their rulers. this is a country that wants to break free. the debate here is about what the regime is about, what -- not what the people are about. the regime is about misogyny, anti-americanism, and holocaust denial. that has to be laid out up front. because i have laid out these views, there are consequences for the way i look and we look at a nuclear iran and what the u.s. ought to do about it. as far as i can tell, the course of action that you are espousing is essentially to hang tight, hang back. . .

a nuclear weapon would give the iranian regime the short of freedom of action in the region that it can only dream about today. it would be positioned to dominate the gulf. it would embolden its support for hamas and hezbollah and whatever remains of an iranian- palestinian peace process. it would force the united states into a position of containing a regime whose rationality we could never quite take granted. it would create a situation in which both israel and iran would

have an incentive to carry out a nuclear first strike on the other. it would give the regime, at least for several years, a political dishonesty and self- confidence that it so obviously lacks today. -- political legitimacy and self-confidence that it's obviously laxity. so what should we do? un sanctions? yes. unilateral sanctions? yes. a gasoline embargo? yes. pro-democracy forces in iran? yes. military strikes if necessary? yes. and when there and begin to reconstitute its nuclear program should military strikes cripple them, which you do? you do them all over again. i know what the rejoinders will be to this argument.

but the bottom line is that, while military strikes are bound to have unforeseeable consequences, and the military strikes always do, the foreseeable consequences of a nuclear iran are certain to be worse. i think it is fair to say that the west, and jews in particular, must pay a terrible price for not taking our enemies at their worst. but it is true. there is a man in tehran may soon have a bomb. he wants to wipe israel off the map and says so. he denies the first holocaust in order to facilitate a way for a second one. he was to terrorize you and may even want to kill you. this is unacceptable. i hope this moves everyone in the audience as well.

thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you very much. >> do you have a rejoinder? >> i will provide for that. before the rejoinders, i would like to invite members of the audience to fill out question cards that are under tables. we will see them into this machine and pose them to the debaters. those of you who are joining us to our global web cast,, you can go to ahcjc.org. let me begin with a question. " actually, let me begin with a rejoinder. >> thank you first of all for

the hedge fund suggestion. when i look at my bank account, i sometimes feel that you are absolutely right. [laughter] you're dismissing this vote completely out of hand, meaningless election. of course it is compared to ours. look at what' they call an election in saudi arabia i arrived in iran today's are three days before the election. on the day before the election, a quiet day, every single poster went down. this is on like afghanistan, a country that is ready for democracy. on the night of june 12, there came this the ballot vote and

all of the terrible things that happened happened. but iran came to the very brink. it is still on a razor's edge in an exercise that brett and his ilk dismissed before hand as completely meaningless, of no interest whatsoever. i do not think that is right. this was a very important event. those of us who, before the election, identified the shifts and changes in iranian society at that moment, i think they were right. if they were around today, and said, what you think of? you may say [unintelligible] as she lies in the streets in blood. that is a very representative iranian, not particularly political, but wanting change

and wanting a closer relationship with the world. that is an important shift that has come about. when you look at the bread, he looks like a mild-mannered guy. [laughter] he looks gentle. but i have not found a war yet that he does not like. he likes the mall. the peace process was a complete waste of time. he dismissed every peace process everywhere. he has a scenario under which the missiles were supposed to go from syria into no. 11 on recently. perhaps israel would like -- into northern lebanon recently. israel could attacked tehran with the excuse that it had been hit with missiles that were ultimately provided from tehran. he thinks that the iraq war is a

good thing it was wonderful because we just held an election there. as i said, he looks very dental. he looks like a nice guy. [laughter] and i am sure he is. i am some 20 years older than him. i have covered married -- i have covered many wars. it is not pretty. i do not enjoy seeing people dying. i do not see what he calls for more military action in iran. i am also opposed to iran gaining nuclear capability. i just don't think that war is the way to go. [applause] >> i am sure that roger does not remember this. i have written two fan letters in my life. one was to roll ball when i was a little boy for "charlie and the chocolate factory."

the other was to a war correspondent roger fireline. he had written something -- a war correspondent, roger cohen. he had written from the front line. i suspect that you probably favor, after those four bloody years, the american intervention to stop the genocide in bosnia. you probably favored nato's intervention on the genocide and you may have appreciated the liberation in 2003 of iraq. leaving northern ireland aside, irish you to tell me of a peace process that has worked.

the oslo accord? does anybody want to talk about how the oslo accord worked? the colombian peace process which led to the fort taking over routes -- led to the farc taking over an area the size of switzerland? he likes to talk about my ilk and warmongers and names like wolfowitz. for a long time, it was just neocons that argued that the regime in iran does not represent the will of the people. contrary to what roger was riding in february of last year, this couple accommodation had not been reached. the marches to freedom had not been so great. where a woman in a country is legally worth half a man is not

a country that we can look at with a great deal of new ones. -- a great deal of nuance. i am talking about the regime. about the matter of elections. -- elections, let me look at iran's neighbors. turkey has elections. they are democratic. pakistan has elections. they also wound up the posing a military dictator. so when you were talking about elections in the region, i am talking about the world outside of the arab court. by that, the elections in iran are a sham. this is something that did daniel patrick moynihan, another crazy neocon, has

defined deviancy down. so we are not to think of it as is crazy regime whose president denies the holocaust, calls for israel to be wiped off the map, remakes whenever a simple agreement, has a 30-year history of rejecting an agreement with the united states, but look at it as an extremely complex extremelynuand nuanced regime. and fact, what we have learned is that it is the bluntest blunt instruments. this is the point on which we will agree. there is no greater visual of that than the murder in the streets of tehran in 2009. [applause]

>> so i guess we will have a debate after all. there have been a number of questions that have been filtering through. i am looking at one that comes from somebody in the audience who is asking about the iranian opposition to their own years of their nuclear program. there has been a focus on a -- there has been a focus attention to the need to a green movement. with that change the course of a nuclear program, one that even predates the current iranian regime? >> the nuclear program, through adept manipulation by ahmadinejad and others, has become the symbol of national pride in iran, comparable to the atmosphere that prevailed the nationalization of oil.

i was told that they had these nuclear engineers who came to teach them. it is absolutely building. he did not understand world. but he was told to go to out -- to go up to local mosques and villages and talk about the importance of a nuclear program. i think the iranians feel that they have the right to pursue a civilian nuclear program. certainly, there would be united on that. -- they would be united on that. you look out and use the nuclear armed india, nuclear armed pakistan, nuclear-armed russia, nuclear-armed israel and u.s. yourself some questions. -- and you ask yourself some questions. if there was some change, we would see it -- we would not see

some overnight abandonment of the program. most obvious in measured man. he is not ahmadinejad his son when you can talk to. he has denounced --musabi is not ahmadinejad. he has renounced -- he is someone you can talk to. we did sit down in geneva in october. there seemed to be a deal to get the low enriched uranium that would, under the worst-case scenario, the a-bomb. i'm fortunate, when that bill went back to tehran -- i unfortunately, one that went back to teheran, it fell apart.

we need to make the breach and try to move forward. that is what we need to try to do. >> besides the snide remark that i have not been in iran, it is true that you have been there five weeks. of course, that makes you an expert, maybe seven weeks. >> know, five. [laughter] >> the past editor in chief of the "jerusalem post." this -- a journalist was imprisoned. they currently hold three american day-tripper's in prison under circumstances that we are not particularly aware of.

we are former colleagues for dan a crow. would it be inappropriate for me to go to iran? >> "the jerusalem post" is a good newspaper. but it is not in iran. it is in jerusalem durin. if you believe that journalism goes to places, looking, feeling, smelly, in doing things, having the view from the ground, and then, yes, i would take any opportunity. unfortunately, we have all been barred from going there of late. but i would certainly urge you to go there and i think you would find it isn't like that instructed. would you will find something that will hurt a lot of people

on the streets when your they are. >> i am sure that the people that you mean on the street are the ones that you find, people that want change in iran. i want to say something briefly on the original question, which is on the nuclear question. why iran's nuclear bids so uniquely dangerous? it is not because they are bid by iran. it is not because their bids by persia, a nation state with certain spheres of influence, certain threats. that kind of nuclear terror and under the shock -- that kind of nuclear iran under the shawh --i do not think that -- i do not stay awake at night thinking that gordon brown has his finger on the bomb. >> probably because he does not. [laughter]

