abroad, some might ask if now is the time to reaffirm our commitment to our national heritage but i want everyone to recall that it was in the civil war that abraham lincoln set aside lands are now yosemite. it was in the midst of the great recession. even in times of crisis, we are called to take the long view, to preserve our national heritage, because in doing so, we fulfill one of the responsibilities that falls to all of us as a americas and inhabitants' of this same small planet. that is irresponsibility that we are rising to meet today. thank you for their outstanding work you are doing individually. i look forward to the work you will be doing collectively and advising this and their -- this administration. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america.

[applause] . . honorable donna f. edwards to act as speakser pro temp on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain. the chaplain: let us pray. heavenly father we give you thanks this day. we proclaim praise the lord all you nations floorify him all you peoples. for steadfast this is kindness toward us and the fidelity of the lord endures forever. we ask your continued blessing on us as we seek to do your will. be our strength in time of trial. protect those who risk their lives to keep us free lord and

keep us always grateful for their sacrifice. bless the women and men of this house of representatives. kindle in them your spirit of justice and compassion of service and sacrifice, of love and understanding so that they may be your instruments of peace in our world. we ask this in your holy name, amen. the speaker pro tempore:s chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval therefore. the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. without objection, the house

stands adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on tuesday next for morning that is led by the senate banking committee chairman dodd and they hope to get the measure on the floor sometime this week. their return with general speeches at 2:00 p.m. eastern followed by debate on the treasury nomination with the procedural vote at 5:30. you can follow that live.

we will take you live to the senate office building. just as a follow-up, late last night they passed to the extension of the unemployment insurance benefit package. that passed in congress last night. back now to the office building for the second half of the hearings. the first half was for the ninth circuit court of appeals good win liu is testifying. this hearing is for the district courts. richard mark gergel for south carolina, michelle childs for south carolina, and also catherine eagles the middle district of north carolina. senator kyl of arizona is getting ready to get underway.

>> this is the senate judiciary committee. the acting chair for this hearing, it appears they were going to wrap up with nominee liu and move on to the district court nominees. diane feinstein heading. live coverage on c-span.

[no audio] [no audio] >> the hearing will resume. if i indicated, we will begin with the ranking the members. -- with the ranking members. if i might say something

procedure is a really to do two rounds for an appellate judge. i want everyone to have an opportunity to ask questions. i suggest to the nominee that we will do just whatever it takes to have the questions asked and answered. i would beg the forbearance of the other four nominees although i suspect you do not mind not being in the hot seat. senator? >> thank you so much. we are in a serious location dealing with serious issues involving the appellate courts of the united states. it is a lifetime appointment. i remain an easy -- uneasy about some of the answers you get and how they square with what you have written before and what

impact that has on my understanding of the clarity of your thought and how you approach judgment. there is quite a bit of difference between a theoretical law professor and the practicality of day after day duty as enforcing contracts disputes, and ruling on evidence. i have to say that. with regard to the death penalty, you have written a song about that. let me just ask you -- you have written some about that. let me ask you if he personally favored it. this would not impact my view of how you would conduct your office. i think judges can differ. i think the critical thing is will you follow the law? do you favor the death penalty?

>> senator, i have not oppositions to the death penalty. i have never written anything questioning its morality or constitutionality. i would have no problem following the law as written. >> in talking about a report on a panel you moderated called civil rights in the roberts court era as a part every framing the dialogue on race you made some comments about it. you talked about changes in state courts and said in the part of that movement are changes in the state legislation and supreme courts which is the result of state court decisions that have got rid of some bad practices. some state legislation has gotten rid of some bad practices and then the

absorption of that cultural shift into federal law through the eighth amendment. it seems to me that what you are saying there is that legislation in various states can change how we should interpret the eighth amendment. do you mean that? and whether or not that applies to the death penalty? >> senator, i was reporting the way in which the supreme court has instructed that the eighth amendment be interpreted. the supreme court in its opinion looks to the practices of the state's in informing the meeting of the eighth amendment. >> i am not sure about that. it seems to me -- well, i can see that that would be a theory. is that the theory they used when they consistently dissented in every death penalty case asserting that that the death penalty violates the eighth

amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment? >> senator i am naturally not sure what the -- used to arrive at that conclusion. the, you read attracts more closely the view that the justices have used since the time of brandon and marshall to articulate the standard by which they determine whether something is or is not constitutional under the eighth amendment. >> is it relevant to you that there are six or eight references in the constitution to the death penalty and it would be a stretch, would it not, to say that the constitution prohibits the death penalty and that any phrase like, cruel and unusual punishment could be construed to eliminate what is positively referred to in six or eight different places? >> senator i think that is very strong and important textual evidence that the fifth and 14th

amendment to the constitution talks about deprivation of life but is followed with the guarantee of due process of law. it is strong textual evidence. >> do you think action by states can change that? you said it could shift the absorption of that cultural shift those are your words, a cultural shift can transfer into federal law for the eighth amendment and the implication of your remarks is that it can somehow have the cruel and unusual posh mccaw's constrict the death penalty. >> senator, my understanding is that the court has always said consistently that the imposition of the death penalty is a constitutional punishment within the confines of the guarantees of the constitution. i have not understood those

decisions to attempt to outlaw the death penalty rather than have dealt with much more specific issues related to how the death penalty is administered and to whom. >> two justices on the supreme court dissented in every single- case, justice brennan and justice marshall, on a clear view that it was cruel and unusual punishment. >> i am not endorsing their view, senator. >> you seem to in this quote. your quote here seems to suggest that you think that if the state's changes some of their views that it will somehow allow the eight amendments and federal judges to alter what i think is plainly a constitutional punishment. gosh, time flies. >> yes, questions are long. >> you have written arguing that

the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment creates a positive rights, i would summarize, that whatever benefits are necessary to fulfill all precipitation -- participation as a citizen and you go on to note that inequality and educational opportunities that the 14th amendment "guarantee of national citizenship" was a generative of substantial rights. i am uneasy to suggest the plan words of the 14th amendment are generating rights. you wrote that citizens have " positive rights to government assistance" as i understand it which are derived from the

constitution, as i understand this. these rights can be guaranteed not only against state abridgment but also as a matter of positive rights. you concluded that such an agenda would "include expanded access to health insurance child care transportation subsidies, job training, and a robust and earned income tax credit." do you believe that, yes or no? >> i do believe that, senator but those are addressed to policy makers and not the courts. >> that is an important distinction and i will review that. that seems to be your view on expanded governmental powers.

what think you senator sessions. >> one thing and i will conclude. as you never did -- as you noted, judicial philosophy is important. your writing is the only thing we have to evidence that. i do not think it is sufficient just to say that i will follow a 40 somewhere in the system because many times you will been having a case of first impression being in front of you and your philosophy will face -- will shape the law. >> you cannot sit -- say have not had adequate time. >> i want to get back to the question of the agenda before we had our break. you in a broadcast earlier this

year on jenna every third on npr were discussing how the obama administration had a new opportunity for the american constitution society. you said that under the obama administration and i will quote this "they had an opportunity to get our ideas and the vision of the constitution -- our vision of the constitution in law and practice." what did you mean by "our ideas" and york"progressive views -- your "progressive views?" >> that was referencing the ideas that underpin the american constitution society. the mission statement of that organization braids, it is a dedication to certain basic principles of our constitution genuine equality, libertine access, and a broad commitment

to the rule of law. >> is it described as a progressive? >> i think many people have described it that way. that is fair. the organization. the values are those of the constitution. i would not say they are progressive or conservative. those are the values in the constitution. >> you describe the opportunity to get our ideas and the progressive vision of policy into practice. i assume you subscribe to these views. when you talk about our ideas. >> the record shows, senator, i have been deeply involved in the american constitution society. i have sat on the board and chaired the board. >> there is nothing wrong with having views that are wrong. that is what you meant by the opportunity to get our views and to practice.

-- into practice. the follow-up question is, i guess you would say you were speaking in a policy way not through the judicial process. is that -- >> senator the short answer is yes. look, i think every president has their own views of what vision they would like to enforce as the president. i do not think i was meaning anything more than just that. >> policy of to the appropriate ways of doing so. it is not a proper for a judge to have a policy agenda of that he brings to court to try and get the agenda adopted into law. >> absolutely.

it would not be appropriate for any president to appoint a nominee for a judgeship because of that -- >> i will quote from an 18 -- in april 13th article in "politico." there were talking about the citizens united case. i think what people are going to do is say, do you share our concerns about the fact that the court always sides with the big corporate interest. do you think that is an accurate characterization of what the supreme court does? >> i think the supreme court tries as vast as it can to apply the law fairly and equally to all interests of the society whether they are ordinary people or corporate interests. >> do you think if you are on the ninth circuit court of appeals that you would have a

bias or a preconceived notion or agenda to try and write a balanced and roll more against big corporate interests? -- and rule were against them? >> absolutely not, senator. >> do you think that executive power has gone too big and that the courts should try and rein in and rebalance so that the executive power is more limited visa the a vis the other branches? >> courts can only decided cases presented to them based on applicable law. >> excuse me. your view would be that if this committee tried to promote the nominee because of our belief that that nominee would rule

against big corporate interests or would rule against executive powers that it would be an inappropriate basis for us to base support for a nominee on. that is bad grammar but forgive me. >> obviously senator, i will not pretend to suggest what standards this committee should use it in valuing a judicial nominee. that is your prerogative and not mine. i would say that for all judicial nominees, i think that the important test is whether the nominee would be faithful to the law that has been given. especially for a lower court nominee, like myself, in virtually all these areas the supreme court has said things and handed down precedence. this would have to be followed regardless of whatever theory the nominee had about the issue and whatever they may have written previously. >> thank you. >> think you very much, senator.

the hour is now 1:30. i would like to rehearse or adjourn this part of the hearing and move on to the four other judges. i know you are going to meet with liu separately. >> whenever you would like to do obviously we can do. i can probably in about no more than 10 minutes and may be less than that conclude the questions that i have if that would better fit into the schedule. i and is going to try and truncate of this. [laughter] how about that for a test? we do not want to approach cases with a preconceived notion, do we? whatever you want to do, but i think i can fairly quickly gets through this. >> no more than 10 minutes and then we move on. >> that is acceptable.

let me ask a question that i asked a previous nominee. the president had talked about using two different analogies about judging, talking about the type of nominee he would nominate. the first was the first 25 miles of a 26 mile marathon. the critical ingredient of the cases is supplied by what is in the judge's heart. do you believe the law only takes a the first 25 miles of the marathon and the last mile has to be decided by what is and that the judge's heart attacks -- judge's heart? >> that is a colorful analogy but i do not know if that is one i would describe to. -- ascribe to. judges should apply the law all of the way through. i do not think they're hard to

have a bearing on what the outcome of a case should be. >> relative to the ledbetter case you're asked in some cases if it was important to determine -- to consider the effects of a decision on a person's life. that was a case where, from the supreme court's point of view, they determined it as they saw it. many people believe that the result led to an unfortunate results on her life of. -- results on her life. should the court has considered the effect on her life in making a decision that they did? >> senator not to my knowledge. it would depend on what the applicable laws are to take into consideration.

i do not believe that the effect on her life is the relevant determinant there. >> presumably you would have tried to read the statute and if she lost than it was something to be corrected by the legislature if they decided to? >> i would look to the way the statute of limitations had been applied in the precedents. i would look at the relevant statutes that govern that issue. i would try to apply it safely. >> my question was a little different. it was not how it affected her life. it was the practical consequences of a legal wall. in other words, the consequence of the law was so convoluted because she could not possibly have known then she should have been paid on a different pace scale. -- pay scale. >> i stand corrected.

with that change your answer? >> just to bring the two things closer together, i think it is important to consider the kinds of practical consequences the senator speaks of about the statute of limitations doctrine if it has with annette -- but i do not know off the top of my head but if it has something about notice, they need to know when their rights are being violated for the statue to start. then one would have to inquire how the mob plays out. >> as you know, statute of the limitations law should have known. if the person should have known and still loses on benefits, the courses that is the way it is. is that correct? >> yes. >> one of the things he said in the keeping faith with the constitution was that the constitution requires adaptation of its broad principles to conditions we face today.

you said the question is not how the constitution would have been applied at the founding but rather how it should be applied today. i want to focus on the word should. and in light of changing needs conditions, and understanding of our societies. that is a normative that term -- that is a normative term. what is the legal test for how you decide "should?" >> if i could address the ell ipses. it is how it should be preserved to protect the values. >> i did not have those words in here and that does make it different. >> i only need to say that the should as an however a judge feels it should apply. it is rather how it should apply in order to preserve with the text says and what the principles behind the text mean.

>> one of the areas we have gone into in this context is the question of the role of religion or faith in our society. i know today there is a story out of madison, wisconsin. a federal judge has ruled that the national day of prayer is unconstitutional. obviously, neither you nor i have read this decision, but can you think of any determinative issues that would support that ruling? >> i will confess that i have is that hardly any time of my career studying the religious clauses of the constitution so i am not familiar with the relevant precedents in that area. >> all right. let me conclude with this.

he had been pretty outspoken in your criticism of the current supreme court. in fact you have suggested that it lacks principle and legitimacy. i specifically remember you said the bush vs. gore decision was pretty lacking. in another you claimed that if you look across the entire brunt of the cases that you see a fairly consistent pattern where respect for precedent goes by the wayside when it gets in the way ever a result. but they obviously have a problem with -- you obviously have a problem with their decisions. these to the presidency would be asked to apply. you have not been bashful in expressing your series of -- serious opposition. you're telling us that not withstanding that they are utterly lacking legal principle

he would have to apply the principle -- you would have to apply that principle. >> senator the reason that i perhaps said those words is that the opinion itself stated that it was only to apply in that case. i am not sure i would apply that because it instructed in its terms -- >> that is a distinction with a difference. utterly lacking in legal principle is different than it would not apply to a future case. are you saying the court had no legal principle basis for the decision that it made in bush vs. gore? >> senator, i guess the only import of the phrase i chose their vote was that it was my thinking that a legal principle should be something that applies to more than one case because it is a principle. >> you do not think they used a principle but said they used some kind of pragmatic decision making in that case. >> senator i will not try to

characterize this, but i haven't written but i have written and said what i have said. >> you have said judge alito -- your very critical of that. -- you are very critical of that. would you like to create a fourth element of a tort? that is a fairly mechanical way of deciding how particular case gets decided. >> i think this goes back to your earlier question, senator kyl. the application of a tort or contract, there is a human aspect to judging. is not white -- is why we do not put this through a formula. >> what is the human aspect? i can understand that with sentencing but i am not sure i can understand it in the case of defendant verses plaintiff.

>> i think they must surely apply the law as it is given and followed it to the logical consequence the matter with the result is. i think in the application of legal principle that judges are called on to exercise judgment with respect to the particular case. judges are human beings and there is often disagreement about the application of law and facts. the task for all judges remains the same which is applying lot to the facts of a specific case. >> that is a fair statement of the way it should be. we come to our positions with our preconceived notions political ideologies, our notions and personal experiences can certainly shape how we view certain issues. the job of a judge is to try and remove as much of that from their decision making process as possible. would you not agree? >> i would absolutely agree. >> would you also agree that when someone has written as

extensively as you have in very colorful language, you have not been bashful in expressing very specific and strong ale views about things. this can give way to some question as to whether or not the views having been held that strongly with as much riding as you have done and with as much explicit criticism to people with a contrary point of view whether it is possible for you to lay aside his ideas or ideologies and approach cases from a purely objective unbiased point of view. >> if i could offer one thought on that. i hope that my writings demonstrate that i am someone who is -- obviously i have my views and i enables the take into account opposing views of others. frankly, i appreciate the

opportunity to have this dialogue with you senator sessions, and others about very important and controversial issues of law about which there is very reasonable disagreement in america. in fact, one of the great things to think about this country and its legal tradition is that there is room for the disagreement. as much as i like my own views i confess to you that i would be a little afraid if i was the only voice speaking and that everything went my way. that is not the kind of certainty that i have about my own views. i hope my writing reflects the more thoughtful writings reflect that discipline and restraint. >> madam chairman, thank you. if there is an opportunity for us to visit privately i would welcome that. i suspect there may be questions for the record falling out. goes without saying that you can add or elaborate on your

answers. >> i would like to close this off with a few words. questions? [laughter] >> i would note that sutton is here and he was a skilled attonrey -- attorney and that went on for 12 hours. we have had some long hearings. this certainly did not exceed the normal. with regards to your comments about constitutional fidelity that "it may be valid when the object of the interpretation is one of the constitution's

concrete and specific commands." you should show fidelity to that. for example, i think you have noted that revenue bills must rise in the house. what about the second amendment which states that the rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? is that a precise command that cannot be abridged by unelected judges? >> senator, the supreme court has clearly said it is a command that projects an individual's right to bear arms. >> there is some uncertainty about it all and whether or not it applies to cities and states. what is your view on the second amendment? is it clear on that subject? you do not hesitate to say that new revenue bill must go in the house. do you hesitate to say the right

to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed. >> senator i confess i have not fought about or written about the second amendment in any great detail. the book discusses the second amendment as an example of where judges have applied a basic approach to debt -- to constitutional interpretation that takes into effect the original meaning and the text but also the practical consequences of precedent. that is the extent of any view that i have about the second amendment. i really could not go further. >> you said you felt that quotas were unconstitutional. that is your personal analysis on that are based on the supreme court? >> that is my view, senator. >> i am troubled. i am troubled that you have written that it should be

consigned to the dustbin of history. they give preference to one person or another as a result of the color of their skin or ancestry. i ask you if that is inconsistent. how can you dismiss so firmly this decision when it seems to be based on similar theories as quotas? >> it is a precedent of the court and of course i would have to follow it as a judge. i think my disagreement with that case does not have anything to do with its central holding which was that all racial classifications by current be by government are held to suspicion by the court. i have held to that principle and in my writings and i have not urged the court to revisit it in any way. the only disagreement i have is its extension of the principles

of the case that the with the obligations of states rather than the federal government with respect to the latitude given to affirmative action programs. i took a broader view than the court did on that particular issue and that is the on the point of disagreement i have with that case. >> one final thing. i am curious about the american constitution society. so many members of the obama administration talk about a progressive agenda. as i understand it, the progressive movement started in the early 1900's. one of their doctrines was that in the people knew best and that the constitution was an impediment for them to do what is best for those on educated people out there in the country. is that in any way the constitution society -- the american constitution society's

view? >> senator, i think your question rightly exposes the hazard of using labels of that sort. i guess i will put this in plain terms which is that the american people have always, i think demonstrated great reverence for our constitution because they think of it as a set of principals in a document that they can embrace as their own. i do not think it is a question of whether policymakers, judges or others are wiser than the people. there's no greater wisdom than that resides in the the american people. that has sustained the country throughout its many years as a nation dedicated to the rule of law under our own constitution. >> thank you, senator. i would like to conclude this now. i would like to say that i have been very impressed with you. you can to my home and we spent

a few hours. you join my family and i with the dinner. my daughter happens to be a judge and we had a good conversation. i cannot in my time on this committee remember anyone quite so young who has done so much. i have great respect for that. i think the thing that all this needs to remember is that this is a very diverse country and the law is equal for everyone. within that law, there are certain tensions and there is dialogue discussion, and cases in point and not in point. it takes a mature mind and someone, i think, that is willing to waive the scales -- w weigh the scales. judge chin who was an advocate

is pending for a district court. he spent eight years as a magistrate judge and has been able to demonstrate that. you are being appointed to a circuit court and have not had an opportunity to demonstrate that for a period of time. i have asked about this before. you did not make an opening statement. i would ask you to make a very brief concluding statements just on that point. >> certainly, senator. i think it is a fair point. many nominees come before this committee with backgrounds different than mine. i guess i would say as you look across my entire record, there are many things relevant to the kind of judge i would be. in my scholarship, i hope that the record shows that i am a rigorous and disciplined person

who makes arguments carefully in 8 nuanced way taking into account all of the other possible ways of looking at an issue and where i have decided to lay down my view, i have respectfully treated the views of others. i think if you look at my teaching, and many of my former students are here today, i hope you would find i am a good listener, i did not seek to impose my views on other people. rather what i tried to do is give this at all of the different points of view that could eliminate an issue. i hope that accounts for something that i have one, at least around some, the respect of colleagues that see the temperament, collegiality, and balanced judgment that have enabled me to perform certain leadership positions and be involved with various organizations that require that

skill said. although, senator, i cannot hold up for you a judicial resonate -- a judicial resume that demonstrates the quality of a judge, i hope you'll find analogous evidence in some of the other things i have done. >> thank you very much. i am going to excuse you. i would like to correct the record. there are four of us that are non-lawyers. we believe we see the forest rather than the trees. thank you very much for being here today. >> i offered to the record some letters. i have 10 letters here from judicial action group judicial watch, liberty counsel 42 california district attorneys who say for many years our ability to enforce the law and protect the citizens of our jurisdiction has been hampered

by erroneous decisions of the united states court of appeals from the ninth circuit. this court has been far out of the judicial mainstream. they say that under no circumstances should any nominee be confirmed to the ninth circuit who would take that court further in the wrong direction. regrettably, the president has sent such a nominee. the concerned women of america crime victims united of america the american conservative union. >> well, thank you. the letters will go on the record. i would like to submit to the record a list of the 24 court nominees confirmed under the bush administration who had no prior experience as a judge. those documents will go into the record. we will call up -- it thank you very much, professor liu, to

those wonderfully well-behaved children. thank you for being here. bye violet. if our four other nominees would please come forward. take your place. we will begin that. >> if you would affirm the oath

when i complete its rating. do you affirmed the testimony you are about to give to this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> thank you. we now have the honor roll kimberly j. mueller richard mark gergel, and catherine. -- catherine eagles. i would like to open the floor to judge meuller. >> thank you for asking. >> she, as i understand it, is from the eastern district of california. this is a district with a very high caseload.

