ome role but -- not just some role, but a very serious role and a little piece left of the legislature? mr. clement: i don't think it will be that hard. let's look at commissions that exist in the world. we have some that are purely advisory. there's nothing that suggests they are constitutionally problematic. a backup commission comes in when two sides can i get it done. justice kagan: what if they commission says we will give you two maps and the legislature has to pick one and only one? mr. clement: i would say that's probably unconstitutional. obviously -- justice kagan: why is that -- justice sotomayor: why is

that constitutional and an impasse of the legislature and leaving it to a third party who is not the legislation will -- not the legislature, why is that constitutional? mr. clement: if the legislature has the primary authority and they can't get it done, we know as a matter of fact that some meals will provide that rule. if the legislature as a stalemate, what happens in the real world, you cannot use the existing map because they violate the one person one vote is also the state court comes in. justice sotomayor: so they will bypass 2ac altogether? mr. clement: yes. justice sotomayor: i know you will say it is a constitutional requirement, but if i read gillibrand and smiley differently and plenty of language to say say so.

to say that what the election clause means is the legislative process, isn't that just simple? we don't have to worry about how the states experiment, what they do in their own self-governance? why is that if federal interest? mr. clement: it is of federal interest because the framers thought and -- the hard and long about this issue. justice sotomayor: no, they didn't. if you look at the federalist papers, there is not a whole lot on this particular clause. mr. clement: part of the reason there is less discussion of the first sub clause is that it seemed so remarkably obvious to the framers that, if this was to be done at the state level by anyone, it would be done by the representative body of the people. it's not like they didn't know about popular lawmaking. they simply said we like representative government -- ginsburg: [indiscernible]

at the time of the founding, the initiative -- by the legislatures. mr. clement: the referendum is as we came to know them in the late 19th century, not the time of the framing. but direct democracy was. the framers, said there ought to be conventions to approve the constitution. when they formulated article 5 and had alternative mechanisms at the federal congress could choose to provide for ratification, they gave the choice, state legislatures are the people in convention. the framers understood the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy and they made a conscious choice.

it is hard to make -- to argue that -- they are creating a house elected by the people and a senate appointed by the state legislatures. when they get to the voter qualification clause, they say the people will vote for the congress. how do we define the people? they are the same people that get to vote with the most numerous body in the state house. at various points, the framers obviously -- justice kagan: that suggest popular rule. you have made many exceptions to that over the course of the last 20 minutes. you said as to anything that is not redistricting, it can be done by referendum or initiative without any legislative process whatsoever. you said all these kinds of different schemes about the interaction between a legislature and advisory

commission are all going to be have to be reviewed on a case by case to be determined whether the legislature has primary control. and when you get through all of that, the sort of. the purity of the originalist argument that a legislature means a legislature, we are miles away from that, aren't we? mr. clement: i don't believe that, justice kagan. smiley said that of course the delegee is the state legislature. there may be some hard questions that there is no hard question here. this is in any of your hypotheticals. if the election clause means anything, it means you can't completely cut out of the process the state legislature entirely on a permanent basis. kennedy: suppose they challenge the one voter/one vote rule and it goes to a federal court and

it goes a year before the election. does the state court have an obligation under the constitution to simply pass on the validity or invalidity of the plan? and if it doesn't, can it has a back to the legislature? mr. clement: what they say is the court in the incidence -- first of all, there should be a preference over the state -- preference for the state court over the federal courts. if there is time for the legislature to go back and draw a new map -- justice kennedy: you think that is constitutionally required? mr. clement: i think it is constitutionally required. if it is not, it is surely prudent.

the reason is the recognition by this court -- justice kennedy: we are talking about what is required. if we rule in your favor, we will have to tell every court involved in a redistricting litigation that they will have to submit it to legislature. even if the court made its own plan for one election, it would have to submit it back to the legislature for the next eight years. mr. clement: for the most part that is what this court has already said. weiser said that, in the initial challenge phase, if there is time, you let the legislature do it. now, this court has also said -- justice kennedy: you mean a redistricting plan approved by a court has to have a deadline? it has a conforming plan but the plan stays in place until it does. it seems to be as much of a

displacement. mr. clement: it is a displacement in there are two different circumstances. one is when the redistricting plan is challenged very early and there's time for the legislature to take a second crack at a constitutionally compliant plan. then you allow the state legislature to do it because it is their primary task. the second question is when there is not time and there is a judicial plan. that says the first cycle of elections -- let's say the first cycle of elections takes place under the first plan. there is nothing that prevents the state legislature from going in and redistricting. this court rejected the idea that you get one shot at this and you are done for the whole census. colorado basically said, if you

get into that situation, then you have to live with the judicial plan until the next census. but then the legislature still kicks in and has the primary role. what i like to think is that colorado has done this inconsistent with the elections clause. i am very happy to address the hypotheticals but it's worth remembering that this is about the most extreme case that you are going to have. if the election clause means anything at all in terms of its delegation of responsibility to the state legislature, we may talk about taking part of it away but not the entire thing away on a permanent basis and give it to a commission whose defining feature is that it is not representative. if i may reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, counsel.

mr feigin: on standing, this is an unusual lawsuit in which the state legislature is asking the federal court for assurance for a law that has -- that it has not even said it will pass. we don't normally conceive of legislatures as having an interest in the enforcement of laws they might pass and there's nothing in the arizona constitution or the arizona courts -- justice sotomayor: isn't this about the diminishment of the power to legislature? not a particular plan or law. this is a removal of power from the legislature. mr. feigin: i don't think there is anything that is as a practical matter that prevents

the legislature from passing a bill that would redistrict the state, which they believe in good faith they can do under the view of the elections clause. there are numerous cases in which the arizona legislature has passed laws that conflicted a popular initiative or with the arizona constitution and arizona courts do treat them as laws in the consequence of their passage, their own constitutionality or conflict is that they are unenforceable. justice roberts: so you want the legislature to pass a law that is not enforceable? or challenge what the referendum has done? mr. feigin: i think the plaintiff had to allege and lujan against the defenders of wildlife -- the plaintiff had to allege that they were going to buy a plane ticket to see the not crocodile -- the nile

crocodile. let me put to one side -- justice roberts: did they not just have to allege that they plan to exercise what is in their normal authority, to engage in the redistricting? despite the fact that you are litigating it, it implies that they have some interest in doing that. mr. feigin: it may be difficult for them to call us on some particular redistricting plan. but that is no reason to excuse them from the space from the normal standing requirements. let's assume they pass their own legislative redistricting plan and the secretary said we are going what the commission because that is what state law requires me to do. legislatures don't have an interest in the enforcement of the laws that they pass. justice sotomayor: they have an interest in the constitutional

powers that they pass. mr. feigin: let's say congress passed a law and there were a constitutional challenge to that law. i don't think anybody would believe that the state legislature acting in its own name would be the proper party to bring that constitutional challenge on the theory that its police powers have been infringed on the preemptive federal statute. although this case arises under the elections clause, the elections clause doesn't give the state anymore lawmaking power than it would ordinarily have. justice ginsberg: are you saying, if anyone has standing as an institution -- mr. feigin: if someone were to

bring a voting rights act challenge to bring that claim -- justice kennedy: is it part of our jurisprudence that, if it is likely that another person is affected, that that goes into the balance and we say legislature do not have standing because other people out there are more directly affected? do we say that? mr. feigin: no, your honor quite the opposite. even if it means that no one would have standing, that does not in that is reason to find standing. i want to make a couple of points on the statutory section 2ac. i think the statutory issue is easy because the court decided all the relevant issues in ohio against gillibrand and constructed word for word the language of the 1911 act. justice roberts: it's meant to apply when the state has not redistricted under its law. here, the question is whether

the law is valid. mr. feigin: just to take your question on, i think the question of the preparatory clause is best understood in context. a neighboring statute states -- requires that states will be divided into districts. that makes it a question of federal statutory law how that redistricting is met and how it is met. that is the question that section 2ac says one of these will be applied until redistricting. once the state is redistricted by the law thereof, those are the districts that will be used. the corollary, it is hard to believe that congress would expect anything different.

