representative joe wilson of south carolina during president obama is a recent address to the joint session of congress? do you recall a similar event? . . this is permeated politics ever since i have been involved in the 1960's, not only in the south but also in many places throughout the nation. >> we will show you the entire one hour and 20 minuteman today

at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. on c- span. >> in 1971, as in new york times reporter, neil sheehan and obtained a top-secret pentagon papers. 18 years later, still writing about the vietnam war, he won the pulitzer prize. this weekend he will discuss his latest, "a fiery peace." "q&a" tonight and c-span. >> joining us is congressman mike turner, republican of ohio and a member of the armed services committee. here to question him is john donnelly from cqpolitics.com and james kitfield of "national journal." the president said that the new approach would be swifter, smarter, and more aggressive in going after threats around the world. your reaction. >> i wish any portion of that

were true, actually. the plan that he is scrapping, that would have been a european land base system, but it provided both europe and the united states with short, medium, intermediate, and long range -- the most important aspect would be a long range -- icbm potential. if iran should missile, if that system could go on line as early as 2013, the schedule deployment time, and there was some concern as to whether that would be the appropriate configuration. other systems that could in a different configuration could make a difference. an independent assessment that our subcommittee just present, showed that this was but -- the most cost-effective system of all the other systems that we have in place or in place. this would have been the most cost-effective. the other aspect this time.

again, the system having been slated for availability as early as 2013, the white house in their own communication indicates that their plan, which is currently an undefined plan as to what it would put in place, will not be available until 2020. so sitting here in 2009, having the president of the united states choosing a different plan available in 2010 for a thread that i think that is imminent, and scrap the plan that would be available in 2013, is precarious. >> why the change in policy? >> the president has been toying with trying to send a signal to uto russia. he had sent a letter to russia earlier in the year perhaps even offering up the scrapping of the system in exchange for russia coming to the table to assessed in iran's pursuit of a nuclear program. there have been no indication

that rut -- that russia has any indication of doing that. it has been the opposite. russia has not been a voice of deterrence or trying to hold back iran's ambitions. so the president had signaled that perhaps he wanted to start a relationship with russia placing that on the table, being helpful, starting negotiations. russia had expressly stated that one of the president to can see on this missile defense shield that would have been based in europe as part of the start of negotiations, having the president concedes this before we get into this. but there has never been a point where concessions with russia has ever resulted in an and the advancement of concessions on their part. it is a not strategy to take.

but i think it is the only one that we're left one. let's go to john donnelly of cqpolitics.com. >> on the timeline, the administration argues that they are deploying a system that will be able to intercept short and medium-range, and be able to deploy that shorter-range systems sooner than under the previous plan. as early as 2011. isn't it as important to give them credit for getting something into the field sooner in response to what they say are the more pressing threat from iran? >> not necessarily. if you look at their communication. they said they will address short and medium by 2015, intermediate by 2018, and icbm's by 2020. this system in 2013 would have take care of medium, intermediate, and long-range.

short ranges are a different issue, but looking at european factors and intercostal lead sold listed missiles. -- intercontinental ballistic missiles. i when i congratulate them for doing something in 2011 and in exchange for that, you're going to move protection of the u.s. from 2013 to 2020. >> has and secretary gates said that iran will not have long- range capability by 2013, and they have the long-term now, -- have the short range now. it's important to protect our allies from that and then move that appeared >> i did not suggest that. and that is a false choice. it suggests that if you have the threat that is growing, responding to this means that we have to put risk not only the

united states cut -- the continental united states. the system that would have gone into place in europe that the president has scrapped would have been available by 2013. it would have provided icbm protection to the continental united states from his european side. the president's on a website and description does not identify icbm protection as being available as part of his plan until 2020. >> secretary gates says that they will not have icbm capability for some number of years beyond 2020. >> no one has the intelligence that is supposedly sighting. everyone on the armed services committee has access to the same affirmation and it is indicated that their intercontinental capabilities will be 2015, meaning that the president's plan would arrive five years after iran has reached icbm capability. but the other issues that we're talking about 11 years for the

president to say with president days that they have new reformation and they are 11 years away from my icbm capability, and everyone sitting at home watching television who watched news channels note that iran has launched a satellite into orbit. this translates into icbm capability. and they are working in concert with north korea and others, and could acquire and advancement in their systems that we would not be allowed to respond to them. >> the dates for the new intelligence estimates, may 2009, classified national intelligence estimate on iran says that it is likely to arrive after 2015 but by 2020. that is the iranian peace of it. my question is concerning united states ability now to defend against an iranian attack.

