'This Week' Transcript: Sen. John McCain

March 6, 2011 — -- AMANPOUR: This week -- jobs. Employment numbers just out lookbetter than they have in two years. But how real is the recovery?How can America keep putting people back to work? We'll have aspirited debate. And I'll be joined by Diane Sawyer. And we ask, howimportant is it to buy things that are made in America?

In Libya, an uprising erupts into civil war. Colonel Gadhafitold me his people love him.

MOAMMAR GADHAFI: All my people with me. They love me, all.

AMANPOUR: But his forces are now battling a rebel army in thestreets. We'll have the latest. And my exclusive interview withSenator John McCain. He's calling for American military intervention.

And we meet the women warriors behind the uprising. Could theybe al Qaeda's worst nightmare? "This Week," America and the worldstarts right now.

Welcome to our viewers here and around the world. These days,Americans have had to think hard about where the United States standsin the world, how the American worker fits into a new and changingglobal economy, and what stance the United States should take aspeople fight for basic freedoms around the Middle East.

We turn first to jobs, issue No. 1 for the American people. Andthis week, finally, some good news to report. For the first time inalmost two years, the unemployment rate has dropped below 9 percent.192,000 jobs were created in February. It's progress, but for manyAmericans, it's not enough. Amid the frustration, concern that somany manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, which raises a provocativequestion. If Americans bought more products made in America, would itmake a difference? And would giving up all those products made withcheap labor overseas be too expensive?

All week long, my colleagues at World News with Diane Sawyer havebeen reporting on their effort to answer that question. Here are thehighlights from their series, "Made in America."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We need to out-innovate, out-educate,and out-build the rest of the world.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Made in America.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Made in America.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Made in America.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Made in America.

OBAMA: We want to create and sell products all over the worldthat are stamped with three simple words, made in America. That's ourgoal.

DAVID MUIR: We searched all over the country for one very braveand willing family. Meet the Usrys (ph). Mom, dad, son, daughter,and the dog, Amber. They were like so many other families who toldour producers their house must be filled with plenty that is made inAmerica. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would like to think we buy more Americanthan the typical family.

MUIR: But what would happen when we start to pick things up?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is made in China.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the cross?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Honduras.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Made in Honduras.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're covering the world here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Made in Thailand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Usually you're looking at what's on theplate, not underneath it, right?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So here's the test.

The table is made in Thailand.

MUIR: And the chairs?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mexico.

MUIR: And we had a fork from?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Saint Pattern's (ph).

MUIR: This one's from Korea.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: China.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the plate is from Japan.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there anything made in America on thistable?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It doesn't appear to be that way.

MUIR: Even the children's rooms.

What about your Texas hat here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's see. Bangladesh.

MUIR: So this is your room, huh? And little Ellis. And herprized American Girl dolls. Right there, what does it say? Made in--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: China.

MUIR: In the 1960s, nine of every 10 products Americans boughtwere made in America. Today, more than half of what we buy is foreignmade. So we wondered, could the Usrys manage without any foreign madeproducts at all?

So we're going to ask you, if you would leave your own house inour hands? And they did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bye, David.

MUIR: You're really going to leave me with your house?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's all yours.

MUIR: Take one last look.

Back inside, we kept going. It was every room of the house. Thebedroom. The bedspread, Pakistan. Night stand, Indonesia. The lamp,China.

This is where it's all going. Anything foreign made from insidethat house, right in here.

The stove, ripped out. The refrigerator, gone. The piano. Thatis a heavy piano. And every inch of that trailer filled. And withthe sun setting, the Usrys were about to return to this. And this.And this. Their living room, with one lone vase.

What do you think?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wow. It's quite barren.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All of our appliances are gone.

MUIR: We did leave the kitchen sink because the kitchen sink wasthe only thing made in America.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everything but the kitchen sink. Thankyou.

MUIR: But now would come the real challenge. Helping the familyscour the country for items to replace what we took away.

Enter the best shopper I know. Armed with her Blackberry and herlaptop, Sharyn Alfonsi.

SHARYL ALFONSI: Hi.

(CROSSTALK)

ALFONSI: We immediately started working the computer and decidedto start small.

Hi, I'm trying to find out if a certain coffee maker was made inthe USA. What's made in America?

(CROSSTALK)

Frustrating, but worth asking, because economists say if we alljust spend 1 percent more on American made goods right now, 18 cents aday, that would be 200,000 new jobs today.

And then the moment that made even us sweat. The trucks. Allsix of them coming down Snow White Drive. Would it be enough to fillthis home?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wow, our American-made room. Oh, wow, wow.This looks great. All American-made?

ALFONSI: All American made.

MUIR: Twenty-four hours ago, you thought this was impossible?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you saw how empty the house was.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A little bit skeptical that we'd be able topull it off. Or you guys.

MUIR: We were skeptical, too. But we found it. In fact, toomany American companies to count. Just the living room. Harden,upstate New York. Lee Industries, North Carolina. Mohawk rugs,Georgia. The drapes, New Jersey. And the mirror, Missouri.

