as the ads as long as they are willing to work hard and look out for others. his experience makes him suited to forge partnerships all around the world. i cannot be more pleased to nominate jim this job, and i can speak for secretary clinton and secretary gutter when i say we are looking forward to working with him. i also want to thank bob again for all his work. he has made the bank more transparent. he has held sure progress made in places like afghanistan. he has raised millions of dollars to help some of the world's poorest communities. jim is the right person to carry on that legacy appeared with his skills and experience, it will serve him well. i am grateful to have for his willingness to serve. i do not think that the world bank could have a better leader. thank you. >> thank you.

>> [inaudible] the standard ground law, can you comment on the trayvon martin case? >> well, i am the head of the executive branch, and the attorney general reports to me. i have got to be careful about my statements to make sure we're not comparing any investigation that is taking place right now. but obviously, this is the tragedy. i can only imagine what these parents are going through. and when i think about this boy, i think about my own kids. and i think every parent in america should be able to understand why it is absolutely

an imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together, federal, state, and local to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened. i am glad that not only is the justice department looking into it, i understand that the governor of the state of florida has formed a task force to investigate what is taking place. all of us have to do some soul- searching to figure out something like this and how it happens. that means we examined the laws and the context of what happened as well as the specifics of the incident. my main message is for the parents of trayvon martin. if i had a son, he will look like trayvon. you know, i think they are right

to expect that all of us as americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we're going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in march 1979, c-span began televising the u.s. house of representatives of two households nationwide. today, our content of politics and public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history is

available on tv, radio, and online. >> when we put that forced together, i look good every one of those youngsters as somebody i had a personal responsibility for. >> we knew that there are going into a very dangerous conflict perhaps, and we wanted to give them every benefit. to allow them to come home safely. i am as distressed, more distressed, than any member of this committee could never be that there are veterans who are suffering illnesses that may have been a result of their service in the gulf. i do not know of those illnesses are a result of the service in the gulf or not, but i think we have to keep that as an operating hypothesis' until we find out otherwise. we have to get to the bottom of this. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies as a public service. >> this weekend on "newsmakers,

co-director of the consumer financial protection bureau on how the new agency is shaping up in his visions for regulating home loans, credit cards, and other consumer finance products. on c-span sundays at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. two years ago today, president obama signed the affordable care act into law. this morning, senate republican leader mitch mcconnell called the health care law "the biggest mistake in recent history." his news conference starting here shortly was just over 20 minutes. >> hello, everybody. >> i must say, as the coach of

the year, not a single one of his starters made the first, second, or a third team all big east. not a one. not a bad showing so far with not a whole lot of talent. [laughter] can we talk about something else? [laughter] i am a little surprised. i saw the president at the white house. i was surprised there was not a birthday cake there to celebrate the second anniversary of obamacare. we have all noticed that not a lot is being said about the new law by people who are involved in passing it. and for a pretty good reason for that. after two years, it is pretty

clear that it is full of broken promises. almost everything that was said about the law, predictions about how would word turned out have not worked out. they said it would protect medicare. obviously, it does not. its thick half a trillion dollars out of medicare, not to make medicare more sustainable but to help provide the costs for new entitlement programs. they said it would bring about lower premiums. we know that has not happened. they said it will lower health care costs. we know that has not happened. they said taxes will not go up, and we know right in the legislation there are $500 billion in new taxes. they said if you do not like your plan, you can keep it. we know that is not working out. so i think we can pretty safely say that the reason the american

people like this law even less now than they did two years ago is because nothing essentially that was promised is occurring and will occur. even in the jobs front, you know, we all know the number one issue in the country. analysts stated that the law is "arguably the biggest impediment to hiring, particularly hiring of less skilled workers." the cdo director has said that it will mean 800,000 fewer jobs over the next decade. so, as we go into the supreme court arguments, interesting -- ironically, i just finished the biography of chief justice john marshall. of course in his time on the supreme court from 1801 to 1835, you had a huge number of

significant decisions defining what the constitution means. and the commerce law of course was a big part of a number of those decisions. the supreme court in the nation has been wrestling with what the commerce clause means for 235 years. once again it will be before the supreme court. you think about the arguments that will be made next week, the plaintiffs will argue essentially this spirit that if the federal government, under the commerce clause, can order an individual american to buy this product and tell each individual american what kind of product they must buy, because the failure to make the decision to buy that product could affect the health care of someone else, therefore it is interstate commerce. if the court upholds the, could

the federal government then order you to eat carrots? could it order you to quit smoking? could it order you to lose weight? because all of those decisions you could make. they could arguably have an affect on the cost of health insurance for someone else. obviously, none of us know what the supreme court will do. but it strikes me that if this is permissible under the commerce clause, the commerce clause is essentially gone. that it is meaningless and kind of -- that it is meaningless and a kind of a relic of ancient times. so those are the arguments that will be made. i think the surprise to a lot of us and probably to a lot of you is that the court is apparently also going to be looking at the 10th amendment implications of the massive medicaid mandates. in obamacare.

in might say, for example, because in every other state in the union right now, the current struggle to pay for medicaid at the state level is already causing college tuition to go up. i will tell you why. the two biggest items in every state budget are medicaid and education. if the medicaid mandate gaza, education funding goes down. they pass that along to universities, and raise tuition to make up the difference. that is already a huge problem. in my state, we're going to add almost 400,000 people in the state of 4.3 million to the medicaid rolls. our governor has no earthly idea how they can possibly handle this. you're probably thinking, what are the constitutional implications of that? i am not sure. but the 10th amendment initially, we thought, granted to the federal government specific powers and a reserved everything else to the state.

maybe the reason the court wants to hear the medicaid argument is because they may conclude that the federal government could make stage it do so much in terms of their spending that they have basically taken over state budgets. i do not know. but i think that was a surprise to many, that the court decided it wanted to hear arguments related to medicaid as well. summing it up, it is enough. -- it is ams. this law is a master the single worst piece of legislation passed in the time i have been here. the single step in europeanizing america. look at what is going on in europe. we have a debt that makes that the size of our economy, which looks a lot like greece already, and we're adding this on top of it. whether the court finds it constitutional or not is a mistake. there are plenty of mistakes you can make that are not unconstitutional. obviously, our hope is that the court will find this law

constitutionally deficient. whether or not it does, it was still a huge mistake for our country. as i have said before, i think if i were setting the agenda instead of senator reid, i feel like we would have an obligation to the american people on day one to begin the process of trying to repeal this law. let me make one observation about one other matter. you recall the skirmish that the majority leader and i had lasted over scheduling, which of course is not my responsibility. i indicated that if i had his job, we would look at the export-import bank, and the majority leader said we do not have time. i think you already know, we do not have time to do the xm bank, but we're going to turn to their effort to raise taxes on energy monday and as the next week, incredibly enough, having a discussion about what a good

idea it would be to raise taxes on energy when gas is at $4 a gallon. i look at that and say we should do something about the price of gas, but it would not have taken very long to have cleared the xm bank. a significant number of my members are in favor of it. i think we could probably work that in. all right. >> [inaudible] hhs issued a regulation last friday calling for the health care plans to cover without company all food and drug administration -- [inaudible] patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity. do you support insurance providing costs for these procedures to all women?

>> i do not have any comment about that. it was a regulation that came out last week? >> [inaudible] >> ribble talk about it in my office. >> if the supreme court strikes the mandate -- [inaudible] what can congress do it that point? would you want to change it? >> it is an interesting question. i think the way forward after the supreme decision -- obviously, we have to wait for the supreme court decision. a lot of it depends on what they do. at the most people have looked at this, both those that proposed for obamacare for those in favor of it, they believe the mandate is kind of a linchpin of it, but i think kind of discussing and in this set of hypothetical about what they would do if they do this or that is probably not productive. we have had some conversations

about it, as you can imagine. we will have to wait and see what the court does. [inaudible] >> let's say that the man that is constitutional. what does that mean for republicans to oppose health care reform? >> as i said, can be constitutional and still be a big mistake. this is a disastrous step in the direction of europeanizing the country. there are plenty things that we should not do a better constitutional. even if they find a constitutional, it is still the biggest mistake in recent history and should be undone. >> some have said this election is probably the last chance that you'll have to repeal it before 2014, and by the time you get to 2014, you're too far down the road to unwind it. what are your thoughts about

that? >> it is hard to look past the election. the american people are going to speak this november. you always hear people in my line of works a this is a really important election. this is a really important election. i think this administration and its compliant congress in 2009 and 2010 did a lot of damage to the country. obviously i hope the american people will give us -- we have supporters here in congress. we need to undo a lot of that. i would rather not speculate about what might be the situation on down the road. >> you say the new law is full of broken promises. would you acknowledge certain pieces of the law that are popular and a working? >> there are two things that test well and you are -- and you will hear the democrats talk about pre-existing condition and the ability of young people to stay on their parents policies

until they're 26. look, in a 3000-page bill, i am not surprised that there are a couple of things you will be appointee, and these both test well in polling. i think it will make every effort to try to get people convinced that this 3000-page bill is all about those two things. they certainly are popular, no question about that. >> [inaudible] >> you're asking me a question i cannot answer or i am not going to answer. but if we have a different majority here next year, we feel we have an obligation to the american people. not a single republican voted for this. to do everything we can to get it off the boat spirit and replace it. to use the medical metaphor, what we did was take a meat ax to the best health care system to the world when we should have used a scalpel.

and we would like to undo this huge mistake at the earliest possible moment of the american people give us the support to do it. >> what do intend to replace it with if you were able to actually repeal it? >> some of the things we talked about which i would view as a scalpel-time adjustments to the finest health care in the world would be things like interstate sales or health insurance, being able to buy health insurance across interstate lions. medical malpractice. we do not think the problems we had in health care, and we certainly do have them, required a massive overhaul of the current system and a raid on medicare and the kinds of cuts that made to hospitals and hospices and nursing homes. you know, all of us know people who are serving on the boards of hospitals, nursing homes,

hospice -- they are struggling under these provider codes. every time we talk about trying to get a handle on entitlements, our friends want to talk about provider codes. pretty soon there will not be the providers for the burgeoning amount of people on the rolls. a good example is medicaid. we're adding massive numbers of people to the medicaid rolls. >> they have talked about having legislative response -- >> to what? >> to what the court decides. i know you say if republicans have the majority, one of the first things we try to do is repeal of the health care law. is there any sort of legislative statutes or things you can do on the floor even before then to try to make a

point? >> i think i have already answered that. i think it is impossible to know what their reaction to the court decision will be before we have a court decision. >> this question is relevant if not germane. where do you think the budget and the deficit are going to be on this business trip? continuing with issues you're talking about in the campaign relative to gas prices, the economy, or health care. as you know, voters talked a lot about wanting to get the deficit under control, but then you confront them with choices and they do not want to cut medicare, do not want to cut social security. how big of an issue is that going to be? >> i think we all know things like jobs and the economy are number one. the obamacare mistake is a job- killer, so it is directly

related to the number one subject on the minds of the american people. and i think they do care about debt and deficit, but you're absolutely right. if you look at what people are the most concerned about, it is down the list. i forget exactly how far down the list. if you're asking me if it is a huge campaign issue, i think it is a campaign issue. probably not bigger than jobs and the economy. certainly not bigger than obamacare. whether or not it becomes an issue in the campaign is an issue for our country. when you have a debt the size of your economy and you have suffered a credit downgrade, it was called the most predictable crisis in american history. regardless of what is discussed in the campaign, regardless of what the best issues are in the campaign, this is a big issue for our country. and it is not going away. it will still be there after the

election. >> years ago, there was so much passion with respect to the tea party and the town halls. thousands of people at the capitol. you think the two-party is as strong and influential as they were? do you see that passion against the health care law? >> i do. the depression that brought about the rise of the tea party had a lot to do with the issue we're talking about today -- i believe the passion that brought about the residency party at a lot to do with the issue we're talking about today. i really think obamacare is a metaphor for all of the excess of this administration. the stimulus, the debt, the takeover of health care, nationalization of the student loan program. all of this government excess. so i think all of the folks who have been involved in that movement understand that the single most important thing we could do would be to replace

those currently in the white house, and it would insisted they would ship to the majority in the senate. >> at the beginning of this congress, you offered an amendment to repeal the entire lot -- [inaudible] some members of your conference wondered to be another vote to repeal the entire law. of course, you do not control the agenda, but you can press for an amendment. are you going to try to do that again? >> that is a good question. this has been an ongoing discussion with an hour conference. we're thinking about it appeared we already know where everybody is. we have had the votes to oppose obamacare and oroville obamacare. every single republican voted to oppose the law in the first place and repeal it later. we know where everybody is. but the matter is still under discussion here we have not decided yet. >> i want to ask about the shooting death of trayvon martin, the teenager.

it puts a spotlight on the stand your ground laws. do you think we should reexamine those laws and make changes? the justice department is now investigating this. do you agree that it is right for the civil rights division to look at it? >> well, it is an incredible tragedy. huge proportions. and i am glad it is being investigated, and we will look at it as the investigation moves on. >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] looks pretty good in late march. >> a surprise. >> about the transportation highway bill. if i am not mistaken, you might oppose that. why, and what is the way forward on that issue? >> the principle reason,

transportation is very popular in our conference. but it ended up getting some no votes, including my own. there was a provision that basically would have prevented the innovative efforts of governors like mitch daniels to do outside the bucks -- outside the box funding mechanisms for the state highway systems. it involved a public-private sector effort. wildly successful. yet, the amendment prohibits any state, as i understand it, from engaging in a kind of innovative, outside the box solution tuesday transportation problems. -- to state transportation problems. you know, we do not have enough money generated by the gas tax to take care of all the infrastructure needs we have in this country. why in the world what we want, at the federal level, to

prevent creative and innovative governors from the figuring some out of the box way to meet their transportation needs? that was my motivation. another senator felt that violated the budget control act. there were different points of view about that. but i thought that was an absolute outrage at a time when we should be encouraging state governments to engage in it really innovative ways to meet our transportation needs. and the most successful that i am aware of in the country was mitch daniels in indiana. it made it impossible for any governor to do that. >> [inaudible] >> i hope they will not go along with that. you'll have to ask the house. they have had a number of discussions on how to go forward on the transportation bill. we have enough challenges over here without giving them advice. >> [inaudible] jedd you will pass the

extension? >> it is next week the expiration? we will certainly do some kind of extension, yes. i am going to take one more. >> a lot of conservative groups are urging congress -- [inaudible] are you concerned that the opposition -- >> i do not know if it is my hearing or your voice, but i am having a hard time. >> the opposition to the xm bank -- >> i think i covered that. we can do that very quickly. we have to schedule it. i found, as i said earlier, found time to turn to trying to raise the price of gas at the pomp, and it looks like that could end up dominating next

week when we could have passed the xm bank probably in a day or so. thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the house and senate will be back in session next week. the house will take surface transportation a decision. they will vote on the republicans' proposed budget. live coverage is always here on c-span. on c-span2, the u.s. senate will debate on tax breaks for oil companies. they may pick up legislation on reforming the postal service. >> on monday, the supreme court starts three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new health care law. here the oral argument in its entirety as the court rules is audio of around 1:00 p.m. eastern each day, with coverage on c-span3 and c-span radio. on c-span.org, listen and add your comments. we start monday morning live on

c-span with "washington journal," and continue with the supreme court. then, the oral argument on c- span3. >> this morning, we spoke with former talk-show host phil donahue. this is 45 minutes. c-span3 phil dodge -- >> thank you for coming in. tell us about your fellow "body of war." he was in iraq for two days.

thomas can't cough. nausea every morning. impotent. i saw this young man at walter reed, as a mother explained injuries, and i said people should see this. i nominated myself. this is almost five years of work here, and it was an experience all of us will never forget. we have never been close to what is truly a catastrophic injury whole family upside down, and our point is there are thousands of homes in this country just like this, and we never saw the pain. we do not know about that. if you are going to send your young people to war, which showed the pain.

the president said you cannot -- there was no pushback. it is the people do not know the sacrifice people are making. we will have another war. host: we are talking about "body of war." it is acclaimed as one of the best documentaries. you were taken to task when the iraq war was starting. do you feel like you have been proven right? guest: i would rather have somebody else say that. men and over 4000 young an women dead because of this massive blunder.

who was right or wrong does not make any difference now, and no good thing has ever resulted from i told you so. i am keeping my mouth shut. i made no sacrifice at all. it is the people who fought this war who made the sacrifices. host: good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, the second superpower in the world, russia, went into afghanistan, and left with their tails between their legs. i believe, and the 1980's. the united states should have taken a look at russia and see how many lives they lost in a useless war. these tribal countries have religious rights stating --

dating back thousands of years, and we as a nation are killing our youth and destroying our youth. we have so many naval bases, we have so many air force bases, in around our world, and we are in basically -- invading countries and destroying lives. guest: i have nothing to add to what you say. host: yesterday the commander testify before the senate armed services committee. let's listen to what he said about the relationship between the united states and afghanistan. [voice] you have put your finger

on the issue that there is frustration with these events. these events in many respects have struck a blow at the core of the relationship. this president, president karzai, has to be able to speak to the afghan people about putting our relationship in the context of a long-term relationship with afghanistan. i understand his frustration, and i understand that if it was just one event, you would have a particular view on it. but we have had several events -- the urination video, the burning of korans, the shootings, and in the aggregate, those are some different events.

i believe he is committed to relationship with the united states. he was very clear in a video teleconference in which i was in at tenants with ambassador recently. these incidents cannot be ignored. host: john allen testifying yesterday. what is our responsibility as americans to the people of afghanistan? i am not talking to the leadership, but the women who could be educated, the children? is there a risk of getting out and having things fall apart even worse? guest: if we do not get out, we will have more dead americans. you can have any foreign-policy you want, any kind of country you want. you can have a country who puts people in cages for up to six

years, no red cross, secrets, waterboarding, no habeus. this is a great country. and instead of sharing, instead of reaching out, we are lashing out. and we are never ever -- we have become the thing we 8. we are dropping bombs on crowded cities at night where old people and children are sleeping, and we think we are going to get on with the rest of our lives. reverse that, imagine somebody coming in with an unmanned aerial vehicle -- where is the valor here? you have a man in a cage either in suburban washington, nevada, looking at a tv monitor -- and there they are -- and we are killing children.

this is on obama's watch. we have to get rid of the drones. sooner or later it will happen, and i want my president to make the first call. host: republican caller from fairfax, virginia. caller: i have been thinking about this for awhile, and the business of us sending baltimore -- when i was in the marines, and on four different occasions i stepped through somebody boss door and told them their child was dead. i come from that background. the problem i have is again we have 1% of the poor and lower middle class doing the dirty work for the country. i am a republican. we have a presidential

candidate, mr. rahman, who has five sons. not one of them has ever joined the service. i do not know if that is because of religion or their father or what. we have got to get away from this business of letting the people who are looking for a job or looking for a trade or looking for a breakout to something better for their life after the gatt trade high-school to do all the dirty work for us. we have a reality tv shows, but why don't we have a reality tv show that shows what these young people are doing and what their families are going through, doing this bad stuff for us? mr. donahue, keep doing what you are doing. c-span, maybe you could have a show on about the draft and include some congress people and some military generals, because the military generals want the draft, but they are part and

parcel of the rest of us, and that i think needs to be addressed and you would see a lot more young kids. guest: thank you. this is the reality. this is the harm in harm's way, and it is available to net flex crist is available at netflix. we sold no popcorn. this is not a take your girl to the movie movie. it is rough, and it is up close. i had charlie -- he owned the washington monthly, on the donahue show many years ago, and i remember bill in the audience -- what should we do? he said, first of all, draft the rich, and it is what everybody

thinks, but nobody says it. obviously it is not current because we do not have a draft right now, because he is absolutely correct. wars are fought by people who are jobless -- i heard a guy we did not go to vietnam because we loved america. we wanted to get out of town. these are the realities that we seem to be talking to our self in many ways. marcy, democracy -- less than half of us the. a lot of the pretense, the what the people here in the states, comfortable americans, telling us how wonderful the troops are, and it is like after a while it does not have any meaning. the troops come home and the v.a. does not call them back.

