drastically changed. aggressiveness, vulnerability and uncertainty all intersected at one time. the agreed framework, as you know, halted peru tone yum -- plutonium production for nine years which is which was no small achievement, but what went unchanged was north korea's nuclear am bigses which we know in retrospect. the framework never allowed the access to the facilities necessary. it continued to design and test high explosives during the duration of the agreed framework. and by the end of the 1990s, north korea appears to have become, appears to have pursued a uranium enrichment program undeclared. the 2000s, meanwhile, witnessed the six-party era; an aggressive and sustained diplomatic effort went into finding a way to create a framework for moving to complete

verifiable and irreversible denuclearization. .. >> even with the joint statement of adoption in 2005, north korea went on to launch, in june 2006 conducted its first nuclear test. in october of 2006. we all remember the destruction of the colon, that would become in june 2008.

an important symbol of the progress that would be made under the six-party talks of the reactor and associate facilities particularly under the february 13, 2007 initial action for the implementation of the joint statement. in october 3, 2007 statement covering second base actions of the limitation of the joint statement. yet left unaddressed was the issue getting north korea its continued undeclared uranium enrichment activities, or how we would get the verification necessary to address the remaining questions concerning the north's plutonium uranium and enrichment programs. some of this is old history, but this retrospective work is vital because it provides a context within which the administration viewed the north korean nuclear issue when it inherited it upon

taking office in 2009. the president took office willing to extend his hand to countries like north korea as it would be willing to unclench their fists. but within weeks after the inauguration of president obama, pyongyang began preparations for missile test. when united nations details responded to the people fifth launch with a presidential statement, north korea proceeded to conduct a nuclear test on may 25, again just months after the obama a demonstration took office. the second nuclear test had a profound impact on those people who were otherwise we're in kind to believe pyongyang's nuclear ambitions were no more than some high-tech way to grab the attention of the united states your the seriousness with which the world viewed pyongyang's actions and its intentions were evidenced in security council

adoption of resolution 1874 on june 12. the international consensus grew on the need to impede the growth of north korea's wmd program and conflict a cost on that program with strong enforcement mechanisms complementing u.n. security council resolution 1718. together, these two resolutions clearly and unequivocally require north korea to suspend all activities related to its nuclear program which would include the kind of launches that include ballistic missile technology, resolution 1874 demanded the dprk could not conduct any future nuclear test or launch, and called on north korea to denuclearize. after encountering in 2009 and is the diplomatic dustup began to settle, special representative for north korea policy steve bosworth made a trip to pyongyang in december 2009. in an effort to get some type of

dialogue jumpstarted with dprk. a few months later north korea again took an action that figuratively sank the prospects for resuming talks, and literally sank the arak corvette in march 2010. after demonstrating to the world is uranium enrichment get a vote on november 12, as steve bosworth and i were going through the region, we went to seoul, tokyo, then beijing to pray for six-party talks partners on the uranium enrichment program for some 45 minutes to "60 minutes" after we flew over the island, yongbyon island was shelled by the north koreans. so than 2011 came upon us after the dust had settled from the 2010 provocations we embarked on a garbage effort to test north korea's willingness to engage in negotiations once again. another test to see whether the

north koreans could engage in negotiations with a seriousness of purpose. in close consultation with our allies in seoul and tokyo and, of course, in coordination with the other six-party partners in beijing and moscow, we cautiously began in 2011 to engage in north korea in a series of meetings designed primary to bring a halt to its nuclear programs, and missile launches, and in our efforts to restart the six-party talks, great and if i'm conducive to such talks. after three sets of meetings, one in new york, july 2011, 1 geneva october, and one in figure after a short hiatus following the december death of kim jong-il, we came to an understanding with north korea that would soon be called the lead they deal unfair between an understanding, and understanding that we would pursue a path of confidence building, mutual

confidence-building measures which would begin with the north halting its missile launches and nuclear activities and would be reciprocated by confidence building measure on our own. and yet, again barely two weeks after this test in essence was administered, north korea announced it would proceed with a self-proclaimed satellite launched in clear violation, not only of the united nations security counsel resolution banning such launches using ballistic technology buckley of violation of the understanding that we had. in retrospect, the figure at 29 deal was a test just like the agreed framework and just like the september 19 statement. these three tests may have been different in terms of the speed with which they were failed, and significant to this action, so soon in the air of north korea's new leadership in terms of the federal 29th understanding, was not particularly encouraging as to the prospects for

authentic and credible negotiations. most importantly, for us, federal 29 demonstrated north korea was not yet prepared to engage in negotiations with the sisters of purpose necessary to ensure that negotiations would result in concrete denuclearization process. so federal 29, 2012, and as you know political seasons in seoul, washington, and beijing were looming. and as north korea watched the elections and political activities in those three capitals, it began for another series of actions which would commence in december with another launch, followed with a nuclear test the next year, 2013, followed by periods of intense rhetoric and vitriol. so the question then, how are we

respond? what does the future look like, what should it look like and growing capabilities? first of all let me say north korea policy is focused on two primary goals, i know many of you here from my colleagues in good friends, i'm sure he touched on a range of activities that we do within the context of the u.s.-rok alliance, our extended deterrence strategy, our joint exercises, are planning under a variety of mechanisms that we have that feed our minister your legislative security meetings. as we explore long-term vision on how we secure the capabilities, developed the doctrine, and train to counter the emerging threat and

contingencies posed by north korea. the u.s. has, together with its close allies in the republic of korea, insured piece and stability on the korean peninsula for over 60 years from the alliance is strong and they will continue to be strong. we have no doubt about that. on the denuclearization side, thought i was sure a few of our principles in terms of our diplomacy and our policy. you've heard it said before but it's one of those statements that needs repeating, perhaps every month or so at least. the united states will not accept north korea as a nuclear state, nor will he stand by while it seeks to develop a nuclear armed missile that can target the united states. it is worth making is it unequivocally clear. it's worth noting the international community agreed with a series of u.n. security council resolutions calling on the dprk to denuclearize. the result of three nuclear test now 2009 -- 2006, 2009, 2013 is

the international consensus, the undeniable consensus on the need for north korea to denuclearize. in pursuit of the declaration a number of principles to guide our policy. first of all is the centrality of our allies. centrality, traditional alliances both with the republic of korea and japan. our dprk policy is founded upon continuous cooperation with our allies. glyn davies and i and our team go out regularly to the region in close, continuous coordination. pyongyang's efforts to drive a wedge between seoul and washington, and washington and tokyo will not succeed because at the end of the day i think you see this very clearly evidence in the north korea policy of our allies. were not the only country that

has learned the lessons of history that i just spoke of. second element of course is our close cooperation with beijing. united states and china agree on the fundamental importance of denuclearize peninsula. we share common goals of peace is to build on the korean peninsula and its denuclearization. we have open lines of communicate should and continually consult with china on how to advance these common goals. we see u.s.-china cooperation is critical to obtaining meaningful steps by north korea to meet its international obligations and negotiate complete and irreversible denuclearization. and in this regard shine is a vital part of with the dprk with its unique role to its economic, diplomatic and historical ties to north korea. third principle is the principle of no rewards. the united states will not reward bad north korea behavior, its provocations, it's rhetoric.

