will be immune from the consequences either. but this i can promise, that we know what needs to be done, and we are doing it. getting the deficit under control, getting the foundations for recovery in place, defending a long term interest for our country, and holding to our course. as prime minister, i will do whatever it takes to keep britain safe from the storm. thank you very much for listening, and i look forward to answering your questions. thank you. [ applause ] and now to our live simulcast of c-span radio's "washington today."

and the two summits underscore our embodiment of american leadership on a range of global challenges, in advancing several overarching u.s. interests, making the international architect tour work. second revitalizing our core alliances and, three, really advancing our strategy to end the war in afghanistan in a responsible fashion. >> the comments of tom done lan. he's the white house national security adviser briefing reporters today on the upcoming g-8 summit that will begin tomorrow at camp david just a few miles from washington, d.c., and then the nato summit taking place starting sunday in chicago. welcome to hour one of "caution tod -- washington today." the obama administration is looking to impose tariffs on solar panels in china. this move could further ratchet up trade tensions between the

two countries. in greensboro, north carolina, the prosecution closing the case against former senator john edwards in the campaign finance violation trial by charging today that he betrayed the populous message by arranging for a wealthy donor to cover up his extramarital affair. we'll have more on this story coming up at the bottom of the hour and also the view from inside the courtroom. the jury will get the case tomorrow. news from jpmorgan chase and jamie dimon. he will testify before the senate banking committee on his bank's multibillion dollar trading loss. the hearing according to "the hill" newspaper is yet to be scheduled but the head 69 nation's largest bank agreeing to testify after tim johnson had planned to invite him to capitol hill to discuss that $2 billion loss. and when facebook shares go on the market tomorrow, they will start at $38 a share. the announcement today from facebook putting the price at the high end of the expected range meaning that the company will reap about $18.5 billion.

there are also some developments here in washington from senator charles schumer taking aim at one of the co-founders of facebook. we'll have more on that story later in the program. let's begin with the upcoming g-8 summit, europe's financial crisis, and the political fallout from the back-to-back international summits hosted by the president on the global economy and military cooperation. some of the big agenda items for the g-8. every leader except president vladimir putin will convene at camp david and then fly to chicago for the nato summit. this is a once every other year forum in which the president has a chance to meet with leaders and afghanistan and iraq front and center on that agenda. the white house indicating the president will be asking nato countries to provide more financial support for afghanistan. here is more from today's white house q&a with tom donilon, national security adviser.

>> can you give me a broad definition of what sort of afghanistan you hope to leave behind in 2014 and then separately on iraq, nicolas sarkozy was -- has long been considered to be one of the toughest voices for the western sanctions policy on iran. are you concerned at all that with the change in government in france that you may lose sort of the strong support you've been having from france on the sanctions regime? >> i'd be glad to take those questions. but i need to write down the second one or i'll forget what it is. >> i can repeat it. >> with respect to afghanistan, the goal is to have an afghanistan again that has a degree of stability such that forces like al qaeda and associated groups cannot have safe haven unimpeded which could threaten the region and threaten

u.s. and other interests in the world, number one. number two, an afghanistan that has a set of security assets that allow it to provide for that modicum of stability and to be able to protect itself against groups like that. and an afghan national force of sufficient size and sustainability that these goals can be achieved, and that will be a focus of the discussion in chicago. but, as you said, it's also important for the united states, its partners, and allies around the world to also focus on the nonsecurity aspects of this. that is when you have a drop in security expenditures, which will happen when isaf finishes its mission at the end of 2014, the goal is to have a sustainable economy going forward, and that's an important focus for us the next 2 1/2 years. a couple things on this. we have a comprehensive approach, and we are working on this now as evidenced by this

discussion years in advance to try to put in place the building blocks that can achieve the goals that i laid out. by the way, we also want to have, you know, a solid political transition in afghanistan. there will be elections for president in the middle of 2014, and it's important obviously that the afghans put in place a sustainable political process as well going forward. we also want to get to a place where we achieve our core goal, and our core goal is a strategic defeat of al qaeda. the defeat of al qaeda such that it no longer presents a threat to the united states, our allies, or our other interests. this has been a central part of the foreign policy of the united states, especially i think in terms of its focus since we came into office and, again, this is a daily effort that we pursue relentlessly against al qaeda. with respect to iran, we fully

