>> for the past year, british airways executives in the union representing cabin crews have been locked into a bitter dispute. they have already walked out twice, costing the carrier millions. amid the threat of new strikes, some passengers are unhappy. they are set to qualify-day strike on monday. this would add to the record losses. >> these losses demonstrate the need to reach an agreement. this business has gone through the worst downturn in the history of aviation. we are still here and still in a strong position relative to many of our competitors. we have taken decisive action. >> they have agreed to merge with a spanish carrier. that move will reduce their and all costs by 400 million euros. -- their annual costs by 400 million heroes. workers remain a most -- 400

million year rose. workers remain opposed to the plan. -- 400 million euros. workers remain opposed to the plan. >> the index edged down to a 101.5 points from 1 01. from 101.6 in april. it was markedly less favorable than the retail and construction sectors. a bitterly cold winter held chairman growth to a modest percentage. -- held germany's growth to a modest percentage. the markets in the germany brought an-into dismal trading week. -- a negative end to a dismal

trading week. >> countries have to consolidate. there have been concerned about the negative effects on the pressure on the dax. there have been speculations about central banking interference. it dropped to historic lows. >> we can stay and look at friday's numbers and the blue- chip dax index, finishing friday up at 5829. to 2574. stoxx 50 rose a the dow industrials finished at 10193.s10,99

workers at a german automaker have agreed to take certain kinds in order to keep the company afloat and help save their jobs. they have also agreed to delay a planned pay increase. the employees would be receiving shares in return for that agreement. they are receiving about 1 billion year rose in subsidies to keep the car maker going. -- 1 billion euors in subsidies to keep the car maker going. they are saving at the highest rate in 17 years according to the federal statistics office, setting aside more than 15% of the discretionary income, putting them among the most diligent savers in the world. concerns about job security are driving germans to save more.

many also fear higher taxes. experts warn that that zealous saving could have a negative impact on germany's economic growth. >> supreme court justice so disodium mayar -- sonia sotomayor on the confirmation process. >> questions over three days are not want to tell you much about a prospective judge. you have to look at their life work. that will be a clear reflection of who they are and how they think and what they will do. >> would a new supreme court nominee heading into the confirmation process, learn more about the nation's highest court in our latest book, "the supreme court." we will provide you unique insight about the court. that is available now in hardcover and as an evil. -- ebook. >> it gives you a sense of what

the country is thinking at that moment. >> he looks behind the institution of the u.s. senate -- "the upper house." that is sunday on c-span's "q&a." >> evidence outlined in a report from the south korean government planes -- blames a north korean torpedo for the incident. p.j. crowley to address that and other issues at this 25-minute briefing. >> happy friday to you all. welcome to the department of state. we have several things to talk about before taking questions. secretary clinton as landed in shanghai. -- has landed in shanghai, on the second leg of her asian trip, having stopped in tokyo for consultations with senior japanese officials. as you heard her say, we will be

consulting very closely during the course of this week with our partners in japan, beijing, and seoul, on the proper international response to the sinking of that south korean vessel. she also indicated that we will be cooperating closely with the government of japan regarding the best way forward in terms of promoting and strengthening our alliance and that our goals remain unchanged. it wants to minimize the impact of base coasting on the japanese communities. -- base hyosting -- hosting on the japanese communities. the secretary looks forward to hosting the minister of external affairs and they will co-chair a

high level of interagency discussions here at the state department on a range of critical issues including agriculture, education, energy, trade, and counter-terrorism. there will be discussions on global and regional issues. there will be separate bilateral meetings, between cabinet members and indian ministers on the margins of the dialogue. connected to that, the undersecretary of state will travel to afghanistan and india, leaving tomorrow. in afghanistan, he will go to the progress chief and discuss the successful visit of president karzai in his cabinet to washington, d.c. -- president karzai and his cabinet to washington, d.c. also in india from may 23 until june 4, r u.s. quarter for

international communications and public policy will pleaded delegation from the department of state, the federal communications commission, and other departments. we will be in u.s.a.i.d. areas to participate in a forum with the government of bangladesh. it is a country-specific element of the feed the future initiative. he will also take part in specific talks during the strategic and economic dialogue. he held bilateral meetings with coltrane ministers from bangladesh and bali -- with cultural ministers from

bangladesh and bali. assistant secretary of african affairs has completed his stay in you got that after conducting meetings with a number of officials -- in uganda after conducting meetings with the number of officials yesterday. he will arrive in istanbul tomorrow for a conference on somalia. with that, i will take your questions. >> do you have any update on the hikers in iran? are there any new prospects for their release? >> the mothers of the three hikers remain in tehran. i understand they had a second meeting with their children earlier today. we're grateful for that. beyond that, we understand that they are still there. we certainly continue to call upon the government of iran to

release them on the merits -- on humanitarian greens -- grounds. last july ther u.s. military turned over to iraqi custody five iranians and i would defer to the iraqi people whether they have been released. >> there in the hands of the iraqi -- they are in the hands of the iraqis right now, is that what you are saying? >> according to our agreement, the u.s. transferred five iranian detainee's to iraqi custody. if there were further releases of many of these individuals to iran, i would refer you to the iraqis. among the parent is on good

terms with the iranians. -- >> the government is on good terms with the iranians. does that give you hope? >> if there was such a release some of those circumstances were up to the governments of iran and tehran. >> iranian is in custody in iraq? >> you say they were still there. they are still -- there are reports that they were seen on their way to the airport. >> we will find out. they will tell you what is happening. we will get some information from our swiss protecting power. i think three of the hikers -- i think on freethehikers.org, you can see what is happening with those families. >> the russian transit are reporting that the u.s. department of justice has finally turned over the documents on the case.

i understand that this is purely -- >> you read my mind. >> i was hoping to hear something from you. we asked the department of justice about a month ago about this. they refused to comment. we did not ask them to comment. we just wondered if they received this. >> i would send you back to the department of justice. >> there is word that the u.s. denied a visa to an iranian deputy foreign minister. is that true? why would we keep him out of the country? >> those decisions are confidential. >> when you approve the visa,

it is not confidential. is there a reason? >> it is confidential in this particular case, regarding the delegation that was coming to the united nations. if we approve visas, they become visible, as with the arrival of a president at the united nations. >> the secretary said in tokyo that there must be an international response to this incident. what did she mean by international response? are you pursuing sanctions in the security council? >> she also indicated that one of the key aspects of her trip will be the consultations that she had today in tokyo, that she will have in the air couple of days in beijing, and in seoul, before she returns to the united

states. we will consult closely with our partners in this process in the coming days. we will share perspectives on appropriate steps. we will move forward with consequences for a round -- iran. this cannot be tolerated. there will be consequences. >> it is there any vigilance on the part of u.s. personnel in the region now in light of this attack? in light of the fact that the rhetoric has been raised? our u.s. embassy forces, does -- is anyone on alert? >> on military forces, i would defer to our colleagues at the pentagon. i would say that we have not necessarily changed our security posture in the recent days. >> [inaudible]

the defense minister did not think it was an act of war. this incident is not -- is a little short of an act of war. >> who said that? >> it was in the pentagon report -- press report. the exact wording was, "neither he nor mike mullen would go as far as characterizing that attack as an act of war." that was the wording. >> you are talking about secretary gates? >> yes. >> as we have made clear, this was a clear and compelling violation of the existing armistices. it was without doubt a hostile and provocative act,

unwarranted. i think our characterization's are broadly consistent. we will be evaluating -- i think our characterization is broadly consistent. we will be evaluating this with our regional partners. there will clearly be consequences to north korea. >> just to clarify -- does the state department see this as an act of war or not? >> the statement that we put out before called it an act of aggression. everyone has their particular term. "act of war" -- it was or torpedo fired by one military vessel against another. no one knows what the intent of north korea was. but it was unwarranted and unnecessary. it killed 46 south korean sailors.

we will be working together. there will be a strong and appropriate international response. >> on the same subject, as part of the consultations with south korea, it is the u.s. considering moving the date of 2012 for transfer of operational control, something that the south koreans had wanted in the past? >> that is an issue out would probably defer to our colleagues in the pentagon. >> you are not aware of it or you do not think you can comment on it? >> i am not going to comment. >> they said today that [unintelligible] they are blaming the north. north korea it is blaming the

united states -- north korea is blaming the united states. >> let me clarify. north korea saw a south korean ship and it is the fault -- sunk a south korean ship and it is the fault of the united states? >> he is pointing out -- >> i have heard outrageous statements before. the international community has been very clear with north korea, going back many, many years. north korea has obligations and commitments that it agreed to in 2005 and it has failed to live here to those. -- live up to those.

if it has failed in the six- party conversations, there is only one country to blame -- north korea. north korea knows what it has to do. it has failed repeatedly to fulfil its obligations. it has, once again, taken permit -- taken provocative actions that not only undermine stability in the region, but in fact present obstacles to progress to denuclearization of the korean peninsula and a different kind of security environment in that region. this is up to north korea to -- if north korea wants to change the status quo, then it is north korea that is going to have to take actions -- stop its provocative actions, develop a sustainable relationship with other countries in the region, and take affirmative steps to

denuclearization. >> can you confirm the negotiations with another high- level country in march because of this? >> there have been a number of contacts with north korea, not just by the united states, but by a number of countries. all of these contacts included a clear understanding that north korea would have to take steps, in order to make progress. north korea has failed to take appropriate action. we now have this provocative step with the sinking of the south korean vessel. it is north korea that has to change its behavior. it is north korea that has to stop these provocative actions. if north korea takes these steps, develops a different kind

of relationship with south korea, and other countries in the region, a number of things become possible. as we have made clear, if north korea continues to take these unwarranted actions, such as the sinking of the south korean vessel, then further progress is retarded. >> could you say more about this message that the embassy's sent out about avoiding a capering -- catering company that might have ties to the taliban? it looks as if the owner's son was arrested in pakistan for talking to the taliban about targeting vips and other diplomats and government functions. >> i will see if we can get you something on that. >> another question about pakistan. there are reports about connections between the eyes -- is odd between -- between faisal

shahzad and the taliban and out friday -- and al qaeda. >> there have been some arrests in pakistan. we just had a high level arrest of a couple of people there. the cia director has let us know that we're satisfied with the cooperation will -- we're receiving from bachus down on these issues. >> i know you say your habit -- from pakistan on these issues. >> i know you say you are happy with their leadership. excuse me. >> it do you want some water? [coughing]

>> we will hold that question. >> they said they are now having the official warning that they have received the agreement that was made in tehran between turkey, brazil, and a run -- and iran. do you have anything new -- >> you are suggesting that the iaea has received a response from iran. not to my knowledge. >> the brazilian president was asking the u.s. to come to the table. they said they're willing to negotiate. who should take the next step? even before this iran said there were waiting for the west and

the west was saying they were waiting for iran. who goes first? >> well, iran goes first. it is iran that is in defiance of many u.n. security council resolutions. in these joint declarations, iran has indicated a willingness to engage the p-5 plus 1. we want that to be at the top of the list -- the iran nuclear program. if they wish to have that engagement, and we welcome that engagement, they can pick up the phone and call us -- called the eu to set up a meeting -- and call the eu to setup a meeting. we had one meeting in geneva last year. >> are you meeting with her this

week? >> there may well be contact. if iran is willing to come to the p5 +1 -- af they are willing to have follow-up meeting to the session in geneva, we would welcome that opportunity. we have made ourselves available since october. iran has failed to come forward and seek that engagement. >> can you provide an update on the debate over the sanctions resolutions? will that be going on next week? >> yes. our work continues in that area. >> any progress on the annexes? >> we're still working on those. >> are you expecting to reach some kind of agreement with the javanese government -- the japanese government? but as secretary clinton said during her immediate

availability in tokyo, we will continue to work hard with japan based on their deadline. >> the japanese prime minister is going to visit okinawa. he is going to tell the people -- he will tell them something they will not agree with. they need to have an agreement on that. do you think it will work without the local government? it seems futile again. >> we understand that this is a difficult and complex issue. we continue to cooperate fully with the japanese government to work through this. we want to seek a resolution that is viable and sustainable. as a secretary said, we will continue our efforts of working closely with the japanese government. >> they will be in turkey

tomorrow. what is it about? >> it it is about the broader effort. we of the strongest supporter of the -- we are the strong supporter of their mission and helping the transitional federal government in somalia. i think the conference will be about the broader aspect of how to continue to support the sheikh and the government. piracy is one of the issues we will continue to focus on as part of our broader strategy. >> one more. >> welcome back. >> sorry about that. iran's ambassador to the iaea as informed them that they are ready to submit a letter -- a declaration that they reached

the other day. have you heard about this? allegedly, turkey and brazil will be accompanying them to the iaea. >> what we are aware of is that, in the joint declaration last sunday, iran committed itself to provide a letter to the iaea appeared we will watch to see -- iaea. we will watch to see if a letter arrives and if so what it says. thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> queen elizabeth ii will announce her legislative agenda. we will be there for one of their most celebrated occasions -- the opening of parliament. that is live at tuesday -- that

is live on tuesday morning at 5:30 a.m. >> elena kagan will testify before the senate judiciary committee. you can find the key moments from previous confirmation hearings on line at the c-span video library. every program since 1987. it is washington your way. >> wednesday, democratic national committee chairman tim kane outlined their strategy heading into the midterm elections. he also reacted to tuesday's primary, which saw the defeat of several incumbent members of congress. this is from the national press club and is about one hour. >> good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. i am a reporter for bloomberg news and the president of the national press club. we're committed to our

profession's future through our programming in through fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the press club, please visit our web site. you can also donate to our programs through the website. on behalf of our membership, i would like to welcome our speaker and attendees. .