in fact given they are legislating in light of hildebrand, in construing nearly the identical language as the 2011 at destiny 1911 act, it had the express purpose to provide democracy procedures -- justice alito: it would be one thing if congress passed a law that said a state may apportion congressional districts in any manner consistent with the laws of the state. but that is not what this statute says. this statute may have been enacted on the assumption that would be constitutional. but it is not the exercise of congressional authority implementing that. it is just an assumption in which the statute is otherwise completely irrelevant to this case may have been enacted. mr. feigin: hildebrandt is interpreting the same statutory language in the 1911 act, that

it has the express purpose to provide the democracy procedures. then it went on to say that congress did have the power to do it. justice sotomayor: i guess they bottom line question is, let's assume 2ac said something totally different, we remove redistricting from the legislature and we require every state to pass redistricting by referendum. is your position that congress has the power to override the constitution? mr. feigin: i don't think that would exactly be overwriting the constitution. if that was the law, we might defend it. but we won't go that far this case for two reasons. here, congress is not try to enforce upon the state a process that the state doesn't want. congress is trying to recognize that these legislature requirement of redistricting is done under its own procedures.

i would think that the power of congress should be at its apex when both congress and the state want to do the same thing. the second thing i would say is, in this room stance -- justice scalia: no, no, no, not if the same thing violates the state constitution. just because congress agrees does it make it constitutional? the objection here is a house additional objection. mr. feigin: i do believe this was in the authority of congress. my friend just said that, if the state legislature wanted to, the state legislature could have given this power to the commission. under the second sub clause of the elections clause, congress can do anything that a state legislature can do, which means congress can also give this power to the commission. the only difference between my friend's son now and mine is that in my friend's scenario the state legislature would

retain the authority to override what the commission has done but that is only in consequence of state legislation over federal legislation. it's not something that a state legislature can override and it is a consequence of congress super seeding authority and congress authority under the elections clause. i also think -- justice scalia: the second clause is being used to revise the second clause. the second clause can -- congress can do something on its own. but can congress use the second clause to revise with the first clause says? mr. feigin: one thing i want to emphasize is i think the court settled this issue in hildebrandt when it said it was simply doing something that the constitution expressly gave the right to do. i don't think the right way to think about this is congress using the second sub clause to rewrite this first.

thank you. >> mr. waxman. mr. waxman: we have before us a suit that the people -- both raises a claim that the framers would have been astonished to consider that federal district courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate and is misconceived. arizona defines its legislature in its constitution to include both the people and two representative bodies.

the premise that in drafting the elections clause, the framers intended to ignore a state definition of its own legislature. it is deeply inconsistent -- justice scalia: whatever the state calls a legislature suffices under a federal constitution, is that right? mr. waxman: the federal constitution by using the word legislature in connection with the accepted definition of that term in the founding generation. we cited both noah webster and samuel johnson's dictionaries and it was understood that legislature meant the body that makes the law. justice scalia: give me one provision of the constitution

that uses the term "legislature" that clearly was not meant to apply to the body of representatives of the people that makes the laws. one provision of the constitution that clearly has your meaning. i looked through them all. i can't find a single one. mr. waxman: the one that most clearly has our meaning which accords with understanding is the one that this court has said in hildebrandt and in smiley -- justice scalia: just name only one. mr. waxman: this may not be the only one. justice kennedy: since 1913, many states wanted to have direct election of the senators. not one state displaced the legislature. it took the 17th amendment to do that.

mr. waxman: that's correct. justice kennedy: that history works very much against you. the term "legislature" is not in the constitution. the senators shall be chosen by the legislature. there was no suggestion that this could be displaced. mr. waxman: justice kennedy, there is no question that this court has explained repeatedly first in smith versus hawk which distinguished hildebrand and the legislative power addressed in article section 1 from the election of senators in article 1 section 3 and again in smiley that made clear that, just as this court reiterated last week in yates, that it may depend on the function that the term is serving.

justice kennedy: you are saying that the legislature in the now repealed section, choosing senators, means something different than what it means in the following section. mr. waxman: as this court explained in smith versus hawk which was decided, which was in article 5 meaning, in smith versus hawk, this court said, in article 1, section 3, election of senators by the legislature and in article 5, the ratification power. what was at issue was the power to elect and the power to ratify that specifically comported with the elected representative body. and it used those as examples

where often, justice kennedy often the term legislature in the constitution has that meaning. but smith goes on and distinguishes hildebrand on precisely the grounds we are urging, that what was at issue in hildebrand under the elections clause is not a particular body, a brick-and-mortar legislature necessarily. it is the legislative power of the state. alito: is there any other provision where legislature means anything other than the conventional meaning? how about applying for a constitutional convention? calling on the president to send in troops to suppress the mystic -- domestic violence? creating a new state out of part

of the state of arizona, for example? all of those provisions will use the term "legislature." does it mean anything other than the conventional meaning of legislature? mr. feigin: i don't know the answer to that question. justice alito: do you think it might? mr. feigin: this court has never said that it doesn't. it never said that it does. it has focused a lot of attention on three particular uses of the word legislature in the constitution. the article 5 ratification power, the former article 1 section 3 power to elect senators in the legislative body, and the article 1 section 4 power to make the laws in the provision that is at issue here. i think it is particularly important. i want to get to the language of smiley which my friend embraces. breyer: i would like you to because as i read it, they don't help you very much.

i mean hildebrand is talking about a particular statute passed in 1911 helps the government with its statutory argument because a different statute uses similar words. we don't know if it was with the same intent. smiley talks about a sitting legislature and asks whether its exercise of map-drawing power is a legislative exercise or say more like an impeachment exercise. it does not talk about what is at issue here where you have people outside that building making the dude -- making the legislative decisions. i didn't see those two cases as helping you that much. please argue to the contrary. but the open question here is when legislative power over time expands from a group of people sitting in the state capital to those people plus a referendum? and there i don't find much help

in the case is one way or the other. mr. feigin: justice breyer, i think that hildebrand, smiley, hawk, and also this court's case decided a few months after smiley and that was quoted last week in yates, the atlantic cleaners and dyer case all strongly support the meaning of the word legislature that we advocate and was in fact the consensus definition of legislature. i agree with you -- justice scalia: a consensus definition but you cannot give us where it is clearly used. i don't think it was a consensus definition at all. you plucked that out of a couple of dictionaries. justice breyer: the dictionary can be used as to determine how

they word is used. know and defines power of the legislates, the power that legislates in arizona is the people in the capital plus the referendum. mr. waxman: one thing's for sure, if there was any other definition, but the framers on -- own use of the term, if i may, charles tiffany, in pages 39 in our brief, who wanted to do away with the second part of the clause that gave congress any power because he thought it was an impairment on the states rights said, "america is a

republic where the people at collectively or by representation form the legislature. madison made clear in discussing the constitution that, when he referred to "the legislatures of the state," he meant the existing authorities in the state that comprise the legislative branch of government. james wilson repeatedly interspersed legislature, state, and the people acting -- scalia: let's say the legislature means the body we normally can think of as the legislature. however, at the time there was no such thing as the referendum or the initiative. so when the dictionaries refer to the power that makes laws, it was always a legislature. it was never the people at large

because there was no such thing as the referendum. now that there is a such thing what about saying, ok, legislature means what everybody knows a legislature is plus the full citizenry, which is a level higher of democracy. but what we have here is not a level higher of democracy. it is giving this power to an unelected body of five people. as it is constituted here, two of them are elected or selected by the majority party and two selected by the minority party. what if they decided that all four would be selected by the majority party? waxman: any delegation question