she is nominated for a judge who has taken senior status. she has presided over more than 50 trials and seen at 230 cases to verdict. i think what we will do is go right down the line and ask each of you to make a few opening comments and introduce your family. why do we begin with you? >> may i please interact? madam chairman, i have to run. could i welcome each idiom and apologize for what seems to be a very unfair process where you will probably not get the same attention that the nominee just before you did. i want to assure both the people who sufficiently braided and who have come here to see you perform on this stage that the fact that you may not get the

same attention is a testament to the fact that having looked over the material you provided in advance, you did not seem to have created anything of sufficient controversy, shall we say, to cause us to have to spend that much time with you. with your leave, i would like to express my congratulations to all of you. i look forward to reading. thank you senator for your courtesy. >> thank you. that means you have senator kyl's vote. in any event, thank you for being here. i speak for the -- i will not speak for the ranking member but it is the way of trying to move a number of judges at one time. but me begin with you, judge. >> madam chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. i would like to first thank president obama for the great

honor of placing my name in nomination. i would like to thank each of you on the committee for taking me into consideration deciding whether or not to confirm. i would also like to acknowledge family members and friends with me today. may i ask them to stand briefly? >> yes please do. >> my parents have join me here from kansas, my husband robert. >> please stand. >> my husband is here from sacramento. i am joined by my sister from west des moines. i'm joined by friends from boston, mass., brad and mary and their daughter'ss. additionally dave smith from new york city andy a former

colleague from sacramento, andblack wood who is working in washington d.c. >> your filling out the room. >> i do not want to leave anyone out. i would just acknowledge those people watching as well. my sister and her husband are not able to be here. they are in london. my mother-in-law of sacramento is not able to be here. my brother-in-law of santiago, my sister-in-law from boulder colorado, and her children, a first-year student at cornell law school, a teacher, and my cousin in sacramento. thank you for the opportunity to acknowledge them. >> judge gergel. >> thing to for the opportunity

of being here. i would like to thank president obama for the high honor of the nomination. i would like to think the senators of for their support in my nomination. i was quite humbled by the comments of senator gramm and the majority whip today at the beginning of the proceedings. i would like to ask to stand my dear wife of 30 years c my son who works for nbc news, my son in paris is watching via streaming video as is my 88- year-old mother who is watching online who is hobbled by me being here. -- who is humbled by my being her. >> judge childs. >> madam chairman, ranking member, and other members of the committee, thank you. i am humbled by this opportunity

to appear here before you. i would like to express sincere gratitude to president obama for this high honor of being nominated and of course to our senators who had been here in support. senator gramm made some warm comments for us today and also the majority whip. we offer our appreciation. i would like to a knowledge my family as well. i begin with my husband who is a gastro neurologist. next to him is my mother shandra. she is the second of 12 children and i wish to a knowledge my grandmother. >> she looks like your sister. >> my grandmother is in detroit michigan. she is unable to be here. my mother's other siblings, mind boggled derek and asking here from atlanta georgia -- my uncle derek.

that is their relationship. my brother-in-law, who is an anesthesiologist in virginia and my sister watching online with my 16-month-old daughter and her family has been, and children. also here with us is my cousin victoria who lived in louisville ky. i do have a large family. >> you are lucky. >> also, a deer family friend deborah. -- a dear family friend. >> in any of that, welcome and welcome to your family. >> thank you madam chair. one also would like to think the president for the honor. i am privileged to introduce my family that i have here with me.

my husband bill, is here, my son john, my mother dorothy is here. i am joined by some friends who live in the washington d.c. area, mary and alice. i also have some friends from the time i spent in washington d.c. in law school. they are here with me. my brothers and sisters are scattered around the country with my nieces and nephews and they are here in spirit. thank you. >> thank you very much. since three of you are already judges, i would like to ask one question and go right down the line to have you answer them. how can you assure us that in any case that comes before you that you will or that you have been able to disregard your own personal views and allegiances and decide the case only on the law and the facts?

>> madam chairman, thinking for that question. that is the first principle of judging. i think putting on the black robe symbolizes the exercise of putting aside your personal views and coming to the bench coming into the case with the intent of the plan only the law as it is given in the constitution by the supreme court, by the circuit court applying the controlling precedent and doing your best to reach the correct decision under the law. >> thank you. >> madame chairwoman, the paramount issue in the process is the rule of law. there is nothing more fundamental. i pledge to you that if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed that it will always be my first and central concerned -- the eternal nature of the-- rule of

law. >> thank you. in reference to your question, i have a high regard and appreciation for our legal system which is a form of order in our democracy. .

to ensure a predictable process to ensure that the law as expressed by the higher courts is carried out. the north carolina supreme court is followed every day in my courtroom as consistently as i am able to do so. >> what is your understanding of the scope of congressional power under article run one of the constitution, in particular the commerce -- in particular under article i of the constitution, in particular the commerce clause? >> i have not had the opportunity to make such a decision. i can tell you if the question is asking about whether or not i would ever rule a statute unconstitutional, i can tell you that i would only overturn the

statute after very serious consideration. generally, my approach to any case would be to look at the question presented look at the record of the case before me marshall the applicable law, and apply that law to the specific question presented. i have not made a decision, i believe, that addresses that question to date. >> obviously the commerce clause provides broad powers to congress the president of the supreme court demonstrate that. but that's -- the presidencidents of the supreme court to demonstrate that but that is not unlimited power. >> thank you.

>> i too have not had the opportunity to address this particular question in a state court. however, in federal court i would address only cases and controversies before me. with respect to any laws, with respect to your congressional powers, i would presume that anything that you all are doing is constitutional and would approach it with that mind set, knowing that you would only enact laws that you have had due deliberation over. i would make that assumption in the the first place. there may be a course of action in which we might have to consider something to be unconstitutional but i would hope that we would be in a position where we would not have to reach that decision. i would consider only that particular facts and circumstances before the court. >> as a state courts judge i have not faced many commerce clause issues. i do know there are some cases

that may come before the court. it would be my intention to review those cases carefully. i would perhaps look beyond the fourth circuit to other circuits if i were fortunate enough to be confirmed, and to apply the law as it is put forth by the appellate court to the facts as they are put forth in front of me. i would only reach constitutional decisions when necessary, and rolled merrily when possible. >> thank you. >> thank you. it is good to have all of you here. the process is more rigorous as you know, then adjust the hearing we have today. each of you had to be interviewed by the department of justice, the president, the white house. you had to submit your materials.

the fbi has done backgrounds. the ada has done evaluations. if you have submitted documents according to our questionnaire to the senate and our staff has done their best to pore over them to make sure that things are in order. fattah i have to say at this point that -- i have to say at this point that nothing bad has happened as a result. you have stood on your records and each of you have had a good deal of experience. it seems to me you have the kind of skills, gives braises and backgrounds but -- gifts braces -- graces and backgrounds that would allow you to do a good job. but this is not a small matter. it is a lifetime appointment. it is the only opportunity for the public to have any kind of role in it. although we are not going to be

telling you this morning or this afternoon -- drilling you this morning or this afternoon, a lot of work has gone into assuring the public that you have the skills and integrity to do a good job. you mentioned the rule of law. he practiced for some time. i was just reading an article by the ceo of a major company. his investment group was investing all over the world and he was talking positively about it. the interviewer said, "what about the united states? do you still believe in investing in the united states?" on three different occasions in the protracted interview, he said yes. the first reason he gave was the rule of law.

you can invest in the united states and feel like you will have a fair day in court if something comes up. you are at much greater risk in other countries many other countries, because they do not have that great tradition. in your experience, how you evaluate the importance of the rule of law? what senator, i think that is an excellent question. -- >> senator i think that is an excellent question. i have a friend who did business overseas and had fugs cent after him. you cannot have -- had thugs sent after him. you cannot have an open society without the rule of law. >> i agree.

i do not believe that each judd should let their empathy or their dealings allow them to be impacted. you have expressed some concern about the tough sentences you have been called upon to impose. you're not the only judge of that has expressed about -- expressed that. we just passed by partisan guidelines that are the primary source of some of the heavier sentences into the system. my question to you is, you are about to have a lifetime appointment. how do you feel about the guidelines? what difference do feel they should be given, and to what

extend -- to what extent do you think they should be followed? >> i am not sure to what you are referring. i have not had much criminal experience. >> you have said that children are put in jail for too long. you said "there is never a reasonable justification." wait. you are correct. i do not believe that was you. [laughter] >> i have forgotten many things. i am glad to know i was not wrong about that.

>> well, it is a tough thing. how do you feel about the duty that you have to impose sometimes very tough sentences? and will you do it? >> absolutely. even though i only see felonies on initial hearings, i regularly provide guidelines for the class a misdemeanors that appear before me. i regularly consult them in every case. i consider them an essential tool in imposing a judgment and sentence but moreover, in ensuring that i am applying statutory practices. i want to make sure that courts are imposing a uniform sentences throughout the country.

>> i appreciate that. i think that is a good answer. for you knew that federal judges, i think that is good advice. -- for you new federal judges, i think that is good advice. when the dust settles, i think we definitely achieved more unity and consistency, and actually allow you to feel more comfortable that the sentence you impose is in line with mainstream thinking. would you share your thoughts about how you would approach to the guidelines? >> we in itself carolina have a special relationship with the -- in itself carolina -- in south

carolina have a special relationship with the guidelines. i have spent a good deal of time studying them. they are very valuable tools. they should be the benchmark and beginning point of every sentencing process. there are obviously circumstances where they do not fit. all parties, the u.s. attorney's office and defense counsel will recognize when they do not fit. that is usually not a matter of dispute. they are a very valuable tool, and i pledge to consider them. >> the role of one person in

establishing the guidelines was extremely valuable. i think it has been helpful. >> in state court we obviously are not bound by any citizen guidelines. we also do not have some guidelines as advisories'. in that regard, i do believe that the federal court guidelines -- and i appreciate the bipartisan effort that has gone into those guidelines -- they lead to greater uniformity in sentencing. as state judges, we have a broader range. that made differed from person to person. ztñi would feel lucky to approach those of guidelines as advisory's.

>> it might help you sleep a little better if you were just following the regulations of people who objectively figure out what they thought would be the best rules. >> absolutely. >> when i became a judge in 1993, we did not have citizen guidelines in north carolina. we did have a structured sentencing enacted in 1994. it is not exactly the same as the federal system, i understand but it does consider aggravating factors and mitigating factors. i have been working with those since 1994. i am used to working with the guidelines. it gives a framework for sentencing that is extremely helpful and useful, and i agree with my colleagues that i would definitely consult those in the first instance. >> i am not going to ask any

more questions, but in going to say this. you are all going to federal trial court. it is where the rubber hits the road. it is where people come in and petition. it is where you will be dependent upon -- depended upon to settle cases because some of you will have a very large caseloads. your ability to settle rather than take it to trial is also very important. we consider the federal court the best, the smartest, the premier court in the united states. there is a level of trust that you take. the fact that this is a lifetime position that you can only be impeached you do not have to run for office, is an enormous, i think, responsibility. that they can trust -- the

faith and trust and obligation toward a lot of your country is all important. i just want to say that i have no doubt that you are going to be confirmed, and i want to wish you well. i want you to carry that standard high. so with that, this hearing is adjourned. [bellpulgavel] [unintelligible]

>> senate judiciary committee wrapping up its business for the day. we will show a little more of the hearing later in our schedule. the house and senate are back next week. they will consider giving washington d.c. delegate at the same voting rights as a representative. they will also consider repealing many gun control laws. the house returns to legislative business tuesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. there are more nominations to the judiciary to be considered, as well as the treasury post. there is also the overhaul of the financial regulation led by christopher dodd. leaders are hoping to get that on the floor this week. president barack obama has said

he will veto a bill that does not regulate the derivatives market. there will be a procedural vote at 5:30 p.m. this weekend, the first of three british election debate. for the first time, gordon brown, david cameron, and nick clay will face off in a u.s.- style debates. the first debate is sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. this weekend on "book tv." there will be panels on the world's book -- world's water supply. also, an effort to alert the media about bernie madoff.

sunday this year's pulitzer prize winners for history and nonfiction. now, a look at issues ahead in the u.s. senate', up from this morning's "washington journal." >> senator, what is the unemployment rate in ohio right now? guest: a little over 10%. we are not quite as close to michigan but we are similar in of foreclosures. we have not had quite the same drop in value because we did not have as much speculation. but, the economic problems in ohio are longer-term and persistent. there are several factors however, that i think are making

things different than when we came out of the recession in the 1980's, when nothing changed. i have more optimism about my state than many people around the country. for me, a good sign is that of the jobs are starting to come back. we have a 1100 new of the jobs. chevy is building the highest mileage gm car. honda is starting to come back. but more than that, of ohio is increasingly becoming an aerospace state. we have a hundred and 20,000 jobs in the aerospace industry. it is a big state for boeing investment. airbus has spent millions of dollars buying components for their airplanes in europe. toledo has more jobs in solar energy than any city in america.

we are on track to build the first wind turbines farm and freshwater in the world. you can tour ohio and see fuel cells and all over the state major progress in the clean energy. we have gotten more jobs out of this recovery act in clean energy than any other state. that is because we know how to build things. you are seeing us unchanged from the office supply chain into the clean energy -- you are seeing us change from the auto supply chain into the clean energy industry. we have had capital investment from the federal government, and that has allowed us to live in that direction.

host: you framed the climate change built as an economic issue, and you oppose caps and trade. guest: i think climate change is real. i think it is the great moral issue of our times. i think we must decide what to do about carbon in the next two decades. i also think that fighting cardin will unleash a torrent of -- fighting carbon will unleash a torrent of capital. this bill has to be a jobs bill in terms of what we do with the six industries in our company -- in our country which are trade sensitive and energy intensive.

trade sensitive means that if we do not do it right manufacturing industries are more likely to go to china. if we do it right on the environment and they do not, it is one more incentive for those companies to outdoors. that is why it has to be done right. senator kerrey, senator lieberman, and senator gramm are working on it. host: what is your proposal? >> our proposal deals with utilities that are cole based. -- coal based. we want to help with the transition into clean energy manufacturing.

we are not ready for that now as a country. we have been picking winners in our economic and finance system. we need some border adjustments so that if the chinese or whomever to not enact the right environmental rules they cannot undercut our manufacturers who do follow the rules. cohost: you have called for a 50% tax on bonuses from wall street. you also call yourself a populist. guest: to me, populism means standing up for the little guy.

wall street companies and banks do not need more representation in washington. they are doing fine with their armies of lobbyists. host: the tax on bonuses? guest: i was watching in this other room the citizens against government waste. we have to deal with a lot of these budget problems long term. 10 years ago we had a surplus. we were going the right direction. then we went to a war without paying for it. we give tax cuts to the rich without paying for it. we have giveaways to the drug companies without paying for them. we have to find a way to pay for them or quit doing them or both. i think we should do both. host: we were talking about nuclear power plants. what do you think about building more in the u.s.? guest: i am a really strong skeptic of nuclear power.

we have 405 nuclear power plants in operation in the united states. all of them are at least 30 years old. some of them will start going off line in the next decade or 20 years. all of them will be obsolete by then, they say. we have to find a way to displace that. we are not going to do it all. i would like to do a manhattan project for solar and wind. we have to find a way to replace, and we have to find a better way to dispose. we cannot just use yet the mountain. we have to find a better way. i think the people who are the strongest advocates for nuclear power need to also be the strongest advocates for finding a clean way to dispose of it. host: we will take our first

call. caller: i would like to know how many weeks there are on the extension they just gave, and when does it start? guest: it ran out april 6th. this is sort of the fourth year extension. it would depend on your situation how many more weeks you would have, if you are calling for yourself for a family member. the important thing is not just extending unemployment. it is making sure that people get the subsidy for continuing their health care. we also need to focus more on job creation. we have not done that enough yet. we have not seen bipartisan creation -- bipartisan cooperation. in terms of the health-care part of this bill, the extension of cobra and the subsidies of cobra make people more likely to be able to keep their health

insurance. we have to get this health care bill implemented over the next two or three years. that should help. host: from the republican line. caller: sheriff we saw a guest on squawk box say that he was going to meet with president barack obama. we hope that we see some recovery here. as you know, it is one of the hardest-hit places in america. we love you, and all that you do. host: bruce, you are calling on the republican line. are you up and up to this senator? is that correct?