[applause] our guests may not have gotten a lot of sleep given the prairie in arkansas. senator blanche lincoln faces a june 8 runoff against bill coulter. you have to remembe[unintelligi] establishment and efforts by the national democratic party to nominate former republican arlen specter to this fall senate race. for the democrats that are

[unintelligible] these are interesting times. governor tim kaine took charge of the dnc on january 21, 2009 after serving as co-chair of president obama's campaign and after four years of governor of virginia. during his time of governor, virginia was recognized as the best state for business in america. the state where a child is most likely to have a successful life. his mission is to promote the success of president obama and democratic officeholders and candidates throughout america while building a strong infrastructure to produce change in the nation's policies and politics. he leaveleads the party that may believe is headed for massive november losses. as voters are our rest of the deficit, bailouts, two wars in the bush's agenda being pursued

by president obama. we're interested today in hearing how gov. kaine plans to prove those pundits wrong. please welcome tim kaine. [applause] >> thank you. please have a seat. i want to thank you for that warm welcome and the invitation to be with you today. i have looked forward to one day gracing this podium and it will be good to have a chance to answer your questions. am sure -- glad to share the commitment to working hand-in- hand with the president to move this nation out of a decade of economic stagnation. i want to thank for president for having me here today. i want to recognize those who have joined me on the date my

wife [unintelligible] who is chair of the women's caucus. we have a number of other dnc numbers and staff and volunteers. i appreciate you coming to be with us today. it was over three years ago that senator obama announced he was running an audacious campaign to be president. he asked americans to join him in making history. in rebuilding our economy, tackling the health-care crisis, expanding educational opportunities, promoting national security moves to achieve energy independence, and reestablishing america's global leadership and doing all these things in a way that would lift a middle class families that were hurting. he said the times were tough but he knew and the thames -- * demanded citizen leaders who were capable of doing hard work in challenging times to push

fundamental change. the president is calling on his supporters to help him continue to deliver on that promise. the democratic national committee is gearing up for a midterm effort to reach up to americans from all walks of life, the people power this movement. the millions to cast their first bout in 2008. boaters can make a difference in the races this year. our message is simple. in the face of near united republican opposition the president and democrats have taken bold action to turn around the economy, lay a foundation for long-term prosperity, and provide greater choices and opportunity for the american people. there is a lot to be done. the president cannot do it alone. he needs allies who will stand with him in congress and state capitals across america. especially in the absence of any meaningful cooperation from the republican party, he needs

americans to reflect strong democratic allies. at the dnc, knowing all the challenges, we're still confident. we can help make that case and allow to be the doom and gloom prognostications and help the president and allies succeed. let me talk about that. in january 2009 when president obama walked in the door he found the economy in free fall. we were shedding jobs at an alarming rate. the stock market was plunging along with retirement dreams of millions of american families and the future was uncertain. the to under $37 billion surplus left by the clinton administration had been squandered and the nation faced a $1.3 billion deficit. the republican party policies that created the conditions for the disaster and produced something we have never seen in this nation. a decade of lagging wages and near zero job growth. americans are paying the price for those misguided policies as we continue to dig out of the worst of a lost decade and the

worst recession since the great depression. thanks to the leadership of president obama and congress we're in a different place. our economy is growing. we have some charts on the table to show that. instead of losing jobs, we gain jobs in the last four months offering hope to millions of reckons who are looking for work. there is strong reason to believe america will create more jobs in 2010 than in the entire eight years of the bush administration. this did not happen by accident. when the president took office, there was many economists warning of the imminent collapse of the banking system and real prospect of the second great depression. he and the democrats did would have to be done. with the moment required. they met their responsibilities and made tough and politically challenging choices to prevent a catastrophe and put the nation back on track. they put their country and our future first. they had to do it alone. in the time of maximum perrot, republicans in congress decided

as a block to sit on the sidelines and leave it to the president to clean up the mess they've treated. in the words of their chairman rush limbaugh, the credit for the president to fail. they did it for the most cynical of reasons. their theory was if he stumbled, they would prosper. if he failed, they as a party would succeed. with no help from republicans virtually, the president and democrats rescue the country from disaster. they saved or created 2 million jobs provided tax cuts to 95% of working families, and made investments in infrastructure, helping police, firefighters, and teachers keep their jobs. president obama inherited a health care system and we know the story. it was broken. without any help from republicans, president obama and democrats in congress achieved a signature and historic win. making necessary reforms that are making coverage more affordable and available to millions of reckons including

small businesses, young people, and seniors and. there ending the abusive practices of the insurance industry. insuring that no american is denied insurance through a pre- existing health condition or losing their policy because they get sick. president obama inherited a broken financial system. one corrupted by greed and enabled by regulators to -- who turned a blind eye to risky behavior. democrats are on the verge of passing wall street reforms that will put the american -- give americans the information they need to choose the right credit card, and right mortgage for the family business, that will hold executives accountable for risky bets they take with money and will and the need for taxpayer funded bailout of banks and other financial institutions. there have been more successes. saved on the industry. more american kids with health insurance. credit-card reform. great supreme court appointments. eradication of taliban leadership in afghanistan and pakistan.

a new global commitment to read getting nuclear weapons. president obama 15 or 16 months ago inherited a government that was not working. for everyday american citizens. he has begun to restore our promise and to address america's biggest challenges at home and abroad. there is still more work to be done. to find clean in an innovative energy solutions, to reform our nation's immigration laws, to restore america to number one. that is why it is sixcritical tt democrats. we are climbing the ladder. we need to keep climbing rather then slip back. well the president has made extraordinary efforts to reach across the aisle and i common- sense solutions, the republican party is more interested in continuing business as usual in washington. obstruction and political games even before the president was

sworn in. they set out a plan to disrupt his agenda in a matter the issue. they did not just do it for political gain. they have often rockeblocked prs to benefit allies and made it clear that they represent [unintelligible] if republicans are put back in charge they made it clear what they will do. their party will be to roll back the benefits that president obama has won. they want to repeal health reform. they want to cancel aspects of the recovery act including tax relief provisions. they want to put off hard decisions that have to be made to strengthen america's fiscal foundation. they put us back in the ditch where we were when president obama was inaugurated in january, 2009. we're not going to let that happen. that is where we will be fighting hard for democratic candidates across the nation. we wilhave a tough battle ahead. americans are anxious about this

economy. many are still fighting the recession from which we are beginning to emerge and they are holding parties accountable. this year, incumbents face the prospect of competitive primaries and potential losses. both parties have already seen candidates elected officials [unintelligible] voters have set a high standard. they're demanding leaders and who are focused on addressing our nation's long-term challenges, individuals capable of putting aside business as usual to continue the heavy lifting to achieve progress. even in this difficult political climate, boaters have rewarded strong democrats to deliver results. it is true that yesterday, senator arlen specter fell short in the pennsylvania senatorial primary. he will not represent the democratic party in this fall's elections. the senate will be losing a very talented and gracious public service. joseph stac[unintelligible]

will be a great campaigner for us this fall. that victory is the latest in a string of special elections in congress stretching back to the contest of the 23rd congressional district. it demonstrates democrats can compete and win in conservative districts. including ones in pennsylvania's 12th which was won by john mccain in to those made. it is a major blow to republicans. they declared the sea was the kind republicans needed to win. previewing the republican message for 2010, the republican candidate ran against president in the pennsylvania 12. and pledged to repeal health insurance reform. the republican candidates lost by a significant margin. the party's failure to take it

shows that while the conventional wisdom holds that this cycle will be tough for democrats, the final chapter on this year's elections is yet to be written. equally stunning was ky. mitch mcconnell saw his handpicked candidate defeated soundly by the tea party backed canada rand paul which was a crushing blow. also evidence that there is a corrosive and divisive civil war occurring on the republican side. democrats in kentucky nominated jack conway, offering kentucky is a clear choice between a candidate who is mainstream and a republican nominee that represents the extreme elements of the republican party. a candidate who has vowed to abolish the federal reserve. who vows to oppose at a time when we need constructive challenges instead of -- to the

problems we face. republican party has problems. they have been riding a tiger. in utah, a tea party candidates defeated bob bennett. the two party has split the republican electorate in to come a dividing voters between charlie crist. the tea party approved a far right platform full of conservative myths and conspiracy theories in maine. in arizona, senator john mccain has had to reverse course on lifelong political positions and fend off a primary challenger from the tea party wing of the party. let ms. tests have been the norm. in order to satisfy activists, republicans are running to the right and the party is becoming narrower and less welcoming.

if these moderates are eliminated, the republican party will become less appealing to independent and other voters. as we move from the primary season to the general election, i suspect some things will change. the economy will continue to improve. i expect employers will continue to add jobs and we will see those jobs reports rolling in month after month. americans will choose the democratic party. the party that took action to jump-start the economy. we have seen some significant movement showing a desire for a democratic congress that is working to solve problems rather than the republican congress committed to opposing the president ought of free -- at every opportunity. they can choose president obama and democrats were taking bold action to turn around the economy and light a foundation for prosperity or they can choose republicans, whose failed economic policies grow the american -- drove the economy

into a ditch. who had the nerve to ask for the keys back after the democrats and the president got the car up and running again. we will do everything we can to make this choice clear. we will develop a strong plan to do so. i am sure that most of you have heard a few things about the boat 2010 plan of the dnc. it will commit a level of resources to campaigns. a $50 million investment in house, senate, gubernatorial, and local elections. it is not about money. it is never about money. it is what you do witt it. over the past several months, we have been developing the most sophisticated election plan. the election will be tough. we're running against a significant headwind in terms of our history. if you look at the past 17 midterm elections, the president's party loses an average of 28 houses and governor seats as well.

the difficult times facing americans make that had led to even stiffer. we're used to running into headwinds. our number-one priority is getting first time 2008 voters to vote again in this election. in 2010. if we can enhance the turnout of the 15 million american first- time voters from 2008, we can make a significant difference in close races. many of those voters were inspired by the president. some were attracted to his focus on change. others to particular issues he advocated. there were fed up with nearly a decade of republican rule that saw a decline in middle-class success because special interests were first in line. they wanted to harness the of forces -- the forces [unintelligible] we need to make the connections between the president and the success and his allies whose help he needs to enact the

change agenda he campaigned on. what they're organizing for america, composed of staff and volunteers, we can make that connection in a person to person way. we believe we can make a difference of 2% to 4% in total votes cast which is a significant margin. it could be the difference between democratic victory in republican victory in many of the races that are markey races. we will work harder to engage in a power constituencies and reliable voters that come out every year. there were critical to president obama's success in 2008 and will be critical to our victories this november. thwill win the biggest voter registration campaign. we registered voters in 2008. we will institute our voter protection effort to ensure that every american who wants to cast

ballots knows how to do it. our nation is climbing out of the ditch and we cannot afford to stop climbing. what is next? we have our work cut out for us and we will work community by community to define the electoral choice. in 2008, voters cast their ballots for president obama because they understood what was at stake and they believed their boat mattered. we will make sure that americans understand the stakes. americans know this election will determine whether we continue to move forward or republicans will have the power to roll back the gains we made. will make sure americans know that their vote is as vital now as it was two years ago. thanks for a much. [applause] -- thanks very much. [applause]

the first question, what did you learn from last night's results? how will that affect the strategy for november? >> we are baghdad of prentixx so we are digging through and we will be learning for some time. americans want change. the same change mandate that was a critical part of president obama's election continues to be felt. people are seeing improvement in the economy that they want to continue to see change made. they will let people they think will be changemakers when they come to washington or reward candidates who have been in elected office who have not been afraid to do the heavy lifting to get our economy going. that will be critical. the second piece was one i mentioned. the tea party challenge that is creating a chorus of civil war is one that certainly we have to watch out for. republican candidates have to be as wary about it as we are. those are the lessons from last night. >> how do you feel about this

statement will appear at tea party rallies that there is a need to take the country back? >> it is confusing. i guess it will start off by saying in a time of economic anxiety, there will be electoral volatility. people will be angry and confused. the right strategy is to try to get action and do the heavy lifting and get the nation going again. there things that happened at the rallies and signs that are unfortunate. rather than base march anyone's motives, let's attributed to a challenging economic time. the solution is good policy and good results. the charts that show significant job increases and the stock market. they are volatile and gdp is shrinking to gdp growing as we continue to demonstrate that and further that trend. americans will feel like they are getting the kind of country back they want. a country of long-term

prosperity. >> you made reference to democratic success in special elections. why do democrats seem able to win special elections? >> i would not say always. we won six special elections including some extremely republican districts. we had the three months bad stretch where we lost two governor's races and that race in massachusetts. there is a lot of lessons to learn from this. it is a volatile time. when people are hurting, the electorate is volatile. people are going to want to see change. the same passion for change that image -- animated people for president obama, they're continuing to look for it. we have a better message because we have been doing the heavy lifting while the others

have been standing on the sidelines during rocks. we have to do some heavy lifting to bring about change. >> let's look at the most recent special election. the democratic winner opposed health-care reform. is pro-life and pro-gun. what kind of election does that give democrats? >> one of the signature issues in the race was the issue of health reform? he might not have voted for the bill but there is a sharp difference between the candidates on the question of will you repeat -- move to repeal health care? the republicans said absolutely. mark critz said no. the republicans made that race referendum on the president.

and whether a repeal would be a signature issue that will drive these elections for. it was favorable. that message did not carry the day. that is a helpful lesson to learn coming into this november. >> you made reference to thae democrats being stats geeks. here is one question. polls show a gap of 20 points between democrats and republicans in terms of voting in november. what do you do about that perceived or potentially [unintelligible] this time around? >> let me after some -- offer some counter evidence. in pennsylvania last night. everyone thought that was going to be a dead heat. republicans were sure that their guy was going to win. we did not win by five points,

we won by 9 points. in the kentucky primaries as today. rand paul got fewer votes than the loser of the democratic primary. it was the democrats who were energized in kentucky. after i virginia we lost the governor's race in november, the democrats won [unintelligible] we have to wrestle with the energy question which is a challenge when the president is not on the ballot. the turnout will be lower. the results of last night in kentucky and pennsylvania, some of the trends we have seen in the other states suggest that after the passage of health-care reform in realizing we stood behind this president and he has done something historic and important. that energy is coming back strong on the democratic side. >> given to assess thahis [unin]

improve the chances of democrats winning? >> i have not looked at polling about the [unintelligible] i am not sure what polls will say. democratic pennsylvania voters were voting for two candidates who supported the president. they had differences but in terms of the change agenda, those candis were not in the same spot. they will be energized behind congressman says stack -- sestak. >> given the 5% generic advantage, could 2010 coulshow democrats beginning in 2010? >>-- meaning in 2010?

