mess with a new memoir, "worthy fights." and income experiments with the legacy and focus on his time as secretary of defense. his unwavering sense of morality and the leaf in the exhausting work of public service radiates off every page. as david ignatius writes in the washington post, panetta comes across this book is a man is never sure a man has never shirked a fight he thought was right. tonight he will be in conversation with mike allen of the chief white house correspondent from "politico" and the man behind "politico"'s playbook. mike is at "the new york times" famously petain, the man the white house wakes up to. is written for publications including time, "washington post" and "new york times." as bob woodward declared connie don't have to do anything else, just read mike allen. they will be in what promises to be a lively conversation, roughly 40 minutes after which we invite you to join in with questions. ladies and gentlemen, please

help me welcome leon panetta and mike allen. [applause] >> a thank you very much. appreciate it very much good will come to you in lifestream land and all of you who are here. somebody pointed out to me this is more expensive than hbo on demand, so we will try to make that worthwhile. mr. secretary, before we start here, do you want to say hello? [laughter] >> i would love to say hello to my rabbi, jeremy pasha was the chief of staff and his lovely wife, robyn. [applause] and jeremy's parents are here as well and i thank you for coming. we want to thank politics & prose and six van eyck for this amazing setting.

welcome to all of you in the balcony as well. we kick off, mr. secretary you've been off for a week now talking about were the fights. another week to go to head to california. earlier today did you get tougher questions from the readers at gw? [laughter] >> cosco was kind of tough. people were shopping big, shopping for big things they are. they want you to deliver the best product you can and i told them where the book. >> mr. secretary, as triggered in the introduction, he worked in city government and the federal government. than republican, democrat, you've been legislative assistant, special assistant, executive assistant, director of

the u.s. special ranks congressman, budget chair, budget her. so what is left on your bucket list? >> well, i am waiting for the pope's position to open a period [laughter] >> you know, i enjoyed being back home. as i said, i walnut ranch out there and it's nice to be home working is a different set of net, so i'm enjoying it. [laughter] >> almost all of your life experiences into a position are enviable. but you've done one think that i'm not sure everyone here would be jealous of. you've been roommates with senator schumer. [laughter] >> yeah, we were all kind of bachelors back here and our wives are back in the district

two became back to washington where all kind of living separately and george miller had a house up on the hill and george miller brewing friends, we go out to dinner and he finally said why don't we all kind of stay together? so we all moved into george miller's house cinemas a congressman, myself, our landlord come at chuck schumer and a guy named marty russo from illinois. chuck schumer and i were on the bottom floor and he slept on the couch and i had a bad that i moved into one corner of the room downstairs. this was truly animal house. this is really animal house. chuck was the kind of person -- chuck would munch on anything. my son ever want to know why zero what combat can stay with me. we didn't have any serial.

most of the time we ate out. so he would buy cereal for himself and schumer before he would go to bed would eat the cereal. my son would always wake up and say what happened to my serial? i said i'm sorry, schumer took care of that. it's an early washington lesson. you've lived the most amazing life and for those of us here in washington, so many aspects of it to learn from and feast on them where the fights. you go back to the beginning, talk about when you're running for congress, which was neither near the beginning for you. you're talking about running for congress and tip o'neill, the leader speaker came out to campaign for you and it didn't go so well. >> well, tape came out and it was wonderful to have him. big irishman from boston came out and we did a fundraiser with democrats and tip went up there

and he said, you know, i want you to do everything possible to work for leo panetta. and he said it several times. unfortunately, most of the cloud took it in stride because he had a few scratches and he was in good shape. everybody enjoyed the evening. but from then on, when i did get elected and i went to congress, there is another congressman is name was the norm than i do. he was japanese-american. he would constantly wind up calling the norm and called nevada leon. the real problem was the carter white house screwed it up as well. when the italian prime minister came to town, they invited the

norm than that a to the white house. and the japanese prime minister came to town, they invited me. finally, norm and finally, norm and i put a baseball team together and said we played under the sign of the racing pizza. bob back one thing that we see in this book, mr. secretary, is appealing and dealing with congress. is he hoping one passage where the clintons crime bill. we saw it in speaker wrote me a a very effective speaker. what is it that he did in the u.k. band that is now missing? >> they rolled up their sleeves and wanted to get it done. i believe the best way to say it. tip o'neill who was political, the democrat from boston, all politics is local, but typepad a

