>> in the next 12-18 months, america will suffer a catastrophic attack. they are into that warning. and it tells me that we have to move rapidly, but not in a way that violates privacy or the basic tenets of privacy. and that encourages quick reaction, not a sort of regulatory environment. >> communications and technology. congressman greg walden on cyber security and privacy. 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> at a closed door meeting today of the united nations, a rip league envoy in former u.n. secretary-general kofi annan asked security council members for support to implement an april 10 peace plan for syria. the plan calls for a cease-fire

by all parties. dialogue between the government and opposition leaders, and withdrawal of heavy weapons and troops. following the meeting, u.s. and syrian ambassadors to the u.n. spoke to reporters for about 25 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. that may provide you with a read-out of the council's meeting this morning with kofi annan. the joint special envoy review for the security council his efforts so far to address the crisis in syria. he expressed gratitude for the recent presidential statement and for the security council unity that it represented. join special envoy kofi annan said that in his discussions with the syrian regime, he emphasized the regency of the situation and pressed the government to cease troop

movement, cease the use of heavy weapons, and pull out of population centers. mr. annan reported that the syrian foreign minister sent him a letter yesterday in which he said that the syrian military will begin immediately, and by april 10 will complete the cessation of all forward deployment and use of heavy weapons and will complete its withdrawal from population centers. these are steps a through c in the six-point plan. item two, mr. annan said he wished he had this confirmation of action center, in other words that the april 10 at dublin would have ideally been earlier than is. but he urged the government of syria to start immediately and to ensure that forces moved no further into population centers. and as he related, that commitment was provided by the syrian authorities. mr. annan reported that he is

expecting details from the syrian government very shortly on the other aspects of his six- point plan, including key requests for humanitarian access, the two-hour daily humanitarian card, as well as access for the media, and of course the political process. mr. annan deputy has had exchanges with the opposition to urge them to cease their operations within 48 hours of a complete cessation of government hostilities. in other words, there fulfillments of steps a through c. he said a dpko team with some of his staff will travel again to syria this week to continue preparations for a potential monitoring and supervisory mission of the u.n. finally combat -- finally, mr. annan asked for support of their

ball 10 a deadline and to begin consideration of the potential u.n. monitoring mission. undersecretary general then briefed in very short terms on dpko's early stage contingency planning for such a monitoring mission. all members of the security council expressed full support for joint special envoy annan and called for his six-point plan to be implemented immediately, including a political process leading to a transition that meets the aspirations of the syrian people for democracy, a key point reiterated more than once by a joint special envoy. some members of the security council expressed concern that the government of syria not use the next day's to intensify the violence and expressed some skepticism about the government in this regard. in general, council members expressed a willingness to

consider mr. annan's plan for monitoring mission if a cessation of violence is achieved. i am happy to take a couple questions. one at a time. >> can you give us an idea, wasn't made clear how long it would take, i mean, that you can move rapidly to get in monitoring mission in there? any details of what it would do? >> on that briefing, i think dpko can provide you with the details. they're looking at a phased approach with the aim of trying to get in a small core of initial monitors that might be drawn with the consent of governments from some of the missions in the nearby region. it will take some time to ramp up to full strength. i think it is better to give dpko the opportunity to provide the details of their thinking. >> was there any discussion of the announcement by some in the

friends of syria that they would begin to pay salaries to the free syrian army and other rebels? the u.s. offered free communications equipment. kenya specify who would get it and whether it would have any legal usage -- can you specified would get it? >> let me be clear in saying, if i am not mistaken, i think only one delegation raised that issue. most were focused on the contents of the joint special envoy's briefing today. from the u.s. point of view, speaking in my national capacity, as you know, we announced our readiness not only to increase our humanitarian assistance now to $25 million, but also to begin to provide nonlethal assistance to the opposition, including 94 of communications equipment. that communications equipment is by its nature and definition

acknowledge all, and we will continue to work with other partners -- and by definition is non-lethal, and we will continue to work with partners as agreed in tunis district in our efforts in support of the coherence of the opposition. >> ambassador, can you clarify who is going to be actually monitoring the fulfillment of these promises from here, april 10, given that you do not have a mechanism for peacekeeping on the ground? can you also clarify if there has been any type of preconditions or conditions attached by the syrian government to this agreement for april 10 deadline and whether all the troops will go back to their barracks? >> the joint special envoy, to answer your second question first, did not specify any preconditions, nor was the council aware of preconditions that had been put in front of

that plan with a drawl. the action was to have begun yesterday, on april 1, consistent with the commitment that the joint special envoy a codennan received an be implemented over the course of the subsequent 10 days. in terms of monitoring and you know the issue, there's no independent monitoring mechanism on the ground because that has not been permitted by the circumstances, by the lack of violence and by the posture of the syrian authorities. there's also obviously challenge with access for journalists and other independent observers. so we will need to rely on the same sources of information that we have been relying on over the course of the last many months, some of which are formal, some of which are in for more, to assess the degree of implementation. >> [inaudible]

a april 10 a deadline. i mean, it said yes, there's no hesitation according to kofi annan. >> as i just said in an answer, as it was briefed to us, there were no conditions or preconditions specified by the syrians that we are aware of for a implementation of the commitments that it made some days prior to april 1. now let's be realistic. speaking in my national capacity, we have seen, over the course of the last many months, promises made and promises and broken. we have seen a commitment to end the violence followed by massive intensification of the violence. so the united states, for one, look at these commitments and say, yet again, the proof is in the actions, not in the words. and past experience would lead us to be skeptical and to worry

that over the next several days that rather than the demolition of the violence, we might yet again see an escalation of the violence. we certainly hope that is not so. we hope that the series of treaties will implement fully the commitments they have made without any conditions or codis cells. and should they do so, we will expect the opposition to follow suit within 48 hours and specified -- as specified by joint special envoy annan. thank you very much. >> [inaudible] with the syrian government, but do you feel that your government

is actually coming around to his way of thinking in terms of the proposals he has made? of course, you heard the united states' skepticism as to whether or not your government is actually going to implement anything being proposed. how do you respond to that? >> my government is committed to the success of mr. kofi annan's mission. and we're doing our utmost in order to see this mission a successful one. mr. kofi annan has been interacting with my government officials almost on a regular basis. and both sides have common ground for working out together the best mechanisms that would supervise the syrian

sovereignty, the implementation of the six-point plan. >> was able to in your suggestion or was it kofi annan's? whose suggestion was that? >> it is bye, an accord between our minister and mr. kofi annan. -- it is by our record. >> was it yesterday in a letter from the foreign minister? >> we are talking about the content of the six-point plan with mr. kofi annan. the syrian government is committed, as i said, towards making the implementation of this six-point plan a successful one and of the sovereignty of syria and the syrian sovereignty. i mean, in respect of the syrian sovereignty. the syrian government is committed, but we have -- we are expecting mr. kofi annan and

the -- some parties and the security council also -- in the security council also to get the same kind of commitments from the other parties. a plan would not be successful unless everybody is committed to it. so far, the syrian government said that it is committed, and we're expecting mr. kofi annan to get in touch with the other parties, those who are involved in initiating, sponsoring, and arming the armed groups also. in order to make the stopping of the violence reticent to all parties. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> [speaking foreign language]

>> [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language]

>> [inaudible] to implement without any preconditions, like the ambassador and the president said, to implement pulling the troops to the barracks. and then 48 hours later, they would start demanding of the opposition to pull back, like the president of the council said. did you accept that or are you having preconditions, like you just mentioned in arabic, demanding that other parties commit to the six-point plan of kofi annan? is this a new precondition you're adding to the attend deadline? >> what i said was not a precondition. what i said in arabic was not a precondition to what i said was to clarify that everybody should act on the basis of good faith and good intentions. this is what i meant. we are in the process of diplomatic negotiations at the

highest level with the security council represented by mr. kofi annan, who is the special envoy of the united nations. and we're dealing with them accordingly. in the diplomatic negotiations you received at the table, you raise your concerns. you ask clarification. and then you make a commitment. this is what diplomacy is about. it is not about -- it is not about imposing any preconditions. it is about safeguarding our sovereignty. >> can you clarify that? [inaudible] >> all the details will be part of the final commitment of everybody. not only the syrian government. >> [inaudible] [speaking foreign language]

>> [speaking foreign language] >> can you comment on the announcement from the friends of syria meeting by some countries in the gulf that they intend to start paying salaries for the syrian opposition, and on the u.s., offered to provide communications equipment to the opposition? what do you think of it? >> so far, the conference of the enemy of syria in istanbul is in itself a violation and contradiction of mr. kofi annan's mission. this is a parallel track set up by the enemies of syria to compete with mr. kofi annan's mission. not only may be to compete, may be to undermine this mission as a whole. so all the parties who are sponsoring publicly the armed groups in syria should bear the

responsibility of their acts, including with saudi arabia said, including what qatar is doing, including the saudis are doing, including what turkey is doing, including what all these people who attended the enemies of the syrian meetings in istanbul. everybody should bear the responsibility of their acts. they're working against the will of this so-called international community, represented by mr. kofi annan's mission. the question should be addressed to these people who are violating an competing at undermining the mission of kofi annan. >> what about the communications agreement of the u.s., do you see that as somehow different? are they undermine the mission? the u.s. is going to provide nonlethal communications equipment to the opposition. >> every single act that is not in line with the provisions of mr. kofi annan's mission is a violation of this mission. so everybody should bear the

responsibility, including the u.s.' claims of supplying communications and other kinds of supplies. and for those who said it publicly that they would like to send even money and salaries to these armed groups in syria, somebody should put them in the confessional seat at the security council and ask them why they are doing that. this is not only a violation of the charter. this is not a violation of mr. kofi annan's mission. this is a violation and a declaration of war against the sovereignty of syria. >> will the syrian government go ahead with completing all of these elements in the commitment of withdrawal from population centers, the end of the use of heavy weapons? >> that will be part of the final deal. >> and if the opposition, during this time leading up to april 10, does not take similar steps to stop fighting, will you go ahead with that, even if there

are not any steps on the other side before april 10? >> there is no room for if. we're working very closely and very carefully, all the relevant details to the fulfillment of mr. kofi annan's mission. in our concept, there is no if. >> [inaudible] it would be impossible to withdrawal from all the population centers if there was still under arrest or fighting going on at there. does the commitment to withdraw all by april 10 supersede any previous statements? are you going to be out of those areas or are there conditions for that withdrawal? >> the plan of mr. kofi annan's is about six points, not only one. we're working with him and his technicians on all the six points. >> [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language]

>> you are holding the council for the syrian meeting.

