Transcripts For CSPAN 20090625

delicate situations that has to be monitored minute by minute and response depends on their conduct. we watch them carefully, as we are the vote that gave way -- the boat heading toward singapore, the threaten of additional testing. right now the president and secretary clinton have played that pretty well. . we are complying with the resolution. the challenge will be if it ends up getting refueled in singapore, and everybody seems to think it will need to stop there in order to be refueled. at that point in time, will the singapore government comply with the un resolution? if they boarded and they see there are carrying contraband and the kind of thingsthat are riveted by the resolution, -- >> with regard to iran, there has been -- your observations. has it been appropriate, too much, not enough? >guest: you have to put iran in the context that we view, and it is important for us to understand that we view it as a million people marching in the street. the contacts that probably it iranian citizens view it. first of all, we know it is really a theocracy, not a democracy. ahmadinejad is not ultimately in control of the decision making in that country. number 2, most of the iranian citizens are aware that it was an unelected screening process that brought in the four candidates. i doubt if anyone in the streets now knew that there would be dramatic reversal. but i do think the incredible protest is that they had a taste of democracy, the taste of even in a modest way being able to select their president, and i think the president very appropriately has not taken sides with any one of the four candidates. wishing, whishing, i wish it had been more forceful from the get go, the ones that protested their forfeiture, they're right, as limited as it was, to select their leader. host: we are speaking with tom ridge. our first call from allentown, evan. good morning to you, with tom ridge. caller: my question was with regret -- with regard to north korea. either safeguards in place to put it in effect individual similarities during a national emergency -- individual civil liberties during a national emergency? guest: absolutely. it is one of the challenges we will always have in this country, combating any kind of emergency, balancing the need to make sure that we protect the freedoms and liberties at the same time we are responding to the crisis. that was the balance that i think we walked deftly, and frankly, i think the one possible blemish of not figuring out how to provide due process, some form of due process to the people at guantanamo, that we handled very well during the past four or five years in the post-9/11 world. host: ann is on the phone from kansas. caller: i am from kansas, where we have had quite a few illegal aliens. i lost my job, i have been run off the road by an illegal alien driving a foundation truck. i want to know why, when the bush administration was in power, why they did not make more effort to close the border, spend the money necessary to pick up the illegal aliens, find them, and ship them back to latin america or wherever they are from. why are we making working-class americans pay so heavily to have all of these illegal aliens here? i believe that the cost figure for kansas was right at $190 million for kansas to have illegal aliens in 2006. it is breaking us. host: thank you very much. guest: first of all -- is that my camera? host: that is your camera. guest: first of all, under president bush, which significantly increased the number of border patrol agents at the southern border, immigration and customs enforcement wrapped up its enforcement capabilities, and toward the end of his administration this became a very high priority. i will take it one step further, though. it goes beyond president bush. it goes beyond president obama. this country really does not have an immigration policy, let alone a policy dealing in a constructive and appropriate way with our land borders to the north and south, particularly with mexico. unless and until we have an immigration policy and a southern border strategy and then it in law, we are still going to have these anecdotal incidents that you referred to. we are still going to have people getting across the border. so sometime hopefully in this administration, the president and congress will remedy this in a complete and comprehensive way. i was in congress and the 1980's when we pass the amnesty legislation, and the response -- it was thought at that time that the congress of united states, it was not just paint executive but a congressional responsibility, coming up with a plan for the lawful exit and entry for those who come across our borders to do some hard work in this country. until the congress is willing to accept its responsibility to make some fundamental changes in the immigration system, we are still going to have this conversation on this show two, three, or four years from now until congress acts. its coat your new book, "the test of our times. what is the thesis behind this book? guest: the goal was to try to demonstrate, telling some stories, the challenges we face to, the opportunities that i think we seized and talking a little bit about my frustrations and perhaps mistakes that i made, things that i could have done better. and to celebrate some of the men and women who did an extraordinary job under difficult circumstances, creating the department while trying to make a business entity, create an entity that works, operates efficiently, and at the same time deal with the ongoing threat of terrorism. it was a great exercise. there are 180,000 women were so they go to work every day for the homeland security. host: have you talked to president bush since he left office? guest: yes, i have. he