-- the issue in this case is what does legislature mean. my friend concedes that whatever the legislature is, it can delegate its authority. so the delegation questions, well, i will endorse whatever i believe my friend would say because the arizona legislature has negative -- has delegated all manner of time, place and manner of regulations to a single person of the secretary of state, an executive officer and the individual counties that set the precinct, places, the places where you can vote and register, etc. so the question is what is the legislature. if your question is, well, now we know there is something called an initiative -- of course, we knew this 120 years ago when the first states

started reserving in their constitution legislative power to the people by initiative. but to echo something that justice kagan reverted to in the earlier argument, there are -- we're talking here about a construction of the word legislature as to all time place, or manner regulation. roberts: why doesn't your interpretation make the words, by the legislature thereof highly superflouse. why didn't they just say the rules would be prescribed by each state? waxman: as the court explained in smiley, what the framers wanted was it to be done by a legislation. it wanted a "complete code of holding congressional elections to be acted."

roberts: i understood your argument to be, if they exercise legislative power, it satisfies. so if you had, for example, a governor doing it, it would be pursuant to a delegation either from the people or from the legislature. either way, nothing happens until there is an exercise of lawmaking power by the state. it should have been sufficient for the drafters of the institution to simpry -- simply say it would be drafted by each state. whether they do it by referendum or legislateture or by committee, whatever. to say by the legislature is totally superfluous. waxman: it is in the power of each state that makes the laws. as to justice scalia's hypothetical, could they dell gate it to the chair or just let one party choose, as justice ka opinion pointed out, there might be other problems arising from that from either the first or 14th amendment. but i believe that mr. clement

would agree on rebuttal that if the legislature, whatever the legislature means, if the legislature decided, look, we are going to delegate this responsibility to the governor that would be a constitutional delegation because it would have been a decision made by the law making body of the state. if i could just make one point and then address justice breyer's question about smiley, hildebrand and hawk. it would be deeply inconsistent with the enterprise in philadelphia to harbor and to effectuate the notion that our framers intended to set aside both a cornerstone principle of federalism and their aim to bind the people as closely as possible to the national house of representatives. yes, it is true that that related to the second part

giving congress authority. that is because no one questioned the fundamental principles that the sovereign states could choose to allocate their legislative power as they wanted. if there is any suggestion, the anti-federalists would be screaming bloody murder that the states could not do so. smiley specifically said that -- i am quoting from page 367 -- as the authority is confirmed for the purpose of making laws for the state, it follows in the absence of an indication of a contrary intent that the exercise of the authority must be in accordance with the method the state has chosen as prescribed for legislated enactments.

ginsberg: what he has addicted to his taking the legislature out of the picture entirely. waxman: yes, justice ginsburg. we concede that in neither case was the power at issue. that distinction was never made by the court until smiley. and smiley says, we find no suggestion in the federal constitutional provision of an attempt to endow the legislature of the state with power to enact laws in any manner other than which -- in which the constitution -- breyer: i am quibbling in a sense about the case. but the case is not about the body. everybody agreed it was a legislature. but when the legislature acts in this instance, is it acting as

an electoral body? is it acting as a ratifying body? is it acting as a dissenting body? or is it acting as a legislating body? and that is the answer they get in the form of legislation. here the question is about the body. waxman: that's right. the question is are the people by initiative part of the legislature that they hum's -- they themselves have chosen? in smiley, again discussing hildenbrand, this is what the court said, and it was because it was the authority of the state to determine what should constitute its legislative process that the validity of the requirement of the state constitution in its application to congressional elections was sustained. scalia: legislative process there means what it takes the legislature to enact a law.

once you assume legislative refers to legislature, your whole argument for smiley just disappears. >> the state of arizona, like the states of the near majority of the constitutions of the states of the near majority have defined the legislative power to include the people by initiative and again, and like the court quoted, it is not unusual for the same word to be used with different meaning. and i'm quoting here. for example, the meaning of the word legislature, used several times in the constitution differs in the way it is employed, depending on the character of the function that body in each interest it -- instance is calling upon citing

smiley. waxman: you said the cort, is it a plurality? >> yates doesn't talk about this. it was the decision in yates. moi point is that this supreme court in the months following -- my point is that this supreme court in the months following smiley, i was not quoting from yates, i'm quoting from atlantic cleaners and dyers itself quoting from them. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. if it may please the court, let me start with the definition of legislature. we can point to our favorite quotes about legislature. the critical thing is not what the framers meant by "the legislature" when they were talking proudly about political theory.

what matters is when they were talking about assigning particular authorities in the constitution to particular components of the state government. in that context, as a number of you pointed out, there is no doubt every time they assigned an authority to the state legislature, they were assigning the authority to the representative body of the people. now that takes us to the smiley case and the definition of legislature in the smiley case is what this case hangs on, then with all due respect to my friends on the other side, we win. smiley specifically talked about the body question. i am quoting from smiley, not yates or anything else. i am quoting from smiling. what it meant when adopted, it still means for purposes of interpretation. a legislature was then the

representative body which made the laws of the people. breyer: that's true. smiley does not help him, i don't think, but it helps you less. but that is the question in the case. everybody assumes. nobody denies, it is those people making this law. the question is, are they legislating when they are doing it? nobody denies they were the legislative power. here we have a different question. is this the legislative power received by referendum? the reason i say that smiley may help is it says be flexible about thatclement: it says be flexible with the power of the state legislature. don't think you've been given

some new key that allows you to make laws without the prosofse the governor being involved at all. i find smiley to be helpful, because not only does it answer the body question, but the other side in smiley said, oh, we win this case because legislature means the lawmaking authority and the other section meant, it means the body and the court said, you are right, it means the body, but it is a lawmaking function subject to the gubernatorial veto. i think they would've been flabbergasted to find out that the legislature, which is defined as a representative body of the people, would be cut out completely. kagan: when it comes to this particular provision -- and this provision as compared to the 17th amendment, which is the comparison and the contrast that hawks sets up -- when it comes to this provision, you need to show a lot of respect to the states own decisions about how legislative power ought to be exercised, and that seems to be the overriding principle of the three cases.

clement: i think you have to show respect for the way the state legislature goes about lawmaking, but is completely different to cut the state legislature out of the process entirely. let me aver briefly to the 1911 act which of course was since repealed. i think the question shows that the actual statute on the books has nothing to do with this case but the irony of my friends on the other side relying on the legislative history of the 1911 act is the whole point of the legislative history of 1911 is people in 1911 could read, the statute on the books then said it you will have the federal default rule kick in until the state legislature redistricts and they realized that means the state legislature and they better change that law if they

want the referendum process to take place. it also cuts against them on the constitutional issue. it shows a fundamental difference between the legislature and the people. as the chief justice pointed out if there weren't, the framers could have stopped the election clause in each state. they wouldn't have had to sayy the legislatures thereof. kagan: you can turn that around and say what that provision shows is exactly what i just said. congress was on board to read you look at that clause, the elections clause, a lot of respect, a lot of deference had to be given to the state's own decision. clement: i am happy giving deference to what the state legislature does. if that is constrained by the gubernatorial veto, overrode by referendum something has to sit in committee for 0 days, then the restrictions on the state legislature are fine but it has to be the state legislature. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted.