i want to ask you, turkey is hosting 20,000 refugees coming from syria. there are some relatives in all the relations between turkey and syria. there are relatives, a kinship, between the two countries. and you're calling now these people who are hosting and who are also helping the people in the villages as enemies of syria. ignoring -- >> turkey is not the enemy of syria. the policies of the turkish governments are the enemy of syria. when a government hosts on its territory and meeting, acting against the will and the sovereignty of another country, then this is not a diplomatic move. this is a declaration of war by this country. turkey should have consulted with the syrian government, whether it is willing or not to see this meeting being held on its territory. and they did not consult with

us. on the contrary, they're calling for what they called the change of regime around the clock. this is not the friendly and amicable action from a neighbor country, a neighbor government. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> international on for kofi annan said today that syria and for 10 that its military will do a complete withdrawal of troops and heavy weapons from popular areas in the country by april 10 as part of a peace plan. the supreme court today ruled 5- 4 that police do not need a reasonable suspicion of weapons or contraband to conduct a strip search of someone if they are arrested. albert florence was strip searched by in new jersey following an arrest for failing to pay a traffic fine. justice kennedy said "exempting

people arrested for minor offenses from a standard search protocol the submit put them a greater risk and result in more contraband being brought into the detention facility. last week, the court concluded three days of oral argument on the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law. a decision on that case is not expected until late june or early july. president obama, mexican president filipe calderon, and canadian prime minister stephen harper all met at the white house today for a north american leaders' summit. among the issues, voters security, economic growth, energy, and climate change. >> ladies and gentlemen, the

prison of the united states, accompanied by the president of mexico -- the president of the united states, accompanied by the president of mexico and prime minister of canada. >> good afternoon, everybody. it is my pleasure to welcome two great friends and partners. president filipe calderon of mexico and prime minister harper of canada. i have worked with both of them on many occasions. i have joined our international partners from a peg to the g20. from our last summit, we remember filipe's hospitality and that of the mexican people, including some very good mariachi and mexican food. some tequila, if i am not listed. i cannot reciprocate the music, but we are proud to welcome you here today.

between us, we represent nearly half a billion citizens, from those in the canadian north to those in southern mexico. in between, the diversity of our peoples and cultures is extraordinary. but wherever they lay, they wake up every day with a similar hopes, to provide for their families to be safe in their communities, to give their children a better life. and in each of our countries, the daily lives of our citizens are shipped profoundly by what happens in the other two. that is why we are here. today we focus on our highest priority, creating jobs and opportunity for our people. the united states, our businesses have created nearly four million new jobs. confidence is up and the economy is getting stronger. but with lots of folks still struggling to find work and pay the bills, we're doing everything we can to speed up

the recovery. that includes boosting trade with our two largest economic partners. as president, i have made it a priority to increase our exports, and i am pleased that our exports to canada and mexico are growing faster than our exports to the rest of the world. last year, trade in goods with their two neighbors surpassed $1 trillion for the first time ever. this supports some 2.5 million american jobs. i want more trade supporting even more jobs in the future. today, prime minister harper led as in a very good discussion about how our three countries can improve our competitiveness. we agreed to continue making our borders more efficient and more secure, so it is faster and cheaper to travel and trade. we are expanding cooperation to create clean energy jobs and combat climate change, an area in which president calderon in mexico has been a real leader. i am pleased to announce that our three nations is launching a

new effort to get rid about dating -- get rid of outdated regulations that stifle job creation. in the u.s., our efforts to cut red tape and ensure smart regulations will help achieve savings and benefits to businesses, consumers, and in our country more than $100 billion. we are already working to streamline and coordinate regulations with canada and mexico on a bilateral basis, so now our three nations are going to sit down together, go through the books, and sibyl in wrigley more regulations that will make our joint economies stronger -- and simplify more regulations. this is a important for small and medium-sized businesses, which when they start exporting, often start with mexico and canada but this will help create jobs and will keep us on track to meet my goal of doubling u.s. exports. more broadly, i reiterated my commitment to a conference of immigration reform which would be good for workers and good for business but also pleased that canada and mexico have also expressed an interest in

joining the trans-pacific partnership. consultations with our tpp partners are now under way on how new members can meet the high standards of this trade agreement which could be a real model for the world. i very much appreciate -- appreciated president calderon updating as the preparations for the next g-20 summit which will be hosting in june. our other major security and ous deserve. criminal gangs pose a threat to each of barron nations, and we have responsibility to meet that threat. in mexico, president calderon has shown great courage, and we have sped up assistance to support those efforts. here in the united states, we have increased cooperation on the southern border and dedicated new resources to reducing the south-bound flow of money and guns and the reduce -- to reduce the demand for drugs

in the united states come out which helps to fuel this crisis. to date we reaffirm our commitment to meeting this challenge together, because that is the only way we will say it. -- we will succeed. we are teaming up with defense ministers, meeting last week as a group, and we will coordinate our efforts, especially when it comes to supporting central america's's new strategy, which will be discussed at the summit of the americans next week. i want to thank steven and felipe for being here. that is what we have done, and it would not have been possible without the leadership that these outstanding leaders have

brought to all our efforts, including our efforts today. as a result, our nations and citizens will be more secure, prosperous, and in a better position to give their children alive as they deserve. with that, let me take get -- turn it over to president calderon. >> your excellency, barack obama, right hon. stephen harper, ladies and gentlemen, of the press, misters ambassadors, friends, first of all, i would like to thank president barack obama for his extraordinary hospitality and that of his government in hosting this summit of the leaders of north america. briefly, i would also like to express on behalf of the

government of mexico, the people of mexico, my family, and on my own behalf, my most sincere sympathies to the family and relatives of former president for his lamentable loss yesterday. tomorrow we will homage to him in mexico. the reasons we are here today at this summit of the north american leaders at president barack obama and the prime minister of canada, have come through a work day that has been fruitful and fluid with an exchange of opinions and progress to the benefit of our respective citizens. i am also thankful to my two colleagues for the openness with which we have broached some very complex items on our agenda. i recognize and value their commitments to our common

region. the leaders of north america share a vision of a strong, solid, safe, competitive region that is able to successfully face had it on the challenges of today. we agree that our common challenges can only be faced together, and therein lies the importance of having a dialogue, strong dialup, among our three countries. the data the president has given us is important, that our trade has exceeded $1 trillion for the first time, and i think that is not separate from a reality that has to be underscored in this complex world full of economic problems and severe crises. our three countries are countries that are growing right now and generating jobs today, and that growth and those

millions of jobs, many of them have to do precisely with the greatest trade exchanges that we have ever seen amongst these great nations. i would say the potential of north america is such that within our own nations we have a great deal to do to make the most of these opportunities for greater exchanges amongst our peoples. today we have progressed on various subjects. we have advanced on deregulations in our countries as amongst our countries. we have progressed in harmonization of standards that facilitate trade. we have progressed in our case in the bilateral relationship, the border infrastructure, and all this has met to the benefit of canadians, mexicans, and

american families. another line of the ideas i would also say that the three nations have renewed their decision to strengthen cooperation at the international level, particularly in issues as sensitive as the security of our citizens. we have reiterated the values upon which our societies were founded -- democracy, liberty, justice, the respect for human rights, and today, the political dialogue amongst us is perhaps stronger than ever. we have renewed certain principles of our existence and of our challenges. the principle of shared responsibility, the exchange of information, and especially the strengthening of our institutions that has to be the guide of our corporation. clearly i expressed to president obama and the prime minister harper that the fight that

mexico is experiencing for a safer north america also requires a strengthening of national actions, amongst other things to stop the traffic of weapons, to combat with greater strength money laundering, and of course, to reduce the demand for drugs that strengthens criminal organizations. i also expressed to the prime minister and the president that mexico recognizes the commitment they have undertaken to progress along those lines. it is necessary to strengthen the regional security focus, and in order to do this we need to include our neighbors in central america who are facing serious problems and who need our solidarity. the three countries have agreed to establish a joint dialogue mechanism with the central american integration system in support of the efforts

undertaken by central american nations to fight organized crime and in favor of regional security that benefits us all. in this meeting, we have broached the topic of the regional economy. the leaders of north america agreed the united states, canada, and mexico must continue to delve deeper into our successful economic relationship so to generate more jobs and greater well-being in all three countries. our governments recognize that it is absolutely necessary to continue to fully comply the nafta as well as to restore it means of strengthening regional competitiveness. i'm convinced if we work together, we will become much more competitive than in many areas of the world we're competing with today. not a's position is return to protectionist

practices that only isolate countries, reduce competitiveness of economies, and send it investment scurrying. that is part of the problem, and part of the investment we need to see in the economy to see it delving deeper into our economies, and making most of our advantages that show our economic complementarity in terms of investment, technology, natural resources, and only then will we be able to be successful in a world that competes for shirley -- forces agreed to countries have renewed our commitment that it will be even more interconnected, supporting the small and medium scale companies. mexican exports to the world represent 37% of american

content. in other words, american exports are american exports, and they generate millions of jobs for the region. and that lays the need to work even more in this region on a clear trilateral deregulation. for instance, in nano materials for some vehicles. to date we also agreed to work in a coordinated fashion on action that we will be adopting to modernize infrastructure and for border mansion. after 10 years, the last two years we have seen three new crossing areas between mexican and united states after 10 years after not having seen one new route, and the continued to work to make our border more dynamic said it is a border of opportunities. tomorrow in washington, our

ministers of economy and of trade will be meeting within the framework of the free trade commission of nafta to continue to work toward achieving these objectives. today we have seen prosperity depends on a greater integration, whiffle respect of sovereignties, and i would like to reiterate the interest of my country to join as soon as possible the tpp and its negotiations because we know mexicans can contribute to a quick and successful conclusion of this project. if we joined forces in this region, we will see the greatest growth in the world and generate benefits for our families, our workers, and also substantially improving the competitiveness of the three countries in this context. we are convinced that the experience and participation of mexico will enrich this free

trade project of a later generation that encompasses countries in asia, oceania, and america. our country has a clear commitment to economic freedom. we have the support of the private sector to enter into debt tpp. we are a nation that believes in free trade as that tool to foster growth and development, and we have acted as a result of this. i would like to thank the united states and canada for renewing their support to mexico. as you know in june, mexico will host the summit of the leaders of the g-20. we are convinced over and above the topics we are dealing with there, the complex international environment needs to be an opportunity so the world can redefine its development model with a commitment to the well- being of peoples and care for the environment.

