that the oil spill may up to 70,000 barrels a day rather than the official current estimate of 5000 per day. we will hear from the president about the oil spill at 11:50, just before noon. coming up in about 10 minutes, the president presiding -- that ceremony live from the rose garden in just a few minutes. also coming up today on c-span, we will take you live to the national press club. that is at 1:00. this weekend, supreme court nominee elena kagan at moderate reform on the high court's recent turn. that is on america and the courts, saturday at 7:00. the president from the rose garden in just a few minutes at 10:10. while we wait for that, a look

at items in the news. again, that is indeed politico this morning. this is in the "dallas morning news" on wednesday. here is eric kanter, who was the minority whip, who was the

sponsor of this -- who is the sponsor of this, and house majority leader, steny hoyer, discussing the youtube. >> led to stop the spending now. that is why we have started and launched the you cut program. and if you have incremental steps, fine, let's join in that, but let's stop the spending, mr. speaker. >> i do not want to get too personal on this, but what would you y about the spending on e washington rail between washington and richmond? >> we have supported job generating projects. the studies in the metropolitan area in -- from which i, and represent, virginia could grow

165,000 jobs with that kind of investment. that has always been my position. but when we are looking at some of the items that we are scussing here on the you cut options, these are options that are niceties. host: what do you think about theop you cut program. is it a good idea or a gimmick? the numbers are on the screen. what do you think about this you cut program? a good idea, or a gimmick? we want to hear from you. if you're a couple of things that have been pos to the iran eric cantor's blogging, or on the representatives aside. "z

it includes tax payers subsidize union activities, is how they phrased it. $600 million in savings, according to erick kanter's site. federal employees unions collect millions in revenue each year and spend significant amounts on political activities and lobbying so that they will also be subsidized by the taxpayers for their official functions. i propose reduced budget and staff by 90% of the fallen department, epa, energy, labor.

another one, this is from robert, trying to do this piecemeal will just generate the usual white about me mentality. congress is to cut the federal budget by 10% effective october 1, 2010. what do you think about this? what do you think about this? waynesboro, north carolina, your first up. good morning. caller: good morning, i do not trust the republican cuts, executive because i'm not sure they will not revert back to their old habit of spending from a deficit surplus to trillion dollar deficit. i think it for political gain, to gain seats in the house, etc., and i do not believe they have been genuine. they have done this as well

behind closed doors. and in the future, i hope that they will actually think about the american people. when you start talking about cutting spending, you are talking about dispensing pain. and they have not done enough research to do it adequately. they have just done something willy-nilly and we are supposed to accept it. host: wendell, mass., claude, a democrat. caller: first to live like to put out there what i have learned on c-spanhis week. i have learned that the government prevailing wage is $79 an hour plus extremely generous benefits. i think i would be something, from the trash guide to the president, $79 per hour. -- from the trashman to the president, 7 $9 per hour.

-- $79 per hour. and as an aside, i believe the yuko it should be retroactive maybe eight years back. -- the you cut should be retroactive maybe years back. host: hanover, pa., tom, what do you think? caller: the democrac senator from new york yesterday was saying thatven with the stimulus package that they garden, only 50 policemen fell under the heading of receiving some of it and they have less policeman -- fewer policemen now in new york than they did during the world trade center bombing and with these attached to a tax there are fewer policeman. -- with these attempted attacks there are fewer policemen. that makes me feel safe.

host: next call comes from marble falls, texas, shirley, on the democrats line. what do you think about this tax cut? caller: i do not believe anything the des moines -- the republican said. they have done nothing this past zero year except to try to keep the democrats from doing anything -- this past year, except to try to keep the democrats from doing anything at all. i think the democrats are doing anything they can do to create jobs and keep this country going and i wish the republicans would shut up. host: your ok with federal spending the way it currently is? caller: yes, i am. host: newberry, south carolina, independent line, what do you think? caller: i think they should cut

10% of everything and do away with all of those union people that are getting paid by the taxpayers. cut everything 10%. cut the recession down to six months and pass a budget and come home. host: this is in politico.

jackson, mich., frank, democrat. caller: howard you doing this host: morning i am good. -- caller: how are you doing this morning? host: i am good. what do you think about this you cut program? caller: i am a little ticked off. there is a lot of lobbying going on and the stoppage on certain bills is ridiculous. i got three weks of unemployment last year. i probably will be the -- one of the next ones losing his house because ofll that is going on in the senate. these people need to get together and square away. sure, it is fine, party to rty, but on the same token we are here losing everything. host: henderson, nev., john, republican.

caller: [unintelligible] host: and we're going to move on to greenville, ohio, dawn, hello. caller: i want to thank c-span for everything you are doing. and also on this gop cutting program, i thought that this should be 20% may be two to five year ago. and on immigration, i still think if they should have -- if they had done what they should have done back in the 1970's and 1980's, we would not have the trouble with immigration that we have. and the trouble with 911 happened. that is my feeling this morning. host: from the "new york times" the senate amends, financial overall bill.

>> we take you live now to the rose garden at the white house for president obama presiding over the top cops awards ceremony. >> please have a seat.

it is wonderful to see all of you. to attorney-general holder, to tom, the outstanding officers standing behind me as well as their families, welcome to the rose garden. it is my privilege to welcome the top cops back to the white house. men and women who stand a shining examples of the bravery, persistence, and good judgment that sell many of our members of our law enforcement community despite each and every day. eric holder has done an outstanding job at the justice department. one of his key jobs is supporting local law enforcement and he truly appreciates the extraordinary service that local law enforcement does each and every day. we also have a few members of congress here want to recognize. representative tim ryan and

senator max baucus, they have been extremely supportive -- some extremely supportive of law enforcement efforts. to the officers and board members and the national art is a nation of police officers, thank you for coming. thank you for the brave work that you do every day. i want to congratulate the top cops and their families. the folks behind me and never imagined they would be here today, if you ask them. they were just professionals doing their jobs as best as they could. they will tell you that there are thousands of law enforcement officers in every corner of this nation who are just as dedicated and capable as they are and will do the same thing if given the opportunity. that is all true. but that is exactly what makes these officers and all of our men and women in uniform real heroes. going to work knowing that danger could be waiting just

around the corner. it is the understanding that the next call could be the one that changes everything. it is the knowledge that at any moment, they could be called upon to stop a robbery, participate in a high-speed chase, or to save a life. some people have not faced a moment yet, but whether it is by chance or fate, these officers were tested and when the moment came, they did what they were trained to do. the men and women here today jumped in the cars to rescue victims held at knife point, people trapped children from burning cars seconds before it was engulfed in flames, they have leapt in front of hijacked buses, faced armed suspects, led 6 hour manhunt to the dark, saved countless lives are risking their own. in the moments when these officers were under fire, they were not begin about themselves. they were not thinking about the metal's accommodations, and i'm pretty sure they were not thinking about being honored at

the white house, instead, they were focused on their partners, on the face of the child who was in harm's way, on the victim or the innocent by standard and who desperately needed their help. that is why we honor them. their actions were extraordinary and for that, we owe them our undying gratitude. honoring top cops is just -- means more than just saying thank you. it means supporting our entire law-enforcement community. that is why from the very beginning, my administration has been dedicated to giving look state and local law enforcement resources they need to get their jobs done. so far 3.2. -- $3.2 million of the recovery act has gone to law enforcement.

-- $3.2 billion of the recovery act has gone to law enforcement. it made progress toward our goal of putting 50,000 new police officers on the street. next year's budget, it would more than double the previous request for the top cops program. at a time when our nation is emerging from the worst economic recession in generations, we will maintain strong funding for bulletproof vests to keep our men and women in uniform save, to make sure you continue to have the resources that you need. the first half of 2009, fell to the lowest level since the 1960's. homicides dropped by 10%. car thefts were down nearly 20%. property crimes declined by over 6%. much of this is due to the men and women and their counterparts

across the country that are doing an outstanding work. it is also a reflection of the role but ordinary americans are playing, taking back their neighborhoods from violent gangs and open-air drug markets, educating their children, being vigilant. the most recent example is the partnership between citizens and police happened in times square. alerted by to street vendors that smoke was coming out of a suspicious vehicle, nypd officer immediately realized the potential danger. he helped clear the area quickly and safely. the nypd elite bomb squad unit spent over five hours diffusing the device. just two days after the attempted terrorist attack, thanks to the outstanding work of local, state, and federal officials, the suspect was in custody. yesterday, i had the privilege

of visiting the nypd crime center and meeting officer ratigan and other officers whose quick thinking and cooperation may have saved hundreds of lives. but the folks behind me, they succeeded because they were well trained, there were vigilant, and they were ready. being a hero is not always easy. brian jacobson is being ironer -- honored here today and he said it is one of those things in your life that you could never prepare for fully. we are incredibly encourage that all of you have shown under the conditions that we can only imagine. the distinction that none of you ask for, but all due accepted. i promise to the stand by you and everyone who wears a badge as he continued. thank you, all. thank you for your outstanding work. [applause]

[applause]