But it doesn't come cheap. At least not everything. The lamp,$250. But the drapes, just $40 at J.C. Penney. Remember that firstlabel we checked?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is made in China.

MUIR: That cost them $80. And the American options we found ofcomparable quality, the same price range, a little cheaper, $73 up to$89. The one loaned to us with the rest of the furniture, $250. Wepaid the shipping.

ALFONSI: And the kitchen. Just when we ripped that stove out ofthe wall, we realized we were in trouble. Yes, we scooped upfiestaware for $35 and the glasses for less than a dollar. But thenthe appliances.

The only 100 percent American-made appliances we could find werethe legendary Viking, Subzero, and Wolf. High end and highlyexpensive. But there was another option, a compromise. We did findsome appliances half-made in the U.S. and they were about half thecost of what we bought.

MUIR: The old bedroom set, $1,758. The new one, $1,699. TheAmerican goods, less expensive, and just as durable. And thoseworkers who made it all in their Virginia factory, so proud to tellus, made in America. (END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Well, now I'm with Diane Sawyer, and the team who putthis series together, David Muir and Sharyn Alfonsi. Thank you all.And it is quite stunning to see a house which is then completelyemptied of everything, because nothing was made in America.

DIANE SAWYER, ABC NEWS: You just start from the question, howmuch of in your shopping cart was made in America? How much of whatyou have in the living room, around you right now as you're watching?

AMANPOUR: What kind of reaction did you get?

SAWYER: Most people think about half. Isn't that what we --

(CROSSTALK)

SAWYER: Yes, at least half. And then the revelation. And thatwas the first thing we wanted to do. It's just a wakeup call aboutthe reality around us.

We know it's a global economy, but the thousand pressure pointsthat create what really establishes jobs.

However, I loved knowing that my neighbors are making things thatI'm buying. That's one factor among other factors. We thought peopleshould start asking the question.

AMANPOUR: What really will put the jobs back where they're meantto be here in this country?

ALFONSI: Well, if you look at it, every economist we spoke tosay, you might say it seems very simple, but the reality is, if youmake something in America, it creates American jobs. It is thatsimple. At the same time, of course it's more complex than that. Wedon't want to be bemoaning the loss of the lightbulb. We don't make asingle lightbulb in the United States. What we want to be thinkingabout is the next lightbulb and being -- manufacturing in smart areas,in areas that create high-value jobs.

MUIR: It's funny, economists say don't worry about the plasmascreen that we had to remove from the Usrys' house. They have no TVin the living room or their bedroom now. They said we should bethinking about the next generation of televisions that interconnectthe Internet and On Demand and everything else.

AMANPOUR: And to get that next generation of innovators, you'regoing to need the next generation of great education. Where does thatreally play into this manufacturing debate?

SAWYER: Well, it's everything, as we know. And we think that ifyou look at the whole path ahead for the -- for America, for what wewant to achieve, you see the convergence of what we are making, whatour aspirations are, and is our education serving what we want to be?

AMANPOUR: Thank you so much. And Diane and the team will becontinuing their made-in-America reporting in this next week and inthe next several weeks.

And when we come back, my exclusive interview with Senator JohnMcCain. I'll ask him about jobs, as well as the escalating violencein Libya and what can be done about it. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back. Senator John McCain has one eye on thejobs picture here in the United States and another on the unfoldingrevolutions in the Middle East. And he's just returned from a trip tothe region, so we have lots to talk about today. And we're glad tohave him here with us at the Newseum.

Senator McCain, thank you for joining us.

MCCAIN: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: Let me ask you first about the report that we justsaw. What does it say to you about that empty house but particularlyits impact on jobs here in the United States?

MCCAIN: Well, I think it's obviously a recognition of thereality and the trends, that cheaper, lower-cost labor products willusually prevail over the products made in higher wage and incomecountries.

But I would also point out that, if you'd emptied that house, ifyou'd left a computer there or an iPad or an iPhone, those are builtin the United States of America. And as the president said,continuously, and I agree with him, innovation is the key to us beingable to restore our economy.

And that's got to be exports. We've got to have free tradeagreements. I'm glad the president is supporting the South Korea freetrade agreement. We basically abandoned Colombia and Panama. Allthese other countries are concluding free trade agreements amongstthemselves while we are being left behind. And that's very harmful.

Small statistic: two years ago, 40 percent of the imports ofagricultural goods in Colombia were from the United States of America.They concluded free trade agreements. Now 20 percent is there. So wehave the ability to outcompete any other country in the world andoutinnovate.

AMANPOUR: Well, to that end, then, what do you make, and how doyou react to the good job news over the last month, that 192,000 morejobs have been added and the unemployment rate has dipped below 9percent?

MCCAIN: I think that's good. And I still worry about thehousing situation. And my state of Arizona is one of those thatsuffered most from the collapse. And we still have nearly 50 percentof the homes are still underwater.

But you've got to look at it as good news. But you also have torecognize that we need to do more. Even at this present rate, wewould not be able to see a significant drop in unemployment for a verylong time. But it is encouraging news.

AMANPOUR: Well, what about the budget battle right now, the $61billion in cuts, which even Mark Zandi, who was one of your advisers,has said could lose 700,000 jobs.