>> the supreme court administration to the epa must consider cost before deciding regulation. a professor from george mason university law school talks about the government is of private property. how the memory of the civil war is affecting the current debate over the confederate battle flag. "washington journal" airs every morning at 7:00. you can join the conversation. coming up, discussion comparing the debt crisis in puerto rico to the one in greece. at noon, a panel of legal experts including to supreme

court clerks talk about the same-sex marriage legalization and what it means for constitutional self-government. in >> former president jimmy carter and first lady rosalynn carter sat down for a wide ranging conversation at the aspen institute in colorado. they spoke with the ceo of about race relations, the middle east, and meeting with russian president vladimir putin. [applause] walter: when i told president carter we had an overflow crowd, he said they all came for rosslynn. so, thank you.

the former president of the united states and mrs. carter, welcome to aspen. i will start with a quick story because kathy and i are here at the aspen institute because of president and mrs. carter. you were the honor he at an aspen institute dinner in new york and kathy said, i excepted that dinner, and i'm thinking and you oh, no. she said judy woodruff called and and said president carter you and will be there. i said, great, and it was at that dinner they recruited me to you that dinner they recruited me to come work at the aspen institute. is institute. i thought, yeah, that is cool. president carter: if he has not done a good job, it is my fault. [laughter] walter: believe it or not, a president carter is now 90.

the title of this book is called and you andthe title of this book is called you "reflections at 90." as not only does he not look 90, you not only does he not look 90, but he went to russia last i and year. you you you you you a pretty you and i active life both of you you have. i wanted to start if i may will go president carter, by in looking at some of the and travels you have done is recently in this wonderful you book and talking about your trip to the middle east you just came back from. where did you go? president carter: a couple president carter: a couple you you you months ago, i went to you you russia and we met with

and gorbachev and the foreign you you gorbachev and the foreign you you you you you i and you and minister. and i also met with putin for you andand i also met with putin for about three hours. you and i asked him questions and he responded. will i might say he made a very is good impression on us. he was fully aware of all of the difficult issues. he never turned to his foreign minister for any answers. is is minister for any answers. he gave the answers himself. he was quite relaxed. is is an and yet a good sense of humor, which was a surprise to him and him and all of us. walter: flatter your putin had a good sense of humor? president carter: getting ready to go, he said by the way, be

sure to tell your president and you the europeans to leave the sanctions on russia. and sanctions on russia. you you you we were surprised to hear him say that. he said, i am making reforms and you youhe said, i am making reforms and agriculture and the you you are banking that i could not make it the sanctions were not putting pressure on them. they have been importing from youthey have been importing from as you the former president of and you and i ireland. the former president of finland, who also won a nobel peace and prize. and a former president of mexico a former president of mexico and

you also a former president of brazil. and that's 11 members, and also you and me we have the chief negotiator from the united nations for 10, 11 years, and he and him and nations for 10, 11 years, and he also tried to is is bring peace to syria. and bring peace to syria. so, he's a very wonderful is negotiator. we meet every six months or so and you andwe meet every six months or so and decide where in the world we could be helpful. you and and we tell the truth. we do not have to accommodate you and youwe do not have to accommodate voters, so we can always tell the truth. [laughter] and walter: let's get back to you the middle east question. where did you go in the middle andwhere did you go in the middle east? president carter: we last last youpresident carter: we last

last year, and the former prime and minister of norway and i you went to the middle east. the carter center has had a and full-time office in you ramallah, which is in the west bank, and also in gaza for and you west bank, and also in gaza for the last 15 years. the carter center still has the policy of bringing peace to and policy of bringing peace to israel in our immediate notice. the carter center has monitored you andthe carter center has monitored the palestinian elections and we work with the you elections and we work with the palestinian factions in israel, trying to promote peace. and you israel, trying to promote peace. walter: do you think netanyahu and wants a two state solution? president carter: no, i never youpresident carter: no, i never have thought so. i was in europe, i was in and youi was in europe, i was in jerusalem on another visit when netanyahu made his speech and said he would accept a two state and you and said he would accept a two state solution. i did not believe him then.

youi did not believe him then. everything he has done has indicated he does not want a and you indicated he does not want a palestinian nation next door to israel. and you my leaf is -- my belief is he was to take over the entire west bank except for a little tiny spot -- a couple of little tiny spot to believe for the palestinians. walter: you did the last really major candidate of peace accord. what kind of solution do you think is possible now? president carter: the camp david accords had different factors. one was to bring peace between israel and egypt. that peace agreement is now isthat peace agreement is now about 34 years old and has never been violated, not a single word has been violated. there is still peace between a israel and egypt. but the one we worked hardest on you isbut the one we worked hardest on was full of time -- a autonomy for the palestinians and that part has not been

honored. you and you honored. that is what i hope and what i and hope my successors in the white house would attempt to do and try to bring peace to israel and it neighbors, but we have pretty well given up on that will since the recent election in israel and an even more you conservative or right wing government now than they had before. before. will and and you and he has made it plain in recent days he does not want a two state solution. walter: you also met with king andwalter: you also met with king solomon on this trip. what do you think of america's alliance with the saudi's now, alliance with the saudi's now, you and especially when it comes you to bombing yemen. how did you find out about the bombing of yemen? president carter: also in saudi and youpresident carter: also in saudi arabia and qatar ends other arab -- and other arab

countries in that region. and i was waiting for saudi arabia to leave with the new king solomon and we were supposed to leave with the crown you supposed to leave with the crown prince. and prince. we met with the crown prince and then we were escorted to our car to go back to our hotel. you about an hour or two later i got a message from the king saying he was to see you the next day. we found out that night that the reason he could not meet with me was because he was planning and approving an unfortunate decision to attack yemen. and since then saudi arabia has you you youand since then saudi arabia has been bombing yemen, which i think is a serious mistake. i met with him the next day to is talk about the issues i have talk about the issues i have and a my schedule. walter: mrs. carter, when you go youwalter: mrs. carter, when you go to a place like saudi arabia, what is your role and what is your role in advocating for and you women in places like that? mrs. carter: this time i did not advocate for women.

walter: but you have before. arewalter: but you have before. mrs. carter: i did not with the king. you but i did in dubai and qatar and the other places. a and i also -- we went to seven or eight of those countries. the main thing i worked on was youthe main thing i worked on was health issues. i have fellowships with journalists, teaching them how and journalists, teaching them how to report on mental health issues accurately and in depth. we have been doing this for 18 you years now. and you so, i wanted to get a journalist from outages era -- al jazeera, because they cover and you al jazeera, because they cover the whole region and the are stigma there is so bad. they shut people up and do not youthey shut people up and do not let anybody know they have a mentally ill person. but there is a really good program, so i did talk to and advocate for women and caregiving and those kinds of and things.

but not with king solomon. i take notes. youi take notes. walter: ok. [laughter] mrs. carter: i get to see the top officials because i take and you top officials because i take notes. and i write down everything he and iand i write down everything he says. president carter: she also gives and andpresident carter: she also gives me instructions -- [laughter] walter: yeah, i was reading this you book, which was a total you delight. i am going to ask mrs. carter you about this. you you you you say the president rights and their that when you came back -- writes in there, that when you came back you you you you from the navy and you're doing your business work in georgia, you left dollar you work in georgia, you left dollar b decisions to the you b decisions to the family, but in 1962 when he decided to get into politics a changed your

relationship with mrs. carter you you relationship with mrs. carter and she became much more you and she became much more a partner in making decisions. is that right? you you youis that right? [laughter] i want to fact check this book. you you youi want to fact check this book. mrs. carter: i did not want to come home from the navy. you you by then i had become very independent. you you you very independent. because jimmy was gone all the time in the navy and i was taking care of everything. so, i became a total housewife for a few years. you you i have that for about a year. [laughter] then jimmy called me and asked me one day to come down. he was the employer and had no employees, except seasonal. you you employees, except seasonal. four seed and fertilizer and when we bought the produce from the farmers. so, he did not have anybody to stay at the office while he went you out to visit the farmers, so i came down. it got to be a habit. you the children -- the schoolhouse is right across the you you street, the highway from our office and the children

would come, the little boys would come, the little boys you you you you you would come over in the afternoon after school. but pretty soon after the first year or so, maybe not even that you long, i knew more about the business and the books than he did. i could say, shut down the cornmeal. were not making any money off of it. we developed this really good partnership that lasted for a long time. walter: how long has it lasted? mrs. carter: we will have been married 69 years. you walter: whoa. [applause] mrs. carter: in july. walter: what is the secret? i will tell you one secret i learned from this, you wrote a book together once. mrs. carter: oh, that is the worst experience of my life. [laughter] we have totally different writing styles. you i am a night person. you you he is a morning person to start with. i like to write at night. you he does not like for me to write at night.

