captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: the head of the international monetary fund says the u.s. economy is recovering, but it's still very fragile. good evening. i'm judy woodruff. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. on the newshour tonight, armed with an i.m.f. report issued today, christine lagarde warns that u.s. policy-makers must be careful not to overdo debt reduction. >> to bring the debt under control, action needs to be taken over a period of time. that is not just next year. that is going to extend for the next ten years. it needs to be gradual, not so

contractionary that the economy folds. >> woodruff: we have an update on efforts across the country to recover from wildfires, extreme heat, and power outages. >> brown: susan dentzer of the journal "health affairs" answers questions many of you are asking about how health care reform will work, now that the supreme court has weighed in. >> for somebody who is running a small business, what does this new health care plan... how does that impact future business owners? >> brown: margaret warner interviews mexico's new president-elect, enrique peña nieto, about drug war violence and relations with the u.s. >> brown: pakistan reopened an important supply route for u.s. forces into afghanistan, after secretary of state clinton apologized today for the killing of some pakistani soldiers. we'll discuss the difficult diplomacy. >> woodruff: and we reflect on the life and career of television icon andy griffith, who was much more than just the sheriff of a made-up tv town. >> i'm not just an entertainer. i'm an influence, a wielder of

opinion, a force. >> woodruff: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> growing up in arctic norway, everybody took fish oil to stay healthy. when i moved to the united states almost 30 years ago, i could not find an omega-3 fish oil that worked for me. i became inspired to bring a new definition of fish oil quality to the world. today, nordic naturals is working to fulfill our mission of bringing omega-3s to everyone, because we believe omega-3s are essential to life. >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations.

and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: the head of the international monetary fund issued a warning to u.s. policymakers today. in an interview with the newshour," christine lagarde said washington must find a way to avoid overreacting to debt and fiscal deadlines at the end of the year. that's when a series of spending cuts are set to take effect, and when bush-era tax cuts are set to expire. lagarde suggested prescriptions offered by both political parties would harm the u.s. and global economy. she spoke after the i.m.f. reported the u.s. recovery remains tepid and is likely to stay that way for the coming year. i sat down with her at i.m.f. headquarters in washington earlier today.

christine lagarde, managing director of the international monetary fund, thank you very much for talking with us. >> my pleasure. woodruff: so the i.m.f. is out with a new report projecting weaker growth for the united states. what does the report say? and what are you recommending? >> what we essentially say is that there is recovery so we are in positive territory. the u.s. economy is growing. but the recovery is tepid. it's much slower than what we would like. we predict that in 2012, the recovery will be at about 2%. we forecast the recovery in 2013 at 2.3%. which is certainly less than what would be desirable to create jobs and develop activity as would be needed. but it is positive. in terms of policies, well, let me just tell you about the risks as well because the 2% and 2.3% is associated with potential,

what we call, down-side risks, things that could happen that would rock the boat a bit. we see two major risks. one is a risk coming from the outside where the crisis in the euro-zone would deteriorate as opposed to what we're beginning to see. the second potential risk is at home, a domestic risk where the combination of the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff would erode confidence and would create a potential contraction of the u.s. economy in 2013. >> woodruff: you're saying to u.s. policy makers, cut spending but don't cut it too deeply? is that what you're saying? >> correct, correct. what we're saying is that there is not a lot of policy room. let's face it. but that little policy room that is available should be used wisely to avoid those, particularly those domestic risks because the external risk is not something that you can do much about. but the risk at home is clearly

that growth be contracted so much next year that they be fewer jobs, less activity created. we think that the deficit for the next budget should be reduced by one percentage point of g.d.p., no more than that. >> woodruff: as you know, the... there is a very strong debate in the country about what to do. conservative economic thinkers and policy makers are saying almost just the opposite. they're saying cut as much as you can. the big worry now is the debt and the deficit. >> i agree with them. not on the prescription. i agree with the analysis. the big problem that needs to be tackled is the debt. no country can go on with heavy and growing debt. as it would if no measure was taken. but what we're saying is is that in order to bring the debt under

control, action needs to be taken over a period of time. that is not just next year. that is going to extend for the next ten years. it needs to be gradual, not so contractionary that the economy folds. >> woodruff: what's the i.m.f.'s recommendation about the so-called bush tax cuts, whether they should expire or not? >> our forecast of 2.3 for next year is predicated on the tax cuts being extended for another year. certainly... >> woodruff: at all income levels? >> all in all, we assume that the bush tax cuts will be maintained, extended for another year. >> woodruff: there will be some americans watching this saying we have so many experts to listen to, why should we listen to the i.m.f.? >> they don't have to listen to us. it just happens that the i.m.f. is a mulley lateral institution that has 188 members from around the world that is totally independent from influences,