>> there is a poll showing the switch. a trend showing there had been of favorability -- a favorability and that has switched. we would rather have people who were fighting to get the nation back then people who were saying no to everything. americans are candid. we can be angry, we can be met but we're not fundamentally people who stay angry. we want solutions. we want to find the path forward. a policy of no to everything does not work too well. i think as voters see the economy continued to improve, they will reward the democrats who have been willing. i am not going to predict the number of seats we will gain or lose. my goal is to make sure we continue with strong margins for the president. beyond that, i shall say no

more. >> you have been in politics for a while. people do not stay mad? >> i do not think they do. my experience in virginia where i was in politics for 16 and a half years. in the place to make people the madness. i was a city councilman and mayor. you make people mad in local office. there is very few one-issue thai voters. you make them mad but you tell them why and the next day we have another issue. the history of populism movements is an instructive one. populism movements have been driven by anger and focus on the anger, they tend to peter out. while economic challenges can make as anxious and man for a time, we're not fundamentally angry. we are can-do, optimistic people. that is what folks want to see. the positive spirit that can

through force of will, starts to bend events the right direction rather than through dimon gloom and anger, banned in our direction. -- demand gloom and angerthroug gloom, and anger, bend in our direction. >> you would have to fight a long time through speakers to find someone who has been effective in working with their majority to do as much as heavy lifting on tough issues as speaker pelosi. when you think about what the house did with respect to climate, economic recovery, and especially with respect to health care, that was legislative leadership in a remarkable and memorable way. i have my own theories about why the republicans like to make the speaker a bogeywoman.

she has done a very effective job especially in the democratic caucus that is extremely broad. we're not the latest test party. we are the broad party. we're not narrow ideologically. demographically. we are expanding. we are abroad caucus. speaker pelosi has done a tough job and a good one. the house democrats have quite a track record in winning special elections, she gets a lot of credit. >> what role should president obama play in the congressional elections this fall? >> we would love as much of his time as he can devote. he has a few issues he needs to deal with. we are thrilled that the president has been willing to go out and go to bat.

we have done it for the dnc and he has done it for the candidates. there is still a good chunk of primaries in june and some late as september. you will see the president be involved on behalf of candidates. i will say this. rule number one is in his belief,s is a good policy. because of the tough international situation, if you do the right thing and get the nation growing, that is the best kind of politics there is. voters will reward people who do it and punish those who decide to stand on the sidelines and be against everything. >> one of the issues that came up in the arkansas primary race was that organized labor's dissatisfaction with blanche lincoln's positions. what can the dnc do to improve its relationship with organized

labor? >> i feel good about the relationship we have, that i had in my earlier life and politics as an elected official at the dnc. i can say the same thing about organized labor that is as passionate. because of our ideological breadth, wethere might be candidates that our constituents agree at at a higher percentage of times than others. we want to be a broad party. we want to be inclusive. it is the genius of our country and the genius of our party. whether it is labor, environmental activists, or others, there will be candid it's the my like better. i think all of us in the democratic family are very content with the notion that we are a big tent party. if the other guys want to get nearer, we will let them. politics is about addition, not

subtraction. >> one of the criticism you hear about the party activists and republicans is to take parts of the obama agenda as socialism. how should we respond to this characterization? >> people love to throw labels around. throwing that kind of label around the is not hurt us. it suggests and extremism and an ideological rigidity where most americans are not. we want to solve problems. a party that relies on throwing labels around and refuses to cooperate, they might get a headline but they will not get supporters of people. in each of the policies, the way we need to do it is layout where we are. the policies the president is proposing on the stimulus. economists left, right, and center. the chief economist for senator

mccain praised the need for the stimulus and said one of the reasons we're going is because of the stimulus. you can look at people who work on these issues and they will point out the policies that have been taken are in the mainstream of smart, innovative policy solutions. the health-care bill owes a lot to the republican promoted health care bill from the 1990's and senator dole was one of the key architects. he helped these massachusetts reform plan that was signed by the governor. we're going to propose more solutions. if the other guys want to rely on labels rather than roll up their sleeves and help us govern a nation, it is an abdication of responsibility and it will not help their case. >> how well the democratic party persuade voters, including those who voted for president obama, that he is not that hard

addicted to the government? >> the president in february, a month after he was inaugurated, he rolled out his first series of program cuts and eliminations to do with the issue that he said he would do in his convention speech. we're going to wrestle with ways to deal with the federal based budget. that was in february. working together with secretary gates, he has waged a successful battle to cancel a number of obsolete weapons systems that had some political appeal but needed to be canceled to try of the deal with the deficit. the president went to congress and said let's join on an idea that was a republican idea. getting the hold of the deficit and wrestle with bringing it in control. republican sponsors of the bill failed on the bill and defeated it. they did not defeat his will. he has appointed a non partisan

chairman. a former presidential chief of staff. the commission is working hard on doing deficit reduction. you will see them implement proposals from the commission going forward. in recent times, it has only been democrats who have ever effectively dealt with deficits and it is going to be democrats who will deal with deficit concerns in the american public today. >> deficit-cutting as a policy goal, cuts being made in practice, you are still dealing with levels now that by any historic standards would obliterate previous records. given the calls for austerity and enactment of austerity measures, how do democrats hold their coalition together when the fights over policy priorities are over a potentially smaller pie? >> that is a challenging question. how do you accomplish what you

want to accomplish during a time when you have to do belt- tightening for deficits? the president has adviser who worked on this in state governments. i had to do this as governor. take $9 billion out of an $80 billion budget over the course of years and i had constituencies that cared about the future of the state. democratic constituencies do not mind a message of we have to make things balance. the understand that. the administration is filled with folks like governor sebelius and gov. vilsack who had to do the same thing when they were in those positions. i know about democratic constituencies. they understand that overall fiscal health of the nation when it is strong, can lead to sustained prosperity. those decisions will be tough, but they're not impossible. this president has shown he is the one to make hard decisions. >> given these constraints, did

president obama overpromise when he said he could change the way business in washington is done? has the perception that business as usual in washington two years in the solution to obama voters? >> the president did promise that. not only would he do good things, but he would do things differently. i think the president is converting on that promise although he would be the first to acknowledge there is more to be done. the president in his campaign ran a campaign and took an unusual position. we will not accept dollars from pacs. we have continued that. that was 10% to 15% yet we have continued to break with that business as usual to demonstrate their regular individual that the seats are not at the table. it is focusing on issues like that or focusing on being transparent about visitors to

the white house and posting who is visiting the white house. whether it is focusing on reforms that will be before the senate with respect to campaign finance reform and a series of other kinds of reforms. that is part of wall street reform. this president is performing -- promoting transparency and more citizen participation. there is much more to do. he cannot do everything he wants. the president is true to his word and pursuing that aspect of the campaign. >> given the united opposition of republicans to most of the program, what purpose would further outraged serve? without compromising in hopes of attracting their votes? >> the reason that the president will continue and all democrats should continue to hold out a hand to republicans is we're in

a time of national emergency. that is what voters expect. it is like churchill when he was the national unity government. it was a tough time. they had to come together to solve problems. i am not naive but i am stunned at the degree to which the republican party has decided to stand on the sidelines and say no to everything. i would think there would be a patriotic call to work together to get the economy growing. the president should continue to do it and social democrats. the strategy -- we should not be chasing after republican votes and diluting what we did. we should be listening to republicans. we should be listening to citizens of all stripes and we should be including the good ideas in whatever we do.

if it should go in financial form or as we wrestle with immigration reform. the ideas are good or bad. listen to good ideas and include them but we're not going to chase people who are going to vote against this anyway. >> there is a narrative you will hear expressed about the 1994 elections in which the democrats lost control of both houses of congress after 40 years. president clinton became a more effective president after the democrats lost control. he struggled with larger democrat majorities. he was able to triangulate and move to a centrist position and become a respected leader. given the problems that president obama has had with his agenda, with their big benefits to reduce democratic majorities? >> there would not.

[laughter] [applause] i am sure that is an incredibly newsworthy the reason not is we need to do heavy lifting. we're in tough times. who was going to do the heavy lifting? the folks who have been doing it, turning the economy from free falling to climbing, or the folks who put it in free fall and have been against the policies that got it going again? the notion that there will be benefits to stopping climbing in going back is not going to be the way that takes the nation forward. i do think that any time there is a loss, 94 -- there was a loss in massachusetts this year. you should try to learn something out of it. if you're not getting better after a loss, you're doing something wrong. it does not always go away.

-- our way. there was a critical time on health care where people who were supporters of the president lined up in to camps -- two camps. you need to do the things you campaign for and you need to make your ambitions smaller. the president wrestled with the message and said i think i should do people what i told people i would do. -- i should do what i told people i would do. the complete different positions that the parties have been in, one party will do the heavy lifting and one party that has been saying no. demonstrates the states are pretty high and we have gotten -- got to be successful this november.

nothing the anti-incumbent mud and your experience as a governor who was limited to one term, what is your feeling about congressional term limits and canada to pledge to serve a set number of terms? >> i am not a congressional term-limit proponents. the experience i have seen, not that i am a scholar, but the experience in state legislatures that have tied term limits is an absence of long term vision and expertise will often lead states to be run from a government standpoint much more poorly than when you allow expertise and long term vision, ratified by the electorate in two- year to four-year cycles. it would be a bad idea for congress. with respect to people who pledged a certain number of terms, that is what voters

should consider. that would be one thing that voters should wrestle with as they determine whether the individual has been an effective member of congress. it is one that folks should wrestle with. as for term limits, i am not in favor. >> what do you see as the major issues that will be deciding elections in november? >> it will be -- kind of the way i phrased it. we are climbing a ladder. when you think about a decade where there was essentially no job growth in this country. we have not seen that decade that i know of since 16 07. we have not seen a decade -- it has been a very unusual decade. when you look at the news today, widening gaps between the rich

and the poor. between the majority and minority families and household wealth. that is what the decade was. what is at stake this november is, let's put that behind us. it is in the rearview mirror. we are not where we want to be but we're moving forward. the issue is, do we want to move forward or do people want to move back? do you want to go back? there may be a segment that wants to go back. i cannot imagine that segment is that big after we have been through. that will determine it. a sense of momentum and promise and a willingness to do heavy lifting and there is heavy lifting to do. there is a willingness to do them now and that is the key issue that we will wrestle with. >> would you expect the democratic congress to accomplish between now and the elections? >> the wall street reform will be acted on the senate's and go

to the house. you will see significant wall street reform done. this is one that is improving as it goes. other ideas are coming in. unclear where republicans might do on cloture or altman votes. there are ideas that are improving. you'll see congress take up campaign finance reform in the afternoon aftermath of the supremt decision. the white house and congress are wrestling with two issues. which is the need to find a sustainable climate and energy policy going forward and the need to reform the nation's immigration laws. those are the significant domestic issues on the table. the clemons bill has passed. the house bill is in the senate. the bill will expire when the new congress comes in.