we are awash with pretense. host: do you think the ma ainstreat media does not discuss ron paul's for policy? guest: the truth is ron paul who i could not vote for. i am sure he is a lovely man, and he looks like a very nice chap to me. i would love to take him to dinner. but i could not vote for him. he has a very distracting history. he is the only candidate speaking out on this issue. we are killing people, they are killing us, which are bogged down in afghanistan, and no one on this presidential campaign trail will talk about it except ron paul. ron paul is saying, what are we

doing? why are we going to all these countries? can you imagine mitt romney saying that? to make the point is to be politically fatal. this is another reason that war is so easy to get into. 60 years to get out, which is why i am out on the trail stumping for norman solomon, who was running for congress from california, and i am pleased to have this opportunity that i think norman solomon is right on all the issues. host: you have been involved in a lot of issues over the years, especially america's involvement in these wars. you have not taken the time to campaign for a lot of candidates, because of your tv career. you have not wait in too much politics.

inst: i was on nader's side 2000, and i got off his bus in 2004. my wife marlo was certain we were going to elect another bush in 2004. she has a heck of a web site -- getting it over 5 million hits a day. i speak to her now through her agent. i think ron paul is a fascinating study of our political reality right now. these people out there cannot even talk about what is right in front of our eyes. how long will this go on -- i do not know. host: norman solomon is running

for congress in california. it is an open race and that was triggered by a decision of the incumbent to retire. tell us about why you are supporting him. guest: he is the son my mother wanted to have. he is very educated about this. he brings to his freshman year in congress more foreign policy experience than any wriggly -- rookie could have. he has been to afghanistan. he has been to iraq more than once, and he is also taking no corporate tax money. imagine this -- no corporate tax money. that is tough. they have to worry about about paying for -- and i admire him

for this grass-roots effort. i met many of the members of his team. he has scores of volunteers. the volunteers been the determining factor -- he would be elected immediately. a grass-roots campaign by a man who will never allow this country to go to war without the consent of congress as mandated by the constitution. up till now congress set here is the president -- hear, mr. preston, do what you have to. it is a cover your but maneuver. congress has been spineless on this issue. they do not want the job of calling a war, and it is their job. as robert byrd says, james madison -- do not give one man the power to declare war. is too much of a temptation, and he was right.

the framers work right, and here we have people claiming to be proud americans and turning their backs on the vision of the framers. even speak -- even free speech is a quick idea, and now we are in this world of new books -- nukes, we cannot be bothered with the bill of rights. host: let's hear from our next caller. caller: i watched the program often. had you been to afghanistan or iraq? guest: no, i have not. caller: i was watching when we went into afghanistan, they sent out feelers to try to not have a

war starts. they just needed a reason to do it. the bush administration refused to do that. the same way they refuse to make peace with iran. i think from what i hear from these candidates and republican party, which are marching toward another war with iran, and to me it blows my mind. we have used them way too much. these multiple opponents are terrible. i sat screaming at the television, we could have had bin laden, but we were given excuse after excuse after the previous administration dropped the ball on it and then drop that began when they went after iraq, and that happened after cheney possible summit and they were dividing up the country for their oil buddies. i do not understand how we can

trade lives for profits of corporations. that is my point to you. i disconnected. guest: we are all talking, and he did it. these wars -- by the way, they are not wars. occupations, what you want to call them -- these military actions in iraq and iran are not fair to the american troops, and america is waking up to that. now, most of us are very anxious to bring them home. host: danny, an independent -- caller in louisiana. caller: i called in often and i

watch it often, and i see diverse attitudes towards everything. being an independent thinker, i seek the truth, and i see on one hand, this media that represents the money interest in this country, the hard right wing that basically lead us into this -- in fact, people who watch fox news state if you are not for us, you are against us. i decorated combat veteran from vietnam. when people would tell me things like that -- where do people get such ideas? the truth does not sought any more in the media. this format that you are on right now is one of them that could do a great service to the american people by seeking the

truth instead of seeking ratings for a morally bankrupt network. -- guest: i am not sure what he meant about c-span. i cannot believe c-span when i first saw it -- actually see the house and senate next remember when you head the squares, the bill goes -- senate? remember in high school when you have the squares, and the bill goes to the senate -- to sit and watch this happen live -- then i got involved in all of those conventions where they hang the banner on the wall. i am crazy about this. this is the best reality show in town and i said that in the early 1980's of my own program. to the gentlemans call, i do not know.

we spend $2 billion a day on things that go boom. if you add in the nuclear program, the va, the supplemental -- add it up. two billion dollars a day. norman solomon taught me that. that is why i am campaigning with him. solomonforcongress.org. host: the last caller, who said he supports c-span, but has issues with television shows, what role do you have in

creating the discussion? has it turned into what you envisioned? guest: i used to sit there all my illegitimate children and i love them equally, but that is kind of cute. we did our naughty shows, too. we had male strippers. it was not my idea. i said where you're going to put the microphone? you have to entertain the people. this has to be understood. the realm of our business is the size of the audience. if you do not get an audience you will be parking cars next week. male strippers will get a larger audience than dick gephardt. he was a guest for the whole show. bob dole was a guest for the whole show. you will let's see that anymore. i've already made the point. this documentary fell off of the marquee in six minutes.

this has a wheelchair. -- the daytime talk shows were not interested. host: the documentary phil donahue is talking about is called "body of war," a feature about thomas young, a 25-year- old paralyzed from a bullet. he was serving in iraq for less than a week before he was shot. kenny, mobile, alabama, democrats line. are you with us? guest: i know this feeling. host: walter is our next caller. massachusetts. independent line. caller: good morning. i was a fan of your show years ago. i used to sit in my living room watching your show. we could not believe half of

the stuff you used to have, and looked at what we have now. guest: i am glad you were watching. caller: i appreciate what you are doing with your video. i always thought war in our country was taken for a joke. growing up as a kid, wars work romanticized. it always seemed like some beautiful thing. even george bush referred to it something as romantic. at the end of the day compound america needs to recognize it is the loss of life, nature, pollution. everything that could go wrong, it could go wrong when you are dealing with war. it is not like something in the movies where the good guys go

in to get the bad guys. killing,hooting , there are no victories or heroes. they smoke their cigarettes and what ever while the poor, the young, out on the front lines fighting for what they think is real, what is true. in america we need to start recognizing that. we got to the point now and the the the thing is justified for loss of life. guest: this is a very thoughtful phone call, and i want him to know that the iraq war, the invasion of iraq followed a brilliant strategy of fear, executed by the bush white house. it was the bush white house that

created the bumper stickers -- "a smoking gun will become a mushroom cloud." the congress -- you see this in myself. we read the congressional debate on giving bush permission to invade iraq. and house and the senate -- many members read the talking points -- a gun smoke's after it has been fired. john mccain said the longer we wait the more dangerous -- you could feel the heartbeat of the nation began to beat faster as love for war continued, and this president took this nation by the year and what it right into

the sword. the last gentleman calling is where americans are arriving at finally, and i think it is on to be tougher to go to war. it is always easy, but i think it is getting tougher with each horrible day. host: our guest was one of the early talk show hosts that change the way talk shows go in america. he focused on controversial issues at times, and his most frequent guest was ralph nader, for whom our guest campaigned in 2000. he was out on the campaign trail for norman solomon, who is running for california's second congressional district. one of our followers has a couple questions about -- or not

you should think he should be brought to justice. joseph koney has gotten a lot of attention because of a video. the tweeter asks is there a case where america should get involved? guest: whenever you talk about peace, what would you do about hitler? we all want peace. you got to joined the real world. this is the fox message. what do you want to do, just roll over? if you call for peace, you are risking the life of our nation. another reason why it is so easy to go to war. if i were -- we have the ability

-- we went to the moon. i think we have the ability to effect coalitions of -- affect coalitions of other nations who are just as honorable as we are to intervene in a civil way in these disturbances. i do not think we can pour magic dust on these horribly angry violent collisions of people, but we have the ability to promote peace. when i was on msnbc, i had people who lost loved ones in that hours, and you can see the pain in their faces. they were saying, do not go kill other innocent people to avenge the death of my innocent loved one. i have never seen moral courage like that. testament or so after the towers collapsed, these are the

patriots, these are the people who believe in the bill of rights. these are the people who do not think he should be able to tap a person's fund without judicial authorization. all these pundits -- the bedrock features of this nation are being chipped away, because we have to protect the american people. we cannot go to war against hitler, we would be all wearing swastikas. nobody likes us. we are damn near alone in the world. it may not be us dropping those bombs, but they think it is, and it often is the united states dropping the bombs. let's ban the drones. if a soldier goes into a house

and local family away with an 8- ak-47, that is the worst crime pier if a drone fires a device into a family home and kills every body, it is collateral damage creek, all these contradictions, sooner or later become -- come to the consciousness, not of only people like this marine who fought in war and what is alive, but people at home are seeing the absurdity of our military for policy. host: let's go to georgia. welcome. caller: hello. this is a question to mr. donahue. i wondered if what the you to think about the reason we do not get out of iraq and afghanistan,

so fast because of the higher ups, considering the expense involved and getting all that equipment and tanks and armored carriers and the places where we have to it house and our soldiers, and if we pull out, and something happens in iraq or afghanistan or iran, that we have to move it all back in again. it is a double expends on top of that. do you say to that? guest: i say there are too many armchair warriors in conference he cannot wait to go to a war and would not think of sending their own kids to fight it. we are in iraq in my opinion and afghanistan, bogged down now, order to save -- in order for

the military and i think many civilian leaders to save face. and this film, thomas young, is the subject of my film, who is watching in kansas city, i hope. these are the people i think who find it very easy to call a war and sent other people there. i am not sure -- i do not think one death of one american is worth an old-man's face. host: someone called in and said before entering a war every politician should be required to read the war prayer. caller: i believe men in general

have too much of our ego, and when money becomes involved in that, it gets us butting heads against other countries. i believe women should be in charge of that, because women on either side would not let their own children who they bore goat to be slaughtered for men's mistakes. guest: bring it on. in the blue jeans, george w., walking out there with cheney and rumsfeld. how about the aircraft carrier? a flight suit with that helmet there, strutting on that carrier, the miti at home swooned. -- the media swooned.

we thought it fabulous that the president landed on an aircraft carrier piloted by one else. it was the worst stuff in the history of the white house, and here we are, more than 4000 dead, millions and millions of refugees living in tents because not mess with texas. that is why we went in this thing. bush not wait to go to war. cheney said in a cabinet meeting about saddam hussein -- are you going to take him out or not? it is not that simple -- is that simple for cheney to send thousands and thousands of young people from other families -- you are going to take him out or not? we definitely at a macho feature of our culture in our movies, it has been since i was a kid, i

wanted to be john wayne. yes, i tell you, these are thoughtful calls and i should not patronize anybody because it is impressive how smart -- imagine these callers now against the calls you were getting when bush called for the erasion -- invasion of iraq. people are changing, the nation is changing. the rights are popular. we're popular now in many ways. people do not want the war. they think gay people are real people. there is nothing wrong with calling attention -- another criticism. if you criticize america, you do not like anything about america. wait a minute. we are the patriots. i believe in the bill of rights. if you put the bill of rights to

a vote among the people that i hang out with, it would pass. i do not think you could say that certainly in the bush administration, and the national defence act that recently passed is horrible. we are killing other americans in and other country how do we think we are going to get away with this? my grandchildren -- are they going to look around all their lives? this is the world we are giving our kids. host: on twitter -- guest: it is true. what is it doing to them? i had comic books. these pictures move, they blow up. bodies are chopped in half.

a different world. host: mentioned free speech. what do you make of the conversation has been regarding rush limbaugh, the comments he made about the torch towne law student -- the georgetown law student? what do you think? guest: i think the system is working. the framers were right. -- the state should not shush rush and the state should not shush me. this is a fabulous demonstration of our democracy and the ability of sponsors to make their own judgment about what is good for their company and their stockholders. her rate for that. by the vacant -- hooray for

that. all this has happened without state intervention. i love america. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i am a 72-year-old american, a veteran of the cold war, submarine sailor, and this is my opinion about war. we have not fought a world since -- a war since world war ii. the eastern theater was won by total annihilation and destruction. japan, same thing. what we have now is congress is declaring war when they do not mean war. war is hell, by definition. you have to go in and you have to be able to totally destroy the other side. if they do not want our people

to go to war, tell congress do not declare war. declared a meat grinder for our troops. have a wonderful day. god bless america. host: a twitter viewer says -- guest: i agree and you have to say it is necessary. if you do not say it is eacenik.y, you are a piec they will not you down which ever way you go. if he criticized the war before it is called, then you do not support the president. these young people going to war and you are criticizing it. when you need to sense -- when you need the sense the most, you

have to shut up. if you not -- if he cannot speak war, if you are not allowed to speak, stop sending these people to their deaths. we will find a mussolini and they will make decisions behind closed doors and we will salute. it is up to us what kind of country we want. host: our guest is the creator and host of "the phil donahue show," talking about a new video, "body of war." it was a realist -- released to addict -- it was released theatrically. guest: no distributor would

take our film. rolling out means we will put you in our theater and see how you do. i would appear and we would do questions after the opening in chicago, seattle. and the place would be jammed. i thought i was fellini. the next night there would be seven people in the theater. we did not have the budget -- this was an out-of-pocket investment. none of us who have worked on this film will ever forget the experience. alas, a commercial hit we were not, but we played the clinton library. we were asked -- we have shown the film in several venues, but commercial? by the way, theatrical distribution is a lot more

honest than the opportunity i had at msnbc. na network, the vice president in the morning while shaving can help you for a a political reason for any reason -- maybe his wife does not like you -- or her husband does not like you -- in theatrical distribution it is not -- is different. if you do not put fannies in the seat, they take you down. you can blame them for that? good old free enterprise. host: phil donahue, and thank you so much for being with us this morning. guest: libby, thank you. >> this weekend, how the new agency of consumer financial protection is shaping up.

>> monday the supreme court starts hearings on the constitutionality of the new health-care law. hear the argument for yourself in its entirety as the court releases on the look around 1:00 p.m. eastern peace day, which coverage on c-span3 nc span rio, and at c-span.org listen and add your comments. >> susan rice testified on capitol hill on tuesday. some members questioned the 70 bunning -- the $79 million for unesco. ambassador rice's testimony is

an hour and a half. >> take you for being with us today to answer questions on the budget request for the united nations. it has been a challenging year since you last testified before this committee. we commend you for your efforts to get the international community to pressure iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. you have pushed the u.n. to assist countries in the middle east and north africa that are facing difficult transitions, and there are many issues you are always working on that never make the front page. there have been many disappointments at the u.n. over the last year. the conflict rages on in syria with russia and china and willing to join the

international community unless we hear differently from you this morning. we want to hear your thoughts on what if anything can be done to put pressure on those countries to act. the situation is very troubling and it is difficult to explain our predicaments -- to our constituents by the u.n. cannot respond to a crisis of this magnitude. we have watched the palestinians go to run the peace process to seek recognition as a palestinian state. officials have made it known to the palestinians that the u.s. would veto a step toward resolution at the security council, but then the palestinians changed their strategy. we're concerned the palestinians will get their status elevated in the general assembly and other u.n. agencies. we would like an update on what you expect will happen over the next year on that issue. the u.s. is now withholding our contribution to unesco because

of palestinian actions. members of congress believe cutting off these funds is the reason the palestinian authority stopped further recognition efforts, yet the administration has requested the authority to waive the provision for law that required unesco funding to stop. we will hear more about this with your proposal. many concerns remain about the effectiveness and transparency of you and organizations. the administration's report on u.s. contributions to international organizations shows that $8.5 billion was provided to the u.n. and other organizations in fiscal year 2010. i was concerned to learn that while the u.s. is the largest u.n. donor, which have limited access to information to ensure our funds are spent wisely and he effectively. as a result, the provision are

included in the state for operations of preparation bill that requires the secretary of state to withhold funds to the u.n. and its agencies that are not making progress on accountability measures. we expect to see changes and what to hear how these new requirements will be met. another troubling to the element is that the subcommittee recently learned about the possibility of a significant cost overrun for the u.n. headquarters renovation project. as you know, bank which carried in the last two appropriation bills to limit the cost of the project and minimize the burden on united states. we continue to expect you and the state department to work together with you and the finish the project within the funds already appropriated for that project. i will close with a topic mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, and that is iran. at the iaea said he has serious

concerns that iran may be hiding secret atomic weapons works, which iran has signaled a willingness to return to talks, i am concerned about the time of talk has passed. this promises to be another stalling tactic. we are wanting here actions you are taking to increase pressure on iran. i want to thank you the delegation based in new york and around the world. we appreciate sacrifices made on a daily basis, and we thank you for being here, and now i were turned to the ranking member for her remarks. >> good morning, ambassador price. i joined the chairwoman in welcoming you today, and i think you for your service to our country. in the year since we last had you here before our subcommittee, much has happened.

from the crisis in syria to the famine in the horn of africa to the ongoing transition in afghanistan, the u.n. has been deeply involved in matters of great importance to the united states and the global community. in a world where threats do not stop at borders and a time when americans are tightening their belts, the and placed an indispensable role in advancing our interests and defending our values. while the u.n. is not perfect, it delivers real results for every american taxpayer by advancing global stability. the benefits are not always obvious to the casual observer, but the u.n. is so fundamental to our access overseas that if it did not already exist which would have to create it. through our membership, we augment the response to emerging .hallenges and global crisies

membership in the and makes our country more secure and more prosperous and it supports u.s. efforts to advance democracy, human rights, health, and develop. i look forward to hearing from you about how the president's budget request will promote our national interests and maintain u.s. global leadership through our continued work at the united nations. specifically, i hope you will address how you in is working to address the violence in syria. erin's pursuit of nuclear weapons, efforts by the palestinians to seek statehood outside of the negotiated settlement with israel. i hope you will highlight both successes that you have had over the past year as well as the strategies for overcoming continued challenges. last year he spoke about what the u.s. is pushing at the end, including transparency and

better protection for whistleblowers. i hope you will provide an update on those efforts as well as discuss concrete steps u.s. is taking to promote additional or forms, and the u.s. mission's work to make even more efficient and transparent across the wider q&a system, including u.n. funds, programs, and specialized agencies. from well-known organizations like unicef and the world health organization, the lesser-known groups such as the international telecommunications union and the world intellectual property organization, u.n. special agencies and affiliated organizations provide a wide range of services to the world community. i hope he will highlight the importance of these organizations to u.s. economic and security interests, as well as what the proposed 6% decrease in the fiscal year 2013 request

our voluntary contributions would mean to these organizations. from the start of the 112th congress, we have seen repeated attacks on the u.n., for legislation to ban the possible changes to proposed funding cuts that would undermine the u.n. and negatively impact u.s. leadership. unfortunately, i anticipate similar efforts this year. the u.n. cannot deliver the results we want if we start it up the resources it needs. moreover, it is in our interest to ensure the rest of the world continues to pick up almost 3/4 of the tap for u.n. activities. i believe if we treat our financial obligations under the u.n. charter as optional, others will, too, resulting in increased bilateral assistance needs, less opportunity for multilateral coordination, and most important, a far greater cost in blood and treasure perry on the opening day of the u.n.