>> but the reason i do not is because britain is irresponsible nuclear power. so is france. this cannot be stressed enough, so is israel. [applause] the reason we fear iran's nuclear bid is because these would be weapons that would fall into the hands of the leaders of the islamic republic, a regime that has world historical ambitions that does have -- i do not necessarily a prescribed to what the netanyahu does -- but does have an apocalyptic current running through it that has threatened its neighbors, but has called for the genocide of its neighbors. this is what i am driving at. the error and that i see roger often describing is under and

that has personal ambitions. that is ok. should a regime come to power that is democratic and not an islamist regime, even if it were to acquire nuclear reactors and a nuclear fuel cycle, it would not be the threat to the world and we would not be so desperately worried about it. [applause] >> we could keep going back and forth. >> what has president obama been trying to do since he took office? he has been trying to diffuse those islamists ambitions that you just described. how has he chosen to go about it and what is the difference with president bush? he has chosen not reach to the muslim world. i ask you, if iran were attacked, let us say by israel,

how many of the world's 1.6 billion muslims are going to distinguish between israel and the united states? possibly about 12 of them. what would then be left of this outrage? the united states would find itself effectively at war from the western border of iraq, across iraq, across iran, although we into afghanistan, and into western pakistan, across a 2,500 miles front. that average would lie in absolute tatters. iran could flip a switch and roll back all the progress we have seen in iraq of the last couple of years. it could do something similar, not quite as powerfully, in afghanistan. what would hezbollah do in lebanon. what would happen in gaza? what would happen to security interests around the world? you're very idealistic and there is nothing at all wrong with

idealism. on the contrary -- but i think you need to temper your black- and-white, idealistic, manichean view of the world with a dose of what comes with aging, which is that sometimes you cannot get everything. you cannot take the draconian step because the repercussions are too great. and i would urge you, as i said in my introduction, to drink a glass of sobriety. >> ok, gentlemen. [applause] >> i think i could just leave the stage and let you guys go back and forth. but we have been flooded with questions from our web cast and from members of the audience. in the course of your back and forth, you have answered some of these questions, including one that we just received from the web about the impact of the bombing iran if that were the military option we would have to

take. but let me get to another question that just came in from the web to both panelists. what would iran have to do to get you to change your views? roger, you've said that the iran could use pressure. brett, what with iran have to do to get you to back off? >> of life roger, and this may be a bit of youthful optimism, but at of the world's 1.3 billion muslims all but 12 of them think exactly alike and are unable to distinguish israel from the united states. i actually credit to the muslim world with a great degree of intelligence and political sophistication. [applause]

what would iran have to do to change its course? it is very simple. it would have to abandon its nuclear fuel cycle. it would have to begin to come to terms with the deal that was offered in geneva, deals which, by the way, have become increasingly more generous by the west. every time they become more generous, the ring is reject them -- the iranians reject them again. why is that? maybe they want to bargain for more. why not make another generous offer. why not make bombs for them? [laughter] it is very hard for me to see any realistic, plausible scenario in which this regime under block moves ahmadinejad and under the leader -- under moahmoud ahmadinejad end end of the leader the meaning would

happen. you'd have to persuade the iranians, as the u.s. persuaded libya, that their interests are better assured by not having a nuclear weapon than by having one. the only way in which your plausibly going to do that is by ratcheting up the pressure so much that they have an interest in actually coming to terms. one of the great accident of history, in what year was it that iran actually abandon its opposition program? it was in 2003. what else happened in 2003? i cannot remember who won the super bowl that year. it must have been that the united states invaded iraq. the united states look like a big training and serious power.

it was particularly serious of rogue regimes in search of nuclear power. that was something that persuaded the iranian regime to push the pause button on their opposition program. that something was not american engagement. it was american seriousness. [applause] >> roger, how much more reckless and difficult with the iranians have to be to get you to change your views? >> i think deterrence is a way to contain iran. i think that deterrence can be effective, combined with pressure that president obama is applying. i cannot think of a set of circumstances in the realm of the seriously imaginable that changes that. i do not see a scenario under

which -- is there a scenario under which i would support going into iran? i do not see one. >> you are confident that deterrence would work. >>. >> brett? -- you are confident that deterrence would work? >> yes. >> correct? [scoffs -- >> braett? [scoffs] [laughter] those to the left of me say that iran could be contained on the following lines. if iran violates any of the following conditions, there were suggestions that there could be some providing support to nuclear support to terror --

and then the united states would threaten to go to war with iran. >> that is what deterrences. that is what we practiced against the soviet union coming case you did not notice, for a large number of decades. that is what the terence is. it is a credible threat. >> -- that is what deterrence is. it is a credible threat. >> let's say that the deterrence can work after all. israel has 200 weapons or whenever the number is. then has lost its lobbyining 30 into israel today. one day, a family gets killed. then they said that we have to do something about this. we have to stop them from this

kind of steady rain of terror. how do think that calculation is going to go? imagine that the iranians adopt the nixon strategy, make them think you're crazy? that is what will happen. we are entering into a world -- this is in the literature that you can read up on, roger. we are entering into a world that has been described as ambiguous nuclear threat. iran would constitute an ambiguous nuclear threat to israel. it would spend the next 20 years or 30 years of its existence making life in israel in tolerable. similarly, in the united states, we would have to say about an excise tax for whatever small

demands were met, are we really for this? this is the current scenario that roger is posing. i know i am extremely young. i am barely 17 years old and have no memory of the cold war. [laughter] but i am told by my elders that the cold war was actually the scary thing. some of you in this room where practicing drills and curling up under desks. this is now held up to us as a perfect model for what we should hope for in the future because the price of stopping iran is too great to bear. [applause] >> if you're watching as -- >> can i come back for a second. >> yes, but just a moment.

please bear with us. we have had quite a lot of questions. we will get to them as soon as we can. roger, i wanted to pick up on a comment you made in your opening. you talked about the iranian nuclear program. i heard you say that it is still ambiguous. i fail to see the ambiguity. is it possible to ! the ambiguity. they seem to be working -- is a possible to explain the ambiguity. they seem to be working very hard at it. >> jason, as you know, they have not determined whether the decision has been made in iran to weapon is, to actually try to turn this into leu. weather and wants to go further and put itself closer to the japanese situation where it could, in theory, break out or

if it ever wants ever to build a device, let alone a deliverable the vice -- all of those questions are still out there. in that sense, the programs and a goal is ambiguous. -- the program's end goal is ambiguous. the iranians play on this ambiguity. they are blood merchants. they are tantalizing the world and all of us with the ambiguity of this program. as i said, owhy is this program taking so long? as i said, brett looks so friendly. [laughter]

but he really likes the notion, i think, of war. i listen to that ominous drumroll, but is this what we want to do, a quick iran with a deviancy and all of these words that we heard? what happened a few years ago? we thought -- may be iraq -- we thought maybe wmd's. yes, they have wmd's. we thought that ambiguity was not worth of dwelling on with respect to a record there was not really much of a plan for what we would do afterward. what happened happened. i think is foolish in life just to go forward without drawing any lessons whatsoever from one's actions. i think that the change you have

seen from president obama trying to get out of iraq, setting dates in afghanistan, punching very hard in pakistan with the drones -- he is trying and reaching out in the cairo speech, heavily focused on israel and pakistan. he is trying to get americans to stop thinking like brett, to stop going to bed at night thinking that armageddon is good to hit us tomorrow, stop imagining that all is dark and a doomsday and that the drumroll you heard is [unintelligible] here we are at the dawn of the 21st century. maybe we can make this century a little bit better than the last one. maybe, however difficult is, with their and with whom we have been in the situation for 31 years of paralysis, maybe we can

do what we did with our former enemy in beijing. if you look at the shanghai communique, what does it say? it says that the united states and china agree on absolutely nothing, except one thing, that it is better to have contacted relations and try to deal with their difficulties that with and not to have them. and he is right, ladies and gentlemen. instead of inviting us all to that nuclear nightmare, to say they're there -- to say there is an alternative. [applause] >> roger, thank you. i am tempted to join this debate, but that is not my role. >> just very briefly. i am amused by the last line that i am the warmonger on the states. when i am trying to do very simply is that a regime that calls for the annihilation of israel and denies the holocaust

should not be allowed, under any circumstances, to acquire the means by which they can annihilate israel and perpetrate the second holocaust. [applause] roger has this wonderful caricature that i am this young man enamored by war. this is baloney. this is ridiculous. " i am trying to say -- by the way, taking out through military strikes nuclear facilities in iraq and other places is not something that [unintelligible] >> i am sure that it would be forgotten about the next day. it would be a minor incident. >> no, it would be a major incident. i hope it does not come to that. i hope that the iranians can be dissuaded from their course before it comes to that. >> i believe they can be.

>> that is very happy thinking. against the evidence of uninterrupted year of mistaken predictions from roger, you're on a roll. [laughter] this gets to something that is in the air. nixon went to china. if america could have made peace, which would have been a more brutal and violent, after sticking a for taiwan and all this, why can obama go to tehran? the answer is that the invitation has not been issued. why has the imitation not been issued? it is worth reading kissinger's memoirs. an american ping-pong team showed up somewhere and the chinese played them. there were signals. there was clearly a sign from

milao opening up to the west. he feared an enemy more than he did the west, which was the soviet union. it would be lovely to imagine some scenario, i do not know which one exists, but there are some analysts in washington who would love the united states and iran to team up against israel and make that the common enemy -- that forbid that should ever happen. but there is an analogy that roger uses that has no basis in fact. we have been trying to engage with iran, not just for the last year, not just for four years during bush's second term, but throughout the clinton administration. the late carter administration tried to engage with khamenei. every single time it failed. why is it that we are perched on

a course that has failed so repeatedly. this is something for roger to explain. >> let's break and then go to a question. several questions have been coming into us from our audience and from our global web cast at ajc.org. whether making alliances with authoritarian leftist regimes in latin america, one in particular, but not just one, the degree to which we should be focusing in this discussion, in this debate, iran's international influence? how do we check iran's influence? for their engagement? >> this is the great game.

they -- we try to extend our affluence. they try to extend their we need to check or limit or curtail their influence wherever we can. should we be in a high state of alarm and not be able to sleep at night because hugo chavez and ahmadinejad like to embrace each other? no parent should we worry that relations have improved between iran and bolivia? no. clearly, iran's links with hezbollah and hamas are much more worrying. where we can check and the limit, we should. i think the president has done some intelligent things. brett's no doubt thinks it was the lousy idea to send an ambassador back to domestic -- back to damascus in syria. i do not. i think it was a good idea.

the iranian-syrian relationship is an important one. if we can talk to syria about peace and if we have an ambassador there, that is a good thing. brett favors confrontation wherever he can find its. find it -- find it. i favor finding it in other ways. >> brett? >> i'm glad that you mentioned syria. you will remember, just a few years after they blew tibet'to s [unintelligible] there was this belief, especially in incoming members of the obama state department, that syria could be pulled away, out of the ring in orbit.