that's not much of a problem. you youthat's not much of a problem. the problem was trying to you remember what we did in the past -- it's not possible. you can remember 95% and we would fight. you would fight. we got so we could not mention you it without me crying. [laughter] and so, we started writing notes and youand so, we started writing notes to each other through the process. never -- and he said, it takes me a long time to write a is chapter because i wanted to be just right. he can write one in an a afternoon. so, he sees mine and i see his you and i was like, i figured my chapter was -- i had gone up on is you chapter was -- i had gone up on i mount sinai and came down with it in concrete words is an and and i did not want him in to change a word. him and in and it was true. a walter: that does a semi-get rough draft. is rough draft. mrs. carter: could not do it. [laughter]

an walter: -- president carter: so we decided to you upon the book. and we had gotten a small is advance, and we decided to give the advance back and cancel and give the advance back and cancel you and you the book. our editor came down on a plane and said, look, you've written as 95% of the book. this other 5% is where you you cannot agree. let me resolve this for you. andlet me resolve this for you. we said, ok. will and half of these paragraphs are rose's and she can write them and jimmy you you and cannot touch them and the other half are yours and rose cannot edit them. you so, if you read our book, a lot of paragraphs have an r by the side or a j. [laughter] that is why we are still married and today. [laughter] you i you walter: let me, if i

and may, take you back to world affairs for a moment, which is they affairs for a moment, which is your presidency is when the iranian revolution happened. let's go back there, but also what is happening with the u.s. with you and in and iran right now. after the irani and revolution the -- iranian revolution, you is kept diplomatic relations. a but the hostages, that is who they were, the diplomats. you think the ayatollah wanted to have that rupture with the you is to have that rupture with the united ace? -- with the united states? president carter: no, he didn't. i think he was completely surprised when the young -- a students i call them -- you students i call them -- captured the u.s. embassy. there were 70 ambassadors there, diplomats. a diplomats. he had almost to the same amount in washington. after the young students were youafter the young students were there occupying the embassy, the ayatollah's son went to the

embassy and allied himself with and you embassy and allied himself with the students and and then and only then did the ayatollah endorsed the taking of the hostages. i have never believed he originated it or was in favor of you and originated it or was in favor of it. walter: do you think we could and should work to have restored you and should work to have restored relations with iran? president carter: i do. the others did, by the way. and youthe others did, by the way. the others go where they want will the others go where they want to. but the present negotiations -- i hope the present negotiations on the nuclear issue will be him and on the nuclear issue will be successful. you walter: do you think that and you will take us back to the. and of the 1970's where the irani and people are -- iranian people are our strongest allies in the region? and you president carter: i do not think the strongest. walter: cautious. president carter: one of the things putin said, not to change

the subject, he said, i have had and two different sessions in russia this year, in january and you april, with representatives and you from syria to try to and you resolve the syrian and him issue. and he said it has not been very him and fruitful. you what i think we should do is have the united states and russia sponsor a meeting with the top leaders in the region. and the top leaders in the region. saudi arabia, iran, and turkey. if you get those five liters together or the representatives, and and we can decide together and we can decide together what is to do about syria, and whatever we decide, aside and his syrian opposition will have in to agree to it. i said, that's a phenomenal a idea. have you made that proposal to president obama? and president obama? him and he said, no, i haven't. i said, do you mind if i make you andi said, do you mind if i

make that proposal to him on you and your behalf? he said please do. is i sent obama an e-mail and told him that is what putin had is asked in about a week later you may remember that john kerry a went to see putin to discuss the issue with him. i do not know what has happened since then. walter: what you think of john kerry as secretary of state? president carter: i think he is one of the best secretaries of state we have ever had. i think he is outstanding. you [applause] walter: what about president obama's successes or failures on the world stage? and how would you assess that? president carter: on the world stage, i think they have been is minimal. he has done some good things domestically.

is on the world stage -- to be as objective about it as i can i cannot think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than when he took over. if you look at russia, england is china, egypt. i am not saying it is his fault. but we have not improved a is relationship with individual countries, and i would say the is is an countries, and i would say the united states influence and prestige and respect in the world is probably lower now than it was six or seven years ago. and let me add -- let me repeat and -- i do not blame him for it because circumstances have evolved. but i think john kerry has been a very courageous and innovative and dynamic secretary of state. as a matter of fact, when president obama was inaugurated the second term, rose and i went to the inauguration and john

kerry came to our hotel room and spent two hours before the inauguration ceremony and john kerry outlined all of the things he planned to do as secretary of you state. at that time, president obama had not even visited israel era and that was one of the things he said he was going to ask, for obama to visit israel, which he did later on. he tried, i think, his best to he tried, i think, his best to you and bring about a peace agreement in the mideast and do other things that i need not mention. walter: to what extent though do him andwalter: to what extent though do you think it is partly obama's fault he has not been able to establish relationships with other countries? president carter: i think -- this may not be a good thing to you and him and this may not be a good thing to say to a group of americans, but i think the historical trend is for the united states to relinquish its

unquestioned domination of the world's politics and economy and cultural influence. him and walter: is that a good or a bad thing? president carter: i think it should be a good thing, because you i think the so-called bric countries -- china is rising russia's going to come back. india is increasing its influence, compared to what it was 10 years ago. i cannot say i could blame president obama for it. i think it is an inevitability. i think the thing for president obama and the next president is to say how can the united states fit in? instead of promoting the elements of a superpower. what are the elements of a superpower? superpower? and him and this may be preaching a little bit, but i think a superpower should not

only be the top country as far as military power is concerned which we are going to continue to be, but i think the american superpower goal should be to be a champion for the piece. [applause] --for the peace. [applause] and to be the champion of human rights. and to be the champion of the environment. and to be the most generous nation on earth. those of the elements that i hope of eventually the united states will set as goals. we have been the most warlike country on her. we have been a laggard in addressing the problem of global you warming. we are now violating about 10 of will the 30 paragraphs in the universal declaration of human him him as universal declaration of human rights. so, you know, i think these are opportunities for the future. walter: the two of you came on awalter: the two of you came on this aspen trip that a lot of us

took to the arctic. you and i want to turn to mrs. carter -- your views, how they you changed on the environment that trip to the arctic, and and also may be just what it is is also may be just what it is like traveling with president carter? [laughter] you[laughter] mrs. carter: i travel with him all the time. we go -- we have been to 80 countries. 80 countries, the most isolated countries in the world. but that trip to the arctic was really special, i thought. we had on that ship, i think was -- what was it? national geographic? yeah, it was national and you -- everybody had to be and you -- everybody had to be an expert, had to say something about the environment. we heard the best people. and jimmy's been working on environmental issues since he you was governor of georgia, marshlands. so, i think he has taught me

pretty well a long time ago that we really needed to take care of the environment. and you the environment. walter: president carter, in and you this book, which i really do urge people to read, one of the things i didn't and you and one of the things i didn't really quite know although i did read "hour before daylight," about growing up in a daylight," about growing up in a a and you tiny, unincorporated town. and you and town. you were one of only two white families and the only white kids you families and the only white kids in that town. explain how your views on race were formed there, and then i would love to take you to this past week, where we had another great confrontation on race. and you great confrontation on race. pres. carter: well, you're right about this. there were about 55 african-american families and and you african-american families and our family, and i was the only child of that age. and all of my playmates when i

grew up were african-american, were black boys. and we played baseball together andand we played baseball together and fought and wrestled and went fishing and hunting and worked in the field together, so that was my life. i it was during a time of racial and you segregation, which lasted 100 years in this and country, as you know, from you the 1860's to the 1960's. and i was very unaware of the racial distinctions, because we treated each other equally. and whoever was the best wrestler or caught the biggest fish or hit the baseball the best was the best for an hour or two. [laughter] i didn't realize at the time that the african-american kids had inferior skills -- schools. they had to go to their own schools, their own churches. black people were not permitted

to vote. they were not permitted to serve on a jury, and so forth. you but my opinion was distorted by the fact that the richest and and you most influential and respected person in archery was a black person, and african methodist episcopal bishop. and you methodist episcopal bishop. that was the same denomination and you as the church in trusting -- charleston. he was in charge of the ame he was in charge of the ame and you churches in five northern states. when bishop johnson came home to archery, it would be front page in the county paper that he would be visiting his home and would be visiting his home church on the weekend. he was rich. he had a black cadillac or a black packard. he had a driver. he was a chauffeur. you when he got ready to talk to my father, the custom was the black people didn't come to the front door of a white family.