ladies and gentlemen, in the summer, the representatives of the united states, canada, and mexico have undertaken a constructive dialogue. we have talked about the enormous challenges facing us to work together in a globalized world, and we will be working on building a new era that consolidates the right conditions for development in north america on the basis of a successful partnership as we have seen so far today. president obama, thank you for your hospitality. >> i would like to begin by thanking you for so graciously and warmly hosting us here today. i would also like to begin by offering my sincere condolences to you, felipe, the people of mexico on the passing of your former president, who i gather had much to do with the nafta partnership we enjoy today.

canada places the highest value on the french and partnership among our three countries. we form one of the world's largest trade free zones which has been of great benefit to our nation's. we are effective collaborators in the g-20, respond to the challenges of the global recession, and the stability of the past few years. [speaking in french] our government is focused on creating jobs, growth, and long- term prosperity for all canadians. [speaking in french]

i am especially pleased the united states has welcomed canada's and mexico plus interest in joining the trans- pacific partnership. we had discussions on continued operations in managing our borders, streamlining regulations, securing supply chains, and advance to clean energy. in addition we have announced a brunn plan for north american prepared this and a new dialogue of security to fight transnational organized crime. finally, we discussed the agenda for the upcoming summit of the americas in colombia, and we look forward to work with canada and mexico -- with the

united states and mexico. once again, i look forward to continuing our discussions in cartagena. >> we have questions from each breast delegation. -- press delegation. >> thank you. after last week's argument that the supreme court, many experts believe there could be a majority to strike down the individual mandate. if that were to happen, how would you guarantee health care to the uninsured and as americans who became uninsured as a result of pulp wall? also, over the weekend, mitt romney said the u.s. needs to promote free enterprise around the world. he said, "our president does not have the same feeling about american exceptional is and as we do, and some people around the world have begun to question

that." my question to both of you is whether you think american influence has declined of the last four years, and, president obama, if you would like to respond to that, too? >> well, on the second part of your question, it is still primary season for the republican party. they will make a decision about who their did it will be. it is worth noting that i first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the democratic convention that was entirely about american exceptional listen. my entire career has been a testimony to american exceptionalism, but i will cut folks some slack now because they're trying to get their nomination. with the sec to help their --

with respect to health care, i am confident the supreme court will uphold law, and the reason is in accordance with precedent out there, it is constitution. that is -- it is constitutional. that is the opinion across experts in the ideological spectrum, including conservative appellate court justices he said this was not a close case. it is important -- as i watched the commentary -- to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. theple's lives are affected lack of availability of health care, in affordability of health care, their ability to get health care because of pre-

existing conditions. the law already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that otherwise would not have it. there are tens of thousands of adults with pre-existing conditions who have health care right now because of this law. parents did not have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can be prevented from getting health care. that is part of this law. millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. americans all across the country greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and getting prepared to it -- getting prevent of care. that is not even speak to the 30 main people who stand to gain coverage once it is fully implemented in 2014. i think it is important and the

american people understand, the justices should understand, in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure people with pre-existing conditions can get health care. so there is not only an economic element and a legal palma, but a human element to this, and i hope that is not forgotten in this political debate. ultimately, i am confident the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. i would just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we heard, the biggest problem on the bench was

judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would a dulyw overturne constituted and passed law. well, this is a good example, and i am pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step. i'm sorry. you know, as i said, we are confident this will be -- that this will be upheld. i'm confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld, and that is not just my opinion. that is the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and

judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they are not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency. >> your question was a little local for me, so i am glad the president of the united states entered it. i would take advantage of this moment to say that after the increasing the budget line for the full insurance sixfold and after having built more than 1000 new clinics in the country, we're getting close to recent price reaching universal coverage of health care, full, free care coverage for all people up to 18 years, including cancer coverage of the 112

million mexicans, that 106 million will have the effect of health care coverage. i would to say that i would hope that one of the greatest economies in the world like the united states could follow our example in achieving this, because it was a great thing. >> i do not think you expect me to enter into the u.s. presidential election. let me just say this. this is something i think transcends governments in canada or administrations in the united states. for canada, the united states which is and always will be our closest neighbor, our best friend. i believe american leadership is at all times great and indispensable for the world. i think of the past few years we have done great things together in terms of the response, both through the gee-20 and by

lavery through the recession and recovery. we have under your leadership, a successful intervention in libya. it is been a tremendous partnership. >> somebody from the mexican press corps. >> good afternoon. for president calderon, we would like to know what president obama said what would be done to stop the trafficking of weapons. president obama, but plants does your government have in the presidential election process in mexico what was discussed in terms of the interviews with candidates and mexican city, and i would also like to know, for the government of the united states, there is a threat for

the country in a sense on weapons, mr. president. weapons have come into the country, leaks of letting the arms prepared for prime minister harper, is that requirement going to be removed for mexicans? thank you. >> my position on this subject is very clear. let me broach it from another angle. it has been shown that when there is an excessive availability of weapons in any given society there is an increase in violence and the murders that go on many years after this phenomenon took place. in many places in africa, we have seen it in el salvador,

guatemala, eastern europe, kosovo, bosnia. has taken place in many different areas of the world, and we sustain that the expiring of the band in 2004 coincided exactly with the beginning of the hardships -- harshest period of violence we have ever seen. during my government, we have seized over 140,000 weapons in four years. i think that the vast majority have been assault weapons, and many were sold in gunshots in the united states, along the border. there are approximately 8000 weapons shops.

that means there are approximately nine weapons stores for each walmart that exist in the united states and mexico. a good deal of our discussion did touch upon this, but i recognize at the same time the administrative efforts undertaken by president obama and his administration said the control the export of guns to mexico. we have seen a more active effort in the sense -- in this sense than any time in the past. i had a great deal of respect for the u.s. legislation, especially the second amendment, but i know if we do not stop the trafficking of weapons into mexico, and also if we do not have mechanisms to forbid the sale of weapons, such as we had in the 1990's, or four registry

of guns, at least for assault weapons, then we are never going to be able to stop the violence in mexico or stop a feature turning of those guns upon the u.s.. i am against the traffic of weapons and mexico and everywhere. government of mexico will never be able to accept anything that has to do with opening that appeared president obama has been clear on the position of the government. we understand the work being done by the agencies to stop criminals, but this cannot be an obstacle to the cooperation we have to have a month in mexico and the united states to stop criminal activities that underlie this issue and which is one of the greatest obstacles

and problems for mexico. i understand the internal problems from a political point of view in the united states, and i mention this ad in public. i said things exactly the way i believe them. there is a great deal discrepancy between points of view, but the very complex political issues, but it is important underscore it. and i believe that is the only part of the question that i can answer, and i would say what president obama has already answered was very well done. >> briefly, what with respect to the presidential elections in mexico, vice president biden met with the candidates to express sentiments that are similar to the ones that stephen just expressed, and that is the friendship between our three countries come off the

partnership with our three countries, extends beyond and is more fundamental than any particular party or any particular election, and that is the message we have to send with respect to mexico. i have had an excellent working relationship with felipe. i expect to have the same excellent working relationship with the next president, because the underlying interest we have the economically, socially, the people-to-people relationship is so important it transcends the partners and politics. with respect to the issue of guns, i have made clear in every meeting i have had with felipe we have put into practice efforts to stop illegal gun trafficking north to south. it is a difficult task, but one we have taken seriously. we have taken the unprecedented steps. we will continue to coordinate

closely with the mexican government because we recognize the toll it has taken with respect to families and innocent individuals inside mexico. this part of our broader comprehensive cooperation in weakening the crypt of narco trafficking within mexico, and we recognize we have a responsibility to reduced demand for drugs, a responsibility to make sure drugs -- not only guns, but cash is not flowing into mexico. the president takes his responsibilities seriously to apply proper law enforcement in mexico. we will keep on partnering together to continue to make progress on this important issue. >> asked me about the visa requirement. the visa requirement is really the only effective means in canada we have today to deal with large scale bogus refugee

claims under our refugee determination system. legislation being implemented before parliament to enhance those changes -- that legislation will in the future and in years to come give us tools other than the visa requirement to deal with that particular problem. as of today, that remains the only tool at our disposal. >> hello, gentlemen. i have a couple of questions on two critical issues, trade and crime perry, on trade, prime minister harper, why is canada's position at the negotiating table on the transpacific partnership so important to canada, and secondly, to be a player, are you willing to give up as a precondition our supply management system? president obama, you said there

needs to be high standards for a country to be there. do you think yes, canada has met those high standards, whether you want us to drop our traditional supply and management system? in crime, we in canada read about the challenges mexico has on the drug cartels and the violence that occurs down there, perhaps it is possible many convenience and even americans do not see this as affecting their lives, or affecting their communities. why do you three gentlemen think a three-country coordinated approach is necessary to protect our citizens? prime minister, keeping the only people who can see both english and french, if he could see that, please. >> in response to the question on the transpacific partnership, this is our desire to be part of that negotiation is part of canada's ambitious trade negotiations.

we are in the gratian's with over 50 -- we are in negotiations with over 50 countries around the world. this is an extension of our government's desire to broaden our free trade relationships around the world. canada's position on trans- pacific partnership is the same as our position in any trade negotiation. we expect to negotiate and debate all manner of issues, and we seek ambitious out comes to free trade agreements, and those negotiations, canada will attempt to promote and defend canada plus interest, not across the comic, but in individual sectors. on the question of secure a -- look, this kirby problems -- the security problems, the security challenge, particularly around the drug trade is a serious

regional problem throughout our hemisphere that has real impacts, not the kind of governance and security impact we see in central america, but has a real serious impacts on the health and safety of communities and our country as well. as these criminal networks are trans-national, it is important part tends to fight them are equally trans-national. is why we work together on these initiatives. [speaking in french]

[speaking in french]

[speaking in french] >> with respect to the tpp, as is true of any process of arriving at a trade agreement, every country participating will have to make some modifications