general assembly session in 1983, president reagan noted that "our goals are those that died this very body. our ends are the same as those as the u.n.'s founders, who sought to replace a world at war with one where the rule of law will prevail, where human rights are honor, where conflict wicked way to freedom from violence to ." i look forward to working with you to continue robust leadership at the united nations. >> ambassador rice, you will have your full record place in the record. feel free to summarize your statement. >> thank you very much. members of the committee, thank

you for inviting me to testify. i am grateful for your continued support of our efforts at the united nations, especially in this time of fiscal constraint. on behalf of the administration, i am pleased to request full funding for fiscal year 2013 for three accounts -- the contributions to international organizations, the contributions to international peacekeeping activities, and the international organizations and programs the count. as but democratic and republican leaders have long protested, a strong and effected united nations is one of our best tools to tackle many of the world's problems. the u.n. is not the sum of our strategy. but it is an e central piece of it. in response to the horrors in syria, united states and our partners at the united nations have supported an immediate halt to the violence and negotiated a

peaceful transition, and a responsible trade democratic process. despite russia and china twice vetoing security council action, the united nations general assembly and human rights council has repeatedly and overwhelmingly condemned the carnage and united nations has played an important role in supporting our efforts to end the crisis, including to the joint appointment of special envoy kofi annan. libby at the united states that the united nations -- in libya the united states led the united states. united states pushed the security council to effect the toughest security -- the toughest sanctions on iran. as long as iran fails to meet its international obligations,

the pressure will build. united nations played a critical role in supporting the creation of a newly independent south sudan. ivoire, united nations prevented a civil war. this is a few examples of how leadership at united nations is producing tangible results. despite important progress, much remains to be done. that is why we are championing greater budget discipline and comprehensive management reforms that will make united nations more efficient and cost- effective. in december compared we led an effort to cut by 5% the size of the united nations regular budget, the first reduction in 14 years and only the second in

the past 50 years. the obama administration has also succeeded in holding peacekeeping budget levels effectively constant for the past three years. through increase transparency we have secured a commitment from the heads of all new york-based funds and programs to disclose publicly online all internal audit reports starting this year. our reform agenda is based on four pillars. first, economy. a leaner you and that does more with less. second, accountability. a cleaner u.n. with robust oversight mechanisms, ethics enforcement, whistleblower protection, and greater transparency. third, excellence. an insistence on delivering real results and of holding the highest standards.

and fourth, integrity. a more credible united nations that list up to its founding principles and values and does not tolerate individuals or states that bring dishonor to the institution. this brings every day, we stand with israel to oppose a hostile efforts to challenge israel's legitimacy. we remain vigilant on the palestinian unilateral bid for u.n. membership. there is no shortcut to statehood. tough issues can only be resolved through direct negotiations. we always fight against and tight israeli -- anti-israeli resolutions.

these laws run counter to u.s. national security interest because they enable the palestinians to determine whether the united states can continue to find and lead in un agencies to serve a wide range of important american interests. cutting off funding for agencies like the world health organization, iaea, would deal a major blow to global health, nuclear non-proliferation, and the protection of american businesses. our participation in unesco is also valuable. therefore, the administration's budget request includes funding for the u.s. contribution to unesco and the statement of intent to work with congress to

find the solution that would waive restrictions on putting our financial contributions when doing so is clearly in our national interest. we appreciate greatly this committee's longstanding efforts to help us meet our commitment to the united nations. staying up-to-date with your contributions has helped us deliver some of the significant accomplishments to advance u.s. interest and promote u.n. reform and more than a decade. the active and full support of this committee remains essential to our efforts. i thank you and i welcome your questions. >> thank you very much. we will go in seniority, as you are seated in this room. i will ask a question having to do with what you just said, but also referring to senator

clinton, when she told the committee that she wanted waiver authority to allow funding for unesco and other agencies. we took the position we did to put everything we possibly could put toward the palestinian authority and working it out with israel. if there is going to be a waiver, what specific conditions should exist before a waiver should be granted? >> let me discuss both unesco and the broader problem have. with respect to unesco, unesco is an organization that president george w. bush rightly determined the united states ought to be part of. it is an anti-extremist

organization. it does important things like holocaust education. educating girls and women in places like afghanistan. providing literacy training for police and other personnel in places like afghanistan and elsewhere. it is doing is essential work that serves u.s. interests. we think we ought to be part of it. the palestinians did something reprehensible that we strongly oppose. that was to try to take a shortcut to membership of unesco prior to a negotiated agreement with the israelis. we opposed that. we think there ought to be consequences for that. the consequences should not be to put a gun to our own head and force ourselves into a position where we can no longer fund programs that are in our interest and ultimately remove

our vote and this organization. our israeli allies and partners continue to provide certain voluntary contributions to import and unesco programs that they value, including holocaust education and a program called the sesame project in jordan. we believe and except that after a one-year hiatus in 2012, they will resume their contributions to unesco. we need to look at this and ask ourselves, how do we put ?roperb brakes the waiver is there because funding for unesco is in the budget because we do intend to work with you and relevant members of congress to solve this problem. this is a problem that results

from legislation that was enacted with good intent back in 1990 and 1994, when the world was a very different place. the process of pursuing a negotiated to-state solution -- two-state solution was in a very different place. it no longer does. the palestinians and the rest of the world knew about our legislative restrictions before they took the vote in unesco. we have actively and aggressively made short, before and after, that they understand the consequences to the palestinians and to other organizations. we have every expectation that the legislation will not deter the majority of member states from voting. we end up on the outside of critical organizations like the world health organization, iaea, organizations that serve the

interests of the united states and protect our citizens. we need to rethink that. we need to find ways to ensure that it is the palestinians that suffer the consequences. >> what consequences would you suggest? >> madam chairman, this is something that we ought to discuss with other responsible members of the administration, including the state department. you have legislation that you enacted in december. it already put into place consequences that are meaningful. i believe they have gotten -- they have potential, including the funding limitations on the potential consequences for their mission in washington. those kinds of things are steps that the palestinians will have to raise as they make their calculations. they do not harm us directly. they did not prevent us from

advancing american interest in critical organizations. >> i'd understand. >> -- i understand. >> thank you very much. before i go one, the next target seems to be the world health organization. i wonder if you can comment on that and how real it is and what is the state department doing to prevent the palestinians from further pushing their membership request. >> the reality is we do not know for sure. i am not sure if the palestinians know for sure. as you know, they made the decision back in december to present a membership application to the united nations security council. that issue was discussed and dealt with through the normal channels. for diplomatic efforts led by the united states, it became

clear that not only would they not succeed in their application because the united states would oppose it, but they did not have the nine affirmative votes that would be necessary for that application to be approved by the security council, even in the absence of the u.s. veto. that is more or less been on ice for a few months. the palestinians have withheld further action as the discussions have been ongoing. they have continued to do so, even as those discussions have been caused. -- paused. i do not -- we would hope that the palestinians would see the wisdom of continuing to refrain from this march.

we recognize that they may change their minds. we are very vigilant about all the potential avenues they might take from the general assembly to the world health organization and others. we want to underscore the consequences, not only to the peace process, to the wider interest of the united nations. to impress upon each and every member state, the consequences before the peace process, for advancing the goal of a two- state solution. we think these actions would set this goal back rather than bring it closer. we did grade and discredit the united nations will we allow

countries to try to jump the queue and it's a status that is not yet warranted. we are very active across the board in trying to prevent the spread -- prevent this. i think you know that the math is not in the united states favor when it comes to the int -- the entire membership. >> with regard to iran, the united states has been very effective in imposing tough sanctions on iran. i support that policy strongly. everyone would agree that sanctions seem to be having an impact on the iranian economy.

the see any evidence that the regime is seriously -- do you see any evidence that the regime is seriously interested in delaying its nuclear program? >> let me reiterate what i said. this is the starting point for any discussion on iran. as president obama has repeated, the united states will not tolerate and will not accept iran with nuclear weapon. we will take the necessary action to prevent that from occurring. we think the surest way to underscore and ruled out any future prospects of an iranian nuclear weapon is for iran to do -- to give up its nuclear program affirmatively and permanently. the best means of accomplishing that remain through a negotiated agreement. that is why we have increase the pressures on iran with the aim

of trying to change as calculus so that it comes to the negotiating table in earnest. the sanctions were imposed in resolution 1929 was a huge step forward. the actions the congress has taken, both through the ndaa, other countries in europe, asia, and elsewhere, have brought us to the point where iran is to release certain -- we do think it is very timely, as iran has said it is ready to come back to the negotiating table, i cannot predict the answer to that question. it is not -- if it is not, we will take no option off the table.

>> experts on iran feel that even if the iranians came to the table, you could not trust them. they will say one thing on monday and switched their position later on. he and others also believe that even if they can to the table, even if they have krajina change, -- regime change, the next regime would look at pakistan, north korea, and pursue their nuclear program. i think my time is almost up. how do you respond to people who do not believe that the iranians will ever come to a table in good faith? >> first of all, the record is one to make those doubts legitimate.

we have no illusion about iran record of negotiation. having said that, the pressure on iran has never been what it is today. it is only increasing. in the months to come, the cumulative effect of the pressure on the central bank, the european oil embargo, and additional measures, they will tighten the noose to a point where it -- it has never been thus far. we believe there is a reasonable potential for that degree of pressure to cause the iranians to reassess their interest. can we be certain? of course not. do we think it must be tested? absolutely, yes. it is the only certain way to end the program, as opposed to delaying it or set it back. >> i think my time is up, but

thank you. i hope you are correct. >> thank you very much. watch the timing very carefully. make your answer is as distinct as possible. -- answers as succinct as possible. >> how long is it? >> 5 minutes. that includes your question and their answer. >> [inaudible] >> was a diplomatic about that? i hope so. >> thank you. you mentioned in your testimony about libya. let me ask you a question. there is a lot of skepticism

because the administration chose to engage in military activity without coming to congress in any kind of formal way in asking for consent. looking forward, at the possibility " that something like that might occur in syria, do you think the administration would come to congress, or should come to congress in order to receive authorization? >> let me say, first of all, i am not a lawyer. i am not responsible for those kinds of judgments. we have the support of the international community. we had the support of the region. we protected the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians that were at imminent

risk of slaughter. the decision the united nations security council took a year ago this week has proved its worth. gaddafi is gone. the libyan people are now working to constitute under great challenge a democratic future, a democratic system. but -- there transition is on track. we were able to accomplish this without a single loss of american life. our nato partners took a lead. i think that proved its worth. i cannot speculate on where we might end up in any other circumstance or contingency. i know the administration and the president felipe respect the role of congress. -- fully respect the role of congress.

we will take the appropriate steps to consult and gain the appropriate authorization. >> there is a lot of bipartisan skepticism that that indeed happened. honestly, i do not think it did. our allies did not take the lead. to pretend that this was anything other than a largely american operations through nato, that is my opinion. going back to libya, and i agree with you, gaddafi is a terrible person. i have no doubt that the world is better off without him. given the fact that he had suspended his nuclear program, his weapons of mass destruction, and turned over those materials to the united states, did not allow al qaeda to operate in the territory, if

north koreatting ein and you saw what happened to him after he did all those things, what incentive would you have to follow the same course? there are probably people in those countries are doing, look what happens to them. -- to him. >> i would very much disagree with that perspective. the reason why the united nations, nato, acted in libya was nothing to do with nuclear weapons. it had to do with an imminent threat to hundreds of thousands of civilians. >> there is serious slaughter going on in syria right now. they have a different level of defense and that seems to have some impact on the decisions we're making. >> i disagree.

i disagree. you are mixing apples and oranges. the message to countries like iran and north korea, when you are as isolated as libya ultimately proved to be, when nobody in the international andmunity would standou up prevent the kind of multilateral action that was taken against gaddafi, and that isolation is building with respect to iran, north korea, that is not a situation you want to be in. i would take the opposite lesson. >> we have a different view. if i were them, i would hang onto my weapons. >> what is the conclusion? we should not have done libya? >> i would like to have a full debate. which we did not have.

that is my view. >> you are making a point about nuclear weapons. would libya have sent a better message to libya and north korea? >> my time is up, i would love to pursue this. >> it is great to have you with us. thank you for your outstanding work. not only can stand in strong for the united states of america and our interest, but the interest of the united states's most important allies and friends. >> i do have a question about unesco. there will be consequences for the palestinians for voting against -- going against the u.s. directive not to pursue

independence to the united nations and avoiding direct negotiations with the state of israel. what are the consequences -- what with the consequences be under a waiver to unesco? i know we have 22% of their budget. do you know anything about the presence of russian troops in damascus? i read a piece the other day that russians had landed in damascus. is there any truth to that? what were they doing there? what are their intentions?

where is that status? it has been said that the the society for worldwide financial telecommunications, they will not work with iran with passing money back and forth to iran from its customers, they will shut that down. that will have a significant impact on iran. to know anything about that? i have a zillion more questions, but that is probably enough for now. >> let me begin with unesco.

how do we ensure there are consequences for unesco? unesco, carrying out holocaust education and literacy training and other anti-extremist programs are a collection of international civil servants doing work on the ground. they are not the ones we intend to punish. it is the member states individually who belong to unesco and the general assembly that cast these votes. we need to make that distinction. that is part of the problem with the way our current legislation is drafted. it does not make a distinction. it is a very blunt instrument that can up boomeranging against u.s. interests.

how do we punish individual member states? we can discuss that. each of them is individual and we can discuss and consider how to ensure there are consequences. that is difficult to do. there are many votes that are taken in the u.n. agencies on individual issues that we disagree with. let me say a couple of things quickly. the same states we may be very frustrated with may be the very same states better voting correctly on syria, for example. or they voted overwhelmingly to condemn the iranian backed plot to kill the saudi ambassador here in washington. for every vote that we would deplore, there may be several that we would welcome.

how do you calibrate that in our relationship with individual member states? we do not need to punish the entity and we do not need to punish ourselves. i have seen very clear-cut denials from moscow on these reports. i have not seen any information to corroborate these reports. that is all i can say. with respect to iran, the iranians have said they are prepared to return to the negotiating table. they are negotiating the timing. the expectation is that it should happen before too long. i would not want to get into a matter of technical interest with the treasury department --

obviously, this is a positive step. it is a series of positive steps to the increase pressure on the iranian banking and financial system. it is having a real impact. >> thank you, ambassador. >> i want to follow all -- i was one of the few folks on my side of the aisle to support the administration is retroactive authorization on libya on the house floor. i thought it was the correct thing to do. i had some questions about how we conducted the operation, but ultimately, it was the right thing to do. we have made to support to come arab league's support, -- we have made to support, the arab league's support. as long as the russians and chinese have a seat at the security council, they will veto

anything that comes up on syria that is meaningful. if we really want to make an impact on iran, certainly, undermining the bashar al-assad regime is real important. at what point do we show the same resolve that the russians have shown to the regime? the friends of the syrian regime are quite clear and resolute in their support. we seem to be flailing about for a policy. at what point do we consider supporting the rebels? doing something to show that we support the opposition. >> i appreciate the opportunity to address syria.

this is an issue of utmost priority and concern. clearly, we are as appalled and disgusted by what is happening in syria as anybody else. the reality though is that these are different circumstances, syria, libya, yemen, egypt, tunisia, are very different. the russians and the chinese have blocked action. the arab league has not requested this kind of support. but particularly in terms of the dynamics on the ground, they are different in terms of the cohesion and effectiveness of the opposition. in libya, there was an opposition that from an early stage controlled a degree of territory from which you could push out. that is not the case in syria. so, our interest is and remains in seeing this government go and

democratic transition emerge as soon as possible, but the best way to get there, in our opinion, is not through the use of military force or even, at this stage, forming an opposition leader. we know very little about them. >> i am not talking about engaging militarily. i am saying at what point do we support the rebels militarily? >> that is the question i am trying to address. we believe the best approach is three-fold. one, to increase the pressure on the assad regime. we have put strong sanctions, and have seen others do the same, on the region. yes, we do care about the humanitarian situation and are providing greater access to humanitarian assistance, but we are also trying to unify the

resistance internally and externally. there is quite a distance to go in that regard. the best solution, we believe, remains a military -- remains a negotiated solution. the opposition, frankly, we still know very little about. >> we heard some of the same arguments with respect to the libyan opposition. i want to move to the unesco question quickly. there are all sorts of consequences, but what are the consequences if we go back on our word? the palestinians went to the un, and we said there would be consequences. we meant it. but what is the consequence to us if we go back on our word? >> i appreciate the question. first of all, there are

consequences, as we have discussed, for the palestinians. the consequences should not be on us or against us, the united states. that was not the intent of the legislation. we are now in a position where with unesco, a law that is intended to deter is failing to beat her and then boomerang on us. i do not think it is -- failing deter and then boomeranging back on s. -- us. >> welcome back. it is great to see you. we appreciate your superb job. i want to follow up on the question. i share his frustration and that

of many americans when we hear the world -- when we hear the syrians saying, why has the world forsaken mess? we are trying. it is appalling, the bloodshed there. i have been very gratified to see the strong words you have spoken against what russia and china have done, particularly russia. recently, there have been some statements by the russian foreign minister that they might be amenable to something kofi annan is working now -- working out. the chinese have indicated they might not veto another resolution. do you see any movement on the part of either country, and if there is still time after that question, i would love to get your thoughts on the situation in north korea. i was surprised, frankly that kim jong un agreed to resume

discussions, but then we are very disappointed with the launch of these satellite missiles. do you see any new window with the indication for iea inspections and how did you assess that situation? >> thank you very much, mr. schiff. russia and china on the security council. their behavior to protect the assad regime has been reprehensible. i think, frankly, they have heard that message from the entire international community, not just from the united states and our western partners, the entire arab world and the majority members of the united nations. soon after the second double the though -- double veto the

assembly took a more or less the same resolution that was blocked in the security council. a very small handful, i think about eight countries, voted no, and they included russia, china, venezuela, zimbabwe, north korea, iran and syria. it was company that one -- it is company that russia and china do not typically want to find themselves in. that has been followed by strong action from the human rights council and repeated international unity with the glaring exception of russia and china on issues related to syria. i think the combination of that

kind of isolation has given them, particularly the chinese to a greater extent than the russians, some pause. they are both and parking on public relations efforts in the arab world to try to mitigate the consequences of their actions. the appointment of kofi annan and the effort he is trying to make provide a potential point of convergence among the members of the security council. we are discussing this week, not in new -- the new resolution, but what we would call a strong presidential statement to lend support to kofi annan's efforts. it will be interesting to see whether russia and china, having supported his appointment, are able to agree on a statement. it would be the first unified statement out of the council of any substance since last august

in support of what kofi annan is trying to accomplish. that would give some indication, potentially, of where they're going on this. but i do think that with each successive effort to stand up to protect assad in the context of his atrocities, it does cost russia and china in important ways that are not lost on me. let me turn, is my time permits, to north korea. the north korean announcement on friday that they intend to do a satellite launch at some point in april was highly provocative. it is absolutely in violation, should they do it, of their obligations under the security council resolution. in our view, it violates the february 29th agreement that was reached. the good news is that all of the key players, including russia and china, have made very

clear their opposition to this and the view that it would be a violation of north korea pose a obligations under international law. should they go through with it, it would certainly make any progress on the agreement that was reached a very difficult. what they say and what they do tend to be quite divergent. in the meantime, we are consulting with our partners in the region. we're working to emphasize that it would be wise for the north koreans not to proceed with this intent to launch a satellite. [inaudible]