and its refusal to denuclearize will only lead to increased diplomatic and economic isolation. the security and prosperity north korea seeks will only come when pyongyang changes its course but it will not be rewarded. for bad behavior. fourth principle is that the defense and deterrence. i spoke about briefly earlier, but they should be no doubt that the united states will continue to take actions in our defense and that of our allies. this includes maintaining a robust sanctions regime on pyongyang. this includes strengthening our alliances with seoul and tokyo to deter and counter the north korea threat that we and our allies face. fifth principle is to maintain an alternative path. as we said repeatedly, the united states will continue to encourage north korea to choose a better path. we remain committed to a diplomatic solution, a

diplomatic solution is based upon authentic and credible negotiations leading to concrete denuclearization action. the united states is prepared to help north korea change its current course. the united states is prepared to sit down with north korea to negotiate and implement the commitments that they have made. but pyongyang must prove its citizens by taking initial steps to show that it has an intention to abide by its commitments, honor its word, respect international law, and engage in authentic negotiations. and finally, this may be considered our bottom line, we will judge north korea by its actions and not by its words. this is more than a talking point. it's really in a nutshell the prudent lesson of the years of dealing with the dprk, which i spoke about earlier. so here are the challenges that are clear. north korea in may 2013 announced a so called byungjin

policy. a policy that seeks to present an economic construction and the growth of its economic forces. one could argue convincingly i think that for the past two decades of the north's nuclear program pyongyang has which is a policy that sought economic gains while dodging its denuclearization obligations. but we have would be, is party level strategic policy lines, clarity in pyongyang's over arching achieving goals. but as my colleague, glyn davies has never a number of times, challenging is a dead-end policy. in this regard scott snyder wrote a useful piece, economic cost of note three nuclear development. i recommend that highly to those of you have not seen it. forwarded deputy commander of prc's military region in an

essay submitted, and the north korea denuclearization is more in accordance with chinese interest, himself noted north korea's economic development and nuclear weapons is difficult to advance, possessing nuclear weapons invites international condemnation, isolation and sanctions leaving north korea unable to assess advanced technology as well as aid for human financial and physical resources. this makes opening up to the rest of the world difficult to achieve real results and leaves intinternal reform lacking a relaxed political economic and social environment. the general goes on to note, developing nuclear weapons and delivery rockets use a lot of resources, maintains disproportionate large-scale military, which also use a large amount of resources it from an overall resource perspective, a significant reduces the strength of economic construction reform

progress. he therefore concludes for chinese interest of for north korea's interests for stability of the korean peninsula and northeast asia, china must utilize all his political diplomatic economic, social, governmental and noncommittal resources, convince north korea to abandon its nuclear weapons. this, of course, is the united states' policy as well. in this way and i say this in closing, pyongyang essentially provides an opportunity, an opportunity to sharpen north korea's choices, to remind north korea that the security and prosperity it seeks are only possible through denuclearization. a reminder that the policy decisions the regime has been making will only continue to lead to greater dramatic and economic isolation and deprivation. to remind pyongyang that the dprk's pursuit of nuclear weapons make the country less secure and less prosperous, and remember that the true victims of north korea's nuclear program

are the north korean people, and the peace and prosperity they desire and deserve. thank you. [applause] >> now the floor will be open. >> thank you very much. it was a great historical overview which i think is critical important for all of us to understand, but with that, understand the history, we are at kind of a new point with the young leader with kim jong-un. and i wonder if you could talk all little bit about your assessment of the stability of his leadership and, you know, if he's going through a transition period is still continued and he hasn't stabilize his leadership, what are the chances for things going down the wrong road? and then, if and when he is in a

stable position, you assess your continue to follow the same path as you've outlined, which i really do like this transparent, transparently open a policy which i think it's a useful description. so if you could talk about the leadership's ability and the way ahead, i would appreciate it spent thinking. it's not very prudent to predict the future, but that said, you know, what we see in terms of, if you look at the reason i do this historical overview is to show the continuities, these trends over time and to kind of understand that what we've seen in terms of the actions of the dprk over the past few years being entirely consistent with behavior that goes back, you know, two, two leaders, to kim's ago. in that regard there's a degree to which the continuity provides

a sufficient framework within which to make smart policy, and that's why i use the transparently ok'd formulation, to kind of get over this idea that somehow north korea is a country that nobody really understands and we don't know what they going to do next and, therefore, we are somehow handcuffed from a policy perspective. we have sufficient understanding of the dprk i think to make solid policy. the transition period is under way. it's an evolutionary process. again, if you take a step back if you look at events of the past two years, within the larger arc of where things were going when kim jong-un inherited this challenge, there's no inconsistencies or anomalies that would cause us to think that, you know, we are somehow

not sufficiently aware of the direction the regime is headed with its goals and its intention. that said, this is why i spoke about the opportunities of pyongyang provides because the core of our policy has been one of sharpening choices for the dprk your to make clear that when the dprk is ready to commit to authentic and credible negotiations that have a serious possibility of leading to concrete denuclearization steps, the other five parties include the united states are prepared to live up to their obligations of september 19 statement, and fundamentally transform is available to the dprk when it makes the right choice. and also to be diligent and committed to sanctions and other action that we need to take in our defense and that of our allies, to make sure that north korea knows its program and i

continued to grow unabated, that there is a diplomatic and economic is to be paid for the policy choices it makes, and, therefore, to understand the downside options. so i think regardless of the direction the dprk heads under its leadership, these principles apply equally. >> follow-up? >> yes. i agree with everything you said. i wonder though about our actions, you know, and i agree that north korea has a playbook they been following for 60 years, and, but when we acted differently and then we have in the past, how that affects north korea, as an example i think last year's attentions during the exercise period, last

spring, new, our reaction to the alleged reaction was very, very strong, i like it has been in the past but i think that suppress north korea. and i say that because him and as you said, and as others have said, the alliance is strong. the alliance provides the foundation for everything that we do. and i wanted to shift gears a little bit and ask about president park's trust paula keep and how that fits in with our policy supporting her, they think the importance of her policy or the ability of her policy to succeed also rest on the strength of the alliance. but i wonder if you could talk about the relationship of our policy and president park's trust paula teac? >> absolutely. this is erin which our two countries have had very close and continuous cooperation. even before the election when we first reached out to the

political camps during the campaign. it was clear that president parks trust paula keep was built upon many of the same foundational principles that we had. flexibility to talk, to explore, to probe, but a strong commitment to the negotiation, a clear linkage that negotiations that resulted in substantial progress, and u.s. dprk relations would have to be founded upon progress in denuclearization. and i think this tracks a much with president park's own articulation of trustpolitik and a willingness to engage the north and trust the north and hold the north accountable for its actions. what we have is an extremely natural partnership that in u.s.-rok policy that i would argue, many people, and i came on board roughly three years ago just on the eve of the