heart that was unmatched in terms of wanting to do the right thing for the country. and so, whether it was ronald reagan or carter or whoever was president, tip was really devoted to trying to help not only the president, but the country. and so even though it might be somebody from the opposite party, he felt it was important to move legislation, to move proposals forward. i will never forget when reagan was writing them that brought the budget to the floor. i was on the budget committee at the time. i brought the project to the floor and we lost the budget vote, which is devastating to a majority party to have it be

lost. a lot of southern democrats supported the habit. tip didn't miss a beat. last day, the republican budget came out. it was passed. he didn't stop it. he didn't shut down the congress. he basically said this plate both by majority rule and a day. he lost the vote. but he said we are going to move on and we did. what was refreshing about him was that i think he really respected the fact that the house as an institution has to have the opportunity to vote on issues. they also believed coming here attacked about now, which is regular order. a regular order means is the way the legislative process is to work at the president sends up a

proposal. it goes to a committee, goes to a subcommittee. the subcommittee holds hearings. the subcommittee marks up, goes the full committee, the full committee marks up, adopts a bill, goes to the rules committee and then it goes to the floor where amendments can be offered on the floor. that process allows members to be a part of the process, which is missing today. if numbers can be part of the process, if they can be engaged, then they own a little piece about bill and as a result of that, they will help move it through. that's why a lot of the legislation in my time as bipartisan. >> it is also something else missing now is that sort of attack working congress. you had said there was a grand budget art and to be had between in the president. i did not have been?

>> first and foremost i are when the whole recommendation came out and don't forget this is a commission the president appointed, the president when they reported their report and a vice bipartisan, there were some members that didn't support it, but it had a bipartisan vote supporting simpson/bowles. the president asked if he should supported i said you should geishas support this, mr. president. it is your permission. they've been working on it. it is bipartisan. you may not like the pieces, but the fact they came together is important. i said look, if you support this, the congress is going to have a hard time at the proposal, but you will be in the right place. well, for whatever reason we didn't support it. and so we go through the budget

negotiations and there is this kind of back and forth. joe biden is claiming the charge to try to develop an approach. i think there is a moment bear where if everybody kind of stood by, you know, what they thought they had agreed to, that we could have had a budget proposal. there is some last-minute waiver and i don't know whether was the president or preferred a little bit, derogating he probably. boehner is getting heat for the republicans. the president was getting heat from the democrats. at that point when there was some wavering, that i think spell trouble. i note that you hear an earful as well, democrats as well as republicans feel neglected by this president. why is it that he's never managed that relationship with democrats of their?

>> i think that, you know, part of the process in this town has to be the engagement with people who are in political positions of palmetto, you may not like. let's face it, governing is tough. you have to do with people you may not like. 435 members of congress, 100 members of the senate from different parts of the country. some are smart, some are not smart, some are honest, some are dishonest, somewhat to do the right things, some don't want to do the right things. it's a real mixture. it's a cross-section of america represented up there. a lot of people, particularly today there is more in terms of people that are very tough to deal with. and yet the challenged legislation is to engage people.

>> why doesn't the president do that quite >> i think the president believes that part of it is that he presents an issue and the logic of an issue when people should embrace it. you know, the difference between bill clinton and barack obama, both who were extremely bright, both are capable, both are quick studies when he briefed them in terms of understanding the issues. they asked great questions. and deep down, both want to do the right thing for the country. make the mistake about it. they want to do the right thing for the country. the difference is bill clinton was the political engagement, loves the process of rolling up your sleeves, dealing with individuals. he loved politics. he loved dealing with members. he knew every member's district. members would come in and he would say you are running the wrong campaign.

you are running on the wrong issues. let me tell you what you want to run on. and he would tell them the issues to run on. so he was engaged in the process that makes a difference. is that obama is not into that kind of personal political engagement. he wants to work with people. but to get it done, it's like everything else. it is a personal process of basically wooing people, listening to them, understanding what the needs are, understanding how you can convince them what is in their interest to do the right thing. it is that entire process that ultimately results in getting things done. that is where the president has to engage in terms of dealing with the issues that now confront them. >> one of the many personal

