to undergo abdominal ultrasound exams before having abortions. governor bob mcdonald signing it into law today. lawmakers did drop a contentious provision that was in an earlier version that would have required exams to be invasive. backers, including governor mcdonald, said they will change that and they were lampooned by comics who criticized them for that. finally, district of columbia mayor vincent gray holding a news conference saying he was unaware of any wrongdoing or illegal acts committed during his 2010 campaign for mayor. he defended himself amid reports of a federal raid at the home and office of a major fund-raiser for him and other d.c. politicians. he said he never handled any money orders or cash. "the washington post" reporting last summer gray's campaign accepted cash donations above the legal limit and campaign workers improperly exchanged contributions for money orders. federal authorities have been investigating alleged campaign

financial irregularities in gray's mayoral bid. back in a minute with more "washington today." listen on the go with a free radio app. four audio streams of commercial-free public affairs programming. congressional hearings, white house briefings and speeches from national leaders. supreme court oral arguments, book tv, american history tv, and sunday talk shows on the weekend. podcasts of some of our regularly scheduled programs like "q and a" and "newsmakers." free at the itunes app store or black bearry app world. black back. you're listening to "washington today" on c-span radio heard coast to coast on xm 119, streamed on the web at c-spanradio.org. i'm steve sculley. the dateline is afghanistan. the reporting of "the telegraph" newspaper, six british soldiers believed to have been killed after an explosion hit their ar

moneyed vehicle in southwestern afghanistan. confirmation from the uk defense ministry today. the soldiers on patrol in the helmand province at the time the blast took place last night. the military did not explain why they were unable to confirm whether the soldiers were killed. if confirmed, it would be the biggest loss of life for british forces in the country since a plane crash back in 2006. it is wednesday which means it's prime minister's questions. this issue coming up as well as prime minister david cameron's visit next week to washington, d.c. >> questions to the prime minister. >> number one, sir. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i hope you'll permit me. yesterday a vehicle on patrol in helmand province was struck by an explosion. it is with very great sadness i must tell the house six are missing, believed killed. five of the soldiers from the

3rd battalion of the yorkshire regime regiment, one from the 1st battalion regiment. our thoughts are with family and friends of this brave regiment. this would be the largest loss of life in afghanistan since 2006. the overall number of casualties suffered in afghanistan to over 400. every death and every injury reminds us of the human cost paid by our armed forces to keep our country safe. i've spoken this morning to the chief of the defense staff, the chief of the general staff, and the commanding officer of 3rd battalion yorkshire rental it. they each stressed the commitment of our troops to the mission and getting the job done. but i know everyone will want a message of support and backing for our troops and their families to go out from this house today. this morning i had meetings with minister and colleagues and others. i shall have further such meetings later today. >> can i echo the prime minister's tribute to the fallen, their service and their

sacrifice humbles us all. with this herbal news in mind will my right honorable friend use his meetings next week with president obama to coordinate a prudent drawdown of allied forces in afghanistan and to ensure that afghan forces get the training and equipment they need to take over. >> i thank my honorable friend for his question. i think next week is an opportunity to make sure that britain and america as the two largest contributors to the isaf mission in afghanistan are absolutely in lockstep about the importance of training up the afghan army, training up the afghan police, and making sure all nato partners have a properly coordinated process for transition in that country so that the afghans can take responsibility for the security of their own country and we can bring our forces home. >> mr. speaker can i join the prime minister in expressing profound sadness at the terrible news of our six soldiers

missing, feared dead. today is the day we are reminded of the ongoing commitment and sacrifice that our service personnel make on our behalf. by putting themselves in harm's way for our benefit, they demonstrate the utmost service and courage. we owe them and all of those who have lost their lives in afghanistan an immense debt of gratitude and our thoughts with their family, friends and colleagues at this terrible time. mr. speaker, at moments like this does the prime minister agree with me that we must restate clearly the reasons for our mission in afghanistan? a more stable, self-governing afghanistan to produce more stable outcomes in that region and to ensure greater safety for our citizens here at home. >> i thank the right honorable gentleman for his words. he's absolutely right. our mission in afghanistan does remain vital to our national security. we're there to prevent that country from being a safe haven to al qaeda from where they might plan attacks on the uk or

our allies. our task is simple. it is to acquit the afghan government and forces of afghanistan with the capability and capacity to take care are of their own national security without the need for foreign troops on their soil. that is our aim. we are making progress in terms of afghan national army, it stands at 184,000 on target for 195,000 by the end of this year. the afghan national police standing at 145,000 on target for 157,000 at the end of this year. that we are making progress. this is absolutely essential for bringing our troops home. but i agree we need to restate clearly why we're there, why it's in our national interest, and to make sure. as both the commander of the battalion said to me today, his men have high morale, they know they are doing an important mission for the future of this country, for the future of the world, and they want our support as they go about it. >> from today's prime minister's questions and british prime minister david cameron, the