he wanted to abide by the mores of the south but not admit he was inferior in any way. and you was inferior in any way. he would send his chauffeur down to our house to make sure my father was at home, then he would go back and get bishop johnson and drive up in our front yard and blow the horn and and my daddy would go out and talk to bishop johnson in the car. i look upon him as the most successful and admirable person you successful and admirable person in my life. but later, i began to see much more clearly about the distinctions. my mother was a registered nurse, and she was immune from criticism because of treating black people as equals. and you black people as equals. after my father got a little and farther along, my mother quit nursing in the hospital. she nursed in an african-american home in archery. she was supposed to get paid $6

a day for 20-hour duty. you and a day for 20-hour duty. so, my sisters and i very seldom saw my mother during those times because she would come home at night at 10:00 and she would wash her uniforms and take a you and wash her uniforms and take a shower and write instructions for us for what to do the next day, and she would go back on duty at 2:00 in the you morning. and morning. she was on duty 20 hours a day. she refused to admit in any way that african-americans were not at least equal to white people. and so that, those kind of you andand so that, those kind of experiences really shaped my life for the future, i would say. i say. walter: what happened in pres. carter: on the race issue, i think there is no doubt that south carolina is going to finally lower the confederate flag. [applause] georgia did about 10, 12 years

ago. and my ago. and the governor that lowered the confederate battle flag was you the confederate battle flag was defeated in the next election by republicans who were are in favor of keeping the flag you and the republicans have is is is a and the republicans have been in power in the south in georgia ever since. i think that's one thing that will be accomplished. but i don't think the nra is going to relinquish any of its that is going to relinquish any of its present, almost disgusting influence over state legislatures or congress. [applause] a is is is we will continue to have a plethora of guns quite is is is have a plethora of guns quite unnecessarily in the

united states. i don't think we are going to have any need for proof of past is experience of whether you're qualified to get guns. i think the nra tends to is is prevail, which is adapted -- dastardly -- which is a dastardly thing to have happen. i'm a hunter. i've got a number of guns. but i think that anybody who gets a gun ought to be fully qualified and give a background briefing. i don't believe that we ought to authorize the sale of submachine guns and armor piercing bullets and guns in churches and guns in schools and that sort of thing. i think it is absolutely ridiculous to do that. [applause] mrs. carter: i get very upset when people with mental illness are blamed for everything that happens like that. because only 4% of all violent crimes are committed by people with mental illnesses. and if you look at the statistics or if you look at their lives, most of them, you will find, have not had access to services. people knew that they needed is is ispeople knew that they needed services, but they didn't -- the one in washington, in the capital, how many times had he you been in to try to get help and could not get it? is and could not get it? anyway, it just -- i hope the stigma is lifting a little bit now. is is is i have a program at the

carter center, a mental health is a carter center, a mental health program there. and we have mental health will fellowships with journalists. and when they were sitting around 18 years ago, trying to and decide what else we could do you decide what else we could do to overcome stigma, and somebody said, why don't we bring journalists in and let them know and about mental illnesses so they can write accurately and in-depth, and my journalists you have been doing that for a long time now, and i think it has made a little bit of and difference. but i just -- i do also think that stigma is beginning to lift a little bit upward on mental health issues. i've worked with mental health him andi've worked with mental health issues for 44 1/2 years. i started with stigma. himi started with stigma. but now, we, with our journalists and our programs in and california, our the international program on of trying to overcome stigma -- trying to overcome stigma -- now, a countries including australia, to european

and countries, and others, have him and a program like that, a program like that, which makes me feel really good. [applause] i do think the time has come. young people now will go for help. older people don't go for help because they don't want to be labeled mentally ill. a hopefully, hopefully hopefully that stigma is beginning to lift a little bit. walter: what can we do to have more access to mental health services, especially for young people, in addition to lifting the stigma? mrs. carter: well, the largest mental health facilities in our country are the prisons and jails. you you can get money for prisons and jails. and it's really difficult to get money for mental health services. you services. mental health, ever since i started working on it, has gotten what was left over after everything was funded.

the parity law is changing that a little bit. you a little bit. i hope it's going to change it a lot. are lot. sometimes, it takes a little in sometimes, it takes a little while for people to get access and services because of stigma. an and services because of stigma. but the parity law is insurance for mental health illnesses the same as those for any other illnesses. and is will i illnesses. and i, one of my greatest disappointments in my life, was passing a mental health systems act that the next president put do on the shelf and did not implement. we had parity in insurance. we had integration of services meaning -- as an meaning -- now we are working on having somebody with a mental and somebody with a mental professional in the office of a primary care professional. and that's really helping, too. the whole country is kind of moving that way. parity -- once people begin accessing services, i think it's going to is be a flood doing that.

you be a flood doing that. i had parity, i had integration of services. and i had incentives for people you to go into the mental health profession. and all of that in my bill what, 30-some years ago. you what, 30-some years ago. walter: this was during the presidency period? and you presidency period? mrs. carter: yes. and mrs. carter: yes. i did work in georgia, too, the you governors commission, and in the white house, the president commit -- president's commission. walter: thank you for what you do. [applause] one other program you are involved with is what i will call domestic caregiving, but i would rather you describe it. explain how that works. mrs. carter: when we came home from the white house, our local state university had a small mental health program. are you are a by the time i thought i could do something because i was writing a book and

doing lots of things, by the time i thought i could do you time i thought i could do something else, i already had a good mental health program at and you and good mental health program at the carter center. you the carter center. so, we decided to work with those caring for people with and you those caring for people with and mental illnesses, because i had seen so many people, when somebody in the you people, when somebody in the family would develop a mental and illness, they had no idea you where to go or what to do. and there are lots of services out there in the community. before the first conference that and youbefore the first conference that we had, a program on burnout, we brought in people in the small will community. everybody knows what's going on. we had people who were caring youwe had people who were caring for the very elderly family members or handicapped children will you will later members or handicapped children who wanted to come. and i to come. we invited them in. we let the university students go and sit with the ones they

were caring for. it was the most emotional andit was the most emotional meeting i've ever been to. people crying. you this was 1987. people crying, saying, this is the first time i've ever been with anybody who knew how i felt that was talking to each other and you are that was talking to each other, and we knew we had hit a real program -- problem. so, we began that program. it has grown and grown and grown. we started working with the in national guard in georgia with veterans coming to. -- coming home. and michelle and jill have a program for veterans. i wrote michelle a letter and said, "you left something out because these veterans are coming home with mental and physical problems, and somebody has to take care of them." a by then, i had seen so many

young wives, particularly, who had no idea what to do when someone came home with mental illness. johnson & johnson has helped me, too. we have done program for alzheimer's caregivers. -- done programs for alzheimer's caregivers. this caregiving program for veterans, going into the home and working with the families -- people who work with veterans have a hard time getting a veteran -- we talk to the family. it's a lot easier to get in. there are a couple programs i'm proud of. walter: thank you for that. you [applause] and you and him and him is is and i'm going to ask president carter about two more court -- and countries and then we will

open it up to questions. open it up to questions. first, china. you went there for the first time, i read, in 1949, right? and you time, i read, in 1949, right? when it was before -- before it had become a communist nation. are and you been almost -- you have been almost every year since then, is that right? what should we be doing with china? you are we handling it right? are we turning them into a competitor more than a cooperative alliance? and cooperative alliance? pres. carter: i got interested in china because i did go there you on a submarine. this was a time when the and nationalist chinese were permitted by the communists to stay in a few seaports. that's the one we visited -- those are the ones we visited. a few weeks after i left china is when the people's republic of china was formed, on october 1 you 1949, which was my 25th birthday.