[no answer] i guess we will never know. guest: the person he was referring to did not play fairly with dhl. it was very badly managed. they left the community as running the largest private airport in the united states. we are looking all the time at how to use it, this newly acquired airport that the taxpayers in the community come to spark economic development. in that area of the state, they have been hit as hard as any place in the country. dhl was the largest employer in each of six rural counties in that region. it was devastating to the hospitals, the school system, the police force, and to every family that lost a job and lost their health care. both the bush and the obama

administrations and stepped up in a pretty significant and helpful way on how we fight back. there is so much more that we have to do. this was devastating to a community of that size. i appreciate his comments. political parties did not matter there. local congressman and i worked together and will continue to. host: independent line, mike from california. caller: i am and a libertarian. from my perspective my focus was on the to the nine social security and medicare report that showed the unfunded liabilities of these two programs. it is about $107 trillion in unsecured liabilities. this is more than the income of every household and business in

the country. it is a colossal liability hanging over the heads of future generations. guest: how many years did that refer to? it is underfunded for how many 50 years, 100 years at two hundred years? how did they calculate the dollar figure? do you know? caller: it seems to me that is an irrelevant issue here. adding this latest entitlement it seems to me, does not help. it just makes things worse. guest: fair enough. i hear that at home. i hear that in the toledo and youngstown. first of all, when i hear this unfunded liability into the tens

of trillions or whatever these dollar figures are, i always ask what the number of years is. we have not funded the defense department over that many years either. they never talk about the unfunded liability there. i understand that with medicare the government is locked into giving specific benefits, but tell me we are not going to do the same for the defense department and other departments, and we are going to need to raise the revenue to do it. if i think those kinds of observations are not inaccurate, but they are not all that helpful. the caller is right. social security and medicare are serious long-term problems. social security -- medicare is more challenging than social security. we know how to make slight adjustments in social security. president reagan and the democratic congress, as you know, made the adjustment of raising the retirement rage --

retirement age over a 24 year. period. we can do this. to the health-care bill right now, this thing is paid for. it is paid for. it will create a surplus. conservatives who were against this bill do not like to acknowledge that. they say it is playing with numbers, smoke and mirrors. the congressional budget office does not operate that way. there are a lot of things in this bill that are not even counted that are going to be seen. keeping people out of hospitals preventing low birth weights things i have seen all over the country that are in this bill that will save thousands and thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars over time. there are a lot of those things in the bill that opponents just never really wanted to acknowledge. host: in your capacity as chairman of the subcommittee on

economic policy has the federal government done enough or done the right thing when it comes to foreclosures? guest: not enough, and we did not start early enough. many of us are -- many of us were sounding the alarm in 2007. i come from a state where foreclosures had been a problem already for decades. we have been sounding the alarm to the county treasurer for years. even though i supported german bernanke for his reappointment -- supported ben bernanke for his reappointment, i think he was slow in coming to the table. we have clearly not done enough. we were willing to take care of wall street and have done little for homeowners.

a lot of people gained the system. some were speculators. summer packaging and repackaging securities. on wall street, cowboys made a lot of money. host: is there more action ahead? guest: president barack obama has been pretty good on this and is getting increasingly better in terms of providing states leeway. sometimes a person can stay in their home by talking to the local lender as long as they can find out where the mortgage is held. it there is a foreclosure, it does not do damage to that family. it is the next-door neighbor whose house declines in value the other foreclosure three doors down causes the value of the whole neighborhood to decline.

the community declines. police and fire protection is cut back because they have fewer homeowners. all of that happens when there is a high foreclosure rate. it is not just an individual problem for those unfortunate many who have been foreclosed on. it is a community problem and a national problem. it is a national problem partly because of the impact it has had on lending from banks and in housing overall. host: jeff in los angeles. caller: first of all i want to propose that we have a straight up carbon tax. it is something that the public understands and supports. i also want to speak to the issue of unfunded mandates. if we had taken all of that money we gave to wall street and paid off everybody's mortgage, we would have given wealth to the working class. we would have put that money

where it was needed, and still we -- and instead we bail out wall street. guest: that was not on the table for the bush administration. i don't think the president ever would have gone along with that. president barack obama might have if he had taken office 13 months earlier. there was not an option to do it that way. it was talked about in the banking committee. i saw it in the communities where these problems were particularly acute. i don't think government addressed this the right way or as comprehensively as we should have early on. i think it is significantly better now the way we are addressing it, but it certainly is a long way from solving the problems. host: carbon tax? guest: that is not the direction

congress is going. i do not think we could get bipartisan support doing it that way. i think we can get bipartisan support doing it this way. we have moved away from capital -- from cap and trade. i think we have to find a way to price carbon. i think the sentiment in congress is to let the market price at carbon. that is the best way to pass a bill that can work in the end. host: john, in texas, the republican line. caller: this is an enjoyable discussion but i almost forgot what i really called about. you referred to the little guy earlier. it seems that the big guys in

congress make mistakes and then get the pay raise. there were problems with fannie mae and freddie mac but they got a golden parachute. no one gets fired in the government when they make a mistake. you and other folks in congress seem to think you can create wealth. the only thing you create is debt. guest: well, plenty of people are losing their jobs when they should. you could argue that so many people on wall street continue to get rewarded for the mistakes they have made. they made tens of millions of dollars, kept their jobs, got their bonuses. let me give you one statistic that i think it's pretty astounding about what has happened to our country in the last 30 years. in 1980, one-third of the u.s.

gdp was manufacturing. about half of that was financial-services. today, that has almost entirely flipped. financial-services are a third of our gdp. manufacturing is less than 1 1/6. 45% of corporate profits in 2004 came out of financial services and something like 10% out of manufacturing. this economy is not working for the little guy as you would suggest, in that sense. the financial industry, which has not been as productive -- financial-services served our country well. local businesses are creating wealth in their communities but these big banks that are speculating, gaming the system

and making money out of these transactions are not productive for the economy at all. i understand your anger and frustration at fannie mae and freddie mac. some of that is well founded. but to let off the hook these wall street banks who have inflicted much of this pain on all of us you in texas and my neighbors in northeast ohio, i think it's a bad idea. host: from emma in ohio, for 10 years ohio's elderly have had a punitive otter -- a punitive poverty level for medicaid. can it be raised to 133%? guest: years are not sure what she is talking about. some people are eligible for

medicaid and medicare at the same time. they do not have to pay as much for their premium as more affluent beneficiaries. i do not know the situation exactly that she is talking about, but i do know that those tears are not always there. -- those tiers are not always fair. host: here is another e-mail from ohio. how do you think the new casinos will help or hurt the state? guest: i think if they are using in-state, union, well-paid labour i do not know if it will bring as much wealth and jobs as proponents said it would, the jury is still out because you

need more police protection, you need more safety forces because of all that surrounds casinos so i do not know what is going to happen. i am hopeful that it will bring us closer to prosperity. host: rick in pennsylvania. independent line. caller: i m opposed to health care, and i know that cap and trade is really about raising taxes. i do not know how people can talk about environmental problems without talking about our unsustainable population growth in the world. i do not believe what government agency should be able to control or stop the sale of your home based on that agency puts the interests -- agency's interest.

guest: first of all, the house bill will be very different from the senate bill. i have never heard that point made. it does not make sense. congress is not raising taxes just to raise taxes. i know that is what conservatives want to say. the fact is, is today was tax day. american refunds were larger than they have ever been. there were more than a dozen tax cuts during the 15 first month of the obama administration. these went to the middle class to buy a home, to buy a car health care, education, a tax cut for seniors. we aimed hours at the middle class. republicans typically aimed there's at the wealthy. what you said i just do not agree with. nobody is going to come into your house and tell you you can

or cannot sell your house based on environmental issues. also, we are not as raising taxes to raise taxes. the fact is we cut taxes. as the president said yesterday all of these people out protesting on april 15th should have been thanking him for the tax cuts that we did, because they are aimed at the middle class. 99% of american families got a tax cut somewhere in the last 15 years. the average family has an average $1,000 more in their pockets. host: you have in other tweaked here banking -- tweet here thanking you for exposing deep balls mailers -- for exposing

the false mailers. guest: when we see some of these, we work with the government agencies to try to deal with them. we have had success sometimes and not other times trying to keep these companies from preying on people. that is what it is. host: our last call comes from a level, ky -- louisville ky. democrats. guest: i didn't want to say that i am and admirer of your -- caller: i does want to say that in an admirer of yours.

i have and some blue cross -- anthem blue cross but the premiums went up so high i had to give it up. it is practically like saying you do not have insurance. will people get any kind of help? there is another question i want to ask you. a comment. you had a gentleman on the line talking about why didn't they pay off the houses instead of bailing out the banks. i do not agree with everything he said. i am mad at the banks. i am very angry. but a lot of these people got themselves into this mess, and i do not think people like that should be helped. guest: i see that. everybody is responsible in some

sense. when the sales person comes in, the mortgage broker, or the person that is talking to the homeowner and says, you can get a really low rate for two years in your home value will go up, and these are pretty fast- talking, a pretty convincing people sometimes, maybe somebody was not summit education and of getting in a situation like this. i know you could not have done a blanket way what the caller suggested but there were some different things we could have done. in terms of your health insurance, this bill is going to help. first of all everybody in america who has health insurance is paying a tax right now about one belsen dollars because you are paying for people who -- about $1000 because you are

paying for people to go to the emergency room to do not have health insurance. we are going to see up better situation. you will have consumer protection around your plans and the insurance companies are going to have to start spending at least 85% of your premiums on health care, not on profits administrative costs advertising, and all of that. host: thank you very much. we appreciate you coming on and talking with our viewers. >> next week, members of the house will consider giving washington, d.c. delegate to the same voting rights as states. the house returns for legislative business tuesday on c-span. over on the senate side, more judicial nominations are to be considered.

negotiations continue on an overhaul of financial regulations, led by senate banking committee chairman christopher dodd. leaders took to get the measure on the floor sometime during the week. this afternoon president barack obama said that he will veto a bill that does not regulate the derivatives market. the senate is back for general speeches monday at 2:00 p.m., followed by a debate on the treasury nomination and a procedural vote set for 5:30 p.m. follow live coverage on c-span- two. this weekend, the first of three british election debates. for the first time, gordon brown, david cameron, and nick play it will face off in u.s.- style debate. watch them in their entirety for three consecutive zero weekends. the first will be sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. >> our public appears content is available on television, radio

and online. you can also connect with us on facebook and youtube. you can sign up for our scheduled alert e-mails @ c- span.org. >> next, the conversation about financial regulation on wall street. it is about 25 minutes. host: robert sloan is on your screen. he is the author of "don't blame the shorts," a book about short- selling on wall street. he wrote an op-ed this week about bankers meeting to fight back. i want to start in colonial history. you referred to the fact that our current economic debate today is based on the alexander hamilton thomas jefferson model

of financial debate. could you explain that? guest: yes the country was founded on the two opposing financial ideologies. thomas jefferson believed in free trade but he distrusted banks and speculation. he specifically hated the consolidation and issuance of debt by the federal government. on the other side, you have alexander hamilton, who was all about concentration of federal power. he loved speculation believed in financial markets, and he also was certainly very pro credit. those opposing ideologies were really at the outset of the country. you see the pendulum is swinging between those two poles pretty much every 20 or 30 years. host: is that the main street versus wall street debate or a washington numbers is wall street debate? guest: in my book, i go over a

lot of how the political arguments are very much entwined in to the economic discussions of the time. at the time of thomas devin and alexander hamilton, -- thomas jefferson and alexander hamilton, there was a debate about ious. it caused an incredible amount of acrimony between jefferson and hamilton, and also cause a split between new york being an economic center, it also caused it to not be a political center. that is why washington was created. host: in your op-ed you say that the 1929 crash led to enmity against wall street and

that the legal and lot effects of that crash were killed four years and need to be avoided. guest: i do not know if they can be avoided at this point in time. my point in the article was that, i think in the banking debate today, we are talking so much about protecting margins and profits, rather than how do we participate in the system that has given us so much? everyone who has put into this financial system has taken out much more. what that article was trying to say was that in our own political heritage, in our philosophical heritage, there has to be a way that we can explain why wall street is important that is in line with the country's egos. host: i am going to put the phone numbers on the screen.

feel free to call in to talk to our guest. please allow 30 days between your calls. what is a short sale? guest: a short sale is when you sell something you do not alone so that you can make a bet against shares falling -- you do not alone -- own so that you can make a bet against shares falling. capital is recycled and rented throughout the system, many times a day every day. wall street traders short against risks that they already have. that is how we are able to get liquidity. that is how we are able to attract capital from all over the world. we have markets that allow the offsetting of risks.

host: could it be considered betting against success? guest: i would look at it in just the opposite way. what is so interesting about short selling is that this country was founded on the rights of the minority. in its most isolated form, when there is no risk to offset you're really does betting directionally, you're basically saying that there is something on a monthly fought with the company -- fundamentally flawed with the company. when corporate ceos a gang up on a short sellers, there is usually a good reason for that. host: would you comment on the senator blanche lincoln's proposal to prohibit all derivative transactions? guest: proposing to eliminate

all derivative transactions is, in this day and age like proposing a law that says you cannot drive. whether we like it or not whether we think people act responsibly or not the fact is that bank balance sheets, what is on the balance sheets of these banks, is almost the size of the gdp. they are part of our economy. just saying that we are going to panic derivatives -- ban derivatives, i do not know how you get anything done. how would we finance health care and all of the other things we want to use our money for? host: tell us what s three partners is. guest: we help hedge funds to deal with their prime brokers and give them the best price and best execution in the most

opaque market in the world. host: angie in jacksonville, fla., a democrat. you're up. caller: my main question is, i have a problem with the system the way it is working. everyone else in this country has been bailed out, wall street auto industry homeowners. even unemployed people have been bailed out. but in the category of unemployed the people who have fundamentally been systematically left out of the employment or left out of the system have not been bailed out. what is wrong with it really bailing out these really poor people? what is wrong with that? guest: i guess i could see the

argument, which is that if you bailout -- had to make an argument that says that one part of the economy is more important than the other? what i would suggest is that you call up your congressman and tell him that you think they have their priorities from -- their priorities wrong. caller: you are taking an unpopular stance, and i admire you. let me explain where i am coming from. you talked about the regulators and short-sellers. there was a time when the farmer brought his grain to market, and he would be given a set price that would allow him to pay his bills. i think the speculators are the

people banking on houses in california and las vegas thinking they would never go down in price, i am going to bank on that. whereas, what you are doing really keep the market in regulation. guest: the interesting thing is, in my book, i talk a lot about how the shorting is really the police force of the marketplace. we want the best information. the reason why america has the best capital markets in the world is because we have the best informations. the reason we have the best information is that it mirrors our form of agreement, with checks and balances. shorting is a check and balance. it enables us to ensure that when corporations are filling out their forms there may be an

economic punishment for not doing it properly. that is an important part of economics and our american capital system. . . view are the current regulations regarding short selling correct or should there be more or less? guest: well what i would like to see certainly in the current new modified uptick rules, i would love to see the data and love to see more information that said we made a decision based upon the data and what the markets actually did, not because we are looking to do something. i think that there's danger in a creeping incrementalism. we have a national franchise in this country. chinese trade partners arab petro dollars japanese savers come here to finance our lifestyle because they can come to new york and find deep

liquidity. they can buy things sell things and get a price. that is a national franchise and treasure and it has been lost in the debate around banking an bailouts and whether bankers are bad people. that is an incredible bring important point not only for wall street but for the country. that is what we need to look at in financial regulation how to protect that national treasure. because we have deficits as high as the eye can see, and if we are going to let other people -- let's face it capital markets, there is no plant and equipment keeping people here. if the chinese want to make freer markets and steal some of that capital flow they can. so i think it is something that is very important to our society and we need to get a little less emotional about it and more analytical. host: the last segment when we were talking with senator brown of ohio we had a caller in jeff from l.a. and he said instead of

bailing out wall street all that money should have been september to homeowners to create equity. what do you think? guest: it is an interesting question question which is in the midst of the entire bailout we haven't gotten to the root cause of why we are where we are. if you ask me i think that home ownership has an incredibly strong political side to owning a home. you are much less likely to overthrow governments, redesign government and cause political disruption if you own a home. that idea is an incredibly powerful point in american politics and it runs through why we have the g.s.e.'s in the way they are. so one of the things that has been i thnb not necessarily tended to is the fact that we have a rent strike in this

country. we have six million homeowners that are not paying mortgages and people are incredibly angry. you can see that tension in the tea party and back in history there are hundreds of movements that occur right after financial collapses that tried to capitalize on that anger of feeling that you have done work and yet the system rewards people that are better politically connected and may be more systemically important. that creates an incredible amount of frustration. host: when you hear the term "bail out wall street" what do you think? guest: to some extent accurate. there were firms clearly that needed money to be saved. so it is not inaccurate. host: should they have been saved? guest: i wish at the time we had actually said that we were going to look at more

transparent markets as being a price for the bailout. things were happening so quickly, it is easy to do things in the rearview mirror. the interest rate we charged to lend money was less than what warren buffet got and i also believe that we could have easily have gotten the market reform that we wanted at the time because the money was on the table. as soon as those things exchange you lose your leverage. host: the financial overhaul bill is headed to the senate. from what you have read about it with do you think? guest: unclear. i don't know whether -- this reminds me of the book, i talk about the new york stock exchange it the 1930's and it is an amazing parallel to the derivatives market you mentioned before. in the 1930's the new york stock exchange was an unregulated, loosely run by the new york

state business privately held. and, more or less it was a private institution. and the trading of stocks was run by private ownership and un unregulated by the federal government. derivatives, more to the point, credit default swaps, fall into the same category. so you have the same situation where you have the federal government wanting to regulate what is a business predominantly run by wall street and history shows us that eventually federal regulation wins out. host: next call for robert sloan, atlanta, john independent. please go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking by call. like many americans, after the bailout i wanted to make a better sense of the history of the financial powers and i came across a gentleman named congressman wright patton. are you familiar with him? guest: i'm not.

caller: he was the chairman of the banking committee i believe in the 1950's or 1960's. he had a quote that stuck out with me that said i have never had anyone who could, through the use of logic and reason justify the federal government borrowing the use of its own money. i believe the time will come when people demand this be changed. i believe the time come when people blame you and me and everyone else connected with the congress for sitting by and permitting such an idiotic system to continue. i was wondering if you could elaborate on his quote and what that means to americans. thank you. guest: gee, i'm not really sure what to make of that quote. i think that we have certainly run deficits that are now trillions of dollars. i think that speaks for itself. host: how concerned as a money manager, how concerned are you about that? guest: well i'm not a money manager. i don't manage other people's money.

i certainly am very close to people that manage a lot of money. look things seem to be getting a little better. the economy seems to be getting strengthened. that is nothing but god news. host: we have an e-mail from dave in arizona, mr. sloan, who says that currently hedge fund managers income is taxed at 15% rather than the normal income tax rate. isn't this wrong? guest: no that is correct. what gets lost in the debate is the fact that last year if we had -- even if we wanted to charge people w-2 rates, last year that would have resulted in zero income from the federal government for hedge funds lost so much in 2008 there was no revenue to collect. so be careful when you hear these numbers being bandied about and we should concentrate on what generates revenue for

the treasury coffers. host: next call is from cambridge, massachusetts, susan, democrat. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to discuss a different kind of betting against or hedging which is the c.d.s. market which is buying effectively, insurance against risk like a company. this market you don't have to own or borrow the underlying asset. so if you equate it to insurance you can overinsure, you can ensure someone else's home or country. the bill, by the way, is pending and has a million exceptions that allows the market to go on unregulated. so i wanted to talk about this

naked c.d.s. buy which is not owning the asset and connect it to the off-balance sheet accounting of the amount of the bets that are going on which is still allowed so we don't know how capitalized our banks are because half of their stuff is still off the balance sheets. further, the inside information that the banks possess because they help -- they have information advising these companies or putting together mortgages and they can bet against them as in the goldman sachs case. i want you to discuss this. guest: well a couple of different things. i think you have hit on probably the most salient point in your commentary was the idea of balance sheet.