relationships you explore is your relationships with ehud barak, prime minister of israel. they're seriously a lot of crust there. tell us about that appeared in ikea number of friends going back to the clip administration. when i issue the stuff i had the opportunity to work with david brock. we developed a strong friendship . he has a really remarkable background in terms of the history of his family in the rc status with the history of my family and i told him not, so we both kind of shared, you know, just one family histories. he plays the piano, i play the piano. >> who better? >> i'm sure he is better than im. but we both enjoy classical piano. he is someone who i found you could really talk with in terms

of what is in the interest of israel, what is in the interest of the united states and how can we work together to try to serve the interest of both? as defense minister when i was secretary of defense, we had some tough issues to deal with because at one point, netanyahu had indicated israel was prepared to go ahead and strike out or run because they were very concerned that iran was developing this enriched fuel that they could speak to the development of a nuclear weapon. and so, their feeling was this represented a threat to the state of israel and they had the obligation. this is how they viewed things. they have the obligation to protect their country and that is what they were going to do. i remember the president was worried about that. we would suddenly have a war break out in the middle east.

i said look, we share the same goal. we do not want iran to have a nuclear weapon. if you attack them, you would give them a black eye. they are going to come back. he will have destroyed the international coalition that has developed all the sanctions and put pressure on iran. besides that, they will then come back with a vengeance in terms of developing a nuclear weapon whereas if we do this together, the united states has an even greater capability to make sure that we really do damage their ability to develop enriched fuel. you know, we talked it through and ultimately they thought we didn't have a better capability to frankly do it if we had to strike on the combination of him talking with matt yahoo! and others convinced them that they were willing to hold off until we could see what happens with iran and ultimately the

negotiations. so i was a strenuous moment for me, but the joy i had was working with him. we also worked together on providing military aid to israel. one of the weapons we provided to them was a weapon that involves these missiles that can strike the missiles coming out across recently. he was very effective at bringing down those missiles, almost 90% in terms of effect goodness. both of us who are responsible for helping to put the weapon into place. >> in the introduction we just heard, there is a quote from a very favorable review of the outlook section on the cover by david at me she is. the headline of the review is why didn't penknife speak up

sooner? would have been better to speak out at the time and perhaps even resign on principle? >> frankly, i was always the one who believed in speaking up and letting the president of my views. i never hesitated that way and it done on throughout my life. i always thought it was important. i did with bill clinton and i did it with barack obama, which is to tell them what you need. if they do the right thing, tell them if you think they do the wrong thing. they may not like you. they may not like your views, but on the other hand they showed. the president of the united states should not have a bunch of yes people around. >> does this president have that? >> at the time i was there with the national security council, no, there were a lot of people. >> what about now? secretary gates and clinton and others pokémon. i don't know now. i honestly don't. there are some good people there

obviously. >> do you worry there aren't enough with this? >> i worry that you have got to have individuals on the staff of the national security council that are willing to challenge what is being presented in tell the president about their concerns about certain paths that may be taken. that is extremely important. i can't tell you how true this is. i is. i have seen it as chief of staff to bill clinton and i have seen it in the white house under this president and i'm sure it's true under other presidents. people get in the room of the president of the united states mayor immediately intimidated and they don't want to say something to the president that might offend them. as a matter of fact, one of the things i've often said in a

national security council is sometimes everyone's trying to read the press. where is he going and they all try and mine. that is really important for the president of the united states to be exposed to a lot of different views. the president ultimately makes the decision, but to be exposed to a number of views that can present to him, you know, what are the consequences of different decisions than what the impact of the country? to go your question, i would state my position and present it and sometimes the president would agree, sometimes not. i do have to say in the four years i was there, i think the president archly agree with the operations were involved in, agreed to forward doing with the department of defense. >> that's not much of an endorsement. you are secretive the operations. >> embraces operations, the

sound there was a discussion as to just exactly how he would do it. you know, we might do some revision as a result of god. but he strongly supported the operations were involved with. i think he was right in doing that. certainly supported the operation against bin laden, which is very risky and i gave him tremendous credit for making the right decision. >> mr. secretary, the line is cut in the most airplay is too often in my view the president relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of the leader. you are now the second in a row whose memoir questioned this facility is. as commander-in-chief. >> look, there's nothing wrong to be approaching a law professor and the issues you have to confront this president. i don't mind president to use the law professors kind of approach to analyze issues.

