can you tell me about how old you think there is has affected the obama agenda, and thank you so guest: that is an excellent point. there will always be some tension between the political appointees at the top of the agencies and the career people. they came and under the bush administration. how that plays out might make it not a 50-yard line deal. i did do with how they want to centralize power in the white house. we have not talked about the real tension between the president and the pentagon brass in afghanistan.

host: we have to talk about how he gets along with the generals and the congress. there is the market closely story. story.martha coke's ple she said, who will want to stand outside fenway park. "tell me she did not say that. we have to leave stories for people to pick up the book. dressing down the chairman of the joint chiefs. guest: 3:00 a.m. health care meeting. host: you will have to read those stories for yourself in "the promise: president obama, year one."

jonathan alter is the author. in progress is an event that started with lawrence eagleburger and is called the center for oceans policy and is sponsored by the university of virginia school of law and they're talking about protecting national security when it comes to the oceans and protecting the oceans. we're joining this panel in progress. there are some vice admiral who sit on this panel. this is on enhancing u.s. security. senator lisa murkowski will be the keynote speaker. she's the ranking member of the senate energy committee. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we continue to remain outside the legal agreement to to the efforts of the opposition who argue ratification would harm americans interest treat these arguments are simply not true. a careful review and the plain text of the treaty make this clear. critics argue we do not need this because we enjoy the protection and benefits under customary law. this argument ignores serious risk. in 1983, president reagan said the united states would act in

accordance with the use of the ocean. navigational freedoms were recognized by other states. we have asserted our navigational rights based on customary usage. it reflects the current customs and practices of navigation. as they alter their conduct and seek to change the law of the seas, we are at a disadvantage. to prevent excessive claims, we only have two options -- diplomatic protests and fun-ops. we send our ships into disputed areas.

this further tests our resources and risks escalating tensions unnecessarily. we want another risk by standing on the sidelines. the written provisions and they can be agreed to change. in the current form, it represents the best possible case for the united states national interests. the results could not be more favorable to the united states and they could be less favorable to the united states. we need to be on the field when these matters are discussed. we should maintain our freedom and help shape the development of international law.

detractors point to the dispute resolutions, claiming service members would be subject to international tribunals. i would not be sitting here today, nor would any predecessors support the cause if we thought our service members would be subjected to international tribunals. as you have heard, this is not some position the department takes. military leaders support the convention because it is good for our national defense. a letter to the chairman and foreign relations, every service chief was clear in their support for the convention. in the defense report, the department of defense urged

that. the current and prior secretary of state and president clinton and george bush expressed bipartisan support, joining the convention as a non-partisan matter, as does president obama. the only thing that could hurt our national interest is remaining a non-party. this will lock in the rights and freedoms necessary for our navy success. this will reassert our rightful place as a leader in maritime law. participating in the convention will provide clearly define mechanisms for confronting excess of maritime claims. affirming our commitment will facilitate the partnerships that

are critical to our operation. this will provide our men and women the most solid legal footing possible as they execute their missions around the globe. [applause] >> think you. -- thank you. before we opened it up to the floor, somehow this is the devil's advocate but it reflects the issues that have been thrown back at me as i have tried to put in gauge the conservative base -- i have tried to engage the conservative base.

at least to get them to the point where they do not object to it. let me start with one issue. there was a comment on yesterday's discussion about the submarine cables that i thought was a helpful discussion because the thing that i think has the conservative base nervous and the root of this concern really goes to national security issues. the more you stressed the importance of the navigational rules to our navy and to our self defense efforts, the more one gets the reaction that we have to not get it wrong. i thought it was interesting in the submarine cable discussion you could have such a clear discussion of the risk of such a

vital national interest. there are no downsize as to whether you would be criticized for use of force. i would like bill -- the biggest argument i get is the things that will inhibit things like article 19 lays out the passage and it does not allow intelligence gathering and submarines must be on the surface. is a condition to having -- that is a condition to having

innocent passage. what are the consequences when one says, i'm going to waive my rights to safe passage and i will engage in that. what are the consequences? >> the consequences are that you could be asked to leave the territorial sea. i tried to point out in my paper. we have been doing these kinds of activities and other countries have been doing these kinds of activities which are of this the ambit convention. pish any aspect of that is the limitation of areas with high seas began and those kinds of things. but as far as nations doing what they have to do, espionage or other things, those activities

take place. there have been some aggressive reactions to submerged submarines off territorial sea by some of the nordic countries. we used to call it was the on the rocks -- we used to call what whiskey on the rocks. that is a bilateral matter. to say -- the other thing about this, is difficult to address and to candidly assess and comment on, particularly when you're on camera, is it is pretty insulting to think that our negotiators would sit down and cut deals that would have adverse impact on our national security interests. it does not happen that way.

for those who have participated know that delegations have negotiating instructions. those instructions are cleared by the executive branch. that is the interest agency process. those instructions are agreed to and put forward. i can assure you that in the geneva conventions and on that there was never any concern that anything we were getting involved in during a peacetime agreement would have any impact on what we would have to do as a matter of national security and which we have been already doing. that is 70 years of practice. it is a red herring and it is

tried to use on a national security interests. >> comments? one of the things i argue on this loss of sovereignty issue is that we will opt out of the -- everybody agrees it is the right thing to do, will opt out of the jurisdiction and rely on arbitration. we will exclude military activities from dispute resolution and that is a self best judging decision. a couple of questions. -- that is a self-judging decision. there will be jurisdiction with respect to provisional measures so that we do not have anything to work on that standpoint.

ith on theen in my fac tribunals approached by the decision of the panel in the versusf suriname purses rih ghana. there was a nicaraguan case which in turn relied heavily on a u.n. general assembly resolution for the conclusion as to what constitutes illegal use of force. basically what happened was the suriname captain of the patrol boat announced over to the drilling rig to get it out of the territory within 24 hours or suffer the consequences.

this tribunal decided they would get you into that. and that it was an illegal use of force by the un charter. as an indication of the seriousness, they found no damages and provided no remedies. what do we do when we get the decision on the jurisdiction for provisional measures or an ad hoc tribunal doing what was done in the suriname case? " you're talking about american jurisprudence. >> we have exceeded this convention. now we have a decision that says sorry but your understanding is with respect to

self-judging is wrong and we will make that decision. >> that is hypothetical. you should start out by telling that to the russians and chinese and others. that is hypothetical to try to deal with the issue. what does the treaty say? what does the convention say? what to the parties understand back that is the end of it. i have heard statements -- the law will make you change -- >> to complete -- >> cristian is based on ad hominem -- craziness based on ad hominem. we would raise our exemption and

be done with it. >> do you think the legal community and the u.s. government would set you do not have to comply with that decision? >> your question presumes that work the united states to find itself in that position -- >> on the exclusion of military activities, i do think is -- we clearly are not out liners on that issue. how many have taken the position as strong as we have? the question is a self best judging question? >> i read the names of the countries. >> have they gone the extra step that we have? >> specifically exempt.

>> and in determining whether the activities are exempt, we will make that determination. >> i don't know if it will be necessary to do that. >> i am going -- we will get to questions from the floor. i will repeat a little bit of what i said yesterday. i think it would be helpful in addressing the skeptics. if the senate resolution made it clear that there is nothing that -- refering to peaceable purposes in collective self- defense, and we are in the

resolution. in the resolution. you can get there if you put a couple of pieces together. i understand it -- one on the self-judging nature of the military exemption that the united states will not consider itself to be bound by. i think it is a real opportunity for those concerned about the other kind of welfare, which is the use of the laws to inhibit national security interests. they make it clear that there are no private right of action under the convention before the customer international law reflected in it. why don't we open it up to the

floor for questions? >> yes. i completely agree with everything the panelists say. i completely agree with everything the panelists have said. the problem i have is a political one that we have been talking about for the past day, more than a day. as i listen to what you just said, mr. chairman, about the collective right to self-defense come the political headwind that has bedeviled those of us who have struggled for the ratification of the convention, and i am one of the original legal people who have showed up at the convention and i have worked as part of a delegation

through the entire process. times have changed. in the past year, i want to draw attention to the political reality and how it affects congress. israel invaded the gaza strip. the use military force. this has very little to do with the law of sea. but in its defense, israel said , you are asserting that international law -- that we violated international law and are guilty of committing war crimes in the gaza strip. the problem with this debate, and this has to do with the political atmosphere in washington, is that the right of

self-defense and the right to make a judgment individually that the united states claims is also asserted by israel and was asserted in the case on the attack in the gaza strip. i point this out as a comment that this is a hot political issue that resonates with a good number member of congress and the senate. we have to at some point take a step back from the merits of the convention we are talking about here and realize that there are larger issues of international law involving the right of self-defense and of a nation that decides what is in

its best interest, which i agree with you, it clouds the issue, they make it difficult. but it also are highly emotionally charged and this is one of the things that is frustrating our collective efforts to secure ratification. there are these unilateral defense issues and the right -- the law constitutes -- what constitutes generally accepted international law? i would respect to some of the law professors who are sitting here that there is a disconnect between the international law and the rights of nation as interpreted in the united nations and by many states and by people like a respected

judge and the views of the united states government as expressed here today, which i happen to share, and our interpretation of the united nations convention of the law of the sea. i would welcome your views on how we deal with the fact that the concept of right to self- defense and unilaterally nmesh with the international climate, which expressly rejects that point of view. thank you. >> i will take will take a first whack at that question.

we have been complying for nearly three decades and since 1994 when it came into effect amongst our partners and allies who are quick to raise issues of law of armed conflict resolutions in adjusting their behavior is and in conveying their willingness or unwillingness to go along with the coalition's which characterizes much of what we do these days. i have not heard one time coalition partner or other partners say come you're not in accordance with law of the sea convention. we have in that same time from the exercise our right of self- defense on numerous occasions.

it is not an impediment to that particular -- our right to exercise self defense. >> the inherent right of self- defense is just that, in heron. you have to have proportionality and necessity. if you look further at some of the opposition we are hearing, why is it named the united nations convention on the law of this e sea. the u.n. doesn't have anything to do with it. it is the individual states. it is very comforting to the opposition to throw out this united nations and look at the court and so it is a big cloud

of smoke initially. i would think it would be difficult to extract the light from it legitimate self-defense issue. some tribunal may have to say something about that and other things related to the right of self-defense. you don't have to take the first or example. taking preemptive self-defense options. the gulf of sidra and the response to the bombing at the disco and stuff like that. i would not be so concerned where the rubber meets the road as far as practicality to defend ourselves as a nation and to defend our allies.

pointing to another case concerning different issues and trying to extrapolate that into something having to do with a peace time document is a stretch far.goes to go fao >> the recent events involving the sinking of the republic of korea naval vessel highlights the kind of political topicality, if you will, that concerns me in bringing this convention forward. these are the issues that are going to be raised by the opposition. there will say, how 4 do you think? how far do you think south korea can go in responding to an apparent sinking of one of their

naval units by the north korean ?overnment back > guest>> that depends what they . they are claiming that area and they have occasionally bumped into each other. there are a lot hot spots like that around the world. those are bilateral issues. what they are doing on this un thing is the same thing that happened on immigration reform. it was free citizenship. that is easy. people feel comfortable saying that and jumping on that bandwagon. go ahead.