MCCAIN: You know, he's the same guy that said that, if weadopted the stimulus package, unemployment would never go above 8percent. Please.

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: But do you think these steep cuts will affect theemployment?

MCCAIN: I don't think so. But what I do know, that unless weget our fiscal house in order, we are facing a calamity. There is noway you can avoid that. So let's -- we did a $787 billion stimuluspackage. We went on a spending spree over the last 10 years, a lot ofit -- some of it, at least, under Republican administrations, as wellas Democrats.

We have got to get our budget balanced. And that's -- that'svital to the future. And by the way, it has to include SocialSecurity reform, Medicare, and Medicaid reform. Anybody who thinks wecan do that with 12 percent to 15 percent of the budget or make thosekinds of changes on that small a percentage of the budget is justwrong.

AMANPOUR: And we're going to be debating this afterwards. But,obviously, a big element of the recovery here is linked, to an extent,to the Middle East, where you've just been, the rising gas prices.And of course, there, so many of the revolutions are about jobs aswell.

Let's go first to Libya. You have called for some kind ofintervention, a no-fly zone. Do you still maintain that position, tohave a no-fly zone over Libya?

MCCAIN: Yes, I do. Senator Kerry and Senator Lieberman and I,and others, have called for that.

I would like to point out their air assets are not large. Theirair defenses are somewhat antiquated. And this would send a signal toGadhafi that the president is serious when he says we need for Gadhafito go. And also, it would be encouraging to the resistance, who arecertainly outgunned from the air.

But these air assets that the Libyan -- that Gadhafi has are notoverwhelming. They're not -- you know, not saying they aren't achallenge, but...

AMANPOUR: So how do you respond, then, to what Secretary Gatessaid?

We're going to play what he said about this idea of a no-flyzone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT M. GATES: There's a lot of franklyloose talk about some of these military options. And let's just calla spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya todestroy the air defenses. That's the way you do a no-fly zone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Do you think that it is, as he says too difficult,that it's loose talk, when it comes to talk about a no-fly zone?

MCCAIN: I have great respect for Secretary Gates and theoutstanding job that he has done. We can't risk allowing Gadhafi tomassacre people from the air, both by helicopter and...

AMANPOUR: What he's really doing is attacking militaryinstallations, ammunition depots and potentially a rebel army. If theU.S. does get involved, is that taking sides?

MCCAIN: Well, clearly, we are on the side of the rebels. Wehave called for Gadhafi's removal. That's the president of the UnitedStates' policy.

But, again, I want to emphasize. Ground intervention would notbe appropriate, certainly not at this time. A ground intervention bythe part of the United States could be very counterproductive. But wecan assist in a lot of ways, humanitarian, intelligence, providingthem with some training and other things that we could do as they formup a provisional government in Benghazi.

AMANPOUR: You mentioned what the president said, calling forColonel Gadhafi to step aside. I mean, when the president says he'sgot to go, presumably he has to go. How does that happen? How doesone get him to go?

MCCAIN: Well, first of all, I hope that Gadhafi understands theinevitability of...

AMANPOUR: But he hasn't shown...

MCCAIN: Oh, I agree...

AMANPOUR: ... much indication to us.

MCCAIN: He's insane. But perhaps the people around him wouldbegin to depart the sinking ship, and by, again, a no-fly zone,declaring our assistance or support of a provisional government,perhaps which is being formed up now. There's a lot of steps we cantake, providing significant humanitarian aid.

Look at this humanitarian crisis. It's huge on -- on bothborders. So I think there's a lot we could do, including intelligencecapability and giving them technical assistance.

AMANPOUR: And in terms of where you've just come back from,Egypt and other parts of that -- of that area, many people look withgreat optimism to what's going on. Some are pessimistic. How can theUnited States help manage the transition?

MCCAIN: First of all, by not appearing to interfere or dictate.There's a lot of skepticism in Egypt and Tunisia and other countriesabout -- because of our support of past rulers.

But offer assistance -- perhaps the most important thing we coulddo in the long run for these countries is investment. Because youknow this was all about jobs.

I'd love to see our high-tech CEOs go over there and say, OK,we're going to invest. But we need to give them incentive to do so,like a trade preference agreement, which we could enact immediately.

This is really about the economy of these countries. And,finally, there's so much to cover, Christiane. I don't mean to insultyour intelligence. But really, Egypt is the key to all of this...

AMANPOUR: Everybody says that.

MCCAIN: ... the heart and soul of the Arab world. The othercountries are very important. But maybe we could fail in one of thoseother countries. We fail in Egypt, it has severe consequences.

AMANPOUR: So much more to discuss, Senator McCain.

(LAUGHTER)

Thank you so much for joining us.

MCCAIN: Thanks for having me on.

AMANPOUR: Thank you.

MCCAIN: And when we return, how do we create jobs in America?Is buying American the answer? If not, what is?

We take up that discussion after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: One of the things that I think there is a misconceptionabout is that somehow our manufacturing days have passed. that's nottrue. we're still one off the dominant manufactures in the world.the challenge, the difference is, is that what used to take 1,000people to manufacture might now take 100.