but in the end, they need to have the heart of a warrior. they need to take on the battle and get it done. that is the challenge and most famous president do it, but i would like to see them do it more. bye-bye to see them engage in the battles that have to be five in order to get legislation passed on the hill. i would like to see them engage in the effort to try to do what needs to be done, to get a budget deal past, to get infrastructure funding done, to get trade legislation passed, to do an energy bill for this country. these are all important issues and i know that congress is resisting and they are tough and there are people there that basically want to tear down the government and not make it work. you can't just sit back and say i guess we can't get it done. you cannot say that. you've got to continue to push.

you got to continue look for openings at work with those people who will work with you. it demands constant, constant pressure to be able to make it work. that is the nature of being president of the united states is that you have to constantly be in the range fighting for the country. >> have you heard from the president said the book came out? [applause] >> i have not. we sent have a copy of the book. actually we sent it a couple months ago. i never heard of anything in terms of commenting on the book. >> have you take that? >> assume they probably have not read the book. >> what you think the next encounter with the light?

>> you know, i really have been around almost 50 years and i've engaged presidents and i've engaged members of congress and you know, sometimes you challenge people. sometimes you fight people in the process. but in the end, you roll up your sleeves and you say that is all part of what our democracy is all about. sometimes we agree. sometimes we disagree. and i respect those that i work with ms president i want them to succeed in every way. i respect the office of the presidency and you know, i certainly will continue to respect him in respect him and he offers no matter where i am. >> the same cover of sunday's "washington post" outlook had a second piece by aaron miller with the headline disappointed

in chief. why the president failed to meet so many people's expectations. >> well, look, i think that the president has certainly in the first term, i think he did take on the issue of the economy and was able to turn the economy around. i think that is to his credit. he's up on the issue of health care and was to put the affordable care in place. that is to his credit. i think he made the decision on bin laden which was a tough decision. i think that is to his credit. i think that for the first four years, this president was a very strong president when it came to being able to push the issues that he wanted and being able to grow the leadership on foreign policy issues that he needed to provide. i think that in the process of doing that, there are these

celebrations. part of the process in the white house and i remember bob gates being concerned about it. he wrote about in the book, which was when you are in the national old and your secretary of defense, you feel like you want to be able to have the president here what you have to say. i think there was a sense that the staff in the white house sometime got to the president or his entry to that the president in a certain direction and one of the defense department to go along with that position. i think that is what offended bob gates because he is somebody who believes in the process of policymaking. >> de jure similar experience quite >> yes, some of the same experiences in dealing with the staff and for that matter and mr. secretary did as well. so that is frustrating. >> lipstick on this for a second.

what did you experience the disappointed or frustrated you in regard to staff quite >> it is the process of having your policy people develop a strategy, develop the elements of that strategy as to what you think should be presented. as you are about to present it, having white house staff basically say no, no, don't do that. do this or do something else to try to effect exactly what you are presenting. ..

bill clinton wasn't disciplined about barack obama is very disciplined in the way that he behaves so it is a very different character. for me i know bob gates reflected frustration in that process but i have to tell you for me i understand that process having been through it and certainly having been in politics i understand that kind of process that goes on. in the end i think even though we have to fight our way to it that in the end the president was agree with the positions we recommended. we said that in the book as well. scenic it doesn't sound like a very pleasant place.

>> you don't want to go to the white house if you're looking for plus and. don't go to the white house. the white house is the place where you have to engage if you want to get it done and get in the process. i like the process engaging with people even though they may not agree with you the challenge of talking and debating with was important. let me give you an example. we captured a number of russian spies and we had to proceed to arrest them because we were concerned one of them might go

back to russia. so they placed them here a long time ago they develop their community relations and become part of the community. we were aware of what they were doing. we were going to proceed. they said maybe we shouldn't arrest them because it might upset our relations with russia. i said excuse me we have russian spies. i want you to envision the "washington post" headlined.