>> thank you very much. i wanted to make a few does tell us who you are. >> i am from fiji. i'm a special representative for the law of the csea. i am prepared the text that was the basis for the negotiations for a mutual agreement. i just wanted to intervene on the issue of the name of the treaty, the united nations law of the sea. it is usual for trees which are negotiated on because the yen nation's convened the conference

-- because the united nations convene the conference. it is the sea treaty. they will have the same title. i just wanted to make one thing very clear. the convention of the law of the sea is an instrument. it goes to the normal procedure of treaty-making. you sign the convention and the only people responsible for the convention there after are the parties to the convention. they are the ones who can make amends, make decisions relative to the implementation of that.

the united nations does not debate law on the sea. there is the implementation in promoting peace. look at some of the current issues and see how they should be addressed and so forth. the only people who have jurisdiction are the states. this is the instrument. the second aspect related to that is the fact that people often say the united nations cede their authority or the united nations committee voted on the continental shelf. all of these are part of the treaty and they are autonomous to the detonations or anybody else.

-- they are autonomous to the united nations or anybody else. they were parties to the convention. the convention provides -- they have the authority. when people say the united nations will start buying black helicopters to do all kinds of things. they have to read the text of the convention. money will be collected from the 200 miles to the outer limits of the continental shelf will be collected by the authority and distributed to mankind as a whole. so it is really the funds that

will be collected and distributed to mankind. i just wanted to make that clear. it was raised yesterday on several locations as one of the issues. it is the same thing with the tribunal. it is under the convention and with a specific mandate to deal with disputes arising from the interpretation of the convention. that is only one of the means to deal with salomon's. other means are available, the tribunals, -- the deal with arbitration. now that we come to the commission on the continental shelf, the outer limits of the

continental shelf. there is autonomous body. there is a concern we have. the fact is it is an autonomous body. the convention requires the secretary general of the united nations to provide assistance and the papers and pencils and computers, that sector, for the work so they can create that for the purpose. the parties to the convention that's we can use the secretaries facility. i just want to make clear that the convention in this part of the united nations and they will

be voting on this and making majority decisions and so forth. we have a clear mechanism and it is only the party that can take part in this. the united states not as yet able to take part in this. the composition of the bodies that we have. >> can i take one minute? yesterday and today and i appreciate the statement of the secretary eagleburger this morning. yesterday and today we have been discussing the issues that concerns you internally, how you can proceed to become parties of the convention. and the general discussion of the issue internally, there is

an assumption that the united states is the only party involved in the lonaw. the united states is one of the nation's, important, vitally, powerful, militarily, and other ways. there are 150 other countries to negotiate. they have their interests. the smallest of them have their interests. i am from fiji. we have interests. we have our national interests. we did not want to compromise our interests. we wanted to benefit from the legal framework that has been established. there are landlocked countries.

there are concerns to be addressed, as well. we had to take into account of all groups and all types of countries. in the case of the united states -- i will make this short period it needed oceans for strategic use they said what their interests were, as did other major powers. other coastal states identified countries.andlocked we had to find solutions of each of the countries, which is impossible. we had to find compromises on almost every provision.

we have gone into several volumes by article but article. what i wanted to say is it has to be explained that the result of the convention is a product of negotiations and taking into account all types of interest. i put together the text and took into account almost every proposal that the united states has made, particularly on navigation, straits, passage ,hrough straits, mobile flight and other areas. but we made sure when we put together a package for what

would be the structure of the convention, but we made sure there that they were satisfied with their interest and make sure that submarines and so forth. we inc. all that the major followers wanted. we wanted to satisfy all interest groups. the convention is a product of compromise. that has to be understood. sometimes people isolate themselves. the united states did not get then the convention is no good. >> i think the debate is whether or not you are successful in striking that balance. the touchy point is that there

is a long tradition of excluding from those agreements things that would have an adverse effect on national security issues. the question is whether or not in reaching this compromise we have stepped over the line and done things that could be adverse to the u.s. national security interest. secretary eagleburger. >> i have tried -- legitimate arguments on the opposition to this treaty. what motivates the opposition that is out there. i cannot find anything to complain about. my question is, what motivates

this opposition and what is it -- they are dealing with something for a while. as long as this has been there and the senate has not dealt with it, there are some hidden motives. i am looking for the hidden motives. they may have done something. why is it an opposition so tenuous -- so firm and why is it that the treaty which seems to me almost everyone thinks it makes sense cannot get past? this government of ours is not known for its efficiency. there comes a point where there is either a hidden motive or is plain stupidity for 20 or 30

years. i think it's time someone took a hard look and ask what it has not been pushed. >> professor moore and i testified before the senate. senator lugar ask us the same question. he had trouble discerning the legitimacy of the argument. my answer to that, he had become somehow a litmus tests for the conservative right. you can see this evidence. i will get a fund raising letter by someone in the senate saying, i have to get reelected. we cannot let the navy to turn over 2/3 of the oceans.

i have answered every one of his legitimate concerns. there were a couple of people with me in a small meeting. it did not matter. it has become an article of faith and i think the the litmus give everything to the un, does not seem to be -- and there will be a debate this afternoon. the present from the heritage foundation -- the president from the heritage foundation is here. good. give me the ethics of this issue and why you have drawn your conclusion. >> i am catching a flight out of the country. >> that is the nub of the issue.

those familiar with the issue and the pragmatics of the convention, the history of the negotiations, the deals that had to be cut to make this thing work, their own particular interest and trying to pull everything on. we never thought these things would happen. we started out with drawing lines around the islands and everything else was internal waters. that developed into the passage and the concept of the waters. t question.ivili >> this convention was

negotiated in the 1970's. there is no doubt about it. there was part that was flawed and that cost everybody to put it -- not everybody -- like- minded countries to put it on hold until it could be cleared up. it is unfortunate opposition has continued on the basis of other things. is by other conventions by the rights of the child's and the convention on social justice and things like that. the u.s. has not faired well in these autonomous bodies. it icj, for example.

there are reasons to be skeptical about entry into what it purports to be, a legally binding document that comes so close to rival national security interests. it does regulate and reports and has language about regulating intelligence and takes complicated answers as to what is not a correct assertion. >> the laws were passed in arizona recently. they do not object. this has gone on long enough. >> we will set up a meeting with you. judge. >> vice president of the tribunal. i would like to make a comment and ask a question.

my comment relates to the convention. the usual practice is to name it after the place where it has concluded. that is why we talk about the geneva convention and the vienna convention. the first session took place in caracas. it turned out that venezuela was not going to sign the convention- >> i think you dodged that bullet. >> had we known the difficulties, we would have named it the montego bay convention. my question -- i have listened to the comments with respect to this and the article of the convention provides for a wide

choice as it regards this. this choice is more beneficial than harmful. it has been criticized as leading to a fragmentation of international law. so far this has not happened. why do you think we would be better off through binding arbitration? i am not convinced. the argument has been put forward. the majority of judges are high style to u.s. interests. the judges are not hostile to many nations interests. thank you. >> i will go ahead. >> from the perspective of military activities, we would not be subjected ourself to arbitration whether it was from

a tribunal or from the lost bird i feel equipped to address the nature of your question. it would not be an issue for us. >> i would say -- i would not call ross higgins as being anti- u.s., but i am disappointed in some of the positions he took. the u.s. and the interest that the u.s. has have not fare well in places as i like thecj or the the other case is a different area. i think we feel much more

comfortable with making a decision as to the individual arbitrators to decide the dispute. >> john. >> i really think you're overstating the risk in terms of all third-party disputes. the united states -- i do know special arbitration. how does that system work? both parties are able two able two of the judges and they select the fifth and there is a method. >> tell me who that person is who decides on the fifth? >> it is the four cannot select, then the parties go back to the original states to try to select

them. only if the states are not able to do it, it goes to a forum in which the permanent members of the security council have the ability to influence, the secretary general of the united nations. i would suggest you had 99% of the time you whenever going to get that last selection process. you're going to be slick in the four judges. this is the kind of mixed orbital tribunal that george washington acknowledged in what he felt was in fact the best achievement of the washington administration. in short, arbitration as the yen stays is excepting is as american as apple pie. 100% in principle.er

you backed it and nafta, and ad hoc to settle disputes. the problem is and it was something that you have sh chaired, a prominent lawyer involved in investment said, why is it we're so comfortable in the investment. having ad hoc arbitration but not overseas? i said it was because i think the people who have written the seven volumes and have an article every month "the american journal of international law" have a philosophical policy outlook

that i tend to be uncomfortable with where the people interested in serving on the tribunals and foreign investment, i agree with more. >> that is law and policy. the notion that everyone in that deal has a different view than yours. >> i think we do. >> the arbitrator's shall be more -- >> the pragmatics and the expedience the involved and those other things that are working in the direction. it is the right way to go. >> let's go with a question. >> good morning.

i wanted to speak partly as a citizen and somebody who lives outside the beltway. i would like to think secretary eagleburger for putting a very strong voice to the argument that this treaty needs to be affirmed. i would like to thank the tenacity of those proponents of the street over the last few decades because i am new to this debate. had i seen all the arguments for ratification yet still felt rebuffed in ratification, i would have closed of light suitcase and gone back to connecticut. i am grateful for those stalwarts who have stuck with the treaty and of seeing its vision for ratification. i would like to thank today's panel for their pragmatic and

rational approach in getting away from something that we heard yesterday which was rest, rest. what you brought forward today with the missed opportunities -- we heard yesterday were risk, risk. the positive approach is so important as we consider the argument. i don't want to think america basis.cts on a wrrisk i would like to think our country is capable of being proactive rather than always being reactive. given the arguments, given the facts that as some panel pointed out, it is a matter of national security, yes. it is a matter of financial security, given the data that

goes through the cables. i would like -- i would believe that our citizens would recognize that this treaty needs to be ratified if it were not caught up in politics. we're just blocks away from the center of all of that. but like some ideas on how we can get above politics and deliver it to the people the security that we as americans deserve. as global citizens. as it has been pointed out, it is the right thing to do. it is not a matter of conservative politics or about who is going to get reelected. it is protecting the interest of the people. how do we do that? >> that is a ballot -- the opposition is well funded and

the continued to be well funded by these things that come out like -- do not let the u.n. takeover 3/4 of the world's oceans. in the last campaign, i was watching a town hall meeting with senator mccain and somebody in the audience said they were off a formal naval officer and he was appalled at the navy was caving on this program that turned the seas over. how could they do that? john and i testified and the hearing started late so they could read strong support into the record from senator mccain. that took a different spin politically when one of the candidates hired as political consultant one of the leaders in

this opposition. this person came out and made it a campaign issue. it gives away sovereignty and all of >> i would have told them, you are absolutely right. it is not vote. it is a unthink. -- it is a you and saying it. i suggest we work with our own organization. the stuff that professor mohr has done, as i said in my introductory remarks, it has kept the movement going and information out there. people can ignore it if they want to. the truth is in the the results. this is the 34th. i think i have spoken at 30. [laughter]