this is one of these aspects of the berlin diplomacy that currently nobody had ever thought of -- of the brilliant diplomacy that currently nobody had ever thought of. this is what we do. we make it clear that we want any relationship with syria. we are sending an ambassador. and then what happened last february 25. -- figure 25? ahmadinejad goes to damascus and said once again that we should look for it to the annihilation of the state of israel and part of the zionist microbe -- >> hold on. musharraf says that american colonialism needs to stop. this is the sort of signal that the syrians have been sending us while we are trying to engage.

at some point, you have to treat these regimes as not being totally idiotic for confounding our mysterious and that they may actually mean what they say. the sun and the father had been playing this game with the west going on for more than 30 years. they create promises to solve these problems for us and they create them again another perfect -- again. another perfect example of the court that roger has been creating for the past year. >> ahmadinejad goes to kabul and is received by karzai. no doubt he thinks we should remove the ambassador to afghanistan and protests. perhaps we should break off relations with brazil and possibly threaten brazil. as you will discover, this is

not the way the world works. >> and gentlemen, you have a panel rejoinder. >> i just find it amusing, again. >> back in 2003, just before the war, the bush administration tried to cobble together a final authorizing sanctions resolution. people like roger and his ilk were saying, what do you not see how incompetent the bush administration is? what are we doing now? we are begging the that the turks for the brazilians were rotating members of the security council for another round of resolutions which they show no interest in doing. god forbid we should never break off our relations with brazil. there people are much too beautiful. [laughter]

>> why does this rule not apply in iran and then? >> actually, brazil is not iran and i am sure you know the difference. >> on the baristas. anyway. >> the gentlemen, gentlemen. are you finished with your response? >> we have been here a long time. our minds are beginning to wonder. [laughter] >> that is not what we were expecting. [laughter] we are continuing to receive your questions. thank you for those in the audience to have been sending in their questions as well. there is a question here from a viewer. how did the policies advanced by either debater advance the cause of democracy in iran?

>> first of all, full support by the obama administration for the peoplereravely demonstrating, risking their lives, having themselves and their children thrown into prison. [applause] not what president obama has done, which is hidden for weekend said that we do not want to interfere in your internal affairs. this kind of makes us uncomfortable. when you look at successful resistance movement, freedom movements, when you look at what happened in south africa, in poland, you find that the moral support that was provided by the west turns out to be crucial to the people who most needed it. there is a wonderful moment when they get wind that the cowboy ronald reagan has called the soviet union the evil empire.

he is cheered because the president of the united states does not buy into the lie that the soviet union has been perpetrating for so long. the same is true for nelson mandela in south africa. shamefully, has a lot of people on the conservative side of the argument made that very point. back then, the conservative case for south africa is not so different from the one that roger is making for iran. this is a reality that is not going to change. there are great dangers in regime change. we have to deal with the devil we know. it behooves the the administration to give them every opportunity [unintelligible]

that is absolutely crucial. to the obama administration's credit, particularly hillary clinton, she has taken initiative to open up an electronic access -- which has been suppressed by the regime -- to twitter. it is essentially the same thing that the west did, both on the left and the right, in poland during the solidarity years. they provided printing presses for solidarity so that they could circulate. the main point is that we did not forget what happened in 1980. we did not forsake the solidarity movement for the political convenience is with of

the soviet union which, even in the 1980's, we saw implacable with a regime ithat this unacceptable. [applause] -- that was unacceptable. [applause] >> how can weigh up the democracy movement in iran? >> we are in the pivotal moment in this debate because i agree with the correcbrett. [applause] [laughter] >i was on the streets of tehran after the elections. people were saying, where's obama? i think the president was way too hesitant, not in phatic enough. he got stronger statements, but he was not there in time. in the remains of the day, iran was on a razor's edge for about

six days. the authorities were at a loss. they had not foreseen this. i will never forget june 15, being out on the streets with 2 million to 3 million iranians who had risen up to reclaim their votes. every single person, myself included, who went down to the avenue between revolution and freedom, on that broader avenue that stretches for 5 miles or 6 miles, everybody went down there with your in their hearts. everybody came down into that avenue thought to themselves, "my god, this is actually happening." there was no end to the crowd, there was no end to it, and ask us up to this day, m mousavi had stood there and said, here i stamp and we're turning on the presidential palace -- fear would have evaporated. what would have happened?

we are talking about a hypothetical. it does not have much use in history because it is what has not happen or did not happened. what i just described is what did not happen. i believe that the president should be firm in his denunciations' of human rights abuses. the attempts to offer technology filters to the iranian people to enable them to strip from that the clampdown in the digital field, all that is good. but here we began to disagree again. his characterization of the cold war is not exactly accurate. they taunt was an important component. -- detente was an important component. president bush sr., effectively,

had a pittance, said that we had to wait for this to unfold and not do anything rash. in some ways, iran is like poland in the 1980's today. i will not say that it is a difference about your age. i think we have tired of that metaphor. but sometimes it requires the calibration of two parties. in this case, it is trying to get some talking going with the regime, support for the green movement, rather than just saying, "to have all that. we are going in all guns blazing in support of the democracy movement and damn the rest." i don't think that is the way to go. [applause] >> roger, i have a question from the web. you have written about the well- being of the iranian jews.

you painted a positive portrayal of iranian jews. i wonder if you still believe that and what do you see as the future for iran's jews? >> i said that i wrote about iranian jews, not the well-being of iranian jews. i wrote it because i ran into the iranian jewish community i had not expected to do that. i attended a service there in a synagogue. this was right after the israeli incursion into gaza. as you recall, there was a great deal of outrage around the world. synagogues were being attacked in the suburbs of paris, in caracas, in leon. there were various antisemitic acts going on around the world. everybody knows where the jewish

community lives in tehran. everybody knows where the jewish community is in [unintelligible] [pickoffscough] they were trying to whip up a frenzy as much as they could. in the immediate aftermath of the gaza, had a jewish store, was there a single incident that i could determine for an attack of the jewish committee in iran? no. although the jewish community is much reduced, it is the largest jewish community still in the muslim middle east along with turkey. estimates range from 20,000 to 25,000 jews still in iran. i thought it was worth raising the question.

here's a man, president ahmadinejad, making this a vial, abhorrent and night -- annihilation as threats to israel and you really believe that this is a maniacally antisemitic, absolutely ruthless regime bent on killing as many jews as possible, as fast as possible. why not start here on your doorstep while you have 25,000 of them? there are red lines. i talk about it a jewish spy ring that the iranians had invented. but i had said, at the same time, that to the jewish

community here exists. there are red lines. there are more severe for the jewish community in iran than for others. dues can vote for -- [unintelligible] they are all these things. but i felt that this was a reality of iranian society that was worth taking note of. a lot of people seem to think that was unacceptable. i think we should look things in the eye. in general, -- we have tried greenstones in the middle east. we built one. we build imaginary world trade in the end, you come back to reality. this is part of the reality of this multifaceted regime, not monolithic, not totalitarian, as brett would argue these nuances

-- would argue. these nuances count. >> you mentioned green's zones -- green zones. no one has constructed a more imaginary world then roger cohen, a place in which iran is a relatively safe haven for its 25,000 jews how many jews wear in iran before the revolution? i think it was about 100,000 jews. >> how many jews were in egypt? how many jews were in iraq? how many jews were in syria? >> the argument you're making is that, because it is not auschwitz, it is ok. it may not be hitler at the moment, but it is bizarre. and jews may have some memories of the bizarre.

that was a very notorious column by you. it got a lot of attention. i was flabbergasted when you quoted in a couple of iranian jews. he quoted them by name i know i am barely 17 years old, but i have been in the crafted journalism folong enough and knw that if you go there and you quote someone by name, they're not going to to give you all of it. >> you would get preferred "a doujew said?"\ >> that is not the point. i would get preferred speaking to people that, by virtue of giving their names,

they did not necessarily mean what they said. when you go to a country where three jews out of four jews have left, the iranian regime is not a stupid regime. the virtue that the jews over and play in this particular theology of theirs is to say that we respect the jewish religion, right? we just do not respect to zionism or any aspect of modern jewish life to which 90% of other jews in the world subscribe to. god forbid we should never live in a scenario of having a few good jews who are expected in their society at the price of espousing the right political opinion. [applause] >> gentlemen, we have 10 minutes

left in this discussion ther. there's one last question that we have been getting repeatedly. i need a brief responses, one minute, really. and then two minutes closing statements. it has to do with the connection between the israeli-palestinian conflict and solving the problems with iran. well a peace agreement between israelis and palestinians help us toward resolution with the iranian nuclear program? .

this is a conflict that poisons our relations with all sorts of people. it is a lightning rod. you know the cable channel sutter out there today.

-- that are out there today. you know the images that go out. a lot of forms of radicalism - ->> as everyone knows, the conflict -- it to be resolved and all manner of good things. there is a field out there that because of the compromise, american soldiers are dying in afghanistan. as if the conflict characterizes iraq and will some have vanished. of course it is important to try to weaork to address. the ultimate ideal solution for

israel and palestine is a two- stage solution based on a credible palestinian state. you are never going to get that if within palestinian politics hamas become stronger and political moderates within the community become marginalized. this is one of the reasons why a nuclear iran is so costly to the hopes of any type of peace agreement do you think israel will withdraw from territory if it feels that a hamas a government has the threat of a nuclear weapon behind it? you have to be serious from prevented them from acquiring a

new weapon. we will now have five minutes left. let's begin with you, roger, for final statement. >> i would start by saying that a lot of people in iran have changed places. they were in the mode of reluctant acquiescence. but they are moving in different, offices, directions. the iranian people are a noble people. they have a sincere desire to move toward a situation where the word republic actually mean something. we should be careful asking the night it states to try to nourish that and move it forward read it and do anything

rash that would damage it. iraq has tried hard to characterize me as somebody who is acquiescent. it is just fine for them to move toward nuclear capacity or even a device. this is untrue. nothing i have friends did suggest that. we should do whatever we can to prevent that happening. i think president obama right now is doing a pretty good job of that. it to be very visible to the iranians. the the persuade them to come on board they will fill more isolated as a result of that. these are the kinds of things that can move as in the right direction.

except to suggest to encourage israel to attack iran. in the environment, this of the an absolute disaster. that is unusual. it would represent the kind of world we would be moving into purdah need to go in the opposite direction. it is difficult it seems out of reach. in some ways we are close. october 1 we did have the outline of a deal that is where we should focus ourselves. not on this sinister deviant country that he seems so intent on portraying.

