tv Meet the Press MSNBC November 8, 2010 2:00am-3:00am EST
2:00 am
this sunday, the republican wave and the new balance of power in washington. >> the american people have spoken. i think it's pretty clear that the obama/pelosi agenda south is being rejected by the american. >> on jobs, taxes, spending, health care and the debt, what's next? and can the gop stand united with the tea party's growing influence? my exclusive guest this morning, washington's leader of the tea party, republican senator from south carolina, jim demint.
2:01 am
then, he was a hot commodity among republican candidates on the campaign trail and is being called the darling of the gop. i'll go one on one with new jersey's outspoken governor, chris christie. finally, our political roundtable weighs in on the road ahead for president obama after what he calls a shellacking on election day. >> sometimes we lose track of, you know, the ways that we connected with folks that got us here in the first place. >> with us, the president's former communications adviser, anita dunn. counselor to president bush, karen hughes, president of the national urban legal, marc morial, and republican strategist and adviser for governor candidate of california, meg whitman, mike murphy.
2:02 am
good morning. the president is on day two of his ten-day trip through asia. but back at hope, the fallout from tuesday's big election continues. the big question now, how will the republicans use the new power they have? joining me from his home state of south carolina this morning, the washington leader of the tea party, republican senator jim demint. welcome to "meet the press," senator. >> thank you, david. i can't claim to be the leader of the tea party, but i'm sure glad they raised the interest level of the american voter this year. it made a real difference in the election. >> let me ask you that, plain and simple. is the tea party now running the republican party? >> hardly. i'm hoping the republican party will embrace a lot of the ideas of the tea party, but it's a mistake to think that the tea party is one big organization. it's made up of thousands of leaders all across the country of citizens who are just tired of out-of-control spending. they want to take back the power from the washington politicians. and i think they made a huge difference in the election. they're just a part of this
2:03 am
awakening of the american people, the citizen activism, i think it's realigning politics in america today. >> what about the election results on tuesday? in your judgment, was that step one of making president obama a one-term president? >> i don't know that that's the issue. i think people are rejecting, in large numbers, this rampage of government spending and takeover that the president has been leading. but also, even before obama was president, pelosi and reid have been in charge of the congress now for four years. they've had plenty of time to show what they're going to do. pelosi said there would not be any more deficit spending. we've had $5 trillion in deficit since then. so, i think it's a rejection of obama's policy, but it's not about whether he's a one-or two-term president. it's about turning away our country from a fiscal cliff. we don't have time to play politics anymore. we have got to look at the federal government to determine what it absolutely has to do and see if we can devolve power and spending back to the states.
2:04 am
>> i want to ask you about specific issue areas of the agenda. before i do that, you were active in supporting tea party candidates around the country. you had some big winners around the country that you campaigned for -- there are some of them. you also had notable losses, particularly in the senate. i want to single one out. you were behind christine o'donnell, who lost, of course, in delaware. here was the front page of the "wilmington news journal," after the election, the banner headline, "no taste for tea." there's been backlash for your support of her. politico reported it this way this week, a bloc of prominent senators and operatives said party purists like palin and senator demint had foolishly pushed nominees too conservative to win in politically competitive states. if you think what happened in delaware was a win, we don't have a snowball's chance to win the white house. that's senator lindsey graham. if you think delaware with his a wake-up call for republicans, we have a shot of doing well for a long time. do you think the tea party cost
2:05 am
the republican party control of the senate? >> that is a very silly thing to say, david. the tea party is responsible for just about every republican elected around the country. this time last year, if people will think about it, we were concerned about holding our own. any thoughts that republicans would fall below 38 in the senate. so, i supported all the republican candidates, including christine o'donnell. unfortunately, she was so maligned by republicans, i don't think she ever had a chance. we had his stork gains -- >> you're not really saying it was just lack of republicans at work that tanked her candidacy, are you? this is a woman that said on a national ad that she was not a witch. >> well, i think we did see in the wake of her primary win a number of republicans suggest she was not a viable candidate. that did make it difficult for her to start on the right foot. all over the country, we saw candidates like pat toomey in pennsylvania, marco rubio in florida, rand paul in kentucky.