>> it is a valid point. it will take a grass-roots movement and an awareness of the facts. those that know the facts, are very strongly supportive. , but those that are trying to be the next jesse helms, that is a litmus test. >> one question, back-to-back. >> yes, a question on the article 100, the loss of c aw of sean -- lot convention. ships are obligated to make their ships more difficult to be boarded. the point where we have an issue is the catch and release policy, which is frequently used by nations to release the pilot

said have been captured. it is not a question of the capability to suppress pirates, but it is political will. under article 100, should there were ships captured pirates, do they have an obligation to prosecute pirates in the domestic court? that brings into question if you have domestic causes that are capable. that seems to be a disconnect. we have people saying we need more trees. i think the trees are more than sufficient. -- that treaties are more than sufficient. the political will to deter the conduct -- if any of the panelists have any idea on how far the nation's duty is with regard to the actual mechanics

of catching the pirates and trying them to the torah and suppress their conduct? >> let me ask you, as you respond, to also work in, that the law of the sea convention would did for our ability to go after -- would deter our ability to go after pirates? >> i think it is underpinning anti-piracy activity. your question is multi-layered. the provisions did not apply to piracy. they are addressing primarily economic issues. it goes to the point that the woman made earlier in terms of pragmatism. the point that you made, and serves -- in terms of reading what the treaty says, and what

it does not say, on making sure we do not mix provisions. i did not think that the clause gives us a bedrock for anti- piracy. the provisions within that, starting with article 100, 110, and 92, give us the latitude that we need to work cooperatively with other nations. you are required, if you board and catch a pirate vessel, to try it domestically. you have the right to do that, but there is not a requirement. that does not mean that the convention does not allow us to prosecute acts of piracy. it just means it does not require the prosecution of that individual. a i do not see any impediment to our anti-piracy activity in

this. instead, i think, it takes what we do, and strengthens it, quite frankly. the most important thing, as you have the discussion, make sure you articulate clearly what articles we're talking about, what rights they provide, and what they do and do not apply to. as i listen to this debate, i go back to the comments that secretary eagleburger made. if you read it, it becomes clear. [laughter] >> i might add one other thing. causes beyond the 58 convention, in the pirate's right to board state vessels,

the observation that enables us to deal with some is powerful, and something that we used to a great defect. it does not impede our ability, it enhances our ability to deal with practical at-sea elements. you went on with what to do after we catch them, and that has been addressed. >> i will move from behind a pillar. thank you. my name is philip saunders. i made in in canada. -- i am 8 been in canada. i want to reflect on our experience. we actually signed the convention in the 1982 and rapidly proceeded to ratify the vote 20 years later. [laughter]

>> after debates that replicated some of what has happened here, it has not taken on the overtly political, left-right tone. there was a lot of talk about the things we stood to lose if we ratified, rather than the benefits. we stayed outside for quite some time. things like the ability to arrest spanish vessels when we wanted to. primarily, the high-seas fishing became the ultimate one. there was a tone throughout that debate that whenever you felt one of those carnival games when the gophers pop up through the holes and you blackett on the head, -- and you wack it on the head, after you wac one, another

one resurfaces. these arguments resurface. it is difficult to do. i think the ultimate cellist was -- i think the ultimate choice was that we needed access. in the debates, i think the assessment of the american position was that you were far more likely to be claimant in most of these processes and benefiting from that. we saw that as a potential threat. [laughter] >> on everything from prompt release of shipping vessels. all of his navigational rights, the potential at the extension of pollution control by the european union and others potentially in violation of the convention, all of these things are on the upside. we see the united states

asserting as the most important maritime nation. we need to make sure that they are not unfairly detained. that is how we see it from the outside. i also have a collector's item that is not often, perhaps. back when i was a student, working with doug johnson, they decided to rush to publication on a strong -- and a small paperback. we have this on the title page. the correct this convention of the law of the sea and its environmental law on the sea. i think it will destroy did it in another 20 years. thank you. [laughter] >> thank you. >> thank you. my name is -- my name is robert mcmanus. i was in the third committee dealing with those environmental

positions. we proceeded on slippery freedoms and nuclear submarines. i'm going to ask a question about national security, directed to admiral clingan. i think it is a devil's advocate question. i hope it is a slow softball over the middle of the plate. you said that international lot is insufficient support of our international freedoms. we cannot fight our way through the chokepoints. are there nations that would seek to impede our passage through straits used for international navigation, rejected our alliance on customary international law, who would receive from their positions if only we had adhered to the law of the sea treaty?

clark's quite specifically, one of the challenges street -- >> >> specifically, one of the chances -- one of the challenges is that the law costly changes. -- constantly changes. the the state's often responded in their own national interest, which changes over time. the issue is one of have been so many challenges to deal with, where we are not welcome of all over the world, we are in fact, asserting our rights to work outside of the territorial waters. if we have to go and deal with the challenges associated with just getting to the point of the fact, that is difficult, and on necessary under this case when you can have a body of law that

says let's shipped fires and pay attention to more pressing issue. costss. i might also say that building partnerships to deal with the maritime challenges that are growing is one of our mandates. it is not just a nice thing to do, it is an imperative when you looked at the challenges to commerce and economics. his vast majority of the countries, allies and partners both, we want to build those partnerships, collaborate together with, look to international law and other

resolutions. for example, they're looking for a mandate to act. if they do not enjoy the unilateral will to go forward on their own volition. it to the degree that we can have a common, international foundation, to move forward on, that facilitates our real efforts. >> i cannot see where the questioner is, but yes, to answer your question, there have been minor harassments, and i am not very current retinol, and the stuff -- current right now, and it would have been classified, our units used to be harassed by one state party that up until that time the regime was in effect agreed to and

pulled out of the conference. i think their position remains that this is a contract. if you are a party to the contract, you can operate under its provisions. believe me, but for the fact of the united states of america, we can pull this off. we have a pretty big toe to stick him no water. -- to stick in the the water. this convention is the absolute ceiling. if we tried to do something again, we would not have anywhere near the rights we have right now. >> there is one thing i would like to put on the background that i think is sometimes not understood publicly is the extraordinary process within the united states government by which instructions were made in this negotiation.

those negotiations came from very detailed instructions worked out by the president of the united states, and, in this particular case, by a rather unusual process that was more unusual than most negotiations in the sense that it was not simply dominated by a particular agency. tasksn't 18-inter-agency force. particularly, the department of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff had enormous and put into this process. the navy representatives travel around the world with me and they did a magnificent job. the notion that any of that group would have accepted

something counter to the national security interests of the united states of america, it is so unreal to me, having participated in that process, and knowing the care with which all of this was dealt with. the result was actually an enormous victory for the united states, not only on the security issues, but on all the other issues of the treaty as well. it is important for people to understand that this did not result in somebody waking up one morning and saying wouldn't it be a good idea to have a negotiation? this is something that takes place over a number of years. it is an extremely careful process in the system that heavily weights the defense and security interests of the united states, and, not surprisingly, the end result is that those provisions all, of very, very

well indeed. i just wanted to put that on the table. >> i like to add a footnote. our government is so large, so diverse, with some and diverse issues, we are often internally schizophrenic on an issue. we had negotiations within negotiations to come up with this. john mentioned it. many of us have the scars to show for it. [laughter] >> i have two practical remarks. one is that we saw a very encouraging, understandable position taken by the secretary of state yesterday in his testimony. i would suggest that we urge her to anoint a staff member to

devote time to work out the kinds of approaches that i needed for this to be done. secondly, the president, who has a lot on his plate, and do likewise. these people are very busy. it is a very complicated treaty. they do not have time to master it. things did not get done just because they say it is a nice idea to do it hit the second thing is that senators tend to use procedures to cover up their governments on issues of substance. one of the things that is a myth is if they say it will take a week to consider it, it is baloney. the majority leader and the minority leader, if they had the political will could make a

ruling in one day. i do not think the opposition led have enough ammunition. the votes are there. that is the other thing. i do not understand the administration being reluctant. there are well over 60 votes, probably closer to 85 or 9 d ^ -- 85 or 90. the excuses are partly because they did not have staff, and partly because they do not take on a procedural things that are put forward as a reason for not doing something. >> we started a little early, so we might stop a little early. but in a follow-up comment. i have been trying to play the devil's advocate. i think the thing you need to

address this that i think you are all very light-minded. in need to sit -- i think you are all like minded. it is much more of a grass-roots issue. this isn't easy sound bite against the loss of sovereignty -- this is an easy sound bite against a loss of sovereignty and things like that. the argument is long, complicated and complex. i would urge you to take the opportunity to engage with the conservative base. last spring, i think, i went out to heritage to hear the chairman joint chiefs of staff to give an annual discussion. my question was why the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff

would give a 45-minute talk at the heritage foundation and not raise a lot of the sea convention? there is the belly of the beast, a perfect opportunity. there was nothing said on that. >> i think that is a very fair point. let me also suggest that it is a two-way obligation, a two-way street. the conservative base that is argument against these things also has an obligation to actually seek the truth as to what is in the national interest of the united states of america. i think it is very troubling that we keep hearing the same old arguments, many of which are completely false, that we deal with over and over again. i think they have an obligation

to have a public debate, a public discussion, perfectly appropriate to have differences of opinion, but the facts -- there is something that is true, and there is something that is false. it is wrong to be making arguments that are in fact false arguments. i think there has to be some two-way street. >> i want to make one point. stop calling it a conservative base. i think i am a conservative. i may be based, but i think i am a conservative. [laughter] just because the heritage foundation does not happen to be on board with the treaty, it does not mean that they have the

only conservatives on god's green earth. >> i hardly regard myself as someone that is resistant to that particular viewpoint. this is strongly in the interest of the national security of the united states, left or right, however we look at it, republican or democrat, this is a non-partisan issue, enormously in the national security and economic consist of the united states of america. >> maybe we will adjourn, and i really do look forward to this afternoon's discussion. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a lunch break under way, and we'll resume our live coverage on this form after the break. that will be about 1215, eastern time. that is what our speaker will be the ranking republican on the energy and commerce position -- commission. at approximately 1:30 p.m., a debate on the question of u.s. interest in the law of the sea convention. live coverage resumes at 1215 insistent in the meantime, a conversation we had with newt gingrich. it is about 40 minutes.