president's state visit when they saw the improvement of relations under president lee, tribute to perhaps personality, and a strong as those were i think fundamentally the u.s.-rok alliance is a build up on shared interests and shared values and shared approach to a common threat that its enduring regardless of who's in charge. and so it's even more so when you have president park with our current trust policy. >> whenever i hear administration official, and this goes back into the bush administration, it's just not current administration, talk about north korea, or read

statements in a newspaper coming from u.s. officials, there is a topic that hardly ever gets mentioned, and if it is mentioned is mentioned only in passing. and that is north korea's proliferation activities, especially effective these in the middle east. and i have seen and i've written about literally hundreds of published reports quoting european intelligence sources, israeli intelligence sources, and japanese intelligence sources describing a deep, collaborative relationship between iran and north korea, and both the development of missiles and the development of nuclear warheads. the latest of these reports

described in a south korean official was quoted in one of these. iran sending top missile experts to north korea in the second half of 2012, who assisted north korea in preparing for the successful long range missile tests of december 2012. and reports that iran paid a very handsome sum of money to north korea in order to send a very high level delegation of experts -- nuclear experts to the february 2013 nuclear test. but as i said, this is kind of the unwritten, and talked about problem that, i think, given all

of the information that has come out in recent years that there is with north korea, this deep involvement between north korea and iran. we also have wikileaks documents describing our secretary rice instructed our ambassador in beijing to protest strongly to the chinese government over aircraft from tehran and pyongyang, unloading people and apparently weapons in beijing's airport, and transferring these between these aircraft from iran and from pyongyang. a diplomatic effort which apparently bore no fruit. so i'm going to ask you,

mr. seiler, if you can tell us anything about this north korea-iranian relationship, and what is the substance of it, if you can say anything about that? and i know there are intelligence sensitivities here, but how much of a problem is this going to be in any future telematic intercourse with north korea on the nuclear issue? >> i think those are actually question. difficult questions as you mentioned because they do touch very directly and very really on some of our more sensitive intelligence as was her more sensitive diplomatic activities in our efforts to try to halt, prevent, rollback north korea's outward proliferation, as well as, not surprisingly, the proliferation of technologies into north korea. this is a central purpose actually of the entire range of

u.n. security council resolution the ride to sanctions and other sanctions that we put on north korea do not only indeed the growth of the north korea nuclear program to the import of technology and the cash that it earns from those sales, but actually to prevent the upward movement of those technologies. in this regard, let me just say a number of principles. first of all, proliferation is obviously a key top interest of this administration, and really any administration. we know the threat that we face, the danger that we face, and north korea has an established record of willingness to engage in this type of activity is known to everybody in this room. it is a top priority, issue, when we sit down with the north koreans, when we talk about, when we can do for the 29th do you, when we said that with the six-party talks, the six-party talks, when if we engage this is a top priority. i would also say it's an area in

which our international cooperation has grown markedly, particularly since the 2009 nuclear test and the 2012-2013 activities. we partner with a number of countries, china included, in a way that helps to deal both with the flow of matériel, whether sea, air, land base, as well as the related finances. that's about as far as i can take a public image on this issue but it is certainly one that is a paramount concern to us as we execute this issue. >> thank you. >> thank you. that was a fascinating and depressing history lesson you gave us on how many times north korea has violated its international obligations. you stated that we should judge north korea not on its statements but on its actions. and it seems to me the same standard out to be applied to

our negotiating partner, china. because china continually uses the language that you use about opposing nuclearization, and yet it has participated in north korea's program beyond what larry said he was also involved in the original proliferation to pakistan which ended up in north korea. want to make the case that china is not only a proliferator of wmd, it's a proliferator of proliferators but it's the network that emanates from china has spread in the mid-east and in asia. so i would respectful the question the assumption of the u.s. government policy, or at least stated u.s. government policy, that china shares our goal, our objective of denuclearization on the korean peninsula. i would submit that china's number one priority is not north

korea's nuclear program, but north korea's so-called stability. rather than taking any kinds of economic or other action that would put pressure on the north korea regime, they would prefer leading it proceed with its nuclear missile programs as long as it remains as a buffer country between the democratic south korea and china. and if that's true it seems to meet the required a little bit of honesty in our public diplomacy. secretary kerry today reiterated, yesterday reiterated that a year ago china made all these commitments to increase the pressure on north korea. the only pressure its increase is rhetorical. there has been hardly any tangible efforts, and yet the north korean regime would collapse tomorrow if china were to tighten any of its sanctions on fuel and energy, economic, let alone diplomatic protection. so it seems to me at some point this is the elephant in the room

that we don't want to discuss very often, it is that china has been a facilitator of the north korean threat and we should question what its motives are in doing so. >> well, i don't really want to be a spokesman for the people's republic of china, but let me speak to some of the elements of our cooperation. having the privilege of flying out to beijing once every couple of months or so and having very in depth, productive work on this with six-party talks, lead negotiator, and, of course, our colleagues here at the embassy in china, china publicly articulates its commitment to denuclearization of the korean peninsula and a desire for peace and stability on the peninsula. and in northeast asia, which both of those clearly overlap i think with the interests and desires of all the parties in

the region, the united states, the republic of korea as well. the prc has been a cooperative partner in the united nations. it has been enforcing security comes resolutions as have other parties. it has put a lot of work into the six-party talks process. the december 19 joint statement from 2005, and all the diplomatic efforts have taken place since then over the last nine years. this is a difficult issue. i think it's an issue that many times when yo they sit down ande tried to brainstorm over where is the solution to this, what are we failing to do, what are we going to find? we all ultimately need to step back every member, it's pyongyang it was the party that is refusing to denuclearize and pyongyang that is refusing to return to authenticate and credible negotiations as you

mentioned of the prc does have a unique relationship. and we work very closely with the people's republic of china on this issue. this is an issue that did not come up overnight, nor would it be resolved overnight, but it is an area that we feel strongly committed to. i think our two leaders discussed this at a summit at sunnylands in st. petersburg, and vice president when he visited, and most recently secretary kerry. and we continue to believe that resolution of this issue depends upon sustained efforts to cooperate with china. >> please come to the microphone, please. >> thank you. i have a question.

