modification to stop obsolete things but continue using the same technology, experience, and people moving forward towards orion. >> i have directed that we spend money for things useful to the exploration system going forward. you had a report that said we were wasting funds by using money on obsolete constellation contracts. that is not the case. we took issue with the report. we submitted our own report to identify the areas where we were doing exactly what he said. we are spending money on the o'brien vehicle -- orion vehicle. we are spending money on doing some things from the o'brien -- orion -- constellation program that look like they will match

up well to a space launch system. we're trying not to spend money on things that will not go forward. we're not wasting the taxpayer'' money. >> that would be our hope. we have worked with your staff and the gao to completely clarified going forward after this next continuing resolution that you will have complete freedom to follow the orion pursuit in the 2010 law passed for authorization. i do have another question. i know other people -- we can have a second round. >> ask that question and then we can pick up. >> i want to go back to the law passed in 2010 on the orbiter vehicle. senator brown suggested the last

person you talked to might be the person you listen to -- i am kidding. you said the criteria should have priority consideration given to eligible applicants that meet the other conditions. they would be those that have the best potential value for the public. they would advance educational opportunities in science, engineering, mathematics and with a historical relationship with either the launch, flight operations, or processing of the space shuttle orbiters or retrieval or significant contributions to human space flight. if you go back to the priority consideration, it seems to me it would be difficult to leave out

both houston and florida. i know you are getting ready to make the decision. i think you have acknowledged that when people think of our space shuttle, they think of mission control in houston. they think of the astronauts training in houston. they think of the tape where we want. i want to ask you how much is the historical relationship with the flight operations launche, etc., weighing in on the factors in your decision? >> the people who made the recommendations to me did not include the prior authorization from the law. i was aware of it. i think you will find when the

announcement is made that every biter has aving an orde connection to human space flight. everyone has a historical connection to the space shuttle. >> the priority of the law would prevail. correct? >> yes. we will comply fully with the law. >> mr. administrator, i want to come back to senator hutchison's questions about the orion constellation, etc. some time this week, we will pass the final continuing resolution for this year. what i am going to suggest is

that your staff review the legislation and the issues ison.d by senator hutcheso back and brief us on where we are on the topics of we are all aware. we want to make sure that we all understand the same thing. then we can identify if any other further clarification is needed. does this sound like a good way to go? i think there is confusion between the authorization, what you are mandated to do, and what we'vmaybe some activities we do.

>> i think as much input as we can get and as much as we can work together, absolutely. i believe so much of our goal was a balanced approach for manned space flight and that we would have the commercial and nasa experience working hand-in- hand on a dual track for the development of the next generation of vehicles. that is what i am trying to achieve. i hope that is what you are trying to achieve. that is what we're trying to do continuing resolution and the follow on budget. >> the policy goals we have agreed upon through the authorization. the stewardship of federal funds is something we're all committed to.

we are in an atmosphere of making every dollar count. we want all talent to count. i was so pleased in your comments and the opening statement when you acknowledged the incredible talent at nasa. a lot of people put a lot of hard work into that. we do not want to throw out the ideas and what we can benefit from. we do not want to waste money. we are all obsessed with jobs, mr. administrator. as the shuttle winds down, people were deeply concerned in florida. people at all the centers are very worried about jobs. we're looking at how to continued innovation with jobs of the future. i think every member here is

concerned about jobs today. we need to talk about that. i want to come back to the frugal government and making dollars account. i know the gao has identified nasa contract management -- they have nasa on the high-risk list. in the annual review of large- scale nasa projects from the gao found that development costs for the 16 projects that have entered major development had grown nearly 15%. that is not even with the telescope issue. g.a.o. has also told the subcommittee that are encouraged by nasa's corrective action plan. you are on the high risk list. gao says you are making progress.

what are you doing to make sure that nasa contract management is implementing the gao recommendations? should we be moving away from cost plus contract into fixed price contract in? is that just a gimmick? how do you get off of the gao high-risk list? what are you doing so we feel confident about this? also, do you have thoughts on the new world order and contracting? >> in managing expectations, i doubt that nasa will ever be off the high risk list. everything we do is higher risk. we do dangerous and risky things. we take big challenges that nobody else can do.