>> i'm glad to hear him acknowledge the we should do whatever we can to prevent them from going nuclear. it it is depressing for me the whatever weekend means sitting down at a table and begging them to desist from the course. whenever we can as to whatever we can. this is a massively serious threat that we would face that israelis would face and that iranians would face with their regime would come by possession. there has been a strange character to this debate that roger and i have purdah

supposedly he is the liberal and i and the neoconservative. my objection to the acquisition of a bomb is not really a strategic objection. it is not an american or pro- cereal -- is real objection pydna there is a time when liberals believe that liberalism had to be fought. that it does not mistake strategy up syringif surrending. the certain set of values have to be defended.

when they are so grievously violated in a country like iran, that is a call for us to respond forcefully. they say a woman is really worth half of what a man is th is. [unintelligible] they say homosexuals do not exist in iran. it is not incidental that they call for israel to be wiped off the map. it is not incidental that they deny the holocaust. it this is the egotistical fact of the regime. we deceive ourselves by saying those are mere words. we have one more thing in common. we are in the worst business.

-- word business. we like to believe that our words matter. it is incumbent on all of you to take that apart and to realize that you are reining in the word matter, too. it is a form of political pornography and you are setting yourself up for great danger. that has been my argument this morning. i thank you for listening. [applause] >> thank you very much. i think this debate is over. this debate will continue. annette -- i know it will continue in the columns. you are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you are invited to visit the

buffet in the full year and returned to the ballroom with your lunch. thank you -- in the foyer and return to the ballroom with your lunch. thank you p. >> tonight and c-span, the latest on the gulf of mexico oil spill. them president obama on the gdp figures for the first quarter. later, a discussion on job creation with michael bloomberg. >> tomorrow, 3000 german and spence -- journalists and the president joined for the annual dinner.

also remarks by president obama and nbc host jay leno. watch live coverage at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> a c-span and video library fact. their 6000 references to abraham lincoln in our video library. if you are meant to enjoy our 16th president, you will find a lot of videos on lampeduline. now a news conference on the gulf of mexico oil spill with janet napalitono. it planned to investigate the cause of last week's explosion in closing the possibility of criminal acts. this is 40 minutes.

>> thank you for coming down to louisiana to see not only the spill, but the effects of the spell and the response efforts. i appreciate the call yesterday. we are urging the federal government to commit more resources to lessen the impact of the oil spill threatening the coast of our state. we are doing everything we can. i am certainly worried that the measures currently deployed will not be effective. these next few days are critical. we must do everything necessary, everything possible to protect our coast. i do have concerns. i have shared these concerns that bp's resources are not

sufficient. i have urged them to seek more aid from the federal government. our three goals are protecting the coast, preparing for the cleanup -- we are working to request a record -- resources from bp the coast guard. it is important to provide resources to coastal areas that could be impacted. on the state side, i want to update you on steps we're taking. we're taking every step we can to protect our coast, our wildlife, our people. i sent letters to secretary gates and secretary napolitano so we can mobilize resources. i want to think the secretary. they are working very hard on that request. this will be 90 days of military duty for 6000 soldiers and airmen serving on active duty in response to our threat

of the deep water rise in oil spill. this will provide medical facilities, communication response to the threat. after helping us recover from four storms, they are particularly well disposed to help us deal with this oil spill. we will immediately activate 600 guardsmen and have them on the ground. they are ordering 1500 protective suits to support the cleanup efforts. we're also making sure our fisheries and small businesses are protected from the oil spill. we have written the u.s. secretary of commerce, as well as support from the economic development administration for commercial and recreational fishing businesses. this will provide financial assistance to our individual fisherman and assistance for commercial fishing businesses. louisiana is the top producer of commercial fisheries in the lower 48 states.

this will certainly adversely affect the ecosystem across our state. it is important for fishermen and their families have the support they need to get through this event. we thus the u.s. malt administration -- small business administration act enable all the clauses that would help the small businesses in our state that will be heard by this oil spill. specifically to consider temporarily suspending loan repayments for businesses impacted by the oil spill and also the sba disaster and economic injury loans. we are working hard to support the response efforts. we have declared a state of emergency. our coastal protection restoration agency officials have been deployed to try to prevent any oil from penetrating deep into coastal marshes. authorities are working a second line of defense in the wetlands where they can anchor booms in

place. today the office of homeland security is reaching out to other states through the emergency assistance compact. there also deploying staff to help their emergency response. we've set up a mobile command center. we're also setting up another mobile command center. the wildlife department of fisheries is closed. the upper area will be closed at 6:00 p.m. tonight. the lower area was closed at 6:00 a.m. this morning. 168 additional biologist will be staged for wildlife -- biologists will be staged for wildlife rescue. residents of coastal areas of louisiana may be detecting an odor related to the oil spill approaching the coast. they are undergoing continuous air quality testing.

daq will be increasing air quality testing. the oil be expedited. i do want to think the epa administrator. she is from this area and nothing she understands the importance of the air. she will lead announcements about monitoring the water. we've also activated the joy department of transportation, department of social services shelter team in case it becomes necessary due to deteriorating at yale -- due to deteriorating air quality. the department of wildlife and fisheries is also training national guard trainers so they can train guardsmen to assist in cleanup efforts.

we have offered these resources repeatedly to bp. we are still awaiting a detailed response on how best to deploy these assets. the department of health is working with fisheries to close fisheries on the louisiana coast. they will be closing areas 2 through 7 tonight. we have been told by bp they have 20 rapid response teams, 10 that have been mobilized. ultimately 50 will be in place. with offer tell from the state police,, daq, and other agencies. i will be travelling too impacted areas. i will be accompanied by the st. bernard parish president to assess the need of local officials for their response efforts. we will take every step we can to protect our coasts, our wildlife, our environment, in

our people. i want to again thank the federal officials to become personally to see this bill, the impacts of the cleanup and relief efforts. it is my privilege to introduce to you secretary napolitano. >> good afternoon. i am pleased to join you on the gulf coast. i am pleased to be here with gov. jindal. just had a flight over the area affected by the bp oil spill. we have had a meeting with our state and local partners on what needs to be done to protect plants from the spill and also to be sure we can -- to protect lands from the spill and also to be sure we can ensure an effective cleanup. we're facing close -- we're paying close attention to the work being done here. british petroleum is the responsible party. it is required to fund the cost and the response of the cleanup operation. we continue to urge bp to leverage additional assets in

this effort. it is clear that after several unsuccessful attempts to secure the source of the leak, it is time for our bp to supplement their current mobilization as the oil slick moves toward shore. as the federal court nader's thebp's efforts -- as the federal coordinators overseeing bp's efforts, we need to minimize environmental risk. the president has ordered that the administration use every single resource at our disposal in response to this issue. as the oil nearest shore, it is important to note that we have anticipated and plan for the worst-case scenario since day one. -- and planned for the worst- case scenario since day one.

let's not forget that the first response was an effort to save lives. our visit is also looking into the causes of the explosion which left 11 workers presumed dead and three critically injured, in addition to the ongoing oil spill. following the explosion, we also immediately began responding to the environmental implications of this spill. and we began to direct oversight and support of bp's cleanup in containment efforts, setting up a command center here and working across the federal government to ensure a strong and steady battle rhythm. i acknowledged this bill as a spill of national significance -- this spill as a spill of nashua will -- national significance. it will require sustained involvement of senior officials across the government.

aside from being an acknowledgement of the seriousness of this spill, it also commits the coast guard to committing additional senior agency staff i need in response. the environmental protection agency has the same authority with respect to inland waterway spills. the departments of homeland security, defense, commerce, interior, and the epa continue to oversee bp's deployment with a combination of tactics. bp began conducting controlled burns designed to remove large quantities of oil from the open water in an effort to protect the shoreline, marine and other wildlife. they continue to use chemical dispersants, which will address

a large part of the slick. when hundred 89,000 gallons of dispersant has been used today. -- 189,000 gallons of this person has been used to date. there are significant booming efforts to protect mississippi, louisiana, alabama short lines. -- shorelines. there been six staging locations. approximately 1900 personnel are currently deployed, and over 853,000 gallons of oily water have been collected so far using 300 vessels and dozens of aircraft in response. the department of defense is fully integrated into the department of homeland security-led team. navy assets have been involved since day one, and d.o.t. continues to offer what is needed -- dod continues to offer what is needed.

the secretary has approved a request for two c13 aircraft0 , -- c130 aircraft. they are currently on -- en route to the affected areas. additional assets have been requested of the department of defense. that we have with them. -- the naval air station is serving as the staging facility in pensacola. we will continue to push bp to engage in the strongest possible response will taking

steps to ensure the protection of our shoreline and our wildlife and our precious land. and with that, i welcome the secretary of the interior, ken salazar. >> thank you very much, secretary napolitano, and to all of the federal team who are here. administrator jackson from the epa, the undersecretary, as well as the admiral and the deputy secretary of the interior. gov. jindal all the other elected officials who are here. i want to recognize the terrific leadership of admiral landry from day one and the rest of the team who has been here on site. has been a team effort across all the agencies of the federal government.