general cartwright, the vice- president of the door steves, testified that we currently have the ability from the alaska and california sites to defend against an iranian launch anywhere in the united states and from any point of launch iran. i checked with the pentagon today and they said that that is correct, but they have the capability now, and that the european and paul and czech would have made it a stronger capability but that we still have it now. >> there is an argument, but there are three important issues that we need to address in trying to grapple with that. the first is the argument of shooting from alaska. we do not have to shoot from europe. we can handle that intuitively among ourselves. if you and i both have packages to send iran and i'm going to send my from europe and you were going to send from alaska, i think we can all agree that i am more likely to get there before you are. that is the system that he does scrapped. the second thing is that the

president just cut, by $1.2 billion, eliminating a third of the missile field in alaska. there were 30 missiles scheduled to go up there. while this administration is on a spending spree in every other category, while we have north korea advancing toward missile technology, icbm capability, and clearly already have nuclear capability, we have iran marching toward nuclear capability and making it clear that they want to seek icbm capability, this administration does your gut missile defense by $1.2 billion, and a third of the cut was missiles to that. but the next is, but three things that we have to address, i would rather shoot from europe than alaska, and the second is this administration cutting a third of alaskan capabilities, courteous, if you have europe and alaska, you have both.

you have a second shot. you do not have a second shot if you are shooting from alaska. if you are unsuccessful, but you take your second shot from? dollars the administration would see that you can get there faster but you can still get it from alaska. and secondly, the number of interceptors may not be as many as they had planned but the secretary gates says that it is sufficient t. how would you respond that? . a lot of these are but. yes, but, but why would we ever choose less? we have the technology and we have always had an innovative spirit and commitment to our own defense. if we have the capability, we reached for it and we tried to ensure that our freedoms and liberties are protected. in this instance, we have this administration cutting right now missile defense by $1.2 billion while everyone is sitting home knowing that north korea and

iran are the biggest threats. all on the second. this is an import less. and secondly, you read the issue of cutting current capability and inventory, and thirdly, eliminating whole systems. iran decides to send an icbm to the united states with a nuclear capability, i want had everything at my disposal, because we're talking about the united states being attacked. that is something that we need to defend vigorously. >> we have a secretary of the defense who was a lifelong republican, president bush's secretary of events, and he has proposed this. he is the chairman -- as the chairman of the joint chiefs on board. i have been listening today to nato allies thinking that this is probably a better way to go. what all these people be behind it if as you described is such a vulnerable position? >> this is fairly easy to discuss. the first thing is, nato endorsed the system and you said

the secretary proposed it. it is not speculative for us in comparing the two scenarios to look at the gaps. we know, the administration has said, 2020. we know that the administration has said and secretary gates said that the other system is available in 2013. that is seven years. we know that the intel says it could be 2015 for the iranians have icbm capability and perhaps nuclear capability. but they are still at 2020. it is a five-year gap from where the projections are that iran would have icbm and perhaps nuclear capability, it is not more complicated. there is an independent study done of all the systems which include the system that the president is proposing, which says that this was the most cost-effective. they say, they do not disagree

with what i had just said to you. those are their own numbers. they say that the risk is acceptable. and i do not agree. dollars but one thing that you're leaving out is that the joint chiefs of staff and the missile defense agencies said that we have the ability to intercept an iranian missile if it were launched at the united states today. you do not trust them on that point? dollars but are systems that are in place spent in assistance. but they are not to the level that everyone would like. the president would not be proposing a new system. but about what you just said. we can already do it. if we awhat we have already was sufficient, you cannot be proposing a new system. >> i new system that will evolve eventually to a strategic long- range defense. >> in 2020, and no one contradicts the 2020. that is their own figure. and the system his craft was 2013, seven years. the difference between us is