they're wrestling with that. the immigration reform issues are huge. could either of those be done and what order? those are decisions that members of congress and the white house are making. those are huge issues that are occupying a huge amounts of the president's time. you'll continue to see congress wrestle with very important issues of foreign policy. continuing to work in iraq and afghanistan, to support the president's effort in the anti- terrorism that has led to significant success and wiping out key layers of the taliban leadership. >> we have not received a single submitted question dealing with foreign policy. >> i do think in that time of significant economic anxiety, that is what will be front and

center for people is the economy growing again. i do think americans have reason to be proud of the accomplishments of this administration and foreign policy. everything from the start treaty with russia to the great work of secretary clinton to get the other permanent security council members to get together that will hopefully put iranian nuclear ambitions in check. the early work with respect to the pakistani government. they were willing to make arrests that they were not willing to under previous administrations. diplomacy can make your nation safer. that is what secretary clinton and others have done. the reasons that may not be a huge issue. people are focused on the economy. i do not think the republicans have a valid critique on

anything with respect to foreign policy or national security. >> you made reference to the supreme court campaign finance decision. how is that affecting your plans for this fall's elections? >> two things we're trying to counter that. as was mentioned by the president. congress is working on a way to reform the system with the supreme court's opinion to reform laws with respect to campaign finance contributions. the two most commonly mentioned reforms would havbe that shareholder votes would be from the dnc site, what we are doing to deal with psittacine

united and the fact we're not taking pac and lobbyist money, we are increasing the number of individuals who have contributed. i will not give you my web page and phone number for the call. we have been able to dramatically increase our fund raising in significant ways. we raised more post-mccain-f eingold. it is not pacs and lobbyists that fund the dnc. hundreds of thousands of new contributors last year. they have enabled us to be successful. we hope that congressional reform and a dramatic increase in the number of individual donors, this will help this counter what we think could be significant, -- consequences. >> a quick question related to your employment.

where democrats opposing [unintelligible] to open virginias waters to drilling? >> the policy was we were open to exploratory drilling 50 miles off the shelf. the federal moratorium is a cost-benefit analysis. it was a conclusion the costs exceed the benefits. we felt like that was done some time ago. you have to make a new calculation every once in awhile. there is no good way to calculate benefits without having some sense of what is out there. in a limited way, we expressed the state policy for exploratory drilling to determine what the national gas reserves were. we felt with that information, we could make the rudder decision. taking environmental impacts into effect and concerns

expressed by the navy and nasa because of offshore activities. i am fine with exploratory. i suspect that many democrats in virginia are the same way. you explore to find out what is there. then you do the hard way of the costs and benefits to decide the policy. >> audience members want to know. where is the 2012 democratic convention going to be held? >> as soon as i announce that, no one will be courrint m3courtr nice to me. >> we have not announced until late this year or early 2011. we are involved in discussions with a number of cities. keep those cards and letters coming. >> we're almost out of time. before asking the last question, we have a couple of important matters to take care of.

let me remind our members and guests. we have that owning of the washington capitals who will be speaking on sports and technology. on may 26, barbara bush, the daughter of george yalobusha wilsigeorge bush. then a presentation of four journalism awards. the provisiontraditional presenf the national press club mug. [applause] now our final question. yesterday was an interesting day. a landmark day in what is the campaign of 2010.

you mentioned being a stats geek. given all your data and what you see and who you are in touch with, what surprises you about what campaigns, how they play out, what surprised you about yesterday, how much sleep do to get? >> leslee pretty well knowing that unless i am a voter in a state where the boats are being cast, there's not much i can do about it. i slept fine. what surprised me? my wife told me earlier today that the kentucky primary draw more votes for the democratic loser than the republican winner. that would not have been my prediction. that tells me something about

democratic energy that is different than maybe what some are saying. maybe to take it another way. here is what i find surprising in heartening. it was one of the things i've found heartening about being national co-chair of the obama campaign. a lot of people feel like in a nation of that size, one person cannot have an effect. we tried to organize the campaign and now we're trying to organize our efforts. so that we take the 50 state model that howard dean put in place. what i used to say about the campaign is you did not have to be a campaign staffer for your idea to matter. he did not have to be a maxed out donor for your dollar to matter. we made that work with respect to elections. even in a nation of 305 million, with tv ads being expensive, we can make the same thing work in

the context of making policy. we demonstrated that in the area of health care reform by engaging 3 million americans in the hand to hand and the personal. i would say for as big as we are in the technology, is about the person to person connection. if we lose that, i will find another work -- line of work. it is the person to person connection that makes this work. i am surprised at how we can use new technology to create the person to person connection and engage people who never thought they would have the power to be meaningfully engaged in policy decisions. >> thank you for your time. thank you very much. [applause] >> alonhg with making our

speaker, we would like to thank the national press staff. for more information about joining the national press club and on how to acquire a copy of today's program, please go to our website. press.org. thank you for coming and viewing today. this meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> weeks after the british election which produced an new prime minister, queen elizabeth ii will announce her government. we travel from buckingham palace to government and inside the

house of lords for one of britain's most celebrated occasions, the state opening of parliament. left tuesday morning at 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> this is c-span. public affairs programming courtesy of america's cable companies. next, senator chris dodd and ba rney frank. after that, newt gingrich. then, president obama on fuel efficiency standards. >> barney frank predicts the president will sign a bill before the congressional recess. he is joined by chris dodd outside the white house to talk with reporters following a meeting with president obama on the next step for the bill. . .

>> this is one of those rare occasions where the bills are close to one another. we are going to take the best of both bills and married them together and present our colleagues in both chambers with our final product. we believe the public is correct in insisting that we not leave them ballmer will -- not leave them vulnerable to the same problems they witnessed over the past several years -- jobs lost and homes lost, in comes evaporated, home values

declining. we want to give this country a sense of confidence and optimism about the financial structures of our country. we have to come to a clear recognition that we no longer live an isolated place, that events that happen in small countries can have a huge impact on the global economy. we need to work with our friends around the world to make sure we have consistent rules. it is a strong day for america. this is not a battle between democrats and republicans. olympia snow joined us last night in supporting this legislation. i hope there will be more in the final conference support and that there will be more bipartisan support in the separates. i am grateful to barney frank. he has done a great job with the house financial-services committee. it is a strong bill. i believe a combination of the best parts of both bills will make them better. >> i very much agree with the

senator. i cannot remember ever seeing to similar historic pieces of historic legislation coming out of both houses so closely. that is not coincidental. we have been working together on this since the crisis hit in 2008. much of this you can see foreshadowed in the speech that george bush's secretary of the treasury made in 2008, things like the dissolution authority and how we deal with that. there was a bipartisan tradition here. it did not always carry through. senator dodd think the court republicans who voted for the bill in the senate. i would think the republicans who voted for the house if there were any. if any of them decide to break party discipline and vote -- they are intimidated from doing it. we will have a conference that i think will work well.

it will be conducted in public, the formal parts. that means no agreements will be reached -- no compromise will be made part of anything without being publicly presented, and voted on, and discussed. i understand the urgency for the financial stability of the country in getting this done quickly. knowing what is going on is important. i think people can be pretty confident. it is hard for me to think this will take more than a month. i think the president will be able to sign this bill before we leave. that is for the july 4 recess. the suggestion that we have solved some of the problems from before -- what about the future? we are well aware of it. part of the deal with this bill is the recurring thing that comes up in our economy of new phenomenon that have not been dealt with. we deal with securitization here without suppressing it. we regulate credit defaults

swaps. these were new phenomena. we have an industry that will innovate and try to get around some of these things. in addition to putting rules in place for what we have seen, we have empowered the regulators going forward. we have instructed -- we have instructed the regulators and given them principles so they will be able to deal with new phenomena. this is not a static bill. it is a framework that allows for innovative regulation going forward to meet innovative financial activity. >> some people think they can take out the more onerous parts of the bill in the conference. >> i would not take a lot of investment advice from those banks if they are not better at that than they are at politics. i would like to congratulate senator dodd. getting things through the

senate is a little difficult. there is one. want to make. in one sense, he had an advantage over me. i want to address the cynical view of american politics, which quoted correctly. big money does it in the big banks do it. last year, health care was taking up most of the attention. the bill was almost an inside game. health care has not been done. the senate conducted its bill in public light. you saw the big banks did not win anything they said they wanted. there were not able to block anything. anybody looking for a demonstration that when the public is engaged democracy works well gets it from this bill. just look at the contrast. there were votes on the floor of the house last year where derivatives were on the losing side. i believe there would be on the winning side today. the old assumption that big money gets everything they want

-- it is hard to see how anybody can look at the process in the senate and not see how informed public opinion, working with the senate leadership that senator dodd and others provided, prevailed. >> you believe the president will have the bill signed before june 7? >> i believe we will. >> will the derivatives provisions survive? >> we are going to have a conference. there is a lot of basic -- i understand that. >> we are not able to -- we are two members of congress committee. it is going to be an open process. we cannot dictate to people. >> that is exactly what i was going to say. [laughter] >> we are going to have a conference. we cannot pre-conference it. you are dealing with a bunch of things that are interrelated. we now want to get into the

conference provision process in which we all will be talking about it. these things are all going to be discussed. i will guarantee you this -- whatever the final resolution of any of these issues, that will be presented publicly in conference and will be subject to votes. >> harry reid allowed a process to go forward. i know he was focused on the detail of the bills, but the senate did something it has not done in a long time. as someone who has been in the last 30 legislative days, to watch the senate over a four week period have 60 amendments be considered, half of which were adopted, where for the first three weeks it was 51 votes that got the amendment adopted or defeated -- that has not been done in a long time. a lot of complaints have been made. members who earlier on said that a fair and open process would mean a lot -- i think it did to

several members. this bill includes a lot of ideas that were offered by republicans as well as democrats in a long process over many months. i think it is important that the public understand, not just in the conference, but actually on the floor of the senate, there was a full blooded debate of ideas. there were decisions made about accepting or rejecting those ideas. that may seem unimportant at this moment, but to me it is terribly important that the congress of the united states can conduct the kind of debate and produce the results we did. >> let me reinforce that. good news sometimes it's taken for granted. when there are procedural issues, they become major. this was a very open process in the senate and house. we had more time to do it in committee, but we had a lot of mark ups. there were lots of amendments adopted. you look at the house and senate together -- this was the way the legislative process is supposed

to work at its most open. i think that has contributed to our being able to get it through. >> when you passed the bill in the house, the administration had not yet endorsed the volker rule. do you think the house will be comfortable with the volker rule? >> senator dodd gets to interrupt me now. we are not going to talk peace by a piece about this in conference. -- we are not going to talk piece by piece about this in conference. we are going to discuss this. it would not be appropriate to try to dictate to the conference before we have our own process. >> i am asking about your opinion. is your sense that the house would be comfortable with something like the senate has done? >> i am not going to speak for me. i am sure as hell not going to speak for the house.

the greater improvement is best. we will see about it. you will get those answers. you will get them in a process where it is not just me and senator dodd. there will be the house and senate, republicans and democrats. that is the way it is supposed to work. >> the chamber says the bill is too tough and will kill credit and jobs. >> if i could arrange a tour for them to say that at eight places in my district, i would be grateful. >> 8.5 million jobs have been cost because of what these institutions did or did not do. 7 million homes have been lost because of what they did or did not do as industry, not to mention the loss of value and wealth in this country. it is an arrogant statement for the chamber to make about what the implications of the bill may be, considering what they cost us because of what they did for a long time. >> when senator dodd and i were about to become chairs of these committees in 2006, late in the

year, the chamber had a forum i spoke at because one of my colleagues ask me to. they were pressing for further deregulation. the argument in late 2006 was that we had overregulated the economy and everybody was going to go to england to get the light touch of the financial services authority. they have simply been wrong on this. >> thank you. ho[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> is a conference that is open. there is no security issue that means there will be a closed conference. the rules allow any medium to cover it that want to.

i would tell the senator may be the first week back we could have it -- the first session, all the stupid opening statements, and then we get to work. >> when voters say to a republican candidate, "what are you going to do about the economy?" all they have are the economic policies that caused the mess in the first place. chris van hollen on boaters sentiment in the midterm elections. >> we talk about the capitol hill reporter about the week ahead for congress. >> john shaw of market news international -- a couple of timely spending bills coming up

in congress next week. one is commonly referred to as the text extenders legislation. >> it is an interesting bill. congress has been focused on health care and financial services reform. it is finally getting to the meat and potatoes of what it is supposed to do, including both tax measures and spending. on the house side, they will take up about a $200 billion package of tax cuts and benefit extensions. this will include extending about a dozen tax cuts that expired at the end of last year, extending unemployment insurance, and extending health insurance subsidies for unemployed workers and providing state medicaid funds for states who very much need these funds. the package also will allow states to avert a 20% cut in medicare reimbursement for doctors. this $200 billion package will hit the house floor next week.

there will be some controversy because only about $60 billion of this package is paid for with some revenue enhancements, so there are going to be a lot of people who are going to raise questions about whether this is affordable, given the nation's fiscal situation. >> that is what the house is going to start with next week. in the senate, they are dealing with the war spending bill. what are the key issues at play in that debate? >> it is about $45 billion. much is for funding the expansion of the war in afghanistan, including the president's surge of about 30,000 additional troops. also, for some of the reconstruction and security measures in iraq -- that makes up the bulk of the $45 billion. there are smaller items that are relevant, including the president's request of about $125 million for the gulf of mexico oil spill. it allocates money for haiti,

and it helps fema replenish its funds for dealing with national disasters. >> who are some opponents to the war spending bill? >> not too many direct opponents, but people will try to add for it. the iowa senator, a democrat, wants to add a $23 billion state aid so these funds can be used to help teachers to avoid layoffs of teachers. some republicans have signaled that they want to have a good chunk of this bill all set. certainly, anything that is spent beyond the funding on the wars of iraq and afghanistan. there will be discussion about the nation's fiscal situation and whether any of these spending measures and tax measures on the house side should be paid for. >> there is a sense of timeliness to both of those bills. >> on the tax side, a lot of

provisions have expired already. you need to get moving because congress is about to begin its memorial day recess. likewise on the spending bill front, the secretary of defense, mr. gates, has gone to congressional leaders and said he needs these moneys very soon. majority leader harry reid has said it is very important for the senate to pass its emergency bill next week. >> a look ahead to the week in congress. thanks for the update. >> thank you. >> now, a conversation with former house speaker newt gingrich from today's "washington journal." this is 40 minutes. >> newt gingrich, the first line in the your new book, "to save america: stopping obama's secular-socialist machine," is "i never expected to have to write this book." what do you mean? >> when i was a junior congressman working with ronald reagan, the world looked bleak.