write this book. "what do you mean? guest: when i was a very junior congressman working with ronald reagan, the world looked bleak. the soviet union was on offense, our economy was collapsing under president carter. people had lost morale. then reagan came in and we had this extraordinary eight years and t sovt union disappeared, the economy took off. jobs were created. inflation was defeated. and i'm proud to be an american was a popular song and civic cultural rebuilt. by 1991 or 1992 i thought northeasterlily in retro -- naively in retrospect that we had won the big arguments.

we had a series called the commanding heights which argued that hiayek and freedman and others had defended the keynesians and it turned out that we were wrong. that underneath all of this that the hard left and the universities and the government employee unions and bureaucracy and courts and among the labor union leadership and politicians that the hard left continued to grow basical ignoring every lesson. so, when the republicans failed in 2006 a 2008 and the country decided to repudiate them, the people that they elected were very hard left. you end up with a nancy pelosi and harry reid and barack obama. and while obama's style is moderate his underlying policies are very, very left wing. and so now you have a country

which i think is under two great threats. one from radical islam and the other from secular socialism. i think that i is very important that the average american realize that we are actually in a strgle to decide whether or not the american system, which has been endowed by our creator with rights which involves the work ethic and right to have big dreams and rule of law and right for you to be served by your government, not for you to be controlled by your government. that whole system, i think, ide. host: what do you mean when you use the term secar socialist? guest: that is in contrast to the communist it wants government to control the ente economy. and i think if you look at the democrats' taking over and nationalizing the student loan program, the underlying parts of obama care which encourage in 2014very american business to drop their health insurance and make money by giving up on

insuring employees. if you look at current ownership of a.i.g., the largest insurance company in the uted states, general motorsers chrysler, if you look at the new federal relatory bill that will dramatically expand politicians' power and look at fannie mae and freddie mac the largest unfunded liability we have on the books d basically run by politicians for politicians, aga and again you see this expansion of politicians and bureaucrats and shrinking of free enterprise and entrepreneurs and small business leaders and people who work and pay tabses. -- pay taxes. the second kau similar part is -- the secular part is tied into socialism. it is you believe the state can control and define. our declaration of independence says we are endowed by our creator with certain unalien able rights which you mean power comes from god to you. you th loan power to the

state. but america unlike any other country the center of sovereignty is the citizen, not the state. that is abhorrent to a true socialist and you end up with for example the democratic candidate for the senate in massachusetts saying if you are catholic maybe you should not work in an emergency room. you end up with two democratic legislators in connecticut introducing a bill that would abolish the catholic church. you end one a judge in wisconsin who says a day of prayer is unconstitutional. you have to be totally 100% ignorant of american history or have repudiated american history to believe that having a day of prayer is unconstitutional. for the last 40 years we have had relentless march of secularism driving god out of blic life where one of obama's nominees was a person who ruled the indiana legislature couldn't open its daily meeting with a prayer.

host: why do you include the 12 steps oflcoholics anonymous in your book? guest: because i want to drive the point home in the most successful recovery group in the world there is an important for a higher power. a former reagan official who was a recovering alcoholic who said he was approached by a federal government official saying it is clear that alcoholics anonymous works and we would love to fund it and if you could drop that second step where you acknowledge a higher power we could fund this. the guy said i don't thi you understand why it works. if you notice in there i think six of the 12 steps involve a reference to a higher power. host: this book is rather infused with spirituality i guess we ka call it. are you spiritual man? guest: well, i pray and i believe in god and i believe at there is a fate side of life that is more important than the secular side of life.

and i think that if you can't see and understand the world of faith there are all sorts of behaviors- you could never appreciate george washington if you didn't realize how deeply he had faith in providence and how much he believed that god was on the side of the american revolution. host: in the chapter secular socialism, look at h.r. 3590 one the senate democrats passed christmas eve and in 2000, 409 pages the word shall appears 231 times. the law has the word tax 208 times. not once to cut taxes. the word require appears 198 times usually referring to the people who are required to do sothing, not government. it ads 159 new federal agencies, fices and programs to what is

already the largest department in the federal government. why is that seklar? -- secular? >> it is more socialist than secular. shld the secretary of health and human services have the power to establish waiting lists for whether or not your life is going to be saved? should the government have the right to decide what is available to you? it is very clear, i can't cite the page number in the senate bill but in the house bill on pages 25 and 26 it says the secretary of health the people who don't have coverage and have serious problems, if those pools if they run srt of money the secretary of health and human services, by themselves as a government bureaucrat, can raise the cost of your premium, reduce the benefits or establish waiting lists. i don't know that you want to have in a free society your

decisions about your values and about what you would do about end of life decided by a secretary establishing waiting lists which decides that because you could have a secretary of health and human services who doesn't believe in kidney dialysis or chemotherapy or doesn't think dealing with people with alzheimer's is appropriate. i think it is dangerous to centralize those decisio in one appointed official. host: you have several chapters here with co-authorities. one of them is terry maple president and c.e.o. of the palm beach zoo. green kevin teufpl versus left wing environmentalism. guest: he is a tremendous guy. he was a full professor at georgia tech. his specialty is primate psychology. when the atlanta zooas in danger of being closed because it was so badly run, mayor young had the courage to say the city couldn't run it and bureaucracy couldn't handle it and they outsourced it to the friends of

the zoo, terry took over and for 20 years was one of the most entrepreneurial leaders i have ever seen. he rebuilt the zoo, built a research program. then he went down to palm beach to the west palm beach zoo where he continues to do a great job. he and i both believe entrepreneurs are more likely to solve the environment -- i just saw this morning an entrepreneur who developed a mattress which floats which absorbs oil and you can't get the coast guard or b.p. you could pull this mattress behind a boat and absorb the oil that floating and i saw a demonstration on tv and entrepreneurs are naturally creative people. so, terry and i believe you ought to care about the environment and wildlife. but you ought to do it in a dynamic way that incentivizes people to come up with better solutions, not in a regulation,

litigation model that punishes people. the solutions academy is being developed at the american solutio solutions. we believe you have to have enormous change for the united states to be competitive with kline and india -- china and india. we believe this is a country that has an enormous depth of government. there are 513,000 elected officials from school board to city county to county commission state legislature and we are trying to develop a program where you could find what has governor chris christie done well, what did steve goldsmith do as mayor o indianapolis. you could come to sort of a central point to learn n best ideas across the range of government. host: newt gingrich is our guest. to save america is his newest book. the first call is from illinois. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

mr. gingrich, first of all it san honor to talk to you. i want to thank you for all that you are doing with american solutions to try to help our country in these troubled times. i wanted to ask you -- and i know you probably won't say but i'm hopinghat you will cons running for office in 2012. we need somebody with your ideas, your experience and your faith. guest: first of all, thank you for that call. and my wife and i are looking very seriously and trying to get our businesses in order. we run for businesses and we ar trying to organize everything so next february or march we could make a decision. but i'm focused totally this year on the november elections. i believe these are amo the most consequential elections in american history and it is extraordinarily important that

we have a huge turnout and have a very successful election. and i don't want to think beyond 2010 until we get the job done this year. host: what kind of work do you have to do to get your businesses in order? guest: we have a number of organizations that have been very successful, but they have been very successful with us in leadership roles so you have to find new leaders, expand the structuree structure, reshape it. we have takea year to think it through. it is a pretty daunting challenge. hostif you were president what would you be doing about the b.p. oil spill? guest: well, first of all, if you are president and you would focus on the navy and coast guard and national academy of sciences. when you watch tv this morning and y see somebody who has what looks like a very useful device and they can't get anybody -- this interviewer said and he is the head of the company into manufactures this and he says we can't get anybody

in theovernment to return our call because they are all in meetings and b.p. returned the call one time. i think what you get -- and this happened with katrina -- the bureaucracies can't function. i was involved in several panels after katrina including some of the busines executives for national security trying to figure out how do you open the system up so that you get new ideas rapidly and find new break-throughs. there is a longer-term answer which is why would 4,000 platforms drilling for oil off the shores of the united states, why has the coast guard not been looking for new break-throughs because sooner or later there wi be a spill or blowout in there case. the second thing is they should have been developing things in parallel, not in sequence. and they should have said from day one what if the first idea doesn't work how do we get to the second idea in 24 hours, not

in six weeks. governor bobby jindal has been critical of the government and b.p. and people can google governor jindal, if you read what he has had to say this is the second time the government has failedew orleans and louisiana this decade. host: next call is from new york a it democrat. caller: good morning. it is difficult to snow where to start with you. i don't want to get disrespectful but when you try to demon iize things lake socialism that is a system that functions and communism, there are systems that function for many decades. isn't it time that we begin to pick and choose what we know to be positive of certain systems and utilize that?

host: could you give an example? caller: capitalism doesn't belong in areas like healthcare, in areas like food production. host: there are two examples. guest: well, i would have liked to have had a dialogue with him. i'm happy to say ronald reagan was right when he said the soviet union was an evil empire. i think communism everywhere it has appeared, has been an evil system. it has involved killing and imprisoning millions of people. i know of no successful communist system because they all involved centralized power in which the politicians run the country. in terms of free enterprise and food production, american farmers who own their land and produce food for a profit and work with seed and nutrition and other companies on a for-profit basis and are part of a mixed system in the sense of agricultural extension, that

system has created more wealth in agriculture, greater food production, greater opportunities than all of the communist systems combined. historically the soviet union turned a great grain exporting company, russia, into a grain importingountry because they totally mismanaged agriculture. historically the chinese had to give up communism. they had to go back to a great market economy in 1978 and they would have said communism doesn't work. it is not picking and choosing. it doesn't work in healthcare. would you rather have the russian or cuban health system and no wealthy person goes to cuba for advanced disease. so the objective fact is that free markets and free people create more opportunities, create more products and services, create more new

invention than any government controlled system. we have a funmental disaeement. i say it respectfully but it is very important, tt is why i wrote this to create an intellectual baseline to say this stuff doesn't work and it is dangerous to your freedom because when you put that much power with politicians they use it. host: who is nancy desmond? guest: she is the brilliant president of the center for health transform allegatiation. our center for health transform ation is a system designed to create a collaboration of leadership. about 100 companies belong to the center of all kinds from hospitals to pharmaceuticals, to information technology to employers. what we are trying to do is find a way to build a 21st century intelligent personal health system in which we use all modern science and breakthroughs to give you the best outcome so

you live the longest life at the greatest independence at the least cost. we began moving that way in 2002 when i wrote a book called "saving lives and saving money." she is the president and c.e.o. host: as a former speaker do you t healthcare through the government? guest: as a retired federal employee i have access to the system. host: is that what you use? guest: i use a blue cross program. host: next calls from new york, arnold. caller: just wanted to say i'm sure that we could all agree that we would like truth from our government so we can make good decisions if we get all the facts from the government. and i have one question for you that will take a one-word ans r answer. the second you may want to lab be rate. but ba -- elaborate.