MITT ROMNEY, FORMER GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS: You see row afterrow of textile mill buildings and you know when you see thosebuildings that this state had to have gone through an economic crisisat one point. It's going to take more than a speech in this part,more than rhetoric to put the Americans back to work. It's going totake a new president of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Mitt Romney, last night in New Hampshire, thepresidentialcampaign clearly well under way. And jobs will be at the very heartof it. Today, the number of Americans in manufacturing jobs is at a70-year low. And as you have just seen, ABC has asking an intriguingquestion this week if each American spent just a little bit more onAmerican-made products, would it put more people back to work?

So joining me to discuss that is mu ABC News colleague DavidMuir, Leo Gerard, president of the United Steel Worker, ChrystiaFreeland, global editor at large for Thompson Reuters, and MortZuckerman, editor in chief of U.S. News and World Report.

Thank you for being here.

Let me start with you, ladies first, Made in America, that reportthat we just saw, is that the answer?

FREELAND: No. I mean, I thought it was a terrific report, but,you know, we are not going to go back to a world in which everyonebuys goods just made in their own country. And that's a good thing.You know, trade helps the world economy. And I don't think we want topush a line that says, well, if all Chinese people only bought goodsmade in China, all German people only goods made in Germany thatwouldn't be great for American companies that do business around theworld. Having said that, what I really liked about the report wasfocusing on the notion that giving up on manufacturing is really amistake. And I think we did have a rhetoric in the past sort of, youknow, 20 years that said, you don't need to make things in a countryanymore. That's a mistake.

AMANPOUR: We're not going to go back for all those traditionalthings being made in America. Is that bad for your people?

GERARD: No. I think what we've got to recognize, though, iswe've had 25 years of record-breaking trade deficits. And in those 25years America has gone from being the world's largest creditor nationto the world's largest debtor nation. And that's because we're notplaying on a level playing field and America has no manufacturingpolicy.

And so we can succeed if we have end up having a manufacturingpolicy that puts out at as equal footing not one that puts us behindthe 8 ball with China as an example.

AMANPOUR: Level playing field, is that the answer? How does oneachieve that?

ZUCKERMAN: Well, I don't know that you can get a level playingfield, because I don't know exactly what that means. We can't competeon several levels with China and other countries like that,particularly in terms of labor costs. It's just not going to work.But there are many things we can do. And we have to appeal to ourstrengths not to our weaknesses. Low cost labor is never going to beour strength. America is past those days. But we have to have ahighly educated workforce to focus on the industries of the future andto find ways to really develop those industries.

And another thing that we could do, which would really help a lotof companies focus on America is to have a tax code that makes senseso that you eliminate these special preferences and lower overall taxrates. Canada, for example, has a corporate tax rate of 16.5 percent,because they've eliminated a lot of those crap.

AMANPOUR: Let me just ask David about a statistic...

GERARD: Let me make a point on taxes though. We're givingcompanies tax breaks to move jobs overseas when we ought to be givingpeople tax breaks to create jobs here.

AMANPOUR: On that issue about creating jobs. In your report, inthe series, there was an amazing statistic about just how much more anAmerican should pay every day, or every year, to create hundreds ofthousands of new jobs.

MUIR: We talked to a number of economists on this, as you know,Christiane. Mark Zandi for one said, if we pumped $20 billion intothe economy in the next year, if every American spent that would bethe equivalent of $64 in the next year we could actually create200,000 jobs. But I wanted to answer what Chrystia said about buying only Madein America or only Made in German, only -- that's a giant leap fromwhat the question was that was posed this week. These economists toldus unanimously that all things equal, durability, price, that if youwant to buy a cabinet from up the street from the furniture store, ora product at your retail outlet that says Made in America, you're notgoing to throw off the global trade balance. And you will help createa job in America. They said it's as simple as that.

FREELAND: What I liked about David's report, at the end when youwere refurnishing that house, the Viking stove was the one applianceyou found that was 100% made in America. And I think that's the kindof place you should see America focusing on.

Hang on a sec. The high-end manufacturing. It's something whereif you look at western industrialized economy's, Germany is onecountry that has been really successful at hanging on tomanufacturing. And that's because as Mort was saying, they haven'tfocused on the cheap stuff. They've said what we can do that isspecial is the super specialized stuff. It requires a highly educatedwork force.

GERARD: Germany has a manufacturing strategy. We don't. Andthe reality is when you talk about the high end stuff, the iPad andthe iPhone are made in China, they're not made in America. If youlook at a modern wind turbine invented in Sandusky, Ohio we can't makea wind turbine from start to finish, because we've never had astrategy.

AMANPOUR: So what is the strategy? If America doesn't have one,why not? Because it is, by far, still the biggest manufacturer in theworld.

ZUCKERMAN: We have never had that kind of state intervention interms of an industrial policy. That's not been the way the Americansystem works. But we actually put handicaps on it in this sense, Imean, we have health care costs that are so dramatically higher thaneverybody else that people want to ship jobs abroad. We have taxesthat makes absolutely though sense. There are a lot of specialbenefits for individual companies, individual industries. We ought toeliminate as many of those as we can and lower the tax rates so thatthere's more of an opportunity to develop and do business here in theUnited States. There are some things we can do.