2:06 am
we saw candidates supported by a tea party in a new active wave of citizens change the face of the senate. this is what republicans have needed for a long time, a new, young republicans, cuban-american senator, we've got african-american congressmen. this is a huge change for the republican party. i think it will be very positive for our country. >> so, let me go down the list of important issues that i know you care about. let's try to do this a little more quickly than we might normally get some answers for you. on health care, how do you go about dismantling it? >> well, first of all, we have to stop the funding of obama care and over the next two years show the american people what the real options are to improve the system we have now. i don't think americans want to throw out our current system. they want to improve it. and there are a lot of ways we can make insurance more available, more affordable, available to those with pre-existing conditions and we need to let the american people know that there are ways to do this without moving to the government-control system.
2:07 am
the first step is obviously to defund it. and i think we can do that with republicans controlling the house. >> do you think repeal is realistic? >> yes, i do. i think the next republican running for president needs to run on complete repeal of obama care, because we really can't tweak it, david. it's built on a platform of government control. and that doesn't really work in america. we need a patient/physician system based more on competition and free markets. we really can't do that under this system that's so heavily prescribed in obama care. >> you're talking about the president in 2012, running for president. you don't really think you can overcome a presidential veto of repealing health care in the senate, do you? >> not before 2012. but we can certainly defund it. most aspects of this new obama care are not implemented for two more years. so, it's very realistic to think we can slow the implementation of it or delay it and then replace it in 2012 with a real
2:08 am
plan to improve health care in america. >> let me move to a few others. the cultural litmus test for republicans, i'm told, earmark issue, this is parkbarrel spending as part of the budget process. you want them done away with as well as tea party lawmakers and republicans. but mitch mcconnell, the leader of republicans in the senate was asked about it the other day. this is what he said. >> i think all of you know, you can eliminate every congressional earmark and you would save no money. it's really an argument about discretion. >> doesn't sound like he's with you all the way. is this a showdown coming from republicans? >> it may be. i think the message is clear from the american people. and i know there's some senior members in congress who think it's their job to take home bacon. but the real reason for the dysfunction of congress right now, as you have over 500 congressmen and senators who think they're there to bring home the bacon, it's kind of to heck with america, just give me the money. we can't do that anymore. parochial politics needs to be out.
2:09 am
>> what about leader mcconnell? he's not with you. he's suggesting it's more an issue of discretion. this is the leader of the republicans. are you prepared to go toe-to-toe with him? is this going to be a big showdown with your republican leadership? >> i don't think so. mitch mcconnell has voted twice for an earmark ban that i've proposed in the senate. just about every republican who is running for the senate this time ran on a no earmark pledge. and we've had a vote where over half of our conference has voted for the ban before. obviously, i'm hopeful i will have leadership support. we have a number of co-sponsors, tom coburn and i are leading the effort for this earmark ban. we know john boehner is committed to it in the house. we're not going to have earmarks. it's really silly for some senior republicans in the senate to try to block it. >> let me ask you about another hot button issue. that is the debt ceiling. come spring, congress will have to vote to raise the debt ceiling because our debt is increasing and reaching the 4.3 trillion limit that congress has already set, the $14.3 trillion
2:10 am
limit that congress has set in february. will you vote to increase the debt ceiling? >> no, i won't. not unless this debt ceiling is combined with some path to balancing our budget, returning to 2008 spending levels, repealing obama care. we have got to demonstrate that we have the resolve to cut spending. we've already spent the money. raising the debt ceiling is like paying off your credit card bill. we cannot allow that to go through the congress without showing the american people that we are going to balance the budget. and we're not going to continue to raise the debt in america. >> let me ask you specifically about that. where do you think the american people have to be prepared for sacrifice? which part of the budget, knowing that there's only 15% that's nondiscretionary or that's real -- nondefense discretionary part of the budget. what are you going to target for cuts? >> well, i don't think the american people are going to have to sacrifice as much as the
2:11 am
government bureaucrats, who get paid about twice what the american worker does. first of all, we just need to return to pre-obama levels of spending in 2008. we need to cut earmarks so people quit focusing on taking home the bacon. we need to defund obama care, and then we need to look at the entitlement programs, such as the way paul ryan has done until the house with his road maps to america's future to fix our tax code, fix social security and medicare and cut the cost over time. we've got the plans, david, to do this. we need to talk about them and help the american people see where we're going. we can cut spending. >> let me be very, very, very specific because going back to 2008 spending levels will not get anywhere close to balancing the budget. you're saying that everything has to be on the table, cuts in defense, cuts in medicare, cuts in social security. is that right? >> well, no, we're not talking about cuts in social security. if we can just cut the administrative waste, we can cut hundreds of billions of dollars a year at the federal level.