. that is inherent in the process, because each of our countries have their own idiosyncrasies. certain industries that have in the past been protected come certain practices that may be unique to that country, but end up creating disadvantages for this from other countries, so it is a process of never getting making adjustments. canada will not be unique in that. are there areas we would like to see some changes in terms of canadian practices? of course. , i assure you canada will have some complaints directed at us, and every member of the trans- pacific partnership will have to make some modifications in order to accommodate the larger interest of growing the overall economy and expanding trade and ultimately jobs. i do not anticipate there's something unique about canada

that would not be true for any of the other aspirants to forming this transpacific partnership. with respect to the transnational drug trade, first and foremost we should be concerned about what is happening in mexico and central america because when you have innocent families, women, and children being gunned down on the streets, that should be everybody's problem, not just their problem. there is a sense of neighborly regard and concern that has to be part of our calculus and foreign policy. more practically, united states shares a border with mexico. if you have this kind of

violence and the power of the drug trade as a whole expanding in countries that are so closely affiliated with us in central american countries, if you start getting a larger and larger space in which they have control over serious chunks of the economy, if they are undermining institutions in these countries, that will impact our capacity to do business in these countries, could have a spillover effect in terms of our nationals living in those countries, tourists visiting these countries. a could have a deteriorating effect overall of the nature of our relationship, and that is something we have to pay attention to. as i said, i think the mexican government has taken this very seriously, at great cost to itself. we have an obligation to take it just as seriously because we

are the ultimate destination for a large chunk of this market. stephen and i were trading notes, in places like united states and canada, this is not just an issue of -- traditionally was a very urban. this is disseminated across our communities. in rural communities, you have methamphetamine sales that are devastating young and old alike, and some of that is cordially sourced in mexico. even in the remotest, most isolated parts of canada or the united states, they are being impacted by this drug trade, and we need to work cooperatively in order to deal with it. >> i would like to look at it from another standpoint. the security of north america is

absolutely tied to each of its member states. there cannot be full security in this country or in canada or in mexico if we do not have a system that actually enables the corp. mechanism -- the cooperation mechanisms are transnational by and their nature, and these threats are not just tied to drug trafficking. i will give two examples of success stories. one, the attempt one,to mexico -- one, the attempt to take one mexico.fi's children to this implied a north american operation, because it was headed

up by a canadian person, and this multinational operation would not have been of what it without the international security mechanisms that we did not have before, but now we have. also, being able to avoid the assassination of the saudi ambassador in washington would not have been possible without mechanisms of cooperation we have today. thinking about what happens in mexico does not have anything to do with the security of the citizens of this country or of any other citizen of north america is a mistake. we have to understand that we are all tied to one another. now, security understood in the regional cents, in order to understand that, we have to understand where the greatest threat to security actually layws. united states has a clear

understanding of its security priorities, the threat of terrorism, of international terrorism, terrible attacks on the u.s. people, and another threat is in the power of transnational organized crime, which i insist is not crime organizations that is strictly mexican in nature. they do not have a nationality. they're probably operating right here in this city, in washington, for instance. the number of homicides per 100,000 inhabitants is higher by more than 10 or 20 than the largest cities in mexico. these are international organizations that are growing in a destructive capacity, well beyond borders, and threatened everyone everywhere. it is true the efforts we

undertake clearly make it possible to contain that threat, and to prevent it from acting in society, not just in united states and canada, but also in mexico, and that explains why last year and 23 million tourists came to our country by plane, plus another 7 million in the cruise ships. that is also why there are 2 million mexicans living comfortably in mexico and many living here who came to visit us here and wanted to see us in the white house, and that is why 1.6 million canadians come to mexico every year. that is 5% of the canadian population that travels to mexico every year, and that also explains why, despite the fact

that a state such as texas recommend that none of its young people should travel to anywhere in mexico, that is why there are hundreds of thousands of young to mexico and enjoyed it and why we have not seen one single incident with spring breakers this past spring. great concern, because these are multinational criminal organizations, and the mechanisms to defeat them have to be multinational. in addition to the solidarity, and expressions of solidarity, of president obama, he says he cannot jump aside from the expressions of threats that is facing a neighbor, the vulnerability from the institutional issues in mexico, also jeopardize the citizens of south america. >> thank you very much, everyone.

[unintelligible] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tomorrow president obama will talk about why he disagreed with aul ryan's budget a ppproach that passed the house last week. later, live coverage online act booktv.org. beginning at 6:30 eastern.

>> when we were warned that we will suffer a cyber attack, it tells me we have to move rapidly but not in a way that's violates privacy or the basic tenets of privacy. and it encourages quick reaction, not regulatory environments. >> tonight the chairman of the house subcommittee greg walden on cybersecurity. >> with congress on break, we're 'saturing some of booktv weekend programs.

8:30, inside the liberation square of the egyptian revolution. invisible arab." booktv in primetime all week on c-span2. c-span3, it is american history in prime time. tonight the 34th president, president eisenhower. then the architect of the design of the proposed monument to president eisenhower. after his meeting at the white house, stephen harper spoke at the woodrow wilson center.

[applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction. i will be very brief. [speaking in french] i am here prime nearly today to meet with president obama, president calderon, to discuss our shared north american agenda, the economy, and the competitiveness of this region in the context of a recovery from the global recession. also we discussed the common security challenges that we increasingly have in this hemisphere, and we discussed the

promotion of democratic values as we approach the summit of the americas, which will be held in cartagena very shortly. this has been today -- you are aware of a former president of mexico passing away, and he was one of the architects of the nafta agreements, and this has been a burgeoning three-way relations since then. we meet periodically to discuss these shared concerns, and we never miss an opportunity to discuss our relationship with the united states, which, for canada, remains overwhelmingly important. i know this crowd knows, but to many americans do not know, canada-u.s. economic relationship is the largest economic relationship in history, the largest trade relationship in history. $700 billion a year now in trade. we are the number one export

destination for the united states. most americans do not understand anything like these numbers. the united states exports more to canada than it does to the u.k. and germany combined. we never miss an opportunity to discuss the very important trade and relationships we have with this great country here. >> thank you. [speaking in french] [laughter] now we will talk in english. let me start with competitiveness and innovation, because as i listen to what the president said and what you have just said and what president id, are talking

about a $1 trillion-plus marke t, and that starts to add up to real money. one of the things the presidents list was a joint regime for simplifying regulatory reform. at the wilson center last week we had a meeting on the american innovation and competitiveness, and one of the countries that came up was stifling -- one of the subject that came up was stifling regulation. what are the ways to to spur competitiveness and take that trillion we now have and multiplied that by a lot? >> in terms of regulation, what we were really talking about today is -- from agreements we

made earlier by latterly, united states and mexico, and from the united states and canada, that would just put into effect in the last few months, the regulatory cooperation council. we have officials that the working with industry a range of ways that we can standardize, harmonize, simplifying regulatory differences between our countries, particularly for canada, a huge concern is --ebody used the expressivion and we want to find a way to make our border as seamless as possible, and in dealing with regulatory tax simplification. i met with the business community and everybody is engaged. this is important work going forward. we will look to see how these

bilateral exercises could result in some trilateral agreements as well. in canada, we are going a step farther. we're not concerned merely with the mica regulatory environment. we just introduced the next stage of our economic action plan. one of the things we're doing is trying to streamline project approval. we have an opportunity now here and in asia to define new markets for canadian resources. we have found our regulatory processes are becoming very long, creating an lot of uncertainty for business. we are legislating a clear timeline that does not guarantee people will get the answer they

want, so we can create more certainty for investment and bring more projects to fruition quickly. >> i will get to the energy question, which i know you all want answered. staying on this just a bit, you have been able to do things in terms of your budget that we can only dream of here. obviously, everybody gets the fact that a healthy budget environment can hopefully fix any other issues related to economic growth. how were you able -- how was can of that able to stay -- i would not call it healthy -- but to stay healthier than the united states and europe and other parts of the world? >> there has been threet differences in canada. first has been we had a very solid system of financial

institution regulation. one that is not entirely translatable here, but one that is helping to form the basis of some of the international efforts going on tour for financial sector regulations, so we have a strong financial sector, strong balance sheets, and this is a big difference. we had a strong fiscal position going into the recession. not only was the government in canada, provincial governments, running surpluses, but we had debt levels that were low. this meant a couple of things, which meant that our fiscal positions were solid, but we had more flexibility. we did a large scale sinless program in canada come on the order of -- stimulus program in canada. cause we had such a low debt level we could encourage that

kind of deficit in the short term without worrying about the effects on our interest burden down the road. so we did that. we have withdrawn that stimulus quite quickly as the recovery took effect. having the fiscal flexibility, and we are determined to preserve that. we have set the stimulus we put in would be temporary. did not create any new bureaucracy that would want to sustain that. now we are moving quickly in the context of a majority government in a parliamentary system. we are moving quickly to ensure that we return to balance, and we will return to balance in the course of this mandate. in fact we are about half, maybe a little less than half, the deficit we had at the height, and we should be in balance no later than 2015.

>> in balance -- wow. can you give us more information as to what the stimulus program did and how you were able to avoid an overhead a bureaucracy to get the money to where it needed to go? >> there were a lot of components to the stimulus program in canada, but the lion's share was essentially the federal government funding a portion of so-called shovel- ready projects. infrastructure already planned and close to launch, infrastructure projects of other levels of government, in a few cases, the private sector. we went for projects that were already going ahead, accelerated time lines, which largely did it outside our own government, and the required contributions from all other partners. they had not just a stake

financially, but also in the thing not being indefinite. we found that was a pretty effective approach. >> private sector money? >> some, but mostly they were injured-governmental projects. -- inter-governmental projects. >> the goal was to take some of the sales tax in los angeles and apply it to the bill out of in for a stretcher, but the federal government to front load some of the money so instead of taking 30 years to pay for by tax revenue, it will take>> we did g quite like that. we did require shares from the provinces and municipalities. we did have available for some

municipalities a loan facility. although it was not broadly used. but we did not use tax revenue. >> we have a variation on that call than infrastructure bank which sounds like that. we return to energy, a subject everyone cares about. canada is rich in energy resources. the president talked about a joint effort to build cream -- build clean energy jobs. my question relates to energy security. that is the motive -- the least polarizing word we could use. do you see a possibility of north america, the three countries, putting into the game the energy resources we have with pipelines and other capacities to of those resources around and a cheating energy security? that means no reliance on middle eastern oil -- it could mean the

other things, but the ability to power whatever our needs are. a mix of clean energy and oil resources and others. if you could see that the future, what role the pipelines play? does the decision to delay a portion of the keystone pipeline effect that timeline? does canada's interest in having other energy partners, especially in asia, dilute the possibility that canada will bring enough to the table to achieve this north american energy security objective? >> there are several portions to that question. canada, i like to say whatever the energy mix of the future is, canada will be a major supplier.

canada is among the top two or three in every single energy source that is out there. energy security for us has never meant the same thing as it does for the united states. we have never had the same fundamental threat of an energy shortage. in the case of north america as a whole, the shale gas development, as president obama said earlier today, the capacity for enormous geopolitical shift. the u.s. is particularly rich in natural gas of that variety. this creates the potential for north america to be essentially not just energy self-sufficient but an energy exporter. interestss, canada's here are a little different. particularly in light of the

interim decision on keystone. what it has highlighted for canada is that our issue is not north american self- sufficiency, it's diversifying our energy export markets. we cannot be in a situation where our one and only energy's -- partner could say no to energy products. the truth of the matter is when it comes to oil in particular, we face a significant discount because of the fact we are a supplier. we have made it clear to the people of canada that one of our natural -- where our priorities is to make sure we have the capacity to export our energy products outside of north america.

we're still going to be a major supplier to the united states. it will be long time before the u.s. is not an export market. but it can't be the only export market. that's not in our interests commercially or in terms of price. >> can clean energy be part of the next? we're trying to export clean energy. but today, president obama was talking about clean energy and if we have an easy choice between 30 energy and clean energy, who wouldn't take clean energy? how big a piece of the pie is that? >> it is going to be a growing part of the mix. it's a cleaner form and that is where the growth that's.