expect france to be a good ally going forward. again, the government in france has only been in place for a day or so, so we haven't had the kind of detailed discussions that we will have with them beginning tomorrow, although we did have some of our team go over at the end of last week and begin discussions. i expect that we'll have good support from france on the iran issue. i expect that we'll have good support from france on the p-5 plus 1 issues going forward as well as on a range of other issues. now, you know, we'll have to work through other issues. the stances that president hollande took during the course of his campaign, obviously he intends to keep as president, but i at this point, frankly, see a good relationship building between us already. >> tom donilon is the national security adviser briefing reporters in the white house briefing room about the upcoming g-8 and nato summit. mark noler tweeting out the

security adviser making a rare appearance and at the end there was the all-important question of where do the g-8 leaders stay at camp david? >> setting up camp david to accommodate eight heads of state, not all the cabins are equal there, have you decide who had gets what cabins, what are you doing with all the aides and assistants and security details? there's not room for them up there. >> well, there are a couple points on that. and the allocation system, of course, is classified. and really can't go into that. but there are a couple things to say. one is that it's a complex of buildings, mark, as you know. and there is adequate and during the planning before we made the decision a team led by alyssa

here and george mulligan in the white house military office went through this in great detail, and there are adequate facilities there for each delegation, each head of state to have his or her cabin, as i said, and for each to be accompanied by a key staff person and in some cases two or three staff people. additionally, of course, there are a set up there for communications and some of my team and others up there. but it's adequate. it's a pretty extensive facility. maybe we can get ben a deeper briefing on that, seriously, on this stuff. i'm as interested in it as you are. >> is it rustic for heads of state? >> is it rustic? >> is it kind of rustic? >> i grew up in providence, rhode island, and never had a lawn bigger than three feet in front of my house. i'm not really the one to comment on rustic. >> thank you, tom, very much. >> thank you all. good to see you. >> the national security adviser

and was asked where the g-8 leaders will be housed. some background. camp david was originally built as an encampment for the federal government agents and their families bithe wpa, the public worksed administration. in 1942 it was converted to a presidential retreat by franklin d. roosevelt. it was renamed shangri-la then camp david received its present name from dwight d. eisenhower in honor of his father and grandson. camp david is not open to the general public. this weekend will be the location for the g-8 summit that will be taking place and then the nato summit occurring in chicago next week. senators today according to politico showing yet again if there is a way to disagree, they will find that way. the latest issue to trigger a verbal food fight, sanctions on iran. republicans objecting to a plan

being put forth by harry reid. he attempted to pass by a simple voice vote a bill to deter iran from developing nuclear weapons. they complaint senator reid had given them only a few hours to review the legislation after he made some changes, but the democratic leader said not so. the original bill had unanimously cleared the banking committee months ago. senator reid saying that an amended version was delivered to republican leader mitch mcconnell midday yesterday. needless to say, mitch mcconnell disputing that claim. here is how the story unfolded on the senate floor with the two leaders from the democratic and republican parties, harry reid and mitch mcconnell. >> what is wrong with sitting down on a bipartisan basis looking at the language, making sure we get it right, and achieve the goal that i think virtually everyone in the room would like to achieve? nothing i think to get angry about. a proper response would be to work out our differences and to

go forward. timeliness is an issue. we need to do this quickly. i think we all agree to that on both sides of the aisle. so i would just say to my friend, i don't think there's anything to be outraged about. why don't we get to work, work out the differences and pass the resolution. >> mr. president? my mind indicates that why is there any problem? we agree. just like student loans we agree except they won't let us get on the bill to legs lace islate th. we think the iran sanction bill is a great thing to do but we can't do it. they say they need more communication? how about two months. how much more do you need? i'm not going to get into getting tom hawkins in trouble who worked for the senator. maybe he was busy and couldn't give it to the leader until later. that's not the point. the point is we have tried and tried to get something done and we can't get it done.

mr. president, i think it is really too bad for this institution. i'm not outraged. i'm upset because i feel i have been used as a tool to try to adversely affect the president in some way. so i'm going to continue to keep an open mind on this, but i have to say that i'm terribly disappointed that it looms we're going to arrive at may 23rd and the iranians -- they have people around, they're watching this and they're in town. they're laughing at us. laughing at us. we can't even come up with a simple resolution. it has no force of law. i shouldn't say that. it does have some, but they're laughing at us. here is the united states senate quibbling over a sentence, a sentence that's been in this resolution since it was drafted. >> most people in america work five days a week. this is 1:00 on a thursday.