♪ ♪

♪

>> within the hour, the president will be meeting with his top advisers on the gulf coast oil spill. an update on this. this day -- this bill may be stealing more oil than originally reported. we will hear from the president at 11:50 eastern. we'll have live coverage of that here on c-span. the homeland security committee

is meeting next monday, holding a hearing on the response to the spill. they will hear from the homeland security, the head of bp, monday at 2:30. this afternoon, we will have the head of the chamber -- >> what this week's hearings on the gulf of mexico oil spill. we will look back at 1989. visit the c-span video library. it is washington your way. circuit, watch it, share it. every program since 1987, available free online. >> every weekend, c-span to book

tv features 48 hours of a non- fiction books. the former cia officer talks about life in the agency, before and after 9/11. find the entire weekend schedule booktv.org. >> this afternoon, the state department, this from yesterday, meeting with president karzei. and this is from the u.s. institute of peace. yesterday, he wrapped up a four- day to visit to washington. this appearance is just over an hour. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i and the executive vice president here at the united states institute of peace. it is with enormous pleasure that we welcome president karzei, secretary clinton for a

discussion to be moderated. in addition to this room, we have a full room down the hall in the academy and we have a global audience watching live online. we hope we will be able to take some questions following this event. now i am happy to turn the podium over ambassador richard solomon. >> president karzei, we are honored to have you join us at the institute of peace. there are other folks that i want to mention. our board chairman, robin west, and other board members are

here. we are pleased that they are able to join us today as well. senator john warner, a good friend and supporter of the institute, congressman jane harman, and accompanying president karzei, we have members of his cabinet. down the hall, we have other folks. we have established a professional training academy in conflict management and peace building skills. this facility is down the hall and under training right now are some folks working with the defense department who will be going to afghanistan to try to help strengthen the defense of interior ministries as they bring stability to that country. let me just say briefly that the

institute of peace has been working on the ground in afghanistan since 2002. we currently have an office in cobble a full-time working -- cobble -- to promote reconciliation with programs focused on the rule of law, a training conflict mediators, and training women in conflict management skills, and trying to work and establish that a very complex relationship between afghanistans traditional justice system and a rule of law set of processes. we are deeply committed to supporting our government and that of president karzei as they try to bring reconciliation, a stabilization, and development to their country. the institute here is fortunate to have some real talent

supporting our efforts. ambassador bill taylor will not be leading the discussion. bill, the podium is yours. to a again for coming. >> -- thank you again for coming. >> it is clear that it has been a very successful visit. congratulations. the message of mentoring -- enduring partnership -- he met with the press many times. we hope here at the national institute of peace to have a more relaxed discussion. over tea in our living room here. it is an informal opportunity to discuss serious issues and this is our opportunity to have a conversation.

mr. president, tomorrow you will head for the 131st airborne and then you'll have home. the focus will shift from the headlines of the day to implementation. u.s. president obama, our governments -- you and president o'clock -- you and president obama, our government have made commitments. there are many things to be done a short period of time. what are your priorities? what specific steps will you take when you go back? >> the trip indeed was very good. from my perspective and that of my delegation, remarkable. excellent hospitality.

a lot of discussions. i thought i was loud enough. no need for repetition, i hope. it worked very, very good. i had the pleasure of an informal dinner with secretary clinton and secretary gates. followed up the next morning by a an extensive meeting between the afghan government and the u.s. government'. we came in groups of five clusters, a from human- resources, to agriculture to army to reconciliation and governance. we followed up with a visit to

walter reed, up where i have the honor of visiting some of your soldiers who have turned -- webb returned from afghanistan with serious wounds. this was very touching. it reminds us once again that we need to do a lot more to have these soldiers of yours come back, without injuries. we also had extensive talks yesterday with the president and his team. in short, the trip was a

meaningful, substantive, and had all the right tones and objectives. the conclusion of the trip would bring me to the implementation of all we discussed. falling on my speech during the inauguration address -- following on my speech during the inauguration address, the pledges and made to the afghan people, the commission that we have with our international partners, and to follow up all that we have in mind and promised. the peace process -- this will have at least 1500 afghans from

all over the country, from all the people from all of the province, including 20% of women. they will advise us on how to move forward with the peace process. what pace should it have? how do we time it? how to model its and follow it. the peace process with those of the taliban or other militant groups were not part of the qaeda or other groups that are ideologically against us in any way that would endanger our constitution, the freedoms, the democracy, and the progress that we have achieved. beyond that, we have the conference which will be

afghanistan's plan for the future. we will be giving the world are outlook to the future and asking for support for it. then we have the parliamentary elections. around these three agendas, we have the issue of governance in afghanistan and the corruption in afghanistan and making sure that we complete our success in all aspects as soon as possible so that afghanistan is a prosperous, peaceful country, so that you are much more secure in the united states and the rest of the world bridge the strategic partnership with america. >> madam secretary, the united

states made commitments as well. are there specific steps that we had in mind taking now -- between now and december? >> first, let me at the what president karzei said. from our side, this was a highly successful visit. the substantive discussion that we had, i think it took a relationship to an even higher level. this will serve as a very good starting point for the efforts to rewrite and refurbished the strategic partnership declaration that we hope to complete by the end of this year. that will be a statement of our commitment to, i recommended between our two countries, not to stir governments but our people. it will -- not just our government, but our people.

we had a great visit because we had excellent cooperation and coordination in preparation for the visit. i want to compliment president karzei and his team to have done an excellent job. those who have met any of the ministers and representatives of the government have uniformly come away impressed. i do not want to embarrass them, but i have heard from many of my colleagues in government and my former colleagues from the congress and there is a real sense of the commitments and the professionalism of the ministers who had accompanied president karzei. on our side, we have a great efforts quarterbacked by ambassador holbrooke in the state department and his team, which is a very broad and deep

cross-section of experts and ambassador i can berry and his team. that is the beginning of the answer to your question. we have put together a, on both sides, a government response. this is no longer president to president. we are building a very strong partnership that links together all levels of our government to work on these challenges that we are facing together. certainly, the headlines are about paramilitary -- about our military and our law enforcement challenges, but we are working very closely with the minister of finance and there is been great improvement in the

economy, the minister of agriculture, the minister of health and education. the implementation has already started. following the opening meeting that we had in the state department on tuesday morning, groups broke off and went into great doubt about the specifics -- great depth about the specifics as to what would be follow through. we have some milestones along the way. there will be an enormous amount of effort put in by the government of afghanistan in preparation for the conference. we heard a description at wanted the president yesterday about how we are going to be teeing up a lot of decisions. it will be the afghan government that does it, but we will be in support of that. there will then be an implementation schedule following the conference. the parliamentarian elections will be very important in

september. i met with the women ministers who are here to stay little while ago and there is a great number of women who are putting themselves forward as candidates. the story about what is happening below the service does not get told often enough. the ministers and president and we on our side are determined to do so. also, it is critical that we go into this with our eyes open. even though we have extremely professional counterparts that we are working with on both sides, there are very serious problems and challenges. that is why, as president karzei said, the first that in his process of moving toward some peace efforts will be on may 29, which will bring people from across the country for a consultation.

the united states supports this and supports the effort that the president and his leadership and the people of afghanistan are pursuing. this is not just a meeting that produce a lot of good feeling. unfortunately for those of us who are required to respond, a meeting that has produced a lot of work. we are going to be following up on a day-by-day and aiming toward the conference for our first progress report. >> madam secretary, there has been a lot of discussion of the date of july 2011. a lot of discussion over the past week of this enduring partnership. is there a tension between those two concepts? is it a date by which some troops may begin to come down or be removed? an enduring partnership that we have committed to, a strategic

partnership. this is the discussion. it's either of your impressions of how this fits? >> i will start from our side. i think the president said very well the press conference yesterday. we are aiming toward the july 2011 to begin the process of transitioning security in some parts of the country to afghan security forces. it is a conditioned state decision. we are impressed by the increasing capacity of the on bothecurity forces i the military and the police side. they talk about the challenges. we see the july 2011 date as another date to aim for and we

believe that it can be the beginning of the security transition. the enduring partnership will last long beyond any security transition, in the withdrawal of combat forces over time. we are committed to a strategic partnership with afghanistan. we believe strongly that the afghan people's love of freedom, their absolute commitment to their sovereignty, their belief in their own potential, makes them a very good long-term partner and we intend to work with our partners in afghanistan. we're going to have this commended between our government and our people. the final thing i would say, bill, is that this is not an unusual model.

we have relationships with countries all over the world where in previous times, there might have been reasons for american military forces to be stationed there. in some cases, they still are. from korea to europe. i want people to remember our history. we have had long-term enduring relationships long after the guns were put down. what we are doing together is trying to create the conditions, thanks to the great leadership of general mcchrystal and his people on the ground, to help the afghan people regains security over their own territory. we're not going anywhere. we will be there working with them, supporting their efforts far into the future. >> on this question, the secretary answer for both of us.

i will be adding a little on the july 2011 pull out of troops. we are trying to prepare ourselves to be able to provide security of the afghan people in part of the country where we cannot right now in the next two-three years. to expand that's, extend that to the entire country by 2014, by the time my term in office is completed. we are preparing ourselves for a takeover of security so that we

are not a burden on the united states and our other allies. neither militarily nor economically. afghanistan has the potential, the resources, the manpower, the location, the geography to do that. on the question of indoor and partnerships, the strategic partnerships, it is going to be beyond the military activity right now on our campaign against terrorism and into the future long after we have retired and perhaps into our grandsons and granddaughters and those generations as well.