political ambitions and aspirations, and which has been trying to do a decent, honest, candid job for the last 60 years. we're not affiliated to the u.s. treasury department, nor are we affiliated to any other authority around the planet. but we have multilateral base of economies had that are trying their best to understand the situation of each and every economy in the world and to draw a diagnosis and offer policy advice. now people either take the advice or don't take it. it's their responsibility. >> woodruff: as you also point out today, one of the main drivers of what could happen in the u.s. is is in europe. you pointed out there is is a potential, more of a downside risk. but what the recent agreement, i think many skeptics are looking at that and saying, wait a minute. is this really something that is going to alleviate the problem or will this be another band-aid and another band-aid that's needed down the road? >> we have seen many announced

major changes which have collapsed on the following day or the day off. what we have seen on thursday is something of more significance. because it lays out the path for the immediate future when countries like spain need to recap tallize and restructure their banking sector and would be allowed to do so directly using the european stability mechanism without traveling through the sovereign, which is very important in our view. and second, it also lays the path for a longer-term project which is to move from a strictly monetary union to a bigger union. that would become also a banking union within a relatively short period of time because the leaders have asked the president of the european council to put this plan together before year end. they need to go farther. there's no question about it. they need to move fiscal union as well which will take probably more time, more summits, more

delusion and elusion. they're heading in a new direction together. that's a clear sign that things are changing. >> woodruff: one of the things that people have commented on is germany seems to have been more accommodating in the past under chancellor merckel. the question is, is there a new dynamic with the president of france and the role he's playing? how do you see that. >> there's clearly a more focused on a balanced approach which fiscal consolidation which is happening in the euro-zone, when you look at the fiscal deficit in the euro-zone that's in the average about 4% at the moment. and moving in a direction of being under 3% in the next couple of years. and growth. that's a new dialogue that they're having at the moment. consolidation, yes. but growth as well. and the whole of it is put into

a large he project which will take them further. monetary, banking and hopefully fiscal union later on. >> woodruff: one final question about the euro-zone. people still worried about greece. can the euro-zone survive the departure of greece and can greece survive leaving the euro-zone if that were the decision taken? >> it's apparently not the decision that they want to take. the greek population is clearly supportive of staying within the euro zone. the greek authorities have affirmed that principle. the euro-partners have, you know, consistently, cohesively repeated that they wanted to stay together. so we need to, for ourselves, we need to provide all the ground work to help them to stay together. >> woodruff: finally, the message to the united states. what's at stake? i mean the advice today from the international monetary fund to the united states, what's at stake if the u.s. doesn't follow the advice of the i.m.f.? what can happen?

>> the united states of america is the largest economic power in the world. it is an open economy. it matters a lot to the rest of the world. it's obviously in the interest of the united states' economy but also in the interest of better stability in the world that those downside risks that i mentioned, the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling, be addressed as cohesively, as cooperatively as possible so that the u.s. economic tepid recovery is turned into something that is much more luke warm and warm. >> woodruff: you've shared this with u.s. policy makers? >> yes, indeed. woodruff: christine lagarde, the managing director of the international monetary fund. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> brown: still to come on the newshour, the power is out and the heat is on; answering questions about health reform; mexico's new leader on drug

violence and more; a new twist in relations with pakistan; and remembering the actor andy griffith. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: the chief executive of barclay's bank resigned today in london amid a growing financial scandal. the british banking giant has admitted reporting falsely low interest rates on loans from other banks during the crisis of 2008. that data helped determine a benchmark rate for more than half a trillion dollars in contracts worldwide. several other global banks also under investigation. on wall street, stocks ran up some gains today, in a shortened session before the july 4 holiday. the dow jones industrial average added 72 points to close at 12,943. the nasdaq rose nearly 25 points to close at 2976. automakers had a big month in june. chrysler and general motors reported sales gains of 16% to 20% over june of last year. ford reported a 7% gain. toyota sales were up by 60%. the japanese automaker has bounced back from last year's

tsunami that severely disrupted its supply chain. there was more heavy fighting near the capital city of syria today. government tanks and guns shelled villages near douma, a suburb of damascus that's been under fierce assault. the army offensive there began nearly two weeks ago. many of the buildings have now been blasted into nothing more than abandoned ruins. u.n. observers tried to get into douma today to visit hospitals, but they were forced to turn back because of reports of snipers in the area. separately, human rights watch reported the syrian government is running a network of more than two dozen torture centers. we've documented 20 different methods of torture. beatings, electric cables, sexual violence, people having their fingernails pulled out, stress positions. these methods are used by each of the security forces that run each of these prisons that we list. >> sreenivasan: the report was

based on interviews with more than 200 army defectors and former detainees, since the uprising began in march of last year. the syrian government had no immediate response. in iraq, at least 40 people were killed in a series of bombings. the attacks hit four iraqi cities, with the worst toll in diwaniyah, south of baghdad. a vegetable truck filled with explosives went off in a crowded market there, killing 25 people. the attacks came during a major religious pilgrimage for shiites. they have often been targeted by sunni insurgents linked to al- qaeda. iran test-fired several ballistic missiles today. the powerful revolutionary guards said it was a message to israel and the u.s. not to attack iran's nuclear sites. one missile was a long-range type that can reach israel. state media said all of the weapons struck mock enemy bases as part of a military exercise. also today, tehran insisted sanctions will not deter its nuclear effort either. a foreign ministry spokesman rejected the european union's newly imposed embargo on iranian oil.