2:12 am
before we start cutting -- we need to keep our promises to seniors, david. cutting benefits to seniors is not on the table. >> but where do you make the cuts? if you're protecting everything from the most potent political groups like seniors who go out and vote, where are you really going to balance the budget? >> well, look at paul ryan's road map to the future. we see a clear path to moving back to a balanced budget over time. the plans are on the table. we don't have to cut benefits for seniors. we don't need to cut medicare, like the democrats did in this big obama care bill. we can restore sanity in washington without cutting any benefits to seniors or veterans. >> let me ask you a final question about 2012. who has the inside track for president? do you think tea party forces, yourself, sarah palin, have an inside track moving forward? >> i think the voters have the inside track here. citizen activism is going to change politics.
2:13 am
i think sarah palin did an incredible amount of good to raise the interest level of what's going on in politics. she did a lot for the republican party. michelle bachman, others. we've got a great list of folks, including the next person on your show, chris christie, who has demonstrated a lot of courage. probably more than anything else right now, david, we need politicians with the courage to make very difficult decisions, to fight special interest groups. that's what i want to see from the next republican nominee. >> senator demint, thank you very much for joining us this morning. >> thank you, david. we now turn to the aforementioned republican, who has emerged as a leader of his party, new jersey governor chris christie. welcome to the program. >> thank you, david. >> thank you for being here. >> glad to be here. >> something is very curious. we know some of the feelings about democrats, president obama's policies. look at this from the exit polls in terms of the opinion of political parties. republicans didn't fare too well either. 52% unfavorable rating. what does that say about the
2:14 am
republican party today? >> i think what it says is what i was saying all over the country, that it's put up or shut up time for our party. we lost our way the last decade, david. we did. and the people expect us to do better. and if the republican party wants to come back, they have to do what they said they were going to do. if they don't, we'll be sent to the wilderness for a long time and we're going to deserve it. >> what does that mean? what do they have to put up? >> what they have to do is, they say they want, and we're doing it in new jersey, smaller government, less spending, less regulation, lower taxes. that's what the public is saying they want. if you look at what we're doing in new jersey, david, we're delivering on that. we're not fixed yet, but we're on the track of being fixed, closing an $11 billion budget deficit, without creating new taxes, cutting the corporate business tax. we're doing things to try to create an environment. >> you heard senator demint. a lot of republicans talking about cutting the deficit. cutting the budget. but they're not specific. he wasn't specific. he talks about paul ryan, who
2:15 am
has some ideas about medicare and changing the way that's structured, making some cuts. paul ryan in the house, from wisconsin, doesn't have support among establishment republicans. there are 15 republicans set up behind him in terms of making these cuts. are republicans making good when senator demint and others aren't specific about the cuts they're going to make, to the defense and the big ticket items to move the budget? >> let me tell you where the leadership is coming from. 11 republican governors and andrew cuomo in new york who said we can't raise taxes and have to cut spending in everything. in new jersey what we did, we cut spending in every department. a 9% cut in real spending, not projected spending. real spending year over year. find another state that did that and we'll go and talk about it. we made real hard decisions. i cut some programs we would have liked to have kept but we're broke. we don't have the money anymore. i hope that what these governors, republicans and democrats, will show washington is you can do this and you have to do it. >> i asked senator demint about sacrifice. he said we don't want to break our promise to our seniors.
2:16 am
in your state, what are you telling people they have to sacrifice? what do republicans around the country have to tell americans they have to sacrifice if they want to bring the size of government under control and the deficit under control? >> we told our people that there has to be shared sacrifice among everyone. we cut every department of state department. we cut funding k through 12 education. we have proposed real pension and benefit reforms in public sector workers, increasing the retirement age, things that are really going to bring the pension problem back under control. we cut all this spending in the state, in every state department, david. every state department from environmental protection, military veterans' affairs all the way through had to sustain a cut. those are the types of things you have to do that show people you really mean shared sacrifice. everybody had to come to the table and everybody had to contribute. >> with a national republican with national influence thousand, you've met with national republicans and talked about issues. does everything have to be on the table? >> i told them they better come up with a plan that's credible, like we did in new jersey.