this is something that the afghan people have been seeking for a long, long time. the most important substance of our conversation has been the subject and it is a subject to the eye can gladly take back to the afghan people, of course. this partnership between afghanistan and the united states is for the good of the region and for the stability of the region and will provide a much-needed confidence and peace that we are not seeking, but not yet having. >> thank you, mr. president. madam secretary, you both know there are skeptics in the united states and in afghanistan. they can be forgiven for asking, we have been at this for over eight years and they are asking about what is new. why do we think this is going to be different?

the skeptics in afghanistan, mr. president, worried that the american troops will be pulled out too early. the skeptics in the united states are worried that they have been there too long. how do you address the skeptics? >> in afghanistan, the skeptics are not so much -- they want a stronger, more formidable relationship with america. does not pose date t a problem to us because we know that the united states will not

abandon the cause unless we have succeeded fully. " we are seeking is beyond that -- what we are seeking is beyond that. >> in addition to that very fundamental point, the skepticism is part of the american character. it goes with the territory and it is important because hard questions need to be asked all the time. that is exactly what president obama did when he came into office. he was confronted very early in his term with a request that had been held over from the prior administration for additional troops. he agreed with that request, but he ordered a thorough review of our policy. it was extraordinarily in depth. i've lost track of all of the

meetings that we had with both the national security team and with the president. to add the end of that review, the president reached a conclusion that i think should be respected by americans because it was not something that he had to do. he did after very careful examination of the fax -- facts, of what was at stake for the united states. i understand why there are people who are skeptical. as i say, that kind of goes with the territory. this is a commitment that we believe very strongly is in america's interest. we want to see afghanistan succeed. we want to see the people of afghanistan have a future of peace and prosperity and

progress after so many years of suffering. but we are in afghanistan because it is in america's interest. these interests converge. that is really what this meeting this week has been about. demonstrating clearly and unequivocally the convergence of our to respected nation's interest. we're well aware of how hard the task is ahead. we are well aware that we face a determined, ruthless and common enemy. we are well aware that afghanistan at lives in a dangerous and difficult neighborhood. i do not think there is any issue or any question that any skeptic could raise that we have not thought about and carefully worked our way through and so we are very committed. we are very confident of the success of this going forward. >> mr. president, how

comfortable are you with the plans of your forces and coalition forces for the spring and summer? >> since last week, it has adopted the right approach. i mean afghan and the international forces. the process means bringing conditions to the region where there is better governance, better resources, more active and vigorous, a vibrant intelligence activity, and if

and when and where it needed, at an operation backed by the community. this is what we have adopted and this will definitely succeed. when i return, i will be revisiting the region and i will be engaging with the community leaders there of all kinds and colors to read engage them on the question and move towards stabilization. that area does not have front- line spread it is terrorist activity. it is more psychological than physical of the terrorist and the the appropriate tools to go

ahead and win. >> if i could add to what the president described as the approach that is being taken by the afghan and international forces, i think it is important to realize that this is a different campaign. it was much more dominated by the taliban. it became liberal stronghold for them. this is a large bustling city that has an enormous amount of economic activity. people are getting on with their lives. there are pockets of caliban -- taliban and surgeons that are engaging in a variety of violent attacks -- taliban insurgents that are engaging in a variety of violent attacks. general mcchrystal had explained

to the president that this is going to be an action that is going to use different tools because the goal is to root out from what is a very active and ongoing urban area those to intimidate. they do not pose a threat to. they are not going to take over. but their presence has a chilling effect. it keeps people inside. it keeps girls from going to school. it keeps people from feeling comfortable going into public places or going out to work with the farmers. this is a different kind of campaign. it is not a huge massive assaults. it is a much more targeted effort to try to weed out the taliban.

we have no doubt that they have support there. as the president said, the combination of the military and intelligence assets of both afghanistan and the international forces, the president's own personal involvement in going there, a meeting with leaders. in any counterinsurgency, the goal is to win the confidence of the people so that they will become your allies and will not be intimidated into giving safe haven to the taliban. in fact, they will pick up the telephone or walked outside and tell somebody that there are since -- there is since this -- suspicious activity going on. that is the goal and it is being extremely well planned. obviously, we hope for early success. >> in that same line, you are a war president. you are the commander-in-chief

and the secretary just mentioned that there are taliban that are killing your officials in cities. in the afghan culture, how does this notion of being commander- in-chief fits? how does this fit into the afghan culture? >> it fits all right. the afghans are not unknown to a situation like that. it is understood and comprehended well. with one difference in the mind t. we are speaking from a higher moral ground. i am the president of the country in a time where there is terrorism, suicide bombers.

those behind such a tax -- such attacks abuse the general morality of human beings. earlier, our minister of interior was saying that we have a 14-year-old boy that said he was trained as a suicide bomber. he said that he does not want to be a suicide bomber. we're looking for the parents of this boy. we do not find them an equal opponents in those terms. they have stripped very low -- they have stooped very low.

we are also morally higher, claims better you could mention the peace jirga and preparations for that. yesterday, we were reminded in were care that two years ago, there was a plan for reconciliation and the search.

the ambassador was going to join us. what is the end state for the reconciliation? >> it means the return back home and the fighting in the arms. of those thousands of taliban soldiers who have been driven out of their homes and country by circumstances beyond our reach for control and beyond irs, and those driven out of their homes of those who give them guns to fight against their own country, because of mistakes we have made. these thousands of taliban we're trying to reintegrate are not

against us. they did not hate the united states. perhaps they would like to visit the united states. they do not hate their own government or their own country. out of fear, they are against their own country. we must try legitimately to return them. reconciliation is entirely a different issue. the leadership is beyond reach with our neighbors and we have pakistan involved and questions involved there. it is about those who i described earlier. reconciliation is more difficult, to the future thing. >> we have been cautious about

the reconciliation component of this. but this week, there has been support and certain conditions are there. are we prepared to support these compromises that will come out of these compromises with ?enior taliban backs > >> there are certain conditions that have to be met. people cannot just show up and say they're prepared to re-enter afghan society after having directed suicide attacks and other kinds of violence against afghanistan. i think as the president says, this process starts with the reintegration off the battlefield that the president was describing of people who

found themselves in the ranks of the taliban. i do not think any of us can predict what the outcome of the next phase will bay. the president has to have his own peace jirga and listen to his own people. there may be people that are willing to see the president discussed potential reconciliation and other people may not. there also are leaders of the afghan taliban who did not want to reconcile. they are very much against it. we don't expect to see them walking through the door. thinking hard about what reconciliation would mean. from our perspective, everyone, whether it is a person who pursues reintegration or reconciliation, they must abide by the laws and constitutions of

the government and nation of afghanistan. they must cut ties with al qaeda and these extremist allies that are in these networks that al qaeda is either directly or inspiring. they must respect women's rights, that the women of afghanistan who still suffer too much with one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world. they deserve our support and they are receiving support from their president and their government. nothing can be permitted to interfere with that. the general principle is to see how possible it will be to try to move on a political track. there is no military solution to this conflict. there has to be a political track that is pursued. we're going to support the

president's efforts to do that. >> there are other people in addition to people in this room who are watching this down the hall and they have been able to ask some questions. i will turn to these questions. one of the questions that has come from the other room, can a held this year?e >> absolutely. afghanistan began began the current democratic process 2002, after the liberation. we did well. millions of people participated in the elections. the first election of the

president and the provincial councils, the election for the parliament, the first election and the second election for the president, and now the second parliamentary elections. we have in place all the necessary tools to make sure that the election is credible. and in keeping with the standards we cannot apply, there will be observers there. we have conditions set up. we have election experts from the commission. the people want to participate. there are already 2007 under almost candidates of whom 430

nearly are women, much more than had any previous election. the enthusiasm, the zeal -- is that the right word? -- the zeal to challenge and to participate is great. that is the motor running our democracy. >> it will be a challenge. time is short. there are preparations that need to take place. let me ask if there are questions from the room that people would like to raise. i see hands up. [inaudible]

>> i'm here to finish a study on the affect of the vietnam war. the question has to do with numbers. how many afghan troops and police do you have now properly trained? how many do you think you will need to conduct a successful counterinsurgency, and how long do think it will take? >> the question has to do with the size of the afghan forces, the police and the army. >> we are now apt nearly the mid stage corporations of our army and police. the minister of defense and the of interior.

we have one and 20,000 well- trained troops and officers -- we have 120,000 well-trained troops and officers. the second batch of the military academy and uniforms in the right way. the afghan police is nearly 180,000 -- the goal is 180,000 goal. so the training is going on. the army began the train early on from 2000 to -- the army began the training early on. the police -- we began to pay

full attention to this important element in 2007. now there is massive investment by the united states and our other allies to the training of the police. the structure is already emerging. the discipline is being seen on the streets of the capital and the rest of the country. while this is going on, the police, as it is training, is also facing the threat of terrorism and sacrificing daily at least four policemen a day are dying in afghanistan defending their country. at least four. that is the average we have taken. some days it has been bigger numbers.

