year for five years to develop key issues. it generated new momentum and mutual trust to tackle the groups that threaten pakistan and our security. under this new dialogue i will travel to islam bad with a team in june to discuss terrorism with the pakistanis. during the trip, both countries will review to use exabets to fight extremism. .

the qaeda has had a foothold in yemen ever since. it has always been a major concern for the united states. when the obama administration came into office, it was clear that the government was distracted by other domestic security concerns and our bilateral corp. had experienced setbacks. in spring of 2009, the administration initiated a full-

scale review of our policy. the review led to a government approach to area to address the strategy we have engaged with our yemeni counterparts. senior administration, a civilian, and military officials including john brennan, assistant secretary of state, general pretoria's and i have visited yemen to see how we can confront the threat of al qaeda. attorney the government to take on a cut a consistently and effectively. those actions it is important to underscore began before the december 25 plot. yemen has conducted operations to deprive its leadership of save haven within yemeni territory. we recognize that al qaeda has taken advantage of the insecurity in various regions.

that has -- has been worsened by internal conflict. yemen is grappling with serious party. it is the poorest country in the arab world. lack of resources inhibits good governance with delivery of services and the effectiveness of the security needed to deal with terrorism. said to have any chance of success, counter-terrorism policy has to be conceived in strategic and not really tactical terms and time lines. that is why the administration has developed a two-pronged approach. helping the government confront and mitigate this serious governance issues that the country faces. not only are we working to construct the space in which al qaeda can operate, but by building up the yemeni capacity to do with security threats, we are working to develop government capacity for basic services and economic growth.

this dual strategy will help him and confront the immediate concerns al qaeda but it will mitigate the serious pulled a goal and economic issues the country faces in the longer term. it is a strategy that requires full yemeni partnership. a strategy that requires working closely with regional partners and allies to -- and requires hard work and american resources. the challenges are great and they are many. the risk of not doing nothing is far too great. what we're doing in yemen and pakistan and other countries is building capacity. persistent diplomatic engagement helps build political will for countering terrorism -- counter-terrorism aspects. then we can build law- enforcement and the military passage that will wreck -- are required for dealing with terrorism. we're working to make border

officials, the judiciary, you name it more systematic, more innovative, more far-reaching. we're looking at counter- terrorism training and this is another aspect of the government approach. this is good counter-terrorism and good statecraft. we're addressing the fundamental insufficient say that terrorism thrives on in confronting the threat rather than have them look thousands of miles away for help. we -- or look away altogether. i focus on the diplomats traditional tools coming engagement, building political will, and capacity building. the diversification of the threat i have described the means we cannot stop there. we need to use the tools in our toolbox and to innovate and create new ones, to continue to stay ahead of the threat and maintain the strength in our defenses. we need to a dance our agenda in

building international security corp. against the terrorist threat. our allies in europe have become central partners in the counter- terrorism arena as a number of plots in recent years have demonstrated dramatically just how intertwined u.s. and european security interests are. with american and european interests linked, it is essential we work to prevent al qaeda and its affiliates from carrying out a successful attack. the tracking program and name record program are tools in this effort and have proven instrumental in protecting the security of americans and europeans alike. given the importance of these programs to u.s. and european security, we and the europeans have a longstanding partnership to protect the security of our citizens and i want to underscore this, of personal data.

we share a strong commitment to protecting human rights. the challenge is to reach agreement on the proper balance between security and privacy. without impeding the operation of vital programs in greeting security gaps that have the potential to harm not only american citizens, but individuals from europe and beyond as well. there is one more key area in which we need to innovate. in eight years, the u.s. has made enormous strides in what might be called counter terrorism. -- tactical counter-terrorism. disrupting cells and their operations. the strategy has to go beyond efforts to thwart those who seek to harm the u.s. and its citizens, allies, and its interests. law enforcement will not do it by themselves. they will not solve the long- term challenge we face, the

threat of violent extremism. we must look as well to the political and economic and social factors, the terrorist organizations exploited into the ideology that is their key instrument in pushing vulnerable individuals down the path towards violence. as president obama 6 that they put a, a campaign against extremism will not succeed where bullets or bombs along. we need to do a better job to reduce the recruitment of terrorists. to combat terrorism successfully, we have to isolate violent extremists from the people the serve. we refer to this as cbe. many have attempted efforts over a number of years and from a number of different agencies. we have not had sufficient focus. we have an administration that is committed to cutting down on radicalization and recruitment. the indiscriminate targeting of muslim citizens as i mentioned before by a violent extremists

in places such as iraq and pakistan have alienated populations and led to a decline of support for al qaeda and its program. it has averaged allies and former clerics. they're speaking terrorism -- against terrorism. we cannot count on al qaeda to put itself out of business. we are focusing on undermining the narrative and preventing the radicalization of vulnerable or alienated individuals. we are working to develop a better understanding of the dynamics of the committee's in which extremism has taken root. every community possesses a unique political, economic, and social set of factors that contribute to the radicalization process. we know that one size fits all programs have limited appeal. programs need to be tailored to fit the characteristics of the audience. to be customized and they will have a better chance of succeeding and entering.

we know that credible local voices have to take the lead in their communities. they're one of the best places to convey the counter narrative's capable of discrediting violent extremism. we're not going to be that credible interlocutor in that discussion. we're working to amplify legitimate voices. the u.s. can help empower these local actors through programmatic assistance, funding, or by providing them with the space, physical and electronic, to challenge extremist views. the u.s. government and partner nations are seeking to develop greater understanding of the linkages between diaspora communities and the ancestral homelands. through familial and business networks, the events that affect one's community have an impact on the other.

with the aid of credible messengers, the u.s. is trying to make use of the terrorist violence true -- taboo. we offer something more hopeful. president obama's effort to create partnerships on the basis of interest and respect as he outlined in speeches in enter and cairo provide an opportunity to provide a positive story than the - 1 pro -- propagated by al qaeda. we have not figured it all out. al qaeda is nimble and we have and never ending race to protect our country and stay one step ahead. because of the front as of their organization, high-level inspiration, and ingenuity, we need to be on top of our game all the time. we need to keep in mind the words of the 9/11 commission which in this respect ought to -- got it right. it is crucial, they wrote to find ways of routinizing and bureaucratizing the exercise of

the imagination. this is the paramount and enduring challenge we face. staying sharp, innovating our defensive systems and maintaining our intellectual edge. these are essential. a speech at the washington institute on terrorism would not be complete without some remarks regarding the other side of the coin which is the state sponsors of terrorism. we talked about the non-state sponsors. we did an event at adl. if you won the long version, i can refer you to that which is thon the state department websi. while the focus in recent years has been on the iranian nuclear program, it is important not to forget that iran remains a former state sponsor of terrorism. putting his book, hamas, and

other terrorist groups. syria has provided political and material support the hezbollah in lebanon. in early april, we reiterated our grave concern and alarm to the syrians over reports that may have provided scud missiles to hezbollah. we have spoken out forcefully about the grave dangers of serious -- syria's transfer of weapons. we have expressed our concerns to the syrian government. transferring weapons to has a lot, especially longer-range missiles, poses a serious threat to the security of israel. it would have a destabilizing effect on the region and if such weapons cross into lebanon, it would violate u.n. security council will 1701 which bans the unauthorized importation of any weapons into lebanon.

