announcer: kentucky senator and republican potential candidate byd paul, that is followed president obama and the south korean president holding a joint news conference at the white house. and later, the former undersecretary of defense talks about women and foreign policy at texas a&m. announcer: all campaign long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house -- unfettered access to the candidates at town hall meetings, news conferences, rallies, and speech is treated are taking your comments on

twitter, facebook, and by phone. as always, every event we cover is available on our website at c-span.org. >> republican presidential candidate rand paul recently made a stop in des moines, iowa -- speaking at the university. spoke about senator foreign policy, national debt, and the rights of lgbt employees. this is about 30 minutes. senator rand paul: thank you. thank you. [applause] thank you. [applause] drake, you guys got out of class today. how many of you are registered for the draft? women already registered, i did

not know that. the secretary of the army said they would register women come as well. he thinks they may have to. but my question is, why do you think the government registers you at all? we do not have a draft. they have your social security number, what do they want you to register? i'm thinking they want you to admit your submission -- admit that you will go wherever, whenever they tell you. but you know what? you get a choice, a choice on who you elect to run the country them on whether or not you will go to war are not. this is the issue of the day, right now. it is becoming more and more profound and more and more imminent. why is it an issue? because you have virtually every other residential candidate saying we must have a no-fly zone. we must tell russia they cannot fly over syria or iraq. what do you think that means? right now, russia is already

flying over syria and iraq. why? syria invited them, iraq invited them. as carly fiorina has, as hillary clinton has, as rubio and several others have, we will enforce a no-fly zone over an area where people already flying -- what you think that means? that means we will shoot down russian fighters. trying to0 years avoid an altercation, trying to avoid an altercation with another superpower that has nuclear weapons. who are the people that try to avoid war? ronald reagan, even though he is not always to way by the liberal media, he did not shut down communications. the actually opened communication with the russian. so we have people in the republican stage now saying we should not talked to putin. that is a recipe for disaster. in all be flying our jets

100 square mile area and we will not have a discussion with vladimir putin? that is a recipe for disaster. all quiethave read "a on the western front?" the headmaster encourage them to go to war. it was most to be so patriotic, such a great thing -- world war i. people today still dispute why the hell they fought the war. millions of people died, 7 million people. for what? war is a terrible thing. does that mean we should be defenseless and not defend our country? absolutely not. but we should not be eager or reckless or wanting for war. it should be the last resort, not the first resort. when it comes, you will be the generation that fights it. and it may not be a voluntary army, it may well be subscription -- conscription. it may well be a draft again,

everyone of you, man and women, you have a choice. you have a choice who your leaders will be. and you must look and say, has it been a good thing? our involvement in the middle east, we already had one iraq war. died, tens of thousands of others were wounded. a cost $1 trillion and will cost more money to take care of the veterans, as we should. but did it, something good? are we better off because saddam hussein is gone? i do not know. iran seem stronger now. saddam hussein was enemy of iran. to me, he was the counterbalance. he was a dictator. but he was a sunni, standing in the way of the expansion of the shiite government of iran. who is iraq's best ally? now that we have liberated them, iran. there are iranian troops in iraq. who is the next best ally? russia.

who invited russia? iraq. recently, russia flew troops and equipment into syria. who invited them? you may say bashar al-assad is a terrible person, we must do something about terrible people around the world. is a variation of evil on one side or the other? he said if they were walking down the street, he would not feed them. they are terrible, we should not give arms or food to assad. but it was on the other side of the equation? isis. they came to congress in 2013 and asked us for weapons for the islamic rebels fighting against assad. i asked them the question now the same question i said then, would not it be a great irony of the weapons we give to those rebels, we would be back to

fight those rebels? that is what is going on now. you hear about isis in the news, but where do they get their weapons? from us, from our allies -- saudi arabia, quatar. isis has $1 billion worth of u.s. humvees. they pay their soldiers with $1 billion of u.s. cash that they stole, as well. they have anti-tank weapons that we gave to other anti-islamic rebels but were quickly snatched up by isis. how did all of these weapons wind up with them, when we were giving them to the moderate rebels in syria? the cia put it this way, the only thing moderate about the rebels in syria is their ability to fight. so we gave them these weapons and they were ineffective, immediately snatched up by isis. they have our tanks, our anti-tank weapons.

it is completely insane. in the last president of the bay, they said what would you do to defeat isis? i said maybe we should start by not arming them. maybe we should not fund them. but the war over there is an utter and complete disaster, but there are evil people on both sides. are you willing to go and fight aside? assad?ts to fight for islamic rebels who also hate us? -sis hates everyone - christians particularly. if there's something you can conceive worth laying your life down for? perhaps there is a variation of evil on either side. we have to understand that when we have been involved in the middle east, it is often backfire. in libya, wore

good idea or bad idea? who is a dictator, qaddafi. what we get in its place? the arab spring, it turned into the air of winter. in the area of winter we got chaos. there is no government in libya, it is a failed state. one third of libya pledges allegiance to isis. inu have egypt an therefore weapons. neither side likes america. you think any side would recognize. gnize israel? not 11. onewou would. there are too many christians trapped in the middle, more christians in syria than any other place in the middle east

than eight. but if you asked any christian in syria who they would rather have, which are al-assad -- the dictator they know -- or isis, the barbarian they're getting to know, not one vote. everyone would say they pick bashar al-assad. but we go in and bomb both sides. there are people in my republican party want to bomb both sides. it is completely insane. we need better leadership. if one party better than the other? sometimes they're the same. you have hillary clinton want to have a no-fly zone and publicans wanting to do the same thing. the same nonsense, the same bad planning. the same thing that drug us into the first iraq war. who voted for the first iraq war? hillary clinton. she later on back peddled, like everything else. when she finds out something is unpopular, she flips to the other side. in syria, we said we're going to fund and train the syrian moderates.