talked to me about the possibility of me running for the senate. we had a nice conversation. i think he had been -- he has been very reserved, appropriately so. in his response to inquiries about the present administration, i think he has handled it very well. host: can you walk through your own decision making process on why you said you are going to opt out of the 2010 challenge to arlen specter? guest: most of my public -- most of my adult life has been spent in public service, and the dna is pretty strong. at the end of the day, i had been a member of congress for 12 years, a member of the house. my best job was the governor of pennsylvania. i am doing some things now not only with my business, but i chair the national organization of disability, and we do some wonderful things with disabled veterans and with some young kids in our inner cities who have some challenges. the great notion that this is the constituency in the united states that has one of the highest poverty levels and one of the highest unemployment levels, and we need the country to look beyond the disability to the ability and hire them. i will still be an active voice within the republican party, still a very proud republican and i want to do all i can to advance our collective interests both at the national and state levels. even what i am doing now, a reentry into politics did not feel right, and you really have to feel right about campaigning for two years, then serving for sex. i was not prepared to make the commitment. host: after the midterm elections in 2010, have you given any thought to running for president in 2012? guest: i really have not. i have learned a long time ago never to say never, but i really focused on getting mitch mcconnell get a few more bodies in the senate, and i want to get back to pennsylvania and while i can to make sure that we have a republican governor succeeding the incumbent. host: but if you were to run, what questions would you ask yourself? what would you take into account if you thought possibly pursuing -- guest: not just about me, but whoever runs for president has to have a design, a plan, a road map to a better future for america. president obama did a masterful job when he talked about hope and he talked about change. now, i am not sure that when he talked about change, everyone thought it would be the type of dramatic change in policy we have seen for the past six months. but if you read some of his works, you had an idea of where he was going. the use of the economic competitive advantage that we had in the late '20s century, post-world war ii era, is gone. we are competing globally, and we have to understand that and i are economic policy has to be structured around not only competing, but we have to win. better education, a better 21st century approach to education in this country. there are so many potential -- there are so many social, economic issues. they have to have a darned good idea of where they want to be on day one. host: so you have not ruled out? guest: i learned a long time ago never to say never. host: we go to george from daytona beach, florida. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. former governor ridge, about security, what do you think, how much do you believe in the bible? psalm 27 reveverse one says except guide watch the city, their work will be in vain. you have a wall or under city, guns everywhere, and you have -- i do not think that the atomic bomb is keeping a safe. the second thing, the republican party lost its popularity when ronald reagan said that the regulators out of the way and no tax. mississippi became republican. now, are you a link republican -- are you a lincoln republican, or are you -- guest: i would love to associate with a lincoln republican. the tension continues to shrink, and we need to be more tolerant -- the 1tent continues to shrink, and we need to be more tolerant. we have our reach, but we want to sustain it. if you wanted to categorize me, i am number 1 a ridge republican. that means a lot to me. i like to be associated as jack kemp did. i learned many lessons from jack kemp in terms of reaching out to minorities, doing whatever we need to do in this country to increase the quality of life in the opportunity for employment, education, regardless of race, color, or creed. host: this coming from one viewer who send in this tweet. this person seems to be most logical republican. how does he get along with his party members? guest: very well. i mentioned in the book that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, i know i testified up there and much of the testimony was very challenging because republicans and democrats have different points of view with regard to some initiatives we undertook in the department of homeland security. with very few exceptions, not only republicans but democrats, i think treated me with the kind of respect and civility for which i will always be most appreciative. it does not mean we agreed a lot, it just means there was a certain tone in the disagreement that i think is the way we ought to conduct business in this town, and it is too often lost, too often ignored, and maybe somewhere along the line we can go back to the days when tip o'neill used to talk to my leader, bob michael, and they were good friends. when was conservative, one was liberal, but they had great collegiality, they were good friends. it was reflected on how we conducted business on the floor in the 1980's', and it would be nice to go back for the future. >> traditionally one party to go off to the left within mcgovern, back to the right with a cold water, you have to reset yourself to take advantage of the political marketplace. the center is not described by the pundits. the american public will let you know what