even though there was a debate i could see the lights go on in their eyes and the result was they said okay we should do this and we did. as to make the take away is when the secretary says excuse me. no when you are shopping at costco base of the strategy in the islamic state is succeeding and the full sentences were in the early days of the execution of the strategy that the early evidence indicates this strategy is succeeding is that correct? who >> i think that the right pieces are in place. i think it's being tested as

though. >> i think the jury is still out as to whether or not ultimately we are going to be on the right path dealing with isis. we have our troops trying to help and we will be arming the rebels and we have a coalition but isis is well trained and jesus is well trained and funded entity or individuals who are well armed and they have combat command of us knows that knows how to make this move on the ground. they are moving in and bar province. they are hitting different fronts. i think we are the ones that are going to have to be able to adapt to their strategy and be able to confront them. we are in the process of doing

that and i have the full confidence we will be able to do that but it is going to take time and we may suffer some losses. as his panic when you said that the jury is out, what worries you about the path quite some? who >> you need sources on the ground that can tell you what is happening into taking place so that you know what the targets are the have to be struck, you know what the dynamic is in terms of the ground forces that are moving into trying to make a difference. in the iraq i think it is pretty clear that we can develop forces to be able to go in and take the land that was lost. the key is whether we can get the sunnis to be part of that effort. we can get them to be part of the national guard effort than i

feel very confident we are going to be alternatives that in the right direction. cvs is a different ballgame. it's chaotic and we don't know what's going on in the ground and the key is can we develop the resources we need to get that done. understand and counter terrorism that we have been involved in for a long time now the key to counter terrorism as having counterterrorism is having the ability to identify those targets and the leadership of what the targets should be to develop those sources in pakistan took us three years. to develop those took one year so it's going to take time to develop sources of information that we need to be able to conduct the operations i think that would be effective to stop the disrupting. >> on the state of the union of senator mccain said they are

winning and we are not. >> i think that is going pretty far for senator mccain to say that that's the case because they obviously have moved forward. they've gained territory. but these airstrikes have been effective at stopping the momentum at inhibiting the ability to move as fast as they wanted to move so we have been effective at stopping the momentum. the question is can we continue to do that and continue that pace and continue to hit the targets so that we are effective in using the airstrikes. but i do think that we have come a long way in this war against isis. the challenge is can we move against them in a way that cannot only disrupt then that

defeats them. >> you mentioned you have a great moment when you're getting ready to make this extraordinary move over to the job will be open when they take you aside after meeting and he said i'm about ready to go and i just want you to know i'm going to recommend you to succeed me in the book he pointed out that he left something out and in the book you say i didn't know then and i only learned from his memoirs -- [laughter] >> that's right. we had gone to lunch or used to have regular lunches for the intelligence operations cia and

the intelligence operations to talk about intelligence issues with the secretary said it was after one of those lunches he pulled me aside and said i want you to become secretary and i said no i think it's time for me to go home. we just got bin laden. i said it's a good time to get out of here and go home. and so i said i really want to go home and i've done this. we have done well. he said i need you to do this. i think that you understand the troops and you understand the need to protect them and i just really resisted and i said go get somebody else and look at others because there are others

who cannot be recommended and do the same thing. and i know bill daley, chief of staff, followed that up and made the same effort and i said talk to others. if i'm the secretary of defense you want somebody that's going to stay longer in that position and they said it doesn't make any difference. get it done and i just set up at others and try to make that decision and then i think it was on one of the flights back to washington the president called me directly on the plane and indicated he wanted me to take that position.

and again, when the president asks you to do something out of respect for the office, you do it. >> when you read the book next to secretary gates book you have the feeling on some of these national security questions there haven't been campuses but there've been times the president has taken action that almost all of the advisors on different sides. do you agree? >> i have to say that when i was there there was a very good give and take on the national security council and we had to. when we did the bin laden operation and the president went around the table and we asked for everybody's views many of

the people thought that was too risky. we have to fly 150 miles at night into pakistan and be able to conduct not knowing what kind of resistance we would run into so there were a lot of people including secretary gates was who was concerned about the risks involved. when the president asked me i said i have an old formula going back to congress which is that when you face a difficult decision, think about asking the ordinary citizen in the district and if you knew what i knew, what would you do and if the ordinary citizen knew that we have had the best information on the location it's the

opportunity to get the number one enemy i think the average citizen would say you have to do this and in addition to that i had confidence in the ability of the. the president didn't decide that night and frankly if you had to counteract the table i would say but i didn't know. they said that it was a go. that is the way that it should work.

to keep the secret we learn in this book that you've also at the dinner you were "time" magazine's table and you had to keep the secret. >> when you were at the white house he were not known for being discreet and you become the keeper of the secrets how did you pull that off? >> it was tough. as a member of congress i was very much engaged with the price

of about what was going on and was always enjoyed and enjoyed a good relationship with the press and with others and really kind of like the give and take of a process and now i have to keep my mouth shut. you still want to have that engagement and be able to say it's going on and what's happening.