-- that's for the growth is. we have a engaged in actions with the obama administration to try to get better and cleaner energy usage. we also invest in newer technology like wind, solar, tidal, carbon capture and storage and all kinds of energy innovations. but the truth of the matter is this -- i know this is not a popular thing to say, but the truth of the matter is if you look at supply and demand curves for energy in the future, the demand for hydrocarbons is going to remain enormous, even with the growth of clean energy sources. the argument i make to people who are skeptical of climate change, if you look at supply and demand, we have to be

finding ways to get plentiful, regionally -- reasonably cost outside of hydrocarbon production because oil production cannot keep up with the mend. that is why, not just right now but over the last several years, a rising price of oil. it is simply a supply and demand phenomenon. the way i see it, we will have lots of hydrocarbons in the mix, including increased natural gas. as unpopular as it is, nuclear is going to have to be a growing part of the mix. it remains the only other large scale as reasonably cost effective option. other options we have great hope for are either not large scale

or not reasonably priced. >> i share your view on nuclear. the challenges safe storage of spent fuel. there are new ideas and there's also this idea about an international fuel bank that could provide for this function around the world. that might be an answer to iran. the fuel bank would have been in russia but it could be a worldwide solution for all countries engaged in civil nuclear energy production. there is lots more to talk about. the canada-u.s. production is huge. they keep adding content on both sides of the border. >> the average car, north

american car, when being produced, crosses the border 16 times. as it is being assembled. >> the mexico institute, some research on their shared border with mexico shows 40% of the content of exports to mexico and imports from mexico is contributed by both sides of the border. it's very different from a relationship with china. let's turn to foreign policy. if anyone has questions, i hope you handed them off some place. foreign policy. as i told you, i focus and congress was on intelligence and security. we have an extraordinarily close relationship with canada and we have for years. on security, canada has been our

closest ally or one of them in terms of the things we're doing in the middle east region. one of those things is trying to find better answers on syria. i asked prime minister harper whether his country was at the friends of syria and meeting over the weekend. the answer is yes. they decided tentatively to provide some humanitarian aid and communications equipment to the opposition in syria. how do you ss that? are there any better answers? if we could break syria away from iran, my suggestion has been to grant immunity to the

assad family and get them out and provide a stable alternative government. but if we cannot achieve that, how do you see a way forward? >> we agree with the united states and our allies that there is no resolution without assad stepping down. we are working cooperatively with our allies on the sanctions regime and it would be helped along if all members of the security council were cooperating with our objectives. we have to be frank in saying this is a more complex situation and we faced in libya. in libya, we faced a family regime. >> where canada played a very leading role. >> we played a significant role.

we are proud of the work done out of nato. but in libya, we faced a family regime and a widely form opposition against that regime. in the case of syria, it's more complex. the support for the regime is deeper. in some segments of the population that it was in libya. the opposition is much more fragmented. the possibility of prolonged and widespread and dangerous chaos is much more marked. what we would all like to see is more unity. we would like to see strength among the opposition but we would also like to see the government make changes and

reach out and work with the opposition. it's hard to see how this ends well if both sides do not do that. our assessment is the opposition doesn't appear strong enough to overthrow the government and is not clear to us that there will be a unified opposition if it did take place. you'd think it would be clear that it doesn't appear any amount of repression is going to stop the opposition or rebellion or the demonstrations. it would be greatly helpful if we could get all members of the security council pulling toward a resolution, but we do not have that today. >> i need some questions in my hand. is someone bringing them? how many of you have written questions down on the card?

this was the plan we had. we received questions on keystone. what a surprise. americans are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands. should companies be forced to offset oil production with cream production? if production can be approved after the election, will this affect the position on the northern gateway pipeline? >> first of all, everything i have seen indicates overwhelming public opinion in favor of the keystone pipeline. president obama has told me repeatedly that this decision

will be made on the basis of its merits and i have no reason not to believe him. but i think there are three things that are very important to say about this. first, one should not in any way minimize the sheer economic scale of this. this has the capacity of the employing up to 30,000 people on both sides of the border. this is a huge project that will have enormously positive employment and economic activity effect across a range of industries in both countries, which is why business and labour are so strongly supportive of it. second, we talked about this earlier -- energy security. it is not possible for the united states to get a friendlier and more secure supply of oil anywhere than from

canada. if one looks at the options -- the middle east, venezuela, this is the better option for energy security. the third is the environmental impacts should not be exaggerated. oil sands oil, while they are heavy in emissions, are no heavier than typical heavy crude. in venezuela, that's for a lot of the displaced oil will be from. not that there are not environmental challenges in the oil sands, but they should not be exaggerated or unique or out of the mainstream of the oil industry. that's just not the case. in terms of the second part of your question, what would back -- with the approval of this change your mind? the answer is no.

that underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets. we have taken a significant price hit by virtue that we are a capitalist supplier and that doesn't make sense in terms of the broader interests of the canadian economy. i am a strong and firm believer in the importance, not to the economic importance of our relationship, but the security importance of the united states and the world. but we cannot take this to the point where we are creating risks and to not diversified to asia when asia is a growing part of the world. it simply makes no sense to canada. the obama speak for

administration, but i do think most americans would prefer to buy oil from canada than from a long list of other countries. in our country, there is this issue about offsets -- it is heavy crude and we buy it from other places, but people are concerned about and there were concerns about the moving of the pipeline. >> my understanding is a reading concerns have been addressed in nebraska itself. much of are i'm believer in offsets. if you are concerned about emissions, you will find a way to control emissions. it's a way of pretending you addressed emissions when you really haven't. >> changing the subject. [laughter]

when will canada decide to form a customs union? >> i think it's a purely theoretical question. since we signed nafta, there has been a tremendous growth in trade and integration and the integration of supply chains between our economies. but i have no appetite -- i've sensed no appetite in that united states to take the economic relationship to any fundamentally deeper level than it is today in terms of things like a customs union. i just don't think that's in the cards, particularly in the context of nafta. fighting has more to -- what we have done is we have this beyond

the border initiative where we are finding ways of avoiding duplicative screening where we cross the border and finding ways to more screening and security checks on the perimeter of the continent rather than the border. these are ways to significantly increase integration, trade, tourism flow across the border. but i just do not see a customs union in the cards. >> i think those are very smart initiatives. another term for it is the smart border. pushing toward the border out that way is smart. we did that with the safe ports act which requires a cargo to be screened at the port of embarkation in china or some other asian port. then the cargo is secured across

the ocean so when it arrives at airport, it isn't dangerous. there are ways to match these priorities. >> we are trying to adopt the view that i forget the exact term -- check once and verify twice. >> i am checking my watch, but i think we still have more time. here is one -- you have made the arctic a central priority in your foreign policy. ice has been melting at an unprecedented rate, causing concern among some and opening previously unavailable resources and the shipping routes. is the arctic a place for cooperation more competition? where does canada fit? >> it is probably a place for a little bit of both. it is true that more ice is

melting and it's also true that the economics of commodity prices are going to drive resource development in areas like the arctic where costs are higher and has been harder to make economic projects viable. a big part of our country is actually in the arctic region. we put a vague interest on securing our sovereignty there and seeing resources develop not just in the country but for the economic opportunity of the people who live there. through the arctic council and others, we cooperate, for instance on a lot of the sea and the mapping of the arctic sea bed and the resolution of various claims. but those things said, there will be increasingly intense

competition for economic activity in that part of the world. >> changing the subject back to the border, can lead to more such as biometrics to allow good people to pass faster and easier? >> yes. in his investments in biometrics and information sharing between our various security agencies are all part of the program we put together with the obama administration. the principle is simple. how do we increase the ability of ordinary businesses, ordinary travelers and tourists, friends and neighbors, to cross the border regularly while being able to identify risks and threats and identify them early?

all of those things are part of the answer to that equation. i am of the strong view that we have seen this all over the place -- checking millions and millions of people, making them go through lineups and screenings is not in and of itself and effective way to identify the potentially dangerous. we have to have more sophisticated ways of doing it. >> i think you were just describing tsa. [laughter] having been in at the creation, i would say a couple of things -- one is that we are getting smarter about how we do it. but we have layered security. we don't just have one way to try to catch people. these things are all deterrence

and some of them are enormous inconveniences' and seem very silly. but one thing we're always hit with his why do little kids or babies have to be checked? some of the folks trying to attack us have no respect for human life and would put explosives under the thumb or straps things onto them. it is highly unfortunate that they do not value life the way we do, so we need processes that look at cases that would not be suspect. kind of a big topic in the last several weeks -- as the head of the country's longstanding universal health care, is this a budgetary burden or boom?