[inaudible] in recent days, the attitudes of north korea to south korea, is a changing? as you know, south and north korea agreed yesterday to allow reunions of separated families. later this month. it is scheduled during the joint exercises during the same time. so my question is, one is, do you think the changes of north korea are political or technical? and the second, do you feel any attitude change of north korea to the united states in recent days, the same as to the south

korea? thank you. >> very good question. of course, we welcome the news that came in overnight, right, about the willingness of pyongyang to go forward with the family reunions in spite of the fact that there is a small overlap with our annual key resolve exercises but it's encouraging to see that pyongyang recognizes this as the managing issue that need not be tied to these annual exercises. i would note that if one were to take a look back at both inter-korean diplomacy, six-party talks, u.s.-dprk diplomacy can't even that the conduct of these exercises is not necessarily a diplomacy blocking type of event but indeed doing pastors like this because they are entirely defensive exercises.

they come annually and the actual overlap with the north koreans own military training cycle. they're not in and of themselves -- there's no inherent linkage between them to hold his family reunions. so we are very encouraged by thing. and, of course, this is where, at the risk of sounding trite but it's so crucial, we need to judge north korea by its actions and not by its words. we've seen tactical shifts like this. and while we remain cautiously optimistic, we also are very realistic in terms of what this means, the prospects for sustained, real, substantive inter-korean rapprochement, and possibly the north korea is beginning to turn the corner on the more bellicose rhetoric and actions. and hopefully that they will soon see the valley of returning to authentic and credible denuclearization negotiations. >> thank you.

>> high. [inaudible] just a short follow-up on the discussion. most koreans -- [inaudible] what is your government's response to that? and then, could be helpful for the nuclear problem? would you deliver it a little more on that? >> -- deliberate. in terms of the signal that the dprk may or may not have sent in terms of willingness to engage in denuclearization negotiations, we really have not seen anything that clearly

signals they are prepared at this point. we know that they made and national defense mission statement in the middle of last summer, june, wasn't? of course the more recent, the important proposal, but in none of this do we see any indication that north korea is interested in talks at this time. of course, we remain open to that. the united states remains open to authentic and credible dialogue, and we hope that the positive signal that pyongyang may be sending and agreeing to to to move forward with family reunions represents a type of shift in their attitude and behavior we've all been waiting for.

>> peter, with korean freedom alliance. i wasn't sure whether i'm alone, i'm kind of a chronic pessimistic about north korean nuclear issue. i had a great time there crossing with a north korea analyst some time ago, and that was really, so glad to be with him again. you described many things, many good things like, you know, u.s.-south korea alliance, and we're not going to get into any talks for the sake of talks and so on, but looks like when you say that we are not going to talk unless you're ready to talk seriously, we keep wasting our time, looks like. in fact, the current, you know,

eating together, easing tensions in korea, but getting pyongyang -- i keep losing some words, getting -- getting the north and south korea separate, families getting together, that is good news but that doesn't give me any hope about the nuclear issue. no matter what comes up, this is going -- we keep losing time. looks like we are waiting until north korea, you know, accomplishes the capability to reach alaska and beyond. and i don't see anything else going at this point. so could you kind of helped me relax my concern? thank you.

>> we tried to frame my presentation, although i didn't give extreme good amount of attention to the first part of it, but to this idea of deterrence and denuclearization efforts, and in terms of deterrence, these are the prudent steps that we need to take as north korea makes, as a strategic goal in the pursuit of a nuclear force, as it develops increased missile capabilities and as it openly threatens us with them that we would take the due diligence that days i'm sure discussed a lot in areas of activity were taken in terms of missile defense, extended deterrence, the entirety of our discussion with rok on the alliance. not only that, our trilateral cooperation in the region with japan is crucial on this. japan is a portrait in missile

defense, is crucial on this. a variety of ways in which we in essence the nine north korea the valley of its so-called nuclear deterrent by making it irrelevant in light of our ability to counter it. taking it very safely, not irrelevant in a way we can ignore, but being sufficiently postured to deter and defend as necessary in light of this emerging capability. but many people, the second part of my discussion which maybe i should help a bit more, but, you know, if you look at this with some degree of understanding of the history of where we've been, talks in and of themselves have no inherent value, particularly in slowing the program without the types of actions like sanctions, counter proliferation activities, and continued to pressure necessary to ensure

that north korea pays a price for its program. just simply talking for the sake of talk doesn't necessarily, doesn't necessarily slow the program. so people are inclined to look at the status of the dialogue and say, in the absence of dialogue the program is growing, and they make a false also relationship there that i just find it hard to accept. we want to of dialogue that leads to concrete denuclearization steps. we have dialogue that, was the first and second base action statements of 2007, led to a disablement of the five-megawatt reactor, led to the reprocessing facility, led to the collapse of the cooling tower. we were on a path toward a reduced, lease quantitative, in terms of plutonium inventory,

path, yet north korea broke out of it and now has taken steps to restart its plutonium program and, of course, its uranium enrichment for him continues to go on. i appreciate the frustration. that's why we do see a sense of urgency. that's what we do continue with a relatively robust pace of denuclearization diplomacy, particularly with our prc collects, with our allies in seoul and tokyo, and with russia as well. >> be have something on your mind? come to the microphone, please. >> thank you very much for your excellent presentation. i was glad to learn that you studied very much the history of the conflict and are well aware of the fact that the current

situation is the result of many loose ends. and as you put it, our policy now is sharpening. dprk's choices, but i think we already know that they will pick a nuclear over economic improvement, because we've seen that they're willing to let millions die of starvation before letting up on their regime. so i, i want to ask whether this avenue of pressure could be considered. it would probably have to come from the ngo community as opposed to a state, but to press for the indictment of kim

jong-un by the international criminal court, based on the jurisdiction that the republic of korea encompasses the full korean peninsula as it states in its constitution. and, of course, that is one of the examples of the loose ends from the unresolved conflict. and i can't imagine any other nonkinetic tool of pressure to have greater effect on kim jong-un than the prospect of criminal prosecution based on the notion that dprk shouldn't even exist. what you think about that as something to try to bring something new in terms of

pressure, and to shake up the stakes more? because, frankly, what is he going to do in response to that? there's not much he can do, but he will learn very quickly that he's not getting anywhere with the game he's been playing, and his predecessors have been playing. >> interesting question. let me start by saying, of course, that sometimes in the course of our focus on the denuclearization issue, and this is somewhat, because we do have two special come with a special envoy, bob king who is dedicated to human rights issue, and a special representative, with glenn davies look at the larger, broader north korea policy. at times, you know, people forget as we talk about uranium

enrichment, plutonium and warheads and missiles, proliferation, of the plight of the people of north korea. let me say first of all, at his absolute not the case in the white house as a look at this issue oldest particularly. we continue to be concerned about the human rights situation in the dprk. we continue to want to work to bring the north korean people the same peace and prosperity and freedom and respect for human dignity that their brothers and sisters in the south enjoy. there is a sense, again when you look at the broader arc of history, that the forces, the trends of history are inevitable. the president spoke to this in his speech at the university of foreign studies during his state visit. the vice president touched on this in his own speech during his december visit on our support in particular for

president park's unification strategy, which themselves are driven by desire that the north korean people would one day be free of the situation that they are in right now. we will continue to create an environment, we believe we put on the table and a diplomatic approach an alternative path for the leadership of pyongyang to choose. i don't want to prejudge the leadership. is a relatively new leadership. there are paths before us, and the conditions we can create to lead them down that proper path, and i think that's what we continue to need to do. i encourage, in particular, ngos have an interest in north korea human rights issue to keep that front and center. i believe that as in the case we

saw with, you know, authoritarian regimes of the past voices from the outside matter. they are encouraging to the people. perhaps that's even more important than whether they actually caused a leader to change his attitude when he or she wakes up in the morning, but i think this is the right thing to do. we will continue to put the focus that we have on the human rights issue continuing going forward. >> please, come on up. >> well, i'm very new in this field. i am retired, studied ancient history. [inaudible] spent but no ancient history are

metaphors. >> did you see anything, the end of the first kim and the end of second cam took over power from his? what i meant, mr. kim senior, he thought there was no way we can fight anymore. son doesn't like it. kill him. same thing happens over and over again, and realized it doesn't work. got to do something. he stood up, economics. now, same track. so question to you, look at that issue. second, in future policy direction, when you see the enemy, you know him well, you can beat him.