We should have an infrastructure policy rather than an industrialpolicy which would make it a lot easier for the private sector towork. We have absolutely -- those would create many, many jobs andwould be a great stimulus for our economy.

GERARD: Mort and I probably disagree on the words, because Ithink if you have an infrastructure strategy, you have in fact got amanufacturer strategy. We don't have any strategy. And when peoplekeep talking about low-priced goods, low-priced goods they have anexpensive cost. Low-priced goods with China where we've accumulatedalmost a $2 trillion deficit with China have meant hundreds ofthousands of people unemployed. It's meant poison in our kids toys.It's meant lead in our steel that we have had to send back. The BayBridge is three years behind schedule because they bought Chinesesteel that won't hold the welds.

FREELAND: You're not saying we should stop buying things fromChina or stop trading with China?

GERARD: No. I'm not saying we should stop trading. In fact, nocountry can survive without trade. What I'm in fact saying is that wehave got to have some set of rules on which we trade by. Our unionfiled nine trade cases against China and won every one. Why are wewinning them? Because they cheat. At the very least we should askfor an economy where we're not cheated.

MUIR: Just back from China. And I think Leo would agree on thispoint, correct me if I'm wrong, but we have to pick which items wewant to compete with. I mean, we were in these Chinese factories,south of Shanghai, as you know Christiane. In one factory that makesone-third of all the socks in the world. I mean, America doesn't wantto make socks anymore. We don't want to compete with that. We wantto compete with the products...

AMANPOUR: We're going to continue this right after the break.Lots to talk about. We're going to break. And we'll come back andcontinue.

Up next, Washington's answer to the job crisis. Will the deepbudget cuts on the table stick a fork in the recovery?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Coming up next, will the budget battle in Washingtonhave an impact on jobs?

And from the Middle East, the latest on the civil war in Libya.

And the women behind the revolutions, are they the best hope forreal democracy in the region?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: President Obama says the United States needs to buildon the momentum of Friday's upbeat jobs reports. The progress isclearly fragile and the budget battles in Washington will certainlyhave an impact, say many analysts. The question is -- what will thatimpact be?

Joining me again here in the Newseum, my ABC colleague DavidMuir. Leo Gerard, president of the United Steel Workers. ChrystiaFreeland, global editor at large for Thompson Reuters. And MortZuckerman, editor in chief of U.S. News and World Report.

Let's just go back to the lightbulb and finish that rather heateddebate.

MUIR: Well, it's interesting, because we were talking aboutChina. And the workers in those factories make $14 a day, $270 amonth, and they send much of it back to their child who's being raisedby the grandparents in rural China. We could never survive competingagainst China in certain respects. We have got to pick--

(CROSSTALK)

MUIR: We've got to pick which products.

(CROSSTALK)

MUIR: They say the answer are multiplier products, the ones thattake multiple people to get it from start to finish. But Leo saw thereporting this week and brought us this, about a lightbulb here inAmerica. This is what I love.

GERARD: The Ashram Sylvania Super Saver lightbulb has no mercuryin it. It's the most energy-efficient lightbulb invented so far. Wecan hardly get it sold in America. MUIR: But who knew about it?

GERARD: Who knew about it?

AMANPOUR: Well, who knew? Why not?

GERARD: Because of the onslaught of Chinese products, you can'tget it put in the store. I mean, it's a totally different discussionabout how you get on Wal-Mart's shelf or how you get on the shelf atHome Depot or the big box stores.

AMANPOUR: What about the key issue of human capital? Withtechnology, sort of, you know, replacing the workforce -- what about a55-year-old guy who is making x and now doesn't have that job? Howdoes one retrain him?

GERARD: Three quick points on that. First of all --

AMANPOUR: Or woman.

GERARD: Men or women. There's training adjustment assistancethat was cut by the Republicans in the last budget that we need forthe people who are 55 and older. We have got 40 percent unemploymentin the trades, so we're having a hard time getting apprentices done.Most of our manufacturing workplaces, we lost 55,000 factories duringthe Bush era, 2,800 factories as the result of the Wall Streetcollapse. Those factories used to train apprentices. Now they'rebarely scratching to get back. And we have got to train, we've got toget our community colleges ramped up, and we've got to get peoplegetting back--

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: This is the problem. The cutting of spending oneducation.

ZUCKERMAN: The jobs -- the -- most jobs are created by start-upcompanies. OK? A huge part of them come from people who haveintellectual or educational knowledge, MAs and PhD's in the hardsciences. Roughly 50 percent of the graduate degrees in the hardsciences are foreign students. We have reduced the number of foreignstudents we have allowed to stay and work in this country from 195,000in the year 2000 to 65,000 today.

This is absolutely criminal.

AMANPOUR: What does it mean?

ZUCKERMAN: It means we do not have the intellectual power.These people go back to their own countries. There -- and they startthe high-tech companies.