the soviet union was in offense. our economy was collapsing under president carter. people have lost morale. the president gave a speech about malaise. reagan came in. the soviet union disappeared. the economy took off. jobs were created. inflation was defeated. "proud to be an american" became a popular song. in 1993, i thought we had one at the big arguments. 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 tt 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 basically ignoring every lesson. so, whenhe republicans failed in 2006 and 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 it is very important that the average american realize that we are actuly in a struggle 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 under siege. host: what do you mean when you use the term secular socialist? guest: that is in contrast to the communist it wants government to control the entire 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 eourage in 2014 every american business to drop their health insurance and make money by giving u on insuring employees. if you look at current ownership a.i.g., the largest insurance company in the united states, general motorsers chrysler, if you look at the new federal regulatory bill that will dramatically expand politicians' power and look at fannie mae and freddie mac the largest unfunded liability we have on the books

and basically run by politicians for politicians, again and again you see this expansion of politicians and bureaucrats and shrinking of free enterprise and entrepreneurs and small business leaders andeople who work and pay tabses. so -- pay taxes. the second kau similar part is -- the secular part is tied into socialism. it is you believe the ste can control and define. our declaration of independence says we are endowed by our eator with certain unalien able rights which you mean power comes from god to you. you th loan power to the state. but ameca 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 senat 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 americanistory or have repudiated american history to believe that having a day of prayer is unconstitutional. for the last 40 years we have had a relentless march of secularism driving god out of public life where one of obama's nominees was a person who ruled the indiana legislature couldt open its daily meeting with a prayer. host: why do you include the 12 eps of alcohols 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 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 think you understand why it works. if youotice 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 that 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 o the american

revolution. host: in the chapter secular socialism, lookt 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 something, not government. it ads 159 new federal agencies, offices and programs to what is already th largest department in the federal government. why is that seklar? -- secular? >> it is more socialist than secular. should the secretary of health and human services have the power to establish waiting lists for whether or not yourife is

going to be saved? should the government have the right to dece 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 short 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 peop with alzheimer's is

appropriate. i think it is dangerous to centralize those decisions 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 zoo was 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. rebuilt the zoo, built a research program. then he went down to pm beach to the west palm beach zoo where he continues to do a great job. he and i both belve

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 to 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 of indianapolis. you could come to sort of a central point to learn new 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 hoping that you will consider running for office in 2012. we need somebody with your ids, your experience and your faith. guest: first of all, thank you for that call. and my wif and i are looking very seriously and trying to get our businesses in order. we run for businesses and we are 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 among 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 tohink 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 taken a ar to think it through. it is a pretty daunting challenge. host: if you were president what would you be doing about the b.p. oil spill? gues 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 you 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 the government 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 business 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 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 will 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 i 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 failed new 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 functionor 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: cld you give an example? caller: capitalism doesn belong in areas like healthcare, in areas like food production. host: there are two examples. est: 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 politiciansun 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 importing country 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 fundamental disagreement. i say it respectfully but it is very important, that 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 leadship. about 100 companies belong to the center of all kinds from hospitals topharmaceuticals, 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 get 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 call is 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 back -- elaborate. back in the days of the pentagon hero or trader? guest: trader. host: if you were the ninth vote on the supre court who will determine whether the paramedics would be 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 unrstand,

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 morning. 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 allhe 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 up the 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. fit, 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 fr years i was speaker which is the lowest since calvin coolidge. we cut taxes and balanced the budget so we accelerated econom growth. we also priorities even controlling spending. we doubled the national institut ohealth 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 balance it when i was speaker. we can balance it by2015 if we start now. we can control spending and i would renamehe deficit commission the spending control commission because it brings back any tax increase proposal i would urge it be dead on arrival. we do not need to raise taxes in a country which is overgoverned and overspent. it is not undertaxed. and at a te of 9.9% unemployment 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 adjourn 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 although they usually have a prayer, say the pledge of allegiance and say a few things. host: what do you miss most about being speaker? guest: i think it was extraordinarily invigorating. working with to hold on i am no sure we were never quite that efficient. host: newt gingrich, what is on

your summer reading list? gut: 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, o i got to meet this week, a great mystery writer from minneapolis and is the was book i think is called "stormy 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 brinout i can't help myself. i have a firm rule, read like fiction first and all the non- fiction step 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. caller: thank 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 $100 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, albany, and sacramento, are as grave a threat as any totalitarian system we have ever seen. that, i mean, if they gain in total control, if they eliminate got from public life, if they suppress your religious liberties, if they take away your right to earn money and politicians decide 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 serious a threat. by the way, if you go back and looked at george orwell's 1984, rember, george orwell, and left wing intellectual, so feared centralized planning and government that herote in 1984 not about the soviet union, not about not see germany, he wrote it about great britain and he said 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 up creating the end of freem as we have known it, which is also what hiatt said to all -- in "the road to serfdom," and not describg 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 germany 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 o. 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: no, 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 may require decisions that occur faster than congress. i did urge in 2001 that we enact a declaration of war after 9/11 because i thought it was important to create the legal framework of warfare. but frankly, it was the lawyers whoaid 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 any kind of a program illegal status. host: that caller mentioned the o atlanta. if you go to the c-span archives you can e a tour that c-span did with newt gingrich when he first became speaker down at the zoo.

farmington, new mexico, city, republican. callego-ahead. call: mr. speak, i talked to you two years ago when i predicted the route to republicans took in congress. the whole thing has had me mystified until recently. a very dear friend of mine in phoenix 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 governmen. in the united kingdom or england today is just about taken over by them. the parliament is all fabian socialts. 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 lt would like to pretend to be moderates while the things they're doing 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, that 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 look at -- 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 canhese 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 democrat, and that

is not a bad thing. i think if he's there to but we talk about the democrats, they think what they're -- stereotypically, but democrats, they think what their feelings. 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 and 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 much for somebody like me as i am trying to grow. guest: i am not quite sure wha 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 hadppeared -- that he had. but i think the deeper points you are making, is when you are in a period of very great difficulty, sort olike a boat that is at sea and the storm is overwhelming, and 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 howeep 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 litical document says we are endowed by our creator with certain in the liberal rights, among which are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. and the scottish eightenment, 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 84. 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 where he and the thinkers that he brought into his administration come from. thanks again.

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. guest: i think it was good that arlen specter lost. i think to switch out of personal ambition is wrong, just like what i think charlie crist and where is doing is wrong. and it is good the people in pennsyania 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 house, 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 high 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 staled by the fact that really bad leadership 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 the syst. and it makes for an interesting,

complex balanc 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 forhe house republicans and for john boehner. i tnk 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. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" reporter pete posttspo talks about this bill in the gulf of mexico. mr. gattuso talks about his

thoughts, and bill shore looks at america. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, president obama on fuel efficiency standards, then a columnist and author jonathan alter on the president's first year on -- first year in office, and then alaskan senator lisa murkowsky. >> journalist terence samuel looks behind the institution of the u.s. senate, the upper house, sunday on " q &a" president obama says he will work to pass an energy and climate change bill this year. at this event, the president signed a memorandum of forcing

higher fuel efficiency standards for medium sized and heavy-duty trucks. from the white house rose garden, this is about 15 minutes. . . >> good morning. please, everybody, have a seat. it is wonderful to have you all here. welcome to the white house.

i want to introduce some of the i want to introduce some of the folks who are on the stage who have been integral in making today possible. you've already heard about the wonderful team here at the white house, carol browner, ray lahood and lisa jackson. but in addition we have on the stage a number of people who were absolutely critical. martin dom of -- the c.e.o. of daimler trucks, mr. anthony dunkly who is a driver for waste management, mr. g. tommy hodges, chairman of the board of american trucking association, mr. alan ruettiger, legislative director for the u.a.w. mr. dennis schlagel, c.e.o. of volvo. mr. tim solso, c.e.o. of cummings. and mr. daniel ustein, c.e.o. of navistar. please give them a big round of

applause. [applause] we also have us with -- have with us some legislative leaders who have been champions of not only the auto industry but also the environmental movement. and i want to thank them for being here. one. deans of the house of representatives, representative representatives, representative john dingell, please give him a big round of applause. [applause] representative ed markey is here. from massachusetts. [applause] representative chris van holen is here. and representative henry waxman. now, it was one year ago today that i stood here in the rose garden on a similarly beautiful day with some of the same folks. to announce the historic

agreement to help break america's dependence on oil, to protect the planet that will -- we'll leave to our children and to spur jobs and growth in the industries of the future. it was an agreement, the first of its kind, to raise the fuel firbletcy and reduce the greenhouse -- efficiency and reduce the greenhouse pollution for cars and trucks sold in the united states of america. a lot of people thought such an agreement was impossible. after all, for decades, we had after all, for decades, we had made little headway in improtching the fuel efficiency of our cars. we hear a lot of urgent talk in washington when oil prices went up. thened with see politicians rush to the local gas stationings. i remember going to the gas stations, holding press conferences and announcing new legislation. but the impetus for action would fade when gas prices started to go back down. meanwhile, progress was mired in a lot of old arguments. traded across entrenched political divides. left versus right, management versus labor, business leaders

versus environmental advocates. but what we showed here one year ago today is that we could do something different. we proved that these were false choiceless. we brought together all the stakeholders, including former adversaries, to support a policy that would benefit consumers, workers, and the auto industry. while strengthening the economy and protecting the planet. one year later, we're beginning to see results. instead of fighting higher standards, auto manufacturers are engaged in a race to meet them. and over the next five years, we expect fuel efficiency standards in cars and light trucks to reach an average of 35.5 miles per gallon. as a result, everybody wins. the typical driver will save roughly $3,000 over the life of the vehicle. will reduce our dependence on oil by 1.8 billion barrels and cut nearly a billion tons of greenhouse gas emissionings. this is the equivalent of taking 50 million cars off the

road. lowering pollution, while making our economy more secure. and by setting a single standard in place, rather than a tangle of overlapping and uncertain rules, auto companies will have the clear incentive to develop more efficient vehicles. this in turn will foster oin vegas and growth -- innovation vegas and growth -- innovation and growth in a host of new industries. that's what we set in motion one year ago. today we're going even further, proposing the development of a national standard for medium and heavy duty trucks. just as we did for cars and light trucks. in a few moments, i'll going to sign a presidential memorandum coordinated by my chief energy advisor carolina browner and directs my administration under the leadership of transportation secretary ray lahood and e.p.a. administrator lisa jackson to develop a standard to improve fuel efficiency and reduce harmful emissions for trucks starting with the model year 2014. this is the first time we'll have such a standard. and as a sign of the broad

support behind this plan, we are joined by the representatives from more than a dozen car and truck manufacturers. as well as fleet operators, auto workers, labor leaders, environmental groups, and officials from california and other states. this is going to bring down the cost for transporting goods, serving businesses, and consumers alike. it will reduce pollution, given that freight vehicles produce roughly one fifth of the greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation. we estimate, for example, that we can increase fuel economy by as much as 25% in tractor trailers using technologies that already exist today. and just like the rule concerning cars, this standard will spur growth in the clean energy sector. we know how important that is. we know there are dependence on foreign oil endangers our security and our economy. we know that the climate change

poses a threat to our way of life. in fact, we're already seeing some of the profound and costly impacts. and the disaster in the gulf only underscores that even as we pursue domestic production to reduce our releans on imported oil our long-term security depends on the development of alternative sources of fuel and new transportation technologies. but we also know that our economic future depends on our leadership in the industries of the future. around the globe, countries are seeking an advantage in the global marketplace by investing in new ways of producing and saving energy. from china to germany, these countries recognize that the nation that leads in the clean energy economy will lead the global economy. and i want america to be that nation. that's why when we fashioned the recovery act, to get our economy moving again, we emphasized clean energy. today we're supporting the development of advanced battery

technologies, we're doubling the capacity to generate renewable electricity. we're building a stronger, smarter electric grid which will be essential to powering the millions of plug-in hybrids and cars and trucks that we hope to see on the roads. it's estimated that through these investments we'll create or save more than $700,000 -- 700,000 jobs. and these investments will help businesses develop new technologies that vehicle makers can use to meet higher fuel efficiency standards. in addition, the standard we set last year for cars and light trucks runs through 2016. i'm proposing we start developing right now a new and higher standard to take effect beginning 2017. so that we can make more and more progress in the years to come. [applause] through the directive i'm through the directive i'm signing we're also going to work with public and private sectors to develop the advanced infrastructure that will be necessary for plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. and we're going to continue to

work to diversify our fuel mix. including biofuels, natural gas, and other cleaner sources of energy. i believe that it's possible, in the next 20 years, for vehicles to use half the fuel and produce half the pollution that they do today. but that's only going to happen if we are willing to do what's necessary for the sake of our necessary for the sake of our economy, our security, and our environment. today's announcement is an essential part of our energy strategy. but it's not a substitute for other necessary steps to ensure our leadership in a new clean energy economy. i'm heartened by the good work that's been done by senator kerry and lieberman on a comprehensive energy and climate bill. to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to prevent the worst consequences of climate change and foster the millions of new jobs that are possible if we rise to this challenge. and this follows a passage of comprensive legislation through the house last june. so as i've said before, i

intend to work with members of both parties to pass a bill this year. in the meantime, i'm going to take every -- [applause] in the meantime, i'm going to take every sensible and responsible action that i can use, that i can take using my authority as president to move our country in the right direction. that's what we've done today. that's what we're going to continue to do in the days, weeks, and months ahead. so thank you very much for being here, everybody. and i'm going to now sign this memorandum. [applause]

there you go. all right. [applause] thank you. keep up the good work. i want -- tell everybody i said hello. good job. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seats until the president has departed. thank you.