we cannot involve international policy too much. [inaudible] they have power or control over what happened without any legal obligation. so let them set up policy, whole korean peninsula, that america overseas, they stay behind on their guideline. china's government also now, sal has taken more action, we cannot do anything. so those two questions. >> well, this may bring me close to the borderline i said i

wouldn't cross moving from policymakers to analyst, but that's an interesting question. i think the challenge with understanding north korea's motivations in 1994 as to why we moved into a period of just up to the death of kim il-sung, a period when north korea put its nuclear program under wraps, as it were, it froze its plutonium production until the reprocessing campaign of 2003, and engaged in a diplomatic effort to improve relations with the united states. there's a variety of opinions on that who believe it was a sincere effort to try to explore a host cold war world in which they were fundamentally better at u.s.-dprk relations. there are people who say that north korea said they felt that it then existed nuclear deterrent, as it were, wasn't as

efficient to protect it from the forces of history that appeared to be unfolding and it thought that diplomatic rapprochement with the united states was the best way to guard against that. i think it's all very speculative, but you know, the challenge that we face is the regimes inherited perceptions of the world in which it lives, its worldview, as i call it. and we have tried many things in the six-party talks process in terms of discussions on security assurance. in fact, the whole six-party talks process provides a very hospitable, diplomatic environment. the dprk were concerned about hostile forces from without threatening the regimes -- the

regimes existence. it is in a diplomatic environment. there were six-party talks that should be very reassuring that the security it has, it desires could certainly be strengthened by pursuing the path of denuclearization. but it's inherently, the regime lacks confidence in that and we need to continue to try our efforts to remind the regime that there is an alternative path, that the true security it seeks is not in nuclear weapons. and that is going to be a process that if there is a transformation in north korea, as under the new leadership, backed by our shopping choices approach, we can continue to send that message, can continue to provide that alternative path, can continue to demonstrate our willingness as

president obama said, to reach out his hand to those who will unclench their fists. and i think to your second question, i think the transformational potential that lies in rok policy towards north korea is eminently understood by president park. it has been at the heart of her trust process, trustpolitik policy, and it's also the driver for her more recent emphasis on unification, of preparing the korean people to move down the path that all 70 million korean people have as their aspiration. and i think that there has been some legitimate questions that you have raised. i don't think it's worth exploring at this time, considering the sensitivities of some of the details, but what is

clear is that as pyongyang looks at its surrounding environment, it should see a number of countries that are willing, ready to help it pursue a different path when it makes its strategic choices, that we are calling it to make. ..

that we can wait however long it takes whether it is years or months or decades for north korea to show the credible steps and actions? the first question is that the assessment we have needed that has formulated into this policy calculation? and the second question is the rok, part of their current policy is one principle is to try to induce the north to change its behavior actions or change in general, and i imagine that this view or this principle is pretty much shared with the other parties based on looking at the different confrontations and coordination happening among the five parties. other than the sanctions tool,

how else can we try to induce a behavioral or action change from the north without having direct contact with them however way you want to define the contact. >> those are two great questions. you know, in the pursuit of the policy principles that i discussed, i would probably urge people not to characterize or to assume that we see time is on our side. in fact we see this issue as necessitating a sense of urgency and we have articulated that with our fellow six party talks and partners and it's not simply to return to the talks for the sake of talks that have no credible likelihood of leading to concrete actions but a sense of urgency in making the choice is clear to north korea and at this point in particular,

following the events, the internal events in north korea as a new leadership maps out its future path that were consistent and principled choices that we provide, it is a principled approach and it is a sustained approach and it's one that isn't one of strategic patients that would never use the term and we've never said time is on our side. just the opposite is true. but with our other partners in the international community and the united nations security council resolutions we can bring north korea to the conclusion that it has a better future to the nuclearization and that is the path we continue to believe is best not to reinforce the past behavior up to induce the type of behavioral change you mentioned is the policy goals in

the republic of korea. i do bb that beyond the sanctions and the kind of specific actions we can put in place, the stated policy that is going to continue to pursue its nuclear weapons despite its obligations, despite the international community consensus that they should denuclearize it should continue down this path while pursuing economic construction recovering at economy. we have a time when the international community needs to be decisive and resolute in sending a strong message that it simply is not possible. it simply is not possible and of course that can range from specific actions and measures taken to things that are not

done. the tourists that have seen if you have done the treasurer advisor and look at the number of countries that have strengthened their travel advisories in light of the events in the cases that have unfolded with others it sends a signal to the world north korea is not a safe place to travel to. an economic development strategy that is based upon tourism brings into question enticing the foreign investment as north korea moves through its publication cycles, its missile launches and nuclear tests. not the conducive environment that one would think what he needed in order to bring in

international investments. this is the type of i think consensus that is built internationally because it need not be an in your face denuclearized or else for it. when they hear a unanimous voice which is hearing the leadership should be more inclined towards type of behavior and the type of positions that our policies are designed to elicit. ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. let's get another round of applause. [applause] this is a small libert liberty l from the philadelphia as a token. >> thank you very much.

[inaudible conversations] athlon:45 eastern we will be live on c-span2 with a discussion on the u.s. and europe trade

the title is civil-rights black power and the march, and it is a civil rights march that begins in memphis at the beginning of june, 1966 and later in jackson and you can make an argument that the civil rights movement in many ways transforms and approaches the crossroads. the call for black power. stokely carmichael unveiled that slogan if you will and immediately it generates controversy and immediately generates a great swelling of enthusiasm among many black people and in a lot of ways it a new direction in black politics.

now, those changes might have happened over the course of time anyway but what they did is stereotyped the shift because it brought together the civil rights leaders and people white and black from all across the country and put them into this laboratory of black politics as it moved from mississippi and creativity is dramatic moments that highlighted the divisions in some of the key tensions but also some of the key strengths.