unfortunately, we do one-of-a- kind type programs. we do things that have never been done before. being on the high-risk list, i can still make my program management better. we have established key decision points in every program we do. those are milestones that they have to take an assessment of on how we are meeting our scheduled goals. we look at life cycle targets. at the outset of a program, we establish how much we think it will cost to design and build a system and how much it will cost to operate the system. when we bring you an estimate for a system today, it is a life cycle cost estimate. we instituted something called the joint confidence levels where we look at cost and schedule. this came about in 2009. we have two examples.

both of them will fly before the end of this calendar year. they are on target in every respect. they went through the jcl process. we're confident that we will deliver. we use independent assessments. that is what we're doing now. we train our program and project managers. we put them through a rigorous training course that they have to finish. one of the things it talks about is discipline. if they are managing a science project, they learn to say no when someone says it would be a good idea to add one more experiment or instrument. we have some things we're going to do away with that do not meet the smell test in this time. >> it to the gao live in yellow

lights seriously. what about moving away from cost plus contracts to fixed-price contracts? i am not saying i advocate that. i am interested in your views. >> we would always prefer to have a fixed price contract. the government signs a contract up front and follows its commitment to pay the contractor as it meets milestones. because we do one-of-a-kind things, sometimes when we are in the development phase, a fixed price contract may not be the most prudent thing to do. we may need a cost plus contract until we get through the uncertain part of the cycle. you will go through multiple types of contracts over the life of a program while it is being developed. you move from a cost plus contract during development to a

fixed price contract in the final phases of production. >> today we will not go into this. we are looking at contracting and acquisition and every one of the agency's in our subcommittee. it is not because we will break new ground. it goes to authorization and working with the executive branch. ing as we know it is going to be reviewed. we signed contracts for things that nobody else does. the fact is it often takes five to seven years to develop. our mission changes or gifts altered. politics changes. technology changes. ck for aare in a tra

particular weight and cost. i am not sure what is the best way to go. i do believe lessons have been learned in defense with secretary gates and others. they're not all applicable. we need to be able to look at it. that is not for today. the cr we need to get a on the web. that's close out this year's appropriations and get a good direction on 2012. did you have any of the questions? >> i do not. >> senator hutchison, the you have any other questions? >> i have questions to submit for the record. i do not need to ask them here. they are general questions i would like to ask you to respond

to. i will give them to the chairman. >> i have another couple of questions. there was a study of u.s. satellites that found that fewer than 10% of spacecraft comply with the military standards suffered failures. almost 2/3 fail. only half of the qualification tests were performed. in 2009, a nasa satellite was lost. a month ago, another nasa satellite was lost. the loss of these two my concern is first for the safety of our astronauts and for the successful launch of supplies and critical hardware to orbit.

what type of full-scale, environmental testing is nasa going to require the commercial companies to achieve to get certification for space flight? how are we going to qualify our own vehicles? >> we are in the process of developing human ratings standards. we have a series of 1000 documents that will deal with what a contractor has to do to qualify to carry either cargo or crew members. my number one objective is the safety of our crews. we will not certify an industrial partner to carry a crew unless we're satisfied they have met all the criteria on human ratings standards and all of our safety requirements.

almost all the vehicles go through thermal vacuum testing, vibration testing, radiation testing to make sure they are radiation hardened and the like. any test that would have been recovered or will be required, my multi-purpose critical, a commercial vendor will have to pass the same test or demonstrate they have passed a we puttest before astronauts on. >> what role do you envision? >> it depends on the vehicle or the capability of the developer and industry partner to find another facility. ray lugo is filling out to

industry and advertising the cap abilities -- capabilities we have. patrick sherman is doing that. we are actively going out to industry and saying that we have the best facilities in the world. please use our facilities. i envision we may have some contractors wanting to bring their vehicles through plum brook for testing. it is the best facility nasa has. i am certain it is better than anything else they can come up with. we're trying to help them with their cost. every facility they do not have to build means more money to their shareholders. we promised we will give them a reasonable price. we do have to get back full value for the taxpayer. we do not have any sales. >> let me ask one more question.