that he believes that that seven years is a risk that he is willing to take. and i did not believe it is the type of risk we should take as the united states. >> talk about russia. you say was an attempt by obama to improve relationships with russia. a lot had said that that is an absolutely critical thing to do because a portion of nuclear weapons around the world is our number one threat, and to get that proliferation we need to have more support from russia on a rant and also reduce our arsenals to convince others countries that we're serious about reducing. was thinking that relationship back on it workable -- was not true that this relationship getting back on a workable level was important for the obama administration? >> it would ensure that we of a successful start to negotiations and to conclude it is important. having russia for the first time agree with us that the iranian

investments in the nuclear area and the missile area is something that should be addressed through sanctions and the diminished would be wonderful. i do not agree that the way to do it is by lessening the defense systems of the united states, and i would be surprised if they disagree that by lessening the systems, it is the right way to go. we need to get them at the table but not like this. let's take the russian-united states discussion on missile defense and break that down to find out what we know. russia says they do not like our missile defense system. it's a missile defense system. it is not an offensive system but a defensive system. for russia's sake, i do not like a defensive system, is saying that they want their offenses systems to be more successful, more effective. i do not think that we should ever go to the table and have someone asked us for concessions on our defensive systems. you can loosely translate where russia is saying is that i want

your missile defense shield down because i might want to bomb new. and because of bad, that is an unreasonable request to begin with. it is one that we not put up with. >> this is absolutely use all of -- useless against the russian arsenal. dollars why would they be asking us? >> i am not one to take the russians point of view. the fact we would have a large interceptors that they said they appeared would be at some point could be armed with nuclear warheads right next door where they had very little warning, i'm not saying that is right. >> they have 3000 tactical weapons right there. i do not buy -- here is the important point -- i do not buy that they have reasonable basis to be asking for concessions in a defensive system. therefore i do not fight that it is a concession that we should have made or that was worthwhile to make. >> if they put large

interceptors in cuba, that is as close to us. we already been through that. >> cuba is obviously a different issued in europe. dollars but it does she was on the other foot, would you feel threatened if russia was putting interceptors somewhere in our own neighborhood? that is what we're doing. >> are you arguing against nato? it is a native-endorsed system. net when doorstep and it is to be part of an integrated data system. if you are saying that we cannot do it because it is in russia's backyard, you're saying that we should not be there and nato should not be there. >> i am not saying that all. if we have bigger fish to fry with russia on strategic horn productions and on iran, we might do this point. you don't agree that that is what the obama administration is doing? >> here is my point. i do not believe that even if

the goal is increased relationship with russia, bringing them to the table in a way that is meaningful and shows that we want to bring them to the table, i don't think the defensive systems are the way to do it. secondly, i do not believe, even if the president believes defensive system should be on the table, but the risk of moving from 2013 to 2020, the u.s. capability for icbm protection from iran, is worth it. that is a risk of not take. >> based was secretary gates said last week, couldn't better relations with russia lead possibly to better relations with iran or less of a threat from iran? >> that is an interesting point. number one, russia has not sound any interest in playing that role. they have -- shown any interest complain that roper did not given us any indication that that would be effective in reducing iran's thirst for interco is the continent on the polls -- enter continental ballistic missiles or that even

if russia was interested that iran would be responding. iran is not indicated that there would be dissuaded by russian intervention. here's the third thing that is important. a real dynamic thing happened the same day that the president made his announcement for this and it is announcement occurred, the international atomic energy agency made an announcement that they believe iran has already got the capability to be a nuclear power, that they already have the ability to make nuclear weapons. and that release is a game changer because if your goal is to dissuade iran from having the capability, and the agency is issuing a press release saying that they already have it, what are we expecting to get from russia? >> the key issue is their ability to deliver that weapon, right? and so the question is, what is their time line for icbm