it is a very -- a balance sheet very simply is what you own and what you owe. that is what a balance sheet is. if you start looking at the balance sheets of financial companies and the transactions that are used to limit the size of balance sheets it is almost like when i got married i lost 15 pounds to get into my wedding suit ok? is that the real me or is it the i have day walking around me that gained the 15 pounds later. that is what is going on with the balance sheets of the firms and we have to decide as a financial system whether we want balance sheets to if you can wait in that -- flucfuate in that manner. host: just to point out, in back of mr. sloan's book is a glossary of a lot of different economic terms. next call is from baltimore, john republican line.

caller: good morning. my comment -- i have a couple of comments. i will try to stay focused. my opinion about the swaps and securitizing debt is that should be eliminated because it is debt as it stands then to sell it as a big package stuff mortgage or debt to somebody else doesn't appear to be conducive to economic growth in my machine and has -- in my opinion. and it caused huge failures. lehman -- not that i'm intimately familiar but they were $700 billion in debt and that is why they were let go. on a different topic, the s.e.c appears to be relatively spineless in terms of enforcing

the marketplace. you have the uptick rules and short selling rules are 10% a day and that can continue on forever. host: any response? guest: not really. i'm not sure what the question was. look one thing that surprised me about the article i wrote in the financial times is that i wrote book about shorting but it really wasn't a book about shorting. it was really a book about financial history. and i wrote it because i wanted to find out for myself what are the certain assumptions we have made about one another, wall street and main street over time. and what i found is certain assumptions we made about one another were not correct. i wanted to know where that came from. what i found is that it actually started in the very earliest days of the founding of our country.

so it is not surprising to me that there is so much invitation roll -- invitationvitriol around these. richard whitney turned out to be something of a fraud but he was arrested and 6,000 people showed up in grand central station to see him sent away to prison. to send this guy off to jail. you see this little snippets of how we as a nation wreck -- can rise up and become angry people that mismanage our money. host: last call comes from florida on the independent line. hello? caller: is, how are you? host: please go ahead. caller: i agree with you

totally on your defense of shorting. guest: you are a very smart man. caller: as we both know, shorting as half the market. i agree that credit defaults swaps are not bad. the question i have is why in the world did the models not reflect the possible extremes that could have been reached because we both know that through those, there trudging formations actually calls formal -- calls for more volatility. tell me why the new york models were so terrible. host: how do you know so much about this? are you caller: an: no, i am in the business. i helped create derivatives trading and modeling. guest: it is a great question. i think the answer is that humans are imperfect. when you put so many different opinions and have the ability to vote capital instantaneously like we do today, no one can

capture the mood of the market perfectly and know how things are going to react. said to be able to model that aig would go under it just did not occur to people. i think it is that simple. host: finally a tweet that says, it is not a rent strike, it is a depression. most to are not paying their mortgages are broke and will lose their homes. guest: you know, that is probably true. we can get into the fact of whether some of these home should have been bought or not. but at the end of the day we have a situation where these loans are sitting on these banks' books and are clogging up and blocking the growth that we need to come out of the recession. host: robert sloan, do not blame the shorts is the name of the book why short-sellers are always blamed for market crashers and how history is repeating itself. thank you for joining us.

guest: thank you for having me. >> no more from today's "washington journal." a conversation about the future of the nasa manned-spaceflight program. it is about 45 minutes. studentcam.org. host: joining us is the director of the space policy institute at george washington university. we will talk about the future of human space flight and president obama's announcement from kennedy about space flight. if you could, tell us what the space policy institute is. guest: it is a group at the george washington university been there for several decades at this point and trains students in master's degrees in international science and technology policy adç about half of them concentrate on space policy. they look at national security commercial international issues associated with space policy policy. we have been doing that many decades and have graduates throughout the world and the

u.s. space program. host: so you followed what president obama had to say yesterday. give us your take on how much of a change in u.s. policy the announcement was? guest: it is a very radical change. but i think you would have to parse it into those parts that are changing and those parts that are not. on one hand science and space policy for the scientific programs robotics aeronautics are pretty much the same and additional money was added. the area of real change is human space flight where the president is proposing to rely more on the private sector and new technology rather than on existing technology and the existing industrial base and contractors and plans that were in place. host: what do you think the motivation for change was? guest: i think the motivation is probably twofold. one is the feeling that the desire to have more bang for the buck if you will to have lower

costs for access to space. at the same time i think that there is a desire to show innovation and show a difference. to symbolize a break and a change with the prior administration. host: so the opposition to this particularly kneel armstrong -- neil armstrong said the the changes are devastating. where does that come from? guest: i think it is a different assessment of the risk relative to some of the other speakers. you may think that we have a portfolio of investment in space and we went from a portfolio that was fairly conservative -- a government program, very small amount of technology and some commercial options -- and instead the portfolio is being proposed to shift to one where there is a tiny government role large technology investment and commercial investment. that is a haoeuigh risk and potentially high payoff but

certainly more risky than we were previously. i think the concern that you are hearing from the hill and from people like the astronauts who wrote recently is that difference over risk. they think it is risky a move and it won't necessarily pay off. host: with was the constellation program? guest: that was a particular program for implementing the vision for space exploration. it consisted of an aries 1 rocket to carry people to rocket. a heavy lift vehicle and a space capsule that could go both lower orbit and deeper on to the moon. three major elements plus development for lunar landing. so it was an integrated architecture. host: when was it proposed how much was spent on it and is it totally scrapped? guest: it was proposed in about

2005. the president, president bush made the announcement it 2004 and when mike griffin came in as the administrator of nasa the constellation program came out of his reviews, of which i was a part and the program has spent about $9 billion to date. and it made good progress but again this administration has concluded that that progress wasn't enough. host: we are going to talk about the future of human space flight and future of nasa with scott pace of george washington's pace policy unit. the numbers are on the screen. please allow 30 days between your calls. here is a little bit from president obama yesterday at the kennedy space center. >> the challenges facing our space program are different.

our imperatives for the program are different than decades past. we no longer are racing against an adversary or competing to achieve a singular goal like reaching the moon. what was once a global competition has long since become a global collaboration. while the measure of our achievements has changed a great deal over the past 50 years, what we do or fail to do in seeking new frontiers is no less consequential consequential. let me start by being extremely clear. i'm 100% committed to the mission of nasa and its future because -- [applause] >> because broadening our capabilities will serve our

society in ways we can scarcely manual and -- imagine and it will inspire wonder in a new generation sparking passion and launching careers. because ultimately if we fail to press forward in the pursuit of discovery we are ceding our future and ceding that essential element of the american character. host: is there a worry about job security at kennedy? guest: absolutely. to be fair even prior to these decisions there was concern about the transition from the old shuttle program and to the new constellation program. so certainly there would be change in any event. with the cancellation of the constellation program, i think that insecurity has ratcheted up further. there is a proposal that maybe the new commercial firms will pick up a lot of employees but that is very uncertain. so that is driving a lot of anxiety. host: give us a quick status

report on the shuttle program. guest: the shuttle program only has few more flights to go. the space station has been assembled, which is a magnificent achievement. the remaining flights are logistics flights taking up components and piece s thats that can't get up there any other way. with the last flight i believe we have about three more flights, the last will be this year or early next year. with that the shuttles will be retired. host: as the former associated administrator for the program analysis at nasa do you agree with the direction president obama is taking? guest: no. and i have to say that on one hand many parts of the budget that he's proposed -- as i said particularly science, continuation of the international space station, i think these are absolutely correct. the area where i differ is on the approach for human exploration beyond lower orbit. he was happy to hear him talk

about human exploration beyond lower orbit and i think it is always good we the president talks about toes goals. i -- those goals. i think the problem comes in the implementation imxldmentation, where the rubber hits the road in terms of contracts, timing technology and readiness. host: before we go to the calls we will show you another piece of video from president obama yesterday at kennedy space center. >> the truth is nasa has always relied on private industry to help design and build the vehicles that carry astronauts into space from the mercury capsule that carried john glenn nearly 50 years ago to theìc discovery currently orbiting overhead. by buying the services of space transportation rather than the vehicles themselves we can continue to ensure rigorous safety standards are met but we will also accelerate the spaeus pace of in tphoenovation as companies

compete to design and build and lawful new means of carrying people and materials out of our atmosphere. host: dr. pace. guest: again, in spirit i absolutely agree with what the president said. in terms of reliance on the private sector. but space flight is not a fully commercial activity. things like watching satellites are. so we talking about buying services from the bright sector to send cargo to space stations that can be done. but buying services to send humans to space stations is something that will probably happen but doesn't yet occur. so i think it is premature to build an entire policy that relies on commercial capability that doesn't yet exist. it is important and worthwhile to support that activity to encourage it and help it come along. but to base your policy on the belief it will happen on a

certain time scale and remove the government capabilities i think, it is risky. host: first up is schaumberg illinois. jim, republican. caller: good morning, dr. pace. i must say he was quite happy with many aspects of president obama's stated policy with respect to the technology investment the commercialization and extension of the life of the space station. but i was really disappointed with the abandonment of having a return to the moon as a goal. and, while i was somewhat happy to hear president obama's statements yesterday about sending humans to mars the fact that he's calling for that to be accomplished some time in the mid 2030's to me means that

there is not going to be any program implemented anywhere in the near future. it sounds to me like an empty promise that is not going to require any immediate action on the part of nasa. guest: thank you. i actually agree with a lot of those sentiments. i think that part of the thing that people don't really quite understand is what a large and complex structure human space flight is. you are talking about thousands of contractors, billions of dollars, work spread over multiple states. that system doesn't turn on a dime. so saying that we should have some more innovation and provide opportunities for commercial services obviously that is a good and worthwhile thing happen. but to say that we are going to stop the government programs and see what emerges from the private sector and make decisions later opens us up to a

large and continuing gap in human space flight which has implications not only for the theville base but -- for theville base but international partners who will be reliant on the russians or -- for the next stayed. host: why is it important to return to the moon? one i sometimes think of the international space station this sort of the mercury program showing that we have gone into orbit. we know how to operate there. we have gone the basics down. the noon is sort of the genocide program, the next step. abrading deeper in space and farther away from home. the ultimate goal of going to mars will be a pilot program of the 21st century. it is incredibly hard. we do not know how to do it. the moon is a training base. we have some good science to be done there.

interesting science. water on the moon. people did not really think it was never there. but the moon is a stepping stone. it is a training base in a scientific facility in itself. it is i think our door for work. >>host: how long would it take to get to mars? guest: you have opportunities about every two years. if you went to mars, would take over a year to get there. you would spend some time on mars and then take over a year to get back. whereas going to the moon is several days away. you're talking mars, many, many months away. there are a number of challenges with that. host: a democrat from georgia. caller: yes after say i watched a hearing several years ago and it looked to me like the space program was a frat house.

the man that was running it was of using, sexually harassing one of the female employees and destroyed the tapes. the fed's tried to issue subpoenas on other departments, and they locked them out and been destroyed the records. locked them out android the records. and an i.g. -- stkpwr so what is host: what is your question? caller: this is it. if you let me finish that was going opbn. unsafe parts of the space shuttle that the man ordered destroyed. host: are you familiar with this story? guest: i'm not familiar with that particular case. i have to say that there are a number of women in leadership positions in nasa both today and previously previously. and of course anything a related to shuttle safety or to workplace harassment is something that at least in my

time there was taken seriously and i believe fully that the current team this would take very seriously. that is why we have an inspector general at nasa and that is why anything that goes off will be investigated. host: steve is a republican calling from houston. caller: good morning. my question is how much do you think the new decision in nasa's direction is based on politics that constellation was developed in the bush administration and how much do you think it has to do with the technical aspects in science? guest: that is a really good question. because there are certainly criticisms that one could have of the constellation program as you could of any major acquisition program. government weaknesses oversight, things that could be done better. on the other hand the constellation program was, in my view a well integrated very well planned program that had strong bipartisan support.

in the last national authorization bill in 2008 strong bipartisan majorities under a democratic leadership endorsed the direction nasa was going in. so the commission which reviewed the plans for the constellation program concluded there was no fundamental technical barrier. but the budget had not been provided for the program. so i think the concern that the congress has going forward are not just with jobs or partisan issues, but i think there are concerns with what is the plan. they understood what the previous plan was and had a certain logic to it and they are not certain what the new plan is and what its logic is and i think that makes people on both sides uncomfortable. host: who are some of the major contractors for the constellation program and current nasa contractors and who could potentially benefit from the change that president obama announced yesterday? guest: i think all of the contractors really could potentially benefit. you have very large contractors

such as lockheed and boeing and a.t.k. who have been part of the constellation program. and these companies also have concepts that could potentially be done under the new approach. so for example, the president announced that a version of the orion capsule would be continued and that is good for lockheed martin. there were proposals for commercial versions of solid rocket matters that have been talked about. so it is disruptive. there will certainly be movements and changes. but i think the large and mall contractors will -- could do well. the problem is what is the capability within nasa that you will be maintaining. if you are outsourcing a lot of the skills to industry what is it you expect the space agency to do? what intellectual calendar calendar -- capital will you retain. host: george from shoest. louis,

independent. caller: i'm glad to hear somebody who thinks that the gain on pace is a good idea. i think our country has lost things. we go to the moon 20 years ago and instead we've the savings and loan cancel and it hurts my soul. i think the egyptians probably built the pyramids out of a work program and it just that society needs something like that. and to think that the chinese would be there before americans i'm kind of -- host: thank you, george. let's look at the international aspects of space exploration. is the u.s. still the undisputed leader or not? and who else is there? guest: there is certainly an increasing number of countries. there is the united nations committee called the committee

on peaceful use of outer space that has 69 members. countries are doing practical things with it. providing benefits in communications and navigation. so it is a more crowded than it ever was. there are new players. china and india are coming up very strong and impressive programs. so we are not alone any more with the russians. to the caller's point about concern with china, i have to say that i don't have a concern with the chinese being in space per se. i just don't want them to be there without us. so i'm concerned with what are we doing in space and are we leading as part of this larger cooperative group. i think the president is right we are talking more about collaboration than competition in the past my concern with the proposals that are been made is there will be a much longer gap and that other countries will be moving making their own decisions probably without us.

so there is a risk to our leadership and that risk is something that we need to address. host: next call is reno gerald democrat. caller: good morning. just a couple of statements. some say hopefully private sector employment will be good but do you think pay scales will remain the same? and what do you think the chance of outsourcing to foreign countries is. and because a lot of these jobs people talk about blue collar jobs being outsourced they are pretty much union and if they are not there are standards because of the unions. guest: i think that our space capabilities are sort of like our defense capabilities. they are part of our strategic industrial base. so i don't believe that the

prime contracts are subject to outsourcing just as major defense contracts. i think it is interesting one of the most important employee unions in the aerospace international association of machinists have expressed serious concerns about the administration's proposals in part because of disruptions to their membership. so this is not a traditional company versus labor or republican versus democrat. this is something that cuts across the field. the organized labor, i think, does have and will continue to have an important role and i think the pay scales should stay about the same. but the question really is what is the stability. we have gone through a lot of ups and downs in the aerospace business and that has taken a toll. host: matt clearwater florida, republican. caller: hi.

yes, i actually know and am related to someone who works at nasa and to me he already has been assigned a new position at a completely different and a different field having nothing to do with nasa and basically been told you know you are going to lose your job and this is the new place you are going to work. now, i don't know if i can say too much about it. but if obama is so interested in oh we are going to try to boost the economy by giving it to you know to make it private, then why in the world would people be losing their jobs if this is supposed to help so much? guest: good question. and i think that this is one of the practical implementation issues. the overall nasa budget has gone

up so it is very easy to say obviously there will be more jobs because there is more money. the problem is on the timing of the money. when the constellation contracts were asked money had to be put aside to close out and wrap up the contracts. that is money that was not spent on doing research and development. so while you have civil servants who don't lose their jobs continuing to work the burden of theym scamses -- cancellations falls on the private industry and they take the brunt of the instability. then it takes time to set up new contracts to compete and choose winners and get them going. and that takes time. so in looking ahead, we are probably looking at about another year or two of instability because of the practical problems of closing down old contracts, setting up new ones getting them competed and getting people to work.

in that time period things like this of people losing jobs or being told they don't know what jobs they are going to have can be part of the reality with this transition as proposed. host: dr. pace has a dock rate from the -- docket doctorate. >> i started in physics, masters in aeronautical engineering and dock docket rate in public policy. it prabl trains the largest number of ph.d.'s in public policy. host: are you a rocket scientist? guest: i used to be a physicist but i think i lost my union card many years ago. host: we have this tweet. guest: i think what this shows is the expense it takes for

developing landing systems. it is certainly possible to do a mission to an asteroid sooner than a lunar landing because you don't need as much equipment. you need a hraoupb march lander and get down to the surface and back up. andç many people talk about destinations in space, are we going to the moon or mars and certainly the president talked about that yesterday, not being confused about the moon wanting to go to mars. for the near term our destination will be lower orbit. we are retiring the shuttle. we will be relying on the reduces. -- we will be relying on the reduces. our immediate goal is going to be making sure we have assured access back to lower orbit for humans. on man cargo we will be fine. but humans will be a challenge. host: when is the last time somebody was on the moon and were the americans the only ones who have ever been on the moon?