so we spent $250 million to train 60 of them. .ver $4 million per fighter you know what we did, we sent them back into battle five at a time. who sends in an army of five people? they were captured, stripped of their weapons. there is another name for al qaeda in syria. why would be fighting with al qaeda? must do now, was ne they are two areas of radical islam. but we can live now with al qaeda. they were the people that attacked us on 9/11. later on, they are going to love us? we will do a big group hug? no, they will kill us we turn around. maybe there is no answer. there is another war going on in yemen. you have these rebels, and iran

is supporting them. you have these other sunni muslims, and saudi arabia is supporting them. in washington, the war drums. we have to get involved in yemen because iran is in yemen. the iranians are killing out data, maybe we should not fight for them. maybe sometimes there is not an answer, and maybe sometimes we just should not be involved. does that mean we would treat and sort of get behind our fortress in america, behind our oceans and do nothing? no, we do need to be engaged. some people say, you're talking about isolationism. no i am not. in some ways, they are talking about diplomatic isolationism. not talking to vladimir putin is a form of diplomatic isolationism. but you will have a choice. this is up to you,

you are the ones to fight the war. think long and hard, whether you are ready to volunteer and fight another iraq war. think long and hard about whether it would be good or america and europe, and whether you are up to the task. the customer vote will make a difference. it is also very expensive. people say, well, it is just a democrats' fault. we had the surrender's debt. republicans will tell you we borrow a million dollars a minute and it is all the democrats' fault. fault.oth parties' we need more civility in washington, people complain. just hold hands and sing. everything would be ok. the problem is the opposite. in washington, we have too much holding hands, too much kumbaya. the left says we need more money

for domestic welfare and spinning. you know what happens? they get together and raise spending, it is both parties' fault. they are stealing from your future. some say that the debt is costing us a million jobs a year. so you need to be aware of this, this is your future. they are borrowing from it. i think we need a different way, i think we need a way in which the government does not look at your phone records. the government does not put you in jail for nonviolent things like marijuana. and the government does not send you to wars that do not have purpose. i think we need to believe in the entire bill of rights. you hear republicans talk about the second amendment. i defend it as well. do not come into my house unannounced or you will lose. [applause] the fourth of them at said the government cannot come in your house without a warrant.

the fifth amendment says you cannot take property without just compensation and du processe. by regulatory edict, president obama is taking your land. 90% of the land is under federal jurisdiction. how do they justify this? they say if a migratory bird lands in the great lakes is now in your backyard, it is connected to the great lakes. therefore, we can regulate every parcel of land we want. the congress approve of this? is doing it on his own. we have is collapse of the separation of powers, the executive branch is consuming all of the power and your representative did not get a vote anymore. the six amendments says you have a right to a trial by jury. you say, who could possibly be opposed to that? an agent right that even precedes our dawn in english

history, it goes back to greek and roman times. to be tried in front of a jury of your peers. we had a debate in 2011 on the senate floor over this, we debated back and forth over whether an individual american citizen accused of a crime in the united states could be indefinitely detained. without a trial, without a lawyer. i was incredulous. i had in this debate, i do not want to name names, it was a senator from arizona -- [laughter] an americanou mean citizen to be snatched up and sent to guantanamo bay without a trial and lawyer? he said yes, if they are dangerous. i thought to myself, my goodness, who would give such as possibility to one person? and it begs the question, who is that person? the person that gets to decide who is going to be snatched up, who is innocent, guilty? i thought in that moment, of the times we have gotten it wrong. when we incarcerated 100,000

japanese during world war ii sibley because the way they look. when we wire cap the phones of severa civil rights leaders without any approval from a judge. when we got it wrong. i thought of the time when richard jewel was accused of being a bomber. many of you, this happen before you were born, back in the 90's. you don't remember the 90's. he was accused of bombing centennial park in atlanta. everybody said he did it. withinid he was guilty, hours, his name was plastered across the country. he was guilty because he fit the profile. he were classes, i see a few you have glasses. he had a backpack, i see a few. he was solicitous to the victims. it was thought to be a bomber because he was kind afterward. they also he didn't. but the problem was he did not do it.

that is why we have the bill of rights. imagine if richard jewell had been a black man in the south, what must happen to him? trial by jury is to protect minorities. and people say, i am not a minority. you can be a minority because of the color of your skin, or the shade of your ideology. you can be a minority because you are an evangelical christian, because you teacher kids at home. you can be a minority because you are an atheist or because you believe in the constitution. the bill of rights is about defending, particularly those with had an unorthodox or unpopular idea. the bill of rights is not so much for the high school quarterback or for the prom queen. bill of rights is for the least among us, least popular among us. it is an amazing thing, but we cannot give it up. we can't interfere say, just take our liberties. make a safe again. and then some people say, if you have nothing to hide, you have

nothing to fear? kind of a step down from innocent until proven guilty. we have to decide whether or not our freedom is precious enough to defend. whether or not it is precious enough to fight for. i don't think necessarily fighting for your freedom is to go back to iraq. but there is a fight here, not so much physical but an intellectual battle for the way your country handles things. i will leave you with one last story. amendment also said you have a right to a speedy trial. --e leaf browder lived -- a khalif browder lived in the bronx. he went to rikers island. he spent two years in solitary confinement. the was beaten gangs, guards. the old billy tried to commit suicide.

he was finally released, he can never get over the experience of present. he was accused of a crime by someone who is not in the country legally, they fled back to mexico. but he finally did commit suicide a few months ago. and when i think about that, i think about -- that is of the country i believe in. that is not the country i want to represent. i do not want to represent a country that cannot obey the bill of rights. including people, young people in jail for nonviolent crimes. sometimes without a trial, letting them linger there. none of you would be left in jail, your parents would've found a way to get you out. but this is a poor black kid from the bronx who was kept there without a bond, a body could not. i want to be the party, be different than we were in the past. i want to be someone who says i want to defend everybody, rich, poor, black, white. i want to defend everybody and defend the entire bill of rights. i want to be the one who says, you know what, i will with passion defend the second

amendment. but i want to have the same and equal if not greater passion to defend the justice for all, no matter where you came from. i hope you want to be part of that. thank you for coming out today. [applause] thank you, i'm told i have a pretty quick plane ticket. [inaudible] senator paul: i am not familiar with. i don't know necessarily right offhand what those are. i know we do have for-profit