back in the days of the pentagon hero or trader? guest: trader. host: if you were the ninth vote on the supreme court who will determine whether the paramedics woulde allowed to be published would you have voted to allow them to come out or have restricted the publication? guest: restricted. national security documents that involved the united states one way or another should be decided by the congress and the president. how can you set a precedence for some well meaning person without proper credentials and proper understanding of the system can randomly decide what to release? when pollack did that we decided he was a spy. as a result, he has served in jail and is still in jell and will probably end his life in jail because we decided the documents he sole were so dangerous to the security of the united states. now, who was ellsworth to decide

that he personally had the moral authority to overrule the president of the united states and overrule the chairman of the joint chiefs and joseph rule the united states congress and he would decide what documents to release? i think that it is very important for us to understand, you can elect anybody you want, they can fight in the u.s. congress all they want. you can nominate somebody for president. that is totally appropriate. but what you can't do is work in a classified job, deal with the secrets that keep america safe and unilaterally decide that you are going to abandon that principle and you are going to reveal secrets. that is a very dangerous principle. host: long island, new york. peter, republican. hi. caller: yes, good moing. mr. gingrich, it is more than an honor speaking to you, my friend. my concern is i'm very concerned about the national debt for years now. i believe personally, me and

actually my family and friends believe you are our only hope to bring back this country. i know in my heart and i'm hoping that you run for president and we are all behind y you. and actually, i believe when you were house speaker you didn't get enough credit. clinton got all the credit for budgeti budgeting, you know, coming in with a budget. and i believe that if we have you as our president every day we will pray that god gives you the energy to keep uphe good work with american solutions and everything you are doing right now. guest: well, first of all thank you. that is a pretty overwhelming stateme statement. it certainly makes my friday a lot brighter than it would have been otherwise. but let me make three quick points on what you said. first, whatever i end up doing and decisions i decide, saving

america is about you and your family and your neighbors in long island. it has to be done by 305 million people. it is wrong to focus on the presidency as a magician. he can only lead if the country will roll up its she was and wants to save itself. so i want you and your family in addition to wishing me well would work hard this fall to make sure that we elect a generation of people committed to controlling spending, balancing the budget and cutting taxes. second, i give president clinton some credit. i was speaker of the house. 1994 was a remarkable year. we did keep spending under control. it only grew an average of 2.9% a year the four years i was speaker which is the lowest since calvin coolidge. we cut taxes and balanced the budget so we accelerated economic growth. we also priorities even controlling spending. we doubled the national institutes of health budget because we believed deeply in

medical research. but president had the signed bills and they have to get half the credit if something happens because without the signature we cannot have reformed welfare or cut taxes or balanced the budget. so i think that is fair. finally, to the core point, which is really important. we used to an country that worked hard, saved, paid off the mortgage and left children the family farm. we are becoming under obama a country that sells off the farm, doubles the mortgage and leaves the kids with interest payments. i think that is wrong. they currently are projecting $10 trillion in deficit. i think we ought to make a commitment that we will balance the federal budget by 2015. it took two years to bance it when i was speaker. we can balance it by 2015 if we start now. we can control spending and i would rename the deficit commission the spending control commission because it brings back any tax increase proposal i

would urge it be dd on arrival. we do not need to raise taxes in a country which is overgoverned and overspent. it is not dertaxed. and at a time of 9.9% unemploynt we have no interest in raising taxes on working americans and businesses and killing more jobs. host: the house is about to come in to pro forma session and we are going to go to that as we always do on c-span. we carry the house live. it will be short and we will come back with mr. gingrich. describe quickly why is the house going in pro forma on a frid friday? guest: you have provisions that the speaker can have the house pro forma session without votes but if you go for several days without a session you have to have a formal vote to adjou and it is more complicated so there is a standard procedure which i think has been used since the beginning -- i don't know how far back but i think it goes back to the very first time. host: so it can go down to 30 second? >> guest: you could ahough they

usually have a prayer, say the pledge of allegiance and say a few things. host: wh do you miss most about being speaker? guest: i think it was extraordinarily invigorating. working with to hold on i am not sure we were never quite that efficient. host: newt gingrich, what is on your summer reading list? guest: in the middle of reading hasting's new book on winston churchill. a really interesting book, really thought of. it also reading mcpherson's book on lincoln as commander in chief, which is a very interesting study of lincoln. i just finished a book on lincoln and his cabral's. i am reading john sanford, who i got to meet this week, a great mystery writer from minneapolis and is the was book i think is calledstormy pray." he has a whole series of titles. i'm vergie -- read virtually every book he has written. he and robert parker are my two favorite mystery writers, so

whatever they bring out i can't help myself. i have a firm rule, read like fiction first and all the non- fiction ep will be available later so read the stuff you enjoy first. host: "to save america" is newt gingrich's latest book and the next call is from jacksonville, florida, bob, democrat. callerthank you. i would like to make a short statement and two quick questions. statement -- when you referred to the president as hitler and paula pot, i think your friend joe scarborough explained best when he said i think selling a book compared to running for president -- what he said was, he thinks you put selling your book ahead of running for president and it will follow you, he said. he thinks you were singing to

the wing nuts. two questions. the judge you keep referring to in wisconsin, wasn't he appointed by a republican president? second question -- real important to me because i am trying to win a bet down here. a local talk show host insisted that you were married six times but i know you will only married four times -- help me with this. guest: you are both wrong. you should each donate 00 to charity because you're both wrong. let me just say that i did not say the judge was partisan, i did not say democrat. but the judge clearly is a separate arrest and part of a secular socialist culture and what the judge decided was it was funded -- fundamentally wrong in american history. add to your initial comment, i cannot compare president obama to anybody. i said publicly president obama is an attractive person, a personality in which he seems to be moderate in temper.

i think his family seems to be a lovely family. i think what michelle obama is going on obesity and a diet and exercise is exactly right and i applaud her for what she is doing. but i said that the secular socialist movement as a movement and the machine that is now running washington, aany, and sacramto, are as grave a threat as any totalitarian syem we have ever seen. by that, i mean, if they gain in total contr, if they eliminate got from public life, if they suppress your religious liberties, if they take away your right to earn money and politiciandecide who should learn how much and who should be distributed, if bureaucrats in washington can decide every detail of your life, whether it is health care or energy or the environment or you name it, then america as we have known it has ceased to exist. and i think it is that seous a threat. by the way, if you go back and looked at george orwell's 1984,

remember, george orwell, and left wing intellectual, so feared centralized planning and government that he wrote in 1984 not about the soviet union, not about not see germany, he wrote it about great britain and he id in his interviews that it is a warning to all of us that too strong a central government with the best of intentions can end creating the end of freedom as we have known it, which is also what hiatt said to all -- in "the road to serfdom," and not describing the soviets with the fascists but describing the threat of centralized plant your credit system. host: on page four of new gingrich pocket was book, the words are, the secular socialist machine represent as great a threat to america as nazi rmany or soviet union. atlanta, richard, independent line, you are on what newt gingrich. caller: good morning. we miss you in atlanta. guest: thank you. caller: you are right about the

zoo. it is a huge change. it is a neat place. first of all deaths, let me get your take -- should congress be the only authority to make war? guest:o, i think there is a distinction. congress is the only authority which can declare war. but from the very beginning of the george washington and thomas jefferson and john adams, the commander in chief, president, has the capacity to wage war. and because of the nature of warfare, protecting america m require decisions that occur faster than congress. i did urge in 2001 that we enact a declaratioof war after 9/11 because i thought it was important to create the legal framework of warfare. but frankly, it was the lawyers who said don't do it. i think in retrospect they were wrong. when the united states engages in prolonged, that it was should be in the framework where we declared war and i think there is some danger of having this

sense of permanent conflict without ankind of a program illegal status. host: that caller mentioned the zoo atlanta. if you go to the c-span archives you n see a tour that c-span did wi newt gingrich when he first became speak down at the zoo. farmington, new mexico, city, republican. callego-ahead. caller: mr. speaker, i talked to you two years ago when i predicted the route to republics took in congress. the whole thing has had me mystified unl recently. a very dear friend of mine in oenix loaned me a book called the fabian freeway by rose miller -- sorry, rose martin. it made everything come together. the fabian socialists have been around since 1886. i can see what is happening

today as just a continuation of what mrs. martin wrote about in 1966. the people we are dealing with now to not carry cards and their pocket talking about the fact that they are socialists, but they are. when you look at what they are doing, it is looking toward a world socialist government. in the united kingdom or england today is just about taken over by them. the parliament is all fabian socialists. guest: i actually think you are onto something. the reason why i wrote to save america and the reason why describe a secular socialism machine it is that i think our friends of the left would like to pretend to be moderates while the things they're doi are extraordinary. if you look at the obamacare bill, which will turn out to be absolutely impossible to sustain -- for example, the estimate for the cost of the high risk pools just came out this week.