i visited the leadership and went to visit with stations and got out of town. we had a whole world of people in the press that were part of our contingent. i try to be able and frankly the first few times when i was the secretary of defense i got in trouble for making comments that i would make to people who. when he played me in this movie zero dark 30 e. wrote me a note.

i know you don't like the way that i've played in this role but i have a great deal of respect for you and i called them and met them him a couple times before and i said look i'm glad they picked an italian to play my role but you did a great job. but he said of the one thing that really bothered me is that they made me swear a lot and i said that's the one thing that you got right. [laughter] there is a rumor in here one is after you've worked together in the clinton white house he got his language from you. i doubt that very much.

have you talked about when he worked for you -- >> the undersecretary for -- the story that i tell in the buck is he is a go-getter and he moves and he does it and sometimes he will step on anybody to try to get it done. the president said about him and george stephanopoulos said i think we ought to move them out. i was becoming the chief chief of staff and i worked with george and abe are both very bright and capable people that have a pulse on the political side especially george and he

was somebody when you take them to take the hill he takes the hill and so i kept saying was we work with him, let me bring them under my wing and we will try sure that i control what they are involved with that i do think they can be valuable and so i managed to instead of having them walk into the meetings and i think it worked out and the president finally became comfortable in the fact that they were there because both of them were extremely bright and able and i think it is an example that sometimes people who are good for me be tough but the key is do they do

the job. there's a couple microphones, come down and we will take your questions and in this book a number of times secretary clinton is on the same side of an argument as you and the effectiveness will be should there be a clinton presidential campaign this will all be very helpful. >> i will leave it up to the candidates to decide. i try to basically shape the system so that to get things done. >> was she behind closed doors? >> she was very thoughtful and knew the issues.

she didn't speak without knowing the issues and i think that it was always effective when she did speak up people with listened because in a debate if she wants to spend from president obama she will say don't listen to me, listen to secretary leon and out of the need date for -- mr. leon panetta. >> but was that your intention or the effect and i basically wrote the book to tell my story and i'm pleased that i did that others for -- >> i'm a a longtime honorary. i wonder if you could add the governor of california to that list. [laughter] [applause] >> i've been in public life almost 50 years and going back to my time in the army in all of the other positions they've held

i really enjoy it and that is the story that i tell in the book and i enjoy going back to my home and to our sons and grandchildren and having the opportunity to enjoy my family so that's what i'm going to focus on and we do have an institute for public policy to inspire people to get involved in public life and i do think that we have to get people interested in getting into public life because they represent the future and frankly they are the ones that are going to have to make a difference. >> there's been a lot made since the book came out about the white house and the white house staff and people saying they are making a lot of tactical

decisions. i'm curious to do you think that is the case and if the process is broken as you mentioned earlier what should we do to fix it? >> it hasn't just happened in this administration it is a process that has been happening over the last 20 to 30 years in the white house and what has happened is more and more power has become centralized in the white house and in the white house staff and a lot of what you're seeing is reflective of drawing away from the department of state and bringing booster sessions in through the white house staff. no question that proximity is

powered the closer you are the more power you have and so what has happened is that more and more of these issues domestic issues, defense issues, national security issues are on into the white house and the result is that it churns out a lot of the decision-making process and so in that department are called in, they are playing catch-up and it distorts the way the process should work. i understand presidents get comfortable they can walk down the hall into an office and talk to somebody about a problem or crisis taking place and so did members of the cabinet are not a part of the process anymore.

they are largely used for federal office in the cabinet room in the white house. it's quite an extraordinary statement. people who are very good most of you don't remember who they are and the fact is they are good people. they know the policies that they are not brought into the process the way they should be and so somehow for what you have to do i do think you need to begin to reduce the amount of people in the white house staff. you still have to key decisions and you have to open the process more so they can play a better view not only in the white house but the president as well.

>> in your book the legacy you have created and it was a longtime fight for them to have an offshore oil drilling in the california pacific coast and i want to thank you for that. >> it's one of the fights i talked about is the fight to protect the coastline. just very quickly, it happened during the reagan administration. the secretary was the head of the interior department and decided to put up the whole post for sale to the highest bidder. i remember saying what are you doing. i understand you have to