>> as long as they wrongly believe that various types of pressure on iran and imposing illegal and illegitimate sanctions would make us retreat from our rights and as long as they imagine they can negotiate with us from a higher position, such an attitude will definitely have a negative impact on the success of the talks. >> sreenivasan: those talks over iran's nuclear program resumed today in istanbul, turkey. technical experts from iran met with their counterparts from the u.s. and five other powers. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to jeff. >> brown: now, more on the ongoing natural disasters across the country. in the east, weekend storms and searing heat have now claimed 24 lives, and thousands more are waiting for relief, while in the west, the end of a deadly wildfire may be in sight. chainsaws echoed across the midwest and atlantic again today as crews cut away at fallen trees and utility workers kept up long shifts to turn the power back on for well over a million homes and businesses across seven states and the district of

columbia. they were all up against the clock as scorching heat continued for a fourth day. and the misery and impatience grew in intensity. in maryland... >> i think it's a little bit incompetent the way the process is being handled. seven days to me is unacceptab unacceptable. >> brown: to new jersey. we haven't had power since early saturday morning. it's very warm s. it's difficult to sleep there. >> brown: the grocery in middleborn west virginia handed out truck loads of free bottles of water and ice to needy families. >> somebody called us said and they were giving away water here. it's 104 degrees up in the shade up at our house right now. >> brown: but maryland governor martin o'malley and others warned the blistering heat could claim more lives especially if power outages last into the weekend. >> we are now heading into probably the most dangerous part of this event. why do i say that? because the more prolong the

heat exposure, the more prolonged the time that especially a lot of elderly citizens are... have been forcedded to spend in isolated ways in the heat without air conditioning, the more worn out, the more vulnerable they become. >> brown: meanwhile in the west, there was new progress in the fight to control record wild fires. especially the 28 square mile waldo canyon fire near colorado springs. the u.s. secretaries of homeland security and agriculture, janet napolitano and tom vil sac witnessed that progress firsthand today. >> we are 70% contained which means we have 30% more work to do. i assure you that we will continue to be aggression i have been in fighting this fire and continue to be persistent. the reality is these fires tricky. we're also going to have some degree of patience. >> brown: crews focused on the fire's northern perimeter in west monument creek. >> still uncontained line in

there. it's real rough country. firefighters have had a hard time getting in there, getting access. we do have line in there but it's not quite secure. so we're looking at a couple, three days until we feel really comfortable. >> brown: in south dakota, four deaths were confirmed after an air force tanker plan crashed on sunday fighting a blaze in the black hills. two other crew members survived. the plane was from an air national guard wing based in charlotte, north carolina.invesg to determine what caused the fatal crash. but the air force's c-130 tanker fleet resumed flying today after being temporarily grounded. >> woodruff: next, in the aftermath of the supreme court decision, we continue our coverage of the health care reform law. tonight, ray suarez looks at some important questions from americans about how it's supposed to work.

>> suarez: many of the same americans who are expressing passionate pro and con opinions on the obama administration's health care reforms still are not completely sure how the complex and sprawling system created by the affordable care act will work. we didn't have time to go everywhere in america to sample questions, so we brought a newshour camera to a place americans come from everywhere to visit, the memorials, monuments, and museums of washington, d.c. to answer a sampling of questions, i'm joined by newshour regular susan dentzer. she's the editor of the journal, "health affairs." susan, we have several questions on small business and its responsibilities including this one from a man, a young fellow, who hopes to be a small business owner. >> hi, my name is roger clark. i'm from danville, virginia, a recent college graduate and aspiring future business owner. for somebody who is owning a small business, what does the new health care plan, how does that impact future business owners?