for murky pa administrator carol browner leads the climate change discussion of a senior fellow for american progress in talks with the chair of the white house council on economic and environmental quality nancy sutley who spoke on her last day of the job. this is about an hour. >> good morning. welcome. i am carol browner, a distinguished senior fellow, i never know if it is distinguished senior or senior distinguished, here at the american center for progress and also a board member and i want to thank you all for joining us here today. i am very, very pleased to be joined by a friend and former colleague not once but twice chair of the council on environmental quality, nancy sutley. this is her last day in office and she has been very kind to

give up her time because i know from experience checking out of the white house is not simple. they remove every ounce of identification they share with you and you wonder who you are by the end of it. but she is going to work on staying awake. what we are going to do is have a little bit of a conversation and then we will open it up. there are notecards are available to folks, so christine and others will be wandering around. please if you have any questions, share those in writing and we will be happy to take them. as i mentioned a little bit on the path i actually first met nancy 15 years ago, 2 20? when she joined at the environmental protection agency i was serving as the administrator and came to work in my office actually on the clean air issues.

independent power producers. it was an important time for the issues, the clean a or act had been obviously reauthorized in 1990. it was 1993 and we were starting to go through all of the tools available to us to set the error quality pollution standards in terms of the first particle standard and then the work we did to actually meet those standards. so for example over and the diesel etc. and nancy was the person i looked to half a dozen or more times a day. obviously mary nichols is running the program and bob followed her but nancy was the person right in my office and she was always there to help me understand these very technical details that inevitably informed

something like an air pollution standard. she went back to california where she had a distinguished career and then president obama convinced her to return to washington to run the council on environmental quality where again i got to work with her from my position in the white house. so what are you the most proud of? >> first let me say thank you and it's great to be here and to have this as my last official event to help me start my environmental career. the thing i am the most proud of is we have made real progress in dealing with some of the most long-standing and challenging environmental problems we face as a country and that as we face as a planet.

as you know from day number one we started to attack the problem of climate change. the president and one of his first official acts directed the epa and the department of transportation to set th fuel economy standards, the green house gas standards into the distance a car goes on a gallon of gas that makes a tremendous dent in the greenhouse gas emissions. we have made steady progress since then in the president's second inaugural address and his call to action on climate change last june and we really set the roadmap for the way that we will comprehensively deal with climate change including the epa

standards on power plants that get at the largest remaining source of the greenhouse gas emissions. >> let's talk about the epa and their work on power plants. i think that the core stuff is remarkable and noteworthy and you have held an important role in that. trucks are happening now. obviously new and existing power plants are important in terms of reducing the gas emissions and the president has laid out a schedule. is the administration going to make it? >> this is a big undertaking and it really kicked off by something that the epa did early in the administration which is to make the endangerment findings under the clean air act that carbon pollution and welfare of the united states and

so this sets in motion activities that the epa has to undertake and it's a big deal starting out with standards with new power plants to make sure that fossil fire power plants are as clean as they can be and they are working very hard and as he said he laid out a schedule and the epa is working very hard and have done a lot of outreach to work very closely with the states. so they are making great progress and i have every confidence that they will put in place standards that deliver on the promise the president made. >> you have experienced as well. maybe you can help people understand that one's the epa sets the standards how this goes back to the states and i know that you have been a part of the

public outreach since we talk about what you are hearing in both the business and environmentalists. >> i think that what happens is that the epa sets these new performance standards that are the basic sort of technology standards and defend the states have to make them part of -- >> they write a plan. >> it becomes part of the regulatory plan. and i think what the eta is hearing as we go around the country talking to people is the utilities that this largely affects understand that this is coming and that they are -- they can offer thoughts about how to make this fit their situation and how they can achieve the environmental goals and achieve the continued reliable electric power that we have in this country and do it in a way that

fits with those utilities into those states need. so that dialogue with the utilities into the states is incredibly important, and i think that the epa is looking for how do we incorporate sort of how do you think about how utilities are run and how we encourage energy efficiency as a way of meeting the carbon reduction needs. so it's an important discussion and they are making very good progress. there is to be a lot of exciting stuff coming out of the epa and this is something the public should be aware of and we will have plenty of opportunities to weigh in on that this is a major undertaking and a very confidence that the epa will do a great job.

>> one of the things i saw you do during your tenure, demonstrated incredible leadership and commitment, environmental commitment on the individual agency. i always forget the name. >> the ability plan. >> these are great about how much the federal government, not much the private sector but the agency on the agency basis they could actually reduce their energy. again it never got i think the attention that it deserved but it is quite significant. >> i think that is an area where the american people should feel good about their government is doing a lot to reduce its environmental footprint. i think people don't realize that the federal government is the single largest energy consumer in the economy. >> which agency? >> that would be the department of defense. it may be the single largest energy user in the world.

world. world. it jusadjust on their own or cey in the u.s. and the federal government has half a million buildings it owns or leases and half a million vehicles in the fleet. almost 2 million civilian employees not counting the men and women in uniform so there's a lot that the federal government can do. there's a lot in sort of mock just in the research development and climate, but actually in being a big owning buildings and owning the vehicles and so started back in the clinton administration there were all of these goals for energy efficiency and environmental goals, but we did two things different and new in 2009 planet comes to sustainability and the federal government ended the first was to require energies to

do the sustainability plan to look at their operations and their missions and find the ways to make those their operations and facilities and missions more sustainable. we got very good and very creative plans back. one of my favorites was the national archives and that turned out to be a big energy user. they have to store the records of the united states in the climate controls for the climate controlled conditions and their engineers have rolled up their sleeves literally with a kind and of casting and they look at their operations and then made some decisions that dramatically reduced --

>> [inaudible] >> not exactly but they looked at their facilities and their operations and their mission and found ways to meet their mission needs in a more sustainable way. and so that process continues every year and agencies have to update them and they get graded by the office of management and budget which they really love. >> a letter grade. >> they get a red, yellow or green and they don't like getting red. they really don't like red and they've done well in the meetings and doing the sustainability plan. but the second thing that we did which was different was actually set the greenhouse gas reduction goals for the government as a whole and we built it from the ground up so we asked if the agency to establish and set up and look at their operations and come up with a greenhouse gas

reduction goals. what happened is kind of interesting because we got some very aggressive targets from the agencies you wouldn't expect and less aggressive from agencies that expect to do more. they all wanted to revise them upwards so we ended up setting up the government to reduce the greenhouse gases by 28% by 2020, and i'm happy to report we are well on track. we are at 15% now. so we are very excited about that and i think the other thing in if we think about the way the president claimed the plan is to prepare the u.s. for the impact of climate change we cannot avoid and lead internationally. we also started agencies looking at how their missions and

facilities would be affected by climate change and to start now to think about how to reduce the risks and vulnerabilities of their facilities into their operations and missions in light of the changing climate. >> one of the issues i know you've spent time on in your career and bought first in california but the issue of water and today the president is traveling to where you will soon be returning, california to focus on the drop but maybe you can talk about what he's announcing today and some of the climate resiliency efforts to that of the administration has underway. >> as you probably know california is experiencing really a historic drought of rainfall since they started

keeping records well below the levels in the previous drought. >> california council on the rain and then on the ice melt. >> it's at its lowest level ever recorded, and the next was a 1977 and there were about 15 million fewer people in california, so the rainfall has been significantly below even that levels of it is a challenge for california for the families, for the agricultural breadbask breadbasket. >> is it true that 50% -- what u.s. fruits and vegetables -- >> it is huge. it is a very significant

challenge. everyone is reluctant to tie any specific events to climate change but these are the kind of things the climate models have been predicting that you would have warmer and drier winters and it would be for evaporation that the winds that push the storms into california have been slowing to the climate models predicted for less of the waster hitting in the coming down as precipitation. so, this is an issue that is very closely tied to the climate change and there will need to be climate resilient. i think that the president will be in fresno this afternoon and you will hear him leaning heavily into this issue about this continued demonstration on the need to focus on resiliency and the vulnerabilities in the light of the changing climate.