fatalities by the way of those six british soldiers now brings the death toll from british soldiers in afghanistan to 400. and the story is online tonight at telegraph.co.uk. joining us with perspective is peter foster, the u.s. editor and washington bureau chief for "the telegraph" newspaper and website. thanks for being with us. >> evening. >> we wanted to talk not only about the death of these six soldiers but also this is an issue that more than likely will come up next week when british prime minister david cameron comes to washington for an official visit on tuesday and wednesday. set the stage, set the agenda, what we can expect. >> i think afghanistan is going to be one of the few real policy topics on offer during the visit. there will be lots of business done in the background. certainly the purpose of that visit is very much certificate

mo ceremonial. you may remember the last visit didn't go down terribly well. downing street, the british prime minister is absolutely determined to get the optics of the visit right. that said, one of the few diplomatic friction points i think is over afghanistan at the moment. i think the british, there are concerns in various parts of the british diplomatic establishment that america might be, for political reasons, looking to get out rather quicker than some of the british advice thinks is sensible. and of course, in getting out, if you advertise your intentions too clearly you can expose our forces and your forces to dangers that perhaps you would rather not. and certainly in britain, you know, britain, a bit like america, has got tired of the afghan adventure some time ago. at the same time wants to leave in an orderly fashion. >> so what can we expect in terms of the dynamics next week?

obviously there's a very close relationship between the u.s. and great britain. you pointed out the different type of meeting that gordon brown faced when he came to the white house meeting with a newly elected barack obama. and there of course have been the long-standing friendships and relationships, fdr and winston churchill, thatcher reagan, tony blair and bill clinton. >> yeah, i mean, from the british perspective you'll always have the slight questioning about the special relationship which britain values. but of course obama right from the word go has been an asia pacific president. the world is changing. the tectonic plates are moving. and obviously we all look to asia and china now for who's going to be america's co-partner, as it were, the big nation of the next century. somewhere in the background there's always this sense,

perhaps, that britain and america's great second world war and cold war partner, perhaps a feeling that america is pivoting toward asia and looking the other way. so all of that said, there will be lots of attempts to enforce the fact that this relationship is strong. i understand the obamas were very pleased with the reception they got in london. they got an enormous state dinner from the queen. speaking to a colleague of mine in london, very excited that mr. cameron as head of state is really getting the full treatment insofar as he could do. the white house, british celebrities there. i think the policy aside, this is really going to be about showing that the old anglo saxon angle is strong. if there was any thought perhaps that the obama administration is much more focused on the asia

pacific, that britain would be somewhat snubbed, that we're going to put all that behind us. of course how that really correlates to reality is a different question. >> instead of a 21-gun salute, a 19-gun salute, it's not a state visit, it's an official visit. as you pointed out peter foster it will have all the trappings of a state dinner and we'll be covering it on c-span. what are the story lines? what else are you going to be looking for? >> well, i think -- i mean, i think there will be talk of trade. europe is clearly going to be an issue. britain is in a rather complex position in europe since the vote in which cameron opted out. and therefore britain wants to see that we are still america's point man in europe. clearly downing street in the pack-ground is also worried in practice deals are now being

done between france and germany, between america and sarkozy. and again, britain is -- i wouldn't say insecure, but it's interesting that they're so excited that it's getting the pull panoply, the full reception. which in some ways is a slight indication of the fact that britain, to some degree, needs a bit of reassurance about its place in the world. >> we should point out you are pivoting pretty significantly, coming back from ohio, covering something that is very american. presidential politics and super tuesday. to a state visit next week by your prime minister. >> yeah, and i recently arrived from china where i've been for the last three years. very much questions of the obama administration's relationship with china and obama's administration focusing on the asia pacific and feeling the slight chill winds from the british perspective of what that meant for us. so, you know, it's certainly all

changed. it just -- just as americans don't understand perhaps how we brits feel, trying to explain the vagaries of american politics to britons is never easy either. >> what about the currency issues and concerns by the u.s. that china continues to devalue its currency, hurting trade by american companies over there? >> well, you know, the currency is moving in the right direction. obviously chinese aren't going to move their currency any faster. a bit of election politics about it. the trade with china is going, both sides probably filing more than they have done in the recent past. but end of the day, from a chinese perspective, and i'll say this from a chinese perspective, what the chinese are doing is exactly what the brits did and what the americans did when they were industrializing, building their economy. that kind of capitalism, they're following our model, and