2:17 am
the public is going to be able to smell real quickly if you're not credible. if we are not credible, then we are really going to be in trouble as a party. the numbers you've shown indicate that. >> what about the tea party? the tea party's influence on the republican party? net positive, net negative? what do you say? >> net positive. listen, the core that drives the tea party are those four principles i talked about before, less spending, less government, lower regulation, lower taxes. when republicans are at their best, those are our core principles. so, i think that at bottom is a positive influence. listen, you're going to have variances around the country. i endorsed mike cassell in the primary. >> in delaware? >> yes. i felt he was the best person. >> do you agree with lindsey graham from south carolina or jim demint from south carolina that delaware is a wake-up call for republicans? >> i think delaware was a missed opportunity to have a good united states senator in mike cassell. that's why i endorsed him in the primary. >> let me talk about new jersey and taxes and spending. i want to talk about this arc tunnel, rail tunnel that would
2:18 am
have connected in new york and new jersey and the controversy surrounding all of this. to boil all this down, the federal government offered you a deal. you were worried about cost, cost overruns. they said we'll take care of that. new jersey will not be responsible. critics of you -- >> let me stop you right there. >> yeah. >> no chance. that never happened. the federal government said $3 billion is what they're going to give us. i had to sign a contract saying every nickel over $3 billion was the responsibility of the federal government. all the federal government offered me in the interim two-week period from when i first canceled the tunnel was the ability to get federal loans that we would have to pay back. >> they weren't going to ship this to private companies to take care of? >> no, it was federal loans or if we wanted a private/public partnership, we had to have increased fees on all the train tickets for all the commuters across new jersey, including ones that weren't using the tunnel, to be able to repay it. no matter what, this was going to fall on the people of the state of new jersey and the worst part was, it was a blank check. no one could tell me how much it was going to cost. we put $5.7 billion up from the state of new jersey and we were talking about $2 billion to $5 billion overruns now.
2:19 am
we could not sustain that. we're broke. >> is this a matter of ideology for you or simply a pragmatic issue that you don't have the money? by that, i mean, should the federal government be involved in big infrastructure projects like this? >> sure, they should. you know what, i gave the federal government two weeks to come back to me and say, look, if this is a project of such national importance, put more money on the table for it. they didn't. in florida, where they're building high-speed rail, florida is being asked to give a 20% match to 80% from federal. in this project, new jersey was picking up 70% of the cost, feds 30% and nothing from the state or city of new york. this is about fairness and about what we could afford. i'm not going to sign blank checks on the taxpayers of the state of new jersey for a project that, as laudable as it might be in some respects, we simply can't afford now. we talked during the campaign about tough choices. this is an example. >> tax cuts, millionaire's tax in new jersey. which i know that you're -- >> not anymore, we don't. >> not anymore? because you vetoed it. >> yes.
2:20 am
>> high taxes across the board. how do you deal with that as a republican governor of new jersey? >> first you say no more. and the democrats sent me an extension of the millionaire's tax that would have not only hit individuals but small businesses in new jersey and i vetoed it. i'm not going to increase taxes on the state of the tax foundation that is the highest tax burden state in america. especially if you look at our unemployment is higher than any state in the region. the reason is, over the last eight years under corzine, mcgreevey, we raised taxes 115 times, put a wet blanket on the economy of new jersey. that's why our people are still out of work disproportionately. to everybody else in the region. new york is a point lower, pennsylvania is more than a point lower. we did this to ourselves with all these increased taxes. >> what about the bush tax cuts and extending those? you said it should happen at all levels for a couple of years but only a couple of years because there is a day of reckoning here. can you have tax cuts when you also want to balance the budget or do you have to consider tax increase at the federal level at some point?