so we will look at some budget announcements and things that will be coming out in the 15 budget when it comes down in a few weeks. the other interesting thing about the california water as the government has a very significant role because it operates in half of the system through the reservoirs. it's still pretty relevant. so it's very important that the federal government works closely with the state to ensure that it gets to people -- >> that we have republicans in congress suggesting that we should forego all of our environmental concerns. i think a bill was introduced. >> there have been a couple of bills, the house passed bill

sponsored by some of the central house members and it focuses on the wrong thing if simply hasn't blamed so somehow this is a man-made drought because the endangered species act is restricted. >> it's restricting water from being moved but that's just not the issue. you will hear the president focusing on things that we can do to follow the actual. >> we talked about climate change, and i think if you look at all of the work that you were able to do in the federal agency and the department of energy on energy efficiency and other agencies it seems like the u.s. and the president's commitment

in copenhagen there's a 17% reduction you can see that that's going to happen. can you talk a little bit about what is the process inside the administration because now we are getting ready to go to the next round of meetings in paris in 2015. i know there is no answer yet but i think people might find it interesting to know what the process will be to drive or a ride at a u.s. position in those meetings. ..

>> it has been addressing its commitments to copenhagen and subsequent with the meeting. that gives us a baseline of a snapshot of where we are and what activities we have undertaken and what the impacts have been. so i think that that shows the we have made a lot of progress with the permissions and everything has been going down. and we know that the climate action plan will deliver on additional greenhouse gas reductions through the epa standards and through energy-efficient efficiency appliance standards and other opportunities to reduce carbon

pollution. of course, those rules -- so the process under way right now that will culminate in paris in 2015 is how we that the post 2020 international target. so we start with what we are doing now so we have a sense of where we are and how that works. >> these are the building blocks. >> yes, these are the building blocks that we will continue to see in the post 2020. mark. and even the current standards go through 2025. and we have decades to come. and the standards would be the same. we start with that baseline and then we go from there. so there is the secretary general who has talked about a leaders level meeting when the

general assembly happens in september. that is sort of a preview of discussion on the road to paris. and i think that there is a force under way within the administration to see where we are in to see where we need to be. >> so when you and i were back at the eta in the old days, we never once thought about natural gas being a major electric power fuel. and it's changing everything. and i think that there are issues that ultimately the federal government is trying to grapple with and do you see the shale gas -- for a better word, revolution? it's with us for a long time and

do you think the this is a tough one, but states are up to this task of making sure that the extraction is done as safely as possible remarks do not that is a good question. i think that the revolution in natural gas and the boom in natural gas will certainly be good for our economy. it's very much provided a part of the transition to a cleaner energy economy and the we think that we had the seven or eight years ago. when i was working in the city of los angeles, we own the utility and we spent a lot of time worrying about the high natural gas prices and the availability of natural gas and

what would that do to the system overall. notice the complete opposite and so we are doing a better path in the transition to a cleaner energy economy. as the president said many times and this natural gas boom has been very good for our economy, but it has to be done in a responsible manner. so i think that that is frankly it work that is still in progress and it's something that the federal government can do. whether it is researching what the epa is doing more they are working on a congressionally mandated study of impacts on water and technology research and this includes what the

department of energy is doing. including tracking on public lands and there is -- this is an area primarily at state for the jurisdiction and i think that the natural gas is being produced in states that have not traditionally had a big energy production sector. so they are kind of trying to learn a little bit as they go. and i think there are some basic things about the disclosure of chemicals in some of the techniques that make this and give them more integrity because that is -- that is sort of one of the basic steps that the state can put into place. and some are further along and

we are paying close attention to this. >> for the purposes of the audience, there is a time when it would've had jurisdiction we are reauthorizing this and then in the administration especially with the state regulators and epa and then there is a engineer in the country because there is a limit to how many there are.

and do you think that we have good information on what is really happening? i was in a meeting yesterday with some very thoughtful people -- i mean, seriously thoughtful people and we need to have quality information and make informed decisions about that. specifically extraction and also part of the system. >> i think that is an open question. there are questions about whether there is data with the information that we have, whether or not it is adequate. so in the climate action plan, the feds called upon a group of agencies to make some recommendations on what this

strategy would look like to deal with the greenhouse gas and part of that is really this question of do we know enough, do we have good data and can we design an effective strategy and unique the baseline. and so that is still an open question and being looked at. and so switching topics the way the white house works, it was true with democrats and republicans and clinton on obama. there is a series of meetings that start today, 7:30 a.m., senior advisers and not people who have responsibility for running an agency like this. and then it was a bigger group of people that would've been in those meetings. in my experience it was not uncommon for a thoughtful person

who is in one of these meetings and not necessarily informed on the environment to have this out 4:00 a.m. can you believe what this department in that department is up to? inevitably that was all up to you and let's get the facts and maybe you could share this. i think we did this unbelievably good job and we do this on more than one occasion really stepping up and not that the reporter got it wrong, but that's not quite what happened here. so there are a lot of things that they have on their plate. but the facts really did help inform the conversation. and what would happen is exactly what he said in an agency was

doing something for the first time that they've heard about it. we see everyone looking at their shoes around the room. and i think that one of my favorites is an issue that we are still doing what. and that is the swarm of asian carp moving up the mississippi with the concerns of the midwest in the great lakes and the former chief of staff. >> also in the way that they would get between the mississippi and the great lakes through what is called the chicago area waterway system. a former chief of staff, now mayor of a large city in illinois, i took a great

interest in how we were adjusting that. and this roomful of people. >> it would be like standing room. and it's kind of groggy, and it's morning. and it's not like many would know what he's talking about. but we have a number of interesting colloquies about asian carp. so i think for a while i was known as the asian carp lady. and when he left, austan goolsbee was chairman of the council of economic advisers and his party had a car phone and then presented this at the meeting. >> i think we have discussed the fact that that was contraband. [laughter] >> we don't know.