>> that's a tough question. it depends on the context. many canadian businesses will tell you that having a universal, single payer system simplifies life for them and reduces the cost of doing business. on the other hand, we can't fool people and not tell you that the sheer growth of health-care budgets in canada is a serious concern to all senior governments. i would make this observation -- i know the health care system of the united states is very different in the health-care system of canada. all western developed countries have variants of a mixed health- care system. my observation would be that in spite of these various differences, the problems that

afflict virtually all of them are the same -- that is the constant pressures on them keep growing faster than the ability of western companies to -- western countries to sustain economic growth. i think there are two reasons. nowadays, we can do so much in terms of health care and so much in terms of curing people and extending life. if we have an unlimited supply of money, we can almost to an unlimited amount of things. the problem is we don't. our capacity to improve and sustain life has grown over the past couple of generations. that's more difficult problem. the other problem is our economies are not growing fast enough. this is something i have talked to the canadian people about.

we just won a national election by emphasizing the fact the canadian economy has done so much better than other developed economies over the past several years. but the truth his that's not a good measure because most developed economies are not growing the way they need to be growing. one of the things we've got to do is find ways of increasing the productive capacity and growth capacity. we have a range of measures there, immigration, animation, and other measures so we can keep growing our economy and keep funding programs like our health care program which our citizens want and value. the truth of the matter i will

say the same in that united states and europe, i travel to asia and i know many people in the audience do. when you see the big emerging economies, these people are smart, hungary, and hardworking. unless we find ways of competing with them and growing, we will be under considerable pressure regardless of the nature of our health-care system. >> i think everyone agrees the challenges are hard. one of the issues that came up during the fight in congress over health care was rationing care and the disproportionate amount spent at the end of life as opposed to the beginning of life. i suppose you have the same issues. >> in some ways even more. >> because there are defined benefits that go to a certain point. >> the government is the sole

provider, so that lands directly on the government's lap. frankly, it is the provincial governments in canada that figure out how to ration the services and make the best use of the dollar's and it's increasingly difficult decision. > we have a lot of other questions and i cannot really see but i think we have 11 minutes to go. let's just pick a few random ones. this one about the trans-pacific partnership did come up today and canada's interest in joining it and mexico, too. i think president obama was asked whether he would support that and i believe he said yes. >> he was very positive in his comments. >> the question is, when will canada join? you are the prime minister, i expect you to know the answer to this. [laughter] >> canada has certainly indicated our strong interest in this. we have a very aggressive trade

negotiation agenda. i remind everyone that when our government took office in 2006, in spite of the fact that we are one of the most open trading economies in the developed world, canada had trade agreements with only five countries in the entire world, which is one of the absolute lowest. we signed trade deals and are in the process of negotiating with 50 others. including the european union, who are still optimistic about signing an agreement this year, with japan, india, so our interest in joining the set -- transpacific partnership is only natural. we have agreements with three of the country's including obviously, the united states, and our strong sense is that most of the members of the trans-pacific partnership would like to see canada joined. i think there is some debate

within the administration about the merits of that, but our strong view is that if we are to build on the north american advantage, to get around the table where you want people to have shared interests, and makes sense for all three of the national partners to be part of it. >> i will put these together. a couple more environmental questions. you have just instituted spending cuts and this questioner has heard that there will be cuts to their quality programs. he or she wants to know whether canadian scientists can continue to collaborate with their u.s. counterparts, and another question that could be entered together is what role should hydropower play in canada's clean energy exports to the u.s.? cracks just on the government owes the budgetary savings, the

scale of our savings program in canada is really very modest compared to what you are reading about in most western developed countries. our budgetary plan to get back to balance involves essentially a 2% reduction in federal spending over a three-year period. this is not enormous sums of money. what we are trying to do in all areas is essentially find ways that we can deliver similar services and goods to the canadian public at frankly a lesser cost than we have been doing. we believe there is lots of room for efficiency in the federal government. i hear rumors about that in the federal government here as well. the fact that we engage in air quality programs in collaboration with our american counterparts, that is not going

to change. what was the second part? hydropower. we are already a significant exporter of hydro energy to the nine states. quebec is the very big exporter of hydropower. we have a very integrated electricity market between our two countries already. there is lots of capacity for canada to dramatically increase its hydroelectric power and to export more of that power to the united states. this is one form of energy we will not be exporting to asia. >> that would be tricky. >> we have tremendous capacity for growth here, and there are regulatory obstacles on both sides of the border. we are addressing the ones on our side of the border and think it would make a lot of sense for the united states to find ways of purchasing more clean hydropower from canada.

>> this is very specific. the new bridge between windsor and detroit would help make our border sinless. one not for an agreement with president obama on this? -- why not forge an agreement with president obama on this? >> we have been working with american governments for some years. some of you may know that there are unusual circumstances around the detroit-windsor crossing that we are trying to overcome. we think it is essential -- let's be frank about that. there is a bridge there today that has a private owner, and my understanding of the private owners position is that he not only owns the bridge but some help owns the broader crossing. of course, we do not accept that, it is obviously public space, and governments on both sides of the border have a right to make sure that we have the

ability of the growing cross border traffic to be accommodated within infrastructure. i think the preference would be public infrastructure. we have found in terms of your responsibility on your side of the border, we find ourselves primarily dealing with the state of michigan rather than the government of the united states. that is where the locus of authority is. we have a very good working relationship with the governor there and believe we are making significant progress to realizing a new crossing, hopefully before i leave office. >> at least we can agree that is not a bridge to nowhere. >> this is the biggest single corridor of trade in the world, and the concept that somebody could claim that he privately owned it all, to meet, is ludicrous. to some degree, that is the

situation we are dealing with today. >> good question, don't you agree? thank you, folks. this is really good. we have five minutes. here is one on immigration. how have canadian immigration policies to help to attract highly skilled labor? there was a question put to you about visa policy with mexico. we are not doing so well on immigration policy. how are you doing? [laughter] >> like the united states, canada has always been a land of immigrants. i like to remind people, as in the united states, you will hear lots of critiques of canadian immigration policy, even in many cases from immigrants themselves. the fact of the matter is, notwithstanding all of the efficiency of immigration

policy, that immigration and immigrants have an overwhelmingly successful in canada. the diversity and the dynamism and energy and the hope that immigrants bring to our two countries, i don't think we can really overstate how important that is. you can look at immigrants just as people who contribute to the economy, but they provide a vitality and excitement about our nation that really is unmatched anywhere. there are so few places in the world -- canada, we like to think we are number one in terms of the ability of someone to come from anywhere and become ultimately a full-fledged part of the community. that is a very unique experience, and in a globalized world where we are increasingly all moving much closer than we realize, this is a tremendous

advantage. you go to a country like japan. japan is a wonderful country, but japan has an aging population problem, as we all do. japan also has a diversity program up -- and diversity problems. it lacks the economic and demographic benefits. lacks the cultural advantage of immigration, which i think are substantial. notwithstanding all the critiques, immigration has been a great thing for both our countries, particularly for canada. however, our government has said that in the context of the labor market challenges that we face through an aging population, that making sure immigration better serve our economic and labor -- and labor force is a priority. we are in process through the budget and other actions of making some significant changes to our immigration system, so

that it is more targeted on those economic and labor force needs. serves those needs well, but often not as much by design as it should be. >> that is an ongoing subject of discussion here, too, as is comprehensive immigration reform, which we came close to enacting a few years back, strongly supported by president bush 43. we missed it by just a couple of votes. one of the perceptions -- i will ask you one more of these questions, but i just wanted to comment on this. at least i heard from our security folks over the years that is much easier to get into canada than is to our country, and one of the worries was, some folks who are not appealing could get into your country and then try to cross the border to attack us and our country. one was a fellow who was apprehended at the border with washington state and who had a rental car with a trunkful of explosives, intending to blow up

lax. illegal immigration is a challenge in both countries. >> we work very closely with our american counterparts in all of the security challenges, and some of the ones you mentioned. there has been outstanding cross border cooperation. i would say this, i sometimes hear these concerns about dangerous immigration from canada. i will tell you today we on the shadow of a doubt that there is a far higher percentage of illegal immigrants in the united states than in canada. >> i don't think anyone would argue. >> i can also tell you that in terms of movement across the border, in terms of undesirable individuals or weapons, drugs, there is far more that comes north and go south. that is this something that is important to remember. -- just something that is important to remember. [applause]

>> i think our clock has run out. sadly, we could not get to every question, but this is a good way to end it. what in your experience is the greatest myth that people hold about canada and canadians? >> i guess i don't know how to answer that. there are all kinds of stories, i don't know how true they are, about americans showing up in the middle of summer wearing winter clothing. it is not quite that cold all the time. the greatest misunderstanding, the greatest challenge canada has with the united states is that the relationship between us is so deep and so close, and for the most part, so seem less,

that in spite of its enormous size, american simply do not understand the scale and economic consequence of it. that is the greatest thing, the greatest challenge that we face. the greatest challenge we face is often getting attention in the united states to issues that are important to us. as i say, partly because it is such a smooth and seamless relationship for the most part. that is really the big challenge that canada always basis. it has been profiled challenge in the united states. -- the big challenge that cannot always faces. occasionally, we find ourselves on matters that are before congress or before the administration, sometimes getting sideswiped. we often get sideswiped significantly by policies that

have absolutely nothing to do with canada. tom donahue always reminds me never to take any of this personally. he says the only reason the united states sometimes treats canada badly is because we give canadians as family, and that is how we treat our family. >> on behalf of the wilson center directors form, we would like to thank you, mr. prime minister, and your top government officials and your beloved ambassador for making this year only private stop on your visit to washington. >> i appreciate the opportunity. has been great. >> everyone has enjoyed enormously your humor, your substance, and your commitment to our shared relationship. thank you. >> thank you.

[applause] >> prime minister harbor also appeared at a press conference with president obama and mexican president calderon today after a summit at the white house. we will have that in about 45 minutes here on c-span at 8:00 eastern. with congress on a break for the next few weeks, we will feature some of book tv's weekend programs in prime time on c- span2. >> tonight, a look at revolution in the middle east. starting at 8:30 eastern, liberation square, inside the egyptian revolution and the birth of a nation. at 9:55, "the invisible ara." at 11:05, "the devil we don't know." book tv and prime time, all week

on c-span2. >> this week, it is american history in prime time. tonight, the 44th president, dwight david eisenhower. at 8:00 eastern, the architect who designed the proposed eisenhower monument, followed by a eisenhower's granddaughter and her opposition to the design. then an archival film on eisenhower produced by the u.s. army. taxis in's 2012 local content vehicle cities tour takes over book tv and american history tv programming on the road. the first weekend of each month, this past weekend featured little rock, arkansas. at the university of arkansas. >> he was particularly interested in the 19th century, the civil war in particular. these are two friends, union and confederate, who fought against

each other in 1862. they survive the war, and remained friends after the war. here they are at age 100, sitting on the porch, talking about the old days. >> american history tv look at life in a war ii japanese internment camp. >> it is surviving the and survivable. the talks about how the arts and crafts were sort of how they kept their sanity. it gave them something to do, and about how depression was so bad in a lot of the camps, there was a high incidence of suicide. people would make these little things, this duty, to give to each other, just as a way to say we support you and care about you. >> the weekend of may 5 and 6,

from oklahoma city, on c-span2 and 3. but tomorrow is primary day in wisconsin, maryland, and the district of columbia. c-span will have election night coverage with results, your reaction, in speeches from the candidates. we will pick up coverage by it politico. you can also watch online at c- span.org and listen on c-span radio. >> welcome. after tuesday, what does it mean for the various players involved? what does it mean for mr romney and mr. santorum? [unintelligible] i think a lot of people are anticipating that if mitt romney wins wisconsin -- there are