2:21 am
>> i've been watching you for weeks talk about extending the bush tax cuts. it drives me crazy when i'm sitting at home. this is about maintaining the current tax structure in a time when we have a very weak economy. i favor extending these for another two years. extending the current tax system and not having a tax increase. >> wait a minute, it may drive you crazy and i know other republicans who feel the same way. i've talked to republicans. i've talked to economists like alan greenspan who says there is no free lunch here. you can't have tax cuts at this level and not have them be paid for. and other republicans say, yes, they should be paid for. you do agree they should be paid for? >> i'm walking the walk in new jersey, david. >> okay. >> i said we're vetoing the millionaire's tax. i found spending can outs to pay for that. >> you can have existing did shall. it has to be offset. >> listen, i'm not disagreeing with you, david. i'm disagreeing with you characterizing what's happening here as tax cuts. this is maintaining the current tax policy in a weak economy. and what you're advocating through your question is tax increases. >> that's not fair. i'm not advocating. i'm questioning whether or not they have to be paid for.
2:22 am
>> well, when you call them tax cuts, what i'm saying is i take the position that's the opposite of that. the opposite of that is it is a tax increase. >> they are set to expire. >> in a weakened economy. what i'm saying is you should keep the current tax structure in place. >> they're set to expire so if you re -- >> a continuation. >> a continuation. but then there's the offset issue. >> there's still an offset issue. >> then we agree. >> the issue of where there's room for negotiation, is there room for negotiation in your mind? should the president make a deal here on these things? for a certain period of time, does everybody in a couple of years have to come to this and say, maybe these aren't the best ideas, maybe we also have to think about tax increases at some point? >> the first thing the president has to focus on is building private sector jobs in this country. i don't think by increasing taxes that's the way that we're going to get it done in the short term. so, sure, there's areas for compromise. i'm sure there are, between republican leaders in the congress and the president. the president has to lead on this. i think the message is really clear. i got the message from the election. it's about putting people back
2:23 am
to work. you will not put people back to work in private sector jobs by increasing the cost in the private sector. >> couple of more areas. you have become a youtube star, as you well know, because you've had interactions with voters, including when you were campaigning for meg whitman out in california. let me show that moment. >> you want to yell, yell at me. but don't give her a hard time. we're here. we're here talking about the future of the state of california and the future of our country. and, you know what? and you know what? you know what? let me tell you this. you know what? it's people who raise their voices and yell and scream like you that are dividing this country. we're here to bring this country together, not to divide it. >> so, what's the balance? that was a style question, the balance for you being a straight talker, taking on the corrosive conversations we have about politics, and then your image as being a little too brusque, bulge, you know, governor wrecking ball, how do you straddle that line? >> i am who i am. i don't straddle the line. i think what people in new jersey appreciate about me is
2:24 am
that i don't send smoke signals. they know who i am. they know how i feel about issues. sometimes they agree with me. sometimes they don't. i think that clip indicates when i have something on my mind i'm going to say it. i'm going to say it directly. i think that we have too little of that in politics, david. when i sit around and watch the way some people in political life talk, it fogs me over. i think it fogs people in america over, too. they want to hear somebody say if you feel a certain way, say it. and live with the consequences. i'm willing to let the chips fall where they may on that issue. >> the question is whether you're going to say all this stuff at a national level. you ruled out running for president in 2012 but you're also acting like a guy who is increasing your national influence. you're campaigning for congressional republicans. why do all that, especially in tight races, if you're not looking down the line at running? >> because i care about my country and because i felt that those people were the absolute best candidates to help make our country a better place. that's why i campaigned for them. i have no other agenda. to the extent that new jersey, over the last year, can serve as an example to people that say, listen, you can cut spending.