>> the position i think many of us are looking at is that the immediate halt of u.s. funding sends a powerful message to all of the un bodies and the palestinians regarding a negotiated peace. the concern is that reasoning that funding at this time would send the wrong message to -- uming that-- resemb funding at this time would send the wrong message to the

palestinians. i think it is important, again, sending that message right now, the concern we have with unesco. let me then also, and this is kind of jumping over to israel. we greatly appreciate, and i personally appreciate your ongoing efforts to defend israel to the united nations. nonetheless, i think israel continues to be singled out constantly well beyond any sense of proportion. israel seems to be treated differently at the united nations than any other country. let me zero in on two areas. unfortunately, israel is not a member of the weog in geneva. therefore, it is effectively

banned from many if not most united nations organizations. what are we doing to ensure that israel is granted full membership rights throughout the un? finally, if you could give us a briefing on hezbollah and what is going on in the region, and what the u.n. and u.s. is doing to help prevent the flow of arms going that direction, because it seems as though there has been a blind eye with the flow of arms to hezbollah. >> thank you. let me begin by coming back to unesco. [no audio]

meet the desired effect. the intended target is not the programs. it china, qatar and others have come behind us to find programs in a direction that suits their interests. the target seems to suit the palestinians calculation. the palestinians, are not frankly persuaded by something that does not impact them. in a way, if you want to be really cynical, you get a diminished u.s. role in an organization where we are otherwise there, defending our interests, standing up for israel, and doing other things

we think are important. the legislation is in effect a twofer. the message to the palestinians was not stop your march through the u.n. agencies. the message to the palestinians was, if you get into these u.s. agencies -- un agencies, not only do they get a vote but we get diminished influence. i do not believe it is working in the way it was intended. i do not believe it is deterring the palestinians or other member states on a broader range of policy issues and their own calculations of national interest. it is only having the unfortunate and unintended consequence of dealing as out of organizations in which we have an interest. we need to look at this. we need to be sure we are using the tools at our disposal in a

targeted way at the intended target. that is the difference between 1990-1994 legislation that is problematic and what was done in the context of the legislation you all adopted at the end of last year. >> thank you. thank you for your service. i always admirer people who are willing to serve our country, and you obviously are doing that. i will however tell you, and i mean this with the greatest respect, that my jaw has been continuously dropping today as i have heard some statements. you mentioned, for example, circumstances when we discredit the yun. do you not understand that we discredit ourselves when we do not follow up on our commitments? unesco new what the policy was of the united states and they still voted how they voted in the case of israel, so therefore we should, in essence, get rid

of that deterrent. again, should we not -- does it not hurt our national interest, do you not see how it hurts our national interests when we back away from our preexisting stated positions, when they violate those positions and we just walk away from them and look for other alternatives? you do not think that discredits our credibility? >> first of all, what we would be reversing is legislation that was enacted years ago. >> our position. the u.s. position. >> in very different circumstances. the legislation refers to the plo, which no longer is relevant. that does not mean that the goal is not one that we share and one to pursue, which is to deter and dissuade the palestinians from making a further march. >> and unesco. entering unesco as well, and the

united nations and the world health organization and others as well. >> let's be clear on what it means to deter unesco and the world health organization. it is not deterring a body sitting in geneva. it is deterring the decisions of 190 two other member states. individually. there is not one single blunt instrument that has that cumulative effect. it just does not work that way. >> so therefore we disregard our policy. >> no. >> that is your approach. >> we devise policies that serve our interests. we do not stick to policies that are many years old that are no longer working as we intended. and are in fact self-defeating. instead, we customize the tools for the time. i think your legislation, adopted in december, did that. and that put pressure and targeted pressure on the palestinians. we can sit here and talk -- and i'm happy to -- about what we do

about the other 192 united nations member state and how we influence them. i'm happy to do that. that is what we do as far as our diplomacy. but that is not shooting a single scattershot at an institution like the world health organization or like unesco, which is an abrogation of programs and activities that serve our interests -- aggregation of programs and activities that serve our interests. >> that is assuming there are no other alternatives. and there are other alternatives. i firmly believe that this attitude, whether it is the reset attitude with russia that has invaded our ally georgia, which by the way has proven to be a dismal disaster, whether it is the russian attitude toward syria, toward georgia, tour the united nations, a dismal disaster. i have to quote one of your

tweets where you were pretty offended after the reset. now when it comes to not a stepping up pressure to unesco -- by the way, this was the same unesco the recently voted in their human rights committee to keep syria in it. as opposed to stepping up pressure, now we're going to back up and back off from a pre- existing position of the united states. and that position has been -- and i will tell you, and i agree with it, that we are going to stand up for israel. we're going to stand up against organizations that have an anti-is really tendency, whether it is unesco, the united nations -- anti-israeli tendency, whether it is unesco, the united nations, or anybody else. whether it is china, russia,

north korea, and clearly with israel, even though there are statements made, statements do not make results. saying how strong this administration is in standing up for israel, the reality is that the facts do not bear that out and i think it is frankly putting us at great risk and putting our allies at great risk. >> if i have time still to respond, i would like to say that i completely reject the notion that this administration is not every day of a standing up for our ally israel in terms of the strong the security relationship this country has ever had, in terms of day in and day out what we do in the united nations and all other agencies to defend and promote israel, including its inclusion in additional groups. we of work to get israel included in groups it was excluded from in new york and geneva over the course of the last three years.

with u.s. support, israel has been able to join the boards of unicef and undp for the first time. with u.s. support, israel is playing a much more prominent role throughout the united nations system and it has been very generous in crediting u.s. support in helping it get to that place. i will not take a back seat to anybody in u.s. support for and defense of israel in the united nations. when it comes to unesco, look only at what israel is doing in its own interests. it is still voluntarily funding programs it thinks are important. while we are not. >> i have one short question. we are going to make another round, but you will need to be concise. we are hearing reports that iraq may be facilitating arms shipments to syria to support

the opposition. what is the united nations doing to investigate the allegations, and if they are found to be true and iraq is in violation of its international obligations, what steps can we expect the united states -- united nations to take? >> we have also heard such reports. they are of concern. we're working with the iraqis and others to make sure they undertake their obligations to make sure any shipments that may be transiting their territory are not in violation of u.n. sanctions. understand the sanctions they would be violating our the iran sanctions. unfortunately, there is no arms embargo against syria, much as we would like it to be otherwise. the iran sanctions do prohibit

shipping weapons beyond its borders. the united nations has undergone an effort to monitor and enforce the sanctions, especially against iran. we will be reviewing these tomorrow in the security council. the sanctions committee has a panel of experts that investigate and report on violations of all sorts. the iranians were caught violating sanctions with a weapons shipment to africa over a year ago. we have full investigation and accountability and this is an issue we are watching very carefully. >> thank you again for your service. i just want to applaud the administration's decision, which was greeted with some opposition during the last few years, to become a member of the human

rights council again. we have seen in the last few days the impact of that decision on policies regarding israel. certainly, i'm just seeing in the news, yuen cancels hamas official visit to human rights -- united nations cancels hamas official visit to human rights council after protests from israel. if we had not been part of that council, again, which many people objected to, we would not have been able to take that action. also, another news report, the u.s. ambassador to the human rights council said -- took a strong position and made the statement, "the united states on monday urged the united nations human rights council in geneva

to stop mystery men of israel. it took particular -- stop this treatment of israel. every single session the human rights council has put an item on their agenda with regards to israel. and she said the united states continues to be deeply troubled by accounts of bias and disproportionate focus on israel as exemplified by the standing agenda items. i think it is very important that the united states became part of this council, and i want to applaud the secretary of state and yourself for taking that position. but i want to reference one other issue, and that is women and what we are doing with the efforts to address women's concerns. i fought my entire life, as you have, i know, to raise the

standards of women. we see -- and i have seen at the secretary of state say this many times, where women are in positions of power, they have much more peaceful situations, in most countries. and in this committee. that's right. we may be the only bipartisan committee around here, but that is what happens when women are in charge. well, we will let that go. let me just say, i am very concerned about potential cuts in the operation of yuen women as it moves forward with its work. president obama requested $7.9 million for united nations women for 2013. i am hoping that number stands or increases. could you share with us how that funding will be used and does it

include a contribution to the united nations trust fund to end violence against women? i am so interested in the work of this committee. i can remember visiting kenya with secretary of state clinton and as we visited the michael enterprise project, which was really important to the individual communities, some of the men, with all due respect to the good men in this committee who are in positions of power, would come by and collect their share. so after these important investments in these micro- enterprise programs, there was very little left for the women to share their resources with the entire village. could you just tell us about this program? what do you expect? is the money enough? how will it be used? thank you. >> first of all, i appreciate your comments on the decision to

join the human rights council. ed it has benefited u.s. -- it has benefited u.s. interests. we remain appalled by agenda item seven which is the serial bashing of israel at the united nations. we continue to fight against it. has beenk at what accomplished under u.s. leadership. for the first time ever, several strong resolutions on syria, including the establishment of a commission of inquiry that has revealed so much about a saud's abuses. kicking libya out in a special session and they're too -- they're too, an important inquiry into gaddafi. the democratic republic of

congo, freedom of assembly and association, working with excerpts -- experts to prevent discrimination against women. with respect to the united nations women, let me say that we very much supported the establishment of it, the growth and development. the challenge now is to become a presence in the field and provide tangible support on the ground. the $7.9 million in the request is meant to do just that, to help establish programs in the field. we think that is the most important step we can take in this early time. it does not include money for the violence against women trust fund, although we recognize that is an issue of importance to this committee and a goal we all share. we have been leading on a whole panoply of issues at the united nations. we just issued a huge report on

maternal mortality, a commission on the status of women. we championed a resolution on women's political participation. i could go on and on, but let me just say that what we have been able to do to support women at the united nations has been a source of great pride for secretary clinton and for me as well. thank you. >> just a couple of quick things. you mentioned the north korean situation. three weeks ago secretary clinton came before this committee and discussed the fact that the north koreans were going to implement a moratorium on future launches and other nuclear-related issues. and then, of course, we said we were going to judge them by their actions and not by their words. and then of course last week north korea announced their intentions to conduct another missile launch, which the state department said directly violates various un security council resolutions. so i guess the real question as,

what actions should the united nations and other organizations take if north korea goes forward and launches a missile just as they have promised in the next few weeks? what should we do? >> well, in our view, if north korea is in violation of its existing obligations under the two resolutions you cited, goes ahead with this launch, it would be a very grave provocation and we would aim for and expect a very strong response from the security council. >> madam ambassador, dr. rice, again, thank you for standing of so strongly for the united states interests at the united nations. your leadership has been outstanding. you are here after all to ask for the president's budget for the united nations.

what, in your view, are the major issues that relate to u.s. national security interests that are served by our membership at the united nations and the funding received? i know the administration, the obama administration has been involved in united nations reform efforts. so, those two aspects. what are the national security interests and what reforms are still needed? >> there are some many ways in which the dollars we spend and the programs they support at the united nations advance national security interests. let's begin with one of the largest elements of our request, which is funds for national the international peacekeeping operations. the united states is engaged in

life-saving missions to protect civilians in places like darfur and the democratic republic of congo. to help build the capacity in places like self sudan -- south sudan, haiti and liberia. it is keeping the peace in fragile places. these are places in which we have an interest in security and stability in protection of civilians, in helping to foment and stabilize the fragile democracy. if the united states were to try to support this on our own rather than with a rather better deal of burden sharing, the cost to us would be enormous. or, were we to leave these

situations to fester without the benefit of an international peacekeeping presence, we would be suffering the long-term consequences as these places unravel. we have seen what that looks like in various parts of the world. for example, at different times over history in haiti. so, it is a cost-effective way to share the burden of peace and security in a manner that serves our interest. we talked a lot about sanctions this morning. iran and north korea are among the many sanctions regimes which the u.s. supports. they do not just vote for resolutions. -and monitor their implementation and build the capacity -- they actually monitor their implementation and build the capacity to enforce them. that is another thing our money goes to. in libya, we now have very important political mission as opposed to cash peacekeeping mission. they are building -- as opposed

to a peacekeeping mission. they're doing a wide range of functions that support our military mission in afghanistan, formerly in iraq, to try to ease the transition as our personnel withdraw. the humanitarian work of the world food program, the development work of undp, the health surveillance work of the world health organization, the iaea, which is crucial and monitoring nuclear program in iran, all of these are critical programs that manifestly serve u.s. interests. i could go on all morning, but i will not. you get the point. with respect to u.s. reform, we have made very important progress over the last few years in terms of improving transparency. i it talked in my written testimony -- i talk to my ridden -- i talk more about it

in my written testimony. we have succeeded in garnering savings when that has historically been all but impossible. we managed in december to get the budget down 5%, which is 10% over what we would have otherwise ended up with. we're working on efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, and we are also working to promote the principle that countries that buy their behavior are reprehensible and not deserve to be in positions of leadership and responsibility. it has been our efforts that have yielded success behind the scenes. we have work to ensure that iran was not elected, as it was supposed to be, to the board of united nations women in their first year. they were ggoing to get on

there simply through a clean slate. we are working in ways that you may not even read about to try to ensure that excellence and integrity is part of not just the united nations' founding values but the way it acts on a daily basis. obviously, there is a long way to go. >> let me if i could just follow up on the sanctions. i know lot has been said. in particular, iran, you talk about enforcing the sanctions and how important that is. it has been more than 20 months since the passage of security resolution 1929. for more than 20 months, iran has continued to ignore the demands of the security council and the i aea. you have said we have increased pressure and they are feeling the pressure. he said the security council --

use of the security council tomorrow will have a quarterly review. we're hearing reports that the security council may be divided on additional sanctions against iran. what are your thoughts on that, and what can be done, if anything, in the un to raise pressure on iran? you mention the next step as far as putting more pressure on iran. can you help us understand you mean by that? >> in the wake of the passage of 1929, which raised substantially the baseline of global sanctions against iran, we come the united states, our european partners and a number of other countries, japan, south korea, canada, australia and others, implemented additional sanctions using 1929 as a foundation but raising the national bar for each of these countries even higher. the cumulative effect of those

decisions as well as what we have seen most recently with respect to the central bank of iran sanctions, the eu decision to embargo oil which we were discussing earlier, has in the global pressure on iran in mounting enormously. do i see the chance for a new round of sanctions on iran? not immediately, no. i think many countries are rightly focusing on what they can do within their national and regional authorities to step up the pressure. it is indeed the trading partners of iran that have the most impact and leverage, and they're the ones on which our efforts have been as focused and where we are seeing positive results. in the meantime at the united nations, we're working to increase the pressure by maximizing the effectiveness of

enforcing existing measures, building capacity to do that enforcement, and at the same time, not just leaving it to what the security council can do with sanctions to increase the pressure, by using other elements of the system so that the united nations general assembly last fall passed a resolution condemning iran pose of human rights abuses by the largest -- iran as a human rights abuses by the largest margin in history. we were able to get the general assembly to condemn the plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador by the iranians. in every venue, at every turn we're trying to ratchet up the pressure on success -- on iran with success. >> referring to security council resolution 70 no one with hezbollah and rearming -- 1791

with hezbollah and rearming there. >> that resolution and established mandates on the border with lebanon and israel. the mandate is meant to prevent the flow of personnel and weapons into a zone adjoining the israeli border. it has been relatively effective doing that. it had been done under chapter 6 of the un charter rather than chapter 7, which would have been our preference. it did not have the consent of the lebanese authorities. i did have a meeting yesterday with the israeli chief of defense. we talked about the role the

united nations is playing. his view is that on balance what they are contributing is important and valuable. it is not airtight. it is not foolproof. there are continued weapons flows from elsewhere, but that is a different challenge than the one that the resolution was designed to deal with. our view on uni fell -- unifil is that it is doing what it was designed to. it is not all we hoped it could be. >> thank you. madam ambassador, regardless of our differences, i have to tell you that i recognize that it is a very difficult place to deal

with. probably one of the most difficult places. one of the frustrations that i think we all have, and that i am sure you have as well, is that after all is said and done with the united nations, they're very few concrete results. you mentioned some of those results being done now there is a recognition of a violation of human rights in syria. i am glad, but next meeting will recognize that the pacific ocean has a lot of water and that is something we cannot be excited about. let me go to areas where we agree. going back to north korea. if they do launch a missile, what with the united states attitude be? you mentioned, and i just want to clarify, you would not be recommending if they do move forward on that launch for the united states to backtrack on our position regarding north korea, right? >> let's be clear. u.s. that the security council

and what our posture would be -- you asked about the security council and what our posture would be. a missile launch would be a clear violation of two resolutions. there is no differing view among members of the council on that assessment. we would seek a strong council response. >> of the -- so the attitude would not be the same as with unesco. >> we do not agree on how you characterize our position on unesco's 02 not tied into that. >> i understand, but i think it is pretty clear. some nations, such as china and russia, have been pushing to reverse this regulation of the internet, which is not regulated internationally. the ipu is a treaty-based

organization under the auspices of the united nations. prime minister putin said the goal of this effort is to establish international control over the internet using the monitoring and supervising capabilities of the ipu. has the administration taken a position on that? will we come out in opposition of global control? >> i am happy to take that question and get back to you. >> great. i hope that is one we can agree on. third i think we can agree on is an issue dealing with the residence of camp liberty. they are under constant surveillance. there are listening devices installed by the rocky government. that is supposed to be a home --

the iraqi government. that is supposed to be a home, not a prison. what pressure is being placed on the iraqi government to remove those cameras, and what can we do to make sure those residents are not forcefully remove to iran? >> let me address the role the united nations has played and the role we have played in support of that process. first of all, the arrangements that were negotiated between the iraqis on the one hand and the residence of the camp on the the product of some successful diplomacy by the united nations representative who, with great sensitivity, negotiated arrangements and oversaw the beginning of this transition of residents.

the united nations is monitoring the situation 24/7 and providing a degree of oversight and independent eyes and ears to ensure that the residents are treated in a manner that is acceptable and up to international standards. it the high commission for human rights is beginning a process of screening those who may wish to move on, and is doing that also in accordance with international standards of the sort that we respect and apply throughout the world. this is an instance where a difficult problem, we think, has begun to be addressed and mitigated by the constructive involvement of the united nations. >> thank you. my time is almost up, but respectfully, again, i think you and i have obviously agreed to disagree on the unesco thing. i think we need to show a lot

more firmness not only to unesco because of their attitude, but also the member states need to understand there are serious consequences. we will agree to disagree. [inaudible] >> for the record, the subcommittee on operations related to the program stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> tonight, road to the white house coverage continues with vice-president joe biden speaking to supporters in florida. earlier today he visited coconut creek and talk about the benefits of the two-year-old

health care law and the obama administration pose a health care policies. it is the second of a series of campaign speeches he delivered in a lead up to the general election. you can watch that it 8:00 on c- span. >> this weekend on american history tv. >> think of the fdr memorial. it was three plus designs before they got to a final plan. i think we should not be afraid of looking at this issue because we are building something for the centuries and we want to get it right. >> with the eisenhower memorial designed by frank gary opposed by the family -- gheary opposed by the family, watch american history tv this weekend. >> the house and senate will be back in session next week. the house will take up the surface transportation

legislation. members will vote on a proposed republican budget for next year. on c-span-2, the u.s. senate with debate on tax breaks for oil companies. senators may take up legislation on reforming the postal service. >> on monday, the supreme court starts three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new health care law. here the oral argument for it yourself in its entirety as the court released as audio and around 1:00 p.m. eastern each day with coverage on c-span-3, c-span radio and at c-span.org. our coverage starts monday morning live on c-span with "washington journal," and continues throughout the day with the supreme court and and the oral argument on c-span-3. >> louisiana's presidential primary is tomorrow. polls close at 9:00 p.m. eastern time and you can get the results here on c-span and also at c- span.org.