nasa has been working on the haut-rhin sa -- orion the ago. the work directly transfers to the space launch system. what way do you plan on using finesse a glance -- nasa's heritage in these programs? >> i will have ray lugo get in touch with you. any work that glen was doing with orion is the same work they will do with the multipurpose vehicle, no matter what we call it. they are small propulsion. engines andtric india the like. they will continue to be

responsible for the same thing's going forward. it is my hope that within the week, we will be able to bring to the staffs a report that my senior management has been receiving incrementally now on the multi-purpose crew vehicle. it is the plan for the plan. it will be on the 21st century are not complex. we have done incredible work. we have not been standing still. we have been doing this for almost a year. this is was supported making the decision on the design reference vehicles. we're ready to bring that to the committee so that you can get incremental looks at how we are progressing. you can see we're not stalling. we're not wasting time or money. we have a plan. if the plan is sufficiently supported by budget, we will

develop the best heavy lift launch system we have ever had and a deep space exploration vehicle that will do the things we have only dreamed about until now. we're going to do that. it is our desire to bring those reports to this committee in increments as we go along. >> mr. administrator, in two weeks, there will be a historic flight. one of our last shuttles will go into space. we know that captain mike kelly will be leading that effort. we hope that with god's grace and american medical care that congresswoman giffords can see that. we wish them through you

godspeed. we hope that nasa continues to do with it does best. good luck to them. may the force be with them. >> i would like to add to that. i am so looking forward to this. it has a very poignant side to it because of commander kelly and his wife who we are all pulling so hard for to be able to come. also, the spectrometers going up is such a big deal. this is the last major big piece of equipment that will be going. it has enormous potential for the look at dark matter, energy. one of the previous nasa administrators insisted this was

the one thing we could do in microgravity it would be so important in the energy field. dr. king is a nobel laureate. we listened to him. his dream is now becoming a reality in this launch. it has so many important historic, significant aspects to it. i am very excited about it as well. i am looking forward to having that peace. in. -- i am looking forward to having that piece put in. the very last payload lifting is in june. >> we will get it to you soon. may i make one comment? to help people put things into perspective, 134 is an

incredibly important mission. it is high profile. it is everything. i wear a bracelet for gabby because she is a personal friend. my number one objective is making sure that our astronauts are safe. with all the high profile and everything, i want to keep all the pressure away from mark kelly. captain mark kelly is one incredible human being. he is also one incredible professional. he is a person has garnered the respective admiration of his crew and everybody in the astronauts' office. he is focused on flying. he is focused on making sure that his group stays safe and carries out the mission to the best of their ability. my goal is to make sure i facilitate their success in doing that. i will do my best to shield them from everything else that is coming. it is an incredibly high profile

mission. we will do nothing any different than we did for 133 or 125 or anything else. if we have a problem, we will not go. i want everybody to understand that there will not be any special anything for 134 other than that it will be incredibly special to have gabby at the launch because it represents the triumph of good over evil. i think it is incredible for the country if she is able to make it. >> we share your emotions, passion, and hopes and dreams for the mission. if there are no further questions, senators may submit additional questions for the record. we expect a response within 30 days. the subcommittee stands in recess until thursday, april 14, at 10:00 a.m. when we will take the test to many -- testimony of the secretary of commerce.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[indistinct conversations]

>> this hearing on the nasa budget will be on again tonight at 9:00 eastern on c- span2. this is one of a series of meetings on the proposed 2012 budget. the house plans to vote on the proposed 2012 budget written by house republicans. you can see the debate and vote as always here on c-span. republican mitt romney is forming an exploratory committee. he announced its online today. he was not successful in his bid for the gop presidential nomination in 2008. >> tonight, the sec commissioner on the proposed at&t and t-

mobile merger. >> are there any harms' coming out as a result of the merger? what are the specific harms to consumers? if there are harms, then the merger conditions should be narrowly tailored to address those. it should not be an excuse to implement a rule making on things that do not arise because of that particular merger. >> here is a look at our prime- time schedule. part of a conference held by the aspen institute on race in america. we will hear a discussion on how the family structures have changed. then the interim dnc chairman talks about how political parties are working to attract minorities to vote in next year's elections.