guest: so far only the americans were on the moon. last was apollo 17 1972. host: next call is huntsville alabama, david. independent. caller: good morning, gentlemen. your guest has one great talent that i lack. he is very diplomatic. i tend to be blunt. i'm married to a lady who has had a career working for various nasa contractors. the hours she puts in are astronomical. quite simply mr. obama's agenda is to pearce by piece -- piece by piece dismantle the american system. that is what it boils down to. host: why do you say that ç caller? caller: we have this problem with jobs and what he has done with the stroke of a pen, or attempting to do is kill

thousands of jobs. . these jobs that he is talking about, are they american jobs? i do not think so. much of the cost, as you already stated was to fulfill the legal obligations or contracts. that have been canceled. host: why is hunts will such a center for -- guest: and seville is the home of marshall space park center. they have perhaps the biggest research park in the world. hunsicker l -- huntsville has been sort of recession-proof. the reason why is because of planning of people that are thinking into the future as

you've already stated. the constellation program was a well coordinated well-designed effort. these things do not just happen overnight in by accident. it takes people devoted people that work harder than they are paid. guest: well, i think the dedication of the nasa family in the contract community cannot be underestimated. it was one of the privileges of my life to work at nasa. and the people are great. that is in part because the mission is great. and it is inspiring but you do come in every day, and you are part of something that is really inspirational, both to the nation and to the world. that brings up the best of people. and the point about lending is exactly right in that it takes so many years, really long term decades, that you need to be thinking about what you're going

to be doing next, even while you're working hard on the project you are on. there is the case of the space shuttle program, and people were they get about a space station. space station program, people were thinking about what comes after that. these programs in aerospace are not like information technology or other fields. they do take a long time to be developed. that has been the criticism because it does take a long time. the concern i think is what we will be doing next. are we laying the groundwork now for what will happen after the end of the shuttle? what happens after the end of the space station? if you're not planning for what you're doing in the next decade you are in effect planning to go out of business. to be fair, i do not think it is the intent of the administration or with nasa. but with some of the unanswered questions and lack of an integrated plan, that is certainly a risk. because of the difficulty that space flight involves. host: the president about the

increase in the nasaalked about the increase in the nasa budget. where does the money go? guest: new technology developments. it goes towards earth science applications. some increases for aeronautics. if you look at it over on nasa budget basically, the portfolio is shifting a bit. talking about spending a smaller percentage of human exploration and in the past. talking about spending more money in science and technology efforts then we have in the past. on the one hand, those increases in those fields i think ought to be applauded. a really great science and the pipeline. a great technology that needs to be developed. but we pulled a crucial piece out of the portfolio. host: what is the point of the international space station? guest: technical scientific, diplomatic. right now it is a diplomatic triumph. the largest, most complex

scientific undertaking are known worldwide. if you can look at other programs -- scientific programs, it is the largest and most complex that created a partnership among the international community that is really quite impressive. the technical triumph in terms of getting all the parts coming together to work. what we will be sitting in the next decade is whether but it is a scientific success. even during the assembly period, about 200 scientific papers published and these are one of the things still under construction. what we are looking for is a utilization of the station over the next decade as a unique scientific facility to really reap the benefits of the production. we look forward to the science of excess s. host: bob in oklahoma. you are on with scott pace from the space policy institute. caller: i would just like to get mr. pace was screaming do these astronauts and so on go through, their personal

background? because the fact is, they had on national tv a while back these astronauts loading up on their shifts and a couple were drunk. and the other one was this young astronaut stud that they had servicing the women -- the line host: we will leave it there and we will move on to bristol, virginia. republican. caller: thank you, c-span. i just wanted to ask scott something. you know, our goal was to go into the moon. we went there. and i thought we were going to use the moon as a launch pad to go to mars. now obama the want to do that. i don't get it. nike is handing it to russians and china. -- like he is handing it to the russians in china. guest: people often say why do

you want to go back to the moon? we have done that. the president said that. i also want to pause and look the person and say look, maybe your father went to the moon but you have not gone to the moon. the generation that did that, the generation that had those skills, action retired. some are still left but still relatively few. so, space flight is like playing at the top of the athletic game. if you are not doing it continually and working at all the time, those skills atrophy. cybele the fact we did it once of not mean we can do it again. -- simply the fact we did it once did not mean we could do it again. we know more about science and technology now. the proposals for the constitution program were to stay at the moon for much longer periods of time, to work on exploiting the move. so it was not supposed to simply be a visit. it was to create an outpost and to really develop the skills for

flying deeper in space. it was not supposed to be a one- time deal. that was supposed to be the challenge of this generation. host: do you agree with retiring the space shuttle program? guest: yes, i do. i think a lot of us in the community realized what a magnificent vehicle it is. it is incredibly safer and we know a lot more about now than we did before. but i think the entire experience but that also makes us humble about what we don't know about the vehicle. everyone of these flights was a test flight, an experiment, a gift. we used the space shuttle and we risk human life to do something really really important for the nation -- the completion of the international space station. but i think what that completion it is really hard for me to justify continually to fly the vehicle if we have really any other options. so, i think the shuttle has served its purpose but i think technology has moved on. host: troy in hawaii. go ahead. caller: obviously we all know

that usually the country who leads in the aeronautical and space area leads the world. and now we are going to spend $56 million per person to go into flight from russia. i just can't comprehend that our country now is sending people somewhere else to go into outer space. i always thought we were it. and it seems like in every area of our government now we are not it anymore. it is somewhere else. guest: one thing i should say is that the russians have been, i think, excellent partners in the international space station when

they were brought into the program in the early 1990's by president clinton. really about the russians it would be hard to maintain the space station after the columbia at accident. that said, all of the partners i think, are uncomfortable being relying on just one country. they were uncomfortable just relying on the u.s. and i think they will be and are uncomfortable relying on the russians. that is why it is important the u.s. had its own access to space, its own capabilities, so we can be good partners so others can rely on us. i do not think it takes away from us for the russians to be flying in space. but i do think we do a disservice to ourselves if we do not have assured access to space to carry our part of the deal. host: carey, texas. democrat. caller: i will have to simply call you on this. one caller knocked me off of my question we ask you about the

political aspect of the constellation program and listening to john cornyn and them on the senate floor yesterday. one thought came to mind. i'm an employer. c-span i don't want to get cut off on this. but i have to make ends meet. there are 8 million people out of work. the president came when yesterday's and stated -- came on yesterday and stated he wanted to go in a different direction, maybe even go to mars. and if you are going to come on national tv, come into our households in america and tell us that the president had no specific goals in mind when he talked about the space program yesterday i think that you are sending a mixed signal not only against the administration but to the people of the country who have a very, very clear vision

in mind about the space program. guest: to be fair, i think the mixed signal, i think comes from the nature of the policy and implementation. i think the president's policy and words about tradition and exploration and wonderful and i completely agree with him. but the problem comes when you look at what is the implementation what is being done. if you look at the program's been canceled, contract changes you look at decisions that in fact been deferred -- the technologies we are supposed to be funding. in the real world -- program managers and contracts and the dates, destinations, milestones. one could say it is a work in progress and nasa is working hard. i think that is a fair statement. but again you have to say compared to the fact that we had

an integrated program that i think was on track -- people do disagree about that -- and today we are still struggling with what the implementation is. i think there is agreement on the general goals but disagreement about the clarity and nature of the plans and the goals. host: this is a tweet -- guest: several space centers you might say now, are already international. international space station has control centers around the world that is part of the project. there are launch sites around the world -- europeans -- space agency site in guyana that launches international payloads. international people operate with the russians right now. a truly international center, though, multinational leone's one of the problems with that is

the transfer of missile technology. technology for space launch vehicle is basically identical to intercontinental ballistic missile. one of the concerns is that as other countries get into the space business they are also acquiring technology for launching icbm's, so an international space station would have to figure out how to prevent the technology transfers. host: last call for stock pays from biloxi, mississippi. republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think you do a great job. i wanted to remind everybody that when we went to the moon, we went to the moon because we were in a fight with the russians. things have changed. however, when i was 7 years old and i saw neil armstrong landing on the moon, it inspired me. it inspired me that america was a strong country capable of moving forward in any direction

they could. words that my dad taught me -- you have to continue exploring. you have got to continue going forward. and i think that is what made america great. and i feel that we are losing it. guest: well, i think that it is what makes america great. that really is about more than simply our machines going out there. it is about more than science. it represents the best of ourselves, the best of our values. so if we think there is going to be a human future in space we have to ask, what kind of values will be out there on that frontier? democracy, tolerant culture mixed market economy? it is more than, again simply our machines. so i think it is important for america to be a leader in space not simply to prove to ourselves

how good we are but really to carry our values and those really of our western democracy, allies, all part of this endeavor on the space frontier. host: scott pace, thank you. >> next, an update on afghanistan and pakistan from state the part of officials who just returned from the region. the deputy secretary of state and head of the u.s. agency for international development -- this is about 45 minutes. >> good afternoon and welcome to the department of state. we have got a couple of weary

travelers here. our deputy secretary of state and our administrator of u.s. did. he visited afghanistan and then pakistan. jack got back at 10:00 this morning. . >> we thought it was very important to bring you up-to- date on both of these leaders and what they saw on the ground

with respect to the two countries, the state of military and civilian cooperation and way ahead. >> thanks, p.j. it truly shows you how world is that a flight from dubai to washington has to be rerouted. it is a lesson in bringing carry an -- carry-on luggage. [laughter] is very productive trip in the last week. i started in pakistan and moved on to afghanistan. in pakistan, both in my meetings at the embassy and with the government, it was focused on the civilian program there, the coordination with the pakistani administers, and -- pakistani

ministers, and following up on the strategic dialogue with economic development and energy. the place that raj and i overlapped was in afghanistan the rehearsal of concept, where it was an all hands meeting for the civilian and military leadership to go over with general patraeus and ambassador holbrooke chairing. all of the major regional and functional entities in afghanistan. it left one with an overwhelming sense that we have made tremendous progress in the last year putting together a truly coordinated civilian military plan. and to record needed means not just between the u.s. civilians and the u.s. military, but with our international partners, and most importantly, with the government of afghanistan. participating in this drill were the afghan ministers and some of the most important insights begot from the sessions were from their direct actions.

-- we got from their sessions where the direct actions -- their direct actions. in addition to the iraq drill we had extensive meetings with our team in kabul and with the ministers there to make sure our assistance program which as you all know is quite a large one is being implemented effectively, and to make sure that is really driving the priorities of the government of afghanistan to strengthen the capacity of the government of afghanistan. in addition to the meetings, i had the opportunity to take a trip outside of kabul again and i went to marja and raj went to kandahar. we had a pretty good sense of what is going on in the ground -- on the ground. in a case of marcia, is still

shipping for a clearing operation. in marshawnmarja i saw these seven authorities locally lead, preparing to deal with the local authorities, giving social services set up, and there is increased security. there's the challenges in that area. one really did have the sense from the reaction to our civilian presence there that have been civilians there at the beginning makes all the difference in the world in terms of the effectiveness of the transition from a clear to hold faiz. i was also able to go to harat and we have a conflict there about to open later in the year. i was there partially to see how we are making progress towards that end, but also to appear at a marble conference. you may ask why a secretary of state goes to a marble conference in harat. it's kind of a sign of what the

future for recon a stand should look like. they have enormous mineral wealth and marble is one of the minerals that they have. not little marbles but the kind you put on the sides of buildings and things like that. [laughter] there were hundreds of people coming from around the region and to this marble conference to help develop the natural resources and the economy of afghanistan. in leading the session, the governor of harat me a gift, a little container of saffron. saffron, as most of you know, by weight is the most expensive spies that you can get but more importantly, is way more valuable input -- than poppy in terms of its crop value. the last thought i would like to make and then turn it over to raj, had an extraordinary dinner with a number of the minister's with the afghan government.

it was an extraordinarily interesting evening in terms of the loop -- the leaders of demonstrated, the intellectual quality, and sitting in between these two leaders of this country that has so much ground to catch up in some ways. one was left with such an impression at the same time that there were extraordinary leaders there that were on par or above the leaders of many countries that are considered highly developed. it does not mean there is not a lot of work to do, but the leadership does matter and it was heartening. >> i too had a wonderful opportunity to see up close and personal the work that is taking place both in afghanistan and pakistan. i came away very encouraged and i would like to start by thanking our tremendous staff as well as the staff in afghanistan and significant numbers in pakistan as well. they are taking risks every day to implement an assistance

package that is expressed in hd partnership of the governments of both places and with the people and governmental institutions of both places. -- a deep partnership of the government of both places and with the people and governments and institutions of both places. they're working drug a stable and secure and prosperous region. in afghanistan, i would echo -- they are working to have a stable and secure and prosperous region. in afghanistan, i would echo jack's point at this was a sense that there was -- there was a sense that there was a real partnership. we heard very specific feedback, positive and constructive criticism about the areas where we can approve -- improve our london both within our military insulin apparatus but -- improve our alignment both within our military and civilian apparatus, but also within

afghanistan in terms of improving its the security and government and economic development program. the area went to just outside of kandahar i sought a strong military and civilian -- sought a strong military and civilian partnership. local farmers were working to improve irrigation system in their area, improve the road infrastructure. those things made a difference in an area that covers about 35,000 people east of the river. yanase a lush -- you now see a lush agricultural environment. and from a security perspective i think everyone acknowledged that from september onward when this program really accelerated they all feel more secure with the improvement in the security

situation in that context. it is a good example of how things work together and how things can work. the afghan first policy which has been an important priority for the secretary and the president also has been in effect. it has been an effort to try to procurer services locally and to build local afghan institutions as we implement the assistance package. to give you a sense of the transformation in that area, between, really, inside of a year our u.s. aid related assistance has gone from hiring 3000 afghan employees in full- time jobs to hiring more than 26,000. a big part of that increase is a transition to a larger infrastructure investments which are more employment rich in their execution. but nevertheless, it is an important transition that is recognized and appreciated by the afghan people and their institutions. finally in afghanistan, i had a

chance to sign a memorandum of understanding to establish a distant delivery program, which will help both improve local governance in districts throughout afghanistan and just as important the people who read those -- leave those efforts in the local district governments -- to lead those efforts in the local does your government will have the opportunity to highlight for us the assistance that is necessary in coordination with their properties. in pakistan, i would just highlight that one really got the sense that the strategic dialogue that was so visible at a high level with secretary clinton and mr. qureshi here in the united states a few weeks ago is very real from their perspective and hours in pakistan. i was extraordinarily impressed being able to go to several different ministries and being able to meet with the several society leaders and implementing partners the degree to which people were thinking about a

share of partnership and working with just aren't -- working to adjust our programmatic efforts to align with the pakistani government and institutions. they have been very rigorous in setting clear priorities and engaging in a different kind of conversation about what kinds of projects to pursue and where. a fundamental to that, we heard a few things we were trying to act on. the first and foremost releases -- shifting the assistance program to focus more on agricultural energy and water and larger scale types of investments that could take us all where we want to go so that 10 or 20 years from now you can look back and say you start to see these big increases in agricultural value added productivity because of unique things done now. second because we're focusing on investing in pakistani institutions and making sure we are spending resources there, we are building the current account -- accountability and monitoring

mechanisms to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent well. but we can also build a real long standing pakistani institutional capacity. as you know, this is a country with a tremendous amount of scientific leadership, private- sector and public-sector capacity. there are important areas where we need to build on what they have. but in a large country, i think 160 million people, there are real opportunities. finally, i heard that we need -- that we need to work urgently and aggressively into of the contested areas. areas where the military has been engaged in active operation. i am happy with the progress we are making in that area whether with usa implementing partners and a range other partners including other local institutions. they are taking real risks in providing economic long vision. again, based on some of the

agricultural resources and mining are portuguese related to edgecomb -- irrigation that could be transformed for those regions. -- and irrigationagricultural related irrigation that could be transformed for those regions. we will continue to take steps to make sure our assistant portfolio really hones in on and protect and supports the capacity of girls and boys in both societies. >> i'm particularly interested in how the government in a box concept worked. you spoke about building up the capacity of the government as being important. what were your general impressions as to how that worked? where do you need to make adjustments? that was the model for kandahar other regions.

>> let me start with what is working. you walk through marja there is a building that is a provisional center for government and there are tents set up to distribute benefits for things like the agricultural programs. there are only 67 days into the operation and they are quickly -- they are only 67 days into the operation and there quickly building capacity for the programs. one of the things that i took away from it was a logistical and infrastructure issues are real. there needs to be enough capacity for people to come in and work and sleep and kind of just life-support because traveling between places is still difficult but even after in the case of marcia, the town of marja is a relatively secure place. i think going forward there was an emphasis on that that there

will be an emphasis on advanced planning in that regard. we will have lessons learned in canada are. it will not be exactly the same -- in kandahar. it will not exempt the the same as what is going on in the kandaha arear . the sequence of events will be different in different places. some of these lessons learned will apply across the different areas. >> you are in a building phase still in marja? >> i would say it is in a whole face. it is only 60 days into the effort. i think by any assessment, marja has moved quickly and well. we do not expect to have final conclusions at this point. there is still a lot of work to do there. i do not want to exaggerate how far along this is. for what one could expect to see

at this point in the process, it is very good. but there is still a lot of work to do. >> i'm curious the picture that you painted of the leadership that he met with, at least at this dinner when you talk about them being one of the better leaders in the developed world it does not release square with the perception -- really square with the perception one has outside of that country or this is literally the most corrupt country on earth. where are these correct guys? do they run away and hide when you show up? -- where are these corrupt guys? do they run away and hide when you show up? >> in any government there are people with differing qualities. i will not characterize everyone based on the minister's i met with. we both have the experience of meeting with the members of their government that have the most interaction with us on a programmatic basis. whether it is the minister of finance, the minister of agriculture's, the minister of education, the minister of local governments, they are the kinds

of people that we met with. an important transition the ministry of mines, which used to be one of the most problematic ministries in terms of leadership is now led by the minister of commerce who again is a first-rate person. i cannot say that there are no issues anywhere, but we have to take a look in a balanced way. i think it is easy to overlook that we do have real partners to work with and that was true when i was trying to get at. -- what i was trying to get out. ricks do you really feel comfortable working with these people? -- >> do you really feel comfortable working with these people? the image is not one that lend confidence. >> we have been clear that our assistance through ministries was a going to be only after we have certified ministries to be able to meet standards of accountability and to have the levels of program that -- programmatic capacity to

handled funding effectively. guerin that process. most ministers are not certified. -- we are in the process. most ministries are not certified. just recently, a large number have been certified. i think that is a positive move. we have to work consistently and brittany with taxpayer dollars but it is important to build the capacity in the afghan ministries because they are afghan programs. there are many ministries, but not all ministries would likely be recipients of u.s. assistance. >> how many? but there are half a dozen that would be the biggest ones. those -- >> there are half a dozen that would be the biggest ones. those are the ones we are concentrating on >>. >> and dr. shaw, i want you to talk about your push for girls'

education in pakistan. the 18th amendment recently passed that basically made it mandatory for girls, too. also my second question is about the pakistani american efforts. -- pakistani-american efforts. just before you joined the minister, there was a meeting of the pakistani groups at the office and the focus was basically getting support for the pakistani-americans to go out and served on these projects. recently, a report was released in which -- i mean, the impression is out there that more than 92% of the money that is going to pakistan is still going through the american front, the american [unintelligible] the you see any movement on that front? and i think i can also -- since i have the mikec --