eight times, tha is 800%, more expensive than the estimated three months ago if you look at the congressional budget office recent recalculation, it pushes the cost of the bill above $1 trillion. if you lookt -- we produced at the center for help transformation -- you can go to help transformation.net, and we produced a chart of the 159 new offices and agencies. the chart is 3 feet by 6 feet because and ordered to be a book to read 100 but denied different agencies and office said it took 3 feet by 6 feet. how can these people believe in such gigantic centralized bureaucratic government and then, as you point out, you go back to the fabian socialists and you sort of begin to understand. they are honestly and authentically secular socialist spirit of the system they are trying to build a machine. that is why i have been running things through the matter what the american people think. and the purpose of "to save america" is to outline both the

challenges and solutions that would enable us to meet the challenge. host: santa cruz, california. john, democrat. caller: full disclosure -- and i will toss out this anecdotal thing. i have the emotional maturity of what i call a democra and that is not a bad thing. i think if he's there tout we talk about the democrats, they think what they're -- stereotypically, but demrats, they think what eir flings. i am a registered republican but i am a disenchanted republican. i tried calling on the independent line. host: we got that. what is your question? caller: the moral undertones' i really admired from president reagan seems to be really lost. there are a lot of people out there trying. they are taking it as best as they can. and i'm looking for that in a

leader. there are a lot of cunning d clever ways people seem to be putting on that fake moral undertone and trying to catch up with it emotionally and their character development. but i see it in mr. gingrich's, to a degree, but he is also very bright and smart and it is too ch for somebody like me as i am trying to grow. guest: i am not quite sure what that means. i can tell you that we did a movie called "ronald reagan: rondo with destiny" which was as study of reagan's life and what he achieved. i agree about his ability and the way he dealt with things and a power that he had appeared -- that he had. but i think the deeper points you are making, is when you are in a period of very great difficulty, sort of like a boat

that is at sea and the storm is overwhelming, a you want a captain of the ship who is calm and confident and knows where they are going and who knows how to survive the storm. and i think president reagan had those characteristics. and i suspect as we watch t europeans it was in get worse, as we realize how deep our economic challenges are, as we understand how serious a threat is from the radical wing of islam, that somewhere in the process your instinct is right and we will go back to looking for a leader that has gone of the strength and calmness and firmness of purpose that president reagan had. host: is there an overlay of morality in "to save america?" guest: in a sense that there is an overlay and faith in america. i declare to drive this one point home, peter. our declaration of independence,

our first political document says we are endowed by our creator with certain in the liberal rights, among whi are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. and the scottish enlightenment, where jefferson took pursuit of happiness, it meant wisdom and virtue, not hedonism and acquisition. i would say to the american has to be in the end to be concerned about a life of faith, you have to approach god in your own way, but how can you describe a country whose rights come from their creator of your school system refuses to describe creator, if you refuse to teach its children what the declaration of independence is? host: last call, illinois. fran. caller: thank you so much for writing this book. i really appreciate it. i in my youth read "1984" and it scared the heck out of me and now i see barack obama implementing these things that i read in 1984. i thank you very much for

bringing this out. i do live in illinois. i know all about obama and i know about his questionable behavior is politically, and about the university of chicago whe he and the thinkers that he brought into his administration come from. thanks ain. guest: thank you. part of the reason why i described as a machine comes out of the chicago background and the fact that if it gets $787 billion out of congress and a stimulus bill that no elected officials read, that is the behavior of a machine. host: you started out as a backbencher. guest: i started out as a failed candidate. lost twice. host: good point. are you part of the establishment today? and quickly assess arlen specter and rand paul. gut: i think it was good that arlen specter lost. i think to switch out of

persal ambition is wrong, just like what i think charlie crist and where is doing is wrong. and it is good the people in pennsylvania said know. i think rand paul does represent an insurgency against the establishment and i think you will see more of that. i am a little bit like reagan -- reagan was president for eight years. he spent one out of the eight years at the ranch. and i think he never once was inside washington in his head. i think he was always leading the country from the white use, but going to georgetown was never part of his life. and i would say i have been actively studying government and national security and politics since between my freshman and sophomore years in gh school when my dad was serving in the army in europe and the french fourth republic died when we were living in france and i became startled by the fact that really badeadership can destroy a country. so i have been doing this since

august of 1958. and in that sense, you would have to say that i'm part of the system, but i think i have pretty consistently been a part of the insurgent change- oriented take on the establishment in both parties part of thsystem. and it makes for an interesting, complex balance. host: new contract for america needed for 2010, and what would take things you would recommend? guest: i think kevin mccarthy is going to undertake developing that for theouse republicans and r john boehner. i think the number one thing i would take on now after yesterday's disgraceful performance by the democrats in a plodding, standing and applauding the mexican president as he attacked an american state, i think republicans ought to commit themselves to control the border within six months and let the democrats oppose them.

live coverage of the forum on oceans law and policy. at 12:50, the speaker is lisa murkowski. add 1:30, a debate on the question of u.s. interest. live coverage resumes on follow cox 50 eastern on c-span. meanwhile, a conversation on the first year of the obama

administration from today's "washington journal." cov of jonathan alter's newest book "the promise: president obama, year 1." 1 chapter is named zen temperament. he writes that in the west wing it is usually 60 degrees and cool. what do you mean by that? guest: remember the old commercial from the 1960's and 70's for the underarm deodorant, i think it was called is blue secret -- cool, calm, colleed. that is barack obama. everything is very even tempered. and if he gets even a little bit irritated, it really stings because normally things are placid. but you don't have the highs and lows that you got under clinton. another chapter called the un- bubba, how he and -- contrasts. it is not chilly, not that it is

a cold environment. hes a friendly president. but there is a certain reserve and a detachment. in some ways that is one of the kinds of things that makes people like him that -- like and, because he is cool in more than 1 cents. you know the kids in high school, no matter what th did, they were cold. obama was like that in high school and he was like that now. host: and jonathan alter, a lot of reports -- and you talk about this in this chapter also -- is the president does have a thin skin. he is defensive. did you find that? guest: i think all presidents have thin skins and all presents are subject to getting angry about leaks and obama is no exception. i actually go tough some of the prior presidents and their attitudes towd leaks. he is a bit of a control freak and he gets real upset when people are talking out of school. he does not read people's heads

off, thoh. he does not really sort of -- jump on top of somebody. its more of a bit of a icy glare, looking at people, and people are thinking, does he think i'm the leak? it is the lack of the temper, and some way makes his anchor even a little more frightening for ose on the inside. but he is considered to be a decent boss. he doesn't abuse people and manipulate people. but he can't be pretty upset, not just with the press -- he can be a little upset, not the press corps that he thinks can be trivial and not serious at times, but those on this team that are leaking. he would be really upset about leaks and then it would leak to me. host: jonathan, you got a lot of access in this book. u have conversations in here that took place behin closed

doors, etcetera. did the president's btu and what kind of access did y have to his staff? guest: i did speak twice to the president once off the record, and i did a pretty long interview with him in the old office last november, which actually the audio of the interview is bundled with the audio book of "the promise" for people who want to hear his voice in the oval office. he said a lot of interesting things. at one point, on this issue about him being jammed and boxed in by the pentagon, he said i can neither confirm or deny that i was jammed by the pentagon, which i thought was interesting. i spoke to the vice-president at length and i did speak to all of the president's top people in the white house. the only ones that i named it that i talked to are the big four -- rahm emanuel, valerie jarrett,avid axelrod -- but a number of others are quoted as well.

and there are quite a number of hers that spoke to me but were a little gun shy and not want their names attached. i did it try to be careful that when i quoted as somebody directly on the record, i did go back to them because these conversations were all on background, and check to them that it was accurate. host: use through out a name that people might not be familiar with, pete rauss. guest: he is a 30-year veteran of capitol hill, he is often called the 101st senator, he was tom daschle's chief of staff and when the barack obama arrived in 2005 in the senate, he became oba's chief of staff. in the senate. pete is kind of shy. on the inauguration, for instance, instead of sitting in the front row, he watched it on television. the president, who likes to

wander around the west wing and walk into other people's offices, he jokes that pete does not like to travel, does not like to take foreign trips much, would not even traveled down to the oval office to see him so obama had to go down to peter's office. he is sometimes called a kinder winston wolf, w was a party -- character and pulp fiction because when there is a problem, often the president will assign pete to handle it. pete was a very generous with his time with me. he does not talk to too many reporters, but he gave me great insight, as did the other top people around the present appeared they knew it was no all going to be positive. that this was going to be, in some ways, aixed picture. and that i was not going to cover r them. but i think they thought that i

would treat the whole thing in a fair minded way, which is what i tried to do. host: what is the importance of that -- -- valerie jared? guest: she is the oy aid that is both a senior offical and in the very innermost circle of their family life. so, she actually vacations with them in hawaii every christmas and has for years and she is almost like the older sister to be obamas. they met in the 1990's when michelle obama was thinking about taking a job at city hall, and aalerie hired her in chicago and she met barack obama at dinner one night and they found that a shared things in terms of their past. valerie jarett was raised in iran, rather was an american doctor raised in iran and the esident was raised at least in his young life in indonesia.

she is also in charge of the office of public engagement. a lot of the public out of reach. in charge of relations with the business community, which becomes part of the issue thai deal with in the book. but she has a better sense of any of them of how the obamas, both the president and first lady, to react in any situation. she can almost tell you in an uncanny way what their response will be. it's good you started working on this in november of 2008 and finished it in march 2010. what is the importance of having a book about the first year of a president? guest: the last book i wrote -- "the dining moment: fdr's final days." i was researching that roosevelt's debut was critical and understanding him and why his presidency worked, and of course, it was a very eventl

100 days when the economy was in shambles, 25% unemployment, the decks of the depression, and i wanted to understand how roosevelt lifted us up. so i sensed by november of 2008 that this was going to beot the same, not as dire as of the depression. -- depression, but we were in considerable danger of that and another great depression. remember when obama came to office we were losing 740,000 jobs aonth. if we had stayed on that path by the end of last year we would have been in another great depression. so, they had to prevent a depression and i knew was going to be a big story and i knew the story of how the first african-american president settled into office would be history. so, i was pretty confident, even ough nothing h happened yet in november of 2008, that the story would unfold and i knew

even then he was already making critical decisions as the private citizen, president- elect, that he was making $100 billion decisions almost every day and they were on a much larger scale than in the past. whereas bill clinton tried and failed with a $60 billion stimulus, the obama stimulus was $787 billion. a lot of moving parts. four or five landmark pieces of legislation on an open to one bill. so i knew it even if health care did not happen or some of the her things did not unfold, that there would be a good story. host: in fact, jonathan alter rights -- obama dented more immovable barriers since any president since ronald reagan. we put the numbers up on the screen if you want to participate. i want to read one more thing and then go to calls. this is about the bubble you write that obama was convinced that all of the cable talk-show

noise was just another part of the bubble, the chatter of elites with little connection to real americans. the recent presidents failed, he believed, was patently obvious. they lost touch. that explained why he traveled outside washington about once a week and it sure to read those 10 letters from average americans each day. "i worry about him getting information the tiered eric whitaker said. "are worried about people not telling the truth. " so did obama. guest: eric would occur is one of his two best friends from chicago, a physician at university of chicago hospitals. i tried to talk to people outside the white house who were close friends of his to get more insight into his character. ironically, peter, this is where i think obama most failed. he wanted to get out of the bubble. he wanted to maintain the connection to the american people, and somewhere along the way he lost at least some of

that connection. and that accounts for some of the political problems he had in his first year, is that he wasn't completely in tune with them. there was a story about franklin roosevelt -- a funeral procession was moving and a man fell to his knees in grief and another gentleman helped em to the feet and he said, did you know the president, and the first man said, no, but he knew me. and i think in his first year, with all of his successes -- and there were many -- barack obama did not yet give the american people a sense that he knew them and really understood their problems. it caused a lot of problems early on. host: this is the book. bowie, maryland. democrat. guest: yes.