2:25 am
you can balance the budget without tax increases. you can make hard choices. not only survive politically, but thrive politically. then i want to try to set that example for folks so that these other new governors coming in, members of congress, that they will act boldly and be strong. >> shermanesque statement, you're not running in 2012. >> absolutely. >> you wouldn't be on the ticket at all as vp? >> can you see me as somebody as a vice president, after that question about governor wrecking ball? i would feel bad for that poor man or woman. >> what about down the line beyond 2012? what criteria would you use in making a deciding about running for president? >> first i have to decide if i run for re-election in 2013. that would depend on how good of a job i do and if the people of the state of new jersey want me back. before you ever get to anything beyond that, my mother always taught me first thing is first. do your job that the people of new jersey gave you. i love being governor. i'll be governor until 2013 and then we'll see what the verdict of the people is of the job of i
2:26 am
did. >> the door isn't open until after 2012? >> i'm going to need a job. after 2013, i'm going to need a job, whether it's being governor or something else. i have four kids between 7 and 17. i'm working the rest of my life anyway. it's going to be doing something, david. maybe it will be that. who knows. >> governor christie, thank you very much. >> thank you, david. >> the president looks at the shellacking on election day and a look down the road. president's former communication adviser, anita dunn. former counselor to president bush, karen hughes, marc morial and republican strategist mike murphy only here on "meet the press." coming up, our political roundtable weighs in on the road and republican strategist mike murphy only here on "meet the press." [ k. tyrone ] i'm an engineer. my kids say i speak a different language. but i love math and math and science develop new ideas. we've used hydrogen in our plants for decades. the old hydrogen units were very large.
2:27 am
recently, we've been able to reduce that. then our scientists said "what if we could make it small enough to produce and use hydrogen right on board a car, as part of a hydrogen system." this could significantly reduce emissions and increase fuel economy by as much as 80%. but my allergies put me in a fog. so now, i'm claritin clear! claritin works great on all my allergies like dust, mold, pollen, or pets without making me drowsy, cause i want to be alert around this big guy.
2:30 am
2:36 am
2:37 am
africa and pakistan. as states possessing nuclear weapons, we have today put forth a common vision of a world without nuclear weapons and decided to lead global efforts for nonproliferation and universal and nondiscriminatory global nuclear disarmament. this is a historic and bold bilateral initiative. we also decided to strengthen cooperation to tackle nuclear terrorism and we welcome u.s. participation in the global center for nuclear energy partnership which will be set up in india. president obama is a sincere and a valued friend of our country and our discussions have led to a meeting of minds.
2:38 am
ours is a partner ship based on common values and interests. a shared vision of the world and the deep-rooted ties of friendship among our two peoples. i look forward to working with the president to realize the enormous potential of this partnership of our two countries. i now invite president obama to make his remarks, and i thank you. >> thank you very much, prime minister singh. and good afternoon, everyone. i want to begin by saying how thrilled my wife michelle and i and our entire delegation are to
2:39 am
be here in india. we have been received with incredible warmth and incredible hospitality. and that includes the hospitality of our friends prime minister singh and his lovely wife who we thank for such graciousness and a wonderful dinner last night. as i've said throughout my visit, i have come to india because i believe that the relationship between the united states and india is indispensable to addressing the challenges of our time. from creating economic opportunity for our people to confronting terrorism and violent extremism, from preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to addressing climate change, from the development that gives people and nations a path out of poverty, to advancing human rights and values that are universal, none
2:40 am
of this will be possible without strong cooperation between the united states and india. moreover, as prime minister singh alluded to, ours is no ordinary relationship. as the world's two largest democracies, as large and growing free market economies, as diverse multiethnic societies with strong traditions of pluralism and tolerance, we have not only an opportunity but also a responsibility to lead. and that's why i believe that the relationship between the united states and india will, in fact, be one of the idea fining partnerships of the 21st century. that's why i've work with the prime minister, a man of extraordinary intellect and great integrity to deepen and broaden the cooperation between our countries. and i very much look forward to addressing the indian parliament
2:41 am
and the people of india later today to discuss how the united states and india can take our partnership to the next level. with a vision of how we can work together as global partners. with the progress we've made today, we're seeing just how broad and deep our cooperation can be. as president, i've had the opportunity to appear with many of my foreign counterparts at press conferences such as this but i cannot remember an occasion when we have agreed to so many new partnerships across so many areas as we have during my visit. we've expanded trade and investment to create prosperity for our people. the major trade deals that were signed in mumbai were an important step forward. in elevating india to one of america's top trading partners. today, i'm pleased to welcome india's preliminary agreement to purchase 10 c-17 cargo planes,
2:42 am
which will enhance indian capabilities and support 22,000 jobs back in the united states. we agreed to reform our controls on exports and the united states will remove indian organizations from the so-called entity list which will allow greater cooperation in a range of hi-tech sectors like civil space and defense. and we agreed to keep working to reduce trade barriers and resist protectionism. as a result of this visit, we are already beginning to implement our civil nuclear agreement. we agreed to deepen our cooperation and pursuit of clean energy technologies. and this includes the creation of a new clean energy research center here in india and continuing our joint research into solar, biofuels, shale gas, and building efficiency. and we agreed to new partnerships including forestry and sustainable development of land to help meet the commitments we made at