I'll give you an example. The computer was built in the UnitedStates, developed and built in the United States. Andy Grove wroteabout it. We now have 166,000 jobs in the computer industry in theUnited States, but 1.5 million jobs are overseas. This is exactlywhat's wrong.

(CROSSTALK)

ZUCKERMAN: That is a manufacturing company. We have to train --just a minute. We have got to keep the intellectual capabilities andthe educational capabilities to put high-value added products into thestream of this country's economy. Because if we don't, we're going tolose that, and then we'll really be lost.

FREELAND: I totally agree with you, Mort. And that piece thatAndrew Grove wrote was very interesting, but his point was thatAmerica is really good at inventing stuff. And if you look at who arethe big leading edge high-tech companies in the world, they're stillAmerican. Right? It's Apple. It's Google. It's Facebook. We'reseeing a revolutionary effect.

But what is not happening is the follow-on jobs for hundreds ofthousands of people are not there. Apple is a good example.

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: I want to ask you about the budget cuts as well.

GERARD: Let me make this last point. One of the things that iswrong is that for the last 30 years in both the United States andCanada, we have told our kids, you have got to go to school and becomefinancial engineers. What we should have been doing is getting moremechanical engineers.

It's not our fault. It's the system that said you ought to go toschool and become a financial engineer. We've got too many financialengineers--

(CROSSTALK)

ZUCKERMAN: Financial services is a major industry in thiscountry. We don't tell kids what to do. We can make it veryattractive for kids to go into the hard sciences.

GERARD: Tell them they'll make $28 million.

ZUCKERMAN: And have the jobs available. Not everybody thinks interms of going into the financial industry.

AMANPOUR: $61 billion of budget cuts. Mark Zandi says 700,000jobs will be lost.

FREELAND: I think he's right. I mean, I think that, you know,the problem is the U.S. government at both the federal and the statelevel needs to figure out how to walk and chew gum at the same time.So what you need to do is find a way in the medium term to have afull, a sold promise to the markets, we're going to deal withessentially the health care problem.

(CROSSTALK)

GERARD: We lost 55,000 factories that don't pay taxes anymore.Each one of those workers employed four more workers.

AMANPOUR: David, Leo, Chrystia, Mort, thank you very muchindeed, and this is a conversation that will just keep continuing.

We've seen them on the front lines of the protests sweeping theMiddle East. But what is next for the women of those revolutions?Will they be as active in shaping the future of their region? And canthe prominent role they have played be a spoiler for Islamic militantslooking to take advantage of those upheavals? A powerhouse roundtablecoming up next. And Tina Brown will be on hand to unveil the new andimproved Newsweek magazine.

AMANPOUR: Welcome back, and now we turn to those revolutionsrocking the Middle East. There are reports of escalating violence inLibya today. Rebel fighters clashing with Gadhafi loyalists. A lotof uncertainty about how much territory the rebels actually control.It has of course been a truly historic last few weeks in Libya andthroughout the Middle East and North African region. Many things havechanged, not just governments, but the people themselves, and perhapsespecially the women. Their influence could well have a huge impacton what happens next. ABC's Lama Hasan has been in the regionthroughout and has this report now from Libya.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HASAN: The wave of change sweeping across the Arab world hasfinally given women a voice. Everywhere I went in the region, I wasimpressed and surprised by the women I saw. Something changed. Abarrier was broken. They felt empowered and determined to bring downregimes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (inaudible), we never want (ph) you (ph)!

HASAN: Mothers dragging their children along so they couldwitness history. Girls who were not shy about mixing with boys,standing shoulder to shoulder with them to fight for their cause.

Here in Libya, with the protests now giving way to the armedrebellion, it's the work being done by Dr. Iman and her sister, Salwa,a lawyer, behind the scenes, that is making a difference in keepingthe momentum of this revolution going.

SALWA BUGAIGHIF, LIBYAN POLITICAL ACTIVIST: Everything is noteasy. But if there is a will, there is a way. We'll have to go tothe end.

HASAN: With no specific role, they deal with whatever is thrownat them. Everything from listening to worried fathers whose sons arefighting on the front line to keeping up with the day to day clashesand casualty numbers, to having meetings about health and educationalissues in a new, free eastern Libya.

DR. IMAN BUGAIGHIF, LIBYAN POLITICAL ACTIVIST: It consumes alot, but it's just amazing that we don't feel the time. We come herefrom morning and we don't feel tired.

HASAN: It's easy to see how crucial they are to the movement.No sooner are they done with one informal hallway meeting, they'repulled into the next one. Even our cameraman struggles to keep upwith them, and they are modest.

I. BUGAIGHIF: We're not the heroes. The heroes are the motherswho are encouraging their children to go and fight for freedom. Andthey know it may be the last time they will see them.

HASAN: These weren't the first women I'd encountered during thelast amazing two months. The revolution has spread like a feveracross the Middle East. In Egypt, women, especially young women, havehelped lead the uprising, blogging, tweeting, organizing, making theirviews heard any way they can, for the first time in full partnershipwith men.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We will not give up.

HASAN: 24-year-old Gigi Ibrahim is one of the faces of theEgyptian revolution. An outspoken activist, Ibrahim was shot in theback with a rubber bullet during the protests in Tahrir Square. Thatdidn't stop her.