the campaign will continue to washington, d.c., maryland, and wisconsin for primaries on april 3rd. for the rest of the campaign, c- span will continue to bring you campaign speeches, rallies and events. presidential candidate mitt romney spent some time in a new orleans suburb today. he talked about his plans to repeal and replace the current health care law, which was signed by president obama two years ago today. this is 25 minutes. >> thank you. thank you. you are very kind. thank you. sit down. sit down. there you go. i love you too. who just said that? i appreciate the chance to be with you this morning and to chat a bit about health care and obamacare. but i wanted to say thank you first to scott, who has been my chairman of the state more than

one time. second time was a winner. i appreciate your support in this effort. it is important that we get a republican in the white house and get this country back on track with good jobs and a bright future, and i intend to be that a republican. this has been a great experience so far, and i hope it will continue to be so right through november. i have had the chance to go across the country of course and meet everyday americans and learn a great deal about their lives. you come away more optimistic, ashley, in some cases inspired when you see what americans are doing across the country in tough times. i am buoyed also by the results in illinois, a good win there, puerto rico, and a few other states as well. i was in illinois speaking with

folks there. i met one couple that was talking about their life. they have a couple of kids in college. mom had stayed home to help raise the kids but now that they were in college she had decided to get out into the work force again. they are living on a pretty thin margin, but she is working so that her kids can go to college without having to amass massive loans. i thought, isn't that interesting. imam who raised the kids is now whong time away -- imaa mom raised her kids is now taking time away from herself to go out into the work force. it is amazing what people will sacrifice for the kids. i met an executive at an advertising agency who decided to leave the agency and start a business with his son. they make amplifiers for guitars. that is what he and his son make

and sell around the country. they had two employees, but in the obama economy they had to lay off the two employees and now they are doing it on their own. he said he calculated what he has to pay in federal income tax, state income tax, real estate tax, payroll tax, gasoline tax. they added all up and concluded they spend roughly 65% of what they make. it goes to the government on one level or another. boy, that is not good news. without the death tax. that is right. coming soon, i am afraid, to all of us. let's see. i met another fellow who worked for the city of st. louis. he decided he did not want to work for the city anymore. he wanted to be an entrepreneur. he began a landscaping company. he is doing pretty well. he has quite a few folks who

work for him. but his challenge is paying for the gas that will take him from house to house and into the lawn mower. he also spoke about the snowblower, but there is not much snow this year. it is just amazing to talk to people around the country. to see what they are struggling with. but they are very hopeful. they are unhappy with what they have seen so far with this president. gas prices have doubled. the deficit is massively larger. the national debt -- the president, by the end of his four years, will have put almost as much debt on this country as all the prior presidents combined. and of course, you have 24 million people out of work or under-employed. so, this presidency has been a failure. at the center of this failure is this piece of legislation back here, obamacare.

i say that for many reasons. one, you notice the white house is not celebrating obamacare today. they do not have any big speeches going on. that is for one reason. most americans want to get rid of it. i want to get rid of it too. and there are a lot of reasons for that. you may see some you want to add to that list. i see medical of uniforms today. you may have your own reasons. it is interesting how many doctors are unhappy about obamacare and went to see it repealed. not just their own profession and their own work, but also concerned that young people coming up through educated ranks are not going to want to become doctors in the future because of obamacare. that is one of the great disadvantages and threats that

obamacare represents. there was another one pointed out by marco rubio, the senator from florida. he said even if it was a perfect piece of legislation, and it is not, we cannot afford $1 trillion of additional federal spending. and we have just learned it is not $1 trillion. it is more like double that. obamacare is massively more expensive than had originally been estimated and we cannot afford more government spending. we also cannot afford more taxes. the president raised $500 billion in taxes to pay for obamacare. you think, that is just going to the companies that there providing health care products, but those companies have to get paid for the products they sell and they will add to the products they sell the cost of additional taxation. by the way, it is not a tax on their profit. it is a tax on their sales.

this goes directly into the price of the goods that will be coming to all of us who use health care products, and at some point or another, that is all of us, so this is a tax on all of us. the president also said that if you wanted to keep the health care you had you would be able to do that. except now we know that they have gone to employers and said, are you going to change things after obamacare gets put in place? 30% have said they will drop coverage for employees when obamacare is involved. for those americans that thought they would keep the health care they wanted, they are going to be surprised when their employer drops them from the health care coverage they have had. this is a piece of legislation that is very different than what people were told when it was being sold by the administration. that is one more reason why i think it needs to be repealed. we learned some other things about it in the last few weeks.

the catholic church is being told they have to provide insurance that covers morning after pills, sterilization and contraceptives. despite the fact that these very features violate the conscience of the catholic church itself. it also intrudes upon religious liberty in this country. i will not go through the whole list, but the american people have taken a hard look at obamacare. i go to events now and then and i see signs being held up by members of the aarp. they say, open " don't touch my medicare."

if i am president, i will preserve medicare. i will not cut $500 million out of the medicare that we have. [applause] it is critical that we replace -- repeal obamacare and also replace it. it is not just repealing it. i am the only person in this race who has laid out what i would replace it with. i want to describe for you a couple of things i would do.

the people of america deserve freedom and i will get them free from obamacare. [applause] how will you care for the people who are uninsured? what kind of health care opportunities will they have? i will return to the states the authority and the responsibility that states have zero ways had to care for their uninsured -- states have always had to care for their uninsured. we will learn from one another. the will have good plans and bad plans. there are differences between states. in my state, we have roughly 7% of our population uninsured. the solution for massachusetts is quite different than the solution for taxes, or 25% are uninsured. different states have created different approaches.

i will take the medicaid dollars that normally come from washington and block grant that money back to the lieutenant governor. with those dollars, they can care for their poor. second part, right now, almost all people that have insurance are getting it from their employer. nothing wrong with that. you might wonder, why is it that i buy my automobile insurance myself but my health insurance comes from my employer? a long time ago, we decided to give corporations a tax deduction if they buy insurance for you. you do not get the deduction if you buy it for yourself. why is that? why is it you cannot buy your own insurance if you want to as

opposed to getting it from your employer? what i want to do is make sure we return to individuals the opportunity to have the same tax its vantage the company's debt. i what small businesses, individuals to be able to buy insurance on the same tax advantaged basis that we currently get from employers. let's leveled the playing field. [applause] i happen to believe if we do that, you will see greater competition between the insurers, they will find different types of policies. we will find them -- people being able to buy insurance across state lines the way we deal with ottawa insurance. [applause] -- the way we deal with auto insurance.

insurance is a small parts of the cost of health care. the real cost of health care is the provider, the hospital, the doctor, the nursers. i believe that one way of doing that is to create greater incentives for us as patience, as the people who receive health care to shop around. what do i mean by that? i was with an orthopedic surgeon the other day. he said, i found it very interesting, when a person who has a health savings account comes into my office and i tell them they need to get an mri, they asked me or they can get one at the best price. when i have people who do not have any -- to have already

passed the deductible, they do not ever ask me. they will just go wherever because they do not care what the price is. in our health care system, many times, we do not care what something cost because we will not pay a dollar for it. if we do not care, it is going to get more and more expensive. we find health care costs going up and up. instead of the government mandating price and cost control, i would like to have individuals have a greater incentive to shop around. to make this more like a market. [applause] obamacare, in my opinion, is the wrong direction. obamacare substitutes government intrusiveness for the dynamics of individual responsibility,

individuals being able to pursue different options, and for the dynamics of a free market. i believe in consumers pursuing their own dreams. i believe in individuals being able to make their own choices. as i look at this administration, i see obamacare as one more example of a president pursuing his attack on economic and personal liberty. [applause] this nation and this economy is fueled by freedom. free people pursuing their dreams, living their lives in the way they think best, or what have driven america to be the most powerful nation on the planet. when the founders crafted the declaration of independence, they chose carefully other words. we were endowed by our creator

with certain rights. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. in america, we are free to pursue happiness as we choose. we get to select our course and life. by virtue of that, people have come to this place seeking freedom, seeking the opportunity, seeking a brighter future for their children. by virtue of them doing that and coming year -- coming here with this innovative spirit, they have built enterprises that a change the world. as you crush that, bureaucrats by bureaucrats, attacks by tax, you crush that innovative spirit, you crush what is that has driven america to be the economic powerhouse of the world. that is what is happening. every innovation is a product of a dream. as someone who had an idea. dreams are fragile.

this administration crushes dreams. we have to stop it. we have to restore to america the principles that made us the hope of the earth. and i will. [applause] you look at this administration's agenda. virtually, from day one, everything they have done has made it harder for dreamers and innovators to pursue economic liberty and freedom. whether it was proposing higher taxes, the president wants to raise the marginal tax rate from 35% to 40%. i told you about the guy making amplifiers. he calculated that the government takes 65% of what he makes.

think what that does for the spirits in this country. think what happens to the dreamers when they say, if i am one of those lucky enough to be successful and make a profit, which is not the majority. if i am one of the lucky ones to be successful, the government wants 70% of what i make. imad is will not do it. -- i might as well not do it. >> [inaudible] >> if i am successful, i have to pay the government 70%. when you compare the risk with the return, a lot of people say, i will not do it. that is what happens when you kill economic freedom. i hear how regulators are crushing our capacity to develop energy resources. the regulators and the president said no to the keystone

pipeline. bringing in oil from canada. now the president is saying he will build the bottom half of that. let's actually connected to the oil. [applause] most people in this room do not give a thought about something known as dodd-frank. you do not think it affects you all on a direct basis. i am not trying to pretend like i am from louisiana. it does not affect everybody in the room. [laughter] but it does affect everybody in the room. it makes it harder for community banks to make loans and to renegotiate loans.

the big new york banks are getting bigger and the community banks have pulled back. it is the community banks that make loans to small business people. small businesses a couple people out of recession. one of the reasons this recession is been so hard is because trinity banks have had a hard time making loans to these -- committed to banks about a hard time making loans to these businesses. these regulators, whether it is banking, energy, health care, these folks are making it harder for this economy to get going again. as a result, you have all these people at of work. people who are seeing sliding paychecks. the median income in america has dropped by 10% in the last four

years. people in this country are having a hard time. their incomes are down and the cost of gasoline is up. people are having a hard time. >> [inaudible] >> there is no recession going on in washington, d.c. this has to attend. -- to end. there is that story about him hunting for rack since. -- raccoons. i guess he is fighting with a bobcat up in the trade. -- in the tree. this pain has to end one way or another.

this overreaching by the government has to end. we have to return to the principles of our nation. [applause] if i am lucky enough to become president -- [applause] thank you. i will get that waiver. i will go to work to get it repealed and replaced with something that does bring down the cost of health care. it allows free-market dynamics to be part of health care. but allows you to be able to pick your own plan. by virtue of doing these things, we will reinstate the type of economic freedom that has made america a powerhouse. i love america of. i love what this nation stands for. [applause]

it is time to end of this anti economic liberty agenda out of washington. and returned to the principles that make us such a great nation. i will have is my inspiration the declaration of independence. and as my blueprint, the constitution of the united states. [applause] only one more thing i want to say. i need you to get out and vote. you have a contest coming up and i would love to have your help. you have a lot of delegates. i probably will not get all of them, but i want to get as many as i can. give me a good sendoff. illinois did. porto rico did. we have a conservative -- puerto rico is dead. did.

they lowered taxes. by the way, home sales are up 50% under this administration. our policies work. i need your vote, i need your help. together, we will get rid of obamacare. thank you. thank you. [applause] ♪ >> tonight, more coverage with joe biden. speaking to supporters today in florida. he visited coconut creek and talked about the benefits of the two-year-old health care law. it was the second in a series of campaign speeches he has delivered. here is a portion of his remarks. >> [applause]

>> thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much. my taking my coat off does not mean the speech will be longer. howard, thank you very much. thank you very much for being here. folks come that this is the second of four speeches that i will be making this spring on what is at stake from our perspective. what is at stake for the middle class in this election. the issue i will focus on today, with your permission, is retirement security. i have to tell you, i come at

this issue from a slightly different angle than it is usually talked about. my daddy still have an expression. this is what i value -- my dad used to have an expression. my dad said, don't tell me what you value. show me your budgets. i will tell you what you really value. like many of you, i have the privilege of having my mom and dad live with me in my dad's final months and my mom's final years. neither my siblings nor i could separate the security of my mom and dad from our own well-being. neither my siblings nor i could separate the needs of our parents from the needs of our children. this is all family.

this is all about -- we talk about it like it is an either or proposition. this is about to we are. this is about what we value. that is how our parents lived their lives. and how we lived hours. i was raised in my mom and dad's house. from i am y amouth, -- like many of you, as you grew up. there was no alternative. i think that is what is missing in this debate today. how connected -- of the connective tissue. the notion we are all in this together. every generation, every generation. there is no question that the baby boom generation puts incredible pressure on medicare and social security.

the number of seniors will be doubling by the year 2014. -- 2040. are we going to strengthen it and sustain these programs of medicare and medicaid now and for the future? or are we going to use these challenges as a pretense to do what so many have been trying to do from the beginning? dismantled both of these programs. i said to the overflow room, which were kind enough to -- i went to see them before ice came to see you -- at the end of the day, we have been around enough to know that it is not just what you hear or see, what you feel, what you taste, what your heart tells you. what your heart tells you about whether or not someone speaking to you means what they say. the one good aspect of growing older is that mechanism gets

more acute. we understand better. the president and i believe that every american, after a lifetime of hard work, should be able to look forward to security and dignity that social security and medicare provide. [applause] it is about dignity. it is not just about health. it is about dignity. it is about our dignity. if we had any doubt about the clarity of the choice, just how high the stakes are regarding both these programs, we got a reminder a couple of days ago from a good man. it bought -- a guy named congressmen ryna. -- ryan. i disagree fundamentally with

him, but this is a smart, decent guy. he is a republican leader. this week, congressman ryan reintroduce the republican budget, embraced by every republican candidate for president. they made a clear choice. the choice they made was in order to save "the programs," the lower the standard of living for those on medicare broader than asking the wealthiest among us to help deal with the problem. you may remember the first ryan budget. nothing subtle about it. it dismantled medicare within 10 years, it was a voucher system. the average senior would be paying another $6,000 a year out of pocket for the medicare

benefits they now receive. their action to the nation was not very subtle either. after an overwhelming rejection of the last year's ryan budget plan, they went to work to dropping . if you take a look at it cut it did not change anything they're trying to do. if you do not change much, what is the difference between these two budgets? the way they talk about it. literally the way they talk about it. do not take my word for this. all of you are adept with computers. go on line to politico.com. a well respected publication that all of the major newspapers looked to. read an article that was in yesterday's or the day before. how paul ryan sold his budget

plan. he sold it to all of his colleagues by telling them there is a new way to talk about what they will do without getting hurt politically. he told them they could win this debate this time would essentially the same plan if " you use the right poll tested words." go look at the article. if you use words like bipartisan, fix medicare, choice, the american people will not punish you. the american people, though, are not about to be fooled. i've more faith in the american

people that i think our republican colleagues to of being able to cut the wheat from the chaff here. [applause] the vast majority of the american people, whether they're democrats or republicans, not there is a fundamental difference between us and republicans on this issue. we believe in strengthening medicare. they do not. make no mistake about it, the republicans in congress, if any of them get their hands on the white house, i promise you, you'll see medicare extended as you know it. it is -- and did as you know it. it is not just about medicare. it is about the other benefits for seniors they want to undo. we passed a law to close the doughnut hole.

saving the average senior $600 just this last year alone. that will increase. they want to repeal it. they simply said they want to repeal it. we passed a law to provide for parental services. i can remember -- preventive services. thank god my mother had two financially successful children. not me. [laughter] we would get my mom's prescriptions. we would have to lie to her and tell her that it was all covered. she did not want her children -- we all chipped in about $6,000 a month. at the very end, when she did some care, she did somebody there to help with her lunch.

she always ask me, show me my check book. she had dignity. this is about what these guys do not get. it is more or not -- it isn't more about whether or not my mother and father got the care they needed. it was how they got the care they needed. >> you can watch the vice president's remarks in their entirety tonight at 8:00 on c- span. >> the genetic scientist who nailed down -- describes

tinderboxes. it is incredibly destructive. understanding that these two categories exist allows you to think, ok, what are the factors that keep this fire is moving? what can we do to end it? >> tracking the history of aids, sunday night at 9:00. on monday, the supreme court starts three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new health care law. hear the argument for yourself in its entirety as the court releases audio at around 1:00 each day. with coverage on c-span3 and c- span radio. our coverage starts monday morning with "washington

journal." briefings white house arney. corniay c this is 45 minutes. >> thank you. wow. kind of a light crowd. everybody is outside. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here. i do not have any announcements to make. i do have the week ahead, which i will make after i for get and you remind me at the end of the briefing. i will go to questions. >> why did the president decide to [inaudible]

to [inaudible] >> the president has given a number of interviews. this has been a major news story, as you know. he was prepared to answer a question. it is true that some of you have asked me if the president was aware of the incident, what he thought about it. i chose not to talk about a private conversation. as you could tell from the answer he gave, he is aware of that. he shared his thoughts on the case today with you. that is my answer. >> was there some developments or something that touched a

nerve with the president? >> given that he is president of the united states, it was inevitable, given the high- profile nature of this story, that he would be asked about it. he was aware of what was happening with regards to it in terms of the investigation locally the task force that has been established by the governor of florida. given all that, it was inevitable that he would be asked about it. he was prepared to answer that question. >> does see have any intention to call the parents? >> i do not have any information. >> in the aftermath of the announcement, can you tell us

about how the president chose [inaudible] at what point did you select him? what are some of the background details? >> he looked at all of the reports in the press would list of names. he added to them other candidates. this is a very deliberative process and the president understands the importance of the world bank. the name does not convey everything that the world bank does. he wanted to find someone who was perfectly suited for world bank's activities, especially now. he represented, with this

combination of experience and expertise, the variety of things he has done in development and health as well as being president of dartmouth college, he represented the ideal candidate for the job. that is why he chose to nominate him. [inaudible] >> i do not have that information. >> [inaudible] >> hillary clinton, tim geithner were advocates. i believe secretary clinton might have been the first to suggest him. both those individuals were supporters of the idea. that is not to suggest that others under consideration were not also serves the considered and supported by very senior advisers to the president. there were a number of highly

qualified individuals considered. >> [inaudible] can you talk about this some of those names were? >> some names out there are accurate. a lot of them are people the president relies on for advice and counsel and guidance, including larry summers, ambassador rice, senator kerry. those three individuals search late our people the president depends on quite a bit. >> did any of them turn it down? >> some of it has been reported. others have spoken to this, i will let them do it. i wanted to make a point that the president feels very strongly about the combination

of experience and expertise and division and he is the ideal candidate. there were a number of qualified candidates, too. some people were not interested. >> was the the first choice? >> absolutely. >> earlier in the week, when you were asked to comment about the martin case, you said [inaudible] what changed between you and now? >> the president was going to be asked this given its prominence. two, the president -- he felt he did have some thoughts on the

matter. the importance he attaches to being careful about it because of the investigations ever on going. -- that are ongoing. he clearly has some thoughts about it and expressed those to you today. i am not going to elaborate on what the president said because i think he spoke eloquently about it. >> [inaudible] you have seen all the attacks brought on this administration. the rnc said that president obama is not celebrating and that he would rather americans forget about the signature accomplishment. what is your response to some of this talk from republicans and

other americans who are clearly still unhappy with health care? >> i will say a couple of things. there was a story recently about the disparity and the amount of money spent in the propaganda on this issue. a three-one, at least. -- 3 to 1, i least, to mislead americans about what it is. americans about what it is. by building on the private sector system that we have. there was a lot of misinformation about what the affordable care act is. we released a comprehensive report on the affordable care act.