1:00 on a thursday. what is the problem here? we have broad bipartisan agreement i think about the approach we ought to take with regard to the iran sanctions issue. the leaders on my side of the aisle are all standing here on the floor anxious to be involved in working out the language, and i would say to my friend, he said there's a sentence, well, a sentence can sometimes change the entire meaning of something. how this is crafted is not irrelevant. so rather than us standing out here on the floor pointing fingers at each other, it's only 1:00 on a thursday afternoon, why don't we sit down and work out the differences, pass something we can mutually agree to, and try to make a difference for our country. >> no matter how many times you say it, the language that we're told they're complaining about was in the initial bill. mr. president, i appreciate my friend saying what is it?

most people work five days a week. i work more than five days a week. and i have been working the last two months trying to get this done, and every time we try to do it the first few weeks it was -- the last few weeks it's senator kirk, senator kirk is ill. i know that, so i gave him every benefit of the doubt. if his staff is working with him. mr. president, we have been trying to get this done for a long time. it's not today at 1:00. i have wanted to move forward on this a long time, but let's just give it another day. let's just give it another day, just another day or so we'll take care of this. that isn't how it's worked. >> so that's how it unfolded on the senate floor at 1:00 this afternoon. senator reid and senator mcconnell. let's go back to the issue of the language because several senate republicans arguing on the floor today that adding what they're calling a use of force

provision would better reflect the president's policy that all options are on the table when it comes to iran exploring nuclear weapon capability and a provision that must be included along with the economic sanctions. specifically senator lindsey graham, republican of south carolina, adding that the language would, quote, send an appropriate signal to iran but would not be intended to green light military action, instead to restate u.s. policy. here is a quote from senator graham. i just want to add one simple line that says we recognize what the president was saying that military force is also an option. and so that really is where the debate comes down. you heard earlier that senator mcconnell saying he needed more time to resolve the issue, that they agree in principle, but the back and forth continued. so the larger question which we have been asking all week is whether or not you think congress will accomplish much of anything this election year. our phone lines are open at 202-626-7962.

again, 202, 626-7962. >> believe it or not, i don't think congress is going to get anything done because right now what they're doing in congress and some in the senate also is they're playing just like little kids, and this is what happens when you go back and forth and back and forth or whatever. with them not realizing they got people's lives in their hands and they're not even in the house right there taking it serio serious. they're waiting for the next outcome, the next election to see what happens. that's my comment. >> this is dan calling from omaha, nebraska. i don't think congress will get anything done. i think it's really a fault of the senate. the house has tried to make some steps forward in terms of budgets, trying to manage the debt and do some things around health care. and the senate has just sat on

any new initiatives coming forward from the house. the senate hasn't passed a budget for years now, so i realize i don't think anything will get done and it's really on the behalf of the senate is the reason why it won't get done. >> i'm dana. i'm calling from maryland. i am quite disgusted that it seems none of our elected officials can get their job done, including the president. i'm really hopeful that there will be a big shift in power come the new election, and as a responsible citizen i do not hold that like our federal government thinks is currently acceptable for the united states, and i don't feel that we should have the debt that we have. i also don't feel that we should be providing some of the free

services that we do for many people who do not work. >> frankly, i think that congress is so screwed up that it will not get anything done except stuff that doesn't amount to a row of pins. what they really need to do is to start working on the economic problems and the structure of the economic problems that begins with the way wall street operates, and nothing will get done about that. i don't know whether anything will ever get done about that. but this latest episode of the bank is a good example of why nothing gets done.

good-bye. >> thanks for your calls and comments here on c-span radio. and we want to hear from you this week whether or not you think congress will accomplish much of anything in this campaign year. six months before the election and the feedback line is 202-626-7962. when you phone in tell us where you're calming from and keep your comments brief. again that phone number is 202-626-7962. the senate today did confirm the president's two nominees for the federal reserve board, both receiving the support of at least 70 senators. 60 is the threshold to avoid any filibuster. the senate voting 70 to 24 could confirm the nomination of jeremy stein and 74 to 21 to confirm jerome powell who is an attorney and a private equity investor. he was treasury undersecretary during the george herbert walker bush administration. the senate democratic leader harry reid said that the $2

billion trading loss announced just last week from jpmorgan chase prompted his decision to push the nomination through as well as to bolster the fed's regulatory expertise with the nominees, but there had been some criticism of the nominations, including that from senator david vitter, republican of louisiana, who was holding up at least one of the nominations demanding for a full look into the background and then the full senate vote that 2350i7b8ly did come today. let's go to the floor and the comments of the louisiana republican, david vitter. >> the fed with five affirmative votes passes regulations under dodd/frank under its authority. that process is ongoing right now. now, why these two nominations significant in impacting the development of those dodd/frank regulations one way or the other. it's pretty simple. those dodd/frank regulations coming out of the fed need five