i'm 25 years older than the people's republic of china. and i've been going back ever since. when i became president, one of the things i put at the top of you and my agenda was to normalize the relation with china. you china. the president had been to china in 1972 and had the shanghai and in 1972 and had the shanghai communique. he announced that there was only one china, but he did not say you which one. and we continued under him and president ford to recognize you and you president ford to recognize taiwan as the only china. and i committed to normalize relations, which i did january 1, 1979. i've been going to china ever is since i got out of the white house almost every year. and house almost every year. i've seen tremendous change

taking place in china. they still have some serious human rights problems, but they have made a great deal of is have made a great deal of progress compared to what it and used to be when the communists first took over. first, there were no bibles permitted in china. there was no religion permitted isthere was no religion permitted in china when i normalized relations. a is a is i wanted to let bibles an back -- i wanted him to let bibles come back and freedom of religion come back, and that's now the law of china, with some restraint. china is now the fastest growing

and christian country in the world. they've made some progress. the last two or three times i've you andthe last two or three times i've met with xi jinping i have urged him to form a partnership with the united you partnership with the united states in dealing with global warming, because i think that, and no matter what they decided, you if the united states and china would agree on anything, and china would agree on anything, you and you that would help prevent climate deterioration -- on anything that would help prevent climate deterioration, the rest of the world would have to go along. without diplomatic or financial you and or military problems, if they could agree on that one thing, it would transform the you and you will you thing, it would transform the world. and you i think it would be the basis for further improvement.

and i would say that particular is i would say that particular issue and any others we can find on which we have particular agreement, to emphasize those instead of the differences which exist between us. walter: finally, in this book, you reminded me that you were in while i was president, any american could visit cuba if they wanted to. i worked with fidel castro on moving toward full diplomatic relations. we made very good progress the first 2 1/2 years. for instance, he released 3000 political prisoners he was holding and about 1000 of them were permitted to come to the united states. we established an intersection in havana. the last time i was there a few years ago, there were 300 people working there. our ambassador -- they have almost the same number in washington. we got right up to the point of normalizing relations, but castro went back on his word to

me. he sent a large number of people into ethiopia to fight alongside the communist dictator and the russians. he also continued to try to convince some latin american countries to adopt his policy. i wish i could have normalized diplomatic relations with china, and i would have if i could have. i think what president obama has announced doing is a very good move, and i hope he will go through with it. the constitution gives the president unilateral right to recognize any government he wants to. the congress has nothing to say about it. this is one thing the president can do by himself, one of the only things i can think of. if he wanted to, he could say, "i recognize the cuban government." i hope before he goes out of office, he will be able to do

that. walter: let me open it up. as i do, let me single out bonnie and tom mccloskey. this is the first of our mccloskey speaker series. thank you very much for doing that. [applause] firsthand i see is the middle there. >> what you make of edward snowden? pres. carter: first of all, i think edward snowden violated the law and the customs of keeping our secrets secret. but at the same time, i think that his overall impact on the united states has not been a disaster. and i think what he has revealed to the american people needed to be revealed. and i believe that what we are now seeing in congress backing

off from the unlimited intrusion into the internal affairs of every human being in america is coming to conclusion because congress has now seen what snowden said. i think what he has done has been beneficial to our country in the long run. i don't think he has betrayed anybody that works in security overseas, so far as i know, but he did violate the law. i think if he comes back home, he would be tried, and that's why he's not coming back. so, in balance, i think that what he's done has been helpful to our country instead of damaging to our country. [applause] walter: yes, sir. right there. you can shout in the mike will get to you. >> thank you for speaking, president carter. i wanted you to maybe address the audience the project you have going on to eliminate parasites in africa. i think that's one of the best things going on right now. pres. carter: the carter center started out promoting peace.

i was going to have a little camp david. i would negotiate peace agreements by going to their countries. we still do a lot of that. we go to north korea. i won't list all the countries we go to. the second thing we were going to do was to promote democracy and freedom by orchestrating and helping plan and then monitoring honest elections in the world. we just finished our 100 th election in guyana, last month. also, dealing with issues in health care that no one else wants to do. there are diseases that the world health organization calls neglected tropical diseases. we have five of them that even medical doctors in the united states would not know about.

these are the diseases we address. also at the carter center, we have the only international task force on disease eradication in the world. we bring in top leaders from the health field in general. we analyze constantly every human illness to see which ones might possibly be eliminated from a particular country or region or eradicated from the entire world. so, we are the ones who decide and recommend to the world health organization which diseases should be targeted for elimination. we are working now on getting guinea worm, one of the most terrible diseases in history. it's in the bible. it's the fiery serpent that attacks the israelites coming out of egypt in the old testament. the staff wrapped around it is

the guinea worm. so, we undertook this about 35 years ago to eradicate it from the world. we found it in 20 countries in india and africa and 26,600 villages, we've been in every village that had guinea worm. we found 3.6 million cases. we taught people what to do to do away with it. i just got a report yesterday that we have five cases of guinea worm left in the world. [applause] so, if we are lucky, we will soon have guinea worm completely eradicated. walter: congratulations. were there any women? ok. i will get to you next. pres. carter: one thing i might say, this year, the carter center will treat 71 million people for these diseases that no longer exist in the developed world but afflict hundreds of

millions of people in africa primarily. 71 million. [applause] mrs. carter: and most of it is by companies that give us the medicine. walter: i'm sorry, companies that? mrs. carter: give us the medicine. pres. carter: the companies -- walter: they give you free medicine to do it. president carter in mrs. carter, it's great to have you all in aspen. >> it's terrific that the aspen institute was able to bring you. present carter, when you first ran in 1976, there was a well-known aspen night who died a few years ago. he was one of the first to say "this man has a chance to win the presidency." can you tell us a little bit about the collegiality with hunter thompson? [laughter]

pres. carter: when i was governor of georgia, senator ted kennedy came down to make the main speech at the university of georgia law school. and i was going to make a speech to the alumni in a separate meeting at lunchtime. when kennedy made his speech, it was almost exactly what i was going to say. i went in the back room and made some notes about the problems with our judicial system in this world, in this country. i made my speech, and hunter thompson was listening to my speech. he was filling up his iced tea glass with wild turkey. [laughter] after my speech, he was profoundly affected by it -- [laughter] walter: the wild turkey or the speech? pres. carter: the speech. maybe both. he finally got a copy of my speech from the university of georgia president. he lived near aspen. whenever anybody visited him at his home near aspen, he would

make them listen to my speech as a ticket to come to his house for entertainment. [laughter] when we used to come out here to ski, hunter thompson always came and spent late at night with my sons and daughter. i generally went to bed at around 2:00 in the morning. he was a very close friend of mine. i remember one time when i was campaigning, by the way, he insisted to my press secretary that he would interview me. hunter thompson brought a bunch of stuff out of his room and built a fire in front of her hotel room. [laughter] so, he had his idiosyncrasies, but he and i were good friends. mrs. carter: and only time we had little white things flying all around was when he came. walter: did he come visit you?

what was it like to host dr. thompson? mrs. carter: it was interesting. [laughter] but he did always complain, what are all those little white things in my bedroom? walter: what were they? moths? hallucinations, i get it. yes, ma'am. >> thank you for the opportunity to ask a question. my question is for the first lady, mrs. carter. first, i would like to thank you for your service to improve the lives of people around the world. i am very heartfelt when i think of all the humanitarian efforts you go onto over the last four decades. i'm also intrigued by the research and outreach provided through the rosalynn carter institute. is there anything else you would like to share about the

institute, the research, or maybe a specific family story that comes to mind that really touched you? mrs. carter: this is one of the most interesting things. when we decided to have a program -- a mental health program in a post-conflict country, and we decided on liberia, because we already had access to information, trying to help women know what was available to them, and access to justice -- we had people all over liberia anyway. we found out they had one psychiatrist in the country. that was all. no other mental health professionals. so, we organized a program to help the country organize a mental health program and trained 144 -- our goal was 150. we saved 144 before the ebola

crisis. but when the ebola crisis came along, we started working with -- we stopped the classes, and we started working with the families of those who died and the survivors. and we did that all over the country. all of the access to justice and access to information people. on may 9, liberia was declared ebola free by the world health organization. that's one of the things my program did. it seems a miracle to me with no mental health workers, then to have 144 in the ebola crisis.