the aspiration for the minister of defence and the minister of interior is to have our army and police reached together at least 300,000 that we have in mind. the minister of defense is asking for 400,000, of which i'm quite cautious about the cost in the future. we are trying to have the right numbers between 300,000 to 350,000. we will be concentrating more on policy and equipment rather than numbers. >> that brings up the question of the sustainable of 400,000 forces.

we have been describing the mineral wealth. you mentioned some time in the near future were afghanistan would be able to stand on its own feet. 400,000 troops will be expensive. >> if we keep going at the current speed of revenue collection -- and correct me. this year we had a 22% increase in our revenue collection. 50%? -- 58%? yesterday he said 22%. [laughter] sorry. 22%. if we move at this speed, within

three years, afghanistan will be able to pay for the existing numbers of security forces. within three years. will play military and police forces from our own pocket. that will be a tremendous achievement. it is a benchmark that i hope our ministers will keep strongly in mind so we can come back later to the united states and congress and say we have done it and we will be asking for investment and f-16's. [laughter] >> there is an afghan journalist i would like to call on. is it with us? yes. >> i am from india.

it is a problem to be working in washington. thank you, mr. president. what is the outcome of the triple? -- the outcome of the trip? you referred to a severe consequences of pakistan and what happens in the case of attacking the u.s. and having the footprint in pakistan. would you care to talk about that? qualify that? also to share your thoughts on the indian-pakistan meeting and how it will help you achieve the goal of defeating the taliban in pakistan?

>> sir, i will be taking back home quite a few achievements. one thing i will take back home is to tell the afghan people about this tremendously warm hospitality of the american people. we have to do a lot more in order to show we're also hospitable in afghanistan. second, on issues of concern to both countries, we have reached agreement on a range of issues. the most important were issues of the tensions and centers run by the coalition forces. we have agreed that there will be a transition of detention centers to the afghan of 30 of next year and that will be as

soon as we're in kabul and there will be both sides to the exact time line of the complete transfer of detention centers. the sentiment expressed his strong buy the president, by the secretary of state, by the defense secretary, and the vice president yesterday on civilian casualties and the desire for the protection of civilians was strong and very visible. the question of nighttime raids was raised and an instruction issued. the partnership, you heard, we both spoke. we have extensive engage on the

issue of agriculture and the viability and the ability to produce the best mineral resources and the richest of the country that can easily run of the knowledge we have today of the mineral resources to over $1 billion. it can be between $3 billion. $3 billion. $3 trillion. that is what men, $3 trillion -- that is what i meant, $3 trillion. this massive opportunity -- afghanistan -- these are all

very good messages that we can take back to afghanistan. the peace process and so on. >> with respect to the question that the gentleman asked me, i responded a great life to the interviewer on "60 minutes." i talked about the importance of the strategic relationship we are developing with pakistan, the fact that we have expanded our interactions far beyond the counter terrorism agenda which was basically what we inherited, that we are focused on trying to create a deeper understanding between our countries and that we have gone quite a distance in creating a better atmosphere. however, we are concerned about

the recent attack and other efforts that thankfully have not been successful, just as you heard president karzai say he was concerned. we have been encouraged by the way the pakistani government has been much more willing to go after the terrorists who are not only threatening outsiders but threatening them, the military action. we think there is more that has to be done. we fear the consequences of a successful attack beckham be traced back to pakistan. we value a more comprehensive agreement. it is going well between our investigative bodies. there is a lot of effort that is being undertaken on the

pakistani side to provide information to our teams over here, and we just believe strongly that there is more that pakistan must do to face what is now a common enemy. the attacks by the extremist inside pakistan are no longer aimed across their borders. they are aimed at destroying and killing people in mosques, in markets, in every walk of society. this is of great concern to the american people. we think the concern is being reciprocated on the part of pakistan. >> we have time from one last question. all the way in the back. yes. >> if i could ask you to clarify

something. what did to me that since last week the approach to the kandahar operation has taken the right tone? did president obama or anyone else talk to you this week and ask you to sideline or fired your brother from his role in kandahar? do you believe it is appropriate for the united states to have an opinion on that? is see an obstacle to long-term success? >> since last week, the consequence that we have had, the efforts in kandahar has to be explained better. the majority of has to be explained better so we are not

calling it an operation. that would indicate a military operation. that is not the situation in kandahar. we are talking of process and it is only a change in terminology and for the right objective. the president did not raise the issue of my brother in kandahar. i raised it with him, to the satisfaction of both sides. even if i were to resort do firing or hiring -- afghanistan -- one elected cannot be fired by the president. they cannot fire me. i cannot fire them. that was not discussed.

issues that were raised in the american press or the european press have now been understood better by our u.s. counterparts. i am not going to go into further details on that. the issue is resolved as it stands now. >> i have nothing to add to that. the president talked about the kandahar operation. i have heard some of the commentary in anticipation of this and making it sound like it was going to be a massive military action, seizing the city, tanks rolling into the city. that is not the kind of operation that our military leaders believe is warranted the. they want to have a successful

counterinsurgency operation that does not destroy it kandahar in the efforts to save kandahar. as someone said to me, this is not fallujah. lessons have been learned since iraq. the people guiding this operation, like general petraeus and general mcchrystal, learned those lessons and iraq. i want the american press to be disabused. it is not what counterinsurgency is about. we're not fighting the afghan people. we are fighting a small minority, a ruthless extremist who are able to enlist young men like the president was referencing early for a variety

of reasons and send them out onto the battlefield. the goal is to help the people of kandahar recover the entire city to be able to put it to the use and the benefit of the people of kandahar. we have a lot of confidence in our afghan partners and our international coalition. >> i would like to president karzai and secretary of state couldn't for being with us today and would ask if everyone would remain in their seats while the president and secretary the depart. if members of the motorcade would also pleased the part so that we can have an orderly transition. thank you. [applause]

>> coming up in about 20 minutes, we will take you live to the president. president obama is expected to make some comments on the gulf oil spill. he is expected to of commons act 11:50 eastern. the house is coming in momentarily. no legislative business expected. that is coming up momentarily, scheduled for 11:30 eastern. at 1:00 p.m., it will take you to the national press club. thomas donahue will be speaking at the national press club today, talking about jobs creation. we will have that live for you.

thomas donahue coming up at 1:00 p.m., talking about jobs creation. u.s. house up next. no legislative business.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the

speaker. the clerk: thespeaker's rooms, washington, d.c., may 14, 2010, i hereby appoint the honorable lois to act as speaker pro tempore signed nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair -- the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, chaplain coughlin: lord god, you are our light and our salvation. your words contains wisdom for our growth and guides us in decisions, which shape the future penetrate new dimensions of ourselves and the world around us. you never cease how to learn from our mistakes and extend compassion and forgiveness to others. thank you lord our god for life and opportunity and that you are not finished with us yet. may we give you glory and thanks

giving both now and forever, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house its following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 3333, an act to extend the statutory license for secondary transmissions under title 17, united states

code and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 1067, an act to support stablization and peace in northern uganda in areas through development of a regional strategy to successfully protect civilians and eliminate the threat posed by the lord's resistance army and funds for reconstruction and transitional justice and information other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, i have the honor to transmit a sealed envelope received from the white house on friday, may 14, 2010, at 10:52 a.m. and said to contain a message from the president, whereby he submits a copy of a notice filed earlier with the federal register continuing the emergency with burma, first declared in executive order 13047 of may 20, 1997. with best wishes, i am signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states section 202 d

of the national emergencies act provides for the automatic termination of a until emergency unless prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. i have sent the enclosed notice to the federal register for publication stating that the burma emergency is to continue in effect beyond may 20, 2010. signed barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on may 14, 2010 at

10:11 a.m., that the senate passed senate 1132, that the senate passed with amendments h.r. 714, that the senate passed senate 2768, appointment harries truman scholarship, board of directors, with best wishes, i am signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house stands adjourned until 12:30 p.m., tuesday next, for morning hour >> next week's agenda on the house include science and technology and also breaks for the jobless benefits. the house is back on tuesday at 12:30 eastern for general

purposes. the senate continues debate today on the financial regulations bill. in number of amendments have passed. more amendment votes next week. follow the senate live on c- span2. president obama is meeting with his cabinet at the white house. they are talking about the response to the gulf oil spill. we expect to hear from the president and 11:50 eastern. we take you to the state department briefing. a gathering from different countries around the world. this is the first time a developing nation has ever posted the event. we will hear from john huntsman and we'll show you as much as we can until the president comes out at 11:50.