affirmative votes. right now there are five members of the board of governors. so they need to reach complete unanimity with regard to those regulations. when the negative impact, possible impact of those regulations is such a threat, i think that requires unanimity and is healthy and a real protection. these two new members of the fed change the math, change the requirement from needing five out of five to needing five out of seven. i think that will significantly push these regulations to the left, if you will, and require and, therefore, produce less consensus that those with economic viewpoints such as mine would like to see continue. and in the same vein, the fed is certainly significant not only regulating the mega banks, but in instances like two years ago bailing out the mega banks and

they have that authority and they have that role. just as with dodd/frank regulations, that requires five affirmative votes of the fed board. again, right now before these two confirmations, that would mean five out of five. it would require unanimity. i think that's healthy actually with regard to such an extreme measure as huge taxpayer funded bailouts as we have seen in the last three years. if these two new members of the board, nominees, are confirmed, that math again would change in exactly the same way. the requirement would move from five out of five to five out of seven. it would shift the outcome to the left, if you will. it would make it much more likely that the fed would act sooner to bail out mega banks with taxpayer funds. i have all of these concerns about these nominations.

these two nominees are fine, decent men, they're smart, they're qualified in the professional sense. however, they clearly also support the current direction of chairman bernanke and the fed, and for that reason i cannot support the nominations, and i have real concerns. but in closing, mr. president, let me say that at least i think it's positive that we're having this debate and that we're voting. as i cited, that used to be the norm in the united states senate, including with regard to federal reserve board of governors nominations. these are very important nominations because of monetary policy, because of their regulatory authority, because of bailouts and dodd/frank and all the rest. >> senator david vitter on his opposition to the two nominees who were approved by the senate with each getting more than 70 votes. once sworn in, they will give

the fed a complete seven member board of governors for first time since 2006. it includes chairman ben bernanke and vice chair jane ja yellin. >> tis what this time between t is faced with difficult decisions ever how to help the co-rfer ri, it's critical we not leave the fed undermanned. for months the fed has been operating with only five of its seven board members while nominees languish in the senate confirmation process. there's no real question that both of our nominees are qualified and bipartisan. jeremy stein is a well-known harvard economist with strong expertise in monetary policy and financial regulation. in between two stints at harvard, he was on the finance faculty at mit sloan school of management for ten years. his research has covered topics as the behavior of stock prices,

corporate investment and financing decisions, risk management, capital allocation inside firms, banking, financial regulation, and monetary policy. he is currently coed tor of the quarterly journal of economics and was previously a coed tor. from february to july of 2009, he served as a senior adviser to the treasury secretary and on the staff of the national economic council in the obama administration. jerome powell is a visiting scholar at the bipartisan policy center here in washington where he is focused on federal and state issues. he's a former lawyer with experience in investment banking and private equity who will bring valuable and broad private sector examiner t oor expertise. he founded and led the industrial group within the u.s. buy out fund so he has broad experience in the private sector and with manufacturing companies and other industries that are at the heart of our economy.

he served on boards of several charitable and educational institutions, currently a member of the board of directors of d.c. prep, the ben time center for finance at princeton and the nature conservancy. so there is no requirement that the president nominate governors from the other party but we have in keeping with the work of senator alexander and senator johanns and others, this is a bipartisan nomination. mr. powell is a republican, and he served as undersecretary for the treasury for finance under president george h.w. bush with responsibility for policy on financial institutions, the treasury, and debt. so we have one member who served in the obama administration, one nominee who served in the bush administration. it's very good that we have come to an agreement here and we hope it can set the tone for agreement well on into the future. this year and in 2013 as well.

with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. >> senator chuck schumer, democrat of new york, and this statement from white house press secretary jay carney. we are pleased that members of congress from both parties have come together to confirm jay powell and jeremy stein as members of the board of governors of the federal reserve system. today's broad bipartisan vote in the senate reflects their deep knowledge of economic and monetary policy as well as their distinguished background and unique experience. again, these two nominees that makes the board complete, a seven-member board of the federal reserve. the first time that has happened since 2006. this is "washington today" on c-span radio heard coast to coast on xm channel 119. the dow fell 156,. nasdaq was down 60. s&p down 19. the number of people seeking unemployment benefits unchanged last week.

suggesting modest but steady gains in the job market. the labor department said today weak unemployment aid applications stayed at a seasonally adjusted 370,000. and when applications drop below 375,000 a week, it generally suggesting hiring is strong enough to lower the unemployment rate. the u.s. postal service moving ahead with plans to close dozens of mail processing centers. the postmaster general says operations are simply too big given declining mail volume. the agency will consolidate 140 mail processing centers within the next year including 48 this summer. most will occur next january and february after the busy election and holiday mail season. another 89 would close in 214. postal service had previously planned to close over 250 mail processing centers beginning this summer, but it was awaiting congressional action. congress has stalled over a bill and the post office says