development? on their side, and a separate question, what is our capability today defending against that? it's as like you just do not accept the word from the joint staff that they have the capability today to her -- to intercept an iranian missile. whenever it becomes capable of launching for the united states. >> what i am saying to you is that they are not speaking as absolutely as you are. if they believed that they had everything that they needed to counter an icbm threat from iran, the president would not be proposing an alternate system to the one that he scrapped. that would say that they are already there but they have not said that. there are other capabilities but not the ones that everyone wants to say that we're done, including the president and the joint chiefs. they are proposing an alternate system. it would be ready in 2020 and won the spacecraft was 2013. >> they are looking to improve the system and alaska and california but they stated unequivocally in testimony and

today in an e-mail that they have the capability to defend. >> they are not trying to improve the capability that they have in our last appeared they cut it by 33%. >> bodman with the european installation. >> the interceptors in alaska, this administration this year cut missile defense by $1.2 billion, nearly 33% of the capability in alaska that was slated to be there is going away. for them to say to you that we can rely on a lost it when they are diminishing its plant capability by 33% -- and we were where you had said we had the capability to concurrently respond. we were expanding alaskas capabilities and we were placing this capability in europe. so we have three shots, if you will, plus we have the technology and innovation that is progressing in that pond. -- in that time period, 2013 and

now they have taken europe off the table until 2013, -- until 2020, and have what is left in alaska. i do not think that is sufficient. >> this is a technical subject but as i read their release, they can nuclear missile -- and had enough nuclear material to make a bomb, not that it was weapon eyes. -- not that it was weapon ii zed. dollars i have the associated press story, "our brand can make bombs spread to iran has the ability to make these new bonds and as on their way to develop a missile system cable -- capable to carry the world nuclear warhead. we're just going on what the associated press, but they say that the ability to make a bomb. that came up the same date of the president said iamb

unimpressed with their progress on delivery, and i am willing to let the united states be exposed for an additional seven years while i deliver a different system in 2020. >> did he say that? of a " i am willing to let the united states be exposed." is that a direct quote? >> 11 system is 2013 and he proposes a 2020 system, that is what he is saying. >> on the iaea thing, maybe he has not done the story. i am pretty sure that they're not weaponized. >> capability means that they have the ability. and here is the issue that we all have to be more concerned about. there are no absolutes in any of this. when is a 2015 and maybe by 2020 they will have it, and do they have it weaponized or not? this is what we do know. iran has a program where they

are actively seeking the ability to build a nuclear bomb, actively seeking missile technology for delivery and that they are on a path that we cannot really predict with absolute mess with their timeframe is going to be of success. we do know that some of our intelligence believe that will be as early as 2015. the system that we would have deployed in europe would of been available in 2013, ahead of the earliest time period that our intelligence say that it could be. we do not stray from the white house's web site at the first time this system would be available for icbm capability, responding to an icbm, is 2020. that is not up to me. >> you left out another thing. we do know that the vice- chairman and the joint chiefs of staff said that the current system has the capability to intercept iranian icbm is. -- iranian icbm's.

according to the pentagon, it is a system that is capable today. >> which as i said in response, if they thought it was sufficient and all we needed in scrapping the european system, but would not be proposing another. yes, we have capability but even they believe and what the president is proposing, they need additional capability. i think the one that they scrap is the one that we needed. >> how big a threat is a run to the u.s.? >> i think iran is a great threat. you have a country that has repeatedly had instances where people from their own military are seen chanting death to america. i tend to believe that when we have the necessary, we should believe them. we should not say that that is for show, they do not really mean this. if that is what they're saying and we know that they are seeking this weapon system, they are seeking missile systems, we need to defend ourselves. that is why america has always