prisons that is a problem, people cannot afford of the ankle bracelets they are told to get. and because of that, they end up having longer prisons and this is because they cannot afford the punishment given them. i'm not sure about the rest. i will look at it. the corruption of transnational corporations, i know it is a big topic. any ideas how to control and regulate national corporations? senator paul: the question is whether or not corporations have too much power in our political world. this has been coming back and forth from long time. and people talk about it in terms of campaign finance reform, how can we try to get special interests out of our government. ? one of the important things remember is that the reason people purchase influence, whether it is donald trump giving millions of dollars to

democrats and republicans, he told us this in the wall street journal. he said i buy politicians because i wanted to do whatever the hell i tell them to do. the government has power, i think it has too much power. so the more powerful government gets, the more likely people are to likely purchase the influence of government. one of the answers is a more broad answer, we need to make government smaller so no one was to purchase influence so much. the other answer, though, is i think there could be some rules -- i think i'm better off with this. can we go back to this? just the go back to tie. the other thing about special interests that i think we could do, we tried passing limitations on contributions. it has been deemed unconstitutional. i agree with that. i don't think you should limit people's speech. there is one way you can do a

constitutionally. if you're a contractor for a government and you get a $1 billion contract, you are being given money, i think you should make a condition of the contract that you sign that you will not lobby government. at all. now we try to stop it by saying you will not use any of the money i give you to lobby. but you have plenty of other mixed money gets together. so a lot of big companies that do business with the government, they're able to use that money to go lobby and get more. some of these big corporations have 50 lobbyists, some have 100 lobbyists. but the ones that are usually getting stuff from government, i determine the difference between corporations who want to be left alone with lower taxes and less regulation -- which is a legitimate complaint -- versus those that take money to get more of your money. i would separate that way. i have time for one more. right here. >> do you think an employer

should be able to fire and lgbt employee because that person is lgbt? senator paul: i think the things you do in your house, you could just leave those in your house and not be a part of the workplace. to tell you the truth. these are very difficult decisions on what you decide, it will be employer decision. it is not so much about that question as it is about that it sets up a class of people who can now sue. you see what i mean? what happens is, it sets up a whole industry of people who want to sue. if you happen to be gay and you get fired, now you have a reason. but it is impossible sometimes -- people do not put the sign because i'm firing you because you are gay. it is very much disputed. i do not know that we need to keep adding two different classifications to say, that the government needs to be involved in the hiring and firing. i think society is rapidly changing. and if you are gay, there are

plenty of places that will hire you. i was in the vast majorities of corporations privately already have manuals or work manuals that say they do not discriminate in any way. i think that to be the fact. i am really not for having the government more involved in the situation. thank you all for coming. i have to run catch my plane. [applause] announcer: members of the house benghazi committee work on capitol hill today to continue their investigation into the deadly 2012 consulate attack in libya. former state department official and longtime aide whom a avidin adedin spent

time behind closed doors. that was something committee ranking member of elijah cummings spoke about with reporters earlier today. we also heard a statement from ms. abedin. rep. cummings: we have a situation where we have had mr. mccarthy, congressman mccarthy, make it clear that what this is all about. we then of course have the hand-picked member of the republican staff, mr. pol dliska, to affirm what mr. mccarthy already stated. we then have congressman hanna to reaffirm all of it.

but even if we want to put words to the side, the question becomes, we have been asked to not listen to the words of mccarthy, not listen to the words of podliska, not listen to the words of hanna, but look at the actions of the committee. and this morning again we have a situation where it is clear that when we look at the actions, calling ms. abedin in, letting the press know about the time, the location, of her interview, when she, based on the other testimony we have gotten, has no policy responsibilities, no operational responsibilities, was not with secretary clinton on the night of this phenomenal

tragedy, only leads one to ask the question, did the gentleman, congressman mccarthy, congressman hanna, and mr. podliska, tell the truth? that is the question. the question also becomes whether this is a taxpayer-funded effort to derail the candidacy of hillary clinton. and to be very frank with you, when i take the statements of those three gentlemen and i mash them up with what we have been saying all along, when we look at what they do and what these

gentlemen said, they'll match. it comes together. it is interesting to note that those people most closely associated with hillary clinton seem to be treated differently. mr. blumenthal, cheryl mills. ms. aberdeen. jake sullivan. treated differently. i think i said it from the beginning, it is very important -- when the democrats joined the committee, i said that we would be defenders of the truth. the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

that is exactly what we intend to do. us, the family's came to and we met with all four stevens, seanhris , englandone woods hourly, i wanted to mention their names. they seem to get lost in this. and we met with the families they said they asked for three things. thisbegged us do not make a political football the second thing they asked for, find out what happened. do everything in your power to make for -- make sure this does not happen to someone else.

when you have the number two person in the republican party who comes forward, who makes plans with the speaker and a person who will continue to be one step away from becoming the speaker to tell you this is about a taxpayer-funded political effort to derail a campaign of hillary clinton, ladies and gentlemen that is a problem. i'm not answering questions. so, i came here today out of .espect for miss aberdeen i am hoping that there will not leak that gives a -- a partial story. this is the whole point.

e-mails of mr. blumenthal were released i said don't just release the e-mails, release the whole transcript so the american people can see the whole story. we did not get a vote or an opportunity to do that. thursday, they will have a day to explain all of this. i look forward to her testimony and i want to thank you for being here.