we do not accept such provocative and destabilizing behavior, nor should the international community. president assaad is making decisions that could mean war or peace for this region. he is hearing from hezbollah and hamas. it is crucial here for must directly. so the potential consequences are clear. that is why we're sending an ambassador back to syria. there should be no mistake either in damascus or anywhere else. the u.s. is not we engaging with syria as a reward or concession. engagement is a tool that could give us leverage end in sight and a greater ability to convey strong and unmistakably clear messages aimed at the syrian leadership. i have gone on long enough. i want to thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. i do look forward to your questions. [applause]

how do we do this now? am i sitting here? >> thank you for that fantastic broad coverage of the waterfront. i will take the moderator sporadic and ask the first question. do you have questions? raise your hand and i will take you in the order i see you. we're on the record. he said to the camera. let me pick up where you left off. there is tremendous material you presented to her. i'm sure lots of questions on the pressing nature and changing nature of the threat. the u.s. government position on hezbollah has been in the news. given where you end, it is an

apt place to begin. it was interesting for me coming back to washington after having been away the previous week. i was out of town doing research for book i'm writing on hezbollah and interviewing people in the current hezbollah stuff that is going on in this country. not only of a fund-raising nature. i come back and there is this brouhaha,, maybe people making more out of it then they should about the position on is hezbollah is a terrorist organization? we have had three hezbollah cases in philly and a bunch of others. maybe you could address that and we could open up. >> it is still a brouhaha with a small b. the important thing to note is that john brennan, who brings an

analyst perspective, he was making an analytic remark. the key thing to understand is there has been no policy change regarding hezbollah. we have changed nothing regarding the content policy with hezbollah. we do not subscribe to the division that some other countries do, including close friends of ours. might there be a political or humanitarian wing and a military wing and we might talk to one and the other. we reject such a distinction. john was looking at some of the things that happened to his beloved. the policy remains the same. >> if i call on you, push the button and the green light will go on. >> comments -- your comments

[unintelligible] and longer-term governance issues in serious conflict. in the context, are the [unintelligible] with their policies towards their other complex and their longer-term governance problems? i'm interested in your thoughts about the approach the yemeni government has adopted to the problem in the north. to what i would take to be a sharp increase in tensions with some of the people in southern yemen. hearing from people in southern yemen that they are anticipating that situation could turn violent in the coming months. >> it is a good question. let me reiterate what you know. their security assistance is carefully conditioned.

-- our security assistance is carefully condition. we're giving to them for dealing with al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. we're not giving anything that is to be used in the conflict in [unintelligible] or other conflicts. we have been outspoken. the ambassador has done a superb job and we have been quite outspoken here, underscoring the fact that we believe there are a number of grievances that need to be settled between the government and the rebels. we're glad there is a cease- fire. we hope this is a moment when the two sides will get down to business and negotiate over their differences. we view this as being a deeply -- being deeply troubling for their country. an unsustainable conflict in which there are issues. this is something that we hope

that press -- the president and his team will address. we have been encouraging and supporter of the national dialogue which we hope will pick up some steam. you pointed out the issue involving the southern recession is. there are real domestic issues that need to be resolved. we encouraged them to resolve this. one of the things the secretary said when she was at the initial friends of yemen meeting in london was that we view it as a very high priority. yemen remain united. any alternative would be bad for him and and bad for american security. >> it is important to support

these voices. it is unclear how much a condemnation of ideology would mean coming from the u.s. or other western governments. what is the u.s. doing to cultivate and facilitate and publicize these debates within islamism and what more can we do to focus on these scholars condemning al qaeda? >> let me put it this way. whatever we're doing, we're trying not to be heavy-handed and over. for the u.s. to be intervening in defining what is the correct religion, what is the correct doctrine and what is not is usually into cynical to our goals, counterproductive. we're delighted when we see a senior saudi clerics issuing a fatwa against al qaeda and against terrorism.

in countering the narrative that mike and others here put together. clerics are cited. we're always encouraging in conversation whomever we can to amplify on the is. we're happy to see them. to the extent that this is an intra-muslim discussion, i do not think our getting engaged benefits it. i would also say that we're quite clear about condemning an ideology which focuses on a reordering of the global order and which has violence at its heart. we have no problem condemning this kind of killing of innocents and we do it at every opportunity. -- killing of innocents and we do it at every opportunity. innocence and we do it at

every opportunity. this is a global conversation. >> thank you. i want to follow up on something you mentioned briefly. the new de-radicalization program. could be more specific on how it might work -- could you be more specific on how my work? there are idea of focusing in tailoring in specific communities. is it a model, can be specific about how your program would worker receives? >-- work overseas? >> now would be the first time we have been funded to to programs -- to do programs,

especially those who do not have an access to law enforcement. there are number of other agencies or bodies that are doing this within the government. a.i.d. does cd work and quite a range of different activities which fall into this basket. i think as i said, this is about taking careful measure of the hot spots of radicalization. looking at where the temperature is high. looking at where the activists are coming from. where foreign fighters might be coming from. perhaps where we see particularly large networks of militants. and asking the question, what kinds of interventions, social, political, economic, might make a difference?

is it going to be a special jobs creation program in a neighborhood? is it going to be encouraging credible voices that will espouse a nonviolent approach? ones that would be credible with the particular community there. we know that sitting down a bunch of folks is not going to do it. there are going to be a number of different approaches. we think that this is vitally important. i should also say that we are benefiting from a very interesting and lively discussion in the scholarly community that is pushing this forward. the washington institute has been at the forefront of that discussion. particularly with its recommendation to the new administration last year. i will be the first to say, i do not think that we have found the

philosopher's stone. we will have to do a lot of innovation and quite frankly, we're probably not going to get it right every time. we do not have the tool kit yet for stopping recruitment, for stopping radicalization. if we want to deal with this phenomenon over the long term, we absolutely have to develop it. it will take a certain amount of experimentation to get there. >> thanks very much for your presentation. they question about the resignation of [unintelligible] -- the question about the resignation of [unintelligible] in the u.s. intelligence community or if it is a question about dni?

>> i do not know any more than you do. certainly in the various official remarks on this, there was no discussion of any structural changes. >> thank you. if i may, i would like to get your comments more leverage of the question, in terms of the trend of radicalization. this country, the u.k., as an academic, i am always concerned about my students and the role of the university in combating

the terrorism. it seems to me that from what we see in democracies, the trend seems to me quite negative in the name of freedom of speech and so forth. my question basically, what you said in terms of counter terrorism and international cooperation. is there some road map or agenda in terms of mobilizing the academics to deal with these issues or stay away from that challenge? >> mobilizing academics. as it once aspiring academic, i have to chuckle at the notion. -- as it once the sparring academic -- as a once aspiring

academic, i have to chuckle at the notion. we have to hear from the academic community on the pathways of radicalization and the different factors, drivers, what have you. we often have a problem in that the government will put significant sums of money into research and asked fo for resean this subject and we get back things that may be eliminating, but not have policy relevance. nonetheless, i think this is a moment where there really needs to be a: since -- a coalescene of the academic and policy committee. we in government houshave a

reciprocal requirement that we listen to what is going on outside government. all too often, we think we have got it all. the cia has figured out. we're not as a government optimize to think about all the sociological complexity that drive radicalization. i think you are hitting on a very important point. there is work going on in the academy that is important and useful. i do not think we have it all just yet. >> my question is, to what extent does cost effectiveness enter into your calculations of innovation and change? there is an estimated 200 or 300 al qaeda members in yemen and we're giving the many millions

in aid. the underwear bomber, for example, set off a chain of things that cost tens and hundrees of millions of dollars and so on. in an era where finances are no longer on ltd.unlimited, are co- effective as considerations taken into account? >> thanks for the easy question. i think the cost effectiveness is a very important subject. and one that we have quite a challenge dealing with in government. how do you quantify in dollar terms the cost of the successful attack? never mind actuarial estimations of the value of an individual

life. the cost in terms of loss of confidence, institutions, in security organizations, in leadership and the like, all have -- those considerations have the effect of making cuts effectiveness almost an impossible goal. do think we should do a better job and think harder about some of the reactions that we have after an event like december 25? we should always be trying to work on this. other departments need to be even more concerned about this than the state department. it is a really difficult problem for a democratic government to get its arms around. at a time when you see that terrorism is such a high

concern of some of the citizens. that has the effect of making everyone question, how do we say that too much is too mu i think we're trying to take a reasonable approach. we're trying to chart a sensible course. let me try to put this as politely as i can. i wish that question had been asked in early 2003. why don't we leave it at that? >> you began your remarks with mentioning the americans who have been radicalized. the incidents we have seen recently, the number of them.