three primaries tomorrow. wisconsin is what everyone is watching. if mitt romney wins that state, there will be a lot more pressure on rick santorum to stand back and let mitt romney move on with the nomination. a lot of republicans believe the race is beginning to go on too long and that ultimately if it continues, it could hurt their nominee need for the fall. host: as far as numbers, apart from mr. runyan, if the other candidates, is there any way for them to catch up? guest: there is no way arithmetically for the others to catch up with mitt romney. what they could do potentially and that window looks like it is shutting is denied in the 1144 delegates that he would need before the convention to walk in and say that i've got this nomination wrapped up. host: that was part of the new

gingrich strategy? guest: that's right, it would make a contested convention and perhaps even a brokered convention. i think that hope is fading as well. host: if you look of the front page of "the baltimore sun" - they are looking at maryland but the headline says there is little interest in the primary but interest over all as far as republicans, talk about the interest that you are seeing generated about those who go out to vote for it is they're interested there? guest: there was earlier in the race but look at a state like maryland. it is one of the most liberal states in the country. the republican base there is fairly moderate and there is not a lot of suspense as to how that race will come out. when people talk about voter

interest, what brings voters out more than anything else is a good, close, a fiercely -- fiercely fought race. host: our guest is with "the washington post." if you want to ask her questions, you can call in you can also send us an e-mail and you could also send us a tweet. from my reporter's point of view, what is the untold story? what might be of interest for our viewers that does not get reported often on the gop side? guest: it is a real testing ground for the candidates. it is getting a voters a sense of how well they would perform in the fall against president obama. what i think we are struggling to get our arms around is the role of outside forces this

year. it seems like the parties themselves have become less and less meaningful in part because people themselves are dissatisfied with the political process but also because there are so many outside forces but did not used to exist. chief among them is the super packs that there are others. host: there is a lot of spending going on. will this be the highest cycle when it comes to spending? guest: is on track to do that and we have never seen these outside organizations spent much of all in primary races. at least in presidential primary races. the other thing the super-pacs can do is bring a real negative message to a race and await the candidates themselves would not dare talk about.

they have turned this race more negative than might have been and i think it is a pale preview of what we will see from both sides. host: and wisconsin, there is a recall effort for the government. how much does that play into the primary process? guest: independents in wisconsin can vote in the republican primary said that recall vote may bring some people to the polls who would not perhaps already be there. most of the intensity and that race is to the right so it could increase turnout overall. host: wisconsin, d.c., and maryland are up for their primary tomorrow. attleboro, massachusetts is our first call on our independent line, good morning. caller: i would like to know why the candidates, all of them, have a problem telling the truth. their nose will grow so big they don't stop telling us lies.

we are not stupid and ignorant people out here. we want the truth. we want them to stop telling us how good they live and how bad they live and everything else. they all have a problem, one thing or another. nobody is above having something wrong. why can't they come out with the troops and stop lying? thank you. guest: one thing that has happened in my business over last few cycles is that most major news media organizations have made a greater effort than they have in the past in fact- checking the candidates. we have one of our most talented colleagues run something called the fact checker where it takes the candidates and puts them against the record. host: was the influence on the

information available on the internet? guest: these things get intensely debated on the internet but a lot of the blogging is done from the left perspective or a right perspective. what they are basically doing is kind of firing up their own partisans. i think it is a new role of major news organizations to be a little bit more aggressive ourselves, a lot more aggressive, about fact checking the candidates. host: idaho, go ahead, on the republican line -- caller: i'm calling about the harsh generalization toward the gop nomination and i felt one of your callers talked about the truth of the nominees when one of them is clearly a consistent good voter does -- who does not have things against them.

just like an education, one lady was saying in sports, she says she loves college and her town and there is no reason to go to college, just drop out and go home and live with my parents and no job. host: what are you trying to say with your first point? caller: the first lady was saying the nominees are untruthful. that is erroneous. host: we will leave it there. pennsylvania, republican line -- caller: how are you? i am interested in this subject. i am very curious why candidates who are republican do not discuss the fact that millions of retirees like myself

are not millionaires by any stretch of the imagination but we rely on the dividends to supplement our social security because i just cannot live on social security. the democrats want to raise the taxes on the dividends saying it is for millionaires. gosh, it does not make any sense for a guy like me. i work hard and i have investments in stocks that pay dividends. i don't think i am alone. i think there are millions of people like us. would you comment on that, please? guest: cutting the capital gains rate is another thing the republicans have talked about to reward people and make prudent investments and have to live on them. the democrats would argue that they are basically talking about tax increases on

individuals who make $200,000 and above. we have had a great deal of discussion in this election about what it is that actually qualify as a person for being rich. host: vice president joe biden yesterday talked about the election and the frame some comments toward mitt romney romney [video clip] >> i think governor romney is a little out of touch. he said the american people don't think the policies work and he argued about letting detrick go bankrupt. they are hiring hundreds of thousands of new people, general motors is the largest corporation in the world again, 24 straight months of economic growth, america is going back to work and the unemployment

rate dropped by 1%. host: maybe you can talk about the larger role that the vice president plays these days. guest: we're seeing more joe biden because we're getting into a campaign season. i think the president has had difficulty particularly connecting with blue-collar voters, middle-class voters, and this is what the white house and the presidential campaign believes is the strength of joe biden, that he can connect with joe lunch bucket out there in scranton host: fredericksburg, va., you are next, republican line -- caller: this is ridiculous because the facts that she is talking about are irrelevant. she is talking about where the country is going to go. we have an export-import bank that gives money to foreigners

in order to buy products here. safeays they don't set up companies on both shores and milk the taxpayer? $140 billion -- we have the state department, $52 billion they want. the media does not get it. we see all this. we are not interested in these so-called small fax are not relevant in this election. whether capital gains is 15% or 25% is totally irrelevant. host: what is most relevant to you? caller: the fact that the government wastes a tremendous amount of money and we don't know where this money is going, they have all kinds of little corporations and little agencies set up. whoever heard as such a thing as loaning foreigners' money guaranteed by the taxpayers of they can buy products from america? this is ridiculous.

the state department, $52 billion for the state department when we have had war after war? we've got hillary clinton who has got to be the most bloodthirsty woman in the entire world. while we are at this, let's talk about --host: why don't we end there. i guess it is the idea people may vote on how government operates these days. guest: that's true. but what is great about this show is two calls ago a gentleman said the tax rate is the most important issue, because he is a retiree living on the income from his investments. and this woman is very upset about what the xm bank is doing. its greatest supporters are corporations in this country

that are very export-oriented. so there are many levels to the government. i think people are fed up with all sorts of things. host: is this election different as far as how people vote? guest: i think people are much more aware than they have been in past elections of the level of our debt, of the level of our spending, and are much more fearful about the future and what this means for their children. i have covered a lot of elections. but i really think i hear people talking about the debt and the implications for their children and grandchildren much more than i have in the past. host: st. louis, missouri, fred, hello. caller: hello. thanks for taking my call. i have english as the official language for my platform, like rick santorum.

i ran on that years ago. [unintelligible] the house passed it. host: your question, sir? caller: i want to know why these candidates don't take a nickel out of every lottery ticket and put that toward social security. host: his concern is social security issues. guest: entitlement programs, especially for the baby boom generation beginning to retire, are going to be under a great amount of stress. even in worse trouble than the social security system is the medicare system. host: there's a blurb in your paper this morning when it comes to the campaign. it talks about mr. romney has

supporters running in the state -- foreign policy as far as the candidates are concerned, where has that been in the campaign? guest: it has taken a backseat except for a few issues. there's a lot of talk about iran and what this country's role should be in preventing iran from becoming a nuclear power that could threaten the survival of israel has been probably the main foreign policy discussion. but maryland is an interesting state, as the article indicates, because it is right next to the capital, we do have a lot of people who have made their careers and often retired from the foreign service. i think people in the capital area, there are a lot of people

extremely concerned about foreign policy. host: a story says mitt romney will probably articulate more foreign policy speeches. guest: we don't know what sort of external events are likely to happen, what the situation will look like on the ground in afghanistan. now we are seeing there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the way the war is going and whether it was worth fighting in the first place. in the 2008 election everybody portrayed afghanistan as the war that was more justified than iraq. those kinds of questions are also going to come more to the foreground. and they will be framed as pocketbook issues as people look at the enormous investments. host: regarding the level of non-policy overall amongst the candidates? guest: particularly in parts of

the country like nevada, the upper midwest, and florida, where people, their mortgages are run under water, at this point i think it. has really taken a back seat. host: texas, on the republican line. [dial tone] let's go to charlie in raleigh. caller: i will ask a question concerning the first caller, the woman who said that candidates are all saying untruths. she indicated the press is not doing its job revealing this. i have a question. in the last several years we have seen our news information multiply exponentially. people get news from many sources, including the internet. growing up as a boy, i saw three news networks at night or one of the three, 15 minutes and

that was all. no comments, no cable commentary, no internet. i want to ask how that has tasked the "washington post" in this new climate? and is the newspaper suffering because of this exponential rise of information sources, many of whom are probably soft? guest: i think the entire newspaper industry is under a lot of pressure in part because of the business model, which in the past ran on advertising. if you were looking for job, the first place and you would go is classified ads. now you go to a monster.com. so newspapers are struggling across the board. we have a lot fewer people to cover the news than we used to. you have seen newspaper's closing their domestic bureaus and closing a lot of their foreign bureaus. at the same time, the amount of

information we are being called upon to produce has grown exponentially. you don't wait for the next day's paper anymore. you have to have things out on the internet and have the video to go with it and the facts checked behind it. we are all trying to sort out what the business model is for the future and what our roles will be. i don't think we have quite figured it out yet. host: how does it change your day-to-day? guest: it is interesting. i've been with "the washington post" a couple years, but before that, i was 15 years at "time" magazine. when i got to "time" magazine we had one deadline only. we would produce one magazine per week. we had a bureau in washington of well over 20 people. by the time i left them, the bureau was down to about seven people and we had closed all the domestic bureaus. at the same time we were not just putting out a weekly magazine. i was blogging, tweeting, writing stories for the internet.

we don't get the time we used to for the third or fourth phone call to check a fact, or the thoughtful pieces that used to be everyone's favorite thing to work on. host: in the gallup poll this morning, there is a piece in the "usa today" looking at men and women and how they approach this election. it says when it comes to the top issues for men, it is the deficit -- is there anything there that could be reflected in your reporting particularly on how men and women look at the campaign? guest: we have seen in recent weeks a surprising amount of discussion on social issues. contraception, which is a fight that i think most people thought was pretty well settled decades

ago. and there's some thought that there's this great battle for the women's vote. when i am out in the country talking to people, when i talk to pollsters, they say women are sort of confused on these issues. they don't understand why we are talking about this. my house is burning down economically, so why are we discussing these sort of side issues? host: economic issues are supposed to be at the forefront. guest: that is a reflection of how long the republican primary has lasted and this is a way in which the candidates themselves distinguish themselves from each other. this is how mitt romney distinguishes himself from rick santorum.