>> good morning and welcome. onre going to be briefed secretary clinton's upcoming visits and we will be joined by the commissioner. i will hand enough to ambassador huntsman to make some opening remarks. >> i am honored and delighted to be here. we just finished a session with secretary clinton going over several details of her trip to shanghai. it allowed me to reflect back recently where i had an opportunity to formally opened

our presence there, which was very exciting. i am pleased to report that the pavilion pass 400,000 visitors in may. we're expected to pass five under thousand visitors by sunday. -- we're expected to pass 500,000. we are among the most popular pavilions at the expo. you had to be there to appreciate what became a four- hour wait. it is a theme that speaks to the best of america. it speaks to innovation, diversity, creativity. it projects great enthusiasm. i know the secretary will enjoy it enormously. i want to thank the chinese

government for their hard work in organizing the 192 countries and countless organizations that are part of the expo. it has allowed us to participate in a meaningful and significant way in public and commercial diplomacy in ways that would otherwise be impossible. to put this in perspective, as it plays out, i guess the only way to properly describe it is it will likely be the biggest event that ever was with 70 million people funneling through the pavilion's during that time. it is an opportunity for the united states to hit a home run. the creation of jobs is so critical for us. we have about 70 student

ambassadors who were there to greet me the day and opens ied , all fluent in chinese and creating a wave after wave of visitor groups. they represent the best that america has to put on display. but most important is we have a unique opportunity to leave a lasting image. it is hard to quantify in any meaningful way the the fact that this will have on the younger generation of china who have never been to the united states. they are left with lasting impressions about who we are and what makes us americans. that is the one aspect of the u.s. pavilion that i think is so

powerful today and is going to resonate for many years to come. i am delighted that our public diplomacy efforts have been ratcheted up substantially by the ability to put on display at the best that america has to offer. none of it would have been possible without the good work of ambassador bagley and another from whom you will hear. ambassador backlick has critical information that allowed -- ambassador bagley kentucky all about it. i'll hand it over to elizabeth. thank you very much. >> think you at think you for all of your good work and important advocacy. we could not have done it without his advocacy and also

his trips to shanghai. we started this project -- we opened our office last june. we began -- my deputy is here. we have a small office but we are all dedicated to realizing the secretaries dream and that is to build this pavilion. we talked to the chinese. she made one of her first trips and met with the chinese and realize the importance of this for our bilateral relationship. we engage on a long journey, one that was quite fruitful. we have 61 -- we raised $61 million. we have a fabulous pavilion. i think it has been well received. the chinese keep coming through.

it reflects american diversity, opportunity, community service, sustainable development. one of the keys to american technology. we have the theme is better city, better life. rising to the challenge. it is the story of the american spirit. aou will see in act two, young girl sees an empty lot across from her apartment building and realizes she can plant a flower. people in the neighborhood come from various parts of the city and help her. the place is destroyed by storm

and a rebuild it. diversity is the essence of america. we are excited. we have commercial diplomacy. we will have a couple of events with our sponsors. our sponsors are invited to participate in a walk-through with secretary clinton on saturday and also a dinner that we will have for them that evening. beyond that, it really is six months. we have until october and we will be doing a series of partnership events. this is the first private private partnership our office has done and one that is helpful

to develop better relationships with their private partners, and we will be doing more with them and other themes like food security and water, but with shanghai, we will have the opportunity to bring them and, to have them participate with other chinese and 192 countries. they will have the opportunity to work with other countries and other officials from other countries moving in. we have a vip lounge. we have a fabulous nacional day, national day weekend and we will have harry connick sr. and other

celebrities coming to celebrate our national day and to provide more insights into the american culture and way of life. it is a unique opportunity. we're excited about this. it is good for commercial diplomacy as we talked about and as the secretary cares so much about american exports, american jobs, and to improve and enhance our relationship with their counterparts around the world. we're excited and excited and jose, our ambassador is here and i will turn it over to him as well. >> thank you. you summarize the status of our project quite well.

i arrived here a couple of weeks ago to assume my role as commissioner general and i was honored the day prior to the opening of the expo to host the president's, who honored us with a visit. the student embassadors were invited to help me welcome him and it was quite a special beginning. the u.s. pavilion presidents was accompanied by the vice premier a day later, the foreign minister visited us and there has been a stream of dignitaries from china and from throughout the world who have visited us over the last couple of weeks. it is amazing that we have already had about 400,000

visitors. we knew based on the surveys that have been conducted prior to the opening of the expo that we would be among the most popular pavilions and certainly our experience over the last couple of weeks has bore that out. our lines are still quite consistently long. there is a weight of up to three hours. there has been some comical incidents. you had one of the volunteers from a neighboring billion with a bullhorn in encouraging people in our lines to come over there and say their weight was only 12 minutes but ours was 30 hours. that was an exaggeration but it is clear that entrance to our pavilion is quite intense.

i think the visitors have enjoyed the presentation in the pavilion. we have a secret weapon in the student ambassadors. they have become quite a hit. they are celebrities. people take their pictures with them. all of these students are fluent in mandarin and are able to speak with our visitors. for many, these are the first americans that they have ever met. it has been quite a positive experience having the student ambassadors. they are quite creative and entrepreneurial. a number of them have been practicing dance routines. they have begun dancing to the

michael jackson "thriller" soon and that has gone the visitors very excited. ray lahood was with us today with a delegation. he is the first of many senior u.s. officials who will be visiting us both at the federal level and at the state and local level. we have had a number of delegations visit already. that will continue throughout the six months. it has been a very, very successful first two weeks. we look forward to continued success. it is a very exciting project. it is a source of great pride for all of us representing the united states to have been

received with such enthusiasm by the chinese and by people from throughout the world who are visiting our pavilion. if there are any questions, i will be happy to answer them, as i am sure that the other ambassadors would. >> think you very much. do you want to open up the questions -- banthank you very much. >> do you have any idea how many non-chinese have visited? >> should i answer that? the overwhelming majority are chinese. there are -- it is a fairly modest number who are non- chinese. i think that's it is clear to

everyone that this event, while global in nature, is as much an event for the chinese as it is for anybody. somebody made the point in comparing the world expo to the olympics, saying the olympics is a global event and gives the host country an opportunity or gives visiting countries the opportunity to participate in a major event and the hose country has an opportunity for other countries to participate to talk about themselves with respect to the chinese visitors. i think this very much is the case here.

most of the visitors are chinese and it gives us and other countries an opportunity to speak directly to them. i would say the overwhelming number of visitors are chinese. >> what is it that is making this so popular? are you giving away so food? why are people waiting in line for three hours to get into this? there is a great spirit of innovation. there has to be something else that is making people wait that long to get in. >> i think part of it is curiosity. i think is an opportunity -- is a source of great pride for the chinese people. in the glorybasking of this monumental historic

event, as ambassador huntsman pointed out. this might be the most widely event attended in human history. so i think, is an effect that is a once-in-a-lifetime event that there will not want to mess. i think that generates a certain level of energy and again, the curiosity that it gives ordinary visitors an opportunity to learn a little bit about countries that they have never visited. our student ambassadors are some of the first americans that many of our visitors have ever met. i think the curiosity factor is quite compelling.

>> i was hoping to ask the ambassador question about the human rights dialogue. can you talk at all about what specific cases the u.s. is racing? and what you expect the chinese to do in the future? this has been the way the state department has been going. they talk about whether these talks are worthwhile going into these talks? these are -- are these internal matters >> i will let michael answer that. my participation yesterday at the end would leave me to conclude that this is an important dialogue.

the president described this as a positive collaborative. what we're seeing play out here is indeed reflective of the comprehensiveness of the relationship. we're talking about that. it is a sign of maturity that we can talk about. we can talk about issues relating to the law, religion, labor, in ways that reflect who we are and carry on a dialogue. you'll hear more from michael dell will likely see through some projects over the next 12 months that will see the dialogue result in more than just a dialogue, rather activities going forward. >> can you give us some sense

of your top priorities, what you hope to accomplish? >> there will be a briefing very soon about all of the specifics. but you have to conclude that jobs and economic vitale will be a centerpiece. china is going through an historic transformation. the great social safety nets that allow them to go to the consumer-based system. we are exporting more to china. i can say that china was no word on list of top export destinations for a western state represented. jobs and the facilitation of

trade and economics will be an important part to this. i am giving you a very general theme. you have the economic component. there will be individual priorities that you will be briefed on in just a couple of days. >> i have a follow-up question. i know you had a meeting with geithner yesterday. what message did to get regarding the currency issue? >> secretary geithner

>> is a very important opportunity to frame the relationship and to articulate the relationship going forward. we have disagreements on some issues, but we have disagreements -- but we had agreement on others. this is the opportunity to define that specificity. >> i was wondering if you can -- you have a recent statement about satellite google. you say the president barack

obama administration [unintelligible] >> can you clarify that? >> you have a statement that obama administration [unintelligible] china's core interests. >> that was a couple of months passed. that is history. i was simply describing that time, january, a fabric, and march. we're now into what i think is a difference -- january, february, and march. we are now into what i think is a different phase of the relationship.