that is the two-year anniversary today. the president is very proud of the work that congress did and his administration did to make this 100-year quest a reality. we're focused on implementing that bill. 2.5 million more young adults have health insurance on their parents' plan bridge 5.1 million seniors with medicare saved $3.2 billion on the prescription drugs. everyone on medicare can get preventive services now for free. insurance companies must spend 80% of their premium dollars on health care. it is illegal now for insurance companies to deny coverage to children because of a pre- existing condition. in 2014, discriminating against anybody with a previous condition will be illegal. what critics worry about in

their attack is that they want to go back to a system more insurance companies have all the rules on their side. not the consumers, not the american people. where they can throw you off your insurance policy if you get sick. those are some of the benefits that critics would repeal. the presence strongly believes that is a mistake and he certainly will not shy away from the opportunity to face that vision. >> thank you. the president, with his constitutional law, does he have an interest in [inaudible]

did he ask to see any of the briefs? >> odyssey, i do not know if he has reviewed the brief spurt -- honestly, i do not know if he has reviewed the briefs. the provision under review by the court is definitely constitutional. >> [inaudible] >> i know he has been briefed on it and he has had discussions about it. but nothing to substantive that i am aware of. >> the president mentioned that he [inaudible] the see think this is another one of this teachable moments? -- does he think this is another one of those teachable moments? >> i will leave it at what he said. the fact is that many have said

the president believes this is a tragedy. as a parent, he can feel that. the kind of grief that the martin's are suffering right now. that is an observation that is broadly shared. beyond that, but i will let the president's words stand. president's words stand. >> [inaudible] as a major news story, what has the -- >> sorry, go ahead. >> has listened to the tapes? what kind of information -- is

he being updated? their return to figure out how to handle the situation -- because they were trying to figure out how to handle the situation. [inaudible] >> he largely reads the news. >> [inaudible] >> i am with them a lot, but not all the time. i think he mostly reads about stories like this. it is not a question of believing this is a news -- a big news story. we certainly expected that he would be asked about it at some point. on the other matter, i think he gets regular briefings from his senior advisers.

updates on things, but not any focused conversation on this issue. >> you have not heard that the president reached out and called the martin family yet. do expect that to be a possibility? >> i do not have any updates. >> is seen reaching out to al sharpton? for -- is he reaching out to al sharpton? >> not that i am aware of. >> what do you think about this? [inaudible] >> my children have one. i was asked this yesterday or the day before.

we watched with interest the developments in the republican primary, but we are focused on the work we are doing here. the president is focused on the work he is doing. i did not have much comment on that. >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> i appreciate the effort -- [laughter] >> [inaudible] do you have won at home? >> i have two children. yes, we have an etch-a-sketch. i have not brought it in. [laughter] >> despite what you said about

the second anniversary of the affordable care act, [inaudible] yes, you have done a report. do you see this as a political liability? >> no, look, again, i will refer you to the campaign to talk about what the campaign is doing. as many of you have, and hopefully it millions of americans have, the campaign has put out a video that features the significant accomplishments that the affordable care act represents. it includes statements by the president on the anniversary of the affordable care act. we are focused on implementing the affordable care opt so that all the benefits will be in

place for americans receiving health insurance and benefits. that is a pretty full plate of things we are doing with regards to the affordable care act. to mark the anniversary. the important thing about the affordable care act is what it does. that is what the administration is focused on. secretary sibelius, others have been involved in highlighting some of the important provisions this week. they will continue to be -- and the president speaks frequently about the affordable care act. i made the point the other day that the anniversary is not

something the president is going to have an event around. it is clearly a major accomplishment for him and for the administration and for the congress, one that was the result of a century's worth of work by leaders in washington. it has resulted in already the benefits for i enumerated in answer to a previous question. >> is the administration making any preparations for the possibility that the supreme court will rule against the individual mandate? >> i would refer you to -- not that i am aware of. we are actively working with the states to implement the exchanges, the other provisions. we believe very strongly in the that it is

constitutional. >> since the president -- why did it takes the justice department so long to intervene? the media did not jump on it early either. it was not something that got national attention right away. the justice department is there to protect people's rights. in retrospect, do you think they were too slow to get involved? >> i would refer your question to the justice department. justice is investigating this. i would refer you to the justice department for their procedures and how they look into matters like this and make decisions about investigating. >> there has been controversy about the administration cutting back [inaudible]

is that anything you are focused on? >> i would refer you to tsa. >> the president's announcement about the nomination for the world bank, there has been some harsh criticism from people in india and brazil. their argument is that it is about time for a non-american to take that position. >> the president nominated someone today that he believes will be an exceptional president of the world bank and whose experience in the field that is the central principle behind the world bank's mission is broad and extensive. seen extensive

support for the nomination comment not just from americans -- nomination, not just from americans. americans. he is a true friend of africa and well-known for his work. we certainly have seen already that he will receive broad international support. >> when do citizens of emerging economies get their shots? ? >> my research into the history of the world bank has been exhausted already.

take your question to state or treasury. >> [inaudible] that is what is driving the coverage of that. what does he mean by that? >> i think he spoke very thoughtfully about to -- on the personal side, about his reactions to this case. i am not going to elaborate on that. the president has spoken and i will point you to what he said. let me move around a little bit. >> jay, when the president marked the anniversary of major events, i am sure there might be something on may 1 about the

death of osama bin laden, how we understand why -- even just statements, supreme court decisions, major events, why did this one not get some type of bigger marker? >> i am not sure how else i can answer the question. i have answered it in a number of ways over a number of days. the implication is somehow that it is not an anniversary is significant. the underlying accomplishment is not significant. everything we have done proves otherwise. the lack of an event on the day when he has other events and the day he flies to korea, should not suggest otherwise. we were focused on the implementation of it.

if the implication is that we if the implication is that we are somehow not fully taking ownership of the affordable care act, look at everything else. it is a ridiculous assertion. look at the campaign video. if this is in the context of the campaign and somebody said, it isn't a problem politically? it looks to me that the campaign does not think so. the president of the campaign does not think so. the report we put out today it suggests we do not think so. the fact that the critics have no answer to the question, would you have to be the way it was before when insurance companies could throw you off if you got sick?

they have no answer to that. this is not a debate we will shy away from. >> when the president was on an official event last night, there was interaction with someone who was interrupting the president. he said, if you want to have your own rally, was the president campaigning that night? the ward valley -- word "rally" seems like a loaded campaign word. >> he was at ohio state university. they developed the fastest electric car in the world. that is an amazing thing, right?

it includes a focus on development of battery technology. the essential ingredient to these kinds of automobiles. the answer to your question is no. the gentleman was very persistent and the president accepted the book, but that was all there was to it. >> [inaudible] >> no, he does not, but thank you for the question. >> the president has been to korea before. this is the first time -- is this a poke in the eye for the

new leadership? >> it is something that previous presidents have done. it reflects the commitment to our south korean allies, the security of south korea. it reflects the president appreciation for the u.s. troops stationed in korea. it is not about a change of leadership in north korea. our issues with north korea are as they were in the past and there -- and we are continuing to focus on that. as part of the overall issue of nuclear security. the senate reflects his commitment to the issue of nuclear security globally. there is no greater threat to the security of the american people for the potential of terrorist to acquire nuclear

weapons. that is why he is focused on the supply and demand of this problem the demands being al qaeda to seek to harm americans. he has focused aggressively on he has focused aggressively on the fight against al qaeda, as you know. you know. he is focused on working with the 50 nations who are a party to the summit on the issue of securing nuclear materials and preventing them from getting into the hands of terrorists. >> [inaudible] >> the deal? >> are the separate developments, is the hope for a breakthrough with north korea a dead letter because of the satellite launch?

>> it is a violation of north korea's nuclear ideations. the dim view we take of that and the impact it might have on the program. i do not have any updates for you. >> just a quick follow-up, will he be addressing the satellite launch? >> we will have to see. i do not have any announcements. i do not have any announcements. >> [inaudible]

>> he feels very strongly that he is an excellent nominee, an excellent candidate, the right person for this job. i certainly would not preclude that possibility. i have not had that conversation with him, but in the context of this summit, we are certainly advocating for dr. kim. >> the nigerian economy has been put forward. she has a strong reputation. she is to run the world bank as managing director. what makes your candid better? >> i will not get into a comparison. this nominee is extremely

qualified. has a broad diversity of experience within the very fields that are essential to the world bank mission. the president hopes he will win the support at the world bank. >> andrea -- on korea? [unintelligible] does he regard north korea or iran as the greater threat to global security? >> between the two? >> yes. >> i do not think we have our ranking. there are the obvious violations of international obligations and their refusal to give up their nuclear weapon ambitions. so --

actions by both countries, both regimes threatened the nuclear security of the globe. that is why this administration is so focused on preventing iran from acquiring nuclear weapon and -- you know, working with our allies to get north korea to give up its nuclear program so that it can rejoin the community of nations. yes? >> [unintelligible] was he eager to talk about it? did he want to talk about it? >> obviously, he can choose to answer question were not. he chose to answer this. i am not going to psychoanalyze

him for you. >> [unintelligible] does he have full confidence that he was committed to a transition in leadership? >> i do not have any updates on our position on that. egypt is an important ally in the region. we have worked closely with egypt in this time of transition and will continue to do so. but specifically what decisions with regard to military aid -- i point to the state department. >> [unintelligible] mitt romney and his social security proposals, to raise the retirement age. are we going to see any specific proposals on social security

before the election? >> i think the president in his state of the union last year and his deficit reduction proposal from september said that we can work together to take steps to improve social security and -- but the more immediate issue that needs to be addressed is medicare and the president put forward that in his budget proposals on entitlement, a balanced approach to getting the kind of significant deficit reduction we need to get our fiscal house in order. i do not have any new proposals to suggest to you we're going to make. the president is very focused on the need to deal with our deficit and debt problem, and do it in a way that does not unfairly burden certain segments

of society, and that would include obviously seniors. one of the problems we have with the ryan republican proposal, both iterations, which is clearly becoming the republican proposal -- the candidates for office seven doors there -- is it is so unbalanced. the key element of any plausible proposal to get our deficit under control is to have balance, so is not unfairly burdens and to any sector of american society. that is recognized not only by democrats, not just the president, but also republicans. republican leaders on this issue. it has to have discretionary cuts. it has to have revenues. for some reason, even though this is established moderate

reasonable thinking from leaders of both parties on this issue, the ryan budget, the republican budget does not do that. it does the opposite. it gives more tax cuts to the wealthiest americans, and to pay for them, asks seniors and others to foot the bill. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not have any updates for you -- >> [unintelligible] >> the president has a plan he has put forward. i do not know any proposals beyond the president's plan to provide to you. the fact of the matter is, we can get a handle on our deficit and debt if we take be balanced approach -- if we take the balanced approach that the president put forward, that simpson-bowles put forward, that

the gain of six before word. be last three included -- the last three included republicans. a lot of republicans do not support it, because being a republican who supports a balanced approach to this problem, they should support a balanced approach to get this done. >> north korea -- [unintelligible] [unintelligible] i just want to know, what is the reaction of the white house to that? >> what the leaders are talking about our reforms. with the heads of the imf and

world bank still coming out of europe and the united states, why should we believe such reform has been -- [unintelligible] >> i am not sure i understand. the question is loosely pegged to our world bank nominee. this president, in the midst of a dire financial crisis, acted quite aggressively to prevent the meltdown and has passed, with congress's support, a law that reforms wall street and insurers we do not have the same kind of situation that helped

precipitate the global financial crisis in 2007, 2008. so, in that experience, and experience to share with others around the globe, and the lessons we learn from it, and i think there is something i have talked about when we discuss the european, the eurozone crisis and the efforts there to get a handle on that. secretary geithner has been varying gauged with his counterparts on that issue and offering the kind of a price he can, having personally been involved in the crisis here and the efforts to end it. beyond that, i am not sure the announcement goes to your question.

>> the republicans are celebrating the anniversary. they put a banner up and all this. but earlier today you said against the health care law was 3 to 1. >> we are focused on implementing the affordable care act. act. we are remarking our support of the affordable care at. we put it in a political context, which is the only context. they have no policy. there will be an opportunity for

the president to debate the merits of reforming our health care system in a way that builds on the private sector, but does not allow insurance companies to deprive americans of insurance if they develop an illness or prevent them from getting health insurance when they develop these conditions. they spent 60% of our premium -- of your premium dollars, but they cannot raise your premiums with no accountability. that will be engaged in the fall with the republican nominee feels so strongly about that. it will be an interesting debate no doubt the bank at a political level one of the architects of this it would be a nominee for the republican party.

the president's affordable kerouac -- there are striking similarities to the individual mandate put in place and massachusetts. >> [unintelligible] anyway -- [unintelligible] >> chris, i've no updates for you on that issue. >> [unintelligible] >> [unintelligible] >> the president appreciates heard vice and the service she

provides, and he hears from people you respect and a variety of issues. he listens very carefully to that advice on those varieties of issues, and then he makes his decisions when he is ready to make them. he will talk when he has news to talk about. >> [unintelligible] >> yes. >> why didn't he say so? [laughter] >> again, my knowledge of the history of this -- when you were nominated for a job, you do not come out and make your case. that is always the case. but anyway, i am certain dr.

kim has graciously agreed to serve. >> [unintelligible] >> i said, andrea, please, what? you, too? on sunday morning, the president will are arrive in seoul, the republic of korea. he will visit the demilitarized zone, often known as the dmz. in the afternoon, the president will hold up five lateraled meeting with the president -- of bilateral meeting with the president at the grand hyatt hotel. he will hold a joint news conference with president lee and attend a dinner with

president lee. president will spend the night in seoul. he will speak to our ongoing commitment to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. later in the day, there will be bilateral meetings with president made it if -- president made it if -- medvedyev, president hi jintao. later he will depart seoul. he will arrive in washington do to be changing time zones. he will attend meetings at the white house. on friday, he will attend campaign events in burlington, vermont and portland, maine. he will return to washington, d.c. that evening. and that is your week ahead. thank you very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> some of the latest on the collapse of mf global. an executive with the firm is contradicting the testimony from the company's former ceo, jon corzine, saying he did order the transfer of $2 million out of a customer account days before the collapse. a house investigate -- investigatory committee released a memo on this today. again, that news from the associated press. tonight, on the road to the white house coverage, vice president biden talking about the benefits of the two-year- old health-care lot. it was the second of a series of campaign speeches in the run-up

to the general election and you can watch it right here at 8 eastern -- a p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> the fdr memorial, it was over three designs before they got to a final plan. so, i think we should not be afraid of looking at this issue, because we're building something for the century and we want to get it right. >> with the eisenhower memorial opposed by the family, a house subcommittee discuss the memorial to our 34th president. that is this weekend on c-span3. >> the house and senate will be back in session next week. the house will vote on the budget for next year. live coverage is always here on c-span.

senators made take up legislation on reforming the postal service. >> on monday, the supreme court's first three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new health-care law. here the oral argument for yourself as the court releases audio at 1:00 p.m. eastern each day with coverage on c-span3. at c-span.org, listen and add your comments. our coverage begins with "washington journal" and continues throughout the day. >> last week, the stockholm international peace research institute's -- india has overtaken china as the largest arms importer. today, we hosted a panel on the

report. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> good morning. wellcome, everybody. i am the executive director of sipri north america. this is an be at stockholm research institute based in washington, d.c. as many of you may have known, sipri, a very international research institute dedicated to disarmament, but also international security issues -- i think many of you may be to sipri million with's and you -- may be familiar with sipri's annual your book that contains

data on non-proliferation, arms controls, and disarmament issues. what you may not know is the sipri is increasingly present in the major decision-making centers of the world. a few years ago, they opened an office in beijing. we now have an office in washington, d.c. i must say i am absolutely delighted areco-located with -- we are co-located with the center. our aim is to strengthen cooperation between european, american, and international experts and institutions. we will be doing that by bringing experts from stockholm

to this side of the atlantic by organizing events and roundtable discussions like the one to date. by seeking partnerships with other institutions, universities, think tanks, governments on this side of the atlantic, and by doing original research. in terms of the research, sipri north america will initially focus on four main areas. one is women, work, and peace. gender issues, if you want. we have a number of projects in the pipeline. sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict settings that will be held in november this year. in a multi-year research project on the un security council resolution 1325, the resolution

adopted by the security council some 11 years ago that states toupee grader at -- that states to pay greater attention to women in particular. there will be a focus on regional security issues. here we will particularly focus on central asia and what will happen in that region after the drawdown of allied troops. and lastly, but certainly not least, in the control and disarmament, the bread and butter is sipri use of. -- the bread and butter issues of sipri. it features a sipri one of's -- one of sipri's flagship programs.

each year, dr. paul holtom and his team provide us with data that many inside and outside government have come to rely on. the benefits of data are twofold. and allows us to identify destabilizing buildups of weapon, identify regional arms races, or as paul likes to call them, arms acquisition, and it allows us to devise policies to isolate areas of escalating tension. i think the data shows the conventional weapons trade does not seem to of suffered much from the economic crisis. and while we are all preoccupied, particularly in this town, with nuclear

proliferation, the conventional weapons are the ones actually killing people around the world. 2012 is going to be an extremely important year. we might see the conclusion of the treaty that will regulate the global arms trade. this treaty will be negotiated in july in new york. in august, we will have a conference that will assess the progress made in terms of small arms and light weapons, a plan of action from 2006. and the committee for that conference action and met this week in new york. today, we really have a terrific time. i would say we have the leading experts in the world on this issue. will examine and look at the trends and efforts to control -- we will examine and look at the trenton efforts to control conventional weapons. we will start with my colleague

dr. paul holtom, the directors sipri of the arms transfers program who will introduce the data and set the stage. he was associated with prestigious institutions in germany, russia, the u.k. he also has expertise in russian and east european issues since he did his ph.d. on that particular issue. he has written extensively. let me make a little plug for your book. "implementing it an arms trade treaty," as well as another publication on china and energy and security relations with russia. i would like to turns to matt shroeder, -- schroeder.

he is a prolific author. he has written global studies in light weapons and small arms. matt will talk a little bit about what is happening in the small arms field. we will then turn to rachel stohl, who is a fellow here stimson center. we would ask rachel to look at the future, particularly the possible impact of the arms trade treaty. rachel has been an expert in her field for a long number of years on both sides of the atlantic. at the british institute of

international affairs, she was also a senior analyst in washington d.c. she has been an expert for many organizations on these issues including the un. finally, but not least, we will turn to the deputy director and senior coordinator for multilateral control of conventional weapons and state departments, bill malzahn. he has participated in the u.n. register of conventional arms since 1999, and i think that is really the beginning of the register. he is one of the experts since the 1990's, 2000, 2003, 2006,

2009. he is the deputy head of the u.s. delegation on the arms treaty, so bill, you have a great treaty coming up in july. without further ado, let me turn it over to my colleague paul. call? -- paul? >> thank you to sipri for organizing this event and bringing together some excellent panelists. i have a little pressure as the first one to speak. back in 1968, this deal was set up, and i think we have three corp. pillars of work. first, monitoring international arms transfers. the second is to promote transparency in arms transfers. the third is to promote recommendations to control arms transfers.