my deputy secretary david haye of wass dispatched down here when the incident occurred. we've been monitoring this minute by minute. -- my deputy secretary david hayes. we do not know where we're going. we're confident the federal team of united states of america, as directed by the president, is doing everything we possibly can do. as soon as we learned about the explosion, which came down here to help in the search and rescue efforts, and we know that today the situation is still a dangerous one. british petroleum has a massive spill, for which they are responsible. the oil threatens communities, wildlife, and natural resources from the gulf of mexico. our focus remains, as it has for the last 10 days, on overseeing bp's efforts to secure their wellhead that is spilling oil in minimizing the damage that could come. at the bp you're in houston, i

tasked the ceo's engineers to work harder and faster to get the job done. i've asked leaders of the oil and gas industry to bring their global expertise to the situation to make sure that no idea that is worth pursuing is not pursued. as president obama directed, every resource is being made available to respond. we cannot rest and we will not rest until bp permanently seals the wellhead and clean up every drop of oil. the weather presents a challenge, but with strong interagency effort, we have resources deployed, and the people we need to fight the fight. at the same time, this bill raises questions about safety on drilling rigs -- the spill raises questions about safety on drilling rights. i've ordered immediate inspections of all deepwater

operations in the gulf of mexico and we have issued instructions reminding operators of the responsibility to conduct a full and thorough test of their equipment, including blowout prevention stacked. i am also signing in order to establish an outer continental shelf safety review board. the assistant secretary for land and minerals, along with the inspector general for the department, will lead this effort. it will provide recommendations or steps we can take to strengthen safety and improve overall management. they will look good all options and it will provide oversight and support -- they will look at all options and they will provide oversight and support. i am confident that we will get to the bottom of what happened

here. those responsible will be held accountable. and lessons we learn will help guide us as we responsibly can safely develop our nation's energy resources. and not introduce the administrator for the environmental protection agency, lisa jackson. >> thanks, everybody. the situation began as a human tragedy, and my heart and my thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those who are presumed lost. it has evolved. it has evolved into an environmental challenge of the first quarter. unprecedented in is situation, but not in terms of its need to respond, using all the lessons learned in the past, but realizing we must be flexible and willing to move quickly to adjust to the situation as we find on the ground here. epa is certainly a part of that, and from the beginning of been in support of the coast guard as they moved swiftly to search

and rescue and the efforts are around it, with noa's assistance in trying to predict when this would make landfall as situations in weather have made the situation worse. we have had to change our approach. the epa is a team. this will require a team of people focusing on multiple aspects, some of which we know and some of which presented challenges. we will work with the state first and foremost. we began air sampling yesterday. we did that because we called the states with permanent air monitors along the shoreline and asked them to work with us, and all of them absolutely on the spot, to increase the

frequency of sampling from the six air monitors. that gives us a piece of the picture. we set up a web site -- www.epa.gov/bpspill where you will be able to get the results of that air monitoring. and we set up monitoring for contaminants we would not normally look for, and we have two mobile labs, when making its way here. i believe the other -- it may already be here. we will start taking samples of the the data up. there is a concern about odor. and we do believe that odor is probably due in part to the spill. there's a large machine. is a very thin layer. with increasing wind and wave activity, you get an aerosol out there. that might live. what does that mean? we have no reason to believe it will move.

we cannot answer that question until we have the data. as we get the data, we will put on the website and we will interpret it because it is important to know where it really means. water sampling begins today. we clearly know there is a problem in the water, but in order to understand -- this is on top of efforts by the local and state governments and noa, who were already out, getting information, and it builds on an existing database that we have to our gulf of mexico research center. so we are working to answer the questions that are beginning to be posed in people's minds. what i've said to people is that being from this area, it is not unusual for us to face and into that we know is coming in be prepared. the resilience of the people of the gulf coast has gotten us through many of a challenge. -- many a challenge. we have to get the people who

know these coastland like the back of their hands to make sure the high tech solutions are met with low tech or no tech solutions to preserve culture and livelihood. we will be here. i will stay for two days. i am thinking about calling my family and saying it will need to be longer. but we will stay as long as we need to to make sure we are ready and able to be partners in response and support all the local governments more out there, were trying to stand up their people into their communities -- who are trying to stand up their communities and get their communities ready for response. >> thank you.

i am pleased you all have joined us as we try to address this unfortunate event. since this began april 20 at, we have only had three priorities. stop the flow of oil, minimize the impact, and keep the public informed. so far, we've mounted the largest response effort ever in the world. we utilize every available technology. we've applied every resource requested. we have tried to stop the source of flow. we continue to develop new options to address the continued flow of oil at the seabed and also to minimize the impact to the environment. welcome every new idea and every offer of support from the state and federal government. -- we welcome every new idea. we had an idea submitted about the sub-sea application of dispersants. that will begin in less than two hours. we have invited experts from other oil and gas companies. members of the department of

defense are with our team in houston looking for new ideas. we completely agree we need to bring this event to closure as quickly as possible and we need to address the impact as fully as we can, and bp's resource is will be made available to do that. thank you. >> [unintelligible] >> ray henry, associated press. can anyone from the coast guard or bp talk about the role cement played in the explosion? particularly what happened in this process and whether the figures into the investigation? >> we do not know what caused this event. clearly, the government has an investigation they have initiated. we launched our internal investigation as well, but as

you imagine, since this began, we have had only one focus -- stop the flow of oil and minimize the impact. through good time and as quickly as possible, we will find the cause. equipment on the seabed, it will eventually be recovered, and hopefully we can discover and learn things from 7 to make it never occurs again. -- from this event to make it never happen again. >> we have signed a memorandum for a joint investigation between the department of interior and homeland security. those investigators are on the ground, trying to determine the facts, and obviously this is going to be an investigation but will be ongoing. at this time, there are none -- there are no clear answers as to what caused will was an unprecedented event. -- what caused " was an in

reject unprecedented event. -- what caused an unprecedented event. >> thank you. i am from bloomberg news. i was wondering if you have an estimate of current cost of the operation? has the so-called relief well drilling started? >> the current costs are between $6,000,000.7000000 dollars a day. those costs will -- between $6 million and $7 million a day. those costs will increase. the drilling rig has arrived. it is in final preparations. the second drill ship will be arriving tomorrow. that will be ready to deploy the subsidy recovery system or attend additional interventions on the existing wealth. -- well. >> governor jindal. a lot of people in venice, louisiana are very angry with bp and they are considering filing suit. and they want to note the state of louisiana is considering filing suit against bp also and

how does that change the dynamic of your relationship with the company if you are considering filing suit? " it's a couple of things -- are focuses on mitigating -- >> a couple of things, our focus is on mitigating the damage on our ecosystems. one of the suggestions we made is we are concerned and we have encouraged bp to seek even more assistance from the federal government, because i think the response could overwhelm the capabilities. other states may be potentially impacted.

our focus is making sure we deploy the resources to protect our coastline and that the cleanup starts as quickly as possible. i know there will be time later for folks to consider litigation claims, financial reimbursement. right now the focus has to be protecting our coasts. a lot of people's livelihoods are going to be negatively impacted. our commercial fisheries, a recreational fisherman -- our recreational fishermen. we've got the small businesses ministration to help the small businesses. we have to do everything we can to help them get back on their fate. >> you said you're calling on bp to do more -- >> who are you asking the question to? >> i am directing this to secretaries salazar and napolitano. you called on bp to do more. where you think they are dropping the ball? >> bp has all hands on deck on

this thing. this is a problem of global proportions. they have global resources working on this. we of asked british petroleum to reach out to the and higher oil and gas industry run the world. indeed at the department of the interior meeting last night, and met with executives from other oil and gas companies. i ask bp to put together a swat team to take the best ideas from other companies to make sure we are maximizing efforts here. this particular incident has huge ramifications for what happens with respect to energy in other areas around the world. with a lot to lose in terms of resources -- we have a lot to lose in terms of resources and environmental values that our chairs. the oil and gas industry has a

tremendous amount to lose in terms of their economic value here. they're putting tremendous resources in trying to figure out the problem, in stopping the flow from the well, and at the same time, under the federal law that applies to this bill, the responsibility for responding to this spill is with the company. the highest levels of british petroleum, in writing, have assured us they have the resources to respond to the challenge. >> [unintelligible] operator? >> operator, you want to go to challenge -- >> [unintelligible]

>> [unintelligible] >> i've spoken to two industry experts whose jobs are to estimates oil spill sizes based on satellite data and radar data. using the mms and coastguard satellite data and information from bp in terms of how thick this bill is in certain areas, they are estimating this bill is five times what -- this spill is five times what bp is saying. they are saying 25,000 barrels a day. are you confident in the 5,000 barrels a day number? what are you basing them on? the bp umbers? >> i would caution you not to get fixated on an -- on a number. we have worked on corralling resources. i think the demonstration of

those who are here today shows that from day one we have solicited help from the entire government to approach this response. >> so you are confident with those figures? >> yes, this is doug suttles from bp. from -- since this event began, all we have monitored -- once we discovered the oil was flowing into the seabed, we could monitor with remote-operated vehicle cameras. which done that. the amount of flow looks essentially the same. we cannot meter that flow.