>> can you talk about the meetings of government officials in china? >> it is quite a lengthy list. it is still evolving, but you can imagine meetings at the highest levels. i will wait until the formal briefing lay out the exact -- to lay out the exact meetings that will be taking place. >> we will be going to shanghai, of course. we will be meeting with civilians as well. we may be meeting with some officials from beijing as well. we're looking at that right now. we do not know yet. >> who is next door to the u.s.

pavilion? >> we have a latin american -- >> which pavilion was going to have the waiters in line? >> i do not know. >> i can tell you our three neighbors are. brazil, colombia, peru. but i am not going to buy -- i am not going to point the finger at any particular country. >> will you be addressing any human rights issues while you are there? >> wait until we have the official briefing. you will hear more about the complete schedule at that point. >> thank you. [no audio]

>> this is the rose garden of the white house. president barack obama has been meeting with cabinet officials and other officials about the government's response to the gulf oil spill. we expect to hear from president barack obama shortly. new reports indicate that the amount of oil flowing from the sea floor may be larger than original estimates. the president was due out about 15 minutes ago. we will have this alive when it gets under way. the chief executive of bp, tony hayward, said today that the oil spill is "relatively tiny" compared with quotes at the very big ocean -- "the very big ocean." we will have the hearing before the senate committee live at 2:30 p.m. eastern on monday. we'll also hear from secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano.

until then, a look at items in the news and your comments from today's "washington journal." is indeed politico this morning. this is in the "dallas morning news" on wednesday.

here is eric cantor, a minority whip, and sponsor of this idea, and steny hoyer. >> let's stop the spending now. that is why we started and launched the "you cut" program. if you are interested in incremental, modest steps, fine, join us in that. but stop the spending, mr. speaker. >> i do not want to get too personal on this, but what do you think about cutting spending for the high-speed rail between richmond and washington? >> i would say to the gentleman, i have always, way before we have even encountered the stimulus bill, supported job generating projects. the studies in the metropolitan area from which i come and represent, va., could grow 165,000 jobs without cutting

investment. but when we are looking at some of the items that we are discussing here on the "you cut" option, these are options that are not for debate. , these are options that are niceties. host: what do you think about the gop you cut program. is it a good idea or a gimmick? the numbers are on the screen. what do you think here are a couple of things that have already been posted. that have en posed to the iran eric cantor's blogging, or on the representatives aside. "z

and this is some of the thgs -- these are some of the things that the gop has proposed cutting on their site, and include taxpayer subsidized union activies, is how they phrase it. the $600 million in savings. should they also be subsidized by the taxpayer for their official functions? and some comments that have come in on you tube from citins include proposing budget and

staff cuts by 90% as a beginning. another one -- trying to do this piecemeal will just generate the usual "what about me" mentality. what do you think about this? waynesboro, north carolina, your first up. good morning. caller: good morning, i do not trust the republican cuts, executive because i'm not sure they will not revert back to their old habit of spending from a deficit surplus to trillion dollar deficit. i think it is for political gain, to gain seats in the house, etc., and i do not believe they have been genuine.

they have done this as well behind closed ors. and in the future, i hope that they will actually think aout the american people. when you start talking about cutting spendg, you are talking about dispensing pain. and they have not done enough research to do it adequately. they have just done something willy-nilly and we are supposed to accept it. host: wendell, mass., claude, a democrat. caller: first to live like to put out there what i have learned on c-span this week. i have learned that the government prevailing wage is $79 an hour plus extremely generous benefits. i think i would be something, from the trash guide to the president, $79 per hour. -- from the trashman to the

president, 7 $9 per hour. -- $79 per hour. and as an aside, believe the yuko it should be retroactive maybe eight years back. -- the you cut should be retroactive maybe years back. host: hanover, pa., tom, what do you think? caller: the democratic senator from new york yesterday was saying that even with the stimulus package that they garden, only 50 policemen fell under the heading of receiving some of it and they have less policeman -- fewer policemen now in new york than they did during the world trade center bombg and with these attached to a tax there are fewer policeman. -- with these attempted attacks there are fewer policemen.

that makes me feel safe. host: next call comes from male falls, texas, shirley, on the democrats line. what do you think about this tax cut? caller: i do not believe anything the des moines -- the republican said. they have done nothing this past zero year except to try to keep the democrats from doing anything -- this past year, except to try to keep the democrats from doing anything at all. i think the democrats are doing anything they can do to create jobs and keep this country going and i wish the republicans would shut up. host: your ok with federal spending the way it currently is? caller: yes, i am. host: newberry, south carolina, independent line, what do you think?

caller: i think they >> we take you live to the white house and president barack obama. >> good afternoon, everybody. i have been meeting with my cabinet and officials about efforts to stop the bp oil spill. i want to give the american people an update on these efforts. i also want to underscore the seriousness and urgency of this crisis. the potential devastation to the gulf coast, the economy and its people, requires us to continue our relentless efforts to stop the leak and contain the damage. there has already been a loss of life, and damage to our coastline, the fish, the like -- the wildlife, and the livelihood of everyone from fishermen to hotel owners to restaurateur's. i have seen the frustration and

anger myself, and it is an anger and frustration i share as president. i am not going to rest or be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil in the gulf is cleaned up, and the people of the gulf are able to go back to their lives and their livelihoods. the most important order of business is to stop the leak. i know there have been varying reports over the last couple of days about how large the leak is, but since no one can get down there in person, we know there is a level of uncertainty. our mobilization and response efforts have always been geared toward the possibility of a catastrophic event. what really matters is this, there is oil leaking and we need to stop it. we need to stop as soon as possible. with that source being 5,000 ft. under the ocean's circus, this has been extremely difficult. , this has surface been extremely difficult. scientists and engineering

experts are working to contain it as quickly as possible. our second task is to help the people who live in the gulf coast. we are using every available resource to stop the oil from coming ashore. over 1 million ft. of barrier booms have been deployed to keep the oil back. hundreds of thousands of dispersants have been used to help break up the oil. about four million gallons of oil freed water have been recovered. 30,000 people have been mobilized to protect the shoreline and its wildlife, as has a the national guard. this week, congress provided legislation to provide us with additional resources. what i ask for prompt action on this legislation. it would help with cleanup effort, provide unemployment assistance and job training to folks whose jobs are affected by this crisis, and it would help the region's economic recovery. that is why this legislation is

important. it would also help ensure that companies like bp who are responsible for oil spills are the ones who pay for the costs incurred by these oil spills, not the taxpayers. this is in addition to the low interest loans that we have made available to small businesses that are suffering financial losses from the spill. let me also say, by the way, a word about bp and the other companies involved in this mess. i note bp has committed to pay for the response, and we will hold them to their obligation. i have to say though, i did not appreciate what i considered to be a ridiculous spectacle during the congressional hearings into this matter. the executives of bp, transocean and halliburton were falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else. the american people could not have been impressed with that display, and i certainly was not. i'm understand that there are

legal and financial issues involved, and a full investigation will tell us what happened. but it is very clear that the system failed and it failed badly. for that, there is enough responsibility to go around, and all parties should be willing to accept it. that includes, by the way, the federal government. for too long, for a decade or more, there has been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agencies that permit them to drill. it seems as if a permit or too often issued based on a little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies. that cannot and will not happen anymore. to borrow an old phrase, we will trust but we will verify. from the day he took office as interior secretary, can salazar recognize these problems, and he has worked to -- ken salazar recognized these problems, and he has worked to solve them.

oftentimes he has been slammed by the industry for try to create reforms that would impede them economically. well, as i just told him, we are going to keep on going to do what needs to be done. i have asked secretary salazar to conduct a top to bottom reform of the mineral management services. this week he announced that the part of the agency which permit oil and gas drilling will be separated from the part of the agency in charge of inspecting the safety of oil rigs and platforms and enforcing the law. that way there is no conflict of interest, real or perceived. he has also ordered immediate inspections of all deepwater operations in the gulf of mexico. no permits for drilling new wells will go forward until a 30 day safety and environmental review that i requested is completed. we are also closing the loophole that has allowed some oil companies to bypass critical

environmental reviews. today, we are announcing a new examination of the environmental procedures for oil and gas development and exploration. as i said before, domestic oil drilling continues to be one part of an overall energy strategy that now includes more clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency than at any other time in our history. but it is absolutely essential that going forward we put in place every necessary safeguard and protection so that a tragedy like this oil spill does not happen again. this is a responsibility that all of us share. the oil companies' share it. the manufacturers of the equipment sherrod. the agencies and the federal government in charge of oversight share that responsibility. i will not tolerate more finger- pointing for irresponsibility. the people of the gulf coast need our help, and they deserve nothing less than for us to stand up and do whatever is necessary to stop this bill, prevent further damage, and

compensate those who have been harmed already. that is our job. is also our job to make sure that this kind of mess does not happen again. it is the job we have been doing. it is the job we will continue doing until this bill is passed, the gulf is cleaned up, and everyone is compensated. >> thank you very much. president barack obama coming out of a meeting with a number of cabinet officials. you can see kenneth salazar there as well as janet napolitano. some fairly strong words from the president for the federal government reaction and the reaction of the companies involved. we would like to get your reaction to what you heard from the president and what you have seen done by the federal government as well as what you have heard this week from a number of the officials who have testified in several hearings before congress. here are the numbers. 202-585-3886 if you are a

democrat. 202-585-3886 if you are a republican. 202-585-3887 if you are an independent. we are going to show you some of the hearings again over the weekend. you can also take a look on our website, c-span.org. they are in the video library. all of the hearings from the past week are there. the president made this statement tuesday after a report from several of -- a report from several news organizations that the amount of oil spelling could be far more than has been reported. we have calls waiting. elisabeth from las vegas. go ahead. >> good morning. i can hardly believe i made it through. all i have to say is thank god.