>> thank you. all right. ok. we're making progress. >> yeah, we are. >> we're making progress. we just got to plug a hole. [laughter] >> thank you. >> don't even get me started. >> sir, what about solar panels for the white house -- >> i think ints a great idea -- it's a great idea. >> when is that going to happen? [applause]

>> 99% of the tax can be avoided by people doing simple things that's already available to them. >> saturday, preparing for cyberattacks. california congressman dan lundgren on how congress and the federal government work toward protecting federal and private security networks. the communicators, on c-span. >> supreme court justice sonya sotomayor on the confirmation process. >> questions even over three days are not going to tell you much about a prospective judge. you have to look at their life work. that will be a clearer reflection of who they are and how they think and what they will do. >> with the new supreme court nominee heading into the

confirmation process, learn more about the nation's highest court in c-span's latest book "the supreme court, pages of candid conversation with all the justices, active and retired, providing unique insight about the court, available now in hardcover. and also as an e-book. >> now a look at president obama's first year in office. from today's washington journal. this is 40 minutes. >> " washing" continues. >> this is the cover of the book "the promise. president obama, year one. one chapter is named zen temperament. and in this, jonathan alter writes in the west week it's usually 60 degrees and cool. what do you mean by that? >> remember the commercial from the 1960's tore 1970's for an underarm deodorant called ice blue secret, calm, cool, collected. that's barack obama. and everything is very even tempered. 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 eironment. he is 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 they 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 presidents a subject to getting angry about leaks and obama is no exception. i actually go through some of the prior presidents and their attitudes toward 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, though. he does not really sort of -- jump on top of somebody. it is 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 ways makes his anchor even a little more frightening for those 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. you have conversations in here that took placeehind closed doors, etcetera. did the president's btu and what kind of access did you 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 intervw 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 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, david axelrod -- but a number of others are quoted as well. and there are quite a number of others 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 bause 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,ete 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 obama'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 watchedt 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, who was a party -- characr 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 not all going to be positive. that this was going to be, in some ways, a mixed picture. and tt i was not going to cover for 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 only 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 inhe 1990's when michelle obama was thinking

about taking a job at city hall, and a valerie 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 president was raised at least in his young life in indonia. 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 youtarted 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 defining moment: fdr's final days." i was researching that roosevelt's debut was critical and understandingim and why his presidency worked, and of course, it was a very eventful 100ays 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 be not 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 a month. 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 it was going to be a big story and i knew the story of how the first afcan-american president settled into office would be history. so, i was pretty confident, even though nothing had happened yet november of 2008, that the story would unfold and i knew even then he was already making critical decisions as the private citen, 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 stilus 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 other 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 letters from average americans each day. "i worry abo him getting information the tiered eric whitaker said. "are worried about people not telling the truth. " so did obama. guest: eric would occur ione 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 somewherelong 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 them 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 yrs. i have been watching you cannot. -- watching you a lot. guest: thank caller: i want to know if most of the republicans hate obama because he is very educated and smart and they are just afraid of him? and another thing i wanted to ask you -- do youhink the tea

party are racist act of the things rand paul said yesterday, that he don't believe in the civil ghts 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 radio talk-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 question, though, i do think u are right that there were at least some people, cluding some independents as well as republicans, who did sometimes get the feeling that was -- in the title 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, or in at least begins in's day, they called them a head, he was too much in the academic world and it was a little bit threatening to at lst some people. as far as the racial dimension some oobviously there are racists w i think it's unfair to the tea party movement to label it a racist movement. the vast majority of them, their views are not motivated by race and by the way, obama doesn't think so, either. for a little bit of perspective, remember, they called bill clinton a murderer, a drug dealer. they said that franklin roosevelt, i'm talking about the critics now, that he had

syphilis in the brain. abraham lincoln was a monkey. thomas jefferson, they were going after the sally heming thing in real time in the early 1800's. so politics has always been a contact sport. and i think it's important for supporters of the president not to blame all the criticism, even when it's fierce and oftentimes untrue, to blame that criticism on racism. as he said, at one point, he said, look, i was black before i was elected. and the american people elected me anyway. i asked him, you know, about this a little bit. and i found in talking to some 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, yeah, i'm feeling lucky. my name's barack obama hussein

obama. and i'm sitting here in the oval office. so he actually has a lot of faith in the american people to see beyond race, to see beyond the normal slings and arrows, get out of that bubble. people don't care as much about what everybody's arguing about in washington. . is art and ought to be fair, he feels the american people are fair and with enough time he will be able to maintain their sport 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 tried to tell the story. he almost died when he was a yog 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. hes 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 clinton white house, tony blair, prime minister of gland, and, right of vertigo and stage and he puts the figure in the prime minister's task and says don't f i up. host: new york city, susan, independent line. caller: we have listened to oba 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 secretary of interior. everybody knows he is in bed with 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 ask, are we really getting any difference from t bush administration? guest: the answer to that question is, yes. let me give you a couple of reasons why. the foxes guarding the chicken coop quality you talking about within the interior department, that is a legacy of the bush years 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 money for renewable energy dwarf anything that had been done before. so the idea that this is a continuation of the past is not right. there were hundreds of millions of dollars, the largest energy bill, renewable energy, by a long shot in american history, that was part of that stimulus. what happened is there was so much of the 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 manager were completely missed by everybody. i have a scene in my book where the president elect determined to build a new smart energy grid, and he said it i like an to the moon, we can do it. it would create thousands and thousands of new jobs and he 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 bigg. he found that the impediments, 216 different agencies, but "not in my back yard" quality of american government where all the local 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 wil be generally pleased. host: we just got his updated schedule for today. meeting with senator dodd and congressman barney frank about financial regations since they both passed. you got a story and hear about barney frank and treasury secretary paulson at the ite 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 even though republicans m ofam, 1 whispered to a couple of decratic 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 -- hank 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 string 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 paulson. barney fnk was saying, blow of the deal, we are not blowing it up, it is your people blowing up of the-ing deal, you go back and tell your party to get it together. senator obama goes between them like a teacher on the playground with hisands spread and says ea guys, easy. hank, you 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 left on the way back to the hotel he is telling his 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 cplete non starter. i have a chapter called the perfect and the good. it comes from obama's idea is that the perfect should not be 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 pragmat no distraction policy. don't ask, don't tell -- they

will deal with it now 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 smulus 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 werehere 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 omise 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 noticed in his acceptance speech at the democratic convention in 2008 in denver, he used the word promise 19 times in that speech, so my prologue is just a very, very short recap of that acceptance speech. all of that pointed to the title

"the promise." i did not especially give him high marks on housing policy and preventing foreclosures. but i also think of that sortf 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 is area. host: the subtitle -- "president 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. weave different kinds of journalists. ani think readers 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 first one on what he is like in office. did i beat bob on that in being first, for deadline journalists like bob woodward, that is nice. host: columbia, tennessee, will, independent line. guest: sure apprecie 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: i did not want to get conflict -- computer wita 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 showing 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 youroals 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 which 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 reporting 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 emanuel, did rahm emanuel served in the israeli army and not the americanrmy 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 michel obama and she was at their wedding.

but there is lot of misinformation on line 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 -- remember, he was too young for vietnam, too young for the american draft -- he went on -- over as a volunteer with an organization ying 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. t 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 excerpt i can so far about the book and i plan on picking it up. there was an excellent book and i cannot remember the author, but a washington post 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 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 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 >> pete spots talks about the environmental i believe packet of the deepwater horizon oil rig spill in the gulf of mexico. james gattuso from the heritage foundation offers his thoughts on how to fix fannie mae and freddie mac. and bill shore looks at hunger in america.

"washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, remarks on sea law and offshore drilling by alaska senator lisa murkowski. then a discussion on u.s. terrorism policy. and after that, connecticut senator chris dodd and congressman barney frank of massachusetts talk about what's next for financial regulation legislation. this week on "america and the courts," supreme court justice anthony kennedy offers his opinion on a litmus test for supreme court nominees. he also touches on the nation's overcrowded prison system and the rule of law in the third world. "america and the courts," saturday at -- 7 p.m. eastern. >> elena kagan will testify before the senate judiciary

committee. you can find this online at the c-span video library. every program since 1987. it's washington your way. >> alaska senator lisa murkowski with the keynote speaker on a discussion on national security, focusing on the u.s. presence in the world's oceans. she also talks about offshore drilling. this event is hosted by the university of virginia center for oceans law and policy. this is about 40 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, if i can have your attention. we are particularly 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 commth, the health, education and labor and pensions committee and the senate indy affairs committee. she was elected by her fellows to serve in the republican congress for the 111th congress. she holds a b.a. in economics from georgetown and a law degree from will meth university. as one who -- wilamette university. as the senator knows, it has approximately half of the entire continental shelf of the united states, i'm an enormous fan of alaska. you cannot possibly go to alaska without coming a way with a feeling that this is the most beautiful place on planet earth. and i know from my

conversations with people in alaska that one of the greatest treasures of the state is this senator, senator lisa murkowski, who has done so much for alaska and for the country. please join me in welcoming senator murkowski. [applause] >> thank you, john, 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, i don't know, are you all called arctic groupies yet or not? i'm not sure. but it couldn't be a better gathering. it really is my pleasure to be able to address you today at the 34th annual center for oceans law and policy conference. i commend you most certainly for putting together a very, very impressive conference and some great speakers that you have in front of us.

now, as all of us in this particular room are aware, the united states is an arctic nation because of alaska. and i appreciate the very kind words you've said about my remarkable state. we're very possessive about what goes on in alaska as alaskans, but we do recognize that because of our 49th state, it does put this country in a position that we are recognized as an arctic nation. and i am very privileged to be the senior senator for america's arctic state. but really, what does it mean? and i ask this question a lot. what does it really mean to be an arctic nation? i believe that the federal government is just now 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 fundamentalal interest in the

region and certainly a responsibility and an obligation to protect those interests. now, i speak to you at a time, as we recognize, of great change for the arctic. the pace of change demands that greater attention be focused on the region. the implications of the dynamic-change for the residents absolutely depend upon it. now, we've seen the interest in the arctic growing. the general public is paying attention, the immediate yo most certainly. the arctic and the non-arctic nations really continues to grow, and the attention is primarily due to the impacts that we're seeing from climate change, subsequent loss of seasonal sea ice, the interest in shipping lanes, energy and natural resources. and until recently, the resources of the arctic were deemed to be too difficult, too

remote, too expensive to develop. but with increasing access and high energy and mineral prices, the arctic's wealth is now being increasingly discovered, explored and developed. . . huge amounts of minerals like coal, and many others. i think there is sometimes a

natural and perhaps a reflex i have tendency to question how in the world it's ever possible to drill and produce, how can it be done in a safe manner in such a harsh and oftentimes misunderstood and very distant environment, but it is happening and the technology and the engineering behind some of the existing and propped activities is absolutely fascinating. we already know that russia is turning its eye to the arctic and its vast energy reserves. they are building the first offshore oil rig that can withstand temperatures of minus 50 degrees celsius. they are reducing taxes and bureaucratic hurdles in order to encourage oil development in the arctic and wholesale replacement of their fleet in order to

better operate in the polar region. now, obviously, what is happening currently in the gulf of mexico has shown us that there is certainly risks, there will always be risks and impacts associated with producing energy and we must take every appropriate step to minimize those risks into the future. but we need to be rational in our response to what we're seeing with thedeep water horizon tragedy. we don't know how many components have failed. until we do, we should be careful, we should be carbous and we shouldn't pass reactionary legislation that hasn't been fully thought through. we have to learn, just as we did from the exxon valdez.