the center is pretty quick. i expect the republican party to come back, but they are going to have to open up a little bit to let people into the coalition if they want to be competitive. their problem is not as much demographic as much as it is its bases. we are non-competitive in the northeast and in the west coast and upper midwest. host: tom ridge, let me pick up on tom davis' comment. will the party allow you to do what tom davis suggests? guest: when we certainly ragman's -- when we circled the wagons, we ought to fire out, not inward. be thoughtful and respectful, but also be focusing our attention on our disagreements with the democrats. i think he is a voice of reason. this is the man whose conservative credentials are impeccable. the base is shrinking, and we will always be the pro-life party, we will always be viewed as the more conservative of the two parties. there are certain basic inches it values at the broader republican party will embrace, but i think it is about time -- there are certain basic intrinsic values at the broader republican party will embrace. we have to be a lot more tolerant of different points of view within the party. i have had two republicans that fundamentally changed my life. two republican presidents. i got a draft notice from richard nixon and i went to vietnam, and i got a phone call from president george bush and got a lot -- a job that i love. on either occasion, they did not ask me about abortion, gays in the military. it does not mean that people cannot have strongly held views. if you want to win, you have to broaden the base. i do not know how you win by shrinking the base. host: dan is on the phone, a republican line, from providence, rhode island. caller: when you were in office, what is the biggest obstacle about the border? i am a mexican-american, and i believe we should close the borders in give arms to mexico to protect our own border. i do you agree with that -- do you agree with that? guest: of the real challenge with the border is accepting some realities. the reality is we are not sure how many illegals are here. it may be 10 million, it 12 million, 14 million. we know we have got a lot. you say to yourself realistically, will we be able to identify and send all 10 million, 12 million, or 14 million people back chances are pretty good that it cannot possibly happen. the next reality is that a lot of people from the southern border, even coming in from canada, focusing on the southern border whose presence in our communities and our cities add value. some are legal, some are illegal. why do we figure out a way, and i think our way is to bring these individuals here illegally out of the shadows of our communities. not putting them at the front of the line, not a question of citizenship, but legalize their presence. also build a system that protect employers and future employees coming across the border so that if they are hired, they can be hired in a way that all americans are comfortable that they are here legitimately. and then at the same time, obviously enforce the laws against those who hire withououe of that system. it is a fairly complicated response to a very complicated problem, and the only way we are going to do with it is if the people on the hill accept the reality that unless something is done, you continue to preserve the status quo, if the status quo is unacceptable, act. act comprehensively, and do it now. it could gerald has a enel follow. what do you see is our biggest common security threat, and how do you fix it? guest: well, from a threat point of view, the single greatest concern that i have -- and it is not imminent -- remember, first the anthrax attack occurred before i got into town. then we saw the unfortunate several deaths associated with anthrax. think of the problems we had in identifying the substance and whether people who were sick actually had been exposed to amtrak. then the whole challenges with distributing -- the biggest blows to anthrax. then look at the swine flu and all the excitement we had around that potential pandemic in the united states and say to yourself, what if either mother nature or a terrorist alters a virus out there and it is communicable? do we have a national disease surveillance system to pick it up, whether it is mother nature or a terrorist? if we have the system, do we have the capability to do the research and development, and manufacture the antidote or vaccine. and if we have a surveillance system and the ability to manufacture the antidote or vaccine, do we have a distribution system? the years after anthrax, we see the pandemic right now. the greatest concern i have is that we spent a lot of time when we should have worried about nuclear-weapons and fissile material, radiological. from an intellectual point of view, i am even more concerned about biological weapons. host: tom ridge served as the homeland security secretary for the first bush had been attrition. the and then joins us from his mobile, california. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. mr. rich, i would like to get back to the conversation on the impact of mexico and their increasing violence and all that we hear and read about concerning the mexican mafia and all the drug cartels. i do not think that either party is addressing the real issue fully because we cannot talk about the socio-economic impact of immigration in mexico and central america for that matter. in our dialogue because everybody is afraid of being branded a racist of some sort. so we avoid the severity of the power of the mexican drug cartels that are totally infiltrated in our country. obviously there is no way to keep them out, along with all the other illegal immigration. some of your terms you are using -- we have to check our reality. we need to accept reality. these are lofty phrases like "lawful entry," "hard work." there is no system, apparently, because it is completely out of control. we are on the border with a country that has had 2000 deaths, and they just busted the largest meth lab with tons of chemicals to make mateth. when you talk about mexico, immigration, you always avoid the issue regarding national security, the impact of the mexican drug cartels and mafia. host: we will get a response. thank you. e. guest: let me put an exclamation point on your observation and give you an apology for not including the pernicious impact, a legal impact of the drug cartels in my response to the earlier caller. i thought the earlier caller was talking about those who had come across the border to work. look -- and not those who were involved in a massive infrastructure not only in mexico but in the united states as well. there is a a sale and distribution system in this country in organized crime that is joined at the hip with the drug cartels in mexico. so let's distinguish the two and say that frankly one of secretary napolitano's greatest challenges right now as she deals with the whole illegal immigration issue, the people that want to come here to work, is the escalation in violence and the drug wars along the southern border. there, our law enforcement to become fbi, state and local police, have their hands full. let's make no mistake about it. part of the infrastructure is american owned, american operated, and we're spending a lot of time focusing on the southern border, and forcing the law there against the cartels. the question remains whether the same emphasis is being placed on that priority within law enforcement this country. you are absolutely right that we cannot and ignore the reality. i said a long time ago we worry about weapons of mass destruction and we often talk about radiological nuclear, biological, and chemical. chemical warfare has been waged a long time in this country. it is called drugs, and we have been losing that war for a long time as well. that is why the president's renewed focus, and hopefully the mexican government for the first time moving police and guards to the border, is a sign that we will sustain a aggressive posture down there until we clean the area up. we have an infrastructure in the united states that require similar attention as well. host: our conversation is with tom ridge, former secretary of homeland security. it also served on the commission looking at the shootings at virginia tech. what were the lessons you gained from that? guest: that horrible, horrible tragedy at virginia tech -- there are many, many dimensions to that tragedy. probably the one that is seared in my mind probably more deeply than any other is that there were so many visible signs and manifestations of this troubled young man's mental state, and for a variety of reasons. it just seemed that some people care, some people ignored, but there was not the wherewithal within the institution to deal with it. some were afraid of legal repercussions. it was really bizarre, some of the testimony that we heard. but at the end of the day, it was a very troubled young man who manifested this mindset on several other occasions, from a poor english professor who still blames herself for not doing more, which she should not. as i recall from the record, she did everything that she could within the establishment. i think to suggest that mental health challenges on our college campuses are greater than we think they are, and the capability to identify and mediate in a timely way -- first identify and then try to help these individuals is something that is more in common on universities than ever before. host: fred, from new orleans, you are on with bomb ridge. -- with tom ridge. caller: you brought up the anthrax attacks. you did not finish the statement. the anthrax attack was traced back to for beatrix -- to fort dietrich. so if we have terrorists, they are somewhere in fort beatridie. new evidence for 9/11 has been uncovered by "the new york times" given to families of 9/11, uncovering that saudi arabia was a major financial backer of those involved in 9/11. host: is saudi arabia and internal threat? guest: first of all, i do not think that is any secret that there are sources within saudi arabia, whether they are in the form of contributions or -- john mccain said that we pay that part of the world for oil, but much of the end up in the pockets of terrorists. that is not a revelation. it is common knowledge. it is a fact. for the longest time, there were those in the saudi government, and there was this notion that you could export the terrorists as an extreme factor in order to get them out of their own indigenous country, they have kind of support of them overseas. once they were attacked in riyadh, they realize you cannot export potential troublemakers because a comeback -- it comes back and land in your own backyard. they have been much supportive -- they have been much more supportive of our identifying terrorists in saudi arabia since that time. with regard to anthrax, the fbi identified what they believe is an independent actor out of fort dietrich, and i do not think you should draw any conclusions of the event it was in an independent actor

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , New York , United States , Canada , Iran , Florida , Rhode Island , California , Virginia , Riyadh , Ar Riya , Saudi Arabia , Mississippi , Mexico , Daytona Beach , North Korea , Pennsylvania , Kansas , Singapore , Americans , America , Iranian , Saudi , Mexican , American , Tom Davis , Tom Davi , Jack Kemp , Ronald Reagan , Bob Michael , Mitch Mcconnell , George Bush , Richard Nixon , Allentown Evan , John Mccain , Tom Ridge ,