later, a look at the differences between president obama's budget plan and the house republican proposal. a deal was struck between the house and senate leaders on friday for a one week extension of federal spending. the house gavels in tonight at 11:00 eastern to begin work on the agreement. the chamber returns tomorrow afternoon at 2:00 eastern for legislative business with those postponed until 6:30. they will continue debate on 2011 spending. they plan to take up the gop spending proposal for 2012 later this week. follow the house live here on c- span. >> on april 12, 1861, confederate forces attacked fort sumter in south carolina, igniting the civil war. the nation commemorate the 150th anniversary of the bombardment. next week, we bring you the sights and sounds from fort

sumter and charleston with a special look at wartime life in the 1860's as well as interviews with scholars and reactors from the north and south. you can have our schedules emailed to you. competition asked students to consider washington, ens., through their lan today's third prize winner addressed the role of the government. >> schools of extracurricular activities. are the academics more important than everything else? what about the girl who wants to be an olympic swimmer? a practical job seems more important. but what about the job that you love? the federal government faces a tough decision in the current

financial crisis. to cut or not to cut, that is the question. how can schools offer the best educational opportunities in the current financial crisis? >> these are characteristic of individual states. kids cannot read. there are dropouts. we cannot do one thing and fix the mess. we can sit here all day and say more charter schools. that is not going to fix it. we can say improving teacher quality. all by itself, that will not fix it. we are of the mind that to fix indianas mess, you have to have a comprehensive reform package. it is not one thing. if you are not going to go after multiple things, you are

not going to go after things that address the cornerstones of the mess. you will not clean up the mess in your state. >> it is going to be a tough next two years. the state legislature is adopting a two-year state budget. school districts cannot expect additional money for the next two years. they will have to find a way to be more efficient and effective in how they spend taxpayer dollars. making sure they invest the dollars efficiently, high- quality teachers, a teacher compensation, effective programs that have a track record for success, focusing on things that have the biggest impact. >> in the last two years, the state of indiana has faced the most difficult financial

situation we have seen in recent memory. yet test scores have been up 6%. graduation rates are up. advanced placement tests participation is up. many of our indicators show us that even in the most difficult of financial times, by increasing expectations we can improve student performance. high expectations do not cost anything. we have shown it is not necessarily more money that will drive academic performance and our state. >> the financial crisis is only a crisis because the leadership chose to cut education rather than other state services or support activities.

if education was truly the most important government functions, then there would never be a crisis in education. >> from the federal perspective, there are not enough dollars to go around to fund all of the needs. the amount of money required to fund all of the special education programs, the federal government funds that at about 40%. that means local districts have to pick up the other 60%. does the federal government to be enough? no. can they do more? not with the amount of money available to them. >> conflicting ideas between what to cut and what not to cut result in note results whatsoever. what needs to be done to fix the financial mess? >> extracurricular activities whether athletic or social need

to be maintained in schools. they do help to enrich the learning environment. for some students, it is what really engages the student. it is what they associate school with. it may be what they enjoy the most. some kids who do not do well in the course of the areas may find that they do quite well at performing or fine arts or athletics. >> if the purpose of education was to create citizens to participate in a democratic society, then someone might say , how does athletics contribute to that purpose? how does music contribute to the purpose? how does art or science or social studies? you would be able to go through all of the activities and determine what each of them is

contributing to accomplishing the purpose. that is how you set priorities when it is needed. >> in some communities, some activities may be more or less important than to other communities. we have to begin to have those types of discussions to identify how important these things are. where are they in terms of our core mission? >> standby. going live in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. >> i am sorry. the program has been cut due to budget cuts. we are eliminating all classes and programs that do not have a direct impact on test scores.

turn a computer's off. you need to leave. >> schools are cutting programs from insufficient funds. the take more money from the federal government. the race to the top is an effort by the government to provide more money to schools that meet the standards. >> we said we will give you a pool of money. that money is focused on standards of assessment, turning around the lowest performing schools. those are very important education issues we will focus on. the strength of race to the top is that it said here are very important issues and here is money to go towards those important issues. >> it is the cornerstone of the

race to the top. that is flawed. the reasoning to use that standardized test as the measuring stick is inappropriate. >> go to studentcam.org to watch all of the videos. continue the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> and nato secretary general told reporters earlier today in brussels that any cease-fire in libya must be credible and certifiable. he was responding to negotiations in libya this weekend. this is 35 minutes.