therefore the chinese -- the chinese with a wry smile, really, on some of the more political aspects, the obama administration has shied away from a currency manipulator. honestly both sides can throw equal amounts of mud at each other. what we need to do, both sides need to do, is get the kind of working relationship that means trade between america and china. global trade is not a zero sum gain. so that means getting the ipr situation sorted. in the long run it's going to damage both america and china and the global economy and that's not in anybody's interests. >> peter foster who is the u.s. editor and washington bureau chief for "the telegraph" newspaper in great britain. the website is telegraph.co.uk. thanks very much for being with us on c-span radio and c-span television. >> you're welcome. let's turn our attention to

syria. any u.s. military action against syria will come with a lot of risk. that was the warning from defense secretary leann panetta as he testified along with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey, before a senate panel, speaking about syria's sophisticated air defenses and it extensive stockpile of chemical weapons. this coming just a couple of days after senator john mccain on the senate floor indicating that air strikes are necessary for humanitarian assistance in the country. joining him in supporting the issue of air strikes, his colleague from connecticut, joe lieberman. >> you hear all the time a syrian armed position, we're not sure who they are, they have no single coordinating person at the top or group at the top. again, i agree. but that was true in libya as well. the militias have formed in different parts of the country. we're not connected, in some sense they were hostile to each other, you can see that in some ways in libya today. when the international community

came in, it gave strength with military assistance. it gave strength to the transitional national council there. they worked together with our assistance to bring about the change that occurred. and finally, the statement that military intervention would not prevent civil war but could expedite it, i know secretary clinton said something to that effect. obviously, there is a civil war going on now. and recent history shows that foreign military intervention in bosnia, kosovo, and libya most recently, has actually been critical in ending civil wars in those countries in the absence of foreign military intervention in countries lycra wanda, the congo, somalia, and others. has doomed those countries to suffer through extended civil wars. i think the clock is running, people are being killed in great numbers every day.

i think if we don't get the international community together in a coalition of the willing soon, we're going to look back and say we not only didn't do the right thing morally to stop innocents from being killed, we missed an extraordinary strategic opportunity to strengthen our position and the position of free people in the middle east. i want to give you an opportunity to respond, if you will, without asking if you want to, without asking a specific question. >> no, senator, i guess -- i want to make the point that the concerns that senator mccain and you and others have expressed are exactly the concerns of the administration. we're not divided here. and we are not holding back. this administration has led in iraq, we led in afghanistan, we've led in the war on terrorism, we led in libya, and we're leading in syria. we are working with those

elements to try to bring them together. if the agreement here is that we ought not to simply just go in unilaterally, then we have to build a multi-lateral coalition. we've got to be able to work at that. it's not that easy to deal with some of the concerns that are out there. but nevertheless, we are working at it. secretary clinton is working at it every day. there are diplomats that are engaged on this issue. we are trying to engage with nato. we are trying to gain with these other countries. there are other countries that are interested in trying to provide provisions. we are working with them. we are talking with them. and we are looking at every option to try to put that in place. can it happen today? can it happen now? no. it's going to take some work, it's going to take some time. but when we do it, we'll do it right. we will not do it in a way that will make the situation worse. that's what we have to be careful of. >> well, i thank you for the statement. i'm encouraged by it.

all i can do is plead with you and other nations that we're reaching out to, to move as quickly as possible. because people are dying every day. and strategic opportunities are being lost. the fact is that we have an opportunity here. and it's also a responsibility. and i think it's critically important that we exercise it. i'd say finally that i know some people continue to hope that a way can be found for president assad to leave the country and usher in the democratic process of transformation that we've talked about. from everything i hear, everything i see, he will only do that if he thinks his life, his regime, is really in jeopardy. and right now, i think he thinks he's dominant and has the kind of momentum, physical momentum,

that general dempsey spoke about today. so the sooner we put international military pressure on the assad regime, the sooner we sooner we have a chance to end this peacefully. >> thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator lieberman. >> independent from connecticut on the armed services committee questioning leon panetta. >> the president has reportedly narrowed his list for a new head of the world bank to replace rob zell lick who and we have haunz from bloomberg news. >> who's on the short list? what's the timeline. >> short list, layer larry somers. and larry somers, susan rice and john kerry. late-breaking this afternoon, kerry his communications director e-mailed and said he's

not interested in the position. so we can scratch kerry off of the list. >> what kind of a process is the white house going through to set through these names? to vet through these names. >> in three tiers, or three stages. they had an initial -- who do we want for this? and they had their names like, bill gates, they were thinks pretty wide and broad. it's unclear to me how formal the process was at the stage and then they got a core list and the president wanted to expand that list. in part because there's concern that if you nominate a dhad might not be strongest, that might have slid through in another environment, the emerging democracies could put up a fight against it. you kind of saw a prelude to that with the challenging challenging christine lagarde to

be head of the irs. so they want someone that's a little bit immune from a third-world candidate so they thought about names like ruth -- the pepsico chairman. ruth simmons, president of brown university. without a real strong candidate emerging yet from the emerge -- from the developing world, it looks like they're going back to that initial core list which is rice and somers. >> you've been learning more about the world bank, what is its mission statement? what's the objective of the world bank? >> i think they want to provide capital for development projects to alleviate poverty in the developing world. these are loans. the people contribute to the bank and sometimes the loans get paid back and sometimes they aren't. if there's a bring that needs to be put on the zam bezee river.