i am a real fan of yours. i have been watching you cannot. -- watching you a lot. guest: thanks. caller: i want to know if most of the republicans hate obama because is very educated and smart and they are just afraid of him? and another thing i wanted to ask you -- do you think the tea party are racist act of the things rand paul said yesterday, that he don't believe in the civil rights part of it? guest: first of all, no, i don't think you can say most republicans believe this or that are most democrats.

i am very careful to avoid those kinds of generalizations. one thing that has interested me, and a few days that the book has been out, i had a lot of interest from a conservative raditalk-show hosts who also like the book. so, what i'm trying to do is to give people more information on which to make their own judgments about this man and his administration. to your qution, though, i do think you are right that there were at least some people, including some independents as well as republicans, who did sometimes get the feeling that he was -- in theitle of one of my chapter -- the professor in chief. %+ey kind of resented that he was surrounded himself with all of these, what george wallace used to call, pointy heads,r in at lea begins in's day, they called them a head, he was too muc in the academic world

and it was a little bit threatening to at least some people. as far as the racial dimension some oobviously there are racists with obama could never get a break. i think it is unfair to the tea party movement to label it as a racist movement. the vast majority of them, their views are not motivated by race. by the way, obama does not think so, either. for a little pspective, remember they called bill clinton a murder, drug dealer, they said franklin roosevelt -- talking about critics -- that he had syphilis in the brain, abraham lincoln was a monkey, thomas jefferson, they were going after the sally handing things in real time and early 1800's. so politics has always been a contact sport. and i think it is important for supporters of the president not to blame all of e criticism,

even when it is fierce, and oftentimes untrue, to blame that criticism on racism. as he set at one point, he said, look, i was black before i was ected and the american people elected me anyway. i asked him about this a little bit, and i found talking to other folks, one day in the oval office, when health care was really in trouble and he is asked by rahm emanuel, are you still feeling lucky, and he said, yes, i am fairly - i am feeling lucky, my name is buraku st. obama and i am sitting here in the oval office. -- my name is barack hussein obama and i am still in office. people did not care as much about at everybody is art bring about and watching and ought to be fair, he feels the

american people a fair and with enough time he will be able to maintain their support and i actually think he is right. host: you seem to have some fun with some of the chapter titles. rahmbo, the skinny guy and the fat cats, chaosistan. this should have a warning. guest: it is x-rated. keep the kids away. a lot of f-bombs. it is could you say he is lyndon johnson. guest: there are real comparisons. i have known him for 20 years, and he is one of the few people in washington that when you need something done, he can get it done. most people in washington, they sit in meetings and a schedule the next meeting before the first meeting is over and nothing really happens and there is just a tiny handful of people

who can get done and he for years have been one of the people. i am fascinated with one -- what happens when that kind of guy becomes white house chief of staff and i trd to tell the story. he almost died when he was a young man, an infection spread through his body, and he tells the story and i think that shaped him. he is also just really funny. comic relief in that chapter. he is a lot shorter than lbj but he stands just as close as he puts his finger in your chest and even when he was a young man in the clint white house, tony blair, prime mister of england, and, right of vertigo and sge and he puts the figure in the prime minister's task and says don't f it up.

host: new york city, susan, independent lin caller: we have listened to obama talk a good game about switching to a renewal clean energy in the past two years but when it comes to action, his administration is mirroring the bush administration and we can start with his appointments of cans salazar -- can salazar as cretary of interior. everybody knows he is in bed wi oil and gas industry. here is a man who was appointed to oversee and investigate what his own department -- all right, did, in terms of letting these oil companies not have environmental. so, i have to a, are we really getting any difference from the bush administration? guest: the answer to that question is, yes. let me give you a couple of reasons why. e foxes guarding the chicken

coop quality you talking about within the interior department, that is a legy of the bush yes when the extraction industries just ran american energy policy. i had a story in "newsweek" i guess more than eight years ago during the bush administration, who do you think was interviewing the candidates to be head of the energy regulatory commission? ken lay of enron. they had turned everything over to the folks. the obama people are not like that. now, what everyone says about ken salazar -- and i am not sure your character is it is correct -- if you look at the record, the stimulus bill, the amount of moy for renewable energy dwarf anything that had been done before. so the idea that this is a coinuation of the past is not right. there were hundreds of millions

of dollars, the largest energy bill, renewable ergy, by a long shot in american history, that was part of that stimulus. what happened is there was so much othe stimulus, it was the biggest infrastructure since the highway act in the 1950's, the biggest tax cut since reagan. biggest education bill since the 19 sixties. did it -- since the 1960's. did such a poor job of explaining it, because they wanted to get it done by presidents day last year, so a lot of the details like a manar were completely missed by everybody. i have a sce in my book where the president elect determined to build a new smart energy grid, and he said it is like an to the moon, we can do it. it would create thousands and thousands of new jobs anhe was willing to put billions and

billions of dollars into this, and he did put many billions in but he wanted to do it even bigger. he found that the impediments, 216 different agencies, but "not in my back yard" quality of american government where all the loc agencies can block the development made it hard for him to implement all of this energy ideas. closing on this point -- he is very determined to have major energy legislation and i think when it is finally enacted some time in the next year or two i think you will be generally pleased. host: we just got his updated schedule for today. meeting with senator dodd and congressman barney frank about finaial regulations since they both passed. you got a story and hear about barney frank and treasury secretary paulson at the white house. guest: odds of timber 25, 2008, in the bush white house -- on

september 25, 2008, in the bush white house -- remember, the economy was collapsing and a lot of people do think we were headed for another depression. mccain suspenses campaign and asks bush to have a big meeting in washington and that is my opening chapter -- called obama takes charge. in this meeting, mccain was silent the first 43 minutes and when he spoke he did not say anything and en though republicans m of ram, 1 whispered to a couple of democratic senators, jokingly, even the republicans here will vote for obama because he clearly showed much more command of the crisis that come -- mccain did. what happened in the meeting was there was a real problem with but republican support on the hill for part -- tarp, and it put paulson and a deposition. in the hall after the meeting obama says, this place is bugged. he retreats to the roosevelt

room. henry paulson -- ha paulson comes in on bended knee with a nancy pelosi, and said please don't blow of the deal. and she says, i did not know you were catholic. and as part did not come out of all. barney frank bursts in with a stri of expletives beyond his normal banker, and he is pretty quick to anger as it is -- really out of control and both robert gibbs and jim manly, harry reid's spokesman, told me on the record that they thought it was going to get physical between barney frank and hank pason. barney frank was saying, blow of the deal, we are not blowing it up, it is your people blowing up of the f-ing deal, you go back and tell yr party to get it together. senator obama goes between them like a teacher on the playground with his hands spread and ss

easy guys, easy. hank, yo go back and talk to spencer -- spencer baucus, ranking minority member of the house financial-services committee and get it straightened out with him and we will get straightened out here and he kind of made peace and as he lefon the way back to the hotel he is telling s staff of the car phone, the conference call, that was the most surreal experience i have ever had. host: the next call for jonathan alter, hope bail, jean, a democrat. caller: i have been following you for a long time. i enjoy your work. two points -- he came in here with a very liberal agenda and immediately moved, it looks like, towards the center. example, no single pair in the health care. -- single payer in health care.

the second point, he seemed to be more liberal toward marijuana before he was elected. is there an influence in congress or the white house that would be pushing him against medical or even legalization across the country? guest: both of these are related. obama is a pragmatist. years ago he was for single pair but he recognized at the beginning of the process it was a complete non starter. i have a chapter called the perfect and the good. it comes from obama's ea is that the perfect should note the enemy of the good. in other words, if you consider a single payer to be perfect you did not want that to prevent some progress. if he held out for that he would get nothing. the same thing for the public

option -- there were not the votes for either single payer or public option. it reminds me of fdr, when he puts through social security, a lot of liberals say it is a sellout, it ensures fewer than 40% of senior citizens and roosevelt said we got to start somewhere and then we can build on it. if we don't start somewhere, we get nothing. that was obama's attitude. medical marijuana, i think he sees it as a distraction. i think he has this pragmatic no distraction policy. don't ask, don't tell -- they will deal with itow but they didn't want these secondary issues to be wrecking their primary agenda, which was to prevent a depression, get health care done, get the stimulus through, and the three or four big things that they wanted to get done. so all of the other issues that are quite legitimate and people care about a lot are put on the

back burner at least for awhile. host: new mexico, rubin, republican mind. caller: hello, i have a couple of questions. how did you arrive at the title "the promised"? and what is your take on the financial collapse that we had -- housing specifically. i saw videotapes only on fox, of course, videotapes where barney frank and the democrats were basically bending the arms of the banks, bank representatives were there in front of congress and they were -- host: tell you what, let us get the answer to the first question and if this -- did was to expand in the previous answer. th te promise the tears

of balkans office with a lot of promise and the american people were wondering if he would make good. in my epilogue i take readers through which of them hit the field and which he did not. i noticedn his acceptance speech at the democratic convention in 2008 in denver, he used the word promise 19 times in that speech, so myrologue is just a very, very short recap of that acceptance speech. all of that pointed to the title "the promise." did not especially give him high marks on housing policy and preventing foreclosures. but i also think of that sort of the finger-pointing going on, where republicans are saying this housing crisis is the democrats' fault and democrats are saying, well, it is all the

republicans' fault -- there is enough blame to go around. and were some good things done by both the congress and president obama in this area. host: the btitle -- "presint obama, year one." will there be a year's supply? guest: there will not be a year's supply book, but will live returned to the general topic? possibly. i have great respect for bob woodward and we actually have the same publisher and a wonderful actor, my editor -- a wonderful editor, editor from my last book and bob woodward's editor going back to his first book. we have different kinds of journalists. and i thinkeaders will have to judge for themselves. i did have the advantage of

being the first book out on the presidency. there have been books about his past and his background. obviously there have been campaign books. but i was pretty intent to be the fit one on what he is like in office. did beat bob on that in being first, for deadlinjournalists like bob woodward, that is nice. host: columbia, tennessee, will, independent line. guest: sure appreciate this opportunity. -- all because sure appreciate this opportunity. thank you, c-span. the media out here in america, given the transparency of off the branches. i have a three statements real quick -- to mr. errors. guest: did not want to get conflict -- computer with a bill . ayers

caller: i watched c-span consistently and you have both of the chamber's, senate and house, coming in and they offer their prayers, a very humbling scene, to god, for direction, and they offer the pledge of allegiance shong the true patriotism of their desires. but getting back to the title of your book. there is so much hypocrisy. you really ought to title the book "the false promises." host: argonaut a fan of president obama -- are you not a fan of president obama? caller: yes, sir. i will tell you what i did. i was voting for bush, hoping he would really, it themselves and the first -- he did worst --

which " did you vote for president obama? caller: i voted for president obama and i really looked forward to the promises he did make. host: do you think president obama succeeded in his first year? one of your goals was to talk about how he got there, what he did and how he did it. guest: i do think he succeeded. most of what i'm trying to do it is give folks like that collor and others more information on ich to make their own judgments on where he succeeded and failed. there is too much talk -- even though i'm a punt and -- to much talk, opinion, and not enough repoing about what is going on beard that was my first objective. but i did try to sum up where he fulfilled his promises and where he had not. obviously some he did not fulfil, like closing guantanamo bay by january 1. it is still open.