[laughter] very quickly. you know about benazir bhutto's order and the deal between president musharraf andy former prime minister was hatched in london -- and a former prime minister was hatched in london and in washington. did you see that there was any lack of advice for her when she went to pakistan from washington? i mean, she did not get proper coaching and advisement. she decided to go to pakistan and was not really told about the risk that she would face. >> i haves+v'ñ say i got off an airplane at 10:00 and was at a meeting at the white house at 11:00, and came directly here. ita am not in a position to respond to that today. but we can get back to you with that. >> thanks for your question. in limiting girls and the process of education, i think generically, we recognize the girls ' education is one of the

biggest moves we can madeke terms of health indicators and for sustainable and inclusive growth. we have been supporting a significant girls' education effort. i think as we go forward, and this is the part of the dialogue that we have with the ministry of education it turns out that the world bank and the u.k. through dfied have been very dedicated partners. we're going to work in closer partnership with them and with the government of pakistan and focus on going forward in places like southern punjabi. i think are more a opportunities to be more efficient as we do that. the other parts of the education dialogue by the way, we are really about higher education. we have been able to visit

universities were the u.s. over decades has been able to build capacity with the round table of the vice-chancellor's of all of the major universities and did that in a science and math building that was built by u.s. assistant a number of years ago. it is just a reminder that students that go there all see the plaque when they're working and they have the opportunity and the way they talk about the value of the u.s. assistance is deep and powerful. we will get higher education as well. in terms of investing in pakistani institutions, we are i think 92% is falsely high in terms of the amount of our assistance that goes to u.s.- based firms or contractors but it is a high number. we are trying to bring it down. it would not be accurate to say that means only% or -- 8% or 10% are with our contractors. the majority of our contractors and the majority of their time and resources in pakistan

hiring ngos and contractors to do the work there. they're working hard to do two things, one is to focus on investing in building in pakistani institutions. and over the next few years i think you will see that number go up quite significantly. and they are trying to do that any way that allows for full transparency and accountability of how those resources are spent. in fatah or with an organization that was set up in the region, they have spent months building a mechanism that allows us to invest in the congress and the american people we feel very strongly about it. i give a lot of credit for the team in being able to balance those perspectives. across the board were we traveled, both our direct staff

and are implementing partners have really highlighted the extent to which they are taking personal risk in doing this work and is recognizing that and their courage. >> both of you started out in your presentations with everything so positive. i understand that. surely, not everything is so rosy. can each of you identify one or two things were you found things lacking and aside from just the time it takes to build up, real problems of you want to correct? what's the point that raj is making is very serious and one that i saw -- >> the point that raj is making is very serious and one that i sought in both countries. the general lack of resources -- infrastructure in the area makes

it difficult for them to travel on the road. our ability to get the program fully up to the level that we have planned and intend to get it too requires an awful lot of those partners doing things that are very dangerous. whether it is the risk of a ied's in the road, or being identified through international efforts. i think we are making progress, but that is something that is a very significant issue that we have to keep our eye on. in terms of our u.s. averageeffort i think we are at a good point in terms of general coordination amongst agencies. i think it is an extremely difficult challenge that will come up each time we have a program put in place. this coordination takes time, effort flexibility. it is not the history of the way we have provided assistance in

the past in other places. we are in very difficult environments trying to bring together all the different instrumentalities to work in a coordinated way. some things were better than others. we also saw some processes we can improve to make it more effective. overall, both of those concerns are things that we have to be very cognizant of. but it -- as the construct of the overall assessment, the program is going very well a year into it. put the point of going and the dialogues, whether -- >> the point of going and the dialogue, whether strategic for what we did in iraq and afghanistan the host of those to be more efficient in the our work going forward and just a better job. an example is our work that i consider an -- a success story. our teams did extraordinary work. when you look at the unit cost of that work, it is quite costly on a per person basis. our afghan partners and we

recognize we want to find a way to a transition that to something sustainable over the long run so that people can hold on to the hope and the economic promise and progress that has been created there but in a way that is more efficient and save money. now we will start planning on those types of things and by highlighting those issues we can raise them and work to resolve them. another example is we find it an amazing institution in the afghan vocational training institute in kabul. they had 2300 students this year. for about $1,000 per student after two years -- that is, $1,000 per year -- they graduate and can get technical jobs in the construction trades and electrical construction as well as ict computer programming. those jobs pay $300 or $400 per month, which is a great payoff on the $1,000 investment.

i think the next round of support should be about 30% more efficient. we find those opportunities and work to get their as we do these trips. >> to add one note on the point of sustainability that he made, the observations that raj had totally cut -- corresponded with the observations of the afghan ministers we met with. and having the advantage of being there today's after the concept, the observations that rqajaj had pretty much used all of the concepts and organizations together. and you come in from the outside and it is not like you are changing things radically but you're just doing these kinds of maker as corrections that are much more likely to lead to -- these small corrections that are much more likely to lead to success. >> [unintelligible]

that the afghan police is not well prepared and the $6 billion that has been spent training them despite the that there is rampant corruption and extortion to local communities. i wonder if you were about this and if you have heard complaints the ground about these findings. an >> i think we all know that building afghan security forces, both the national army and national police are central to our mission there that the ability for afghanistan to take control in the long term of its own security depends on building these forces. there have been many challenges in both regards. there is progress being made in both regards. in the afghan national police program, we are shifting strategies over this year. we have shifted strategies. i have had the opportunity to visit the afghan police training center in harat were there was

outstanding training going on and i do not think a year ago anyone would have seen the kind of training. there was an effort were a lot of the training was being done by italians and they had some of the world's foremost experts in training police. the training of the higher level afghan national police is going quite well. i think there are more challenges as you go down into the basic police. i think that is a challenge in a country that is -- has a very low literacy rates. they're bringing in more literacy training into the program. there is a lot of work to do, but i must say, i left the visit to the harat training center more encouraged than i expected to be. >> by using carefully prepared to provide security after this -- but do you think they are

fully prepared to provide security after this? >> we are at the beginning of this new trading initiative -- training initiative. they are gaining skills daily. they are being deployed in places like marja and taking the lead in many of the most difficult police and security undertakings. it is with a lot of support from the u.s. and international presence there. but if the question is, are things in a better place than they were? very much so. is there still a lot of work to do? yes there is still work to do. >> during a recent visit to washington d.c. at the nuclear energy summit the prime minister of india said that india has been involved in a big way in the activities in

afghanistan. this is viewed as a good thing but pakistan views this a different way. [unintelligible] >> i think that afghanistan has a longstanding close relationship with india and india has been a big supporter of the involvement programs in afghanistan and i think there are well-known concerns in pakistan about the relationship. i think we have encouraged all sides to look at this in terms of what is being done. it is it helping to move the area into a better place in terms of development and security i think that the observations that india has played an important role in pakistan continue to be true. more important and development ultimately, the trade relationship is important.

we can build the next -- an airstrike, but the export market is going to india. and you will see that the air strips built over the last couple of years is beat the -- are being used. one has to take hope from these beginnings but do not be complacent about them because they are just first steps. >> the report for the trouble areas makes it impossible for the united states to accurately assess the status of the assistance. your reaction to that? and how you reassure u.s. taxpayers when you're talking about billions of dollars? >> i appreciate that question and i also appreciate the report. we generally concur with the report's findings and believe we can be more effective at putting

in placement -- in place mechanisms that allow us to track our resources. that is the work that has been under way over the last seven or eight months, especially in fatah or with a construction organization parsah i believe it is called. it will be very important for it to highlight why we need a mechanism that is clear for the kind of monitoring. the couple observations that i had from a trip that i do not think are reflected in the report in as much depth, one is, the security situation does make it harder and we have to recognize this year for our own staff, or for more likely actually, local partners to be out there visiting and monitoring. we know we have to do that, and our staff is eager to do it, but

it puts them at great risk and you have seen what has happened in the last few weeks with some of the unfortunate incidents. i think we ought to be cognizant of how we resolve the challenge that has been articulated in a difficult security environment. there might be some things we can do to do that, you know, using technology to do -- to improve feedback and connectivity, having a more structured and secure purchase to monitoring that what leverage some of the pakistani military stability to a secure local areas en maintain exercises in a coordinated way and your that is a real issue. an >> are you making sure that the taxpayers' money is being well spent and adequately monitored i? >> that is what the report goes through. but the whole point of really

working for these established mechanisms and taking the time, this is an area where we have delayed some disbursements as of the because we did not have the mechanism and it has taken some time to establish. the mechanism is still not up and running but we expected to be in a few weeks. i have supported the team and the team is very focused on taking the time to build disbursement of innocence that are transparent and allow for effective margarine. truxel will take one more question crux is a very -- >> we will take one more question. >> it is a very short question too. if you could tell me how many state representatives to have operating in marja and in the valley. >> in marja we have a small direct higher presence, i believe three or four now. i met 3, combined state and usaid.

what was quite striking is how centro they are to what is going on on the ground there. when you talk to the governor from a local governor, regional governor and the military, there is a partnership going on in terms of the local programs that is tremendous it was well executed. i was struck at the attachment that local leaders have for our civilians that have only been there a short time frame. you would have thought they had been there for years. rex i would say the exact same thing about kevin -- >> i would say the exact same thing about kevin that i met out there. you need with the local leaders in the districts and they embraced kevin like he was one of their own.

i'm not sure that counting the civilians in those forward markets is exactly the right case. they are supported by hundreds of people and a couple doing contrasting and legal compliance work, a significant number of foreign nationals that are on our staff that are often doctors and engineers and most importantly, we do most of our work through local partners that can move around and interface with more committees more effectively. i met with the gentleman involved with the agriculture program in the area and he stopped and talked with farmers and ask what they need and make sure that it was working without the significance security that a

direct u.s. personnel would require. it is important to note that our capabilities in those areas are in excess of view direct [unintelligible] >> when we were there we had praise for our senior civilian there. i do not remember his name. at the end of the conversation, i always said, governor, we always have our best marines and our best marlins. his last name was marlon. the ratio of civilians there has always been, roughly speaking, 10 to one. before each civilian we have had their we have at 10 surrounding them. >> how much are you spending on security? how much of $1 would go toward

security in terms of contracts? >> i would have to go back and check because it varies by location. going in the distance -- when any distance requires a helicopter, your security risks and costs are going to be very high. as you get into the area where points of security become regions of security that begins to change. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] president obama said today the financial relations bill making its way through congress would prevent the kind of tax payer funded bailout that -- that occurred in last year's financial crisis. that came just before the president's financial economic recovery board of the white house.

>> are you all set? thank you all for coming. we have a few topics to discuss today and i'm eager to hear from all of you about how the economy looks from your perspective and your forecast for the next few months, with particular interest obviously, in the issue of hiring and putting americans back to work. and also i will be focused on hearing from you and how we can increase exports in the years to come. we know that if we are selling products overseas and not just purchasing products and services, then that is going to directly benefit the growth of our economy. i do want to say a few words quickly about the issue of wall street reform. i know that some of you have worked in the financial industry. many of you have been advocates of reform for some time. all have been active in this area for more years than they

probably care to remember. as i have said before, we need a strong and healthy financial sector to grow jobs in our economy. -- and our economy terrific is exactly because of the central importance of the financial sector that we had to act. the devastating recession that we just went through offered a very painful lesson in what happens when we do not have accountability and transparency and consumer protection. we cannot allow history to repeat itself. never again should american taxpayers be forced to step in place for the responsibility of regulators on wall street. and we cannot expect another crisis to evolve with the tools to deal with it.

that is where we will provide new protections for consumers. this is reform that will force banks and financial institutions to pay for bad decisions that they make and not have taxpayers pay for those bad decisions. that means, no more bailouts. this reform will also bring transparency and how -- accountability to the derivatives market. this is something that paul volcker spoke publicly about just the other week. this quota and -- this is why a lot of the risky financial bets like aig took place. there were literally trillions of dollars sloshing around this market that basically changes hands under the cover of darkness. when things go wrong as they did with aig, it brings down the entire economy. we need to bring this into a framework in which everyone knows exactly what is going on because we cannot afford another aig. let's be honest, some in the industry are not happy about the

prospect of these reforms. we have seen the usual army of lobbyists dispatched on capitol hill. we have found some willing allies on the a side of the aisle in congress who have been trying to carve out a lot of -- they have found some willing allies on the other side of the out and in congress who have been trying to carve out a lot of special interests. i hope we can pass a bipartisan bill. bipartisanship cannot mean simply allowing lobbyists driven the polls that put american taxpayers at risk. that will not be real reform. in the coming weeks every member of congress is going to have to make a decision. will they decide with the special interests or will they side with the american people? anyone who proposes this reform is going to be leaving taxpayers on the hook like the one we have just seen if it ever happens again. i consider that an acceptable. my hope and belief is that all of us, democrats and republicans, will be able to

find some common ground on this issue as we move forward. it is too important to be bogged down in the same partisan gridlock that we have seen. it is time that we aim for accountability so we do not find ourselves in the same mess again. with that, we will officially convened the meeting which will be light streamed. -- live-streamed. >> this began the first of three british election debates. for the first time, prime minister gordon brown david cameron, and nick clydeegg will face off. the first election debate is courtesy of itv sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c- span. >> this weekend on c-span book tv, panels on global security

and the world's water supply. also william cohen and barry lynn on afterwards. a remarkable is on the efforts to alert the sec about bernie madoff's ponzi scheme. his book is "no one would listen." by the entire weekend schedule at booktv.org and follow was on twitter. >> president obama spoke earlier today at an event the white house is calling the conference on america's great outdoors. he addresses conservation programs in efforts -- and efforts to expand recreational areas in u.s. cities. the president is introduced by the white house council on environmental quality chairman, nancy sutton. this is about 15 minutes. t

>> ladies and gentlemen, to introduce the president, the chair on in our mental quality, nancy sutley. [applause] >> thank you very much. it is a great privilege to work under the leadership of president barack obama, who is a strong and said the guardian of the health and beauty and -- of the natural places that span these -- this great country. from the lush land of a wide to the public bath or courts of chicago to the green expanse of the white house lawn, this president is intimately familiar with the many faces of america's great outdoors. his personal connection and commitment to america's national -- natural heritage is clear in his determination to instill in his two young daughters and appreciation of the country's third verse. .

in the earlier and less hectic days -- diverse beauty. in the earlier and less hectic days he did this on the shorelines of chicago. and he did it last summer when the first family spent their vacation the breathtaking majesty of grand canyon and yellowstone national parks. to me, his commitment is clearest in the remarkable concentration legacy that he has already begun to establish. in signing the public land management act of 2009, president obama ensure the protection of some of the country's most pristine rivers and rugged wilderness. by working diligently for a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill, he is laying the path to protect the health of our lands and waters for future generations of americans. like so many in this room today he and his family are setting an example of conservation at home through community service. for the 40th anniversary of earth day next week, he has

challenged americans to take action in their homes communities, schools and businesses to improve the environment. at the white house he and first lady have planted an organic kitchen garden, sending the message to all americans about the value of local, healthy foods. and the first lady's "let's move to" initiative is getting kids off the couch and into the great outdoors. i am proud to serve as president and honored to present him to you today. ladies and gentlemen the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you, thank you very much. thank you.

thank you. thank you everybody. thank you. thank you so much. thank you. thank you. thank you. please everybody have a seat. thank you. it is a great privilege to join for this conference on america's great outdoors. there are a number of people that obviously, i want to acknowledge who have worked tirelessly to move this agenda forward. at the top of our list, our secretary of the interior, who i believe is going to be one of the best secretaries of the interior in american history, ken salazar, who has wholly embraced this and we're thrilled with the work he has done. [applause] thank you, ken. secretary tom vilsack

administrator lisa jackson nancy sutley have all been part of what we call our corrine team and have consistently provided creative ideas -- are green team and have consistently provided creative ideas so that we understand this is an integral part of economic growth. they have done a fabulous job on that. please give them a round of applause. [applause] we have my outstanding new and administrator, dr. dov of genco. the assistant administrator of the army, the deputy secretary of defense, and in the audience -- if i am not mistaken we have some luminaries. it is governor bill richardson in the house? there he is, from the mexico. a great converse --

conservationists. [applause] former secretary of the interior bruce babbitt is here. [applause] one of the finest young mayors of the country, mayor cory booker. [applause] and to all the outstanding members of congress, who have been so diligent in promoting the conservation agenda. >>i am mindful that the first such conference was held over one century ago by one of my friends -- my favorite president, one of our greatest presidents, and certainly, our greatest conservation president. upon taking office, theodore roosevelt, avid bird watcher bear hunter, set out on a tour

of the american west that would change his life and the life of the nation forever. he stood in awe of the geysers of yellowstone. he can't in a snow blizzard at yosemite. -- he camped in a snow blizzard at yosemite. he stood on a cliff at the grand canyon. from that sense of commitment spring five national parks 18 national monuments 51 federal byrd reservations, and 150 national forests. from that commitment sprang an effort to save the great redwoods of california and the petrified forest of arizona the great bird rocks of the aleutian islands. and the congress of thongas of alaska.

that legacy is an extraordinary achievement and no matter how long i have the privilege of serving as president, i know i could never match it. and i probably will never shoot a bear. [applause] [laughter] that is a fair guess. [laughter] buttu intend to enrich the legacy. -- but i do intend to and ridge that legacy. and i feel a bond with the land that is the united states of america. i do for the same reasons that you do. for the same reasons the family go outside for a picnic or camp or spend the night in the national corp. -- national park or track toward the woods or way deep into a river. -- wade deep into a river. it is passed down from one generation to the next that few pursuits are more satisfying to

the spirit that discovering the greatness of america outdoors -- and discovering the greatest of america's outdoors. when we see it, we in -- with understanding credible down to we have been given. it is our obligation -- we understand the incredible county we have been given. it is our obligation to ensure that for the next generation. that has been the touchstone of this presidency thanks to ken salazar and nancy sutley and others. last year, i signed into law the public lands bill, the most significant in decades that designated 2 million acres of wilderness and the three national parks. we are taking an approach to our national forest to make sure they are not just providing timber for lumber companies but water and jobs for rural communities. we are restoring our coasts from

the chesapeake bay to the gulf coast from the great lakes to the everglades. we're working faithfully to carry on the legacy of teddy roosevelt in the 21st century. but we also know we must meet the challenges of our new time. over the past century our population grew from about 90 million to about 300 million. and we have lost more of our landscape to development. meanwhile, a host of other factors from a changing climate to new sources of pollution have put a growing strain on our wildlife and our waters and lands. rising to meet these challenges is a task and an obligation but one that government cannot and should not meet alone. there are roughly 1600 privately run land trust in this country that have protected over 10 million acres through voluntary efforts. by working with farmers and ranchers and landowners, the

department of agriculture's conservation reserve program has protected over 30 million acres and its national resource conservation service, a service that is 75 years old this year, has predicted almost 3 million more. together we are conserving our workingman's in a way that preserves the environment and protect local communities. that is the kind of collaborative spirit at the heart of america's great of doors initiative that we're launching today. -- great outdoors initiative that we are launching today. we are hosting sessions across the america. we will meet with everybody from tribal leaders to farmers to young people to business people, from elected officials to recreational and conservation groups. they will help us for may 21 century strategy for america's great outdoors to better protect our landscape and history for generations to come. understand we are not talking about a big federal agenda being driven out of washington.

we are talking about how we can collect best ideas on conservation, how we can pursue good ideas that local communities embrace, and how we can be more responsible stewards of tax dollars to promote conservation. first, we will build on successful conservation efforts being spearheaded outside of washington by local and state governments, by tribes and private groups. we can read a chapter in the protection of rivers, wildlife habitats historic sites and the great man's gift of our country. second, we're going to help farmers, ranchers, property owners who want to protect our lands for their children and grandchildren third, we will help families spend more time outdoors. building what the first lady has done through the "let's move" initiative to encourage people to hike and bike and get outside more often. and we want to foster a new generation of community in the urban parks. so that children across america

have the chance to experience places like millennium park in my own chicago. we're launching this strategy because it is the right thing to do. because teddy roosevelt said we must not mar the work of the ages. but we're also doing it because it is the right thing for our economy. this is how we would spur the job industry and the tourism industry and the recreation industry. it is how we will create jobs in maintaining our forests and rivers and read our doors. in a time of great difficulty when we are recovering from the worst recession in generations and waiting two wars abroad, some may ask whether now is the time to reaffirm our commitment to our national heritage. -- natural heritage. it was in the middle of the civil war that abraham lincoln said the sidelines in yosemite. it was in the midst of a great depression that fdr form of the civilian conservation core to build the campgrounds and a a

of trails that we enjoy today. we're called to take the long view even in tough times to preserve our natural heritage because in doing so, we fulfill one of the responsibilities that fall to all of us as americans and as inhabitants of the same small planet. that is, the responsibility we are rising to meet today. thank you for of the work you're doing individually and i look for two of you will be doing collectively. thank you. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [applause] . .