they'll say, what will this do to the economy? so it's public financing for places where there might not be private money and i think poverty alealeve yags and gener economic growth. >> when do you think the white house will make an announcement and how will they do it? >> i wish i knew the answer to that. i wouldn't tell you on your show as much as i like it. their deadline is march 23. i have no idea how close they'll go to that, so aside from leaking to c-span, it won't be out there. >> thank you very much pore being with us. >> thanks, steve. >> "washington today" on c-span radio. north carolina is a key battleground state, a state where the democrats hold the convention in early september and where the president was back

today talking about gas and energy issues. he did so to talk about oil as the fuel of the past as gas prices are a key issue. the president argued that using less oil is an important part of the solution. he traveled to a truck plant owned daimler and he announced new alternatives, calling on congress to increase and expand the tax credit for purchasing advanced vehicle and increasing that from 7500 to $10,000 and the president announcing a new $1 billion challenge to spur communities to invest in clean vehicle infrastructure such as charging stations. here's more from the president in north carolina, earlier in the day. >> so we're making progress. but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much natural gas for flex fuel or electric vehicles you have, if there's no place to charge them up or fill

them up. so that's why i'm announcing today a program that will put our communities on the cutting edge of what clean energy can do. to cities and towns all across the country, what we're going to say is -- if you make a commitment to buy more advanced vehicles for your community whether they run on electricity or biofuels or natural gas, we'll help you cut through the red tape and build fueling stations nearby. and we'll offer tax breaks to families that buy these cars, companies that buy alternative fuel trucks like the ones that are made right here at mount holley. so we're going to give communities across the country more of an incentive to make the shift to more energy-efficient cars.

in fact, when i was up in new hampshire, they had already converted all of their dumptrucks. they were in the process, because of this program, they were converting it to natural gas-driven trucks. this is something that we did in education. we called it ""race to the top."" we said we'll put in more money but we want you to reform and we'll give you incentive to do things in a different way. and if we do the same thing with clean energy we can save consumers money and make sure the economy is more secure. so we got to keep investing in american-made energy and we've got to keep investing in the vehicles that run on it. that's where our future is. and in order to continue this progress, we're going to have to make a choice. we have to decide where our priorities are as a country. and that's up to all of you and i'll give you an example. right now, $4 billion of your tax dollars goes straight to the oil industry, every year.

$4 billion in subsidies that other companies don't get. now, keep in mind, these are some of the same companies making record profits every time you fill up your gas tank. we're giving them extra billions of dollars on top of near-record profits they're already making. anybody think that's a good idea? me neither. it doesn't make any sense. the american people have subsidized the oil industry long enough. they don't need the subsidies. it's time to end that taxpayer give-away to an industry that's never been more profitable and invest in clean energy that's never been more promising. so i called on congress to eliminate the subsidies right away. there's no excuse to wait any longer and we should put every member of congress on record,

they can stand up for oil companies or they can stand up for american people and the new energy future. we can place our bets on the fuel of the past or we can place our bets on american know-how and american ingenuity and the american workers like the ones here at daimler. that's the choice we face and that's what's at stake. >> the president in mount holly, north carolina, talked about energy issues and saying the country theeds an all-of-the-above approach. he's getting criticism from gingrich who says he can bring the gas prices down. elon university poll say 48% of north carolina voters approve. the president winning north carolina narrowly in 2008. it will be a battleground state in 2012. this is a side note we thought you might be interested

in. "the hill" newspaper, video from an event in 1991. the speaker, barack obama. he traveled to harvard university to talk about a prominent harvard professor, derek bell, who was protesting the issue of diversity or the lack of diversity at harvard university. professor bell was the first black tenured harvard law school professor and gained media attention for his fight against the university's hiring practices. he gave up his professorship in protest. in 1991. the activist passed away in 2011. so from 1991, a much younger without the grey hair, barack obama wearing khaki pants and a sweater, speaking to students at harvard university. >> i remember that the black law students had organized a orientation for the first-year students. and one of the persons that spoke at the orientation was professor bell