thank god that president barack obama has come out and, with a strong voice that he did about regulation, it is so important in at the world today. i am so thankful that he was so strong in saying that. i hope that everyone will rally around him and try to protect the environment. it is our moral responsibility. thank you for taking my call. basically, that is all i had was a comment. i am so thankful that we have a leader who is leading for the first time in a very, very long time. this is for all of the people and not just the chosen few. >> of our republican line next. this is george in florida. >> good afternoon. i was an advocate -- i wanted drilling i really did. i have to admit that i was wrong. in the republican.

i do not expect in fallibility, but until they can find a safe way of drilling, i am against it. i was remiss in my first thought. >> you heard the president speak about finger-pointing. was that your view of things when you heard from the heads of companies this past week? >> i think the fingerpointing should be inward toward republicans. we make mistakes just like everybody else by insisting on drilling. but the companies, absolutely, the companies must have known the risks that they were taking. look, florida is going to get killed through the tourism industry, the fishing industry, along with louisiana and a lot of other gulf states. someone has to stay -- someone has to pay for that. is going to be the oil companies. >> let's here from los angeles on the democrats' line. >> i just want to say that i am glad the president came out and was so adamant about how ridiculous all of the companies

in question looked at the hearings. i mean, it was almost like a bad sitcom, if you will. i want him to follow through, because this is something that can be a disaster that can continue for years. it just seems like everyone involved in the cleanup, it has been ridiculous. now they're going to be throwing golf balls in there or something. like i said, it is almost like a really bad sitcom. i hope that the government just really comes down on them like a hammer, because this is something that ruins people's lives and all of the wildlife for years to come. >> we have covered a number of the hearings in the past week and we will give you a chance to see them this weekend. you can also check our website for the video library. they are all there. there is another one coming up on monday. we will hear from janet napolitano as well as the president of bp america. also, this note from the associated press a while ago.

the head of massey energy will face lawmakers next week for the first time since that explosion killed 29 workers at the upper branch mine in west virginia. he will testify next week before a senate subcommittee. we will keep you posted on possible coverage of that hearing. let's hear from rick, an independent in illinois. >> the thing that baffles me about this whole thing is perhaps -- is that we troubleshoots the many different things with technology and everything, how did they not anticipate this type of tragedy happening and, how did they not, you know, engineer in devices that would prevent this? i know they had a blowout preventer, but they should have had some sort of back up. >> in his brief comments, the president said that all parties should accept blame, including

the federal government. president -- vice president joe biden has said that the oversight was as bad as he thought it was. next caller. >> if we would build more fuel- efficient cars, make it aerodynamically smooth like the airplane has been for 100 years, we would lower our wind resistance, drag. also, we could have fuel efficient carburetors that totally vaporize the gasoline before it come busts -- it combusts, an increase our fuel efficiency tenfold. >> and charles is a republican in lexington, ky. what is your view? >> i do not understand why they

are not just dropping a bunch of hoses writedowns where the leak is and stopping where the leak is coming from -- right down where the leak is and stopping the league right where it is coming from. >> it sounds like you may have some knowledge in this area. are you an engineer? >> no. surely they can drop hoses down. somebody else suggested a 10 ft. diameter cloth to the goes to the surface and then the oil just goes through that and you come straight through that at whatever debt you need to. -- depth you need to. >> next up from our independent line in georgia, this is cleo.

>> all of this falls in the hands of the socialists who are trying to take over our government and the whole world, because the well is one of white, 3500 in the gulf? it is -- is one of what, 3500 into the gulf, it could have been sabotaged. >> pill in particular do you think would want to sabotage it? >> the socialists. >> bill in particular -- who in particular are the socialists? >> terrorist. democrats, republicans and independents who call themselves moderate. all of them are doing away with our country. it is not a democracy.

but anyway, i am just so frustrated. i am 80 years old and i served in the korean war that harry up for theigged economy. but anyway -- >> well, we welcome your views. next on the democrats' line. >> i think this just shows how incompetent our president is, president barack obama. he never ran a business. he thinks he can run the automobile industry. he thinks he can run the financial industry. now he thinks he can run the oil industry. the man has never worked a day in his life to turn a profit. he was a community organizer. he needs to resign. >> o'leary in palms, new mexico, on our republican line. welcome. >> as somebody who does work in the oil industry, i do applaud

the effort that is going on. all three companies should take responsibility for their actions, but more importantly on how to stop this bill, why hasn't anybody moved another drink rick reed -- another and used rig in theire that to plug the hole? >> it is my understanding that they are trying to drill an alternate well. >> why hasn't the effort then taken to move and new drilling and run the pipe down the open casing whole and fill it? >> in your experience in terms of the oil-drilling, is this the worst explosion or spill you have ever seen? >> i have seen a lot of spills.

i have seen a lot of blowouts. the first thing you do in a blow out is you run pipe back down the hole and seal it off. >> one more call. let's go to detroit. democrats line, this is quincy. >> i want to say that we are too critical on each other. we are too judgmental on each other. at this particular juncture in this particular situation, we need to put more focus and efforts towards the solution. what the problem is, we will find that out later. the finger-pointing, who is responsible, we will find that all later. right now we need to put our focus on the solution and solution finding. >> thank you for all of your calls. will have a chance to see the president's comment later in our schedule again. coming up on monday, another

hearing. homeland security secretary janet napolitano will testify as will the chairman and president of bp america. there will be live coverage here on c-span monday at two 30 p.m. -- 2:30 pm. >> watch the hearings on the oil spill or look back at the hearings from the exxon spill on the c-span library. search it, watch it, click it and share it. every program since 1987 is available free online. >> just a programming updates. in under one half an hour we will take you live to the national press club. the head of the u.s. chamber of commerce, thomas donohue will be speaking. also coming up, a review of the

u.s. supreme court moderated by elena kagan. >> supreme court nominee an elena kagan is meeting with senators in advance of her confirmation hearing. learn more about the process and the nation's highest court in c- span latest book, "the supreme court," candid conversations with all of the justices, asserting and retired. it is available in hardcover, and also as an e-book. >> we will go to the national press club at 1:00 p.m. eastern time. until then, more from today's "washington journal." michael sheehan is the former deputy commissioner for countyourism for the new york police department. he is also a former ambassador at large for canada terrorism for the state department. mr. sheehan -- for counter- terrorism for the state department.

mr. sheehan, if you could, give us the operation to find fisa shahzad's co-conspirators -- faisal shahzad's co- conspirators. guest: he gave an indication of a of two things, that number one, he had money coming in from training camps in pakistan and that there were others of the training camps there. the main objectives were to find his context here and there. they're starting to make arrests dot -- his contacts kiron there. they're starting to make arrests. host: is it going well? guest: it is. he is talking. they have leads on his phones and computers. host: what kind of tools as the nypd and the fbi, etc., have and what kind of tools you think

they should have to prevent domestic terrorism? guest: i have written extensively about what i think is the most important tool to prevent terror attacks in the united states, and that his intelligence. investigations is a term and basically, it is the type of thing that you will see on television against organized crime. and what do we use to break up mons? we use informants, undercover operations, wiretaps. you have to penetrate an organization to bring it down. building walls are around our savoy'and around times square is impossible. -- aroundour subways and around times square is impossible. host: did the patriot act give us more tools? guest: not only that, but it a clarified for law enforcement what it could do. it opens things up for investigation, which was a very sensitive thing.

those rules were somewhat blurry and the patriot act clarified its so that the fbi and the nypd could open up an investigation against someone plotting violence against americans. host: was one thing that they do not have right now that you would like to seeaw enforcement have as a tool? guest: i think at a lot of authorities were gen to wiretaps for investigations after 9/11 and i think it has swan -- the pendulum has swung back a little bit in the other direction out. i think that -- the other direction now. i think that they need to have these operations in a responsible way. st: we are talking about preventing domestic terrorism with michael sheehan.

the numbers are on the screen. please allow days between your calls. mr. sheehan, my guess is that when you talked about investigating intelligence the intelligence level, worried about civil liberties. guest: our governnt does not have the power to intrude without very careful boundaries into our private lives. they are not allowed to look over our shoulderlooked in our computers, listen to our phones without probable cause. at the same time, organizations that are quite frankly tequilas in large numbers, we have to protect ourselves -- are quite frankly, looking to kill us in large numbers, we have to protect ourselves.