>> today's car bombings in qantara, a new report on the 2007 assassination of benazir bhutto and the russian government's announcement of the suspension of adoptions with the u.s. is spokesman speaks with reporters for about 20 minutes. >> thank you gentleman very much. i would like to send -- we recently brought them on board

as the senior press officer for the usaid. we are happy to have them on board. there you go. i would just pick up on your point. the u.s. strongly condemns the bombings that occurred last night in canada are -- in khandahar. those killed and injured last night were in afghanistan working on much-needed development opportunity and providing electricity to the people. the terrorists are not interested in improving the lives of those citizens. we understand there have been two americans both contract

employees to usaid among the wounded. we offer our prayers to them and support for their families. >> [unintelligible] [unintelligible] >> they knew that i had a statement to make. >> [unintelligible] >> if we had more time i would have called on you and they would have had that opportunity. >> you said you were going to say something. >> we have the report. we are reviewing it. the u.s. cooperated fully, not just on this investigation but on the independent scotland yard investigation. the assassination was a tragedy for the people of pakistan.

and benazir bhutto gave her life in defense of the development of pakistan's institutions. we will continue to work with pakistan to make sure that we built the institutions of democracy going forward and help them as well. >> do you think there was lack of advice from washington when she was leaking from pakistan? what she advised? -- when she was leaving from pakistan? the deal hatched here in washington. >> i don't want to get into the particulars. the u.s. was -- we encourage her return. we encouraged pakistan's returned to a civilian government and a civilian rule. tragically there were failures on a number of levels where she did not have the protection that

she deserved. but i will not comment on the particulars of the report. >> is there anything in your report you did not know before? >> i will not comment. we cooperated in this report as we did in the case of the scotland yard investigation. >> [unintelligible] would you like to say something on the [unintelligible] it has meant a lot to them after a century of struggle. >> i don't feel equipped to make a comment on that. [unintelligible] there are sections of the report that says pakistan's are made -- pakistan's army [unintelligible]

are you concerned about this? do you have any comments? >> we are concerned about the presence of extremist groups in countries of south asia regardless of where they are. this has been a part of our ongoing dialogue -- part of our ongoing dialogue secretary of clinton had this week with the prime minister. i would say that this is a shared struggle. we believe very strongly in aggressive steps that pakistan is taking. they have pledged to continue to cooperate fully with the u.s. and also to cooperate with india in terms of ongoing investigations to make sure those who are perpetrated of crimes are brought to justice. together we could reduce and

eliminate this threat that affects all of us. >> [unintelligible] >> we could always come back to it. >> what is your understanding of the situation with the russia and the adoption? had you been able to clear this up? >> today between the ambassador in moscow and high-level officials in the foreign ministry in moscow -- we can say is there a suspension of adoptions? there is not. there are a number of cases that are in the legal system now and are continuing. our adoptions are still progressing bad -- adoptions are

still progressing. we are also aware of the number of cases that were pending before the courts have been pressed fund. this will be a matter we will discuss further with russian officials next week when our time -- when our team arrives. >> >> [inaudible] >> there is not a suspension but there are cases poised to move forward and there are a number of courses -- number of cases that have been postponed. >> what is happening is that cases already approved are going through, but new cases the court had not acted yet have been suspended. >> whether this is a blanket suspension -- it is possible the system is slowing down. it is possible, --

>> possible? it is happening. >> has there been an impact involving cases here in the u.s.? >> impacting what? >> i just stated it. we are aware there have been pending cases and they have been postponed. >> what about a situation where a case was not attending and a new application would be made? >> i'm not sure i understand the question. it. wants to adopt a russian child -- a parent in the u.s. wants to adopt a russian child, well that's be able to work -- will that be able to work? you still don't know? >> i have told you what we know. there are cases still moving

forward. there are cases that could be postponed. does this mean that there could be some instances where cases are held up for a period of time after we clarify -- as we try to clarify what is happening and strengthen the process seas in place? yes, there may well be. >> the team that is going? >> they will be leaving this weekend. they had meetings on sunday and monday and tuesday. >> what about the travel? with the volcanic ash situation. >> as far as i know, there is still trouble. what jack was saying is aircraft are taking a more southerly route to get to certain places. they probably can still get their. >> [inaudible]

>> it is a fair question. if there is any impact on the current situation we will let you know. >> did the russians say explicitly they wanted a new agreement with you before resuming? >> they mentioned it to us they want to reach a bilateral agreement. we share the same objective to find improved ways to process these adoptions while making sure it these adoptions continue to move forward. we will see what the meeting produces. >> are the russians still accepting new applications from americans? >> i would defer to russia to describe that. i don't think this system has stopped. it is possible the system is slowing down. >> what is the state department advising americans who want to put in an application? >> we can provide them [inaudible]

>> what is the latest prospective? hold off? are you going to tell us something different? >> no, but we may have more insights after we have the meetings next week. >> i think you mentioned yesterday there are officials from the department of homeland security. >> u.s. citizenship and immigration services is a part of the problem. >> anybody else from other agencies? >> i will try to get you a list on monday. anything else on russia? ok. >> the iranian foreign minister told aljazeera there is a u.s. delegation attending the nuclear summitt tomorrow.

>> the nuclear summit in tehran? not to my knowledge. you're talking about an official u.s. delegation? >> yes, u.s. delegation going back. >> i will check the mail this afternoon but i am not aware we got an invitation. >> the leaders of india and brazil [unintelligible] they said they are against any sanctions against iran, and want to have dialogue. do you have any comments? >> if countries choose to have dialogue with iran we have no trouble with that. we hope that they will tell iran and aid to come forward and engage more constructively and answer questions the

international community has been raising about the nature of iran's nuclear program. we hope we will tell them that there is still a deal on the table although it has been there for some time, that can help build confidence that iran has peaceful intentions, but that deal requires iran to take specific actions that it has been unwilling to do. we remain working closely with countries within the security council. we continue to think that there is a broad diplomatic effort involved that involves engagement. it also has to involve pressure to make it clear to iran there is a consequence for its failure to meet its obligations.

>> as they have sat down and talk to iran, they came away with the same conclusion we have. that we are willing to engage and iran is not. this has to be it -- this cannot be a one-way conversation. it has to be a conversation that has some actions in response to iran. should they choose to engage iran in the coming days and weeks, if they reciprocate and they come with meaningful action, that will be a welcome step. we have had other conversations where countries have talked to iran and said they are not prepared to do anything. if that remains iran's position, there will be consequences. >> [inaudible] are you talking with iranians?

>> we remain prepared to talk to iran. we engaged iran directly with others in the p5 plus one process, because they have not been willing. >> [inaudible] are the negotiations still on track to have sanctions ready? >> there is no timetable but the president indicated a strong preference to get this done and reach an understanding in a matter of weeks. >> are you saying that so far i iranian behavior has not changed in any way? >> yes, that is what we are saying. >> can i get you another subject? going once, going twice. >> did you see leavitt on

sitting in the chair at the security council as a hurdle? >> we viewed their leadership as part of its normal representation. -- we view the 11lebanon's leadership as part of its normal representation. lebanon, just as we had with others, have irresponsibility to listen to the debate and move the process for. we expect that would happen regardless of who is in the chair. >> [inaudible] i'm sorry, i realized that i should have addressed it to the previous person. under [inaudible] u.s. and russia are about to [unintelligible]

do you have any additional details on that? >> we will see if we have any additional details. clearly russia has considerable interest in the region as does the u.s. we have worked very constructively with russia as the system of overflights has indicated, but i will see if we can get more particular is in that project. >> can you give us a preview? what is the agenda? >> we are hosting the major economics forum here at the department of state on sunday and monday. the special envoy and national security adviser for international affairs will lead this effort.

we are going to see if we can continue our dialogue among major developed and developing economies to make progress in meeting our objectives on climate change and the clean energy challenge. clearly, there is still a gap between the use of the developing and developed world. we will see if we can change that. >> some countries will send ministers and some will not? >> there are 17 major economies who are members of the forearm austria, brazil, -- australia mexico south africa, the united kingdom and the u.s. there may be others represented there. >> on the question yesterday

about the flight cancellations in europe, do you know if your embassies are doing anything to help stranded americans who have been stuck for several days? >> we are closely monitoring it and we have people traveling in one direction. the secretary is making his way back to the u.s. and we are waiting to see if he gets back on time. this is primarily a matter for the federal aviation administration but if we do have a american citizens that need help, we have embassies in various countries that can provide assistance, but i have not had a sense of whether we have been called on to do anything in particular. >> thank you.

the foreign minister told the secretary of state, and you mentioned that they discussed [unintelligible] can you provide some details regarding this meeting? [unintelligible] thank you. >> on the latter, that was not discussed. we obviously had a very meaningful discussions this week. both on the turkish side and the armenian side. we continue to try to find the right formula working with both countries and also supporting the peace process. the process has stalled from last fall when the countries

signed a protocol on normalization. we want to see turkey and armenia ratify those protocols. we want to see them open borders. that has benefits for both countries. we continue to work with both to see if we can find the right formula to see ratification and the benefits that come with that. >> [unintelligible] does the american side work to resolve these issues? >> we continue to work to see -- there are things that both countries have committed to do. there are difficult processes working with their parliaments. we have the same experience with this country where an executive branch can make a commitment to work with congress in terms of implementing that or getting

ratification. we know this is a difficult process. it involves a motion on both sides. we will continue to work constructively with armenia and turkey to try to see this through. thank you. >> sunday, author and columnist stanley crouch. he discusses his upcoming book on jazz composer, charlie parker. that is sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, the first of three british election debates. for the first time, prime minister gordon brown cameron and nick cleg will face off with the dates.

the first election debate courtesy of i-tv on c-span. >> a house hearing on u.s. nuclear weapons policy. we hear about the posture review which sets the rules for using weapons and maintaining the u.s. arsenal. ike skelton chairs the committee. this is about two and a half hours. >> good morning. the armed services committee meets to receive testimony armed -- on the u.s. nuclear policy. as well as the structure in light of the recent nuclear posture review, as well as the signing of the new treaty. joining us today is a very

formal witness panel -- formidable witness panel. general kevin chilton the hon. tom d'agostino undersecretary of energy for the national security administration, and no stranger here and we welcome her back the honerable ellen tauscher. it is a thrill to have you back. we appreciate it for you appearing here today. the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2008 requires the secretary of defense to perform a review of our nuclear posture in

coordination with the state department and energy department. the administration reduce seeks to establish it our partisan approach to nuclear policy. -- establish a bipartisan approach. with the goals of preventing nuclear terrorism and weapons proliferation. it contains the balance of former secretaries of defense bills who recommended one year ago when they presented the findings of the bipartisan commission on the strategic posture of the u.s. this is the opportunity the commission concluded. to reach consensus on u.s. nuclear strategy. it is also a moment of urgency. the urgency arises international from a danger we may be close to a tipping point in nuclear proliferation and decisions

about the nuclear weapons program. it offers us the opportunity to act on urgent issues that the commitment -- that the commission to find. following the path outlined by president obama last year, we call for responsibly producing the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy. this opens the door to a stronger steps in road states -- in rogue states. we live in a complicated world that demands immediate action to protect us from the threat of nuclear terrorism such as locking down loose nuclear materials. i want to congratulate the president on obtaining the agreement of 47 nations at the nuclear summitt to lockdown these materials within four years. the npr is grounded in the

strength of our nuclear deterrence. the statute recommended last year. the cut of five by the defense bill -- and codified by the defense bill. this new treaty comes at a critical time as we approached the main review conference of the non-proliferation treaty by agreeing to reduce their

and russia sent a message. it will strengthen the president's efforts to impose stiffer punishments on nations such as iran accused of violating the npt. [unintelligible] it will at times be difficult. the signing of the treaty moves as miles ahead towards reaching that final destination. ronald reagan noted, for the eight years i was president i never let my dream of nuclear- free world fade from mind. president obama is aiming high with his commitment to a world without nuclear weapons but this treaty is deeply rooted in a common-sense strategy that will enhance our national security by protecting us from the most urgent nuclear dangers.

before calling on our panel of witnesses, let me recognize my friend, the distinguished gentleman@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tt@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@@

a desire to pursue a universal

coppice -- purpose by which the threat of nuclear used to deter biological attack would be taken entirely off the table. one embrace wording that sends mixed signals to our allies and adversaries? i hope our witnesses will discuss why this policy change was made and security benefits they believed it provides. i worried these changes to u.s. policy combined with the signalling of what is yet to gum will weaken our deterrence -- will weaken our deterrence. the president already directed a review of future reductions in it nuclear weapons below new start levels. what would be the rationale for such reductions? without further assessments of the understanding of our military commanders requirements, much less seen how

the implementation -- it would be premature to rush into deeper cuts. we have been told that it would permit further development and deployment of u.s. missile defenses in europe. russian leaders suggest deployments could lead to their withdrawal from the treaty. how are these expectations being resolved especially when some are suggesting missile defense and conventional forces be included in the next round of negotiations? i am concerned our eagerness may cost us important capabilities. i hope our witnesses can assure us this is not the case. any decision to reduce our nuclear stockpile including weapons we maintain in storage should not be made unless we have confidence the remaining arsenal is reliable. this requires a sustained

investment to modernize our aging stockpile. not just a one-year increase of funds. how do we attract and retain scientists and engineers to an enterprise that is shrinking? it explicitly prohibits the development of new nuclear warheads. general chilton our nuclear weapons are chemistry experiments on the shelf. what young engineer wants to work on that? how does the administration propose to maintain technical competencies in an environment that does not allow them to be exercised from start to finish? the npr places emphasis on addressing the threat of nuclear terrorism and non-proliferation. the president announced intentional effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material a

around the world within four years. we have not seen any plans for how this would be accomplished. there is another aspect to non- proliferation. u.s. assurance to our allies who have agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons in exchange for a u.s. nuclear guarantees. will this lead to less confidence in our nuclear deterrence and drive some allies to consider developing their own? the president appears to believe u.s. nuclear reduction will restore our moral leadership to encourage others to do the same. it assumes regimes like iran and north korea will curb their nuclear ambitions. pakistan and india will reduce nuclear arms and russia and china will be more inclined to support sanctions against iran as a result of u.s. stockpile

reductions. none of these have yet to be seen. i would like to thank our witnesses for being with us and their dedication. mr. chairman, i would like to have my full statement included. >> without objection. thank you mr. mckeon. the order of testimony will be as we faced the witnesses from left to right, secretary miller general chilton and we are saving the best for last, secretary tauscher. we thank each of you for appearing before us. we have your written statements. each will be incorporated for the record without objection. a secretary miller, the floor is yours. >> thank you chairman, thank

you for the opportunity to testify. if it is a pleasure to join my colleagues discussing -- i will focus my remarks on the nuclear posture review. the 2010 npr provides a road map for implementing the agenda for reducing the amount of nuclear weapons within goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. it may not be reached quickly and pr outlines specific steps to maintain an effective -- and pnpr outline specific steps. the 2010 npr identifies the most urgent dangers as arising from proliferation.

it outlines an approach for dealing with these challenges that includes policy initiatives in a number of areas. the npr identifies five objectives for potsherd. -- for posture. reducing the role of u.s. nuclear weapons in our national security strategy. third, maintaining stability at reduced force levels. reassuring u.s. partners and fit, sustaining a nuclear arsenal safely. i will not summarize all the conclusions print and focus my remarks on policy. the. npr will make clear -- 2010 npr.

it strengthens the existing u.s.-security assurance and states and u.s. will not be is weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. at the same time, the npr reflects continued concerns about biological weapons. any state eligible for this assurance that uses biological weapons against the u.s. or its allies would pay -- would face a devastating military response. individuals responsible willie held fully accountable. -- will be held fully accountable. the u.s. reserves the right to

make any future adjustment that may be warranted by the proliferation of biological weapons. this does not apply to nuclear weapons states such as russia or china, nor does it apply tuesday it's not in compliance such as iran and north korea. u.s. nuclear weapons still play a role in deterring conventional attacks against the u.s. or our partners and allies. all options are on the table. to address the nexus of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, the npr when is the commitment to hold fully accountable to any group that supports or enables terrorist

efforts to use weapons of mass destruction. this statement and clarification of the insurance are reflections of the fact that the most urgent threats -- as long as nuclear weapons exist -- to deter an attack. one of the first task which continued throughout the review was to find positions for the -- the u.s. should retain a nuclear triad and have bombers. in the 2011 budget request includes funding. all should be [unintelligible]

third, an ability to upload should be retained as a hedge against political surprise. the administration intends to provide additional details in a report by the national defense authorization act. it will include an estimate of budgetary requirements. my statement deals with questions of non-strategic nuclear weapons and long-range strike weapons. in order to make more time for the questions i would like to conclude by saying the following. a key premise of the posture review was an effective strategy for reducing nuclear dangers -- it will require support from a

long succession of congress's laying the groundwork for a sustainable consensus remains an essential purpose of this npr. thank you. >> thank the gentleman. >> thank you members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to be before you today and testify on these topics. the strategic command was closely consulted throughout the development of the nuclear posture review. i look forward to discussing them with you. i would like to note how proud i am of the extraordinary work performed. we have an amazing team and their expertise continues to ensure our ability to deliver global security. the npr reflects a global

assessment of the security environment, one that is not different from the one we faced in the cold war. it recognizes the need to confront global france -- confront global threats. it includes several recommendations that will strengthen and sustain the ability to conduct our missions. the npr recommends removing -- moving forward with a number of sustainment projects including strengthening our control structure continuing development of our triad of delivery systems. maintaining a secure in the affected stockpile and revitalizing the security administration's aging infrastructure.

the triad of delivery systems provides synergy that makes our deterrent resilient in the face of a variety of technical developments. the npr endorses' efforts to explore our future system, specifically to extend through 2013 and conduct studies to informed decisions. to replace the ohio [unintelligible] and study future long range bomber capabilities. it also supports moving forward with full production for the warhead for our submarine leg of the triad. extension of the b61 bomb. and initiating studies that developed life exchanging

options for the warhead including the possibility of adapting it for watching ballistic missiles and reducing the number of warheads. the npr recognizes the need to improve the nuclear infrastructure and address challenges of human capital and sustainment. these investments are required in order to reduce the stockpile while sustaining credibility of nuclear weapons which is fundamental to deterrence. investments that revitalizes the aging infrastructure strengthen our security. a range of cutting edge national security challenges. the request for a 13% increase in funding for 2011 is an important first death in this process.

in regard to the treaty, -- important first step. planning for nuclear operations and advocating for nuclear capabilities, we are aware how changes can affect deterrence, he and strategic stability. the new agreement retains the military flexibility necessary to ensure each of these 40 period of the treaty. -- for the period of the tre aty. provided options for consideration by the department. this rigorous approach written in the assessment at adversary

capabilities supports the agreed upon reductions and recommendations in the npr. every day u.s. strategic command remains focused on providing the president with the options he needed to deter and respond to threats in our nation. today our deterrent is safe and effective. our forces are trained and ready. the command is carrying out its mission every day. i am confident the npr outlines an approach that continues to enable the men and women to deliver global security for america today and in the future. thank you for the opportunity to testify. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you so much. secretary d'agostino welcome. >> thank you.