i'm wondering if you see a pattern yet of any sort of linkage, not between the individual incidents but between what is driving these people, whether it is the internet or imams or some particular reaction to u.s. policy, but if there is any connection that you are seeing to what is driving americans now with this to al qaeda? >> i think a social scientist would say we do not have enough data to make a very persuasive argument one way or another. a lot of what we are seeing and i am speaking as a former scholar, not as a current official. a lot of what we're saying is the working out of things that were in the pipeline for number of years. much of the reporting we have seen for example on shahzad suggests the grievances go back

tears in his case. that is true in a number of different cases. what i do think is important to underscore is the role of the internet is very critical. there is a lively debate on whether anyone could become fully radicalized on the internet. there probably hackney -- probably needs to be someman conduct. the internet has to change things dramatically. the appearance as -- of online preachers, a dime store in moms, whatever you want to call them who are fluent in idiomatic english and can speak in a sort of culturally validated way through english speakers has made an enormous difference.

those are really difficult things for us to deal with right now. except to _ in public just how illegitimately we view calls to violence against innocents to be. the factors in the in burma that have elicited this, they are complex. we are dealing with a statistical aberration that so many have happened in a short period. obviously, we are in a new phase if we're seeing so much of it happen here. >> we recently hosted the minister from pakistan. he was brutally attacked and his security officer was killed.

i was wondering have you thought about how to incorporate security to give these credible voices of platform to speak? [unintelligible] >> this is always a big challenge. one thing that -- one way we give them security, ironically, is by not attaching a group of americans with weapons to them. it is a complicated calculus. a lot of this involves working with those countries to make sure there is a kind of policing and intelligence for the collection that is required so all the threats are being paid appropriate attention to. i think it is worth underscoring that a lot of the people who are going to be credible interlocutors in these situations are people whose other political attitudes are

home in these communities. we're not looking for someone who was born in the country, spend 30 years in the u.s. and will go back and tell them which side is up. that is the danger threshold. you make a good point. this is always a big challenge. the pakistani government is going through an extraordinary time in terms of defending its people as is the afghans and a number of others, yemenis. >> one more. >> thank you for your comments and your generous comments about the work of the institute. i do not want to disappoint you. i will ask you a question about terminology.

you gave a very impressive talk about the terrorist threat that we face. i noticed that since we did not discuss tamils' or the kurds or the basques -- >> i would be happy to. >> we discussed groups that are motivated by a certain ideology but that was not named. is there a name that the u.s. court and has for the ideology that motivates these groups? >> there are a lot of official things that get done, i am not sure we have gotten around to of -- an official definition. i am not sure my colleagues would mention that as well. i think they're referred to radical islam iism. it seems appropriate given the i

dollars -- the ideology is indelibly imprinted with in london -- bin laden and al- zawahiri. that is the best i can do on that one. >> that helps clarify. i want to go to second level. you underscored the importance of combating violent extremism. does this objective extend beyond susceptible audiences, susceptible groups from joining al qaeda, to groups who would be considering or opponents of groups in other parts of muslim communities, groups that are opposed to radical organizations but they're not al qaeda? the muslim brotherhood or groups

that want to stand up and say, we want to amplify mainstream voices whether it is an al qaeda threat. who knows if there could be in several years? is that also part of our objective? do we extend beyond the narrow opponents of al qaeda to the opponents of the other pro- radical organizations? >> absolutely. we are supportive of those who want to stand up against hezbollah and its advocacy of violence and its. together form of extremism. same is true for hamas. there are a lot of different kinds of violent extremism that are relevant and deserve our attention now there. we also have to always be mindful that there is really only one network of terrorists that seek to include catastrophic damage against u.s.

and its interest. -- interests. the majority of resources are being directed toward al qaeda and its affiliates. we do stand against all those who are advocating violent extremism, whenever the flavor. >> there has not been a change in recent years in the list of countries of state sponsors of terrorism or of the list of groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations. the state sponsors list includes cuba which if it is sponsoring terrorism, it has not been apparent. it does include lebanon, whose government as one-third of its ministers in hezbollah.

the list of organizations includes me-k. i would be interested, some people have suggested that these lists have become less of governments and organizations the u.s. does not like. to what extent do you think is appropriate to let those broader policy concerns influence the decisions about who we list on these kinds of state-sponsored and foreign terrorist organization lists? to what extent should these be determined on terrorism grounds? >> i strongly believe they should be strictly determined on terrorism grounds. i would dispute the contention that the fto has been as static

is you have suggested. i signed an awful lot of memos to the secretary recently on various designations. some have been ruled out and others are in the pipeline. >> [inaudible] that have dropped off. >> i have not seen [unintelligible] >we never designated the libyan fighting group. so, i do believe it should be done entirely on the issue of terrorism. i will not deny that there are others in the political universe who find that these lists are useful sticks in other contexts. we take seriously our job of

being quite serious about how we go through what is an extraordinary and laborious effort in terms of designation. it is worth noting that one country has come off. mercury. there was no basis for saying that north korea was engaged in terrorist activities. we're doing our best to keep the list honest. not everyone feels it should be used that way. those who are charged with running it certainly do. i would also say that we feel that other groups, terrorist groups anywhere are bad, not just if they are attacking our interests. >> quickly about lebanon. what do you do about the problem of the lebanese are read that

includes a terrorist group and includes others as well on coalition? >> interesting question. i suppose if we had -- hezbollah is designated. it is a sanctioned as sanctioned can be. -- as sanctioned as sanctioned can be. the question of whether the government of lebanon is advancing in any material way or providing material support to has a lot in this context and you have to ask a further question of whether it serves our broader policy interests so it can control its own territory esignate it. whether that makes sound policy. >> thank you.

since 2000 -- 2009, [unintelligible] since that time, america used the same [unintelligible] to combatting the terrorism. but now, [unintelligible] he didn't feel any improvement on the ground. the thing is getting complicated day-by-day. the issue is not only to survive. we have to build the country. we have [unintelligible] we can talk about. --[unintelligible]

american talks the same way. that is my question. the way you are following now, [unintelligible] thank you. >> i am not sure i agree with the premises of your question. i do think that we're making progress and i tried to outline that at the beginning in terms of the pressure of the al qaeda senior leadership is under. we have seen changes in the threat environment. we have seen the conspiracies are coming from different quarters and different countries, different ethnic groups, from before, i think this reflects to a large extent large changes that we are -- that were going on in the world

for many years. i do not expect that a problem that was decades in the making is going to be done made -- unmade overnight. we have done quite a number of things that would -- that have had and will continue to have a positive impact on the radicalization phenomenon. the president announced that we were withdrawing from iraq. that has made a difference. the president has declared that we are closing guantanamo, although that has proven to be difficult, nothing has changed about his resolve on that matter. i think that has made a difference. we have made very clear declarations that the u.s. will not employed torture and i think that has made a difference. if you look at the polling in a lot of different areas, these

steps have had their impact. this is a problem that has been decades in the making, and i think it is unrealistic to expect that we will see an enormous change, a sea change overnight. >> can i go back -- charlie wilson from cbs. aa one to go back a question to north korea. the use of its torpedo. the u.s. has been involved in the investigation. do you in -- consider that an act of terrorism or is it an act of warfare? is that sufficient to place north career back on the list? >> i will punt to my colleague who is the legal adviser. when we talk about terrorism, we

talk about it being carried out by non-state proxies. not always. the short answer, to this court later, it looks like a stayed on state action. i will wait for the lawyers to weigh in. >> let me take this in a different direction. as administration tries this government approach and d.c. national security needs through multiple lenses, a counter- terrorism being one of them, how do you see a our ability to balance our national security asks from key countries as well as seeing democracy promotion? in egypt we have seen egypt renewed the emergency law and

there were slight changes but premise the continuation of laws on its need for counter- terrorism focus and that had a tremendous [unintelligible] it is about to be the anniversary of the cairo speech. for the new beginning. -- or the new beginning. where do we see the balance of these two objectives? >> statecraft is an art and not a science. clearly we have an interest in having a strong counter- terrorism partner in egypt and egypt has been one of our very best partners for several decades. as i think your report suggests that we should decouple democracy promotion from counter-terrorism, i do not think we have any ability to decouple anything we do.