host: and ere are cameras in times square. we will do a segment later about this on the program. are those cameras here -- helpful? guest: wherever we have cameras in new york city it has been shown to have a a drug crime in the area. it is a deterrent -- it has shown to haveropped crime in the area. it is a deterrent. and for terrorism is important because it is a bit of a deterrent. and if they are successful, at least you can roll up the organization that is plotting the attack and prevent them from doing it aain. but cameras by themselves, or alert t-shirt vendors and an alert public will not prevent a well-organized, well cstructed bomb from being exploded in times square. you have to get at the organization before it puts the bomb out there. host: from what you know about the faisal shahzad case, what

could have prevented him from driving that suv into times square? anything? guest: nothing, and nor should we have prevented that from happening. we live in an open society. it is an open place. we want nyc to be open. tourists from investors, people living and working there, i live on the island of manhattan. we cannot shut ourselves within our walls. and we cannot allow terrorists to make us lock ourselves up. you cannot prevent someone from driving a car anywhere in the u.s. perhaps you have walls around the capital here in washington, but we live in an open society. host: good that man have been caught -- could that man have been caught, or followed? guest: i have been very critical of intelligence failures. for instance, -- in this case, i

do not see a bakdown in intelligence. this guy was operating below their radar. seemingly by himself here in the u.s. he had some support in pakistan, but it does not seem to be part of the big structure. i do not see many failures he, but you have to continue to be aggressive to keep guys like this from becoming part of a more complex organization. is profiling, in your view, it -- an important part guest: of this profing -- is profiling, in your view, an important part of this? guest: profiling is a

controversial term, but of course we employed profiling. police of one out of line at the airport for a closer review, that is profiling. do we profiled american citizens? that is a difficult term. we do not. but you might have behavial profiling. racial profiling by ethnic profile in, that can be a dangerous turn -- a dangerous path to go down. but when i was with the nypd, i always provided by -- always reminded my detectives that the biggest killer before 9/11 was timothy mcveigh. you cannot profiled some sort of person. you have to give up their organizations and people plotting new violence and not just get lazy and try to profile. host: michael sheehan is a

graduate of west point, a tired lieutenant colonel, served the white house under three national security advisers and two presidents, former ambassador a large for the state, and assistant peacekeeping operations secretary general for the u.n. currentlywhat are you doing? guest: currently, i work with pele to train them on terror -- counter-terrorism and things. and i'd do care to terrorism -- and i do counter terrorism of west point as well. host: anthony in arizona, your honor with mr. sheehan. go ahead. mr. sheehan is reconnecting his

microphone. i will listen in natu that we year. caller: thank you for the opportunity to pass on an ad -- to pass on a suggestion that i have. based on my experience, the most significant way to defend against domestic terrorism is a is to infiltrate. guest: i absolutely agree. i think it is the key way. these are the intellence instruments their use. infiltrate by putting informants, undercover agents, and then you get the authority to listen to their phones and wiretaps. that is the bread and butter, the blocking and tackling of infiltrating a terrorist organization, organized crime, or narcotics whatever.

host: it is it -- is a different situation en it is combating domestic terrorism? guest: it is, and the reason it is more politically sensitive than organized crime or narcotics trafficking is that often, you might be looking at people that may just be a political dissidents. they may be angry at the government and they are allowed to be angry at the government. you are allowed to express their frustration and you are allowed to meet with people to express that. what you're not allowed to do is to meet with people and expressed the frustration and plot violence against people or property. you have to be very careful when you are looking at people not to just look at political protest, which is a cherished right, verses a criminal act, whi is a conspiracy to couct of violence. and that is difficult, to deter someone before the crime. in law enforcement, you go after someone that has already committed a crime.

that is why it is politically sensitive. . . the department of homeland security was saying to the american people, we are trying to protect you from all of these terrorists coming from afghanistan and other places, but it seems like the entire operation has been slung around on all of the people. the court has demonized patriot and others. it seems like, more and more, this country is becoming like george orwell's "1984." i do not think you guys are going to stop until you have big brother on every city and corner in the country. >> i do not think it is that stark. i, for one, am trying to prevent

people from having body scans or locking down society. the fact of the matter is the, as i mentioned before, the shooter who was the second largest killer of americans was in oklahoma city. they have a very determined in theology -- ideology and they want to do a lot of harm. that is the number one threat. the people i know in the federal government, includin the department of homeland security, understands that. host: next call comes from riverside, ohio, a democrat, go ahead. caller: thank you for all that you do to protect our country and americans. you had the former head of the cia on. i've read a lot about what

mcgovern has said, as well as the 9/11 commission on what took place. we have heard over and over again, and i do not want to make any excuses for people using violence to deal with problems, but i've also gone on line and listened to the fellowwho blew up our cia agents in afghanistan. he did a videotape of why he was doing this. we have heard over and over again that the israeli palestinian conflict is one of the root causes for the anchoger that many of these people feel, as well as our military bases on their land.

guest: there are many motivations on what drives a terrorist to act against us. they have been doing this a long time. this started in 1993 when it blew up the world trade center. they blew up our embassies in 1998. there's a long history of action here. and of course, our forces overseas, their political problems. they have a religious justification, which is really a twisting of islam for their own justification and use of violence. in this case, you'd see a personal issue, whether it's financial issues, sexual issues, problems with identity, and you

find three things normally come together. political anchor, religious justification, and some personal issue that drives them into terrorism. they drive into this narrative bin laden uses. he will move those issues around. if there's any one thing that we can do that will appease this group of people. host: is the pakistan issued a problem? the fact that the latest group from times square seems to be coming from pakistan? guest: pakistan has always been a problem. 1993, world trade center bombing, the guy came from pakistan and went back to pakistan after the attack. caliche momthe 9/11 bomber camem

pakistan. yes, pakistan is a big problem. london, the subway bombings in london in 2005 -- pakistan. it's been a problem for a long time and remains a problem. right now, that is where al- qaeda is, in western pakistan. there's a group of organizations over their their their very prominent -- over there that are very prominent. host: as the u.s. needed domestic police force in pakistan? guest: i do not think so. the fbi is in charge of all these investigations. i've certainly had my issues with the fbi when i was at nypd. at the end of the day, we work very well together. i think the fbi has made great strides since 9/11 in shifting its culture to be one more on intelligence as opposed to investigation, trying to prevent

a crime, rather than going after the criminals after some type of crime. now have to get in front of the crimin activity. i think they made progress. i would not recommend changing the structure. host: we will get a perspective from south dakota. guest: there were hearings a couple months ago on the unrwear bomber. the spokesman for the pentagon, patrick kennedy, admitted that the underwear bombing was an intelligence operation. the more you look into all these different terrorist activities, we see some intelligence involved. do you want to kp us in a continuous state of fear? th's what i think seems to be happening here. guest: i'm not sure what you mean by intelligence operation. i have tried in my wo, and i've written a book about

terrorism, and i've been a long advocate of not overreacting. terrorism is an act of the weak. it is an act of people who attack people of innocence in order to attack our psyche. we should never allow them to do that. we never overreact to the attack. it's a tragedy when people die from a terrorist attack. we should never allow them to turn our eyes upside-down when they do not merit that. host: tweet for you. guest: this is an issue -- if you had 10 true terrorism experts, if you put five on one side and five on the other, i would be on the side that it matters to have osama bin laden.

if we knock him out tomorrow, would al-qaeda fall apart? no. would it matter if we took he and his deputies out of the question? i think it would be a major important step. host: james, independent line, you were on with michael sheehan. caller: as formally with the anti-terrorism division of the new york police department, i wonder, in terms of the tremendous amount of money and legacy cost that i see wasted toward the industry of protecting us from domestic terrorism, i see the police checking trucks on the roads. all the truckers who i know say

the police have absolutely no idea what they're looking for. it is all a straight. when i see police cars sitting on the bridges of new york, the police are usually sitting there reading the books for the next police exams, or reading the newspaper. is this all a charade? how much of the percentage of anti-terrorism money is being spent on such strcharades? guest: i've never been a huge fan of action such as spot checks and stopping of vehicles as a major way to prevent terrorism. the nypd does a lot of stops all the time for a variety of reasons. somemes it is safety. sometimes it is smuggling of illegal goods into the state. it is certainly not a panacea. we do need to have certain spot checks, certain patrols out there,ut understand that those things are not what is going to

protect us. what does protect us is those investigators who are trying t penetrate the organizations before they load up a truck bomb. certainly, having a truck stop every once in awhile at a main artery is not a good way to stop it. the amount of money spent on the detectives were investigating this is minor in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars that have been spent, wastefully spent in my view, since 9/11 by the federal government. host: john in quincy, illinois. caller: there's aoman by the name of jane graham. she witnessed five people at the oklahoma explosion. there were two military men -- she called yellow sticks of

butter. host: what is the point? caller: whysn't anything done about this. you can see a ytube picture. host: you're suggesting that the u.s. military blew up oklahoma city? caller: no i'm not saying anything. there's a lot of odd things. six of the 10 commissioners say is a cover up. host: conspiracy theories? guest: they are found in everything. i often talk to people who complain that overseas, many in the erarab world many people think the cia blew up the towers at 9/11. conspiracy theories are a natural thing to try to explain the unexplainable. how did these horrible things happen? most of the congressional investigations on oklahoma city

and on 9/11 have been done very professionally. if i thought there is anything wrong, i would be screaming about it. i'm not trying to protect anybody except the american people. i thought those investigations were very thorough. host: this is from "the daily news." what is washington thinking? there's a new formula out there. guest: i think our entire federal government needs to be cut. i'm not an expert -- i am a terrorism expert. i spent 30 years in the u.s. government and i've seen a tremendous amount of waste in all of government.

i have seen it at all levels. i think we spend entirelyoo much money. it's very diffilt to shrink a bureaucracy. i think the obama administration is cutting people. that is great. i hope they would set priorities. certain cities -- yes, i am from new york. i believe that a couple of the big cities are the terrorist targets. they should get an amnt of priority spending. unfortunately, that is not how the congress works. it is spread around to everybody in terms of congressional power. host: the front page of "the new york times" this morning. using a drone to kill a suspected terrorist overseas in another country? guest: this is troubling. when i was trying to chase down bin laden