>> good afternoon everybody. i came here today to be as helpful as i could be to the committee. i wanted to honor the service of those lost and injured in the benghazi attack. i am proud to have served the state department and i was honored to work with secretary clinton along distinguished diplomats. i appreciated the time members of the committee staff today, and answer their questions to the best of my ability. with that i will be making no further comments. >> good to see you. >> hillary clinton will be

testifying before the house benghazi committee next thursday. it will be her first appearance before the committee created in may of 2014. live coverage at 10:00 eastern on c-span 3. you can listen on c-span radio and watch a live stream on c-span.org. >> c-span presents landmark cases, the book, a guide to landmark cases series which explores historic supreme court decisions including marbury versus madison, brown versus the board of education, miranda versus arizona, and roe versus wade. .andmark cases, the book highlights in the impact of each case, written by tony mauro and published by c-span in cooperation with cq press.

landmark cases is available for eight -- $8.95. >> the two also held a joint news conference to discuss you and south korean relations and other foreign policy issues like trade in the iran nuclear agreement. this is just under an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and the president of korea.

president obama: annyong haseyo. good afternoon. last year in seoul, president park welcomed me to the blue house. today, it's a pleasure to welcome her back to the white house. madam president, during your last visit here, you addressed a joint session of congress, which is an honor that's reserved for america's closest friends. you noted that the founding document of both of our countries -- our declaration of independence and your constitution -- enshrine our commitment to our people with the same words, to their "pursuit of happiness." for more than six decades, americans and koreans have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in that pursuit. and, madam president, once again, your time here includes a visit to our korean war veterans memorial. we are very grateful for that. it's a reminder that our people

have fought and bled and died for one another's freedom. and i know your gestures mean a great deal to the american people, and especially to our proud korean war veterans. in recent years, president park and i have worked together to strengthen our alliance for the future, and today i want to reaffirm that the commitment of the united states to the defense and security of the republic of korea will never waver. our alliance remains a linchpin of peace and security -- not just on the korean peninsula, but across the region. and so south korea plays a central role in america's rebalance to the asia pacific. and we continued that work today. as we agreed in seoul last year, our militaries are investing in shared capabilities, including the technologies and missile defenses that allow our forces to operate together effectively. we want to ensure that our korean allies have the capabilities that are needed to take on greater responsibility

for the defense of the peninsula and the eventual transfer of operational control of the alliance. and we're determined to maintain our readiness against any threat. madam president, i want to commend you and the people of south korea for the resolve that you displayed this summer following north korea's reckless actions in the dmz that wounded two of your soldiers. north korea was reminded that any provocation or aggression will be met by a strong, united response by south korea and the united states. likewise, pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs have achieved nothing except to deepen north korea's isolation. today, president park and i are reaffirming that our nations will never accept north korea as a nuclear weapons state. we will continue to insist that pyongyang must abide by its obligations on the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the peninsula in a peaceful manner. and given the horrific treatment of the north korean people by their government, our two

nations will continue to expose abuses and call for accountability for human rights violations. at the same time, we do support president park's efforts to improve relations between south and north korea. as my administration has shown with iran and with cuba, we are also prepared to engage nations with which we've had troubled histories. but pyongyang needs to understand that it will not achieve the economic development it seeks so long as it clings to nuclear weapons. in contrast, president park has articulated a better vision -- a unified korea free from the fear of war and nuclear weapons -- and that's a vision that we very much support. beyond the peninsula, president park shared her proposal -- the northeast asia peace and cooperation initiative -- to build greater cooperation among

the countries of the region, and we welcome those efforts. president park and i met with prime minister abe of japan last year to address shared challenges. and the trilateral summit that president park will host this month can be another step forward in building positive relations between south korea, japan and china. with respect to trade, we reviewed the first three years of our korus trade agreement. bilateral trade is up, including exports of american autos. we do still have work to do, and i conveyed that when the issues of implementing korus have arisen, they have been resolved, but we need to resolve them quickly. and president park discussed the regulatory reforms that she's pursuing. those are reforms that we welcome. and finally, i'm pleased that our alliance is increasingly a global one. south korea is not just an important player in the region, it's increasingly an important

player on the world stage. south korea remains a partner in development, in afghanistan; a member of the coalition against isil; a generous donor of humanitarian aid to syrian refugees. and now, we're going even further, expanding our cooperation to some new frontiers. for example, given the increasing cyber threats to both our nations, including from the dprk, we're stepping up our efforts to strengthen our cyber defenses and coordinating at the highest levels -- the white house and the blue house -- making sure that we're in sync in dealing with that challenge. in the fight against climate change, we're accelerating our investments in clean energy. our new civil nuclear agreement reflects our shared commitment to the safe use of nuclear power, which is a low-carbon energy source. and i want to commend south

korea for announcing its post-2020 target to limit carbon emissions through its national cap-and-trade system. as we head into the paris conference, south korean leadership can be an example for other nations around the world. and finally, we're expanding our cooperation to promote health and global development. and having already worked together against ebola, south korea has stepped up as a true leader in advancing global health security. our development agencies will partner to reduce poverty and encourage sustainable development in southeast asia. and both our countries are standing together to promote education and health for girls around the world -- our let girls learn campaign and south korea's better life for girls initiative. so, madam president, thank you once again for your partnership, your leadership and your friendship. i believe that we've shown again today that our unbreakable alliance is not just a foundation for security in the korean peninsula and in the asia pacific region, more and more

our alliance is helping people around the world in their own pursuit of happiness, the security and prosperity and dignity that they seek for their families and for their nations. madam president. president park: mr. president, thank you very much for your remarks. i also thank you and the american people for the very warm welcome you've extended to me throughout my visit. now, in today's summit, you and i discussed not only the korea-u.s. alliance, but also issues surrounding the korean peninsula, northeast asia, and a shared global agenda. during the past two and a half years, we've been able to creatively resolve such sensitive issues as a conditions-based transition of operational control, and the revision, after 42 years, of the nuclear cooperation agreement, which evidences that the korea-u.s. alliance is stronger than ever. our alliance is now moving beyond a security alliance and an economic alliance, and evolving into a comprehensive global alliance.