2:43 am
copenhagen to combat climate change. to ensure the safety of our citizens, we're deepening our efforts to prevent terrorism. cooperation between our countries' intelligence and law enforcement communities has already reached unprecedented levels. today we're taking another step, a new effort between our department of homeland security and the indian ministry of home affairs to improve security at our ports, our airports, and our borders. i also discussed with the prime minister our efforts in afghanistan. and once again, thanked him and the indian people for the generous contributions that india has made towards development and improving the lives of the afghan people. we agreed on the need for all nations in the region to work together to ensure that there are no safe havens for terrorists. we're expanding our efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation in keeping with its commitment at
2:44 am
our nuclear security summit, india will build a new center of excellence for nuclear energy and security to help reach our goal of securing vulnerable nuclear materials in four years. given india's growing role in the region, we also agreed to deepen our consultations on east asia. given india's growing role on the world stage, we'll expand our dialogue on global issues. and we discussed the need for international institutions, including the united nations to reflect the realities of the 21st century which i will discuss further in my address to parliament. finally, we continued to expand partnerships between our peoples to promote global health, we're moving ahead with a new disease detection center here in new delhi. building on our efforts to expand educational exchanges including our 21st stunt knowledge initiative, we'll
2:45 am
convene a summit to forge new collaborations in higher education and we're announcing two initiatives today that harness technology to deliver progress for our people. building on the indian and american agricultural collaboration that led to the green revolution, we're launching a new partnership for an evergreen revolution to improve food security around the world, we're also launching a new partnership to promote open government and to empower citizens. and in my address to parliament, i'll be discussing why these efforts can be models for the kind of cooperation that not only benefits america and india, but benefits other nations, as well. so taken together, all of these partnersh partnerships, all these initiatives make it clear the relationship between the united states and india is stronger, deeper, and broader than ever before. so mr. prime minister, again, i thank you for your partnership and for your friendship. i am confident that as india's
2:46 am
influence in the world continues to rise, so too will the opportunities for even closer cooperation between our two countries. and that will mean even greater security and prosperity for india, for the united states, for this region, and for the world. thank you very much, mr. prime minister. >> thank you, mr. president. the prime minister and the president will be happy to take two questions each from the indian and the american media. you are requested to please restrict yourself to one question either to the prime minister or the president and indicate whom the question is addressed to. the first question goes to the american side. >> reporter: scott wilson from the washington post. thank you, mr. president, prime minister. mr. president, as -- after a
2:47 am
difficult and violent summer in kashmir, perhaps the chief flash point between your chief ali and the afghanistan war and india, could you explain your administration's policy toward kashmir and what role the united states might play in resolving that crisis, and if i might, could you please this morning you called india a world power. is it possible anymore to stand in the way of india's bid for a permanent seat on the u.n. security council >> i will ask you to please restrict yourself to one question to one of the leaders. thank you. >> okay, prime minister, may i address the prime minister? >> all right. >> thank you. to follow on a question that was asked yesterday by a student in mumbai, do you believe that the united states should refer to pakistan as a terrorist state?
2:48 am
>> with respect to kashmir, obviously, this is a long-standing dispute between india and pakistan. as i said yesterday, i believe that both pakistan and india have an interest in reducing tensions between the two countries. the united states cannot impose a solution to these problems. but i've indicated to prime minister somethiingh that we ary to play any role that the parties think is appropriate in reducing these tensions in the interests of the region, it's in the interests of the two countries involved and it's in the interests of the united states of america. so my hope is that conversations will be taking place between the
2:49 am
two countries. they may not start on that particular flash point. there may be confidence-building measures that need to take place, but i'm absolutely convinced that it is both in india's and pakistan's interests to reduce tegss and that will enable them, i think, to focus on the range of both challenges and opportunities that each country faces. i do want to make this point though that i think prime minister singh throughout his career and throughout his prime ministership has consistently spoken out both publicly and privately on his desire, his personal commitment to reduce tensions between india and pakistan. and for that, i very much commend him. i think prime minister singh is
2:50 am
2:52 am
this terror-induced question, we will be very happy to engage productivititively with pakistan to resolve all our outstanding issues. >> ani. >> reporter: mr. president, my question to you, so you've consistently said that india as an emerging power has potential to be america's most important strategic partner. what is your vision for india in the next decade, and how vital is this relationship for yourstration, in your administration's world view. thank you. >> well, first of all, this relationship is extraordinarily important to me. don't just take my word for it. i think look at our actions. obviously, this has been of enormous significance.