GIGI IBRAHIM, EGYPTIAN POLITICAL ACTIVIST: I was moredetermined, I think. This is what helped the revolution. People diedfor this. Hundreds were willing to die for this to continue andsucceed. And this is the price of democracy and freedom.

HASAN: Worried about her safety, her family begged her not todemonstrate.

AZIZA IBRAHIM, GIGI'S SISTER: All my friends, all my family havebeen calling me because I'm the elder sister to her, oh, my God, don'tlet her go, don't let her go.

G. IBRAHIM: My aunt now is intervening.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): You are a bunch ofkids who made a revolution and destroyed the--

(CROSSTALK)

G. IBRAHIM: I'm not the Egyptian people--

The swarms of pro-Mubarak supporters are trying to infiltrateTahrir Square.

HASAN: But Ibrahim was on a mission to change her future andthose of others. She worked tirelessly, appearing on every newschannel possible, updating followers on Twitter and Facebook,galvanizing other Egyptians.

G. IBRAHIM: I told you this day was coming. You didn't believeme.

HASAN: Rallying them to come out in big numbers to fight fortheir freedom.

And it worked. Not only did she play a part in changing theregime, she changed perceptions of what it means to be a woman in theArab world.

G. IBRAHIM: This is an historical moment in the revolution. Mysister is here. And that says a lot.

A. IBRAHIM: That's a revolution by itself.

HASAN: For this week, Lama Hasan, ABC News, Benghazi, Libya.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And the big question, how much will the newlyempowered women of the Middle East shape their emerging democracies?It's something the United States, as well as much of the world, islooking at closely.

Tina Brown, editor in chief of the Daily Beast and Newsweek, isjoining us. And she's hosting a women of the world summit this week.Some of the women involved are joining us now. Dr. Nawal el Saadawi,a long-time activist for women's rights in Egypt. Zainab Salbi, theIraqi founder of Women for Women International. And Sussan Tahmadebi,who has been at the forefront of the struggle for women's rights inIran.

Ladies, thank you for joining us. Who could fail to beoptimistic? When you look at that piece, do you think gains aresolidified and set in stone?

SALBI: No. When I look at this piece, I first get emotional tosee that women are rising up and joining men in the streets. I alsoremember history, history where women in the Middle East have rose upbefore, participated in revolutions against French colonialism inAlgeria, against the shah of Iran. So we have that history, but itoften gets hijacked at the moment of their victory. We often get sentback home.

AMANPOUR: Well, let's discuss that. Tina Brown, you are alsogoing to show us the new cover of "Newsweek," which we're going to putup. And it is about 150 women who shape the world with HillaryClinton as the cover.

What can somebody like the U.S. secretary of state and the restof the global community do to help these women in these revolutions?

BROWN: Well, I think what is interesting right now is thatHillary Clinton, in fact, has actually met her moment, in a sense,because her long-held conviction has always been that women are theleading indicators. That women, if you empower women, you're going tomake huge changes in the democracy movement and of course in the GDPof the countries concerned. And she's been pounding that drum for along time.

So this issue of Newsweek, you see her really in action, what sheis doing. We followed her to, for instance, on a trip to Yemen, justa few weeks before the Arab revolution, and saw her conducting a veryrobust town hall, where people were being encouraged to talk, womenwere being encouraged to ask about women's rights. And after thatmeeting, she met with a few of the women who clustered around her andasked them, said, can you help us educate women here? About thecountry here.

AMANPOUR: So education and helping with civil society anddemocracy.

BROWN: And also doing away with the barbaric custom, forinstance, of child brides. But they did also say, not in such a wayas to get us blowback. So it's all about how do you do that withoutbig-footing the whole atmosphere.

AMANPOUR: Well, Nawal, here we are in your country. It has nowgot a revolution in place. A military committee is still running it.How are women's rights going to be enshrined in Egypt? Not even onthe committee to write the constitution.

EL SAADAWI: I look at women's rights as global and local. Andwe cannot be liberated in Egypt in a country that is not liberated.Our problem is colonialism. I am here in New York, in Washington, andI want to speak to you, Americans, and the government. It's theproblem of colonialism.

AMANPOUR: What do you mean by that?

EL SAADAWI: I mean, that, you know, if we are independent, ifwe're producing our food, then we will be OK. Now 50 percent of thepeople in Egypt earn under $2 a day because of American neo-colonialism (ph). You see. So women cannot be liberated in a countrynot liberated. You see?

AMANPOUR: Is that right?

(CROSSTALK)

EL SAADAWI: You see, I have to link that. It cannot be --women's issues are not -- are global issues, local issues, politics,economics. It's everything.

AMANPOUR: No one is talking about the real big picture here.

SALBI: I would say we need to look at what happens to women asan indicator for the direction of a society. Usually we look at whathappens to women as a marginal issue on the side. We need to shiftthat. Women are bellwether for the society. Progress starts withwomen and violence starts with women. And so rather than not worryingabout preservation of women's rights in the constitution or laborlaws, for example, which the Middle East still don't have equal rightsfor women, or education, or employment opportunities. We need to lookat that as actually very important indicator for what is going tohappen in Egypt or Afghanistan or Iraq or whatever countries thatwe're talking about.