in today's presentation, i will highlight some newly-released data. there is a database online. this combines information on orders between the years 1950 and 2011. we think providing this information is useful for reforming policy analysis, identifying stabilizing trends, but also as an indicator for the strength of enter-state relations since 2002. i -- ntern -- inter-state relations. i want to stick with dragnet and just discussed the fax. -- facts. i guess the general headline as achanta -- as chantal indicated

was arms transfers. there's a 24% increase from 2002 until 2006. when we see the slide, we see how it breaks down from major regions. europe, the middle east, the americas, africa. i think i would be happy to discuss this later -- some interesting regional increases, in particular, at east africa, north africa, southeast asia. before going into more detail, i will switch to talking about the situation with regards to suppliers. the headline in here is it seems not much has changed. the u.s., russia, germany, france, and the u.k. continued to dominate. one of the things we continue --

a share as the international trade is declining. we think israel has under -- is under estimated in our rankings and our accounting. account in the top 10 at the non-european suppliers, and they're competing increased deliveries. for example, south korea, south africa, and brazil. those of you who have coakley seen some of the media, china has been mentioned quite often, and i will focus on this in the next couple of minutes. the volume of chinese imports has been declining, but experts are increasing. it is written to be the sixth largest exporter, and it is within touching distance of the u.k. worth stressing is one reason

behind the increase in exports is the increase of imports by pakistan. china -- pakistan accounts for 2/st. volume of chinese exports. in particular, its combat aircraft, naval vessels, and tanks. china has yet to make a major breakthrough in another major recipient states. there are a number of states that depend on china. russia is taking concerns with regard to china emerging as a potential rival in its established markets, and since 2010 there have been efforts on the russian side to focus on china as a competitor. with regard to the picture of

recipients, headlined this year was the top five recipients were all based in asia. it is worth noting into a desolate and we saw major deals been concluded that states in the middle east. when it comes to the top five, with india as number one, accounting for 10% of the volume of imports, and it is likely to remain a big importer in the coming years. it is expected to continue at a significant rate as india modernize its armed forces. the drivers with regard to the regional situation -- also to some degree a desire to project power over greater distance. a lot of focus is on the maritime to mention, with aircraft carriers from russia. the promises always go back one year each time we cover it.

also, the various sudbury's. -- submarines. we have seen competition from european suppliers but israel, and the u.s. seeking a greater share of the market. with regard to germany, one of the tendencies we note is a tendency for licensed production arrangements, and these account for a signature of deliveries with regard to china and india, singapore, and south korea. the record of using a licensed production penalty transfer to develop an indigenous arms industry is in the record, and very limited. you will see an number of challenges in this regard. china has been more successful, and we have seen south korea's import develope niches.

all the many products rely upon for an input. while the attention has been on asia, it is worth highlighting the middle east. the volume of deliveries has declined by 8%, and it is the only region where we note this. it is not necessarily a result of the arab spring. notable is a decline in deliveries to israel and the invited arab emirates. there has been a steep decline in these cases. it is what highlighting that saudi arabia is outside the top 10 importers, but it is one we will see in this field pretty soon.

before moving on to the conclusion, i will mention the rise of iraq, has risen into the top 20 as it seeks to rebuild its armed forces and security forces. we have noted afghanistan increasing significantly, too. there is a lot more information that is more interesting than the top five recipients, and i recommend people check it out, and what you can find at the website is transfers not between the largest suppliers and recipients, but it is a concern for a variety of reasons.

transfers in north africa and southeast asia -- one could locate information on who is supplying arms in repression in syria or other states in the middle east. f e can identify transfers o acquisitions of combat aircraft, and perhaps others, perhaps those in uganda will use this information as a starting point. there are conflicts. use of weapons in somalia. in some cases the value of those deals. the important thing is this information can for international and domestic discussions on procurement and

export controls, and i will leave it there. thank you. >> matt, let me turn it over to you. >> i would like to begin by thanking the indictable contributions sipri makes to the field. i cannot think of a project in which i have not used the arms transfer data base, and i would be lost without it. keep up the good work. my presentation is based on insights that we have cleaned of the course of a four-year study on authorized trades on the authorized global trends in weapons that we are wrapping up now and was sponsored by a survey in geneva. the purpose of the study is too full. the first is to write an annual estimated global dollar value for the trade in small arms weapons, parts, accessories, but

to be bleak as important if not more important is the threat a comprehensive assessment of all major sources of data on small arms and weapons and to assess those, and this is important because it is very hard to have a meaningful discussion about policy issues concerning small arms and light weapons. if you cannot have good data on what is being exported, where, and to whom. what we have discovered is this data is partial at best. i think i will skip this slide in the interest of time. i would just list some of the sources that we assessed. i do not have time to go through all our findings, but i wanted to highlight a couple of key characteristics of our understanding of the small arms trade. the first being the huge difference in our knowledge

about small arms transfers regionally. transfers to, within, and from europe, north america, and to a lesser extent south america, and the pacific region much better documented, much more detailed than the that to most parts of the rest of the world. there are exceptions, countries with specific exceptions, but generally speaking the day is much stronger on these region and in others. the same applies to the categories of weapons -- weapons we have studied. firearms is much more robust than it did on light weapons and emissions. this aggregated detailed data on light weapons and a nation is almost impossible to find, for most country. when approached dozens of governments and scoured sources and found what we believe to be comprehensive data. huge disparities in the data on

that. similarly, for accessories. weapon sites, fire control s ystems, these are all important items, but it is anemic. there is also a big difference in terms of specificity of national reporting on transfers, even to the same mechanism. some of the reporting is a very good, very detailed, and other reporting is inconsistent and comparatively weak. finally, our research allows us to identify some trends, improvements in transparency and to identify some ways that transparency can be increased.

one of the ways to transparency is improving is more a byproduct of the change in the way we communicate, and communications technology than any effort to improve state reporting on arms transfers. the proliferation of smart phones, video cameras, when coupled with the increasing usage of online file sharing sites such as youtube has yielded some remarkably interesting and useful information, information we may not have acquired otherwise or would not have a card so quickly. this is a screen shot from a video that appeared on youtube in general, to dozen 9, and as -- 2009, and it features venezuela's leader hugo chavez, and he was discussing the country's recent acquisition of missiles which is russia's vegas generation of defense

systems. we heard nothing -- which could not confirm it through to and then, servources, we found it on youtube. this is not an isolated example. we have seen amazing footage coming out -- libya, the insurgents in iraq and afghanistan, and the potential of these sources is great and untapped. in regards to improving transparency, youtube alone is not going to fill in the gaps, regardless of what -- how wonderful we think it is. there are several other ways to improve transparency, many of which are fairly simple and not all that complicated. the first is more consistent and more detailed reporting by states to the u.n. register of

conventional arms. that mechanism is becoming quickly one of the best sources of data in small arms and light weapons, the weapons not covered by sipri's transfer data, which is still king. while it would be great to have more of the big producers and exporters to report, the other states -- it is equally important other state report. combined the data from miner importers -- minor importers can fill in gaps left by not reporting by the states that actually export their weapons. secondly, and this is to the journalists in the audience, when appropriate, and when safe, take pictures of the weapons you fine, take pictures of the markings, the markings on crates

that you find of weapons, and copy and up load shipping documents, because a few clicks of that camera and an up load and you can reveal the model of the weapon, the day that manufacturers were, and the condition which informs service ability and the like the threat posed by the weapon, sometimes the number of weapons exported in a given shipman, the country of manufacture, all incredibly poor and for assessing threats, and all it takes is a greater awareness amongst journalist of the need and the value of doing it. they are not 60 shots. the right shot could really revolutionize or significantly improved our understanding of the arms trade. finally, for the researchers, there are crist our experience through this project and other projects is there is vast untapped hit a potential sitting

on government computers, that some and many governments are willing to share. not leaked -- all of the board, properly released. nobody is advocating hacking. to the freedom of information act and picking up and calling governments, which have gotten hundreds of records on small arms transfers, including accessories that otherwise would not be available, and tens of thousands of records of the illicit arms trade. here are some examples of weapons or photos we have acquired to this process. these are photos of rpg rounds seized in iraq. what we confirmed is the work recently manufactured, and that

-- those are weapons from u.s. government and the british government. when my personal favorite i threw in their kids that had mounted c5k rocket launcher they recovered in iraq. i will conclude there and will be glad to take any questions that you may have. >> taking very much, matt. -- thank you very much, matt. rachel, please. >> i want to thank sipri ike not only for this panel, but those of us who toil in the arms trade world know if you did not have the sipri 8 database you would not be able to do the work that is necessary. again, i look forward to delving into this year's database more

deeply. it may seem that the arms trade treaty is a little bit off topic, as we are talking about the debt trends and where things are in terms of major exporters and importers. i think it gets people thinking about this is a billion-dollar trade, it is occurring all over the world, and some of the countries that are the major exporters, importers raise concerns for various reasons. it is only natural to think about the types of controls that must be in place to govern this trade. what many people did not realize is that unlike many other major weapons categories, there really are very few global controls on the arms trade. no, and international standards governing the supply and transfer of conventional arms. there are many national agreements. we have a whole panel on

national agreement. because there are no common global standards. for about the last 30 years there has been a variety of piecemeal attempts to establish some controls over this global trade. in particular, to close the dangers loopholes that allow arms to flow to human rights abusers, terrorists, perpetuate conflicts, and undermine developed with impunity. and so this idea of a global standard for a global treaty to govern the arms trade is actually now been put to the test for the first time. this july, states will meet in new york to initiate a legally- binding arms trade trading, with the intent of developing the highest possible, and international standards for the transfer of arms. i want to stress this is not

just appearing out of nowhere. i want to get a little background because i found that as we get closer to july, people's interest in the arm trade treaty is increases, but the knowledge base is low. there is a lot of misinformation about the treaty and what it is not, so i want give a little bit of background on what this movement is about. the arms trade treaty originated from the nobel of contact on transfers which was launched in 1995. that tree the proposed global principles concerning the export of conventional arms. over the next decade these ideas were further developed by 0nbg's taking into account

regional initiatives that were developing at the same time. years of discussion outside the u.n. lead to the passage of a u.n. general assembly resolution in 2006 that was entitled towards an international arms trade treaty. the u.n. is the first toe the water on this issue. the resolution calls for the u.n. secretary general to seek the views of member states and to establish a panel of government oil experts to see if this idea was even feasible. that group concluded its work in august of 2008, and recommended that maybe the u.n. should dabble a little bit more. over 100 member states presented their views, which is unheard of to have that high of a level of participation, and the u.n. move to the next phase which was to

develop an open-ended working group that met in 2009. that working group looked at the scope, parameters, and the feasibility of this idea, and after one year, the general assembly again voted to begin actual negotiations on an arms trade treaty that will culminate in this comprehensive -- conference in july of this year. since 2010, the u.n. has engaged in perpetrating -- preparatory committee meetings, which were held in 2010, to the sullivan, and deteriorate really looked at the potential elements of the treaty. the scope of the tree, what should be included in it, the criteria that states could use to determine whether to transfer arms, the national measures necessary to implement a treaty, the types of assistance that states might need to fulfill their obligation of the treaty,

among many other topics. to give you a flavor of what was discussed, to consolidate all these meetings into a few sentences, the scope of the arms trade treaty might include all conventional weapons which would include small at weapons, ammunition, even in good the parts and components necessary to make all those weapons. the scope is not just include the types of weapons that are going to be covered. it also includes the types of transactions, because the state transfer, a transfer could mean a lot of thinking it could be in support, export, transit, trans seven, a unit come at any process in getting a weapons system from 8 to be like be included. the criteria to the tree they could include prohibitions of arms sales to countries if there is a substantial risk that the arms could be used to commit serious violations of international law, such as

genocide or crimes against humanity or war crimes. it may say that states should not transfer weapons that are used to support terrorist organizations. or it may say here is a list of things states should take into account when determining whether to authorize a transfer of arms, such as socioeconomic or sustainable development. the att will be implemented at a national level. there is no super-national body saying you can transfer this or cannot transfer that. national sovereignty will remain paramount. the treaty will likely describe the what that state should include in their systems, but will not provide precise details of how to do it. that will be left to national governments to decide. clearly, this is a daunting task. we have heard it is quite

complicated in trying to the skillet into a comprehensive treaty will be a challenge. as part of the prepared for it were, the chairman of a process = did his best to try to summarize that views of member states, and he produced a chairman draft paper which some of you might have seen that will be a reference document for the treaty negotiations, but i want to stress this is not a treaty text nor is it the basis for negotiations, and that is an important distinction. it includes many of the ideas for an arms trade treaty that had been proposed by member states, and as a result has a lot of contradictory, and clear, and develop ideas as well as things that are completely impractical or unnecessary trick

is been very frustrating for member states and society, but i believe the paper serve a useful purpose. it gave us an idea of the structure of the treaty, it allows states to present all their views on an arms trade treaty, and is an important confidence-building measure. when you are working in the international system is good for states to understand nobody is prejudging the outcome, that outcomeatt was no -- that the att was not developed in advance. [noise] ok. maybe we will not be meeting in july. [laughter] >> i would not interpret that as a sign. >> i am looking for half full,

half and beat signs. states are developing their national positions. the end goal is to end up in july with an arms trade treaty that is developing the standards and curbs irresponsible and illegal trade. i want to make two points on what has been raised already, because paul talked about looking at potentially troubling trends of new exports to conflict areas or spotted regimes or human rights abusers. the att is not a panacea. it will not stop arms sales we would rather not see. it will do is make it more difficult for states that are exporting arms to those recipients to justify them, because there will be more scrutiny about arms sales and it will start crape norms about

arms sales. it will give states a tool in their foreign policy tool box. again, to plug sipri's work and the importance of transparency, there worked would be -- their work will be a lot more available. presumably there will be a transparency aspects to the arms trade treaty that will hopefully allow this information to be presented in a standardized, consistent, and regular manner which will make all this work easier. in my opinion, the att is to be practical and effective, and we need to balance very were the aspirations and ideals concerning the arms trade with the reality of the global arms trade, which we have heard from this morning.

it is not on to help to have a treaty at the end of the day that of legitimizes irresponsible transfers or leaves us with such a burdensome system that it hinders the budget and its commercial trade and nobody wants to be part of it. just last july, unlike other conventional arms trees lee -- treaties, i want to stress the att is not about banning anything. it is about developing for the first time the rules of the game. it is about developing clear international standards for the global trade act in arms. we'll see how states do with that task in july. >> thank you very much, rachel. it was helpful for you to provide background to the att. and let me turn to build. how does the united states seek this? >> i want to thank sipri for

their work over the years. it has played a crucial role in defense matters before it became sexy. i am here not to address the trends in that trade as paul did, but rather to talk about the instruments that provide information and one that will be created that will also as well. transfers are a crucial concern for the allied states, and we have always supported action to control the transfer of arms. we have been pursuing this on two fronts. u.n. register of conventional arms and a proposed arms trade treaty that we will negotiate in july. yen and the state has been a strong supporter of the u.n. register since the first resolution established a process to operationalize transfers.

it was to help the accumulation of arms in order to promote stability and strength international peace and security. taking into account the legitimate needs of states and the principle of a diminished security at the lowest possible level of armaments. by any measure, this is been a success. during its 19 years of operation, more than one had a seven states have participated at least once. more than 100 have participated at least seven times. 50 have participated every year. this is move from 72 to 126 states. the register of captured in

seven categories. even though some states may not participate in the register and in a given year they may never register. there have been exporting state report on the transfer. one that many make in considering the effect of this is to look at the volume of the international arms trade and concluded the ineffective because the farm trade has not struck. these would occur by the irresponsible transfer of arms. the issue of irresponsible transfers brings me to my second topic. the arms trade treaty would be quite different from the u.n. register as it would be crated

for different reasons and based on different premises. this is aiming to in past the fact that there is no overarching instrument to regulate the conventional arms. -- is aiming to invest in the fact there is no overarching instrument. the international arms trade provides nations with materials necessary to perform the most basic functions of a government, protecting its citizens, and in force since its natural sovereignty. nations have a right to defend themselves. there is a dark side that can have a devastating consequence for peoples and regions. irresponsible transfers can support terrorists, enabled genocide, and create and sustain and compound proliferation nightmares. the discussions have demonstrated shared impact of ill-advised arms transfers by organizations. that is why we need an att,l to better control the worst transfers across the borders.

the u.s. has the high standards for the international transfer of weapons. we recognize that the tree will not be the be all or the end all and will not necessarily stop or deter terrorism. criminals do not abide by any reasonable agreements. this means that the only effective way to inhibit their activity is indirectly. all states must recognize the responsibility to enforce the laws within their territory. if the state that has sovereign jurisdiction and is unable to do so, then the international community must help to develop citic ability. the u.s. is acutely aware of the key role that the arms transfers play in the security of most aids and this must be taken into

account in performing t abilities of the att. we need to make sure that the reporting does not conflict with other regimes. -- the u.s. is acutely aware of the key role that the arms transfers play in the security of most states. we report internationally and we also report internally. it does not take a great deal of effort to do all the reporting. the reporting is not being done for the sake of transparency for its own sake but rather to provide other states the information they need to adjust lost to judge how the treaty is being applied and practice. it should report them to report on the implementation of the treaty. -- but rather to provide most dates with the information they need on how the treaty is applied and practiced. they should report on the actions they have taken to

implement the treaty and on any changes to the national system of controls. the u.s. is open to the idea that reporting to other state parties when transfers or authorizations my required for only some of the items that the states are required to control. the u.s. strongly opposes reporting on miles of authorizations even in the aggregate and this can involve sensitive information and we don't want to have the reporting serve as an advertisement for marketing opportunities. some may wonder if this will render -- superfluous. i think that would be extremely unfortunate. these instruments are designed to achieve different goals and they will have different national participants. many will participate in some but not all. given that the register has involved political commitments while others will have legal commitments for transfers as

bartepart of a broader commitme. by expect this to far outstrip the -- i expect that this will far outstrip the att, the issue it should be able to fulfill its objective while promoting transparency in conventional arms transfers. we need to promote common international standards for the international transfer of conventional arms. both instruments have an important role to play in conventional arms. thank you. >> thank you very much. i would like to open up to the audience. i will take the prerogative of the chair and asked for a little bit of background. one of the questions that i had is how to the current efforts to try to control conventional weapons relate to efforts to the

talks? i wonder if anyone can talk a little bit about that. the second question i would have is that it looks like states have recognized the importance of transparency measures but we have also seen a decline in the reporting at the u.n. register and what does this mean for our future efforts. >> from my perspective, let me first address the issue of the decline in participation over the past couple of years in the u.n. register. participation has gone down. it used to be between 90-125 countries would participate in an annual basis and over the last couple of years, is declined to being in the middle 70's. that is indisputable. the question is why you have the

decline. from my point of view, you have this for a couple of reasons. one, the continuing failure of the registered to include small arms weapons. it means that the register is less relevant to the security concerns of many states around the world that are not directly threatened by the register. they are more threatened by the proliferation of small arms. it is true that small arms are in the register as an optional category and it is only optional. i think that the states in africa, america, and asia are looking at the continuing failure of the registered to include small arms and include this is not actually direct reporting. this has affected their ability or the willingness to go out and

contact member states and to remind them about the need to report data to the register and to pursue registers. states are looking at the fact that we have an arms trade treaty negotiation. they're not focusing on the register. as i argued before, i think that would be shortsighted. we will see what the obligation is. >> does anyone want to add anything? >>let me open up and please woud you identify yourself? >> you talk about monopoly of

force, it must be very difficult. this is reaching a regime versus non state actors. is there data on such a thing? if so, does it look as if the forces are gaining or losing their position in the world? >> good morning. first of all, welcome. thank you for putting together a very interesting panel. i have a questions -- two questions.

you mentioned one of the trends, one of the worrisome trends in the arms market is the capacity building type of transfer is that we have seen more and more. do you see that as a call for looking back to the trade controls and how we can monitor and control building equipment as something that we need to look at. how does that relate to the discussion on the arms treaty and the possible inclusion. it is quite fascinating to see our friend down south display in his new purchase.

how do you for see this type of social media, twitter, facebook, youtube? how can you validate that type of information? >> would you like to take a stance? >> i was going to ask to blow can of in -- to bill clinton. bill was suggesting, you can still perhaps the relevance with regards to, well, if i have nothing to report, why should i report. we're not pushingto see the value in the conference building and this is one of the things that i think is the key

there. look just that transfers to also non state actors. we have much less transfers, although that we have some anti- tank guided weapons. some non state actors, we are tracking the rifles, the ammunition, and arms and weapons. we have some evidence and information of the public database but not as much as we have found in the illicit arms project. we also have a project for illicit trafficking which pays a lot of attention to looking at talks that aiming to prevent traffic and by air. -- trafficking by air. with regards to the trends in terms of transferring and more

than the complete system and the means to complete the prove plants and components that come from different areas, i guess that it really talks to the discussions in terms of the need for ensuring that the states have decent control systems in place. when talking with european licensing officers, they raise the point to what extent they have export control systems in place and how they regard them and how well they are regarded internationally. that is something that is certainly worth fighting. one of the things that i think it shows is that this is a vice market. -- that is something that is lagging.y worth f;a there is more advanced equipment. in the discussions i used to, you have people talking about a group of suppliers and everyone else is recipients.

i think it is much more complicated, as you have said. it really talk to the need to have a global instrument. we also use the open source materials. with regard to the affirmation that we have, we have a private database where we keep some of the rumors, the kookier stuff, and what we think is really interesting. we might be cautious in terms of putting this into the public fashion but what we have found is that we're able to cross check and verify from different sources. although there might be a time lag or something from 2011 that we would like to put in the database, we will sit on it and wait but we have to speak with people if they have a query. do you have information about such and such a transfer?