these are in a sense in the mix together. they're part of the dialogue we have with other countries. what i do refer you to is the way that the secretary has spoken about democracy promotion, it is a core american values, a core objective, and is often better achieved through quiet suasion rather than public denunciations', public remarks that have a negative impact on the broader relationship. we have a very broad and deep relationships with egypt. -- broad and deep relationship with egypt. we're talking about these issues premature of the time. -- pretty much all the time. why don't i leave it at that? >> it has been a great pleasure that you not only praise our work but you have clearly read it.

is there anyone i have missed? please join me in thanking daniel. thank you very much. >> of pleasure. -- a pleasure. >> chris dodd and congressman barney frank talk about what is next for financial regulation legislation. a conversation with former house speaker newt gingrich.

president obama on fuel efficiency standards. tomorrow, christian science monitor reporter pete spotts talks about the oil rig spill. and bill shore, founder and executive director of share our strength, looks at hunter in america. why did 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. -- live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> every center gives you an idea of what the country is thinking. >> looking behind thaehe senate. >> barney frank predicts the president will sign of financial regulations bill before the july

4 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. the senate passed its version thursday night, 59-39. this is almost 15 minutes. >> we look forward now in the coming next few weeks to take these bills as burnie has said, -- barnie haey has said. when you take the best parts of both bills and present our colleagues of both chambers with our final product. we believe [no audio] is correct in insisting we do not leave

them vulnerable to the problems we have seen in the last few years. with the entire incomes evaporating. to give this country a sense of optimism about the financial institutions and the financial structures of our country. we need to harmonize these as well. we no longer live in an isolated place. events that happen in the caribbean can have a large effect. we need to work with their friends around the globe. it is a strong day for america. this was not a battle about democrats beating republicans. i am glad that others supported this legislation. when we get done with the final conference report, there will be more bipartisan support. i am grateful to barney frank

who has done a great job over there. a strong bill, a good bill. the combination of the best parts of both. i believe we can make it better. >> i agree with the senator. i can remember ever seeing two major pieces of legislation come out of the two houses so close and that is not accidental. we work and much of this you can fee -- see foreshadowed in the speech in march 2008. the need for the dissolution authority and how we deal with that. there was a bipartisan tradition. it did not always carry through. senator dodd thanked the four republicans who voted for the bill in the senate. i would think fowould thank the

republicans if any of them decided to vote party discipline and bowed how i know they want to vote but are intimidated from doing. we have confidence it will work well. the formal parts will be conducted in public. no parts will be part of anything without being presented and voted on and discuss. i understand the urgency for the financial stability of the country and getting this done quickly. stability is knowing what is going on is important. people can be confident. it is hard for me to think this will take more than a month. i believe the president will be able to sign this bill before we leave. one other thing i want to address. the suggestion that you solve some of the problems from before. what about the future? this is a bill that deals --

part of it is the recurring thing that comes up in our economy of a new phenomenon that have not been dealt with. we regulate credit default swaps for the first time. we do not simply look at what was. . .

>> this is a chance for the staff, and maybe the senator the first week back. we could have the first session here, out of the way, the stupid opening statements. >> thank you. >> now we talk to a capitol hill reporter about the week ahead for congress. >> john shaw, a couple of timely bills are coming up next week.

one is legislator, what is that? >> it's interesting, congress has been focused on reform, and now getting to the meat and potatoes of what it's supposed to do. including tax measures and spending. on the house side they will take up 200,000 million package, that is to extend a dozen tax cuts that extended last year and unemployment insurance and health subsidy for unemployed workers and state funds. and the package will allow states to overt a 20% cut in medicare reimbursement for dollars. this $200,000 billion will hit

the floor, and only about 60 billion will focus on this. >> that's what the house will start with, over in the senate they are dealing with the war spending bill. what are some key issues at play in that debate? >> it's about $45 billion and most is for funding the war in afghanistan and the president's surge of 30,000 additional troops and the reconstruction measures iraq. that's the bulk of the money, and smaller items of $125 million for the gulf oil spill. and relief money for haiti and money to fema to replenish their

funds for natural disasters. >> who are some components to the war spending bill? >> probably not too many direct opponents. but some may want to add to it. one democrat wants to add state aid to have the funds help teachers. and some republicans have signalled they want a chunk of the bill to offset the wars. and in this bill you have a discussion about the nation's fiscally situation and whether the spending measures on the house side should be paid for. >> and there is a sense of timeliness to both bills next week. >> right, you need to get moving because congress is about to

begin their memorial day recess. and the spending bill front, mr. gates have gone to the congressional leaders and said he needs these money soon. the majority leader, harry reid said that it's looking to move that next week. >> thank you 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 a line in your new book, you said i never expected to have to write this book, what did you mean? guest: as a junior congressman working with ronald reagan, the war looked bleak, we were under

president carter and people had lost morale. and then reagan came in and the economy took off and jobs were created and inflation was defeated. and "i am a proud to be an american" was a popular song. and i thought naively that we had won many fights, and there was a book about the heights and that they had come back to defeat these units. it was a fascinating book. but it turned out we were wrong, that underneath all of this, that the hard left and the universities and the unions and the bureaucracy and the courts.

that the hard left continues to grow, basically ignoring every lesson. when the republicans failed in 2006 and 2008, and the country decided to repudiate them. the people they elected were very hard left. and you end up with a nancy pelosi and a harry reid and barack obama, and his styles are very left wing. and you have two radical moves from islam. and it's very important that the average american knows that we are in a system of right of work ethics and big dreams and for the right for you to be under

the government the government ad that's under siege. host: how do you mean by socialist? guest: if you look at the government to look at the student program and look at the underlying policy by obama to drop the health insurance and make money by being insured by the employees. and if you look at a.i.g. and general motors and chrysler. and you look at the new fedatory bill that will expand fannie mae and fannie mac. you see this expansion of politicians and bureaucrats and

the shrinking of free enterprise and entrepreneurs and the small working people. so the socialist part is pretty straightforwa straightforward. our american system is different, our declaration of independence said that we are endowed by our creator, with certain rights. power comes from god to you. and you loan power to the state. but america like no other state, the center of the power is the citizen, it's not the state. and then you have a democratic in massachusetts, if you are catholic, maybe you don't work in the emergency room. and you have two democratic legislators in connecticut. and you have a judge in

wisconsin that says that the day of prayer is unconstitutional. you can go to item after item and having a march of secularism driving god out of public l and a judge ruled that indiana legislator couldn't open up their daily meeting with a prayer. host: why do you include the 12 steps of alcoholics? guest: because i want to drive that the highest rule is that of a higher power. this was driven home by a former alcoholic, that he was approached that said it's clear