the biggest threat to peace and security on the korean peninsula and in northeast asia is north korean provocation and advancement of north korea's nuclear capabilities. and president obama and i shared recognition in many aspects of this issue. first, to deter any strategic provocation by the north, korea and the u.s. will continue to strengthen coordinated efforts with the international community, including china, russia and japan. and to this end, we will try to fully utilize the various regional and multilateral gatherings that are to take place. second, with a sense of urgency and firm commitment, we have agreed to strengthen diplomatic efforts to resolve the north korean nuclear problem. on the basis of korea-u.s.japan cooperation, we will strengthen coordination among the other five parties, while korea and

the united states will deepen consultations with other countries, including china. third, should north korea demonstrate a genuine willingness towards denuclearization, we reaffirm that korea and the u.s., along with the rest of the international community, stand ready to extend cooperative measures to the north. in our discussions, we looked beyond today, the current -- we looked beyond the current pressing issues of the korean peninsula, and engaged in deeper discussions about the future of the korean peninsula. with regard to the changing situation in the korean peninsula, and in the process of peaceful reunification, we will continue to pursue mutually coordinated policies on north korea. at the same time, to create conditions conducive to peaceful reunification, we will also deepen high-level strategic consultations between korea and the u.s. i would also like to thank president obama for his support for the korean government's ideas on peaceful reunification.

today, we adopted a joint statement on north korea that contains our shared recognition on these related issues. the korea-u.s. alliance is the linchpin of peace and stability in the asia pacific. and there exists a synergy between president obama's rebalancing policy in the asia pacific and our northeast asia peace and cooperation initiative, or napci. and i would like to thank president obama for his warm words of welcome and strong support for napci. in late october, the second high-level napci forum will be held in seoul, and i hope that korea and the united states will continue to engage in close cooperation in that forum and beyond. president obama also recognized korea's initiative in reviving korea-japan-china trilateral talks that had been on hold for the past three and a half years. and he also expressed his high hopes for the korea-japan-china summit that will be held in two weeks' time. we also shared the recognition that such meetings may meaningfully contribute to the

improvement of bilateral relations in our region. president obama affirmed that korea-u.s. relations and korea-china relations can be compatible, and supported korea's policies toward china. the recent summit meetings between korea and china, the u.s. and china, and now korea and the u.s. have served to build consensus regarding north korea and its nuclear program, and we believe that this will play a positive role in ensuring peace and stability on the korean peninsula and throughout northeast asia. in dealing with the north korean nuclear problem, we will also seek to strengthen cooperation between korea, u.s. and japan. i believe that strengthening three-way dialogue between korea, the u.s. and japan, and korea, japan and china, will enable us to open new channels for stronger regional cooperation. regional peace and stability

becomes stronger when countries within the region build closer ties of mutual economic dependency. in this regard, i would like to congratulate president obama for the successful conclusion of tpp negotiations. korea and the u.s. already have an fta with very high standards. and in this respect, i believe that we make natural partners in terms of the tpp. since tpp negotiations have now been concluded, we will be engaging in closer cooperation with regard to korea's possible participation in the tpp. today's meeting was particularly meaningful in that it provides impetus to efforts to open new frontiers of cooperation within the korea-u.s. alliance and strengthens our global partnership.

korea and the united states will focus first on health security, cybersecurity, space and arctic cooperation, which are gaining the spotlight in this 21st century. in the realm of space, particularly, we will work to quickly conclude talks on the korea-u.s. agreement on space cooperation to establish an institutional foundation for such cooperation. in the cyber world too, in order to enhance common response capabilities against cyber-attacks, we've agreed to establish a hotline between the white house and the blue house for cyber cooperation. on global issues, president obama and i, on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the united nations, have agreed to strengthen cooperation on climate change, development cooperation, u.n. peacekeeping operations, nuclear security, humanitarian aid for refugees, violent extremism, and other urgent global issues. today's summit served as an opportunity to set forth a clear vision and strategy for the

future of the korea-u.s. alliance. in forging a new korean peninsula, a new northeast asia, and a new world, i'm confident that the korea-u.s. alliance will continue to evolve into a comprehensive strategic alliance. president obama: we'll take a couple of questions. we'll start with michelle kosinski, cnn. reporter: thank you, mr. president. on 2016, now that we've seen the democratic candidates in their first debate and how they did -- and maybe you can share some of your thoughts on how much you watched of that -- (laughter) -- do you feel like the window now has closed on the vice president entering the race? and if you don't feel that it's closed, do you feel that he, in a sense, owes it to fellow democrats to get in very soon? and also, on israel, we heard secretary kerry say that one of the roots of what's going on there now is frustration over

settlement activity. do you feel like that is a root cause of the violence? and do you feel like president abbas has a responsibility to condemn attacks and try to stop them? and, president park, welcome. as you know, the u.s. has reached this deal now with iran over its nuclear program. i'm not sure if i should start over -- were you able to hear that, president park? as you know, the u.s. has reached a deal now with iran over its nuclear program, but how would you feel if that were north korea? would you welcome attempts for such a deal, and do you feel like you would ever trust north korea to abide by such an agreement? thank you. president obama: the democratic debate was taking place at the same time as some ball games -- [laughter] so there was a little bit of

clicking back and forth. i'm not going to comment on what joe is doing or not doing. i think you can direct those questions to my very able vice president. the one observation i'll make about the democratic debate was that those are all some very fine people. they share a belief in an economy that is working for everybody and not just a few. they share a belief that america has to project strength around the world by maintaining the finest military, but also by making sure that we've got a strong economy back home, that we're employing diplomacy and working with other nations wherever possible to solve big problems, like climate change. so what was interesting to me was the degree to which -- although there are some very real differences among the candidates, and i'm sure those will emerge, and there may be for each candidate some

differences with my administration -- overall, they very much -- we very much share a vision of an economy that works for everybody and effective pursuit of america's national security through all the tools that are available to us. and i was very impressed with all of them, and i know them personally. and they're good people. beyond that, i think it's up to the american people to decide. and so i will have a vote like everybody else, as a citizen. and that ballot is private, and i don't have to share my views about that right now because i think it's important for the american people to make up their own decision. reporter: do you think it's too late for (off-mic) -- president obama: i think that the vice president, like every other

candidate, makes their own decisions about these issues and they'll have to figure out whether it makes sense for them. with respect to israel, obviously we're very concerned about the outbreak of violence that initially is centered on jerusalem, but we always are concerned about the spread of violence elsewhere. we condemn in the strongest possible terms violence directed against innocent people, and believe that israel has a right to maintain basic law and order, and protect its citizens from knife attacks and violence on the streets. we also believe that it's important for both prime minister netanyahu and israeli elected officials and president abbas and other people in positions of power to try to tamp down rhetoric that may feed