>> suarez: susan? if he were a small businessman in business today, he'd already be eligible for tax credits to help pay for his workers' health insurance if he were a business that had 25 or fewer employees. going forward, as a small businessperson, he would have the opportunity as of 2014 to buy coverage for his workers through new small business health insurance exchanges that will be set up in every state or that will be enabled to be in existence because the federal government will step in and help to run those in certain states. >> suarez: a new set of rules kicks in at 50 employees? >> exactly. we can ask the question what happens if you don't offer coverage for workers? four companies that have 50 or fewer employees, if they don't offer coverage to workers, nothing happens to them. for companies that are larger than that, however, if they do not offer coverage to their workers or if one of their workers ends up buying coverage through an exchange and claiming some of the federal subsidies,

they will be subject to penalties. the penalties are adjusted according to a formula, just to give an example. if i were an employer with 60 employees and i were not offering coverage, i would pay the equivalent of $60,000 a year in penalties. that money goes back into federal government funding to enable the support for people who are buying coverage with federal subsidies. >> suarez: i got a reminder that this law is not fully in place yet from a young woman with diabetes who is finding it difficult to buy insurance. >> hi, my name is robin crawford. i'm from maryland. my question is, how can a person with preexisting health conditions get medical health insurance now without waiting until 2014? >> as she said, in 2014 all of this will change because everybody with preexisting conditions will be able to buy

coverage. up until that point, her best bet is probably going to be to look for the preexisting condition insurance plan offered in her state. thissal was a program created by the affordable care act. a number of states are running their own programs, and the federal government has stepped in and is running programs in other states. but every state now has one. you can only qualify for this preexisting condition insurance if you're a citizen or a legal resident, if you have been without health insurance coverage for six months. so that has exempted a lot of people. as a consequence only about 53,000 people in the country have been able to sign up. but at the moment that's probably the best bet. the other alternative is to call your local state medicaid office or the health insurance regulatory office in your state and ask them if there are other options for you because some states have put those in place. >> suarez: we got a lot of questions on what i'm willing to bet is one of the least well understood parts of the law.

that is the exchanges. like this one. >> hi, i'm kathleen from waterfordford, michigan. i'm from one of the states where our governor and legislators have not begun to formulate insurance exchanges. i'd like to know how that is going to affect the people of michigan. >> suarez: that list now is getting longer with louisiana, texas, florida, wisconsin, some other states saying they're going to wait to see what happens in november before they put them in place. what can you tell her? >> we will have to see how this plays out. if the law remains in effect, basically every state is either going to have to set up its own exchange, partner with the federal government to create an exchange so the states may do some functions, pass others over to the federal government or the federal government actually steps in and runs an exchange or points another entity to run the exchange. >> suarez: by exchange we just mean a marketplace for buying insurance, right? >> exactly. for most people this is going to be a website.

a website where you go on and look for various insurance products that are available in the state. as of 2014 or more properly when open enrollment begins which will be october of 2013, most americans will have access to coverage either through their state exchange again or through a federal back-up exchange. >> suarez: we have another question on that topic. >> my name is larry. i'm from chicago, illinois. my question is, how soon will the exchanges be up and running and how much will they resemble the insurance that i now purchase as a self employd person? how well are they going to resemble what i already have? >> suarez: probably a lot of people buying their own insurance? >> for insurance that is available through the individual exchange, each state has the opportunity now to choose what is called a benchmark plan. that has to look like a plan that has to be like a plan that is already for sale within that state or available within that

state. so the coverage overall will look fairly similar to what is out there now with a couple of exceptions. it's probably going to be a little bit more general rugs because there are limit... generous because of the limits on cost sharing. of course there are the new life-time limits that have gone away and annual limits have gone away. on balance the coverage is probably going to look broader and better. it's also possible it will be more costly. we'll have to see how all of that plays out. >> suarez: finally, susan, we got a question that summed up what a lot of people were wondering about how the streets of washington. how is is this all going to work when it comes down to dollars and cents? >> hello, my name is ken. i live in washington d.c. i'm from madison, wisconsin. my question about the health care law was, how is it going to get funded? how are they going to pay for people who don't add insurance. >> suarez: adding millions of new people to coverage, where is the money coming from? >> we have to keep in mind that even uninsured people get

two-thirds as much health care as people who are insured. a lot of medical care is being provided and paid for in many states in various ways. right now what we do is kind of channel lots of indirect payments to hospitals and others to pay for this coverage. what we'll start doing under the new plan is paying for that more directly. so how do we come up with that more-direct funding? roughly speaking, it's a trillion dollars or so over a ten of year period. we do that in two ways. one of which is we raise some new monies. we've imposed taxes in the law on health insurers, on pharmaceutical manufacturers, on device manufacturers. the entities that will actually benefit because as more people are covered, they will probably use more of all of those products. so those industries have agreed in effect -- some more willingly than others -- to give back some portion of that and help to pay for the law. the other way we are paying for it is to slow down the growth of what we pay other providers. so to the degree hospital

spending would have been expected to go up year by year under the medicare program, we're going to not grow those payments as fast as we would have otherwise. we're also not going to grow payments to many other kinds of health care providers and in some instances we'll actually cut them. keep in mind the theory and the reason why many of those providers went along with the law is that we are essentially recycling the money back to them because as people have health insurance coverage, they can go into the hospital. the hospital will be paid for seeing those people whereas previously the hospital wasn't being paid because those people weren't insured. >> suarez: i hope that helps everyone. susan dentzer, thanks a lot. >> great to be with you, ray. brown: health care >> brown: health care is not the only issue americans are talking about this election cycle. in cooperation with our public media partners, the newshour is collecting opinions about what matters most to people for a project called "listen to me." so far, the number one issue is the economy. here are a few of the voices we've heard from around the country.