2:53 am
it's no accident that this is the longest time that i've spent in a foreign country since i've been president. and both the prime minister and i have alluded to why i think this partnership can be so important. we are the world's two largest democracies. we have both a set of values and principles that we share that i believe are universal. the belief in individual liberty, in freedom of the press, in freedom of political assembly in, human rights, we both have large market economies. and the person.-to-person contacts between india and the united states are unparalleled. we have millions of indian
2:54 am
american who are helping to grow our country each and every day. and we have hundreds of thousands of students from india who are studying in the united states and then bringing back what they've learned to help develop india, and so, you know, on the commercial level, on the person-to-person level, the strategic level, i think this partnership is incredibly important. as i said yesterday, i don't think india is emerging. it has emerged. india is a key actor on the world stage. and given that we have these values that we share, at a time when there are still too many conflicts, there are still too many misunderstanding between nations, when principles like democracy and human rights too
2:55 am
often are not observed, for our two countries to be able to stand together to promote those principles in international forums by the example that we set, by the bilateral ties that we form, i think can be incredibly powerful and incredibly important. and one last point i want to make on this. this is a belief that is shared by republicans and democrats in the united states. i mean, if you think about what's happened in our relationship, how it's evolved over the last 15 to 20 years, you had president clinton, a democrat, president bush, a republican, and now me, another democrat. each of us reaffirming in a steady committed way why the u.s./india relationship is so
2:56 am
important. and so we are going to continue to cultivate this, we will continue to nurture it. we have business leaders who are here today and have been working actively in the private sector to strengthen those ties. we want to make sure that our governments are acting in that same constructive way and if we do so, then i think that's not only going to benefit india and the united states but i think ultimately will benefit the world, as well. >> the foremost concern of the indian people is to grapple with the problem of past poverty, ignorance and disease which still afflict millions of our citizens. for that, we need a strong resurgent robust rate of economic growth. and it is a growth rate which is
2:57 am
within our reach, our objective is to sustain a growth rate of 9 to 10% per annum in the next three decades. and in that process, the help of the united states is of enormous significance. we need a global trading system which is -- does not encourage protectionism, which enables our entrepreneurs to make use of the enormous opportunities that processes of globalization now offer. we need the american assistance by way of export of capital. we welcome american investments in our economy. i have mentioned earlier also on several occasions india needs an
2:58 am
investment of a trillion dollars in the next five years in its infrastructure and we would welcome american contribution in fulfilling that ambition of ours. america is a home of high technology. we need that technology to upgrade our skills, both in the civilian sector and also in the defense secretarier. so i attach great importance to strengthening in every possible way india's cooperation with the united states. this is truly a relationship which can become a defining relationship for this 21st blessed century of ours. >> chris i don't have par sons with the chicago tribune. >> thank you very much. this question is for you, president obama, but if the prime minister chooses to weigh
2:59 am
in on it, that would be lovely. mr. president, the german finance minister says this of recent fed decisions. it doesn't add up when the americans accuse the chinese of currency manipulation and then with the help of their central bank's printing presses artificially lower the value of the dollar. might this, in fact, look hypocritical to other world leaders as you head to the g-20 to talk about this and other issues? how do you address it and do you expect support from the indian government and the press to get them to appreciate the value of the currency? >> thank you. first of all, christie, the federal reserve is an independent body. it doesn't take orders from the white house. and it's important as a policy matter, as an institutional matter that we don't comment on particular fed actions.
236 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
MSNBCUploaded by TV Archive on
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3747d/3747d575d1756d976e0fdbdde0da9985060e8386" alt=""