violence or anger or misunderstanding, and try to get all people in israel and in the west bank to recognize that this kind of random violence isn't going to result in anything other than more hardship and more insecurity. and i don't think that it's -- i don't think we can wait for all the issues that exist between israelis and palestinians to be settled in order for us to try to tamp down the violence right now. i think my views are well known that, over time, the only way

that israel is going to be truly secure and the only way that the palestinians are going to be able to meet the aspirations of their people is if there are two states living side by side in peace and security. those talks, which secretary kerry put enormous effort in, and before that, a number of our envoys and secretary clinton put enormous effort in, have stalled. and i think it's going to be up to the parties -- and we stand ready to assist -- to see if they can restart a more constructive relationship. but in the meantime, right now, everybody needs to focus on making sure that innocent people aren't being killed. and even though you didn't ask me the question, i'm just going to horn in on the question that you asked president park, because we actually discussed

iran and what it could teach us about the situation in north korea. these are both countries that have a long history of antagonism towards the united states, but we were prepared to have a serious conversation with the iranians once they showed that they were serious about the possibility of giving up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. and i suspect president park agrees with me here that, at the point where pyongyang says, we're interested in seeing relief from sanctions and improved relations, and we are prepared to have a serious conversation about denuclearization -- i think it's fair to say we'll be right there at the table. now, whether even if they made

that gesture, they would then be willing to subject themselves to the kind of rigorous verification regimes that we've set up with iran, particularly given their past violations of agreements, that's a separate question. but we haven't even gotten to that point yet because there's been no indication on the part of the north koreans, as there was with the iranians, that they could foresee a future in which they did not possess or were not pursuing nuclear weapons. reporter: so just to be completely clear, do you agree with secretary kerry on the role of settlements leading to the -- president obama: i don't think that's what secretary kerry said. i think what secretary kerry said was, is that we have to end the violence; that israel has a right to prevent its citizens from being subjected to random violence.

that all parties have to lower the rhetoric; that the religious sites that are so important to three of the world's major religions inside of jerusalem need to be respected, and that the status quo that allowed shared worship in and around these spaces needed to be maintained. and then, i think as an addition to those statements, what secretary kerry said was, is that the atmosphere in which there's so much tension and suspicion between palestinians and israelis obviously creates the potential for more misunderstanding and triggers. and that's something that has been true now for decades. and if we can make progress there, obviously it's going to help, but there's not a direct

causation here. and what we do need to make sure of is that we're focusing right now on ensuring that innocent people aren't being killed. president park: with regard to the iranian agreement and whether it could be applied to the north korean situation, i think that was what the question was about. now, if you look at the iran negotiations and how it was concluded, how you reached an agreement, we saw the united states and the u.s. leadership lead the whole process, and we had other countries that also made concerted efforts. we had international efforts that came together that made this possible, and i think that's a very important lesson that we need to take away from

this. now, if you look at the north korean nuclear problem, we do have international cooperation in that area. we have china and russia that are also vehemently against north korean nuclear capabilities. so we do have some international cooperation there. but the difference between iran and north korea might be something that president obama just said, and i totally agree with him. what's important here is that you need to have this genuine willingness, on the part of north korea, that they will give up nuclear capabilities. this might not be a perfect example, but you can take a horse to the trough, but you can't make it drink water -- there is a saying. so it's the same thing here. north korea has to come to its own conclusion that it is genuinely willing to give up nuclear capabilities and become

a full-fledged member of the international society. they need to have that. if they don't have that, then even if we have international concerted efforts, then we won't see a conclusion to these negotiations or talks like we saw with iran. so that's a big difference that i see here. president obama: who do you want to call on, madam president? they all seem very capable. reporter: now, the korean peninsula trust-building process has been the basis of the korean government's efforts to improve inter-korean relations. but despite these efforts, north korea has really not changed its attitude towards developing nuclear missile capabilities. now, in the second half of your term in office, how do you plan on steering inter-korean ties? and one more. now, from your visit to china in

september, we have been seeing you say that you want to see unification of the koreas. do you really think that this will be possible during your term in office? and i have a question for both of you, actually, finally. in korea, they say that you see each other often and you start to grow fond of each other. now, this is your fourth time meeting as a summit meeting, and you also see each other a lot at multilateral talks. so i just want to ask, have you grown closer? president park: now, let me answer the last question first. then, yes -- the answer is yes for me. so let me continue with my answers to your question. now, the korean peninsula trust-building process -- basically we have this principle. we will be very sternly and decisively dealing with any provocations, but we're also leaving the door open for a

dialogue, and we'll continue to make efforts to build trust. so this is the basic principle, and this is the basic underlying foundation of all our north korean policies. in august, there was a north korean provocation in the demilitarized zone, and we stuck to this principle and applied it to the situation. and we were very firmly responding to the situation, and as a result, we were able to reach the august 25th agreement between the two koreas. so we had this vicious cycle where north korea kept on provoking us and then we just rewarded it, and it went on and on. and we want to stop this. and we are very clear that our north korean policy will not change just because north korea continues to provoke and threaten us.

now, the korean government will try to smoothly implement the august 25th agreement. and we seek to put into place concrete measures for reconciliation and cooperation in an effort to maintain this momentum for improved inter-korean ties. now, in the past, some people -- you might have thought that, well, if you just let some things slide, won't you get along better? but if you look at the results of that attitude, they really weren't very good. we need a principled approach, and this principled approach might make it difficult for the time being -- the immediate time being -- but that is where improved relationships will actually start. that is my belief. now, reunification is something that no one can really predict. now, in the summit earlier too, we talked about germany and how chancellor kohl said that german reunification would happen in 10 years' time -- but then three days later, the berlin wall came falling down. so it's really something that's very unpredictable. but no matter when it happens,

for us, we need to be prepared. i think that is the most important point for us. so for any circumstances, we need to be prepared. and we are making efforts in this regard. now, we do have reunification preparation committee that are looking into the practical aspects of reunification, how we prepare for it. but reunification is actually not just between south and north korea, it also affects the greater international community. so we need to also look at our neighboring countries, and we need to create an environment throughout the world where there is consensus that people agree that, yes, reunification is needed and this will be good for the region, for peace and prosperity. and we need to be able to tell our neighbors and the greater world that reunification is a good thing for the region and the world. and we will continue to make efforts in this regard as well.