. making it easier for people to find jobs and, you know, feed their families. pay their bills. and not feel like can i buy bread or do i have to buy shoes? there shouldn't be like, you know, you shouldn't have to think about that. >> i've seen so many people struggling. i talked to a few people today, in fact, that are unemployed. it's a serious issue. we have got to get jobs going in this country. the economic issues in this country are serious. we are bankrupt. we're playing games. if we don't get it straightenedded out fast, if we can get it straightened out at all, this country is is in serious problems. >> one of the main issues for me would be the fact that i'd like to see the political machine straighten up and do what'sest for the people. we need more jobs in this country. and the political machine doesn't seem to recognize. >> the economy is the big issue. unfortunately either side doesn't have a really good grasp

on what is really needed for this country. you know, there's not any good other candidates for a third party to really come and down the main two out of the race. that's where we're stuck. >> woodruff: we will be gathering opinions >> woodruff: we'll be gathering opinions throughout the election cycle, and will feature many of them during our coverage of the democratic and republican conventions later this summer. you can find all the videos at the "listen to me" page on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. >> brown: two days ago, mexicans went to the polls and elected a new president, enrique pena nieto of the institutional revolutionary party, or pri. today he sat down with our margaret warner in mexico city, to discuss his plans to refocus the drug war and reform the mexican economy. here is that interview. . >> warner: mr. president-elect, thank you for having us.

and congratulations. your closest rival in the race mr. obrador last night once again rejected the results, said it was fraudulent and said the p.r.i. party have actually bought votes. have you had a chance to look into the substance of those charges? >> i believe that in our country fortunately we have democratic institutions that are very solid and reliable. we have electoral tribunals will be responsible for addressing these issues and attending to these complaints. the ones filed by canned dade lopez obrador. it was truly an exemplary process where more than 50 million, over 50 million mexicans participated with a difference of more than 3.2 million votes. >> warner: do you think it casts any doubt on the legitimacy of your election? >> i don't have doubt in terms of the confidence of the majority i received. >> warner: in both the campaign and on election night you promised to reduce the violence that's plaguing the lives of ordinary mexicans, 55,000 dead.

how are you going to do that? is it by focusing on the most violent cartels? >> it's quite clear that the fight against organized crime is something we cannot relinquish. it is a task, an obligation for the mexican government. my commitment is to lead this fight with efficiency and more results. there are acheesms made by the current federal administration and some institutions have been strengthened. we're going to need to adjust the strategy to achieve this major objective in the fight on organized crime. i'm talking about reducing violence. i'm talking about the strategy that does not have the support of society. if we don't have the support of society, we will hardly see the benefits. or the support we need to actually improve conditions of security for society. >> warner: but how? i mean, your advisors are talking about reconcentrating the fire power you have, military, on the most violent cartels. >> i will maintain the presence of the mexican army, navy and police and the states of the

mexican republic where the problem of crime has been increasing. we will adjust the strategies so we can focus on certain types of crime like kidnapping, homicide, extortion which have increased because we have a lot of impunity in some parts of the country. the state's task is to achieve more efficiency and to go back to the rule of law and apply and enforce laws strictly in our country. >> is there a trade-off between going after the drug king pins who are responsible for most of the trafficking of drugs into the u.s. and/or focusing on the violent cartels that are taking the lives of ordinary mexicans? you have to do less of one to do more of the other? >> look, i believe that there's a concern around this issue in terms of assuming that this adjustment would mean not going after cartels involving drug trafficking. no, absolutely not. it want to be very clear. the fight by the government will be against organized crime. drug trafficking in all its forms and shapes. but we have to focus especially on reducing violence.

but that doesn't mean we should overlook or relinquish this task by the state. the fight against all forms of organized crime. >> warner: now the president of urugauy just last week has proposed in his country sales of marijuana should be legalizedded and regulated by the government, that enter diction just hasn't worked. at least take the money out of the black market that the cartels are making so much off. is that something mexico should consider? >> i have publicly said that i'm against legalization of drugs. i don't believe that this is the path to reduce violence and illegal trafficking of these products. however, i am in favor of opening up a new debate around the strategy and way to fight drug trafficking. it is very clear that after several years of this fight on drug trafficking we have more drug consumption and drug use and drug trafficking. that means we're not moving in the right direction. things are not working. i'm not saying that we should legalize. it's exactly the opposite. i'm against legalization. but with the debate we're