that alcoholic's alcoholic's as and if you left out the referring to god, then we could support it. and then they don't know why it works. host: you talk about a superior power, are you a spiritual man? guest: well, i am a spiritual man and you could not believe in george washington if you didn't understand how deep his faith was. host: in the health bill look at hr-3590, that's the bill that the democrats signed in on

christmas eve and the president signed into law. and the word "shall" is 400 times and they have the word "cut kwlths and now they want to cut taxes. it adds 159 new federal agencies, offices and programs to what is already the largest department in the federal government. why is that secular? guest: this part is more socialist than secular. when you get to the secular, should they have the power to decide if your life is saved? should the government have the right to decide what is available to you. it's clear and i can't cite the page number, but in the house

bill on page 25 and 26, it said that the secular health and services, the people of the highest pool that need coverage f they run short of money, that the health and services can raise the cost of your premium, reduce the benefits or establish a waiting list. i don't know if you want in a free society your decisions and your values and what you would do about end of life. about a secretary deciding a waiting list that decides that. you could have a secretary that doesn't believe in kidney dialysis or that dealing with people with altzheimer's is

appropriate. i think that's very dangerous. host: you have a co-author of terry maples. guest: he was a tremendous guy, he was a professor at georgia tech. his secondary was primate psychology. when the zoo was in danger of being not run, and terry took over and for 20 years was the most entreprenere and to pull

behind a boat and absorb the oil that was floating. entrepreneurs are can-do, creative people. and terry and i believe that you ought to care about wildlife, but you ought to do it in a way to creative way for people and not in a punishable model. host: what is a solution academy? guest: this is for a system for solution, and we believe that this is a country that has enormous depth of government. there are 513,000 elected

officials, and we are trying to find a program, and what did christie gunwell do, and steve goldwell do in indianapolis, and you can find a new best ideas across the government. host: newt gingrich is our guest, and "to save america: stopping obama's secular socialist medicine" is his new book. caller: mr. gingrich, it's an honor to talk to you and thank you for what you are doing to help our country in these troubled times. i want to ask you and i know you probably won't say, but i hope you will consider running for office in 2012. we need your experience and your

ideas and your face. guest: thank you for that call, and my wife and i are looking seriously trying to get our businesses in order, so that next february or march we can make a decision. i am totally focused this year on the november elections. i believe these are the most consequential elections. and it's important that we have a huge turn-out and have a successful election. and i don't want to think beyond this year. host: what kind of work do you have to get your businesses in order? guest: we have a number of organizations that are successful in those roles. and you have to find new leaders and we have taken a year to

methodically think it through. host: if you were president, what would you do about the bp oil spill? guest: first if you were president, you would focus the navy and coast guard. when you watch tv and see someone that looks like a useful device. and they can't get anyone, and this entrepreneur said he's head of company, and said we can't get anyone in the government to return our call. because they are all in meetings. and i think that bp returned the call one time. and this is what you got in katrina, the bureaucracies can't function. i was involved in katrina, trying to figure out how to open the system up and get new break-throughs. there is a long-term answer, why

with 4,000 pot forms drilling for oil in the united states, why has the coast guard not have research for break-throughs or new solutions. because sooner or later there will be a spill or blow out. and secondly they should have developed things in parallel, not in sequence. and said from day 1, what if the first idea doesn't work and how get to the second idea. government has been critical, and if you read and if you google governor gindol, and this is the second time that the government has failed new orleans. host: next call, steve, democrat. caller: good morning, it's difficult to know where to start

with you. i don't want to disrespect you, but when you try to demonize things like socialism that is a system that functions. and communism is a system that functioned for many decades. isn't it time that we began to pick and choose what we know to be positive of certain systems. and utilize that. i mean -- host: steve, can you give an example. caller: capitalism doesn't belong in areas like health care or food production. guest: i would like to have a dialogue with him. i am happy to say that ronald reagan said that it's an evil

system, and it has killed millions of people. i know of no successful communism system, because they don't have free enterprise. american farmers who own their own land and produce seed for a for-profit basis. and we have agriculture grant system and land research, but that system has created more wealth in agriculture. greater food production and great opportunities than all the communist systems combined. historically soviet union turned raush rushia into a grain producing country because they mismanaged the production. and they had to give up

production of economy, and they would have said to you that communism doesn't work, it's not a matter of picking and choosing. and you would like to have the russia health system, and despite michael moore's movie, no one on the planet goes there are health systems. we create more systems than anyone. i say that with respect, and it's important and part of what i wrote to save america, to create a baseline to say, this stuff doesn't work and it's dangerous to your freedom. when you put that much power with politicians, they use it. host: who is nancy dedman?

guest: she's a person in our system that is combined, 100 companies belong to the center, from hospitals to pharmaceuticals to information and technology and employers. we are trying to find a way to build a 21st century intelligent health system where we use all modern science and break-throughs to have the best outcome to live the longest life at the least cost. it's a very exciting adventure when we began that way in 2002. and nancy dedman is president and c.e.o. of that center. host: as a former speaker do you get that system? guest: as a retired federal employee.

host: is that what you use? guest: it's a blue cross blue shield program. host: next caller. caller: i am sure we can all agree that we would like to have truth from our government to make good decisions. and the first is back in the days of the pentagon papers, hero or traitor? guest: traitor. caller: and the second question, if you were on the supreme court and voted whether those papers were to be published? would you allowed or restricted? guest: restricted. let me explain, national security documents that speak of

war, should be decided by congress and president. and the president as commander of chief. how can you set up someone without the proper systems can randomly decide what to release. when pallock did that, we decided he was a spy. and he lived his life in jachlt because we decided that the documents he stole were so dangerous to the security of the united states. now who was elsworth to decide that he personally had the moral authority to overrule the president of the united states. of the chiefs and that he would decide what documents to release. it's important to understand, you can elect anyone you want, they can fight in u.s. congress all they want. you can nominate someone for president. that's appropriate. but what you can't do is work in

a classified job and deal with the secrets to keep america safe. and unlaterally on your own decide you will reveal those secrets. that's a dangerous principle. host: long island, new york. caller: yes, mr. speaker, i am concerned about the national debt for years now. and i believe personally, me and my family and friends believe that you are our own hope to bring back this country. i know in my heart, and i am hoping that you run for president. and we are all behind you. and actually i believe when you were a house speaker. you didn't get enough credit. clinton got all the credit for budgeting, and you know coming in with a budget.

and i believe if we have you as our president, and every day we will pray that god will give you the energy to keep up with the work and the solutions and everything you are doing now. guest: first of all, thank you, that's an overwhelming statement. that makes my friday brighter than it would otherwise. let me make three quick points out of what you said. first what i decide to do, saving america is about you and your family. it's about all your neighbors in long island. this has to be done by 3.5 million people. the president can only lead if the country is ready to roll up their sleeves. and i hope that you and your family elect this fall for those who are committed to balancing

the budget. i give president clinton credit, we kept spending under control and only grew 2.9%, the lowest rate since calvin coolidge. and we cut taxes, and we set priorities. even while controlling spending, we doubled the national institute budget because we believed in that. and the president had to sign bills, and without that we couldn't control budget and taxes. and this is important, we used to be a country that worked hard, saved and 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 the interest payments. and i think it's wrong. they are projecting $10 trillion in deficit. i think we need to make a commitment to be balance the budget by 2015. we can start this year. i think we should insist on balancing the budget by controlling the spending. and i would rename the spending system, we do not need to raise taxes in the country. that's over governed and overspent. and at 9.9 unemployment we have no interest in raising taxes and killing more jobs. host: now the host is about to come into a pro-forma session, and we will go into that as we do on c-span. we carry the house live.