>> i wanted to jump in on a couple of points. the treaty will only look at the state to state transfers. one of the goals would be to prevent diversion into the illegal market and most often that illegal market ends up used by non state actors. there is a link in the treaty to the non state actors. but, it is a very politically sensitive issue at the u.n. because some not state actors are seen as more desirable than others, then other states even, in terms of allowing them to acquire weapons. this will focus on the states themselves. on the building of equipment and their technology transfer, for that may in fact be within the scope of the arms trade treaty. but it has been suggested that

technology transfer and equipment to build weapons would be included within the scope. a couple of cautionary notes about that, you want to make sure that you are capturing what you actually intend to capture. if you have a very broad definition of what that can mean, it can mean that you are covering the e-mail exchanges about the weapon systems. again, each one of those would be subject to a criterion that would overburden the system. the key here is to really avoid the major loopholes that could be created where the parts and components, or the technology, where you can take apart a fighter aircraft and send it piece by piece and avoid the stipulations or the obligations of the arms trade treaty. you need to figure out how to avoid those loopholes and also to future approve the treaty in that new technologies that are developed that we have not even thought about yet would be

captured. there is this fine line between specificity and general enough that you capture things but you don't over the capture. >> in regards to data on end users, there are many different or non state actors. it is important to clarify what we mean. there are very few states that if you mean by non state actors, if you mean unauthorized uses or illegitimate users, there are very few states that permit those type of transfers directly and those states that do, they don't publish data anyway. what would be useful in terms

of the end user information to the extent that this does not compromise sensitive or proprietary information is transfers to entities that develop a history of leakage or diversion that would aid in look in the polls in beverage into the black market. to the question about photoshop in age of social media, that is a real concern. sometimes, it is very obvious. the technology out there to do that is sophisticated enough and rarely innovated enough, that they will not spot these disparities. it is a capacity that the research community has to develop to make better use of this technology in this pursuit.

>> if i can say something about the issue of capacity building, i agree completely that i think that this will need to address this and be included somehow in the scope of the items that are covered. it should include parts and components and it should include technology transfers. we need to make sure that we don't make this burdensome on states to implement and comply with. rachel was talking about the treaty's specifying what states need to do, not how they need to do it. in terms of what gets reported, there will not be reporting on technology transfers and on parts and components. yes, there should be a requirement for states to subject those to international controls and integrate them into the national control system but because of the numbers involved and other issues, i don't see there's any way to report on the parts of components that are being transferred in the context of the reporting regime that will be created. i think it is likely that we

will have an obligation on states to control the transfer of them but not to the actual report on the transfer. >> next, please.

[laughter] [applause] >> where will these be if they are reform in the u.s.? >> i don't work in this. they form what we do in terms of having the discussion at the conference and the position we will have at the negotiation. at the negotiation, it will not be the case of the tail wagging the dog. this will not directly determine what the u.s. is going to do. it will be the other way around. we want to make sure this reflects what is going on in the reform discussions. in terms of what is likely to come out of the reform, i hope it will be streamlined, more efficient, and a less burdensome

regime for u.s. companies will for companies which do business in the u.s.. i think that it would be remaining to be seen. this is about the u.s. regulating a company. we are talking about streamlining and make it more effective, not about deregulation or removing controls. one thing about the complaints by the u.s. industry, this incredibly burdensome system that we have to know is still have exporting all of the world. you should keep in mind the background that all of this is going on in. industry never likes regulation or controls. on some level, it is interfering with their ability to go out and

maximize their profits or whatever. it is the role of governments to regulate and control industries that need regulation and control and we think that the international arms trade is one in which we continue to need control on. >> any of the other panelists want to comment on this issue? yes, please. >> i work of the center for international trade and security. as much as the state department and the american government supports this and are working rather diligently towards this, there is still the issue of getting it through congress and a majority of the senators have signed on say they are against it. >> not exactly. >> in that sense, how do you expect that to move forward in

congress and actually change their mind because as much as that particular -- >> can you may be explain what that ticket the kind of tree is? >> there are two different congressional levers. they've expressed their opposition to an arms trade treaty which would undermine the second amendment in the u.s., it would conflict with the second amendment and the administration cannot agree. we're not going to negotiate a treaty that would undermine to be a second amendment. the u.s. can decide for itself the rights and abilities of its citizens to buy arms and to transfer arms. this will not cover that at all. this is about international transfers. it is about transfers between states. i actually agree with the sentiments in the letter and i read both of them and what i see in there does not require me to do anything differently in terms

of negotiations for the u.s. because we're not going to allow this to begin with this and this is a door that the rest of the authorization except is closed. -- accepts is closed. i don't have a problem with the congressional orders. it is not that they oppose the thatty, it it i -- it is they oppose it if it conflicts with the second amendment. hoping to have the u.s. due in july is to push for negotiating a treaty that would be able to ratify and it would also be up for the senate. we have -- we are certainly aware of the kind of treaty that they're likely to ratify. we don't want to negotiate a

treaty that we expect that the u.s. would now be unable to ratify. my goal is to negotiate one that would allow the u.s. to ratify. >> yes, please. >> hello, i have a couple of questions. earlier, it was mentioned the legitimate arms transfers. i am wondering what you can define as a legitimate one. we have monitoring for a couple of different programs. many are considered fairly legitimate. if it is self regulated and it is not enforced, what the people would not require a report on what is legitimate?

-- what kind of people would not require a report on what is legitimate? is this repayment, a contract signed, or delivered? some contracts will have an opt out clause. >> ok, rachel is first. >> i will take them in reverse order. i think at the point that you just raised, talking about authorizations or physical transfers, that is still to be determined. this does make a huge difference because you can have a license but you would have still reported it if you were just reporting authorizations so it may look like 120 fighter aircraft. we discovered this in the register during the last review that some states where reporting authorizations and others were reporting actual transfers. in the way you are comparing apples with oranges.

you may not be capturing everything in a calendar year that is actually reflected in that calendar year. there is a lot in terms of the reporting that the att would have to look at. in terms of enforcement, one of the aspects of implementation of the treaty would be to have national enforcement systems. that sounds very obvious but there are states that don't have any legal, judicial, infrastructure to actually address violations of laws with regard to export control. in this country, we always talk about there are so many laws but are they being used?

-- is a good example. what he was actually convicted of had nothing to do with all of the glamorous crimes he was accused of committing. enforcement will have to be very specific on the national level and that will allow you to have some accountability. states cannot just act with impunity. what the treaty will have to decide is what is legal and what is not rather than using the words illegitimate and irresponsible. there are other things like you know it when you see it. what the treaty will do is really define what is a legal transfer. what are the state to state transfers we are talking about? again, in a general way because

states will authorize sales in different ways. using a national, predictable, clear process. that will help industries, manufacturers around the world because they will understand what is necessary from country to country in terms of abiding by particular laws. hopefully, the criteria will define what is legitimate versus irresponsible. you are saying the treaty does not want to see transfers going to human-rights abusers or to commit other atrocities or this list of societal or global ills. that will start to define those concepts without having to say the russian sale to syria is

irresponsible. you do not have to name that. you start closing in on what the global community would like to see in terms of arms transfers that are going forward. >> paul? >> the question on methodology. we have two outputs. the one i presented today was statistics. it only relate it to deliveries. we have more of a quality output as well -- output as well. new information on the order date and what type of equipment is being transferred, the number, the dates of deliveries if anything happens. this is a challenge. the financial value of that particular deal. the answer is two outputs, which

are put together in some cases. with regard to algeria and morocco, there are body and deliveries to algeria. morocco has come on line with delivery. if you put both parts of the data together, you can get interesting findings on acquisitions and concerns about ratings. i will add to rachel's comments about the legitimacy. that is the base line in terms of what is considered illegitimate or irresponsible. if you are authorizing transfers to a country that is subject to u.n. security sanctions, the already have a -- the hope is that the att will enable building up of properties that are considered to be agreed

upon as unacceptable. >> to add to that, we recognize the dow you of the u.n. arms embargo. many national laws do not reflect the illegality of violating a u.n. -- we recognize the value of the u.n. arms embargo. that is a perfect example. in italy, there was a case where someone was operating in italy and violating a u.n. arms embargo and there was no law to capture the person and take them to court. >> next please. >> would suppliers be willing to

sign a treaty against their own in tres? so many countries that supply -- would suppliers be willing to sign a treaty against their own interests? thank you. >> this is a broader question about the chances of success. i guess it is addressed to all of the panelissts. -- panelists. we will start with you, bill. >> the att has made more progress than most people expected. it showed where the common ground actually is this that can be reflected in the treaty. will they actually succeed in doing that, i do not know.

i do not think is going to be the exporters. leveling the playing field and having a consistent -- what companies do not like is having an unlevel playing field. att should level the playing field up to a higher standard. i think the resistance to a att -- an att will come from somebody else. they will not be enthusiastic to have human rights apply to them. they will be afraid it will interfere with their ability to import the weapons. we are going to have managed -- and interesting negotiation in july.

in voting on the different resolutions, they passed with overwhelming international support. only 20 extensions on it. for a couple of them, one no vote for the u.s. that is a different story. we strongly support an effective treaty. we are going to have to convince them and that is what the negotiation is going to be about. i am optimistic and hopeful. i would not say it is going to be a sure thing. it will be a difficult negotiation. as somebody who negotiates multilaterally, it is not much time at all. >> anybody else wants to comments? matt? >> i will defer our -- defer to the att.

[laughter] >> rachel? >> i do not think any of us would engage in this effort if we did not think there was a chance for success. as bill said, i was amazed at how far we came in a short period of time. even among the skeptics, there is a clear commitment to see where this road takes us. at the end of the day, it may not be an outcome that people live with. a poorly written att that does not do what it is not -- it is set out to do is not worth having. it is important to get the right treaty. that is where the success would lie.

there has been an impressive willingness to engage in this process. a lot of that can be credited to the chairman himself. he is a very astatute an experienced diplomat who has done a great job building confidence. allowing everyone to be heard and to feel like they are being heard. a lot of times we think of the u.n. as a political or again, which it is. also, it is driven on the personalities of the people with and it. in these negotiations, you had consistency among the people involved in the negotiations. if you would have asked me in july of 2010 if i thought it was possible, may be the first day i

would have been a little more hesitant. today, i am and little more glass half bowl -- full. >> i think personalities do matter and we have seen it in a multitude of negotiations. >> if i could make one comment. sorry to interrupt. i could not agree more with you. the outcome needs to be a strong and effective treaty. the u.s. is not interested in having a piece of paper that does not do anything. it needs to be a treaty that actually does something. we are not interested in having a treaty so we can move to the next negotiation. it has to do something. that is what we need out of july, a strong and effective treaty. >> the fact that it is being held in this context and you are not seeing traditional divisions is a really

interesting dynamic. also the statement by the members of the security council last year was interesting as well in terms of the steps forward. for us, it has been surprising. we had to write a to write -- paper about the att. it was really skeptical. there has been massive progress. it is interesting to see that dynamic. there was one of the dividing lines during the in the nation days. they did not have been recipients on board. for me, that strikes me as an interesting change. there are a lot of people pushing for this. it is interesting, the change

up. >> i would like to go back to the trends you have seen in the data. you talked about the reactive acquisitions and the small arms races in certain regions that you see developing. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about that. then i would like to ask our colleagues on the panel -- do you think a treaty like the att, to prevent irresponsible de stabilizing transfers -- would you be able to give me good examples of how that would work in practice. paul, you first on different trends in regional security. >> i spoke earlier on algeria

and morocco. it was one that we found a couple of years ago. before the change in libya, we saw libya is emerging as a major importer. algeria was acquiring a lot of advanced equipment from russia and other countries. i am not quite sure how the aircraft are going to help in that regard. morocco was also turning to suppliers for naval vessels. you will be able to track acquisitions with the moroccan acquisitions. my focus is on russia, central asia and i am particularly .oncerned about azerbaijan

we have seen a dramatic increase in their acquisitions. there are a number of states that are continuing to supply them against the backdrop of bellicose rhetoric. they have talked about the use of force to change that situation in the face of mediation. for us, that is a hot stone of particular concern. the other area that i am not so concerned about is southeast asia. we have seen significant build up in terms of advanced maritime systems. in a number of those cases, clear descriptions of the threats. it will take some explaining as

to why these systems have been acquired. a lot of it bears the influence of the military. as well as looking over their shoulder toward china and what is happening there. it is interesting to see the chinese response. in that region, i would like to see more developed security systems put in place. of the three areas i am talking about, that is why there are a number of understandable reasons for the current increase. a lot of the progress they are going through now, the asian financial crisis postponed some of those progressions. >> any thing on the example?

-- anything on the examples? >> the mechanics have not been decided. these will continue to be national decisions, whether or not to transfer. what in the att will do is give states a process or outline what they are process should look like. to get an authorization, you do whatever is required and these are the kinds of assurances or other types of assurances you would need. it would make the system more predictable. it is unclear if the criteria will be prohibitions, if it should be a middle ground or a tiered approach where some are

absolutes and some are taken into consideration -- it would make the system more predictable for the country and the recipients. in addition, in terms of them reporting on what is going where, there will be more predictability and more clarity to keep track of some of these potential arms buildups and reactive purchases, as paul is calling them. it is not going to be the solution to all of the ills related to the arms trade. it is really just one piece of a big puzzle. it could be useful in identifying what systems are going where and allowing states to get a better global picture. not in real time but in a

regularized time frame than they had before. it is an important confidence- building measure and transports -- transparency measure, but also in terms of early warning and those kinds of things. >> i just want to build upon what rachel said. transfer controls are extremely important. it is one piece of the puzzle in ensuring weapons are used by only intended end users. there is an improving stockpile security. there is strengthening border controls, which is where my main focus is. there is airport perimeter security and countermeasures for security -- for civilian aircraft. there are a whole host of measures states can and should take to prevent unauthorized access to weapons.

>> any other questions? please. >> this question is for paul. looking into the future, which regions do you see as problematic in terms of arms los? -- flows? >> i will mention the one i'd flag at the beginning but did not discussed. that is east africa -- i flagged at the beginning, but did not discuss. that is east africa. the appropriateness of some of those acquisitions is unclear. there is the issue that the money could have been better spent.

the lack of oversight and discussion in uganda is another concern that has been raised. there have been a number of transfers that have been used to somalia. in that region, there may be restrictions on transfer controls by some states, but also the desire to help them build capacity and peacekeeping. one of the challenges in striking the balance is one of the things that is quite difficult. we will be looking at some issues with regard to post- conflict scenarios. that project will be taken on in the next couple of months. we will look at a number of cases in afghanistan and iraq. i will have a better idea in

terms of some deep concerns and some of the ways to mitigate any eliminate -- in terms of concerns and ways to mitigate and eliminate those concerns. >> thank you. you will get the last question. >> i just wanted to ask, as we look ahead to the negotiations in july, what do you anticipate will be the key issues, the sticking points in diplomacy between now and july? where do you think major efforts need to be focused? >> thank you. >> i need to think about that for a moment. >> i will give you the short

answer while bill gets into the specifics. i will honestly anticipate, given my experience with u.n. processes, no word is too small to focus attention on. that includes "and" or "the" or "i." the difference between happy and glad. >> is there is one. going back to how u.n. negotiations work, that can truly affect the ability to move forward. there will be key sticking point in all the elements of the treaty. determining what the scope is in terms of the weapons covered in the transaction is going to be a protracted debate.

there are those who want a minimalist scope and those who want anything you could possibly think up now and in the future. some kind of balance will have to be made. the criteria themselves, not only what those criteria are, but the standards applied to them, the absolute prohibition balanced, , i'm should be taken into account. the key issues will be, what does national [unintelligible] look like? how the balance the what in the house and not be so general that you miss helping countries that have weak national control systems develop them?

how do you not prevent this historically jumbled you do not want to lower the playing field. -- how do you not prevent this historically? do you -- how do you not lower the playing field? >> one thing we have not gotten a good handle on -- most of the discussion has been on the responsibility of the exporting states. we have made less progress in talking about the rights and obligations of the importers and the transshipping states. we have not had that much discussion up until now. this is focusing on the export side of the equation. we need to address those other things as well.

one of the biggest tensions that exist will be beaten between having a treaty that is inspirational in nature that tries to do a lot of things and its ambitious with a treaty that actually is capable of being implemented by state parties. there is a basic tension there. it is something we have not resolved. it does need to move the ball forward. it needs to do some aspirational things. it needs to be one that states can actually implement so that it is worth the paper the treaty is written on. there is going to be real tension there. i see the discussions going on in the program of action context about the tension between what people want to do versus what is actually possible. one issue we are going to have

to resolve is the issue about transparency reporting. there are states where reporting on international transfers is a taboo subject. some of these states have never participated in the register. that is something we are going to have to resolve. people are going to have to have extremely detailed transparency reporting requirements. there are other states out there who did not want to have any kind of reporting required under the treaty. we need to be careful of the basic tension between try to provide too much detail in the treaty -- spelling out exactly what states need to do the more there is in the treaty, the less likely we will get a successful outcome. we need to be careful what you want to put in there in terms of details.

the harder it is going to be to negotiate. we had a week of discussions on what the language and the resolution actually meant related to how the conference was going to take consensus and what instances actually means. -- and what consensus actually means. transparency, national implementation. we need to look at incentives for states joining the treaty. for the exporting states, we have stronger control systems between what we require them to do and not imposing that much of a burden on them. it will be a burden on states that do not have strong national control systems. the treaty will need to provide some mechanism for a system --

for assistance in them do it. it will not be talking about technology transfer. it will be assistance for capacity building under the treaty to actually implement the arms trade treaty. four weeks or multilateral negotiation is not a lot of time at all. -- for multilateral negotiation is not a lot of time at all. that was a negotiation that took three years. you are talking about 72 weeks of meetings that produced the nuclear test ban treaty. we have four weeks in july to produce an arms trade treaty. it gets to the ability of states to defend themselves. that is one of the most basic security concerns that states have. it will be challenging for us to negotiate this.

it could be a big problem. but i am hopeful. [laughter] >> it will be the major arms treaty that will be concluded for a long while. i would like to thank our panelists here for providing us with a comprehensive view of arms transfers and the difficulty in trying to control it from a difficult -- from a diplomatic stand point. i would say, stay tuned. we will have other events like these. go to our website. we will hope to see you soon. hopefully, we can put you on our mailing list. thank you matt,