but we are in the process of understanding and collecting the information and once we have an understanding of the cause of the accident, i hope it will guide us in drafting new regulations that improve our safety procedures. the incident may have made us more rett is ant to drill in the deep shore but did nothing to reduce our need for oil and gas or the value of those resources in what is still a growing global economy. even as we take steps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we're going to need oil and gas for decades to come. and i believe that we will rise from this tragedy not only as americans, but that the world will learn and grow stronger in terms of understanding the values and the risks of energy production. now, alaska's offshore oil and natural gas resources are vital to the nation's to the economic

and energy security and i remain committed to the responsible exploration. since thewater horizon tragedy has been unfolding, the administration has been demanding and has sought to know what those greater protections are that surround these exploratory activities. it is important to point out there are differences between thewater activity and the arctic and the shallow water depths and the pressure in the area. the shell permits that are in process now have probably had more regulatory environmental, legal scrutiny than it probably any other exploration permit in recent history. fact of the matter is, all eyes are upon us in alaska. we need to be given the chance

to prove we can explore safely. the exploration activity in the arctic, combined with the declining summer sea ice has positive implications for security across borders because lng and tankers will be able to have alternatives to their current, more dangerous crowded routes. importantly, they can benefit through the funding element of these huge projects. the exploration, production and certainly the construction necessary to develop arctic resources is going to require all kinds of science and not just for the sheer scale and remoteness of the projects but for the levels of the technology needed to bring them online in a way that is safe for the workers, the environment and as

insulated from risks if at all possible. i had the opportunity not too long ago to go down to new orleans, the images required through the 3-d to give a sense of the shifting oil so the geologists can study the trends and get a picture of the resource potential. it is almost surgical compared to the basic exploratory drilling which we have seen over the past century. and it does give a confidence and a well can be targeted and explored with limited impact to surrounding areas. i think this is just one example of the ways in which technology is able to provide a more reassuring answer to questions about whether or not the world is ready for increased energy development in the arctic. another good example of this, and this is more alaska-pacific, a project we call the liberty

project. some of you may be familiar with this project. it's an extended reach drill rig which parker drilling helped develop for b.p. to access an oil field direction neal eight miles away. it's not quite there yet, but i'm hoping and betting on just how far we can continue to reach both literally and figuratively with the direction national drilling. and this brings me to a point, technology is advancing because oil and natural gas is still the most economical viable energy sources in the world. the term easy oil is being slowly redefined as these technologies develop and i predict we will see measured but certain expansion into land and waters. this is significant because the first people of the sea arctic

have a right to benefit from all of their resources, not just their energy resources, but the fisheries and marine mammals that they depend on their livelihoods and i'm encouraged by what i'm seeing to be an increasing level of engagement rather than opposition from these constituencies. 30 years ago in alaska when we were first developing our north slope fields, we were able to establish production from america's largest single oil fields, prudeau by involving the native people in this substantial change to their land and to their lifestyle. there was engagement and it was very contentious and very difficult, but there was engagement on multiple levels, on the legislative level, the personal level. and the ultimate result has benefited all the people of

alaska and our national energy security in ways beyond anything we could have predicted at the time. now, it's not just arctic energy that is drawing increased activity in the region. the impacts of a diminished arctic are affecting marine fishing. we saw two german vessels complete a commercial transit from asia to europe through the artic ocean north of russia. two lift carriers transited through the northwest passage during august and september of last year. the route is open for a short time in late summer but cuts off about 4,000 nautical miles from the 11,000-mile long traditional journey through the suez canal. a shipping firm will use one of its arctic tankers to carry oil to japan this year.

this would be proof of the concept that could also apply to lng tankers based on the ice-breaker tanker design that we use for the oil tankers. while the arctic marine shipping assessment present difficulties it will be decades before these routes are open, i think we have to consider that this is only the beginning and if it proves economical, it will happen. we know there are national security and sovereign interests for all the arctic coastal states in the region. the u.s. navy has a new road map for the arctic and studying the feasibility of a deepwater port. i have introduced legislation that directs the department of defense and the department of homeland security to study the feasibility, the location and the resource needs for an arctic deepwater port. we will find from this study whether it is in a strategic

interests of this country whether to build a port and where it might be located. a deepwater port would not only serve our military and coast guard needs but as we develop our oil and natural gas needs and see more tourism, a deepwater port could provide valuable support for these activities as well. the coast guard has embarked on a high latitude study to determine what infrastructure they may need to increased maritime activity in the arctic and shortage of infrastructure, it is vital we determine what the needs are and actively work to provide those resources to protect the residents and environment. i have stated and i know many of you in the room have heard this, but i think we are at a critical time in the arctic. there seems to be a couple paths we could take here in regards to

international relations. one is a path of competition and conflict and the other is a path of cooperation and diplomacy. and i believe the decision on which path we ultimately take will require dynamic leadership. and one of the first areas we need that leadership is in the united states and the senate ratification of the convention of the law-to-sea treaty. i believe it's crucial for the united states to be party to this treaty and be a player in the process rather than than an outsider hoping that our interests are going to be protected. access to the convention would give current and future administrations both enhanced credibility and leverage in calling upon other nations to meet convention responsibilities. given the support for the treaty by arctic nations and the drive to develop natural resources, the treaty will provide the environmental framework to develop these resources while

minimizing environmental impacts. the united states is the only arctic state that is not a party to the law-to-the sea treaty. both canada and denmark join the treaty. canada in 2003 and denmark in 2004. there are some who say they don't see the point in joining the rest of the world in rat filing the treaty. they say the u.s. enjoys the benefits of the treaty even though we are not a member. and we can somehow pick and choose which sections we abide by while not subjecting our actions to international review. i respectfully disagree with this opinion. i believe that the united states must ratify the treaty. we are at a stale mate. the white house is looking to the senate to lead and the senate is waiting for strong

support from the administration. in part the senate calendar is to blame. should the majority leader move to the senate floor, it would consume some time. it would take a week of floor time. and considering that we have less than 40 legislative days before the august recess, it's highly uncertain that such time will be carved out unless, unless it becomes a priority for the administration. but given the president's focus on advancing the start treaty, i see even less of an opportunity to schedule of law-of the see treaty. failure to ratify continues to keep the united states at a disadvantage internationally and outside the process without a seat at the table. until the u.s. ack seeds to the treaty, it cannot submit its data to the commission.

and without a commission recommendation regarding this data, the legal foundation for the limits is much less certain than if we were a party to the treaty. and according to the u.s. arctic research commission, if the u.s. were to become a party to the treaty, we could lay claim to an area in the arctic of about 450,000 square kilometers, the size of the state of california, that lies north of the north slope there. and while the united states has not ratified the treaty, we continue to map our extended continental shelf. we have been working cooperatively with canada the last two summers on extending continental shelf data. we are scheduled to work again this coming summer. the u.s. icebreaker completed the second summer.

and each ship has their own equipment in order to accomplish the mission, combining the efforts together provides better data a can cover more area together. canada is expected to make its submission to the commission in september of 2013 to meet its deadline under the law-of-the-sea and the united states will not be able to submit its claim until we ratify the treaty. i'm pleased that ever so slowly and it does seem painfully slow, the united states does seem to be waking up to the fact that we are an arctic nation and arctic nation with responsibilities and obligations. i'm confident that with growing leadership in the congress, recognition within the administration and from the arctic community at large, we can continue to highlight the

strategic importance of the arctic for the united states. with that, i thank you for your attention this afternoon. i'm happy to take questions if that's appropriate. but delighted again to be with you. and thank you. [applause] >> it is a breath of fresh air to here your support on this treaty. we have talked about issues of national security and talked about the very interests that as a citizen i have for our country. you are a strong voice as a proponent of ratification of this treaty. what do you feel would be the most persuasive messages to send

to the senate so that this treaty can be afffirmed? >> there are several messages that i think need to be conveyed and i'm not going to tell you anything new. i will repeat the strength of what we have within this argument. when it comes to being a participant, when we talk about our ability as an arctic nation to allow for an extension to our area in the outer continental shelf, the only way we can do it is if we are a participant in the law-to-sea treaty. when we are talking about environmental issues in the arctic, we need to recognize that the treaty that will govern the arctic nation is that of the law-of-the-sea.

that was set forth a couple years ago. there is no need for an additional treaty. when we are talking about the additional stepped-up activity in the arctic, i think it is imperative -- and i'm speaking from an arctic perspective. there are many other reasons that we look to that treaty, but from the arctic perspective, we are talking about environment, talking about safety of maritime activity, when we're talking about development of resources and really being able to define where our bordersr i think it's imperative that this nation step forward, that the senate step forward with ratification of law-of-the-sea. i have urged many of you to not let down in your advocacy on

this issue. i know it can be discouraging when you don't see it being considered on the floor. we are dealing with many weighty issues in the senate, but i think it's important that members of the senate that this issue does not go away. in fact, it becomes even more imperative as we see an area in the arctic that is ever expanding and truly evolving at this time. so keep up the advocacy. anyone else out there? >> what are the chances of having this brought to the floor in a lame duck session after the november election? >> i don't know. i wish i had a crystal ball that was a little less foggy. anything's possible in a lame

duck, but i tell you it will take, i believe, a real firm commit mnt from the administration saying there -- this is a priority for us. at this point in time, there is a little bit of a stalemate. the administration is looking for us to lead on it. we're looking to them. and neither one is prepared to take that first step yet. and it's not for lack of commitment in the senate from the chairman and the ranking member on the foreign relations committee. chairman kerry and ranking member lugar are both very committed in their efforts on this issue. i don't mean to speak for them, but in my conversations, they have been strong advocates and agree it is clearly in our best interests that we advance this. but it really does come down to

making it a priority within the administration and we in the senate then finding that time, making that time on the senate calendar for the debate that will ensue. over in the corner. >> senator, we appreciate your eloquence here today and your strong advocacy for the arctic issues and for the convention and i know the coast guard and admiral allen is appreciatetive of what you do. i have a question dealing with some of the negativity concerning the convention. what do you say to someone who writes to you and says this is giving away to the united nations control 70% of the world's surface or the convention is going to permit the united nations' attack of

u.s. companies. completely false, but still there are believes that are held by -- beliefs that are held by some. former governor sarah palin and others, and i know there must be people in alaska who say you are giving away the store. >> there are those and not just those in alaska. you know there are -- there is a group of folks out there. there is a whole lot of people who have their objections to the convention -- ratification of the convention of law-of-the -sea. they are operating off of old information. old information from back during reagan days. so it's important that they fully understand what it is that we will have in front of us. and as you say, the issue of

taxation by the u.n., we recognize that is not correct. the myths need to be dispelled and the old history needs to be updated, which i think is very important. and again, i think we need to remind individuals that have opposition that the arctic that we are seeing evolve today is different than it was during the reagan years, for instance. and commandant allen has stated many, many times, he says, you know, you want to talk about climate change, we aren't going to talk about the science here, but i do know i have more ocean up there that i'm in charge of. that's a fact. and as we put it in those terms and recognize again, we are an arctic nation with obligation, with responsibilities. i think it's important that we

convey the full current, updated facts as it relates to what exactly we are talking about with ratification of the law of the sea and again, dealing with an area that was only dreamed about being explored. the thought that we would have cruise ships steaming through the community of barrow not something we would see in my lifetime but we are there now. it is updating what, unfortunately, is old information. >> senator, back to oil exploration, how do you think the current fiasco in gulf of mexico would affect the enthusiasm of your constituents for drilling on the north slope? i used to deal with the eskimos

and been up there for a few times and i know the extent to which those people in your north slope depend upon that fragile ecosystem. so the question is do you think what is happening in the gulf of mexico will have an effect for prospects of drilling in the north slope? >> i do. i believe what we're seeing in the gulf impacts not only drilling activity in the gulf of mexico close in and deepwater, but it impacts the opportunities for offshore through the country. i think it will have an impact on development of our energy policy. and i would like to think, and i think i stated very clearly in my remarks, i would like to think that as a consequence of this tragedy that we're seeing

unfold in the gulf, we will learn from what has happened, but we will be thoughtful and considered in how we go forward and do so in a manner that is not reactionary. there is a lot of emotion that is attached to this disaster. 11 lives were lost. the environmental damage that we anticipate is unknown. there is a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety out there. and as an alaska and who has lived through great tragedy with the oil spill with the exxon valdez we know it all too well. i do believe that we recognize that with exploration and activity there will be risk, so

how can we work to minimize that risk? right now, there is -- i wouldn't say an impulse because it is more considered that that. it was appropriate that the secretary put on pause, if you will, the permits that were pending for offshore. i am hopeful that the secretary and the president will look at the differences that you have when you are exploring 5,000 feet below the water's surface versus what we would be doing up in the arctic. we're looking in the sea, the area that's being considered by shell right now and the permits that they're waiting on is drilling in an area about 150 to 200 feet. the depth of your water and the pressures are entirely

different. when i spoke to commandant allen a couple of weeks ago and i compared the oil spill in the gulf and the exxon valdez, he said no, it is more comparable to apollo 13. he said we may as well have been on the moon. where we will be operating hopefully in the sea is in shallow enough waters where you can send a man down there to check out, to inspect. i think it is appropriate to note though, that after the spill, shell, in their efforts to gain final approval toll proceed up in the sea went through not only a critical

review of the plan they had proposed, they went beyond. they went beyond what was requested in their permit and have put in place some additional measures that they have identified in light of what they're seeing going on in the gulf of mexico. they've got well control enhancements. they have enhancements in the blowout preventers, evaluating the risk benefits of additional sheer rams so you have greater redid you understand dance si, a remote system, all aspects in the prevention components in terms of having the capability to respond in the event of a disaster, having the remote operators there in the backup launch, having a dome pre-staged