it will be short and come back with mr. gingrich. and explain why the house is going in this session. guest: the speaker can have the house in pro forma session without votes. if you go several days you have to have a formal vote to adjourn. it's more complicated. and this is a standard procedure that could go down. host: it could go down to 30 seconds. guest: it could be, you have a prayer and speak. host: what do you miss about being speaker? guest: it was an honor to work with many of those people. host: newt, what is on your summer reading list?

guest: i want to read nate hastings, and to read the book on lincoln. i just finished a book on lincoln and his admirals. and i am reading john stanford, he's a great mystery writer, and his new interest is called "stormy prey." he and robert parker are my two favorite mystery writers. i immediately read them. i have a firm rule, read light fiction first. read the stuff you enjoy first. host: to save america is newt gingrich's later book, next caller is bob, thank you for holding. caller: thank you.

i want to make a short statement. two quick questions, statement, when you refer to the president as hitler and pon, i think your friend explained it best when he said, i think you are selling a book compare to running president ahead. he said he put you selling your book ahead for running for president. it will follow you he said. he thinks you are second 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 co-show host insisted that you were married six times

and i know you are only married four times. guest: you are both wrong. you should each donate $100 to charity because you are both wrong. i didn't say the judge was partisan. in fact i didn't say democrat, but the judge is part of a secular culture, and he decided that it's fundamentally wrong in american history. and i didn't compare president obama to anyone. he's an attractive person and he seems to be moderate in temper. his family is lovely, and what michelle obama is doing on obesity and exercise is right and i applaud her. but i said that the secular movement are as grave a threat as any totalian system we have

seen. by that i mean, if they eliminate god from public life, if they surpress your liberties and take away your life to earn money. and the politicians decide who earns how much. if bureaucrats in washington decide every part of your life. then america as we have known it has ceased to exist. and i think it's that serious of threat. if you look at george orwell's 1984, he was a left wing and he feared centralized planning, that he wrote in 1984 not about the soviet union or nazi germany, he said a warning that a too strong central government with the best of intentions can

ruin the invent of freedom. not describing the soviets or fascists or nazis but describing this threat of that system. host: newt's book, that the soviet machine can be a threat to us as the soviets. atlanta you are on. caller: good morning, newt, we miss you in atlanta. i got a couple of things, first of all, let me get your take on should congress be the only authority to make war? guest: well, no. i think there is a distinction. congress is the only authority that declare war. but from the very beginning under george washington and

thomas jefferson and adsoms, the president has the capacity to wage war, and protecting america that they may need decisions past congress. i urged in 2001 an act of war after 9/11. it was the lawyers said don't do it. i think in retrospect they were wrong. when the united states is a long combat, it should be before the threat of war. and there is some danger of the sense of permanent conflict without legal status. host: that caller called about zoo, atlanta, when the speaker was at the zoo. farmington, new hampshire,

republican, smitty. go ahead. caller: yeah, mr. speaker, i talked to you about two years ago when i was predicting the route that the republicans took in congress. this whole thing has had me mystified until recently. a dear friend of mine in phoenix gave me a book, the fabbians by rose miller. and i see what is happening today is a continuation of what mrs. martin wrote about in 1966. the people we are dealing with now don't carry cards if their pockets talking about the fact they are socialists, but they are. and when you look at what they are doing, it's a world's

socialist government. the kingdoms are taken on by them. guest: i think you are on something, the reason i wrote my book, i think that the friends on the left like to pretend to be moderates. if you look at the obama health care that will be impossible to be sustain. the estimate of the cost of the high-risk pools, 8 times, that's 800% more expensive than they estimated three months ago. if you look at the budget's office recalculation, the cost is above $1 trillion. you can go to healthnation.net, and we produced a chart of the

new agencies, the chart is three feet by six feet. in order to read that many names, it took three feet by six feet. and you think how can these people believe in a gigantic centralized government. and then you go back to the fabbian associafab ian socialists, and this system they are trying to build is a machine. and that's why they are ramming things through. and the purpose to save america is to outline the challenge and to outline solutions that would enable us to meet that challenge. host: john, you are with newt gingrich. caller: first i want to meet first exposure, i have the emotional maturity of democrats.

and that's not a bad thing, they think with their feelings, i am a registered republican, but i am disenchanted by the republicans. i tried to call on the independent line. host: ok, we got that, what is your questions. caller: the moral overtone from reagan is lost, there are a lot of people trying and fake ing it best they can. and i am looking for that in a leader. there are a lot of coming ways that people seem to be putting on that fake moral overtone and trying to catch up with it in their character development. and i see it in mr. gingrich to a degree, and he's very smart and bright and it's too much for someone like me as i am trying to grow.

guest: i am not quite sure what that means. i can tell you that we did a movie called, ronald reagan destiny, that's a study of reagan's life. and i agree with you about his ability and the way he dealt with things and the power he had. but i think that the deeper point you are making, when you are in a period of great difficulties, it's like a boat at sea. and the storm is overwhelming. and you want a captain of the ship that is calm and confident and knows where they are going and knows how to survive the storms. and i think that president reagan had those characteristics. and as we watch the ship getting worse and

understand how serious the threat is from the radical wing of islam. somewhere in that process your strength is right, and we will look for a leader with the strength and calmness and firmness of purpose that president reagan had. host: is there an overlay of morality in america? guest: there is an overlay of morality and faith in america. i want it drive this home, peter, our declaration of independence, our first document, says that we are en w endowed by our creator. and it meant wisdom and virtue. and i would say to be an 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, if your school system refuses to define creator. and you refuse to teach this. host: next caller, hi. caller: hi, newt, thank you for producing this book. in 1984 i was scared and now i see barack obama implementing these things i read in 1984. thank you for bringing this out. i live in illinois and i know about obama and his questionable behaviors, politically. and the university of chicago and he and his thinkers that he's brought into his administration come from. thanks again. guest: thank you, part of the reason i describe it as a machine comes out of the chicago

background. if you can get $780 billion out of a bill, that's the behavior of a machine. host: you started as a structure. guest: i was a failed candidate, and lost twice. host: thank you, and can you assess arland spector for us? guest: i think it was right for arland spector didn't win and that the people said no. and i think that rand paul has an insurgency against the establishment and i think you will see more like that. i think i am a little like reagan. he was president eight years, and he spent one out of eight years at the ranch.

and i think never once he was inside of washington in his head. i think he was leading the country from the white house, but going to georgetown was never part of his life. and i would say that i have been actively studying government and politic since my sophomore years in high school. and my dad was serving in europe, and i was startled by the fact that really bad leadership can destroy the country. so i have been doing this since august, 1958. i am part of the system but i have been part of the insurgent take on the establishment in both parties. and it makes for an interesting complex balance.

host: new contract for 2010? guest: i think that kevin mccartney is going to undertake that for the house. i think that the one thing i would take on after yesterday's disgraceful behavior of the democrats, i think that the republicans should control the border within six months. and let the democrats oppose them. host: to save america: stopping obama's secula secular-socialist machine. thank you. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," pete spotts talks about the environmental impact of the oil spill in gulf of mexico. james gattuso offers his

comments on how to fix fannie mae and freddie mac. bill shore looks at hunger in america. "washington journal" live on c-span. next president obama on fuel efficiency standards. and then columnist jonathan alter on president obama's first year. and senate mushin murkowski. america and the courts on c-span. >> on june 28, elena kagan will

confirm before the library. you can find these at the library. it's washington your way. >> president obama will continue to work on efforts for energy and climate change. those remarks were when the president signed a memorandum on medium-sized and heavy-duty trucks. this is about 15 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states, accompanied by ray lahood, lisa jackson and carol browner.