AMANPOUR: Sussan, everybody is looking at the revolutions andthinking, oh, my goodness. We saw this in Iran 30 years ago. Womenwere on the streets in Iran, demanding something different than themonarchy. And then a year later after the revolution, they were onthe streets again, complaining about being forced to wear the veil.How is this not going to happen in this region and particularly inIran as well right now?

TAHMASEBI: I think the -- I would have to agree with what Zainabsaid. But I think the situation now is very different than 30 yearsago. And what Nawal said, it is the global context. And we have theopportunity to really amplify women's voices in these countries.

We're surprised to see women out in the revolutions and on thestreets. But the reality is for someone like myself, who lived inIran and worked in Iran, it's not surprising at all to see it in Iran,to see it in Egypt because women are present. And wherever you are inthese countries, there are women who are advocating for women'srights.

And I think one way to do that is that women's movementsthemselves need to be very vigilant in defending their rights. Weneed to have regional opportunities to make women's rights anindigenous issue and then global solidarity.

AMANPOUR: Tina, you know, everybody here obviously looks to thisnot just as a woman's issue, but also sort of a big picture issue ofis this going to tamp down the whole idea of extremism, terrorism, isthis a big blow to al Qaeda for instance?

BROWN: Well, if as Sussan right said, we have vigilant and thewomen in these countries have to be supported in every conceivableway. I mean, women like Nawal here have been working with this foryou know, 30, 40 years, doing brave acts and speaking out at a timewhen -- Nawal was jailed for speaking out about feminist ideas andthis repressive society. So it's about vigilance, it really is, andabout doing everything America can to do it can to support and educatewithout being clumsy about it, without going in and creating blowback.

Because what happens -- what can happen is that suddenly it'spresented that the women's rights are an issue of foreign influence.And once that happens, you know, this nationalistic Islamic fervorstarts to take place and the whole issue gets submerged. So it'sreally, really important fur us to help them in every way we can withthe soft power aspect. AMANPOUR: And Nawal, you have been doing this for decades. Youhave seen in your region how -- just even in Egypt, let's talk aboutthe Muslim Brotherhood. Do you think the Muslim Brotherhood it is anenemy of women in Egypt? And an enemy of real democracy?

EL SAADAWI: We have to look at this problem of religiousfundamentalism it's a universal problem.

AMANPOUR: But particularly in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood,do you think that they will allow...

EL SAADAWI: No.

AMANPOUR: Women to have full participation?

EL SAADAWI: I'm not afraid. They ask me, are you afraid ofMuslim brothers? No. I am afraid of local dictators, you know, theone that will come after Mubarak and global dictators -- disunity.

AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask you to follow that.

EL SAADAWI: I didn't finish my comment. Because we are alwaysconcentrating on local dictators who oppress women. We are oppressedby both -- external powers. I am afraid of external powers, that'sthe point -- it's related to my immigration (ph).

AMANPOUR: Right, but that's kind of what I was talking about.The external idea of oppression and also extremism, fundamentalism andindeed terrorism.

SALBI: Well, it's interesting because religious groups in theMiddle East have figured out that using women and utilizing women topromote their issues is a good thing. In Iraq, for example, since2003 it was religious groups, not secular groups, that incorporatedwomen in their elections and in their parties.

In a way we need to learn, the secular groups need to learn fromthe religious groups, by really giving the platform for women andpromoting women in leadership. We should not take the women's rightsfor granted issue, because the other side is using it to advance theirown cause.

The issue is about family laws at the end of the day. The issueis about mobility and access to resources for women. And usually,that law is traded off. We get free trade, you get family law withreligious groups. This time, this is a secular revolution, this isnot a religious one. It is actually telling dictators as well asfundamentalists the same thing, we are not going to tolerate thisanymore.

So this is the -- it's a really critical point in here of do notbargain women away. Do not bargain them in Afghanistan, do notbargain them in Egypt. And that is really the point.

AMANPOUR: And briefly, you are part of the million signaturescampaign. You started that. Where does the situation for women andindeed the whole sort of protest movement, does that have any legs inIran?

EL SAADAWI: You mean, inside the protesters and in the region?Well, I think...

AMANPOUR: Everybody wants to see this uprising come to Iran. Doyou think there is any chance?

EL SAADAWI: Well, women in Iran have been fighting for theirrights for 100 years, especially before these recent developments,they have been at the forefront of fighting for their rights andfighting for democracy. And for nearly two years now after thedisputed president elections, people have been on the streets and havebeen fighting at least for their votes initially.

So I think that it's, you know, reflected and the same issues aregoing on inside of Iran that they are in other places.

AMANPOUR: Thank you all so much. And we'll be watching thewomen's summit, the Daily Beast Newsweek that's coming up this week.So thanks very much for joining us. And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Thank you for watching ABC News. We are always hereonline at ABCnews.com And we hope you'll watch World News Sundaylater this evening. And I'll see you here next week.