host: high-level nominations or at least backings of mr. romney over the last couple days, does that indicate the end is near as far as an eventual nominee? guest: i think so. some of the people he has gotten -- the mistrust of romney has come from the right of his party. some of the endorsements he has gotten are attempting to act to shore up people's trust from the right. paul ryan in wisconsin, the chairman of the house budget committee is a huge one because he is a hero to many conservatives. host: president george h. w. bush, marco rubio, and others. guest: and ron johnson, a tea party favorite. host: we have scott the independent line. caller: good morning. i have a question and i would like to somebody to explain it to me. if we borrow 42 cents out of every dollar as a federal government, how can we borrow money to give to other countries and then we have to

pay it back and they don't? and then you tell us here at home, cut back, cut back, cut back. hillary clinton wants to give $100 million to tunisia, billions to egypt. and we are borrowing this money? host: relate that to the campaign. caller: we are pretty much screwed no matter who we get. left and right are in it together. guest: foreign aid is always unpopular, but it is a very tiny portion of the budget. the real fiscal problem comes in the entitlements -- the fact that my generation is going to put a real stress on the system. people who support foreign aid will tell you that by spending this money in parts of the world we are attempting to

create stable government institutions there, we are trying to lift people out of poverty that also leads to economic and political instability. and so, they will argue -- and it's not a popular argument -- but they will argue these are investments in a more secure world that will perhaps less and the external threats to this country. host: peoria, illinois, susan, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to backpedal a little. a minute ago somebody talked about the bailout of detroit. i hear this all the time. nobody ever mentions the fact that every single stockholder of general motors had their stock confiscated while their taxes were going to bail out the company. when they say then that the

company has paid back everything, every stockholder is still at a total loss for any shares they had. host: are you there? what is the question? caller: my question is, how can they claim this to be such a great coup for the democrats when they have done something this country has never done before, which is confiscate private citizens' property without so much as even saying so. guest: well, i think that what general motors went through was a sort of managed bankruptcy, which happens a lot to companies and especially in this kind of economy. and often when a company goes into bankruptcy, people who suffer are the stockholders. when people buy stock, they are putting their money at risk. there certainly has been a lot of criticism particularly from the right as to how this played

out. but i think that, in the end, general motors is indisputably a stronger company. at that point, people look at the workers and they look at the economy of michigan. host: ron paul asked about the future of the campaign on the sunday shows yesterday. [video clip] >> i like mitt romney as a person. i think he is a dignified person. we have no common ground on economics. he is not worried about the federal reserve or the foreign policy. he does not talk about civil liberties. i have a hard time to expect him ever to invite me to campaign with him. >> would you vote for him or support him? >> i've not made that decision yet. i'm still campaigning. host: if mr. romney becomes the candidate, the other three and how they come along as far as supporting or what that means

generally for republicans? guest: that guy ron paul is the guy to watch most closely. a few weeks ago i was interviewing grover norquist, the activist, and he said how they handle ron paul is going to be one of the most important questions, because there is such energy behind him, such enthusiasm behind him. four years ago of the republican convention, ron paul was such an outcast that he had to have his own convention in the minneapolis area. i guarantee that is not going to be the case this time. he is going to have a very prominent role and probably a prime-time speaking spot. because what they want is for ron paul to say to his supporters, "all that energy that you brought to my campaign, it's now time to put it behind a republican party." host: irene is on the republican line from florida.

caller: i would like to ask the lady why is it the people in the u.s. cannot open up their minds and listen to what has been said. there has been such a difference between what romney did in massachusetts and what obamacare is. and, also, why is rick santorum being so hateful about running? he's not going to win. for him to say what he is doing and saying is hurting the party and it is hurting mitt romney. i am a romney supporter. i do believe the longer this goes on, the worse it is going to be for the republican party. i wish it was over so we could get on with the business.

host: before you respond, i want to listen to what rick santorum said about his campaign on the sunday shows yestereday. [video clip] >> it is not the longest of long shots. so many of the delegates coming to the convention are unbound delegates, provided that romney has all the delegates and a big lead, the numbers don't bear that out. >> would you acknowledge he is the most likely nominee, as newt gingrich did this week? >> he is ahead right now, but less than half the votes -- less than half the delegates have been selected. go back your years ago, governor romney was still in the race at this point and he was not doing nearly as well as we are. i just think we have a lot of panic out there among the establishment, because the establishment has tried to convince the republicans across

this country and conservatives that they need mitt romney shoved down their throats and they're trying everything they can. they're not making the sale on the money or the endorsements or the policies or what he stands for, because he's all over the map. so they have to make the case of inevitability. host: there was his take on the campaign. relate that to a the caller's interest in getting on with this business. guest: that was pretty much a direct answer to her concerns. the fact is rick santorum is talking delegate counts, but the primaries all happened much earlier last time. so by this point in the race it was looking like things were clearing out for john mccain to get the nomination. the first point the caller made it is a point that you will hear from a lot of republicans, which is trying to stress that what mitt romney did with health care in massachusetts is very different from what president obama has done with health care nationally. the fact is the two programs

structurally look very much alike. governor romney even four years ago when he was running said that massachusetts is good for massachusetts but that he never intended it as a national model. whether that is going to be sellable, i don't know. host: there's a story looking at mr. romney, specifically. where do we expect to go as far as a pick? guest: he will have to go with someone very conservative. there's a real question on whether he would choose someone like marco rubio, who would bring a lot of pizzazz, the florida senator. or whether he chooses someone like rob portman from ohio, which would be a safe tactical pick that would help bring ohio over in the fall.

everything we have seen from the romney campaign so far shows that they tend to be fairly cautious in pretty much everything that they do. often when a candidate picks a running mate who has a lot of pizazz it is because that candidate really feels their campaign is in trouble. host: little rock, arkansas, faye on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. if the republicans go into -- the american people need to wake up, they will do away with your social security. it will be privatized. they said that. and the medicare. so the older people and the women better wake-up and see what the republicans have done to this country and to the people, the workers out there. and if they do go in, the people will be sorry that they

did not get that obamacare. it is good for us, the older people, and the younger people. but the republicans will continue to destroy this country as we know it. thank you. host: how does the decision the supreme court will make in june play on the elections this year? guest: you hear people arguing about it. if the health care is struck down in whole or in part, this will be a setback for the obama administration and for his re- election bid. people in washington argue about the courts as being very politicized and divided between left and right. but i think most of the country still views the supreme court -- a lot of people in the country could not name two justices, but they do see the supreme

court as they are supposed to play this role. but if the health care law gets struck down, i think the republicans will make the argument this is proof of this was some kind of overreach on the part of the democrats. host: this is edgewater, maryland. susan, the republican line. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a comment in regard to the race. the news media is controlled by institutions that are controlled by the shadow governments. we don't have free media. and the other thing i wanted to say is, i as a republican am horrified by the field of politicians running. newt gingrich was talking in one of the debates about palestinians are all terrorists. that is basically what his comments were. i am disturbed by that because i think people like him should

not be making statements like that. it is very ignorant, in my opinion. the other thing is dan inouye, the senator from hawaii, many years ago talked about the true power is not our politicians, it is a shadow government, the new world order. host: who do you plan on voting for tomorrow? caller: ron paul, because he is the only one in the republican field that i feel is telling the truth. he has talked about the federal reserve and foreign policy. he is the only one that is addressing the real problems. it is militarism, constant aggression. i am a republican. what i want to do is change the policy. i want peace on this planet and i want some consideration given to other nations as well as the

environment. i am horrified when i hear republicans talk about the environment and how ignorant they are about it. it is insulting. host: thanks. guest: this caller speaks to the passion i was talking about a few minutes ago that we hear from ron paul supporters. this is -- the real question going forward is whether this is going to be a passion that is outside the republican party or if some way the party can figure out a way to bring those people into the fold and make them enthusiastic about republican politics, as this caller is not? host: this is newt gingrich from yesterday's shows talking about the state of his campaign and party support for the nominee. [video clip] >> governor romney says that he has to earn 1144.

we will not concede that to him. kansas last night set the second record for coming from behind. they were down nine points at the half. that is the second biggest margin to come back from in the final four series. i will choose kansas as a model. st. louis last year was 10 games out. that was a painful lesson as in the land to a braves fan. if governor romney gets to 1144 not counting disputed delegates, he will be the nominee. >> will you endorse him? >> absolutely. and if rick santorum becomes the nominee, i will help them. we are all committed to defeating barack obama. we think his re-election will be a disaster for the country. host: you talk about how the romney campaign treats ron paul. how does the romney campaign treat newt gingrich? guest: there were reports there's been a recent meeting between newt gingrich and mitt romney.

we don't know a lot about what transpired in that meeting. but certainly we have seen many faces of newt gingrich in this campaign. i think we see him back to being kind of the elder statesman newt gingrich. in part i think it is because he wants to -- at this point he has pretty much given up on the idea he will be the nominee. he will want to retain influence in the party and remain a strong voice in the party. i think that is what we hear him kind of transition into. host: binghamton, new york, kevin on the democrats' line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a question for karen. ron paul and barney frank have backed an initiative to throw out the illegality of cannabis under the 24th amendment. a medical dispensary in michigan is going to the supreme court, where they may discuss that issue. in new york state, the republicans supported medical

cannabis. andrew cuomo, the governor, refused to sign it, unlike his father. and laguardia in the 1940's did his own study which supported cannabis. my question is, when it means $2 billion in medicinal sales per state and $1 billion in recreational sales, why is there not more talk even from the ron paul and other candidates about this issue? guest: because i have heard probably more about this issue this year than i think i have heard since the 1960's. so there's more talk about. but at this point it is still very much -- the caller's view is still out of the mainstream with the republican party in particular. so we did have ron paul during the debate and once again he affirmed his support for legalization.

host: one more call, tennessee, independent line, dan. you are on the air. one more time for dan. good morning. we go past tuesday. where do we go from there? guest: the next big race will be pennsylvania later this month. if rick santorum cannot carry his own home state it will be very hard for him to make the case of that he is a credible candidate going forward. host: what is the likelihood? guest: he was ahead in the polls and now it looks like a very tight race. there are number of southern primaries in may where he could -- where they look very much like the profile in states where he has won. i really look forward to writing more about the voters writing more about the voters and less