[applause] >> thank you, everyone. good morning. everyone please have a seat. it is wonderful to have you all here. welcome to the white house. i want to introduce some of the folks who are on stage. who have been integral in making today possible. you have already heard about the wonderful team here at the white house, carol browner, ray lahood and lisa jackson. and we have on stage a number of people that were absolutely critical. martin dom, c.e.o. of dimler trucks, anthony duner, mr. allen

ruther, legislative director, denn dennis slegel, c.e.o. of volvo, and daniel shurst, c.e.o. of nav-star. and we have some legislative leaders who have been champions of not only the auto industry but the environmental movement. and i want to thank them for being here. one of the deans of house of representatives, john dengal, give him a big round of applause. representative ed marky is here. from massachusetts.

[applause] representative chris van hullen, 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 a historic agreement to help break america's dependence on oil and to help with the planet we will leave to our children. it was the agreement, first of its kind to raise the fuel efficiency and reduce the greenhouse pollution of 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 made little headway of improving the fuel efficiency of our cars.

we heard a lot of talk here in washington and when gas prices went up. i remember going to gas stations and holding press conferences and announcing new legislation. but the is would fade. this was deep in left versus right and management versus labor. but what we showed one year ago today, we could do something different. we proved these were false choices. we brought together all the stakeholders including former adversaries to support policy for workers and help the planet. one year later we see results, instead of fighting standards,

automakerers are to reach them. and we hope to achieve an average of 35.5 miles per gallon. as as a result everyone wins; . .

this will reduce pollution given that freight vehicles produced 1/5 the amount of greenhouse gases.

we can increase fuel efficiency and 25% using technology that already exists. this standard worswill spur groh in the clean energy sector. we know that climate change poses a threat to our way of life. the disaster in the gulf underscores that even as we pursue our desire to have a reduction in foreign oil, we also like to have a source of new transportation technology. around the globe, countries are seeking independence by investing in new ways of producing and saving energy.

china, germany, these countries recognize the nation that leads in the clean energy economy will lead the global economy. that is why we fashioned the recovery act to get our economy moving again. we are supporting the development of advanced electrical technologies. we would like to have a new alleged corporate which will be essential to powering electric hybrids. it is estimated that we will create or save more than 700,000 jobs. these investments will help businesses develop new technologies that vehicle makers can use to meet five -- higher standards. the standard that we set left year for cars and light trucks runs through 2016. i am proposing that we develop a

new and higher standard taking effect 2017 so we can make more progress in the years to come. [applause] through the directive i'm signing, we will work with public and private sectors to develop the offense infrastructure that will be necessary for plugging hybrids and electric vehicles. we will continue to work to diversify our fuel mix including by a fuel and natural gas. i believe that it is possible for vehicles to use half the fuel and produce half the pollution that they do today. that will only happen if we are willing to do what is necessary for the sake of our economy, security, and environment. this is an essential part of our strategy but this is not a substitute for other steps to -- necessary steps.

i am heartened by the good work that has been done by senator kerry and lieberman to prevent the worst consequences of climate change and millions of new jobs are possible if we rise to this challenge. this follows the passage of comprehensive legislation through the house. i intend to work with members of both parties to pass a bill this year. [applause] i will take every sensible and sensible action that i can take using my authority as president to move our country in the right direction. that is what we have done today and that is what we will continue to do in the days, weeks, months ahead. peggy very much for being here. [applause]

-- thank you so much for being here. there you go. [applause] >> thank you. tell everyone i said hello. good job. >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seats. the president has departed. i thank you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪

>> sonia sotomayor on t confirmation process. >> you have to look at their life's work. that would be a clear reflection of who they are and how they think and what they will do. >> with a new supreme court nominee heading into the process, learn more about the

nation's highest court in "the supreme court," a candid conversation with all of the justices. this is available now in hard cover and also as an electronic book. >> now a look at president obama's first year in office. >> " washington journal" continues. host: this is the cover of jonathan alter's newest book "the promise: president obama, year 1." 1 chapter is ned zen temperament. he writes that in the west wing it is usually 60 degrees and cool. what do you mean by that? guest: remember the old commercial from the 1960's and 70's for the underarm deodorant, i think it was called is blue secret -- cool, calm, collected. that is barack obama. everything is very even tempered. and if he gets even a little bit

irritated, it really stings because normally things are placid. but you don't have the highs and lows that you got under clinton. another chapter called the un- bubba, how he and -- contrasts. is not chilly, not that it is a cold environment. 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 a all

presidents are 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 somebody. it is more of a bit of a icy glare, looking at peoe, 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 reall 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 place behind 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 interview is bundled with t audio book of "the promisefor ople who want to hear his voice in the oval office. he said a lot of interesting things. at one point, on this issue about him being jammed and boxed in by the pentagon, he said i can neither confirm or deny that i was jammed by the pentagon, which i thought was interesting. i spoke to the vice-president at

length and i did speak to all of the president's top people in the white house. the only ones that i named it that i talked to are the big four -- rahm emanuel, valerie jarrett, 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 because these conversations were all on background, and check to them that it was accurate. host: use through out a name that people might not be familiar with, pete rauss. guest: he is a 30-year veteran of capitol hill, he is often called the 101st senator, he was tom daschle's chief of staff and when the barack obama arrived in

2005 in the senate, he became 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 watched it on television. the president, who likes to wander around the west wing and walk into other people's offices, he jokes that pete does not like to travel, does not like to take foreign trips much, would not even traveled down to the oval office to see him so obama had to go down to peter's office. he is sometimes calle a kinder winston wolf. this is the character from "pulp fiction." when there was a problem, he could handle it.

he does not talk to many people but he gave me great insights as did many people around the president. they knew that this was going to be a mixed picture and i was not going to cover for them. they thought that i would treat this in a fair minded way. guhost: -- guest: is the only person who is a senior official and in the innermost circle of the family life. she is almost like the older sister to the obama family. they met in the 90's michelle obama was at the city hall and

valerie met her in chicago. she met barack obama one night. -- father was raised in iran and her father was a doctor. they had a lot in common. 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 that i deal with in the book. but she has a better sense of any of them of how the obamas, both the president and first lady, to react in any situation. she can almost tell you in an uncanny way what their response will be. it's good you started working on this in november of 2008 and finished it in march 2010. what is the importance of having a book about the first year of a president?

guest: the last book i wrote -- "the defining moment: fdr's final days." i was researching that roosevelt's debut was critical and understanding him and why his presidency worked, and of course, it was a very eventful 100 days when the economy was in shambles, 25% unemployment, the decks of the depression, and i wanted to understand how roosevelt lifted us up. so i sensed by november of 2008 that this was going to 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 african-american president settled into office would be history. so, i was pretty confident, even though nothing had happened yet in november of 2008, that the story would unfold and i kw even then he was already making critical decisions as the private citizen, president- elect, that he was making $100 billion decisions almost every day and they were on a much larger scale than in the past. whereas bill clinton tried and failed with a $60 billion stimulus, the obama stimulus was $787 billion. a lot of moving parts. four or five landmark pieces of legislation on an open to one bill. so i knew it even if health care did not happ or some of the other things did not unfold, thathere 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 oe a week and it sure to read those 10 letters from average americans each day. "i worry about him getting information the tiered eric whitaker said. "are worried about people not telling the truth. " so did obama. guest: eric uld occur is one of h two bt friends from chicago, a physician at university of chicago hospitals. i trd to talk 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 faed. he wanted to get out of the bubble. he wanted to maintain the connection to the american people, and somewhere along the way he lost at lea 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. bowi maryland. democrat. guest: yes. i aa real fan of yours. i have been watching you cannot. -- watching you a lot. guest: thanks. caller: i want to know if most of the republicans hate obama because he is very educated and smart and they are just afraid of him? and another thing i wanted to ask you -- do you think the tea party are racist act of the