>> the secretary-general was start with the -- will start with a short statement and then we will take questions. >> the operation is in its second week. nato is fully enforcing the united nations mandate to protect the people of libya. nato is taking vigorous action across libya to prevent attacks against civilians and civilian centers. we are striking with care and precision to maximize the effects of our actions while minimizing the danger to civilians. this is in stark contrast to the

pro-gaddafi forces that are shelling city centers. hiding's troops are tanks near schools and mosques. this is utterly irresponsible. i am particularly concerned by the desperate flight of the residents of misrata and above brutalized by these terrible attacks. nato is keeping up the pressure to make the violence stop. since saturday morning nato aircraft have flown almost 300 sorties.

we have described 49 tanks. we destroyed 49 tanks, nine personnel carriers, three anti- aircraft guns, and four large ammunition bunkers. the vast majority of the strikes took place near misrata and adjubiya. till and its partners have undertaken a big mission. it is our contribution to the world's efforts to solve the libyan crisis. i look forward to taking part in the contact group meeting in catarrh -- qatar on wednesday. this will provide the international framework for a

lasting settlement. i have also taken note of an african union cease-fire proposal. since the start of a crisis, nato has been in constant touch with the african union as well as other regional and international organizations. i want to be clear. there can be no solely military solution to the crisis in libya. nato welcomes all contributions to the broad international effort to stop the violence against the civilian population. any ceasefire must be credible and verifiable.

the united nations security council has made it clear that there must be a complete anend o violence and all attacks and abuses of civilians. any solution to the crisis must respond to the legitimate demands of the libyan people for political reforms. nato foreign ministers will meet in berlin on thursday and friday this week. they will begin the meeting by discussing the libyan crisis. we will be joined by our partner countries in the libyan mission from across europe and the arab world. together with russia's foreign minister, we will focus on

libya's missile defense and afghanistan, then nato russia helicopter trust fund is now up and running. it will soon start to deliver the highly needed maintenance capability for the afghan air force. this is an important signal of our joint commitment to stability in afghanistan. we will meet our partners. the process of handing over responsibility for security to the afghan security forces has already begun. nato and the afghan government have agreed on an enduring partnership for the future. this sends a strong message that afghanistan will one day stand on its own, but it will not be standing alone.

from afghanistan to libya, nato and our partners are making vital contributions to bring security and stability. we are working with many other nations across the world to help prevent crises, manage conflicts, and bring long-term stability. with that, i am happy to take your questions. >> please do not forget to introduce yourselves and tell us what organization you are working for. >> i am from the spanish news agency. we have taken note of the political initiative from the african union. do you think nato and its partner countries might reduce activity ato give some space to see if the political initiatives can bring a ceasefire on the ground? do you think nato will maintain

activities that we have seen and that have been intensified this weekend? >> let me stress that we appreciate all efforts to find a political solution to the problems in libya, including the african union initiative. that the guiding principle for us will be how to implement the u.n. security council resolutions fully. that is to protect the civilians against any attack. our operational tempo will be determined by this clear goal to protect civilians against any attack.

>> secretary general, you say that any possible cease-fire will have to be credible and verifiable. can you expand on what you mean by verifiable? who would be doing the verifying? would it be some international presence on the ground? how would it operate? >> i think it is premature to go into details on how and monitoring mechanism can be established. we have seen a number of announced cease-fires. they have not been implemented. for that reason, we need to establish an effective monitoring mechanism if a ceasefire is to be credible and

if a cease-fire should live up to what is stated in the resolution. that is mainly effective protection of the civilian population. >> [speaking french] >> what are the conditions for a cease-fire? how would you consider a cease- fire? as regards the cease-fire, it must satisfy three conditions. first, the cease-fire must be credible and include an effective protection of the civilian population. second, the cease-fire must be controlled and supervised in an

effective manner. the third condition is that the cease-fire must favor a political process designed to implement the required political reforms and be designed to meet the legitimate demands on the part of the libyan population. >> i am from the italian news agency. asked italy and allies not only to make sorties but also to make strikes. i am wondering if you have received a positive answer from the member states. how is the process to replace

the 50 airplanes that the u.s. withdrew from the mission? >> let me stress that the united states is still part of our operation. the united states provides the essential military assets to make sure that we carry out our operations effectively. we have also received pledges from european allies that they will increase the number of fighter aircraft participating in the operation. i do not want to go into details on my conversations with allied leaders. the basic principle for nato has

always been that it is a national decision as to how national military assets can be used in our military operations. from a military point of view, our military commanders would like maximum flexibility in the use of the military assets at their disposal. >> i am from german television. there was a discussion about the humanitarian aid to the area. how would this be possible? would need to be in charge to protect any aid? would this be the case for the e.u. group? abouti am very concerned the humanitarian situation in libya.