done best. but i don't think that there is any argument here that iran represents a threat. the question is, there is only so much money to go around. you cannot do everything and they have met twice -- and they had made a choice. some people will be uneasy about this but apparently the joint chiefs are comfortable with this. >> this administration apparently thinks that we should spend overwhelmingly in all areas but the military. to cut missile defense by $1.2 billion and then to scrap its european system i believe is irresponsible. i think this administration continues to propose new spending but looks for savings as something that puts our country of risk. i do not think it is right. >> congressman michael turner, thank you for being with us. we continue the conversation with john donnelly and james kitfield. what was behind the president's

decision last week? >> that one not acknowledge it openly, but i think there was a big view toward russia in the decision and an attempt to hopefully bring russia closer to helping out with the iranian nuclear missile program, primarily, among other issues. but i do take them at their word is that it was every privatisation of the wake of the system is going to be configured -- a privatisation -- prioritization of the way the system is going to be configured. and you have to take them at their word that the system that we have in alaska and california is at least to some degree capable of intercepting and iranian icbm if it was launched at the united states. >> i think that it is right. they want a quid pro quo with russia. he went to moscow last summer

in july and said he was to reset their relationship. this system that they announced without nato's approval, they announced that the system would be in poland and the czech republic, bush and ministration, on its on and it really got under russia's in. you have to weigh how much investment you can make with russia on strategic nuclear arms reductions versus with a nonstarter with russia, we should remember that the republicans are much more wedded to the idea of missile defense ever since ronald reagan gave a star wars. it has been a part of every republican plank since then. democrats are more skeptical about its cost and how effective it will be. they found a middle ground here, and never republican secretary of defense and all the joint chiefs to agree on that. these are not people who are

known to except unacceptable risks for the country and they take that very seriously. there's probably a middle ground here that will be successful. >> congressman turner pointed out that this administration is increasing funding for everything except defense programs. >> not quite accurate. defense has done quite well. there was an increase in the defense budget this year. it is not what the bush administration had wanted it to be upon leaving but it added dick -- an increase, and the defense budget has soared since 9/113 no one is starving over there. >> going back to the joint chiefs, a lot of people do not know that the military's a lot less passionate about strategic national missile defense than people assume. this shows that inclination. the air defense, they do it very well. the systems have been tested more and been more successful, they are more robust, and they will build up from the theater to the strategic level.

bush administration was building down from the strategic level back to the theater. it is not really surprising that a democratic president went this way. you get this much by men from the military, it suggests to me that that he has found a middle ground between those who like to scrap it altogether and most republicans who would rather build a missile defense than do almost anything else. >> how is this playing in eastern europe and western europe? >> there's not a monolithic response from poland or the czech republic. there are people who hated and there are people that did not like the idea of deploying the system in their countries. there are divisions there. >> clearly poland and the czech republic wanted to build the systems because it pits american troops on their soil. that makes them feel lot safer with the big bear next door. the political elite were buried in western europe, they're

breathing a sigh of relief because the really bad trajectory of u.s.-russian relations culminating with the war in georgia was making a lot of europeans very nervous. >> james kitfield and john donnelly, a gentleman, thank you for being with us on "newsmakers." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> in 1971, neil say and obtained a top-secret pentagon papers. 18 years later, still writing about the vietnam war, he won a pulitzer prize for of bright shining lie. this weekend he will discuss his latest, "a vfiery peace." >> tomorrow on "washington journal," betts the pisik and la trevelyan previewed the g-20 summit this week. robert rector discusses illegal

immigrants and health care, and the washington post the next -- personal finance reporter talks about chris dodd's efforts to tackle overdraft charges. "washington journal," why did 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. -- live at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. and now, former president jimmy carter and his wife rosalynn at a forum hosted by the carter center. they discuss the current administration and took questions from the audience on a range of issues, including the status of health care legislation in congress and the basis of recent protests against the obama administration. this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> president carter and mrs. carter founded the nonprofit carter center 27 years ago, and

since then our programs have helped to improve the lives of millions of people in more than 70 countries. led by carter is an independent board of trustees, and a staff of over 150, waging peace, fighting disease, and building hope is the action of the carter center by but engaging at the highest levels of government as well as working side-by-side with the poor and often forgotten people. the carters are the centers hardest working volunteers and are employed in all aspects of our work. they travel tirelessly around the world working with our staff to monitor elections, resolve conflicts, promote human rights, and eradicate diseases. their vision for the world of peace guides our work here at