i'm trying to get our staffers in physical fit by calling on people in the back for a change. >> thank you, rosalynn, mr. president. we would like to ask a favor from you. we just got married. my new husband -- my only husband. you are really nice and good example for us, how did get to get together for such long years. that's why we thought, if it was possible, to ask you a favor to sign as a witness on our marriage license. [applause] walter: i would leave it up to the president and mrs. carter. maybe we could see what could be handled.

this will be -- we will try to make it quick and get one more afterwards. >> given what you said about america promoting human rights how does that or how should it affect america's alliance with saudi arabia? pres. carter: that's a very difficult question to answer. because i'm particularly interested, which we haven't mentioned this time, about the rights of women. i wrote about that, describing all the abuses of women in the world. the most horrible human rights abuse on earth. saudi arabia is one of the chief culprits in mistreating women. it's almost impossible for a woman in saudi arabia, even if she graduates from college, to get a job and hold a job. women are not permitted to go on the sidewalks or into stores shopping in saudi arabia unless accompanied by a husband or another man.

she has to wear a veil. women are not permitted to vote in saudi arabia or drive an automobile. i wish the united states was not supporting saudi arabia in their bombing of yemen, by the way. i know from experience from presidents it is important to have saudi arabia supporting our policies within the arab world. it is no doubt that the king of saudi arabia, the protector of two holy places that all muslims worship, is a valuable ally. the united states has to swallow its commitment to human rights in order to have good relations with saudi arabia, because saudi arabia can help us in many ways concerning stability of the oil and dealing with other arab countries. it's not a good answer, because there is no clear answer to it. but you cannot be absolutely pure in saying that human rights has to come above everything

because there are some human rights abusers with whom we have to negotiate and deal. by the way, the carter center, we meet quite freely with human rights abusers and people who are basically outcasts in the international world, because they are the only ones who can end the human rights abuses or bring peace to an unnecessary war. so, we need with them in order to try to negotiate peace and to promote human rights. walter: it's a good question, and there is no simple answer. there is a young woman who everybody keeps pointing to. you get the last question. you have lots of fans. >> i have a question for president carter. i know you haven't spoken on this yet, but i know you left your church. can you please describe what led you to do that? pres. carter: for 70 years, i was very active in the southern baptist convention.

i was on international boards of directors and things of that kind. but in the year 2000, the southern baptist convention decided at their convention in florida to depart from what i consider the holy scriptures. and they ordained, for instance, that women had to be subservient to their husbands and inferior in the eyes of god. and they also decided that a woman could not be a deacon in the church or a pastor or priest in the church or a chaplain in the military forces. and in addition to that, they even went so far as to say that a woman who taught in the baptist seminaries couldn't teach a class if there was a boy among the students. so, because of the obvious discrimination against women, we decided to withdraw our allegiance to the southern baptist convention. [applause]

we still belong to a baptist church, maranatha baptist church in plaines. i hope you will come and visit not all on the same sunday. as its summer school. i teach bible lessons every sunday. we have women deacons. rosa was the most famous woman baptist deacon in the world when she was a deacon. the chairman of our board of deacons is a woman now. we have had women pastors as well as men pastors. our baptist church demonstrates that women, without question should be equal in the eyes of god. [applause] walter: that is a beautiful sentiment that ties in

everything you've been doing for 90 years. i have one quick, little question, which is, you told me you found a better fishing spot that you even told president putin about. pres. carter: the year before last -- last year in june, we went fishing in the pinoy river in russia, west of murmansk. we had already already fished in the eastern part. then we were closer to new york than we were to moscow. we had a wonderful visit there. when i got to fishing in the pinoy river in russia, i wrote president putin a letter and told him he might enjoy going there to fish and also to continue to protect the stream and not let it be despoiled in

any way. if you go to norway or to canada to fish for atlantic salmon, if you catch two a week, that's really good. during the five days we fished in russia, together, we caught 38 atlantic salmon. anybody who is a fisherman, it's the best fishing of your life. go to russia and fish in the pinoy river. i hope that president putin will protect this river. it's what i asked him to do. mrs. carter: we fly fish and we catch and release and we press andy barr on -- in the barb on the hook so it won't hurt the fish. walter: i always feel that flyfishing is a sport for life. what you've done is been good stewards of the planet and good servants of humanity, for which we thank you very much, mrs. carter, president carter. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> c-span gives you the best

access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house, congressional hearings, and news conference, bringing you events that shape public policy. every morning, "washington journal" is live with elected officials, policymakers, and journalists and your comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. c-span -- created by america's cable companies and brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. >> coming up in the morning at 90 caught eastern on c-span two a discussion comparing the debt crisis in puerto rico to the one in greece posted by the american enterprise institute in and on c-span3, a policy of legal experts, including two former supreme court clerks, focus on the high court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage and what it means for the beach or of constitutional self-government. -- future of constitutional self-government. >> up next, 2016 republican

presidential candidate mike cut can be talks about the importance of respecting and supporting law enforcement and the need to reduce crime rates. our coverage of his remarks at the national sheriffs association conference in baltimore is about an hour. [applause] mr. thompson: thank you again to all the first responders who are here. i am jonathan thompson. i am executive director and ceo of the national sheriffs foundation. today is a great honor for the association. we are taking ourselves in a new direction. with that goes so many obligations, so many opportunities that we, as an association in law enforcement can and should take advantage of.

today represents the first time ever presidential candidates have been invited to participate in your annual conference. all of the candidates for president of the united states received an invitation to participate in this event and talk to you, the men and women in uniform who do walk that line, to hear your questions, to talk with you about the issues you face every single day. republican and democrat, they were all invited. ladies and gentlemen, i want you to take notice over the next couple of days as to who is here. i want you to take notice of the people that aren't here. and i want you to take notice of those that are here, that they are standing tall with you and they are answering your questions and they are talking to you. they are not talking at you. they are talking with you. our first candidate is former

arkansas governor mike huckabee. governor huckabee has the distinction of being one of the longest standing governors in that state's history. he left a legacy of tax cuts job creation, the reconstruction of the state's road system, k - 16 education reform and a heralded and duplicated health initiative that focus on the less expensive approach to prevention than the costly big government top-down approach of intervention. "governing magazine" named the governor as one of its public officials of the year in 2005 and "time magazine" honored him as one of the five best governors in america. he has been honored by numerous

organizations for his commitment to music education. he served as the chairman of the prestigious national governors association as well as the education commission of the states. the southern governors association and the interstate oil and gas commission. governor huckabee is also a new york times best-selling author former host of number one weekend show on fox news channel , and a longtime radio personality. governor huckabee is an avid musician and a bass player. his hobbies also include hunting and fishing. he was named one of the 25 most influential people for conservation by "outdoor life magazine" and was named the end man of the year by an american sportfishing association. the former governor and his wife, janet, who is seated here with us today, have three grown children and five grandchildren. ladies and gentlemen, please stand and welcome governor mike huckabee.

[applause] governor huckabee: thank you , thank you very much. let me say i am kind of that all the republican candidates did not show up this week. otherwise, your conference would have been extended by three more days considering how many they are and still growing. a lot of people have said, is it going to be difficult having that number of candidates and how in the world will we sort them out? i do have a solution to that. i don't know if it will go over with some of the others. for me, it is a very simple one. they all drop out and endorse me and then we move on. i think that would be a great idea. maybe we can encourage them to do that. it is an honor to be with you today and i appreciated the tribute that you have given

today to the members of a baltimore police department, well-deserved. and i want to say that, one of the reasons i look forward to being with you is that you serve one of the most important parts of law enforcement in the country in that every single one of the 3000 plus sheriffs in america are elected by the people of their communities. so we always know that the motto of law enforcement is to protect and to serve. for the sheriff's office, if you don't serve, they will send you home. and if you do serve, they will appreciate it by reelecting you. it is one of the important elements of our law enforcement community because of that. we are living in some very challenging times, to say the least. i am afraid that my kids and , even more