in alaska. they have looked at what's going on and saying, we are going to be operating in a way that is long from assets that is in the gulf. how can we be prepared? if we were in this situation, what would we do to respond? they have gone ahead and put in place in -- these meeshes. there is probably not a permit under way for exploration drilling offshore in this nation right now that has met with more rigorous scrutiny over years. shell has been under way with this project in attempting to get the permits for three years now and has gone through as many courts as you and i would ever want to -- the environmental

reviews that have preceded it. in terms of the level of scrutiny. i know right now, one of the big issues was m.m.s. paying as close attention as they should have. was there not only technological failure, but was there failure on the administrative, on the enforcement end of it? and we need to know for sure that we're not opening the doors for something like that in alaska. as somebody who believes very strongly that we can develop our resources, but who demands that it be done in a way that is balanced and is accountable, we will not accept a level of risk that is not tolerable. so hopefully there will be lessons learned and done so in a positive way. but i do believe that this tragedy that we're seeing in the gulf will impact our energy

policies as we develop forward. >> senator, thank you for your wonderful leadership for alaska. [inaudible] >> so you have also the legacy of a resident of alaska who did a soup esh job in the background of this treaty. >> look forward to working with all of you. thank you, john. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> now a news update on the economic situation in europe europe. today both houses of the german parallelment approved germany's contribution to the aid package. of the 27 countries in the european union, germany is the largest contributor, and this is about 10 minutes. >> the german parallelment has

approved a law oking the bailout. the chancellor called it a clear signal. but merkel remains under fire for her handling of the crisis and 10 members of her coalition joined the opposition in refusing to support the legislation. >> you have no policy. you have no goal and you don't know where this country or europe should be going. that's the result after seven months of your government in this country. >> this is not the time for you to tell us merkel is terrible. the issue we are debating is

whether you believe europe should stand or fall. >> the government wanted a quick vote, but the opposition cried foul because it hadn't seen the bill's texan the finance minister made a final plea for a broad majority. >> we depend on a strong and effective europe. we stand for the stability of our common european currency and ready to take responsibility for it. that should apply not only to the coalition but also to everyone in this house who cares about europe. thank you. [applause] >> the appeal went unheeded but merkel got her majority. after the vote, she criticized the opposition stance. >> what is disappointing that opposition parties fail to live up to their olingss.

therefore it was all the more important that the government sent a clear signal to europe. >> hours later, the bill was also approved in the second chamber of parallelment. >> that came as the new european economic task force held its first meeting. the finance minimums sters discussed how to tighten rules how to prevent the greek debt crisis from happening anywhere else. >> they did their best to present a unified front. france's criticism of germany's decision without consulting their partners is now water under the bridge. >> we think long-term, not short . >> they did discuss ways to reform the euro.

e.u. president heard suggestions from both member states and the e.u. commission. germany's call to amend the lisbon treaty has been scrapped. the e.u. leadership favors quick reforms based on the current legal framework. >> they should what we can do immediately, very soon, very fast. we should do it as fast as possible. >> the task force also recommended harsher penalties for deficit -- >> financial sanctions and non-fan shal sanctions. >> they might include the withholding of e.u. zose. >> david cameron said a strong and stable euro is in britain's interest but britain will not be giving any more support. he was speaking on his first

official visit to germany where he held talks with merkel. >> this was his first visit. it was anything but a courtesy call. they had a frank exchange of views agreeing on the importance of stabilizing the euro. but sharp differences remain on market regulations, especially merkel's intention to impose curbs on hedge funds. >> we do have concerns because we don't think hedge funds were the cause of the problem in our financial markets. we accept the need for regulation, but it does need to be fair and proportionate. >> cameron blames the debt policy, adding that europe must tackle the problems. merkel is garnering support for her fiscal policies. >> it must include all markets

and not a grab bag. >> the two discussed military strategy in afghanistan and possible tougher sanctions against iran over its disputed nuclear program. despite general agreement, britain's new government is distancing itself from germany and europe. >> british airways it is flying into trouble. >> it has posted a record pre-tax annual loss of 600 billion euros. but the result for 2009 was slightly better than analysts have been expecting and the carrier says it is making progress on on a cost saving program. they remain in disagreement on savings plan and there are 15 days of strike action in the coming weeks. >> for the past year, british airways and the union have been locked in a bitter dispute over pay cuts. the crews have walked out twice

costing the carrier millions. some passengers are choosing other airlines. the cabin crews are set to call a five-day strike on monday. >> i think these losses demonstrate the need to reach agreement. this is a business that has gone through the worst downturn in the history of aviation and we're still here and still in a strong position relative to many of our competitors because we have taken action. >> they agreed to merge with iberia. the company hopes to save but workers remain opposed to the plan. business confidence in germany fell very slightly this month. disappointing expectations for a stronger performance in europe's

top economy, that according to the latest index which was unveiled this friday. the index edged to 101.5. they noted that the index does remain near its highest level since 2008. a breakdown shows while the business climate improved further in the critical manufacturing sector, it was less favorable in the retail and construction sectors. although a bitterly cold winter held german growth to 0.2% in the first quarter. the economy is projected to grow by 1.4%. german shares sell to a negative end. we have this summary from the frankfurt stock exchange. >> by the end of the week, traders have been playing worst case far yose fears.

opal have agreed to forego

holiday pay to keep the company afloat and save their jobs. they have agreed to delay a plan to pay increase. in return, employees will be receiving shares in the company, a condition imposed in exchange for the german government to provide aid. the u.s.-owned car maker is receiving one million euros. they are planning to cut back 8,000 jobs. the germans are now saving at the highest rate in 17 years. according to the federal statistics office. they are setting aside more than 15% of their discretionary income. that puts them as one of the most diligent savers. concerns about job security are driving them to save more. many fear higher taxes but experts warn that all of that saving could have a negative impact on germany's economic

growth. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next a discussion on u.s. counterterrorism policy. senator dodd and representative frank talk about what's next in u.s. financial regulation and then former house speaker newt gingrich. >> sunday night, remarks on house of commons. and david cameron and acting labor party leader. then the new chancellor of the ex checker gives his first major speech. he talks about cutting public spending and reducing the corporate tax rate. that is sunday night on c-span. >> just weeks after the british elections which produced a new prime minister and a coalition government, queen elizabeth ii

will announce her legislative agenda. we will travel from buckingham palace to parallelment for one of britain's most celebrated events live on c-span 2. >> now daniel been gentleman men. the attempted terrorist attacks on christmas day and times square. the washington institute for nearest policy is the host. >> good afternoon, i direct the program on counterterrorism and intelligence. today's speaker is ambassador dan benjamin has been a friend

for a long time and we are all better off for him returning to government. dan is now the state department coordinator for counterterrorism. he was a senior fellow in foreign policy studies and director at the brooking institution and before that, he served on the clinton administration's national security council as director of counterterrorism. he is the author of "ache of sacred terror" a we are pleased to have you with us today. and give a quick shut out to dick jacobson. and a sign of your wisdom was recruited to work for you in the office of coordinator for counterterrorism. i ask you to join me in

welcoming dan benjamin. [applause] >> it's a great pleasure to be back at the washington institute where i had my fair share of salmon and couscous. i thank matt for the invitation. we appeared on a panel before the anti-defamiliaration league a couple weeks ago and i don't know how many times we have done that sort of thing, but it has always been, to my mind, a very productive and creative discussion and we would all be poorer without matt's insight into these critical issues. i want to congratulate the institute on its continued, very high level of scholarly performance. i also want to say every time i run into rob, he is headed into another event in which his book

or documentary is being discussed, giving us all hope that there is some kind of future for those of us who were students of the scribbling class. congratulations. i'm emgrateful for loaning me mike jake could beson, one of the country's experts on national security. he is a great all-arounders. and he has been a huge gain for us in our bureau and i hope you don't try to get him back any time soon. >> he is on loan. >> we all work for the taxpayers. it's great to be here speaking in the counterterrorism lecture series which was sicked off in december of 2007. and you had at least 20

officials in counterterrorism since then. i'm particularly glad to have this chance to talk with you today because as i think everyone in the room recognizes there have been some very important changes in the nature of the threat in recent months. these have become manifest in dramatic ways. i want to discuss what those changes are and how the obama administration is adapting and reshaping the way the u.s. is combating terrorism both in the short-term and long-term. over the last year, al qaeda has suffered a number of very serious setbacks. as you heard from the leaders of our intelligence community on a number of occasions, the group remains under pressure in pakistan due to pakistani operations due to strongholdses in the tribal areas. al qaeda senior leadership has had quite a number of serious losses. it's finding it more difficult

to raise money, and plan attacks outside of the region. as my friend and colleague, david cohen noted last month, al qaeda is in the worst financial shape it has been in years. we can't signal the all-clear in conspiracies. they are still a highly capable, highly innovative and very determined group. but even outside of the fattah, the environment for al qaeda's operations are becoming more challenging. al qaeda has suffered from disaif he can shon due to indiscriminate targeting in saudi arabia, iraq, indonesia and any other number of countries. the number of conservative clerics who are speaking out against the organization has increased and that is very, very

good news indeed. despite these setbacks to the core leadership, what we might call the broader threat is becoming widely distributed and more ethnicically diversified among affiliates and those inspired by the a. q. message. we saw that with the attempted bombing. this incident demonstrated that one affiliate, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula have the will and capability to launch a strike targeting the united states at home. we have every expectation we will hear more. we have learned something else important this year. the assumption that americans have some special immunity to al qaeda's ideology has been dispelled. while our problem remains remains significantly less, several high profile cases have demonstrated that we need to

remain vigilant. five americans from virginia were arrested in pakistan on suspicion of terrorist ties. we have seen americans traveling to somalia who wound up joining a radical group. we have seen u.s. citizens rise in prominence as proponents of violent extremism. the native californiaian has become an a. q. supposeman and targeting americans and another individual who grew up in alabama has become an important voice on the internet. of course, the most notable of all is the yemeni american who has become the most influential voice and has a group of potential recruits that others failed to reach. the fort hood attacker and

december 25 bomber visited him at least twice in yemen. we should make no mistake about the nature. a recent video of declaration of allegiance to al qaeda suggests this is not just an i'd olog but someone who insights violence and someone at the heart of the group plotting such actions. another domestic of the changing threat, domestic dimension of the changing threat. we have seen two high profile law enforcement cases involving individuals who appear to be trained and hand 8d from the fattah operating within our borders. a u.s. lawful permanent resident and shuttle driver trained in pakistan pleaded guilty that he was planning to set off several bombs in the bombs. another american citizen, david

hedley has pleaded guilty to his role in the 2008 attacks in mumbai. it's important to note that we found this these people that the intelligence and law enforcement trip wires worked. but that is not reason enough for come placensy. the threat we are facing is dynamic and evolving. we have the times square incident. you have seen the public remarks from attorney general holder aboutfiesal shahzad and his links and you know the reports of the search warrants in connection with thr investigation. because this is an ongoing investigation, i can't say more but i can say more the significance of this case cannot be ignored. obviously, these changes that we have seen in the threat challenge us in important ways

and nigeriaian suicide bomber, someone with no prior record of involvement in terrorism who can be launched from yemen at us, well, this presents a security challenge and the appearance who are legal residents or americans who are connected with al qaeda or other radical group in south asia. there is a requirement to improve our intelligence. and without going into details, i can assure you that the intelligence community is working hard. there are challenges for our defenses, especially in aviation security since it remains at the top of the list of al qaeda's targets. as they have demonstrated recently through successful and unsuccessful plots. the united states has taken steps both on its own and with international partners to bolster aviation security in the wake of the failed bombing on christmas day. under secretary napolitano's

leadership we have been working with the u.n. aviation civil organization to lead a global initiative to strengthen the international aviation system against the evolving threats posed by terrorists. over the past several months there are joint declarations on improving information sharing, strengthening security measures and standards and working together to develop to deploy new security technologies to airports around the world. we have strengthened the watch listing system and developed new, more flexible protocols based on real-time, threat-based intelligence. these measures consist of multiple layers of security which are tailered to intelligence about potential threats. defenses are an essential part of the equation, but another equally vital part of the equation is engaging with other countries that are being used as

platforms and working to contain and reduce and eliminate these threats. given what we have seen, pakistan and yemen are the countries of greatest concern, so let me turn to our efforts with them. first, pakistan. pakistan, we should all remember is a front-line partner in fighting extremists. we have provided assistance to counterterrorism efforts from police training to anti- money-laundering efforts. the dollars directed to them has saved american lives and pakistan has captured or put out of business more al qaeda operatives than any other country. over the past year, the u.s. government has seen very encouraging signs that pakistan not only recognizes the severity of the threat for violent extremists but is actively working to counter and constrain it.

pakistani military operations in waziristan have damaged the operational abilities of dangerous groups. increased border cooperation with afghanistan and forces, which is instrumental in the development of safe havens. we have seen public opinion turn more decisively against the militants. in late march, with the beginning of the strategic dialogue with pakistan we started a new phase with a new focus to work together to achieve the goals we share, stability, prosperity and opportunity for the people of both pakistan and the united states. while this wasn't the first strategic dialogue between our countries, it was the first and reflects the administration's commitment to its success. under the kerry-lugar administration we will be