as events unfolded, we can monitor what is on the surface of the sea. as the event started, ourselves with the rest of the unified command, our best estimate of the time was 1,000 barrels a day. as we gather more data come from satellite images and from over flight data, we revised that number to 5,000 barrels a day. we did not indicate a change in the mouth of flow. it indicated a change in the estimate of the flow rate. this is highly and precise. highly and precise. as the admiral said indicated, there is a change in the flow rate. we are prepared for that in the eventuality the rate is higher. >> next question please. >> [unintelligible] >> hi. there has been talk this morning about how this could affect oil production. is that even on the table? is that a consideration? >> [unintelligible] >> the oil and gas, which this

nation currently depends on very much, comes from the gulf of mexico. about a third of the domestically-produced oil and gas resources come from this region. we want to make sure that those operations are operating safely until we have the inspections to do what we have to do to make sure they are operating safely. the president this morning directed the department of interior to call back again with recommendations of any kind of enhanced safety measures. at this point in time, we're still doing additional work and resources to determine whether any other safety procedures have to go into place. but the oil and gas production continues to come from the gulf coast, it essentially fuel still

economy -- it essentially fuel'' the economy. we will work into the foreseeable future until we can determine there is a problem and we can go in a different direction. we want to base this on the best science we have. >> [unintelligible] >> and to follow up on a question asked earlier. secretary napolitano, sounded , soundedbp's response so far -- you sounded critical of bp's response. are you critical of it? >> well, i think -- i think

there is reason now to know more than we knew originally. originally, this oil was thrilled with the expectation that if there were an explosion a blowout preventer would close off leakage into the ocean. originally, the bop would have failed, bp took actions designed -- took other actions along the riser of the well to close off leakage and to close off the oil flow. none of those works.

i think i share the disappointments of all in the fact that none of those who worked. now we need to move more speedily to protect wetlands, marshes, the ecosystem here. the federal government stands ready, not just to support bp, but to move aggressively to work with the state of louisiana, to work with the parish presidents in the affected areas. and to work with the businesses, the shrimpers, the stores, who have their livelihood endangered by this oil spill. and because of the fact it is approaching landfall -- we need to make sure there is an effective and easy claims process so that people can know that they will not be financially damaged themselves, personally or in their businesses, because of this

bill. and we also have to have an effective process where we have all of the resources of the federal government linked up with the states. as i said before, with mayors, parish presidents, not just in louisiana, in mississippi, alabama, and perhaps even as far as florida. we will make sure and are making sure that that response is there. the response is strong, coordinated, and designed to minimize the harm to our coastal lands, and to the extent there is harm, there is swift and effective cleanup. and we will work to ensure that british petroleum meet its financial obligations. an obligation it undertook in exchange for the ability to undertake this drilling. so, it is a partnership or an effort in which everybody standing here is involved, in

which we all have a lot at stake, but the most to have the most at stake are the men and women who live in the coastal areas of louisiana, mississippi, alabama, and florida. they are at most in our minds. >> -- they areupmost -- upmost in our minds. >> [unintelligible] >> this is a question for whoever might know. of the vessels brought in, -- [unintelligible] c-span.org can it work? >> earlier, someone actually said the weather is a challenge. several days ago, we had two good weather days in a row and

we had very good success on the water, including this burn test, looks like a good tool we can use for work. when the winds come up and the seas,, there is not much we can do -- when the winds come up and the seas come up, there's not much we can do. when the weather comes up, there's not much we can do. unfortunately, we're not able to operate our skimmers. >> thank you, ladies and gentleman.

>> coming up, president obama on the gdp figures for the first quarter. white house economic council director lawrence summers. falling back, and that the arizona immigration bill -- following that, a look at the arizona immigration bill. three dozen journalists, politicians, and celebrities gathered for the white house correspondents association annual dinner. they are also the remarks by president obama and jay leno. watch live coverage at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> sunday on booktv, pat buchanan on the conservative ideology. he will take your calls, e- mails, and tweets.

sunday by at noon eastern. >> the people who are coming to us wanted to have the security that they have exposure to the housing market. that is what they cut. the senate hearing went nearly 11 hours. see the key bellman's. it is washington your way at the c-span video library. every program since 1987 free online. >> president obama says the gdp growth in the first quarter is evidence that the effort to shore up the economy are working. he also talked of the gulf of mexico oil spill. this is about 10 minutes of t.

>> good morning. before i offer remarks on the economy upon to -- on the economy, i just want to talk about the gulf of mexico oil spill. i have spoken with the administrator of the epa and several other officials and they ensured that we continue to do everything necessary to respond to this event. i expect there reports later today. as i said yesterday, bp is ultimately responsible under the law for paying the cause of response and cleanup operations. we are fully prepared to meet our responsibilities to any and all the affected communities. that is what we have been working closely with local communities. there are now five staging areas to protect shorelines.

approximately 1900 federal response personnel are in the area and more than 300 response vessels on the scene 24/7. there are more protective booms on the way. i have ordered secretary salazar to conduct a thorough review and report back to me and 30 days on what, if any additional precautions should be required to prevent accidents like this. we are going to make sure that any leases going forward have the safeguards. we have also dispatched teams to the gulf of mexico and to all deepwater rigs and platforms to address those concerns. let me be clear, i believe that domestic oil production is an important part of our overall strategy for oil security. it must be done responsibly for the safety of our workers and our environment. local economies and livelihoods

in and the ecology of the region are at stake. we will continue to update the american people going forward. it determines whether our economy is shrinking or growing. the single broadest measure of our economic health. at the height of our crisis, that measure all too often was delivering the grim news. today is a different story. in the first quarter of last year, our economy shrank at a rate of 6.4%. today, we learned that in the first quarter of this year, the economy grew at a rate of 3.2%. what this means is that our economy as a whole is in a batch -- and in much better place. the economy shrank for four

straight quarters has now grown for three quarters in a row. that growth has been a condition for job growth. after the single biggest economic crisis in our lifetimes, we are heading into the right direction and moving forward. our economy is stronger and the economic heart beat is growing stronger. but i measure progress by a different polls, the progress the american people feel and their american lives day in and day out. i spent a few days visiting with people in small towns in the midwest where damage done by this recession is profound. they are still trying to recover from a shock wave of lost homes, lost businesses and more than 8 million lost jobs. a tragedy that have families

dealing like they are on life support. while the gdp report today is an important milepost on the road to recovery, it does not mean much to an american who has lost his or her job and cannot find another one. for millions of americans, our friends, neighbors, and citizens are ready and willing to get back to work, your hire is the only economic news they're waiting to hear. moving this economy forward remains our focus every day. the government cannot replace every job that has been lost. that is not the role of government. it is america's a business, all across the country, the private sector, that have always been and will always be the engines of our job creation. our task is to create the conditions necessary for those businesses to open their doors and expand operations and ultimately hire more workers.

that is precisely what we are trying to do. cutting taxes for small businesses. backing billions of dollars of lending and loans. by making targeted investments in areas of our economy or potential for job growth is greatest. areas like clean energy. as an example, i visited workers at a plant. just a few short years ago, that plant was shuttered and dark. today, it is alive and humming with more than 600 employees manufacturing some of the most advanced blades for wind turbines in the world. that facility capitalized by taking advantage of in advance manufacturing tax credit that we passed last year. this allowed us to add equipment, boost output and hire new workers at that plant. . .

consumers analyze real-time data about the the hohow they use en. these are critical components of the smart electric grid of tomorrow. $3.4 billion investment that was made helps to increase demand

for this company's products. in january, they won their own tax credit. 8 is using that tax credit to meet new demand adding production lines at its plants. they will hire new workers in south carolina. these are two of the workers that have just been hired one of them recently found themselves laid off from a local plant after punching in for 28 years. today, he and his wife both work to forge an energy future there is a company that produces advanced battery for energy storage. last august following a

nationwide competition. vice president biden to announce that this was one of the 48 companies for advanced battery technology. that grant helped them hire 44 new workers and that is supporting the construction of three new plants in the state of michigan. there is more than 3000 by the end of 2012. two of those workers are here today. they lost their jobs in the recession. already there has been one construction which is scheduled to go on line in july. they have begun designing a city.

because they received that grant, they received the state of michigan for their largest and innovative plant yet. that will be one of 30 new plants to go fully operational over the next six years manufacturing electric vehicles and components right here. this is what is possible in a clean energy economy. these people are doing extraordinary work. this is what happens when we place our bets on american workers and businesses. we will help to have them manufacture more stories like this across all sectors of our economy. we have a long way to go off on the road to economy. this is another sign that we are on the right track. we will keep doing everything we can to help our businesses take

the baton and lead us to a more hopeful and prosperous set of days in the future. thank you very much, everyone. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010.] >> tomorrow, 3000 politicians, celebrities, and reporters

gathered for the white house correspondents annual dinner. watch live coverage of the black tie affair here on c-span. >> the british election is may 6th and in a moment we will look at the election broadcasts. paid political advertisements are not amended on televisions. instead, they agree on the allocation of air time that is free. under the law, they are required to air them on their main radio and television channels. >> the amounts that spend their much smaller because they cannot spend their money on television. they spend a lot of money on

posters, direct mail, posters, and things like that. because they cannot buy television time, this has had a profound affect on the amount of money. we have tight limits on spending. we have a limit of about $30 million on spending by each of the main parties during the actual time running to the campaign. that is peanuts by the standard of any presidential campaign. >> during the campaign which lasted about four weeks, there is usually one broadcast aired each day except sunday. here's a look at the labor party's election broadcast released earlier this week. clark's i will get that --

>> i will get that. >> all right. >> golan, eat up and dowo on, e. >> he just told us they're cutting the child tax credit. that's not fair. we work hard for our money to do. >> within a few weeks of being elected, the conservatives would stop child tax credits to hundreds of middle-class families. >> why are you doing this? >> [laughter]

[knocking] >> i'll go get to that. >> within a few weeks of being elected, the conservatives would stop baby bond payments for families with earnings of over 16,000 pounds. >> don't worry, you have got plenty. >> how can i help you? >> that the conservatives would end the right to see a cancer

specialist within a key works of referral. >> i don't have weeks or months. >> the tories don't want you to know what they would cut if they win on may the sixth. there is only one way to protect your tax credit, your child trust fund, and your right to see a cancer specialist within two weeks. vote labour on may the sixth. >> you are watching the british party broadcast. in the uk, a paid political advertisements are not required. it is agreed that they rely on an allocation that is free. david cameron released this broadcast early this week. >> now for a broadcast from the conservative parley.

