional incidents. no one can calculate that, because the reasons [unintelligible] i read quite a lot of news every day, and the one submarine was not there. i don't know where you get it. the international media published this. 23 pages of tablecables. here i have some internet articles. some days we get much more.

i did not know about that incident. the only israeli vessel that had a class with this submarine, which is this danger, of how the vessel did not sing. there was no radioactive -- the presence of other nuclear submarines in that area entails a danger. you talked about egypt. they had requested the debate of a plan so that they might begin a process to declare the area of the middle east a clean area of nuclear weapons. the only possibility -- the u.s.

opposed it. is an excellent plan, but this is a pre historical plan. it is part of the prehistoric times. when you talk about the reality of iran, please tell me, the meaning of the military situation of the u.s. engaged in iran. you talk about iran as a country, the reality of iran and its presence in that area of the middle east, do you think it will create not only difficult situation for the americans in the israelis but also for the neighboring countries because a lot of the population that would not accept the military war against iran?

some people were granted permission to fly. some others had this imposed. we have the arab emirates. also arabia. that is why the yankees say that people do not want to hear about that in that area.

i think that the dangers of war are increased. they are playing with fire. we see a greater focus on the international media, on that very euphoria of the world cup, while it was displacing the rest of the news. very little mention was made to this, of course. this was a very little importance to understand the logic behind all this, but we see the international in commission on this -- reference not made to these vessels there or the submarines, but we see the geopolitical analysis of what could happen if there is aggression against iran, being up further analyzed after their reflections.

you see the hypothesis. you are not going to convince anyone. the facts are a dramatic by themselves. that is what has happened. >> i am glad i have you here with me today. you wrote last night in reflection, i think this could be a good ending for these times. you are entitled this reflection, the origin of war. you wrote, on july 4 i said on the united states that iran will give thein. has the capacity and the will to

fight oppression. as we have said so many times before, in any war, one party wishes to avoid it. this time it will happen although one party does not wish it. that was the case of the two world wars and in 1014 and in 1029, only 25 years, one from the other. it would not have erupted had not been for previous miscalculations, believing they could accomplish goals without a high price paid. one advocates fair national interest and the other as material interest. the analysis of every war fought throughout recorded history of our species shows that one of the parties has pursued self goals.

it is absolutely wrong to entertain the illusion that this time such goals be obtained without the most truthful of awards. one of the best articles around but a local research website on thursday. the authors offer indisputable evidence that every well- informed person should be aware of. . .

and potentially all of the major forces of other countries. super stealth bombers that can avoid radar detection and the

ground and air-based defenses. there are numerous press conferences. you've seen the chief of staff of the secretary of the u.s. and magician. >-- administration. >> he says that the u.s. is also intensifying their programs which pertain to other information and intelligence systems, rendering them helpless, except in the most basic tactical spheres. the new start treaty contains no

restrictions as to those conventions. also refers to a number on news on the issue and offers the most striking example of the u.s. objectives. in the case that the defense department is still examining the entire range of technologies and systems for dimensional -- for conventional strike that could offer the most technically adequate options to tackle new and developing threats. i sustain the view that no president and not even the most knowledgeable chief would have the ability to know what should be done that is not programmed into computers.

they're testing of u.s. global strike. the obama administration has requested $239 billion for reserves and for development of the prom to global strike by the u.s. military services in fiscal year 2011. this remains as anticipated for the coming year, by the end of fiscal year 2015, the pentagon will have spent $2 billion -- into documents introduced in congress last month, compart role -- comparable [unintelligible] this was described as three years ago in "popular mechanics

." they are ready to execute the port -- the president's order for launching. when that order comes, it will launch the missile. over to the minute it is a flying over the oceans and out of the atmosphere. it will separate and start descending on the planet. it will hit flying at 21,000 kilometers per hour, with twice the resistance of steel. once that explodes, each one will carry 12 to 14 times of 50 caliber bullets -- .50 caliber

bullets. the chief of the joint chiefs of staff of the russian air force -- under the headline obama n uke. in prague last year, he remarked, the existence of thousands of nuclear warheads is the most dangerous legacy of the cold war. after start ii, in the history of the u.s. during the past century, there is not one example of sacrifice of these for the humanity or the people of other countries. we thought the election of an

african american president to the white house might change their aims to achieve global domination. some you might understand why the countries whose military budget exceeds that of all of the other countries of the world combined continues spending huge amounts of money in war preparations. the concept of a global strike and the concentrated attack with the use of conventional precision weapons that within a couple of hours will be of the strike the crucial infrastructures of the targeted country. the concept of prong to global strike -- of prompt global strike, in combination with the defensive deployment of other

systems, will prevent retaliatory attacks. it will turn washington into a global dictator of the modern era, essentially part of the new u.s. strategy that could more adequately be described as a strategy of complete impunity. the u.s. increases its military, gives free rein to nato as a global giant arm -- gendarme, and hopes to improve the efficiency of the planned global strikes initiative. -- strike initiative. washington speaks of a world free from nuclear weapons. in essence, obama tries to mislead the world about the

world free from a clear weapons that will be replaced with all of the extremely destructive weapons to terrorize the leaders of other states and to accomplish the new strategy of complete impunity. please believe that iran will soon surrender. the european union will form a package of its own sanctions to be signed on july 26. the leaders' meeting of five plus one was held on july 2. that was after mahmoud ahmadinejad announced he would resume the talks by the end of august, including with the president of turkey. it seemed like they would not be invited to the talks, at least not at this point. the iranian foreign minister remarked that he is in favor of

challenging international assumptions in proceeding with the upgrading of uranium. since july, there is european insistence in promoting commission against iran. the country has responded they will not [unintelligible] with every passing day there are fewer possibilities to mount obstacles. it can be seen. i should be critical. i made the mistake of affirming, in my reflections on june 27, that the conflict will break out on thursday, friday, or saturday, at the latest. it was known that israeli warships or moving toward the -- were moving. however, i lost sight of the

previous step. in the analysis of the language to impose sanctions, i overlooked the detail of that previous step for the inspection order to be enforced. something more unfortunate was happening. they were giving information about the implementation of the resolution. i was working with the latest material on the issue of abuse. the document did not include two crucial paragraphs. later, it expressed that a 90- day period, the iaea submits to

the board of governors of the iaea, simultaneously to the security council for examination our report indicating whether iran has carried out the complete and sustained activities. in resolution to go -- the remaining provisions of the resolution and the kirin resolution. it affirms that it will examine iran's action in the light of the resolution, within a period of 90 days. it will suspend the implementation, provided that iran has suspended activity

related to the upgrade. while the suspension stands, the iaea will let -- will verify to allow the celebration of naval ceremonies in good faith. it will cease to implement the issue specified in para c456712 -- paragraph c, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12. it will cease to implement paragraph 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 of the curing

resolution, as soon as it determines -- of that year in a resolution, as soon as it determines that iran has fully met its obligations in compliance with the security council resolutions and the iaea board governors determination to be confirmed by the board. in case the report indicates that iran has failed to abide by the provisions of the resolutions 1737 >> 1747 >> 1803, -- 1737, 1747, 1803, it will take measures to persuade iran to do other things