so the asian carp saga continues. >> i do -- i mean, i think that this is one of these inside washington situations where it is not usually seen but it's deeply something that you see in that you have done on a daily basis. and so what i really appreciate is that you are very steady about it and there is a total payout going on and you just held your ground and said, let's get the facts and have the right conversation with the right people. because the agency has big operations that are out there running. especially given the nature of the environmental challenges that we race. when you and i were at the epa, a lot of the activity around the

environment was squarely with the epa. and it still is. but these environmental challenges really cut across many agencies and the many things that the federal government does. so for example early on we saw this working at the epa when you were there. the department of housing and urban development together working with the community of sustainability within the community. how do you think about transportation in a more sustainable way and these agencies came together, the secretaries came together and said let's institutionalize a way of touche rising youth are

part of that. we are going to travel around the country and people are so excited about it. and really what they are excited about is they had all the agencies at the table with their communities with the support of these agencies and it is a tremendous success in something that will continue. but i think that it highlights the nature of environmental challenges that take care of this across the board. >> one of the things we were able to do together when i was at the white house as i think that it is partly derived from our experience of the epa all those years. and it's so great.

to put all of this with the secretary of interior and the epa in a room and say what sort out who has what authority and where are we going to bump into each other and be more coordinated and the interesting thing about it is when we started at we i think we had maybe five and then people started saying i want to do this and they are calling. and there's a lot in the government and that is one of the hallmarks of this administration and you deserve a lot of credit for seeing where those things are. >> the current plan is a great example of that where if you

look at this there is agencies that have a role there in addition to the very important role that the epa will play, including looking at the role that we play in mitigating the carbon pollution. and then maybe not as driven by the environmental issue but that they asked shaun donovan and the secretary to set up this task force. and very quickly we got to a very strong focus not just on recovery and rebuilding this for today, but really for tomorrow. and that puts the issue about

resiliency and vulnerability and climate change. in a very short focus. and we had agencies come together with kind of a neat little web-based tool about looking at the impact of sea level rise on the floodplain in new york and new jersey. so to take the fema flood map and give a very powerful visual tool to see what you look at, what the coastlines of new york and new jersey will like. and it helps to guide all of the agencies in this includes money

for rebuilding. and this includes block grant money that has assistance with communities after this. conditioning that on using these projections when we are rebuilding. and we have this drinking water plan in place that we know is going to be part of my home in miami. >> let me ask you about renewables. the president made some pretty important commitment on going through the portfolio. are you pleased with the progress on that in a then what happens to the politics of the past credit? and how you do that in the

industry dealing with that? >> renewables really count on getting a tax credit. one of the things we were able to do is turn it into a grant and there was no market to sell or monetize these tax credits. and so we were able to turn it into a grand so they could get that benefit for what they needed to make these part of the solar wind project that is financially viable. that has expired. i think it has expired. so if you look at this, i think it is a positive story, but it's hard to understand what comes next. >> attacks but has been very important and it provides a level of certainty about financing and cash flow and investments and as the president said, we subsidize our own gas production for 100 years. so why are we complaining about

the relatively short term and one or two years for the important technologies that will help us move to cleaner energy economy with the present solution. and so i think that, you know, we can't rely on tax credit alone. two things that the administration that i think has been very successful, one is on the technology side and the department of energy has been very creative about researching this with their dollars to push this towards the new technologies and to make a renewable technology get that going into the direction that we need to get it. so you might remember this initiative, the suns shot

initiative and the goal was to get this parity with other sources of energy. and it's actually working. so they think that that is definitely something. the point of this is to really push the technology and taking it way down. to that is one thing that the government could do and has done and as you mentioned, taking the model that the defense department used to drive technology and the doe setting up this market really to do that and i think that that has been a great success. the other side of the renewable

energy story is around encouraging development of her noble energy on public lands. and especially in the west where you have abundance of sunshine and thermal and wind's blowing in making a real push with the department of interior with much of the public land. making a real effort to lease the land for renewable energy also for conventional energy development and never before has that not really been open for business in the sense of her noble energy and i think that that will be accessible.

many renewable energy projects are permitted on land and they are flipping the switch on some of these projects just yesterday. and the department of interior has been doing a great deal offshore. and so that -- if the public lands are open for business, and there are the renewable resources, we should really take advantage of that. >> when the federal government this up, these omissions come up with those associated with those from the federal lands? >> yes, that's an interesting

question. all agencies in all federal action to evaluate this underneath it. and so for example if blm is leasing for cool development, they need to consider the greenhouse gas part of that. and there are questions about technical stuff. >> you guys have guidance on natural gas remapped or are you in the process of that? >> we have put out the guidance on how the agency should look at this. and so i think the agencies by and large are following this and i hope that my successor is pretty close to having some additional guidance.

but other than that, they tend to be very case specific with what you have to analyze and how. but they definitely do have to consider those. >> another issue where i thought you did incredibly good work and didn't get a lot of attention, i think we now have this rule out on the isolated wetlands issue in terms of the supreme court decision in interpreting data in a way that doesn't eliminate all of the protections in certain parts of the country. this is a pretty important type of environmental protection. >> you might want to explain more about that. >> yes. this is kind of a fundamental issue with the clean water act, which is it regulates and refers to it as waters of the united states. so what is that?

what is a water of the united states? the supreme court in the '90s weight in a couple of times. >> it's important to remember. >> yes. >> in the '90s and the early 2000 on trying to precisely define whether certain types of waters should be considered waters of the and the reason it is important is because the entire clean water act, it is part of it otherwise none of the clean water act applies to them. for this question about the isolated wetlands and other kinds of waters. >> so we need to help people understand one thing. the mississippi water is navigable. so then what happens, it are the tributaries. as you start to move further on the question becomes what is the

federal government have the ability to protect those waters because they are an integral part of this. and that is where this all gets interesting. there are isolated wetlands that don't look like they are connected when you visually observe them, but then we now know we have a lot of connections. >> the supreme court chose limited things and a couple of cases. prescribing a more limited approach. and i think the bush administration guide that we will go with a more restricted type of these court cases. so we had this very strange circumstance when i was in los angeles at the army war of engineers declaring that the los angeles river was no longer a

traditionally navigable area. the tributaries were not impacted by the federal government. >> that's right. >> and the epa referred to that reverse funding as well. this happened a few years ago. but i think that deliberately or not, these cases didn't actually clear things out but they made them more confusing. and so the epa working with the army corps of engineers because they share the jurisdiction with a number of things related to that. and at first we were hopeful that there was some activity in congress to try to more

precisely define this. >> that's right. >> and reinstate some of the traditional definitions and protection of the waters and we got as far as the senate and the public works committee and that was kind of the end of that. and they recently decided to better define that. so hopefully that will come so we can take a look at it and commented on it and put it in place with a sensible regulatory review that protects waters they need to be protected within the bounds of the supreme court finding. >> particularly if you look at what is happening. >> we have water intrusion into our fresh water supplies in the and the idea that we are not thinking about this is dumb.

.. >> and, you know, they were very focused on the health of the watershed. they were not thinking about, you know, the rivers that flooded last september or, you know, the wild, destructive wildfires in isolation. >> right. >> they were looking at this as this is our watershed.