ablau>> today sees the dawn of w era in britain. we, the hong parliament party, and to change the face of politics. we have listened to the hard- working people of this country. we feel the disillusionment. we want to do away with in new old conventions and politics. we will bring in behind those politick. we want tounder the table dealse the order of the day. policies will be put bickered over by secret committees. >> those more interested in serving their careers than

country. >> in decision and weak government. our country is crying out for leadership. we promise to give half measures and in decision. >> we guarantee more dithering from the parties. there will be no change to the schools, no change for the violent crime rates. our third pledges to paralyse the economy. a vote for a hung parliament risks killing economic recovery. we know that 2/3 of business leaders are concerned about the impact of a hung parliament. >> this could lead to a run on the pound and a disastrous increase in interest rates. we pledge to hold a new election within the calendar year. we promised you another chance to be faced by the same

problems and hear the same arguments all over again. once more, we will waste tens of millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money doing this. >> we hope that we can rely and you to create a brave new world of economics than to asian and dithering. -- economic stagnation and dithering. >> the british election is may 6th. during the official campaign, there is usually one broadcast aired each day except sunday. here is a look at the election

broadcast that aired this week. it ough>> broken promises, there been too many in the past few years. our nation has been littered with them, a trail of broken promises. the fair taxes, a promise broken. better schools for everyone, and a promise broken. i believe it is time to do things differently. i believe it is time for fairness. i think it is time for promises to be kept. britain is a strong country. life is too unfair for too many people. people like you who have made us the nation we are today.

you deserve a fair and as more than anything. putting fairness back into our society for ourselves and our children is the single biggest challenge that we face. we can do it if we do it together. here is out. fair taxes. under the liberal democrats, no one will pay any tax on the first 10,000 pounds of they earn. that means 700 pounds back in the pockets of almost everyone. this means freedom for many people on low pay and pensions. everyone knows that money is tight, we have to sort out the mess in the government finances. we can close the loopholes that benefit the very wealthy and make sure that polluters pay for the damage they have cost. a fair start for all of our children, cutting classes to

just 20. we want to make sure that no one is left behind. imagine, opportunity for every child. that is fairness. imagine a fair and sustainable economy. let's break up the banks and make sure that they pay for the damage that they cost. we want to have jobs that last for everyone in every part of the country. finally, steer politics. if yourm np mp is corrupt, you l be able to stop them. this is the way to put fairness back into politics. this election is different than

any other election. the trail of broken promises can come to an end and a new road can began. opportunity and fairness to everyone. we can say goodbye to broken promises and welcome back to hope. we can make britain the fair country that we all want it to be. she is fairness, shoes real change that works for you. choose the liberal democrats. -- shoes fairness, choose the real change that works for you. >> you can see these broadcast again on our website. it is look for a 2010 british election under the featured link section. the british election is may 6th but dowh.

>> for the first time, they will face off in three tv debates. this week's debate is the last of the three, the topic is economic affairs. participating as gordon brown, david cameron, cameroand nick clegg. >> sunday, television analyst, author, and analyst, pat buchanan on conservative ideology in today's political climate. three hours with pat buchanan, sunday live at noon eastern. >> now a discussion on job creation with michael bloomberg and the white house economic

council director. this is part of an event hosted by the center for american progress been doslash. >> good afternoon, everyone. larry summers served as secretary of the treasury to president clinton, also as president of harvard, let alone

a series of other accomplishments. the scenes that he did all of those things before he turned 30 and i'm always reminded of that line which is -- he is the youngest american ever to turn 40. i have had the pleasure of knowing him and being his friend for quite some time. i consider him not only brilliant as everyone else does, but fascinating and very wise. i've never had a conversation with larry that i have not learned something meaningful. in my opinion, history will look upon america's response to the financial and economic crisis

of 2008 and 2009 very favorably. larry would be credited quite deservedly as a key architect of that very important response. thank you for being here. then, our other panelists, ellen degeneres once walked out at the oscars to introduce, party. she said, this man needs no introduction. she turned around and walked off. i am really quite tempted to do that here with this panelist but i will not.

mike bloomberg, the mayor of new york is a person of singular achievement and singular talent. i have lived in new york most of my life and he is simply the best mare that new york has had in my lifetime and even in the much longer life time of a for example, bob rubin. much of today's conference so far has highlighted the relationship between education and employment and wages. pointing to the mayor's achievement relative to the school system, this is one of the most difficult challenges on earth. this is one that i know quite a bit of about. he has really made remarkable progress and i hope that the he will talk a bit about that today.

he is also one of america's greatest chief executive officers in his prior life. there are very few symbols of american enterprise that are stronger than bloomberg, his company. the >> our moderator is charlie rose. this is the most serious show in the country. if you want to see a subject explored seriously, that is charlie. you can see that he is very young but he has interviewed everyone from alexander the great to george washington.

i will now turn this over to him. >> thank you. thank you, roger. it is good to see all of you here. this is obviously an important subject and one on the minds of many many americans. let me ask each of you where you sit, how you see the job picture today in terms of unemployment and job creation. >> this will be a terrible

problem for our society there are indicators that track what happens to the unemployment rate, there is another way of making the same point the. they have these studies of how dramatic different life events are. in many cases, losing a job one has had for a long time is

second and not very far behind losing a spouse. they are actually more dramatic for many people than being divorced. this is a profoundly important problem for our society. . it is a task for economists to analyze this and a different way so you can think hard about what the right solutions are. to think about joblessness in america right now we need to think about three separate dimensions of the problem. the first amendment but? is the cyclical the mentioned.

the problems right to the request of -- spread to the rest of the economy and destroy jobs. if you ask why it the jobless picture today is different than three years ago, the dominant reason is that we have this profound recession. the solution to recession lies in increasing demand that is done by making financial markets work. that is done by a temporary role for government in providing demand. that is done by creating an environment of greater

confidence that spurs business investments and spending which goes to the picture that is being painted in the long run of the country. that is what the president's recovery act and the financial recovery program are about. there is no solution to many of this that does not run through having a strong recovery. the second dimension of the problem and i would guess that wind history has been written, the least of fundamental of the three is what has so far then the temporary breakdown of the relationship between the economy as measured by the gdp and the unemployment rate. if you had taken the standard relationships that economists used to project the relationship

between gdp and employment and you projected the disaster in gdp, you would not have protected unemployment as high as it is right now. you would have protected it lower. or to put the point in a different way, you would not have projected that productivity growth, that would have been very rapid in the second half of 2009. this is at a 7% annual rate. that means we have a certain amount of demand and it is taking last people to produce the stuff. no one can know for sure what the future holds. maybe, the things will restore to normal in which case we will see more job growth than would be justified by gdp over the next year or two. that would be my guess.

alternatively, things may have happened that have led to permanently higher productivity growth which in some very long run cents is a good thing but will complicate the challenge of generating adequate demand to meet what is even greater potential with more of productivity growth. the second job list of phenomenon is the breakdown of the relationship between cheaply and employment. -- gdp and employment. there is a breakdown in the ability of the economy to provide viable jobs for those who would in an earlier era have worked with their strength and

down the best way to put it is this -- 40 years ago, one in 20 men, 25-54 in america, was not working at a given point in time. today, the number is one in five. a good guest based on extrapolating the trends in this area is that when the economy recovers five years from now assuming that he returns to cyclical conditions, one in six men who were 25-54 will not be working at any point in time. as you would expect, the rates are twice as high among those that would be less educated.

there are large categories of jobs that once existed, large categories of demand have fallen away. this is commonly due to technology wherever it is produced, it does not take many people to assemble a car compared to the number it took 30 years ago, wherever that car is produced. that is the dominant explanation. the secondary explanation is with globalization, and jobs that are done in the lower end have tended to migrate abroad.

for the long run, long after this recession, finding ways as a country of developing the skills and potential of all americans that, not those that are working becomes a critical priority. thinking about why and how public policy, while being responsible, can promote the demand for that low-wage labor and that becomes essential. i don't see how and there are a million policy issues about how you do this. i don't see how anyone can look at the wholesale destruction of construction jobs, the number of people working in construction, the state of our infrastructure

in many spheres, and not think that something should be done to increase the extent of our national efforts around public investment. in addition to its broad benefits on the supply side to the economy, also is a disproportionate employer of some of the groups that are hardest hit. >> hello out from an executive perch? >> there is the recession which we should not be surprised about. you have a quick downturn that puts us back to reality, everyone says "never again," and

then it happens again. we have seen like 10 of these things. in the end, it is possible to solve the problems. we don't have the jobs in the construction industry, it is the capital that is necessary to let businesses expand. some of the more fundamental things are the real country -- points in this issue. we need more immigrants, not less. to some people this might be counter intuitive. you will only have jobs when people start businesses. who would like to start businesses? the experience of immigrants that come to our country, they worked very hard and they're very entrepreneurial. then they regressed towards the mean of being the average. that is a history of immigration. that is why our country has been

so great, we have always had these waves of amber and some around the world, they have added to our cuisine and our language. they are thick pad tthe catalysf businesses. if i were the administration, i would try to convince congress to give a green card for any one that wanted to come here and start the business. keep the green card. if you want to stock of an unemployment problem, that is a practical thing. this would do this relatively quickly and that virtually 0 expense for the federal government. the second thing that is different, larry talked about technology. the percentage of men that are unemployed, part of that is in