the carter center, and serves as an inspiration not only to us but to millions of people around the world seeking a better way of life. please join me in welcoming two of the most inspiring leaders of our times, president carter and his wife rosalynn. [applause] >> there was one where there that john used that i hesitated

to accept, tirelessly. [laughter] you should see a son time when we get back in the planes after midnight after coming in from the world, at our age. tiresome might be a better word than tirelessly. but everything done here is invigorating and inspirational and adventuress and unpredictable, gratifying, and we're thankful to have partners like you to make it all possible. i'm going to go down a list of things very rapidly, just the things that have happened since our last conversations, and i will be fairly brief about it. we will leave as much time as we can for questions and report on the programs. the big thing happening this year is the upcoming opening of the new museum, taking place at

10:00 a.m. on my 85th birthday. [applause] not entirely a coincidence, i might say. [laughter] and this is very gratifying to me and rosalynn after our 63rd wedding anniversary we had a few months ago. we've had a lot of good experiences. [applause] we'll have a special thing in the museum that has never been in the president to museums before. 33 percent of it will be devoted to our lives since we left the white house. that would be extremely exciting to all of us as well because we spent months and months with the designers and all those that worked at the carter center to make it as accurate an exciting and interesting. we hope that you will, often and

send all school children that you can impose to come by. the second thing will be a special presentation, fairly brief, it takes one day in my life as president derive from a very detailed diary and shows what the president does in the time he gets up -- from the time he gets up until it goes to bed at night. it is incredible to see it and it is going to be beautifully presented in the second part of the museum. the third thing will be a new and unprecedented interactive table, where a group of people can stand around -- you seen on cnn with a stress the maps this in that way, you can do that and explore the internal workings and hidden mechanisms of what the carter center does and you can even put yourself in the way of international travel. you get up virtual passport and you actually get a written passport in the e-mail, and you

can take off an airplane and tell them where to go and it will land where be one. it will be a very exciting event and will be looking for to sing and myself. a lot take place as scheduled, and there should -- it looks like there's a long way to go but it looks like it will be done. now to get back to the carter center's work in the last year some -- or so. we finished our 76 election in lebanon in april. this is one of our more difficult ones. you know how complex the system as. it was the first safe and free and fair election held in lebanon, everyone agrees, since at least 1972. and now the government is trying to put it back together based on the election results. so far they are still having some problems but as we do in almost every case, we stay in the country after the election is over. we do not walk out and leave a

country. that was a very successful election. we also have scheduled to attend our fourth troubled and challenged election in kazakhstan. the other three may have been the three best ones. no corruption, no violation of rules and laws, totally safe and free, completely honest, and everybody except the results peacefully. and we are now planning for january of 2010 for the next election, but a lot has to be done before then. some of the participants in the palestinian community will have plans later on the year. the carter center will be there, what ever is. another is in the saddudan, probably the most troubled country the carter center's ever been. so many cities have died in the

civil war, and it is divided up into two parts officially, the northern and southern parts. and in a few years, the southerners will be of our vote in a referendum whether or not they will become a free and independent nation of sao sudan. we were looking at the problems and darfur as well. but we have a presence in sudan and we're working with everyone there to make sure that we can monitor the registration of voters, the preparation of the butter's list, and the conduct of the election another country that has been divided with horrible human rights abuses is the ivory coast. we expect tabulation there this november, and the carter center is preparing to be a monitor of that process. we continue to stay involved indirectly or directly with a full-time staff in the paul nea