and there are many others. but if you look at it in total -- politifact, a political -- pulitzer prize-winning website and they assessed all of his promises and he either fulfilled or made progress on close to 400 of them by the end of his first year. you can say, well, the 100 he did not are the ones i care about. but if you are interested where he did succeed in the fulfilling the promises and where he fell short, i do have that in "the promise." host: chicago, larry, republican. caller: two questions. one is for the author of him and one for c-span. my question for c-span is -- did they look into michelle obama's appearances or interviews with jesse jackson's daughter on a

radio station in chicago -- chicago, a black radio station, before the election? did they look into that at all? for the offer, on rahm emanu, did rahm emanuel served in the israeli army and not the american army and? guest: i am not sure what he is talking about in terms of the interview with santita jackson. she is a close friend of michelle obama and she was at their wedding. but there is a lot of misinformation oline about the obamas. if he is referring to something about making comments about whitey, that is completely 100% false, it simply did not happen. the interviews in question that some people on line have raised have been listened to, including

by me, and did not contain any of that. on the second question, as far as rahm emanuel, he did not serve in the israeli army but what he did do it during the gulf war in 1991 -- rember, he was too young for vietnam, too young for the american draft -- he went on -- over as a volunteer with an organization trying to -- remember, israel was being bombed by scud missiles sent by saddam hussein and it was a very, very frightening time in israel and in the united states as we were in the middle of the gulf war, and he went over and with a civilian units he worked on repairing israeli trucks so they could get supplies to civilians more easily. he did that on a volunteer basis for a few weeks in 1991. but it was not the israeli defense force. host: last call, anne on the

democrats' line the caller: this is so great to have jonathan alter on. i have read every excpt i can so far about the book ani plan on picking it up. there was an excellent book and i cannot remember the author, but a washington pos writer that was called "the angler" about dick cheney. guest: an outstanding book. caller: what kept coming up in his book is how cheney was a master at establishing a kind of an inside the agencies in washington. it and what i'm kind of picking up is there is a lot of carry over that we are seeing today in some of the actions that are now being taken by the obama administration. when you have such a right

cleaning establishment going on for eight years, the baseline, the 50 yard line, is it really 50 yards? can you tell me about how old you think tre is has affected the obama agend and thank you so guest: that is an excellent point. there will always be some tension between the political appointees at the top of the encies and the career people. they came and under the bush administration. how that plays out might make it not a 50-yard line deal. i did do with how they want to centralize power in the white

house. we have not talked about the real tension between the president and the pentagon brass in afghanistan. host: we have to talk about how he gets alongh the generals and the congress. there is the market closely story. story.martha coke's ple she said, who will want to stand outside fenwayark. "tell me she did not say that. we have to leave stories for people to pick up the book. dressing down the chairman of the joint chiefs. guest: 3

>> coming up in just a few minutes, we will resume our lager -- live coverage today. coming up, luncheon speaker lisa murkowski. she is the ranking republican on the energy committee. at 1:30, continuing coverage on the debate of u.s. interest in the law of the sea convention. that is later on this afternoon here on c-span. we expect them to resume their program in just a few minutes from now with the senator. also today, in about 15 minutes, live from the national press club as well, the owner of the washington capitals and the

majority owner of the washington wizards. he will be talking about the business of professional sport spread live coverage of that at 1:00. earlier today, president obama signed a memorandum that ordered the government to consider what future fuel efficiency standards should look like. that order means that federal agencies have to develop fuel efficiency and emission standards by the year 2016. we covered that and you'll be able to see that on our video library. more coverage coming up come -- coming up from the white house as well with robert gibbs. that will be on c-span to. 2.

>> we are going to take you now live back over to the national press club. senator lisa murkowski will be speaking at the forum today at the press club. live coverage here on c-span.

>> ladies and gentlemen, if i could have your attention. we are per securely honored to have as our conference keynote speaker today senator lisa murkowski, the first alaskan born senator to serve the state and only the sixth united states senator from alaska. she is the senior republican member of the senate energy and

natural resources committee and also serves on the senate appropriations committee, the help education -- the health education committee. she was elected by her fellow republican senators to serve as the vice chair of the senate republican conference. she holds a b.a. in economics from georgetown and a law degree from -- and a law degree. as one who has been to alaska many times, the senator knows that it has approximately half of the continental shelf fisheries and other interest of the united states. i am an enormous fan of alaska. you cannot possibly go to alaska without coming away with a feeling that this is the most beautiful place on planet earth. i know from my conversations with people in alaska that one of the greatest treasures of the

state is this senator, senator lisa murkowski. she has done so much for alaska and for the country. please join me in welcoming her. [applause] >> thank you for your kind remarks and it is an honor, a delight to be with all of you. i recognize some friends out there. when i have an opportunity to speak on the issue of the arctic, are you guys called arctic groupies yet? i am not sure. it could not be a better gathering. it really is my pleasure to be able to address you today at the 34th annual oceans law and policy conference. i commend you for putting together a very, very impressive conference. as all of us in this particular room are aware, the united

states is an arctic nation because of alaska. i appreciate the very kind words you said about my remarkable state. we are very possessive about what goes on in alaska, but we do recognize that because of our 49th state, it does put in this country in a position that we are recognized as an arctic nation. i am very privileged to be the senior senator for america's arctic state. what does it mean? i believe that the federal government is now just waking up to this reality. we're trying to define exactly what the distinction means. in my view, being an arctic nation means that the united states, by virtue of our land and our waters, has a fundamental interest in the region and a responsibility and

an obligation to protect those interests. i speak to you at a time of great change for the arctic. the pace of change demands greater attention be focused on the region, the implications of the dynamic changing arctic for the residents, and important international security, economic, political interest absolutely depend upon it. we have seen interest in the arctic growing. the general public is paying attention. the media, most certainly. the attention is primarily due to the impact that we are seeing from climate change, the subsequent loss of seasonal sea ice, energy, and natural resources. until recently, the resources of the arctic were deemed to be too difficult, too remote, too expensive to develop. with increasing access and high

energy and mineral prices, the arctic is now being increasingly discovered, explored, and developed. this includes conventional oil and natural gas, but also methane hydrates. offshore alaska, we are estimating 15 billion barrels of oil in a concentrated area. about 8 billion areas -- barrels. we're hopeful that this summer we will have some opportunity for some exploratory wells. the region has possibly up to 30% of the world undiscovered gas and 13% of its oil. we also think that it holds huge amounts of other minerals, like coal, nickel, copper, zinc, gold, silver, titanium. i think there is sometimes a natural and reflexive tendency to question how in the world is

ever possible to drill and produce. how can it be done in a safe manner in such a harsh and misunderstood and a very distant environment? it is happening. the technology and the engineering behind the proposed activities is absolutely fascinating. we already know that russia is turning its eye to the arctic and its vast energy reserves. they're building the first offshore oil rig that can withstand temperatures as low as minus 50 degrees celsius. as their oil production is in decline, they are reducing taxes and bureaucratic hurdles in order to encourage new oil development in the arctic. they're also planning for a near wholesale replacement of their icebreaker fleet in order to better operate in the polar region. by the same token, an energy companyyfrom england is now

ready in two serious explore for oil and natural gas for the first time off of the coast of greenland. obviously, what is happening currently in the gulf of mexico has shown us that there is certainly a risk. there will always be risk and impact associated with producing energy. we must take every appropriate step to minimize those risks into the future. we also need to be rational in our response to what we are seeing with the deep water horizon tragedy. we do not know exactly yet what has failed to or how many components have failed. until we do, which should be careful. we should be cautious. we should not pass reactionary legislation that has not been fully thought through. we have to learn, just as we did from the exxon valdez, we have to learn from the gulf accident. right now, we are in the process of understanding and collecting the information.

i am hopeful it will guide us in our decision making on drafting new regulations that will improve our safety procedures. the deepwater horizon incident may have made us more reticent to drill in the deep offshore. it did nothing to change or to reduce our need for oil and gas, did nothing to change the value of those resources in what is still a growing global economy. even as we take steps to reduce our dependence on fuels, we're going to need oil and gas for decades to come. i believe that we will rise from this trrgedy, not only as americans, but that the world will learn and grow stronger in terms of understanding the value and the risks of energy production. alaskas offshore oil and natural gas resources are vital to the nation's strategic economic -- i

remain committed to the responsible exploration and production. since the deep water horizon tragedy has been unfolding, we have been demanding the administration -- we have been demanding and have saw to know what those greater protections are that surround these exploratory activities. i think it is important to point out that there are some differences between the deepwater gulf activity and up in the arctic, specific lee -- specifically the pressures within the area. the shell permits that are in process now have probably had more regulatory environmental, legal scrutiny than probably any other exploration permits in recent history. all eyes are on it -- are upon us in alaska and we need to be given the chance to prove that we can explore safely. the exploration activity in the

arctic has positive implications for energy security across borders. oil tankers will be able to have alternatives to their current routes that go through the south east asian states. -- straits. they can also benefit through the funding elements of these huge projects. the exploration, the production, and the construction necessary to develop arctic resources is going to require all kinds of financing, not just for the sheer scale and remoteness of the projects. but for the levels of the technology needed to bring them on line in a way that is safe for the workers, the environment, and has insulated from rest as