some senses could because the reason i think for it is the opportunities for women to enter the work force and how they have taken advantage of it. if you look at universities and high schools, it is starting to be women attending more. this is a time bomb for our society that we have a big group of men that are dropping out but is partially because women who did not participate in the work force other than in nursing and teaching and those professions, it is the women that are coming in. you see a handful of big corporations in america run by women. tenures from now, they will have a lot more. they're building their credentials, they are demonstrating that they know what to do. they are the fundamental things, you don't have people starting

businesses. if you want to go to work for the sanitation department, you have to have a high-school diploma or a ged. that is to drive a truck and keep hours of reclaim. think about the number of kids who drop out of high schools. they could not get jobs in our sanitation department. that technology is greater all the time and we want people who have shown that they have the self discipline and drive to get through school and the maturity that it gives you, otherwise we cannot provide as good a service that we want. this is the educational service failing s. i happen to think that obama's legacy will be how good a job he does in reforming public education. he has a great secretary, he has the right people. how will he convince this

country that you cannot let your religion get in the way of education. they are separate things and we're making our mistake throughout the country. you can not let your opinions about who should be teaching dictate who is teaching, we have to have the best and the brightest. we have to fix education, we have to fix immigration. you have to understand that technology will always make people more productive. you can go back to when the steam engine it came in. you can go to when electricity came in. there are always these destructive technologies that are going to destroy the work force. in fact, we managed to work our way through it and come out stronger at the the other end. incidently, the same thing is

happening and around the world. we are not the only ones with these problems. the fact was not being able to keep up with the demands of the work force and universal problems, i would describe this as a kind of barbell defect. it is the middle sums that are not being automated or in demand. if you take a look, you have the jobs at the entry level. those kinds of jobs, picking apples, there's nothing wrong with them. that is the way our ancestors started working on a pushcart war whatever. the entry level stuff, we worked very hard with this. tourism is one area. you have high-paying jobs or you can measure performance. if you think about it, people riled against big bonuses and

high salaries for some people and say it is not fair. no companies pay compensation higher because they want to be nice guys. you don't even pay your compensation based on how much people contribute. you pay your compensation based on what it needs in a competitive market to get the people you want and keep them. if that cost is t. evo hi to compare the value added, you go out -- if that cost is too high compared to the value added, you go out of business. you try to have ways to have your expenses be lower than that. >> do you want to speak to what the mayor said? >> first to talk about immigration and i thought to myself, from the best for me to stay away from that topic.

>> i had exactly the same response. >> then where did he go next, he went to opportunities for women. i thought, that must be safe. >> you can go to capital markets. [laughter] >> i think that the mayors in this is on the education as to what is ultimately and most profoundly important i think you cannot put enough emphasis on that. there are a lot of trouble in statistics that people throw a around. we still have a larger share of

our population that has graduated from college of any country we are now out of the top 10 in a fraction of those between 25-35 who have graduated from college. that means that things are headed in the wrong direction that is about the provision of opportunity. this is something that i studied a great deal when i was at harvard. the way of oversimplifying would be the dumbest rich kids are far more likely to go to college then even the very smartest -- we have a major problem around equal opportunity. this is probably the thing that the president has done that has gotten the least attention relative to how important it is.

we set a goal of reversing that the gap by 2030. are related to everything you said. i think that i would have a less philosophical view of the current financial crisis as just another up and down cycle. this was a much closer brush with armageddon then what we typically see every few years. this financial crisis was by some counts the seventh in a generation where millions of people have lost their jobs because of the financial system that was supposed to manage and

distribute risk but ended up to a significant extent creating risks. i totally agree with your admonitions about the need to preserve the flow of capital, agree about the importance of preserving a meritocracy or competition in payment. i think that i would think that these events forced some fairly fundamental reflections on their relationship and between a financial system that has grown massively and grown massively as an absorber of talent and the broader economy.

thikite be the total benefit to the entire society means it was a greater step towards economic recovery. >> speak to the capital markets and financial reform. >> there was a sunday morning when i got a call from the heads of a few banks that say that we cannot open on monday. what can you make sure -- what can you do to make sure how serious the situation was? larry, tim, hank paulson and a bunch of people here, today, you can second-guess a couple of

things paulson and tighten their did. -- and tim geithner did. they made very big decisions. you have to air on the side of trying to throw as many things as you can at the problems and hopefully they will work. history will show that they got the country through a very difficult time. my perception of all of the financial crisis and i don't mean to make light of those that have lost their jobs and have lost their houses because it is tragic. why did we get into this situation? i would blame everyone. we all wanted more credit, more easy credit. we were out there encouraging home ownership as a social policy. incidently, 90% of the people that got their homes that would not have caught it without those expensive programs still has their homes.

history will probably show that it was a good thing for america to encourage home ownership and make opportunity available to a lot of people who were starting off the ladder who would not otherwise have gotten there. congress will certainly behind it. if you can see that and fannie mae and freddie mac. the banks would make their money that way. we all like the fact that our pension funds were getting money, our iras were getting out, we were getting paid more. you are never sure what will trigger the downturn. in this case, i think that -- think of and life insurance company. life-insurance companies are gold on a fundamental belief that everyone will not die at the same time. if everyone dies at the same time, they could have been argued to be an outrageous speculation. we understand that this is a

reasonable risks to run and it is very seldom happens. clearly, you have companies like aig whose balance sheet was much too risky. if we had had more disclosure, maybe the marketplace would have kept this from happening. you had a lot more people to fall on their mortgages than anyone thought was possible. that is why you have the rating companies, the rate of securities, aaa. all of a sudden, it is worthless. there is a fundamental assumption that most people would keep their mortgages and there would be a handful of default and he would work your way is through those. your profits get diminished on how you pick up the lawsuits. that is that business. now all of a sudden you change the whole idea. the insurance company that we now have is the government.

it is the government's job is it is too big to fail. one of the thing that worries me is more than just wall street here, i want to make sure that we will take a look at other industries. the automobile business, detroit was too big to fail as well. you can blame the government for that. you had forced cafe standards from 75-85. all of a sudden, they woke up one day and found another group of companies that could beat them. if the government had either stayed away and not protected them or forced them to come back, either one of them would have solved that problem. it is leaving them in the middle

that is not a good idea. >> we can talk about markets and financial reform but aquino has been jobs and job creation and understanding where the problem is. if we are in a period of low economic recovery, how will we get to where we need to be? >> the pace at which we get back to full employment would depend upon two things fundamentally, the pace of the economic recovery in terms of gdp. it will depend on the uncertainty that i referred to earlier and my second problem in the relationship between of gdp and employment.

the standard formula that economists use is you take the growth rate, subtract 2.5,slashtwo, that is the change in the unemployment rate. if the growth is 4.5 per year, slash2, equals one and you reduce the unemployment rate for a year. make your judgment on your gdp forecast over the next several years, take your guess about whether the formula is going to snap back or continue to be off and you can form a view of about the movement in the unemployment rate. what i think is safe to say is that even on optimistic assumptions, there is going to

be substantial unused potential in this economy measured by the unemployment rate, measured by the fraction of factories that are in use, measured by the small amount of vacancies open to unemploymenunemployed worker. by any measure that you use, the economy will be short of its potential and it will be constrained by demand more than by supplying for the next several years. i emphasize that point because there is a tendency to gravitate very quickly to measures that focus on the supply side. in the long run, that is the only thing that is important. in the short run, it is a great deal about the man and one has

to be very careful about things that will increase the supply and will not move demand. that is why many of us feel that while we need to pick it to a focus on long run problems, as we do that, we need to maintain an awareness with a very large amount of teachers who are going to be laid off within the next six months if nothing is done. the agenda of driving the work of preventing the work of armageddon, we have done a lot of progress on that agenda. the work of ensuring a strong and robust recovery is not yet complete. >> do we need another stimulus? >> i don't think framing the question in terms of a stimulus is helpful.

police need to extend unemployment insurance, yes? do we need to continue to provide support for state and local governments to maintain and prevent large-scale layoffs of teachers, yes? car their investments that can be made in energy efficiency that would be terrific investments measured by internal rate of return, yes. is this the moment for some major new experiment, absolutely not. >> speak about austerity and a loss of tax revenues and teachers, specifically and therefore the restrictions you have in terms of what you can do. >> about three or four years

ago, we thought that the markets could not continue the way they were doing. you read about no interest, no covenant loans, there is something wrong with that. there is no free lunch. we started a campaign about three or four years ago. we had seven different programs to eliminate the budget gap. cutbacks in expenses or looking for ways to enhance revenues. you could get them from fees or fines or taxes. we are looking to find a liabilities for retiree health care and to try to make the city government more efficient. we have been combining small agencies, when we are trying to make the environment more

business friendly said that we can get the business we want to open more quickly. the city budget will be balanced, the official budget comes out by the end of the week. our problem is babbling live in a state where we send a lot of money up to albany. -- our problem is that we live in a state where we send a lot of money back to albany. they want to cut back the amount they sent back to us because they want to use the money elsewhere in the state to influence the political reality of the nicrest of the state. the federal government sends the money to the states and they don't give it down to the city. seattle never got any money from the stimulus.

the monies that go to the states don't get to the population centers which are the future of this country. when the state cuts back the amount of money they cut back to us which they will do. it puts us in a very difficult situation of having to make some choices. it would require us to lay off 19,000 employees. will we do that? we won't have to but we will have to make some very painful choices. we have a situation where government employees are getting paid more on balance, they have pension benefits that the private sector no longer enjoys. this is an untenable situation but a very difficult situation to address because we are very dependent on our employees.

in new york city, our uniformed services, the benefits are equal to 100 percent of their salaries. this is a situation where it has become very generous. every mayor is trying to address the problem. the other good news is that we did not have the big downturn in real estate because we don't have a lot of second homes or speculation homes being built so we never realized the construction industry having a problem like there was in the south.