countries in the hemisphere and especially the u.s. should participate in this broad debate to redefine the way in which we fight drug trafficking. >> warner: so you would like the u.s. to also be considering its position on legalization of drugs? >> i'm truly convinced that the u.s. should be involved in the discussion and the debate around this issue. >> warner: let the debate begin but you're not taking a position yet? >> that's right. warner: now how would you... american officials are actually of the belief that the u.s.-mexico relationship has been further strengthened over the past six years. is there anything about the relationship you'd like to change? >> on the contrary. i'm in favor of strengthening or improving relations with the u.s. without a doubt. in my conversation with president obama yesterday when he called me to congratulate me, he told me -- and i fully agree with him -- that we should maintain this level of collaboration that has existed so far between the u.s. and the mexican government. and i'm interested in improving

that level of collaboration. redefining the objects of the bilateral agenda and strengthening sovereignty and the collaboration and respect around these issues for both governments. >> warner: would you like the united states to assist in this more intense focus on the really violent cartels such as the zetas? that is, also going after their customers in the united states? >> well, i believe that the u.s. has collaborated significantly with the current mexican government. my objective is to intensify this action and collaborate more. especially when it comes to fighting these drug cartels and organized crime groups. we need to have safer borders, but that also requires more collaboration from the u.s. government. and an increased commitment to define policies and actions that, together with the mexican government, will allow us to achieve better results. >> warner: do you think it is practical to hope or expect or demand that the u.s. do more to stop the flow of especially assault weapons from the u.s. to

mexico? >> this is an issue that has been surrounded by a high-level debate. we have been insisting on getting the u.s. more involved in fighting the arms trafficking. unfortunately, it has had a major impact. the problem has killed thousands of mexicans, unfortunately. and it is an issue that without a doubt is unsolved. we have not seen a good level of efficiency by the u.s. in terms of how to better control arms trafficking. i'm talking about how-caliber been weapons into our country. >> warner: finally, you have promised that you represent a new generation of the p.r.i. you said you were going to have a new way of governing, but voters here sounded dubious to us. one mexico city voter said you can't take pena nieto out of the p.r.i. bubble. he was elected with the help of this machine. he's going to owe it. what would you say to him?

>> look, margaret, first of all, whoever says that is not recognizing the political change occurring in mexico in recent years. mexico has a much more cohesive democracy today. we're a plural, diverse country with an equal participation of the different political forces. my political party has been there for some time. we are governing several mexican states. with this new trust from the mexican people, without a doubt our capacity to prove ourselves will be tested. they will test the competence through results, through achievements. this will be the new face of the p.r.i., and the p.r.i.-governing democracy. >> warner: some of your most ambitious ideas for the economy, bringing competition into some of these monopolies from energy to telecom, it's going to involve you taking on some real pillars of the p.r.i., some of the old guard. what's your leverage with them? i mean, a lot of them have an interest in the status co. >> i'm fully convinced that the p.r.i., in this effort to promote competitiveness, more credit, fighting monopolies and

pushing the energy reform i'm committed to, that the p.r.i. will push it, will allow it to gain more social support. and that will also allow my political party to increase its capacity to push these initiatives. it is clear that in order to achieve this objective, we will have to reach agreements to be able to push these reforms, to participate and become part of the effort to modernize our country. >> warner: one of your advisors said to me, it's analogous to nixon going to china. only nixon could go to china. do you think you're in that position? >> without a doubt, the p.r.i. is the political party with the political capacity and the strength to push structural reforms that will allow us to modernize our country. >> warner: mr. president, thank you so much. best of luck. >> woodruff: margaret blogs about the interview, and you can find her past reports from mexico, all on our web site.

>> brown: and now, to the latest twist in the often-tortured relationship between the u.s. and pakistan, which announced today that it was reopening key truck routes into afghanistan. much of the last decade, trucks from pakistan have transported fuel, equipment and supplies to u.s. and nato troops fighting in afghanistan. staking along a route that begins in the port city of krawchy, runs through the khyber pass and into various parts of afghanistan. pakistan closed these routes last november after u.s. forces killed 24 pakistani soldiers in an operation along the border. what exactly occurred remains in dispute, but the event further strained an already strained relationship between two countries. today secretary of state hillary clinton ended a diplomatic impasse saying in a statement she offered our sincere condolences to the families of

the pakistani soldiers who lost their lives. i acknowledge the mistakes that resulted in the loss of pakistani military lives. we are sorry for the losses suffered by the pakistani military. we are committed to working closely with pakistan and afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again. meanwhile, a taliban spokesman told reuters that taliban fighters would attack the supply trucks traveling these routes, something they've done in the past. we explore this more now with retired army general jack keane. he was vice chief of staff from 1999 to 2003, and has served as an informal advisor to various commanders in afghanistan since then. he now has his own consulting firm. and vali nasr is dean of the school of advanced international studies at johns hopkins university. he served in the obama administration's state department focusing on afghanistan and pakistan. vali nasr, i'll start with you. a good and important step. what do you make of this, both the apology and the reopening of the truck routes? >> i think it's a very good and