president obama: i was impressed the first time i met with president park and just have become more and more impressed with her leadership, the clarity of her vision. and she has not only been a great partner to us, but i think has helped to continue korea's broader role in global affairs. and so i'm very proud to be working with her, and i think our strong relationship is also a reflection of the extraordinary friendship and close relationship between the american people and the korean people. carol lee. reporter: thank you, mr. president. now that your administration has said that iran very clearly violated a u.n. security council resolution with its recent missile test, what

are the consequences for that going to be? would you be able to accept additional u.s. sanctions against iran? and given this missile test and iran's actions in syria, how concerned are you that they're being this aggressive before they've even gotten the billions of dollars that they're supposed to get under the nuclear deal? and if i could quickly ask you if you could comment on the deal that the u.s. and russian militaries have reached. does this mean that russia and the u.s. are going to be at cross-purposes in syria going forward? and if you could, are you disappointed that secretary clinton opposed your trade deal, particularly given that your administration has not released the final draft? and, president park, you recently appeared in beijing with the leaders of russia and

china. what message were you trying to send with to the u.s. with that appearance? president obama: all right, i've got to write these down, carol. iran. what was the second one? reporter: russian military. president obama: russian military. reporter: hillary. president obama: and hillary and -- got them. [laughter]all right, let's see if i can take these in turn. with respect to iran, iran has often violated some of the prohibitions surrounding missile testing. and our position with respect to u.n. resolutions, prohibitions, and potential sanctions are unchanged with respect to missile programs. and this is something that i made very clear during the debate around the iran nuclear deal: the iran nuclear deal solves a specific problem, which is making sure that they don't possess a nuclear weapon.

and it's our best way to do that. it does not fully resolve the wide range of issues where we've got a big difference. and so we are going to have to continue to put pressure on them through the international community and, where we have bilateral channels, through bilateral channels to indicate to them that there are costs to bad behavior in the region and around the world. but we're not going to do that more effectively if they're also on a separate track pursuing a nuclear weapon. with respect to their actions in syria, as i've said before, they're just doing more of what they have been doing for the last five years, as is russia. and it's an indication that their basic premise, their basic theory of how to solve syria has not worked and will not work. their preference originally was, we will simply send arms and

money to assad, and he will be able to clamp down on dissent. and when that didn't work, they directed hezbollah to come in and prop them up, and sent in some of their own military advisors. and that did not work. and now the russians have come in, and iran is going to send more people in. but it's also not going to work because they are trying to support a regime that in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the syrian people is not legitimate. and our goal is, even as we double down on going after isil, is to continue to cultivate relations with a moderate opposition that can serve as a transition to a new government inside of syria, and that we continue to have a process of getting the iranians, the syrians, and all -- the iranians, the russians, the turks, the gulf countries, and

all the other interested parties to sit down and recognize we've got to have a political transition if we want to end the humanitarian crisis and save the structure of a unified syrian state. with respect to russia, the only understanding that we've arrived at is how do we de-conflict in the event that our planes and their planes might be occupying similar space over syrian skies. so in that sense, we've arrived at an understanding and some channels for communications. where we will continue to differ is in the basic set of principles and strategies we're pursuing inside of syria. president putin believes that if he continues to do what he's been doing over the last five years -- and that is prop up the assad regime -- that the problem will be solved.

our belief is, is that we have to go after isil and violent extremist groups. but the magnet that the civil war there is serving in bringing in foreign fighters and recruiting people to this extremist cause will only go away if we're able to get a political track and a legitimate, inclusive government inside of syria. so there's no meeting of the minds in terms of strategy. but my hope is, is that as we continue to have these

conversations, and as i suspect russia starts realizing that they're not going to be able to bomb their way to a peaceful situation inside of syria, that we'll be able to make progress on that front. and with respect to trade and how hillary views trade, i'd have you direct questions to her. i mean, here's a general proposition, guys -- during the course of what will be a long campaign, i probably won't be commenting on every single utterance or decision that the various candidates make, because i think that it is natural and proper for candidates to run on their own vision and their own platform. and what's encouraging is the fact that i think everybody on that stage at the debate affirmed what i've said in the

past, which is we agree on 95 percent of stuff and on the basic vision of a country that is building out our middle class, is making sure that everybody who works hard gets a shot, that believes immigration strengthens us rather than weakens us, that believes that people should be treated fairly and equally. the vision of the democratic party that i've fought for is one that is broadly shared by all the candidates. there are going to be some areas where they differ at any given point. now, i'm happy to make the case once again for the trade agreement itself. and i hope, carol, you take the time to read it because what you'll see is, is that it meets

the promise that i made -- the most progressive, highest-standard trade agreement that we have ever put forward that deals with chronic problems like child labor or forced labor, and is enforceable; that makes sure we are upping our game in the asia pacific region on the environment, and is enforceable; that protects intellectual property that is the wellspring of innovation here in the united states; that makes sure that our businesses are treated fairly when they invest in other countries; that opens up markets. keep in mind, we have some of the lowest tariffs in the world already. so we're already seeing goods and services being sold by other countries here, and the countries that are part of tpp

have significantly higher tariffs. for us to be able to get those lowered -- just the example of japan, where they slap on 10, 20, 30, 40 percent taxes on some of our goods and services -- for those to come down and, in the case of u.s. manufacturing goods, those tariffs being eliminated completely -- that's a big deal. so i'm sure we'll continue this debate as we post the actual terms of the agreement and congress has a chance to review it. i'm pretty confident i'll be able to persuade a whole lot of people, once they see the outlines of the deal, that it's the right thing to do. and as president park indicated, there's a geopolitical reason for us doing it as well.