-- in nepal. we have helped to bring about an honest election that was held, and different factions are trying to put together a government to write a new constitution for nepal. that covers very quickly and briefly the elections that we have. remember every election in which the carter center is involved with is a difficult or troubled election that in our opinion cannot be held successfully without our presence. if the election was going to be held decently and properly and legally and safely, we would not get an odd. we go there when the people in the country believe that only if we come can it be a successful election for them. we try also to deal with conflicts in the world, and one of the most troublesome companies -- was the most

troubled countries is liberia. it is closest to the united states, the government established in the 1840's by slaves who were freed in our country, going there to establish a government. we a been trying to help them have honest elections which they have had now. they have a wonderful present to was the only woman leader in africa elected to be president -- a wonderful president, the only woman leader in africa elected to be president. we're helping them with some other issues. in the rural areas of liberia, it is not a crime to rape a woman. there is no possibility there for a woman to inherit aany of her husband's property if he dies. those kinds of laws are some times and forced just by drawing lots. we are deeply embossed with the

president to put together a more comprehensible and a more dependable and reliable jury -- judicial system in rural areas. we're also working in the last 16 months, the middle east. each time we go, i include not only 11 on and jordan -- lebanon and jordan and syria but the people in gaza and the web site -- in the west bank and when i can get into it, because of. the incredible destruction of that small portion of land in the holy land that is inhabited by 1.6 million palestinians, they had their schools, their hospitals, business establishments, almost every business in gaza has been wiped out. their farmland is off-limits for the fathers -- farmers. the israelis and not even

presented a sack of cement or a board of lumber or a blade of grass to going to repair approximately 50,000 homes, according to united nations. they've been destroyed by the israeli bombs and missiles. we're deeply concerned about because of -- about gaza. that is where hamas rules, and we're working behind the scenes to bring about eight reconciliation between hamas and thfatah. we're also working in no columbia, -- all columbi- colom. bolivia as another troubled nation. we have had a full-time presence there to make sure that the transforming form of

government, it is for the first time brought an excluded people including indians, given a chance to work harmoniously with those who have controlled everything about bolivia including the politics and economics and everything else. that country still struggling to find a stable form of government based on true democracy. we're there to help them. i will skip over to china. carter center has been deeply a bald in china at the invitation of that country for more than 10 years in helping have open and honest democratic elections in their provinces -- and their small villages. we've made a lot of progress there. there is still some struggle in government itself to extend its democracy to other forms of government, the communist party system, but those villages are not part of the communist party system. that starts in big towns and in

towns and provinces. we're still working in china and we're expanding our efforts to work with china on better health care for africa and other places. we're also helping to proceed with further economic developments in those small villages, to which we have now introduced honest elections. we have a wonderful website used by scholars in this country and around the world to monitor what is going on inside china. not to switch to the last thing i'm going to mention, disease. the carter center now deals with five almost completely unknown diseases in this country. that strange names with which all of us have become familiar. one disease's terrible in africa and other parts of the world, including china. one disease is caused by filthy

eyes. another some of you may know as elephantiasis, when your sexual organs in your arms and legs swell up to protest sizes. with combined those efforts very successful up to now to deal with malaria. because malaria is caused by the same kind of mosquitoes that also cause elephantiasis. we're working with a combination of disease is now so that when we go into in a country at large expense to ourselves, we can also deal with four diseases that affect -- up with people on the same village. we have been able to cut back from 3.6 million when we started, and more than 20,000 villages, down to 0.1%, and we

know where every case is. in the next couple of years, we're going debt perhaps erase it from the face of the earth. to prevent more but blindness, we present an 11.7 million people by putting three drops in their mouth which prevent them from going blind from diseases inside their body. in the southern part of this hemisphere we will never have another person go blind in this hemisphere from this disease because of the exclusive work of the carter center. buzz of a kind of things that we're doing in health care. -- those are the kind of things that we're doing and health care. we're going down to haiti in the dominican republic to get rid

of malaria, nowhere else in this hemisphere. we do not want to spread and we're going to start a program there. we have at the carter center the only air national task force on disease eradication in the world. it is done under johns hopkins' direction. we analyze every human illness that there s and we ascertain the latest technological developments and medical developments, which one might actually be completely eradicated from the face of the earth with proper treatment and proper funding and also which ones might be eradicated from a particular content or country -- continent or country. that is what this international task force on disease eradication does. that opens up opportunities for