important step largely because these two countries need one another. pakistan is very fragile and unstable and the united states needs pakistan in the war on terror for finishing off the war in afghanistan and the stability of pakistan matters to us greatly. the way in which this relationship was unraveling was going to put at jeopardy america's larger interest in the region. unfortunately we had gotten ourselves into a position where this issue had become a stumbling block to moving forward. it's very good that it's remov removed. >> brown: general keane, what do you think? the stumbling block removed? why did this become such a stumbling block? >> first of all i agree. it's obviously a step in the right direction. we use to use our main supply route. although the other supply route was being used very effectively as well as the line of communication. the other supply route for your viewing audience is the one to the north as opposed through the khyber pass. the stumbling blocks were really surrounded accountability for those, the pakistanis believed,

who were involved in the killing of their troops as well as a public apology. that was much of it. also the pakistanis were charging some increased outrageous prices, you know, per truck and per container to make its way along that supply line. look, it's a step in the right direction. it's better for it. >> brown: general keane by reports there was resistent to issuing that apology. the state department seemed to want to. at least through reports we got, the pentagon and others did not. >> that's true. it's sort of a soft apology anyway. look at. i got briefed on this operation in january when i was doing an assessment for general madison, general allen, general allen the commander in afghanistan. i mean the facts were pretty clear. the fact of the matter is we were landing in helicopters and were brought under fire by pakistani soldiers. they said they mistook us for

taliban. the taliban have no helicopters. our helicopters even at night are very identifiable in terms of the type of aircraft that they are. we knew that. we knew that was the fundamental problem with this incident. also the pakistanis are in locations where they were reported not to be. so that is why our people held so fast to this because they clearly felt that the initiation of fires was the catalyst for the tragedy that unfolded over a series of hours. >> brown: do you, vali nasr, that this incident is not clear as to what happened and put to rest? >> i think that in some ways we've become too focused on the details of this issue. the kind of apology that was given today could have been given in november. in other words, we didn't intend to kill pakistani soldiers. there was a mistake, whether it was their mistake, our mistake in the end we could have said we didn't intend for this to happen. we could have moved past it. the reality is that there's a lot of issues we don't like

about pakistani behavior in afghanistan. their support for extremism, et cetera. but we need pakistan. we need access to their air space to carry out drone attacks. we need access to their air space in order to be able to fly military supplies from the persian gulf into afghanistan. and we're going to need their supply routes much more for getting our equipment afternoon troops out of afghanistan than supplying... that's the most important issue. nitpicking about whether they shot first or we shot first does not solve any of those bigger issues. >> brown: i wanted to follow up on that. you talked about bringing supplies out because a lot of emphasis on the truck routes being open to bring things in. fill that in a little bit. what gets brought in and eventually you're talking about bringing things out as we pull back. >> right. i mean, air routes are not taking the heavy equipment we have in afghanistan. as we begin the process of drawdown we'll need the supply routes even more than before.

we're dealing with a very prickly, problematic friend or ally or adversity, way you want to put it. the reality that we've learned is that by pressure alone will not... we're not going to get the collaboration we need. we have to have a positive momentum in this relationship that is better for us. it's better for our goals and it's better for the agenda that we have in afghanistan in the war on terror. >> brown: general keane, i want you to pick up on this. you just used the expression, ally, adversary, however you want to put it. general general keane, what is our relationship at the moment? >> i think our relationship has suddenly changed from an allied relationship with pretty good cooperation to one that is more of a partnership that's based more on conditions. listen, i couldn't disagree more with vali on this in terms of our relationship. you know, coddling the pacts that we have done now for ten years has clearly protracted this war in afghanistan.

we've got to sanctuaries, afghan sanctuaries in pakistan that pakistan military leaders provide information on nato and u.s. operations inside afghanistan. they provide training, and they provide resources. i mean that's outrageous. if that isn't enough, there are two fertilizer factories ostensibly which actually produce ammonium nitrate which is the basic ingredient in 85% of all of the i.e.d.s that maim and kill our troops. finally, there are bomb factories that we know where they are, have pictures of them which are used to produce those i.e.d.s as a final product. this is why this relationship is frayed and strained and has deteriorated because even though they do not want to destabilize pakistan, defact owe they have protracted this war, you know, for all of these years because those sanctuaries provide that kind of support for the taliban

that are fighting inside afghanistan. >> brown: all right. let me get valleys inner respond to that. the charge of coddling the pakistanis. >> the charge of coddling pakistanis goes a long way back. it goes to even after 9/11 when we knew they had certain relationships with the taliban, we decided to treat them as an ally. but the reality is that all the problems that general keane says notwithstanding, we still got more out of pakistan. we had a positive relationship with them. and the policy of pressure and particularly this issue of breaking the relationship over the apology has led to less cooperation on taliban, on al qaeda. it has put to risk our access to drones, strikes in pakistan and essentially the key issue is that is it we want out of this relationship? we want the pakistanis to cooperate more. we got more cooperation them when there was something in the relationship for them. they got less cooperation from