i am pleased to appear before you with the general chilton and dr. miller. i will focus my remarks on the department of energy. as he may not know, -- as you may not know. we are pleased to have had the opportunity to contribute to the document. the nsa is engaged in direct support of the first objective preventing nuclear terrorism. the most important steps we can take to keep terrorists from using nuclear devices is to prevent them from acquiring nuclear materials themselves. this is not a new job to the nsa. we have led this effort for several years and are broadening the scope of these efforts. current programs include securing nuclear materials

including the most vulnerable materials worldwide. discussing access materials, -- disposing of excess materials. developing an active nuclear security dialogue and cooperation with domestic and international partners, and developing nuclear detection technologies. nsa programs are supporting the president's nonproliferation agenda by using these technical capabilities within the nuclear security enterprise to demonstrate the ability to support the treaty and any follow-up arms requirements. the department of energy are engaged in direct support of the fifth objective, sustaining a

safe and secure [inaudible] our program has been able to do that for 65 years a shore the nation's nuclear-weapons is safe and effective in meeting needs at the u.s. the need to maintain this stockpile without nuclear testing has been a national policy for 20 years. we will continue to do that in the future, consistent with key principals included. the u.s. will not conduct underground nuclear testing and will not develop new nuclear warheads. however, we will study all options for insuring the safety and effectiveness of nuclear warheads. applying these principles, the nsa will fund the ongoing life extension program for the submarine base warhead for completion in 2017. and the full scope study for the b61 bomb to insure production

begins in 2017. and participate with nuclear weapons council on a study of life extension options before the warhead. the nsa needed to recapitalize the aging infrastructure and renew our human capital. our experts to carry out our stockpile and support other missions. the nsa will strengthen the science technology and engineering base needed for conducting life extensions. the nsa will fund the two projects, the chemistry research replacement project to replace the existing 50-year-old facility by the year 2021 and a

uranium processing facility in tennessee to come on line for production operations by 2021. responsible management requires not only supporting infrastructure but a highly capable workforce with specialized skills hidta detain the nuclear deterrent and support the new clear agenda. the npr noted the importance of retaining human capital needed for nuclear security missions. in order to succeed, we need to be able to recruit and retain the next generation of nuclear security professionals because our work force is our greatest asset. the president has outlined the importance of nuclear issues for national security and keeping this safe and effective for the future.

this insures scientists and engineers of tomorrow will have the ability to engage in challenging activities. i also want to share a statement from our laboratory directors that provides their views. the directors stated that we believe the approach outlined which excludes further nuclear testing provides the necessary technical flexibility to manage the stock pile into the future with an acceptable level of risk. we are reassured a key component of the npr is the recognition of importance of supporting the infrastructure -- and a highly capable workforce. this nuclear deal is an important step towards adopting

an approach to nuclear weapons and a broader array of nuclear issues. this will acquire a long-term commitment -- this will require a long-term commitment to provide resources necessary. as the committee directed, we have not formulated and will submit a stockpile management plan that will describe how the nsa and department of defense will work together to implement the structure included in npr. in nuclear security enterprise will have a science and engineering expertise to carry out a full range of missions, not just managing the stockpile but using capabilities to address the full spectrum of national-security efforts required. the secretary recently stated the department of energy must deliver solutions to advance our national securities.

thank you, mr. chairman. i would be pleased to respond to your questions. >> thank you, secretary d'agostino. without objection the laboratory report will be made a part of our record three of behead secretary tauscher, we look forward to your testimony. -- part of our record. secretary tauscher, we look forward to your testimony. >> thank you for the opportunity to discuss the state department's role in protecting our allies in from threats. i am honored to appear with my colleagues from the department of energy, dr. jim miller, and general chilton. let me thank you all for your service and i want you to know how much i missed serving on this committee. it is an honor to be part of the obama administration and work with president obama and secretary clinton to implement

our nonproliferation agenda. we have an ambitious agenda to reduce the number of nuclear weapons to make sure the u.s. is secure. the president set forth several goals in his speech last year. three of them have been advanced in the last few days. he wanted a new treaty that would make verifiable in the u.s. and russia's nuclear arsenal. he vowed to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our security posture. he set a goal of securing all formal nuclear material in the next four years. at the same time, the president reaffirmed our commitment to maintaining an effective deterrent to protect the u.s. and our allies so long as nuclear weapons success. the state department working with our friends at the department of energy and defense, and the rest of the team and congress, are fully engaged in implementing the

president's agenda. last week the administration released a report of its nuclear posture review. this revealed constitutes a clear break from past reviews in terms of process and scope. the department of defense lead the review but the interagency fully participated in discussing the issues and making recommendations. for the first time, a nuclear radio is an unclassified document. the obama administration -- the nuclear review is unclassified. identifying concrete steps to enhance our national security. last thursday president obama traveled to prague to sign the new treaty. i spent most of march in geneva and helped conclude the agreement. the new treaty will improve u.s. and international security by limiting u.s. and russian strategic nuclear foremast --

strategic nuclear forces. and advancing our nuclear non- proliferation efforts. the treaty sets meaningful lower limits on strategic warheads and delivery vehicles. these are limits the department of defense validated through analysis in the early months of the review. the treaty's verification regime will provide each side with confidence the other is a holding its obligation. the tree begins our military the flexibility to structure and maintain our forces in ways that best meet our interests. most importantly the treaty does not contain any constraints on testing or deployment of current or planned u.s. missile defense programs, or current or planned long-range conventional strike capabilities. let me make one final point the

u.s. will continue to maintain a safe and effective nuclear force to protect ourselves our allies and our partners. the u.s. and russia can reduce our nuclear forces because the threat environment has changed. today's nuclear threats come from terrorists and additional countries seeking nuclear weapons, not the risk of a large-scale nuclear attack. . . akaaaaaaaakayaaaaaauaaaaaaaaaaaaaakaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazaaaaaaaaanaaazazaaaavavavaagaaaaaaaaaaaaaakazaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayaaaaaaaaaayaaaaaaa÷a÷aaaakaayaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa÷a÷a÷a÷aanananaaaaaaaanaaaakakaa÷a÷a÷amaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaauauamanakayauaaauauayaaaaanagaaaaaaaakaaazaza÷aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamaamaaanaaaaaaaaaaaaazazaaaaaaaaaazaaaaaaaaaaaaaama÷aaaaasaavaaaaaaaaazaaaaayayayaakasasakaaapaaa÷aaaaauaauaaaaagazaa÷aaaaaaaakaasayakaaaaamakakauaayauaua÷avamama@h@@

that is why we call it the nsa. it is a very long explanation of who they are. the purpose of this changes to emphasize to non-nuclear states the security benefits of that hearing to and fully complying with the nuclear non- proliferation treaty and the objective. some have suggested that this would leave such states fearful of using biological weapons. nothing could be further from the truth. let me be clear. no one should doubt the resolve and conventional capabilities of the united states to respond to such aggression with devastating

effect and to hold accountable those responsible. the nuclear non-proliferation review conference in may is an opportunity to renew and revitalize all three pillars of the treaty. non-proliferation, disarmament and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy through safeguards. it is the corner store in -- it is the cornerstone and foundation for progress in nuclear arms control and disarmament. all nations must recognize that the non-proliferation regime cannot survive it violators are left to act with impunity. along with our international partners the u.s. is pursuing efforts to get north korea to resolve the world's concerns. and to cooperate in all outstanding questions. we're working to build consensus including a new u.n.

security council sanctions that will further clarify their choice of upholding the npt and state court obligations. we are facing increasing -- or facing increasing pencil obligations and isolation. returning to the negotiating table is not enough. p'yongyang needs to move to denuclearization through irreversible steps if it wants a normalized and sanctions-free relationship with the united states. these steps send a clear message about the administration's priorities and resolve. our commitment has never been stronger. the npr emphasizes close cooperation with our allies are around the world and maintain their -- our firm commitment. we will work with current

architectures and other military capabilities. i want to repeat what i said earlier. the united states will continue to maintain a secure and safe return for ourselves and our allies as long as these weapons exist anywhere in the world. last year, president obama said he would seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. he also made it clear that it may not have been in his lifetime. we are taking concrete steps in that direction which makes us stronger safer and more secure. that is why we are working to halt nuclear proliferation, to graining greater transparency into the program and to the capabilities of key countries of concern, and to create clarifications and technologies capable of detecting violations. in order to reduce the risk of proliferation, we will establish effective and internationally supported mechanisms to address noncompliance with non- proliferation obligations.

mr. chairman, i am very happy to be here today. i am happy to answer any questions that you have. i'm looking forward to working with the committee on your bill. >> thank you for your testimony and your appearance. general shelton. under the nuclear posture review with certainty can we say that america is safer because of it? >> mr. chairman, what i can say with certainty is that the united states strategic command under the contract of both the nuclear posture review and the start treaty is able to fully execute the design of this command, to provide adequate strategic deterrence for the united states of america. of that, i am absolutely

convinced. in that respect, we are secure. there is a particularly important point that i think will strengthen as for the future under the npr. it is something that i have advocated in the past. it is the funding and the commitment to funding and the focus on improving the nuclear enterprise under the nsa. this will truly strengthen the deterrent for today and for 20 years, 30 years and 40 years from now. the npr's endorsement of that is one of the most important aspects of that for strengthening our deterrence posture for the future. >> secretary miller, the administration rejected the notion that deterring in a clear

attack is the sole purpose for a nuclear stockpile. why was that? >> mr. chairman, the posture review closely considered the option of establishing deterrence of nuclear attacks as the sole purpose of u.s. nuclear-weapons and concluded that the conditions for making such a statement making such a declaratory policy, i do not exist today. nuclear weapons continue to play an important role in deterring the on nuclear attacks -- deterring non-nuclear attacks including biological attacks deriving from a nuclear weapons state. npr and set forth and objected that would make it safe for the

united states and others to establish a doctrine and policy for which the sole purpose of nuclear weapons would be against other nuclear weapons. those conditions would not exist today. >> are there any constraints of any kind on missile defenses within the new start treaty? >> no, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony. eight scenes that much of the demonstrations policy is -- it seems that much of the debt administration's policy is [unintelligible]

>> server, the change in the debt were a tory policy is intended to affect more than one audience -- sir the change in a declaratory policy is intended to affect more than one audience. in making the changes, the u.s. has resolved a longstanding contradiction in our policy and is designed to correspond to a 21st century mma. -- 21st century environment.

the united states would not use nuclear weapons against non- nuclear weapons states. with the collapse of the soviet union, the second part of that previous security assurance will no longer necessary. it was removed. with the increased concern about non-proliferation in states such as iran and north korea who are not meeting their obligations it in its place was a statement that the u.s. would not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against those in compliance with their non-proliferation obligations. we intended to affect the calculations of those states. we also expect to affect the calculations of the states that are in compliance for those that

might consider proliferation that there are costs to going nuclear. >> the evidence that moral leadership really impacts their decisions? >> a number of states party to the non-proliferation treaty have made clear in a previous review conflict it makes it more difficult for them to agree to the types of steps that the u.s. has proposed to strengthen the treaty the additional per call to all

states that have nuclear energy capability -- additional protocol 12 states that have nuclear energy capability -- additional protocol to those states that have nuclear energy capability. u.s. leadership is important. they have said so many times in the past. >> i hope that is the case. the npr appears to send one message and sends mixed signals. why did it change in our nation's longstanding policy of khalkha ability -- of calculability? >> what we want to make clear is that when we look at both the

changing security environment and history and number of elements had significantly changed. the-insurance policy was developed -- the negative insurance policy was developed because of the warsaw policy which is no longer intact. as the largest holders of nuclear-weapons, we have, obviously, we project the biggest threat to other folks. we wanted to make clear that we were not going to use our nuclear weapons in certain number of cases and that we value people's adherence to the non-proliferation treaty significantly. we want to get benefits from our adherence to the non- proliferation treaty and we want other countries to maintain their agreement to the non- proliferation treaty. we want universal application of

the non-proliferation treaty. this was made to clarify the negative security assurance. in compliance with their npt obligations, they were not going to use -- we are not going to use nuclear weapons against them. negative security assurance is an interesting way to call this what it is. it makes very clear that all the nuclear weapons states and countries not in compliance with the npt specifically countries like north korea and iran are not exempt. it is a way to satisfy countries that their adherence to the f-15, which is the

cornerstone of the non- proliferation regime needs to be strengthened. that is what we are harkening 39q=9 secondly countries that are not in compliance will pay the price. they pay the price of not being on the list of those countries that are exempt. it causes us to have a different point of view about them. and those countries are specifically north korea and iran. >> am i correct to understand that the administration will pursue a universal sole purpose policy where nuclear weapons are only used to deter nuclear weapons? does this mean that the u.s. will take that threat of nuclear use [unintelligible] why is it in our national security interest to send such a signal? >> and the npr set an

objective to move to a possible for the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear used by others. it is stated clearly in detailed analysis. these conditions do not exist today. as you suggested, one of the big reasons that they do not exist today is that we have nuclear- weapons states that have significant conventional and significant potential for chemical and biological capabilities. we and our allies believe that sustaining the nuclear deterrent to cope with these challenges is necessary at this time. >> i guess we will just have a difference on that. it seems to me that "deterrance" should be the maximum that you can provide that no matter what they attacked us with, we will

hit with the maximum use -- a devastating chemical or biological attack -- we will respond with non-nuclear weapons. it seems that we're taking a lot of the table. i and a stand that we have a difference there. >>]:jz we have the largest nuclear force matching the russians. we have the most superior military in the world and the best conventional weapons in the world. >> and we also have nuclear. why we would take that off the table, if they only hit us with chemical and biological, that just seems -- like as it, we're just going to have a difference of opinion on that. >> deterrence is a difference in capability and [unintelligible] the npr states specifically that any use of chemical or biological weapons would result in a devastating conventional

response and that the !a leaders would be held accountable. that is a shift from calculated ambiguity. it is a very direct statement. given the conventional military power of the united states, it is not only credible, but it has a tremendous amount of capability behind it. >> but less capability than we have if we do not use nuclear. >> >> thank you, mr. spratt. >> thank you for your testimony and for what you have accomplished. ct bt has been pending for years. it was submitted for ratification and did not ask the texastest. it will be resubmitted with additions.

what are the additions? >> right now the president is preparing the start package to go to the senate. the first priority of the administration is to get the start treaty ratified. there is a super majority needed in the senate to get stuff ratified. vice-president biden has said that start goes first and then we will look at ctbt. we are very much helped by the nuclear posture review. the administration has spent so much time making this debate a very public debate, one that is informing the american people and our allies. what is important is that we get the start treaty put forward first. whether we have additions to

ctbt, we will have to see. as vice president biden has said, it will not be submitted to the senate until it can pass. that is an environment that we're working on every day. >> it was also mentioned that, when nuclear materials [unintelligible] is the treaty drawn? or is it just then contacted? >> the conference on disarmament in geneva last may agreed in a very historic way for a program to begin negotiations on the material cut off tree. there is one country therethat is blocking the work on disarmament. we are working hard to convince the country that this is just the beginning of negotiations and that they should go with what the majority has said it is the consensus and begin

negotiations and not stand in the way of that. so far our efforts have been unsuccessful. once the fnc tt begins the negotiations, that will eventually have to be ratified by the senate. >> these things are not necessarily interdependent. they can stand on their own. >> yes. >> i have been very much concerned about tactical nuclear weapons and whether not, as we dealt with the large systems, we have dealt enough attention to the smaller systems that could be dangerous if the terrorists got their hands upon them. what do these agreements do for that? >> what we have said is that, after ratification and entry into the star tree, the administration would like to engage with russian bilateral

discussions that are aimed at addressing strategic and non- strategic weapons and to deploy and non-deployed weapons. we would like to get that on the other side of ratification and entering the force of new start. the president has asked us to begin to develop potential negotiating positions and objectives for that, including consideration of what are the likely future requirements for deterrence, what are likely postures of russia, and we will begin a consultation with allies to address that problem. we also have suggested that we continue strategic stability discussions and expand them with russia. one of the issues we would like to discuss is the question of whether russia might move back further into the interior of the country its tactical weapons and

secure them as possible. >> there is a substantial increase in non-proliferation reachingin this budget request. what will this additional funds go for? >> these funds are largely focused on security work -- on material security work overseas. there is a significant amount of work that we are involved in converting research reactors, and towards agreement said the discussions that we are already looking at to make that happen. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you all for your service. jfi know that we are going to retain the triad. relative to that, the chinese have developed the capability of

taking out a satellite and we can take out a ballistic missile. this will fly lower than a satellite and considerably slower than a ballistic missile. i know that they will be stealthy but the radar cross- section is not zero and radars are being improved. are you sure that the development of -- in the development of this new bomber will be -- in the development of this new bomber, will the jews be -- will the juice be more valuable than the squeezebacks >> . >> included is an alternative

standoff bomber with a mix of cruise missiles, both air- launched and sea-launched. we are looking into the study of appropriate skills of any conventional striking capability which would be in the form of a conventional warhead which does raise some considerations. a hypersonic vehicle would be a different approach with a different profile from extended ballistic missile. we will submit its recommendations as part of 2012. >> thank you. the location of our missile silos are pretty much generally

known. >> i would suspect so. >> it is also true, i believe that they were developed in an era when there was not much precision on the part of nuclear weapons and it was unlikely that there would be a direct hit. they in fact, are not really hard and against -- hardened against nuclear attack. >> they are appeared. as certain countries have increased their accuracy on some of the delivery platforms they put them more at risk than they were in the past. >> that is increasingly true. that means that you either use them or you lose them. does this not markedly increase the possibility of an exchange? should we not be moving to something that is not

vulnerable like mobile missiles? >> the posture that we have our domestic missiles and is quite stabilizing. it makes the calculus of but a potential adversary muchs÷u more it difficult and much less likely for them to incentivized for a fourth strike -- for a force strike. >> does that not mean that we have an incentive to use them quickly or that we are going to lose them? >> because of the amount of weapons that they would have to commit against this, that would incentivize that attack. because of the ability to launch under attack and the uncertainty of this because of that, they are a central part of the deterrent to day. i would comment that your point on -- as we look forward to the replacement of it in post-2030

-- one of the things that we ought to consider is to what we follow on would be more survivable than the current infrastructure today. if the russians went in with their land-based mobile missiles i would agree that that is something that we need to consider as way douai fought -- as we do with follow. >> the new posture report talks about counting actual missiles rather than launchers which is a good move forward. in the past, we only counted launchers. they can launch more than one weapon from a single launcher. they would be superior in delivery capability. i am pleased that the new regime now equalizes that. thank you. >> mr. taylor.

>> thank you, general, for being here with us. i am looking out 10 years. i am very much concerned about what the effect of the diet -- the ohio class replacement will have on the budget. bifidus says that it is going to cost 7 billion -- if it says that it will cost $7 billion, it will likely cost $10 billion. the factor of the missile is the determination of its length and width. i was fortunate enough to have a tour of king's gate on friday. it reinforced my