us in the future, to take on another disease, possibly measles, where we will start trying to eradicate measles from the face of the earth. and now turn the program over to the number one boss at the carter center and the one whom you have been waiting to hear from, my wife, rosalynn. thank you. [applause] >> it is just one time a year that i have my journalism fellows here. i am going ask them to stand tonight. but me tell you a little bit about them first. we have mental health fellowships for journalism so they can learn how to cover mental illnesses accurately. and also said they would become interested in the subject and give it a lot of publicity. and we have eight every year, we

have two from south africa, two from -- six from the united states, and two from romania, my mind is blank, excuse me. we started with new zealand and we tell them that we will work with them and fund them for five years to start their own program in their country, to have the rahm program. and it has worked out well. new zealand really has a great program there. and south africa is probably the fourth or fifth year. their time will be up pretty soon. we do not know where we're going next. and i think that we have advisers -- every journalist as

an adviser who is a mental health expert and all of them are people that have worked with over the years -- that i have worked with over the years. i'm going as my mental health people the standout said the you can see just how many that we have that i am excited and pleased about. can you stand up? [applause] this is a special year in the journalism program because this year we passed 100 journalists who have been through our program. we had 108 actually, which is really pleasing to me. we have a lot going on in the program. in november, we have our annual symposium, and this year it will be on preparing for health care reform, because with health care reform going on, we want to be sure that we take advantage of

the process and be sure that we get public health care included. one good ally that we have is michelle obama, because she is interested in boats de -- ptsd, our soldiers coming home. that is what the subject of our symposium will be. and george it just as a terrible mental health system. -- georgia just has a terrible mental health system. we've been working with many states and we have gone beyond -- beyond the mental health abbas agreed to. i spoke to 11 day to get all of the religious community in the atlanta area involved in involving us in our work with the state to be sure that we

have a better system, a system of real quality for mentally ill people. over 130 people died and i think it was in our adolescence system -- was and it just adolescent hospitals? psychiatric hospitals? just from patient neglect, things that they should not have died from. the "atlantic journal constitution" had a big expos 8. -- a big next possession -- expose. they said to be sure that people are treated right and get all of serviceman and leave the hospital. we did not like that because we won a more specific things.

the mental-health community has really joined together. we had shared associations, all kinds of people in who are not normally involved, to be working on that. and also one center for mental health is involved, and the justice department, we got a judge that was on our side. we hope that we're going have a better system in georgia in the future. jimmy talked about the things that we did in going into bolivia. we had some really interesting times, and one of my favorite times was going the peasants and bolivia, where the beautiful outfits. we met with a woman's group, and they were really strong women. there were demanding. it was fun, because they were

all chewing coca leaves, and they would put it in their mouths, and then there were tall, and there were strong. anyway, we had a good time. [laughter] they actually passed reason cocoa leaves. and i was disappointed because it did not give me a buzz at all. [laughter] [applause] and when we left [unintelligible] it was really interesting to me with those women, but we have a lot of fun. it is so interesting to meet some many wonderful people. i went with jimmy on a chip to israel and palestine and i had my own schedule. he was with the other group, and lucky for me, i had my own schedule because i was able to

take care and ryan, head of the human rights program, with me and i met with human rights workers in israel and in palestine. i went to a center in israel -- the israeli center for treatment of psychodrama -- psychotrauma. a man is working down there, they treat any when it comes their, whether from palestine or anywhere, but what happens is very few people come in. and then i found out the name of the woman who was one of the knesset who knows about people coming from gaza and the west bank, coming in for treatment. very few come in. she was really nice.

she has not been in the knesset long. she said to me that everybody that could get out of because of was treated -- out of gaza was treated. but some human rights people said that hamas did at one time not let them come out. she said that hamas to not let them come up. but that was just for a few weeks. and now they're so many people who are sick -- there are so many people who are sick and really cannot come out. so we have an office in palestine, and we told her that we would get her in touch with our person there so that she can know what is going on and hope that that is going to be helpful. we also met with different people, were like the ambassador to the palestinian authority from