we want those of us who already have high standards to make sure everybody else does, too. because that's going to make our businesses more competitive, it's going to put our workers in a better position so that they're not undercut by low wages or forced labor; that their plants don't suddenly shut down because we've got environmental laws that other countries aren't following. it's the right thing to do. reporter: can i ask you, are new u.s. sanctions an option for responding to -- president obama: i think what we'll be doing is we'll review, as we have in the past, any violations of u.n. resolutions, and we'll deal with them much as we have in the past. so what i've been very clear about from the outset is that, although we are eliminating -- or suspending, effectively -- sanctions related to the nuclear program, subject to snapback if we see violations there, that sanctions that are related to ballistic missiles, human rights

violations, terrorism -- those we will continue to enforce. and that's not just unilateral and sanctions on our part. our expectation is, is that there will be continued international consequences where u.n. resolutions are violated. president park: that was a very long answer, and i kind of forgot the question that was asked to me. [laughter] president obama: this is what happens when i get three or four questions. [laughter] president park: oh, yes. i think the question about my visit to beijing and what kind of message that i delivered. now, i met with president xi in china, and i also met with the leaders of russia.

and the north korean nuclear issue in our region, in northeast asia and even the world, it's a very large threat. and this is something that we need to make concerted efforts to resolve. and i had dialogue on that topic with them, and we also talked about the security threats, and also the north korean nuclear issue from the standpoint that from the korean peninsula and throughout eurasia, we all want to grow together. and there are so many possibilities there, but right in the middle blocking our way is north korea. and because of that, the growth potential of the whole of asia and europe is being damaged a lot because of north korea's ambitions in terms of nuclear. so that was my message that i had for the leaders that i met in beijing. and they agreed with me in terms of my remarks about north

korea's nuclear problems, and we all agreed that we needed to make efforts to resolve this issue. reporter: first, i have a question for president obama. within the united states, with regard to the korea-u.s. alliance, there are some people who are concerned that there are some cracks. what do you see? and in this situation, president park has visited the united states. what is the significance of her visit? i also have a question for president park. now, through this visit, you have said that you would like to open new frontiers of cooperation, and i'd like to hear some details on that, please. president obama: actually, i don't see any cracks in the relationship at all. i would argue that the u.s.rok relationship is stronger than

it's ever been, that the alliance is on firmer footing than it's ever been across the spectrum of issues -- military, economic, people-to-people, scientific, development, global issues -- that we have excellent relations with the government. our communications is strong. our vision of a continued robust alliance that can deal with any contingency is not just given lip service to, but we invest in it on an ongoing basis. our vision of what we need to do to see improved relations with the dprk, we have similar outlooks. and so i actually feel very good about what where the

relationship between the united states and korea are. i think what's interesting -- and this might connect to the earlier question that carol had -- is sometimes there's a perception that if president park meets with president xi, that that must cause a problem for us. well, president xi was in this room, eating my food. [laughter]and we were toasting and having a lengthy conversation. we want south korea to have a strong relationship with china, just as we want to have a strong relationship with china. we want to see china's peaceful rise. we want them to be cooperating with us in putting pressure on the dprk. we want to be working with them to uphold international norms and rules of the road.

so there's no contradiction between the republic of korea having good relations with us, being a central part of our alliance, and having good a relationship -- good relations with china. i think as i communicated to president park, the only thing that we're going to continue to insist on is that we want china to abide by international norms and rules. and where they fail to do so, we expect the republic of korea to speak out on that, just as we do, because we think that both of our countries have benefitted from the international norms and rules that have been in place since the end of world war ii. and we don't want to see those rules of the road weakening, or some countries taking advantage

because they're larger. that's not good for anybody -- including south korea. obviously, given the size of china right there on your doorstep, if they're able to act with impunity and ignore rules whenever they please, that's not going to be good for you -- whether that's on economic issues or security issues. so, again, i think there we have a shared interest. and my hope is, is that as a consequence of the outreach that president park has done, the outreach we do, the interactions that we have with japan and resolving some of the historical challenges that exist there, that we can create in northeast asia the kind of cooperative, forward-looking relationship among all countries that will be good for our children and our grandchildren.

president park: with the united states, we are looking to open new frontiers in cooperation, and new horizons for cooperation as well. we're looking at climate change, infectious diseases, space exploration. those are just some of the topics that we talked about. these are global issues, too. and in order to effectively respond to the needs with regard to these issues, i believe that we need a very close cooperation between korea and the united states. now, these issues need our attention in terms of cutting-edge technologies and new industries that we need to develop, and only then will we be able to approach these issues and resolve them effectively. and in that respect, i think that we need to engage in cooperation to maybe develop -- jointly develop technology in these areas.

for example, we could have joint projects in smart grids or clean-energy projects. and in the area of space, we have agreed to work together to quickly conclude a korea-u.s. agreement for cooperation in space. so through such efforts, we have an economic alliance between korea and the u.s. that was forged through the korus fta. and we want to turn this into a high-value added alliance that's ready for the future. the history and the literary life of

buffalo, new york. twainl visit the mark house. then we will feature tim allen book against the grain about the history of buffalo's first ward. >> the irish settled because they were desperate and came over during the famine, things weren't great. it would take one relative to find out these jobs along the waterfront working in the grain elevators or in the mills and word would go back to ireland, come to buffalo. you will not be rich but you would have steady employment. they came to this area, the first ward. when buffalo was first created as a city it was divided into five political wards. area, it has always been

the first ward. tv, williamhistory mckinley was assassinated in buffalo. we were two or the museum featuring events surrounding his death and the gun used to shoot the president. discover the history of the buffalo waterfront and how it >> right now, this is an elevator in the bend of the river, originally built for different companies -- but today all owned by rick smith, over on ohio street. for manyng regenerated purposes, for art and music, we do history tours where we take them around the elevators and tell this history of buffalo. there are opera productions, readings, many historic uses. >> see all of our performances