things rand paul said yesterday, that he don't bieve in the civil rights part of it? guest: first of all, no, i don't think you can say most republicans believe this or that are most democrats. i am very careful to avoid those kinds of generalizations. one thing that has interested me, and a few days that the book has been out, i had a lot of interest from a conservative radio talk-show hosts who also like the bk. 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 you are right that there were at least some people, including some independents as well as republicans, who did sometimes get the feeling that he was -- in 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 begs 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 least some people. as far as the racial dimension some oobviously there are racists with obama could never get a break. i think it is unfair to the tea party movement to label it as a racist mement. the vast majority of them, their views are notivated by race. by the way, obama does not think so, either. for a little perspective, remember they called bill clinton a murder, drug dealer, they said franklin roosevelt -- talking about critics -- that he had syphilis in the brain, abham lincoln was a monkey,

thomas jefferson, they were going after the sally handing things in real time and early 1800's. so politics has always been a contact sport. and i think it is important for supporters of the president not to blame all of the criticism, even when it is fierce, and oftentimes untrue, to blame that criticism on racism. as he set at one point, he sai look, i was black before i was elected and the american people elected me anyway. i asked him about this a little bit, and i found talking to other folks, one day in the oval office, when health care was really in trouble and he is asked by rahm emanuel, are you still feeling lucky, and he said, yes, i am fairly -- i am feeling lucky, my name is buraku

st. obama d i am sitting here in the oval office. -- my name is barack husin obama and i am still in office. people did not care as muc about what everybody is art bring about and watching -- and ought to be fair, he feels the american people are fair and with enough time he will be able to maintain their support and i actually think he is right. host: you seem to have some fun with some of the chapter titles. rahmbo, the skinny guy and the fat cats, chaosisn. 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 bemes white house chief of staff and i tried to tell the story. he almost died when he was a young man, an infection spread through his body, and he tells the story and i think that shaped him. he is also just really funny. comic relief in that chapter. he is a lot shorter than lbj but he stands just as close as he puts his finger in your chest and even when he was a young

man in the clinton white house, tony blair, prime minister of england, and, right of vertigo and stage and he puts the figure in the prime minister's task and says don't f it up. ho: new york cy, susan, independent line. caller: we have listened to obama talk a good game about switching to a renewal clean energy in the past two years but when it comes to action, his administration is mirroring the bush administration and we can start with his appointments of cans salazar -- can salazar as 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,n terms of letting these oil companies not have

environmental. so, i have to ask, are we really getting any difference from the bush administration? guest: the answer to that question is, yes. let me give you a couple of reasons why. 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 busadministration, 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 co continuation of the past is not right. the energy bill that was passed was part of the stimulus. the biggest infrastructure, the biggest energy bill since the 1960's. they do such a poor job of explaining the issue, everything was going to be done by presidents day of last year.

we are determined to build a new smart energy grid. we would create thousands of new jobs. they wanted to do it. they found the impediments which is in the agencies. they are determined to have energy legislation. when it is finally enacted some time in the next year or two i think you will be generally eased. host: we just got his updated

schedule for today. meeting with senator dodd and congressman barney frank about financial regulations since they both passed. you got a story and hear about barney frank and treasury secretary paulson at the white house. guest: odds of timber 25, 2008, in the bush white house -- on september5, 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 an asks bush to have a big meeting in washington and that is my openinchapter -- 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 of ram, 1 whispered to a couple of democratic senators, jokingly, even the republicans here will vote for obama because he clearly showed much more command of the crisis that come -- mccain did. what happened in the meeting was

there was a real problem with but republican support on the hill for part -- tarp, and it put paulson and a deposition. in the hall after the meeting obama says, this place is bugged. he retreats to the roosevelt room. henry paulson -- 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 its -- 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 frank was saying, blow of

the deal, we are not blowing it up, it is your people blowing up of the f-ing deal, you go back and tell your party to get it together. senator obama goes between them like a teacher on the playground with his hands spread and says easy guys, easy. hank, you go back and talk to spencer -- spencer baucus, ranking minority member of the house financial-serves 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 pay 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 ofhese are related. obama is aragmatist. years ago he was for single pair but he recognized at the beginning of the process it was a complete non starter. i have 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 pragmatic 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 ca done, get the stimulus through, and the three or four big things that they wanted to get done. so all of the other issues that are quite legitimate and people care about a lot are put on the back burner at least for awhile. host: new mexico, rubin, republican mind. caller: hello, i have a couple of questions. how did you arrive at the title "the promised"? and what is your take on the financial collapsthat we had -- housing specifically. i saw videotapes only on fox, of course, videotapes where barney frank and the democrats were basically bending the arms of

the banks, bank representatives were there in front of congress and they were -- host: tell you what, let us get the answer to the first question and if this -- did was to expand in the previous answer. th te promise the tears of balkans office with a lotf promise and the american people were wondering if he would make good. in my epilogue i take readers through which of them hit the field and which he did not. i 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 sort of the finger-pointing going on, where republicans are saying this housing crisis is the democrats' fau and democrats are saying, well, it is all the republicans' fault -- there is enough blame to go around. and were some good things done by both the congress and president obama in this area. host: the 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' editor going back to his first book. we have different kinds of journalists. and i think readers will have to judge for themselv. 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 appreciate this opportunity. -- all because sure appreciate this opportunity. thank youc-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 with a bill . ayers caller: i watched c-span consistently and you have both of the chamber's, senate and house, coming in and they offer their prayers, a very humbling scene, to god, for direction, and they offer the pledge of allegiance 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:rgonaut 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. hostdo you think president obama succeeded in his first year? one of your goals was to talk about how he got there, what he did and how he did it. guest: i do think he succeeded. most of what i'm trying to do it isive 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 di 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 suced 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 loo 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 american army and? guest: i am not sure what he is talking about in terms of the interview with santita jackson. she is a close friend of michelle obama and she was a their wedding. but there is a 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 trng to -- remember, israel was being bombed by scud missiles sent by sadda hussein and it was a very, very frightening time in israel and in the united states as we were in the middle of the gulf war, and he went over and with a civilian units he worked on repairing israeli trucks so they

could get supplies to civilians more easily. he did that on a volunteer basis for a few weeks in 1991. but it was not the israeli defense force. host: last call, anne on e democrats' line the caller: this is so great to he 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 his book is how cheney was a master at establishing a kind of an inside the agencies in washington.

it and what i'm kind of picking up is there is a lot of carry over that we are seeing today in some of the actions that are now being taken by the obama administration. when you have such a right cleaning establishment going on for eight years, the baseline, the 50 yard line, is it really 50 yards? can you tell me about how old yo 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 playsut 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 >> tomorrow, "the christian science monitor," talks about the effect of the oil spill in the gulf of mexico. bill shore, the founder and executive director of -- looks at hundred america. >>-- hunger and in america.

next, a discussion on offshore drilling. then the state department on counter-terrorism. after that, a house hearing on accounting standards. sunday, we will hear from the house of commons, the new prime minister. the chancellor of the exchequer talks about the corporate tax rate and spending. >> just weeks after the british elections which announced a new prime minister and a coalition government, the queen elizabeth

will announce the legislative agenda for the new session. we will travel from buckingham palace to the parliament. the state opening of parliament, live at 5:30 eastern. >> alaska senator murkowski was the keynote speaker talking about offshore drilling. this is hosted by the university of virginia center for oceans law and policy. >> ladies and gentlemen, if i can have your attention. we are particularly honored to have as our conrence keynote speaker today senator lisa murkowski, the first

askan-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 butiful 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 t 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. buit 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 aot. what does it really mean to be an arctic nation? i believe that the federal government is just now wakin 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 regionnd 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 ctainly 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 atic 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 absolutelyascinating. 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 ofhose 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.