them when we only applied pressure with no positive... >> brown: let me ask you both briefly in the time we have left starting with you, vali nasr, what do you think should happen next? >> ult mountainly we have certain goals here. our goal is an orderly exit from afghanistan and the fact that that country wouldn't fall appar the minute we left. we want to be able to continue to hunt al qaeda in that borer region. we want a stable pakistan. ultimately we have to work despite the inherent character of the pakistani state that general keane laid out, we have to find a strategy to be able to get our goals with what we have to deal with. >> brown: general keane, what do you want to happen next? >> i do agree that the pakistanis want a stable afghanistan but they want it significantly influence it in terms of their own national security objectives. in my judgment when we pulled most out of our troops by 2014 and we leave a relatively small force, 20,000-25,000 possibly as a residual force and the afghan national security forces, i

believe the future security of afghanistan is still largely at risk because of those sanctuaries. we have got to get the pakistanis to stop supporting those sanctuaries. then i think that is the elephant in the room here. >> brown: all right. general jack keane, vali nasr, thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: finally tonight, the death of a beloved actor. andy griffith passed away today, after a career that spanned half a century. ray suarez has our report. suarez: the theme song was as familiar as its name sake. andy griffith gained lasting stardom on the andy griffith show set in the fictional town of mayberry north carolina. for eight years starting in 1960 he played a widowed sheriff raising a son, opie, played by ron howard.

>> you see, when you give something -- in this sense it's cleaning garage -- and you get something in return like a quarter that's the greatest feeling in the world. you do feel good after working, don't you? >> um-hum. good and tired. >> suarez: the supporting cast also featured the likes of aunt bea and howard mcnear as floyd the barber. most famously sheriff andy's deputy barny fife played by don knotts. >> why are we stopping here? she had to go to mount pilot. we're going to check the locks. >> no we're going to take in her laundry. >> brown: two decades later in 1986 griffith returned to weekly television in matlock. he played a cagey southern lawyer for nine years. >> and he had no idea. he didn't think for a minute that you would kill him first. >> suarez: griffith got his big break in the 1950s after he recorded a comedic mono log,

what it was, was football. >> it was that both bunches full of them men wanted this funny looking little pumpkin to play with. >> suarez: that success led to appearances on national television variety shows and then to a role as a hill billy recruit in "no time for sergeants" in 1955. first on broadway, garnering a tony award nomination and later on the big screen. >> listen, ma'am, at home we have a little radio on the porch. whenever it won't walk, pa spits on the back of it and won k-s it a bit and it works every time. there you are. she's a-working. >> ladies and gentlemen, this is andy griffith. >> suarez: griffith followed that with a dramatic turn in "a face in the crowd" in 1957. he played larry "lone system" rhodes an arkansas drifter

turned singing idol whose television success leads to a lust for power. >> i'm not just an entertainer. i'm an influence, a wielder of opinion, a force. a force. >> oh, if they ever heard the way that psycho really talks. >> suarez: in his later years griffiths recorded a gospel album and won a grammy award in 1997. he received the presidential medal of freedom in 2005. and he continued acting, appearing in the independent film waitress in 2007. >> how are you doing? same as yesterday, jenna. uarez: when asked if he was like his cranky character in that film, griffiths said i'm not really wise but i can be cranky but i'm a lot like andy taylor, too. andy griffith died today on his home at the north carolina coast. he was 86.

>> brown: again, the other major developments of the day. the head of the international monetary fund warned u.s. policymakers not to over-react to debt and fiscal deadlines at year's end. christine lagarde told the "newshour" that tax and spending proposals in washington could hurt the u.s. and global economy. and the u.s. voiced regret for and the u.s. voiced regret for mistakenly killing two dozen pakistani troops last fall. in turn, pakistan agreed to reopen key military supply routes into afghanistan. and to hari sreenivasan for what's on the newshour online. hari? >> sreenivasan: on our health page, personal reactions from three ordinary americans on how the supreme court's health reform ruling might affect their lives. plus we look at fresh public opinion polling since the decision. that's in the morning line. also on our web site, we asked newshour viewers to outline their level of enthusiasm about the upcoming election, and the results might surprise you. that's on our politics page.

and why didn't the 2009 stimulus plan lead to greater recovery? paul solmon answers one reader's questions on our making sense page. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. judy? >> and that's the newshour for tonight. on wednesday, we'll look at what happened to the signers of the declaration of independence after that historic moment. i'm judy woodruff. >> and i'm jeffrey brown. we'll see you on-line, and again here tomorrow evening. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> bnsf railway. >> by nordic naturals. >> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy, productive life.

and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org