most notably in the city of misrata. the situation may also be severe and other parts of libya. i think it is for the united nations to be the leading coordinator of the delivery of the humanitarian assistance. thirdly, i do not see nato in a leading role when it comes to humanitarian assistance. i would appreciate it if the european union could take initiatives as regards the delivery of humanitarian assistance. having said all that, i also want to make clear that if it is requested nato will be able to

protect the delivery of humanitarian assistance. as you all know, it is also a bit of controversy question to have a military organization to take part in the delivery of humanitarian assistance. this is the reason why i want to reiterate once again that nato has no intention to play a leading role in the delivery of humanitarian assistance. we do hope the other international organizations will make sure that we can deliver necessary humanitarian assistance to people in need in .ibya

>> i am with a japanese newspaper. last week, we heard that nato demolished almost 30% of the libyan military capability. throughout the last weekend with the severe attacks, how do you assess that? how will nato tackle the partnership programs? in the new framework, how do you intend to strengthen the ties with partner countries? >> i do not have an updated regime on the gaddafi racin military capabilities that we have taken out.

it is more than last week. last week, the assessment was that 1/3 of his military capacities were taken out. after the latest strikes, it may be even more. as regards our partnership policies, there are several elements in our new reform package. firstly, we want to reinforce our existing partnerships by strengthening the consultation mechanism within these partnerships. we want to be open to substance

driven cooperation with partners the go across and beyond existing partnership for marks. we also want to engage with new partners. we need cooperative security in today's world if we are to accomplish our security tasks. we want to reach out to major players across the globe. we have excellent partnerships with countries and major players across the globe like japan, australia, new zealand, south korea, and others. i think it would also give merit to have a more structured

dialogue with the emerging powers like india and china if we are to accomplish our security missions in the future. >> i am a freelance u.s. journalist. please characterize the type and frequency of communication that nato has with the libyan opposition, whether you think the type of accidents that happened earlier, happened over the weekend will not take place again because of a lack of communications. with finances at issue before you began to nato's role in the bill, how long can operations continue at this intensity with the war on going in afghanistan before the alliance is stretched too far financially?

>> i do not want to go into operational details. i can assure you that we do our utmost to avoid very unfortunate incidents like the one we saw last week. i strongly regret the loss of life. we take all necessary measures to make sure that we hit the right targets and avoid civilian casualties. as regards finance and the length of the operation, the decisive factor will be to

accomplish the mission has requested by the u.n. security council. that is to protect the civilian population against any attack. there are also financial aspects. i have not heard of alloys raise this issue -- i have not heard the allies raised this issue in this context. i think all allies are committed to live up to the commitments under the u.n. security council resolution. that is to protect the civilian population in libya effectively and take the necessary measures to that end. >> and follow up on the cease- fire -- heavy received any formal request from the african union to stop air strikes?

if the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate, would you advocate in that case some kind of action from nato? >> the last part of your question? >> if this situation continues to deteriorate on the ground, would you advocate for more robust engagement from the allies? >> firstly, we have not received any formal request as regards to the implementation of any cease- fire. secondly, we have no considerations as to taking more robust measures. we are focused on implementing the un sickout -- un security council resolution fully.

at this stage, we don't see any need for strengthened measures. we are enforcing an arms embargo, a no-fly zone, and we take the necessary measures to protect the civilian population in strict conformity with the un security council resolution. >> could i please ask you to turn your mobiles and blackberries to mute. >> muammar gaddafi is still insisting al qaeda is playing a big role in what is happening now in libya. do you have information confirming there is any al qaeda in what is happening there? >> we do not have any information that al qaeda should play a significant role in what

is going on in libya. having said that, it is, of course, a matter of concern in the longer-term perspective if this ends up in a stalemate that eventually could also make libya a failed state that could become a breeding ground for terrorists and extremists. we should do our utmost to avoid that situation. this is also reason why i hope to see a political solution to the problems in libya sooner rather than later. we know from experience that

extremists and terrorists can take advantage of and profit from long-term instability. >> i am from china central television. we know muammar gaddafi has accepted the cease-fire proposal offered by the african union. once he accepted a peaceful road map, what is that nato reaction to that position? would you accept this? you know the libyan situation and the regime separatists have held their ground. what is your reaction to the future libya once the regime so

there will be the two governments -- what would you expect to see? >> first of all, we have heard and seen as that regime announce and promise cease-fires in the past. they did not keep their promises. on the contrary, they continued to attack their own people systematically. i don't take such promises for face believe. the only thing that counts is the reality on the ground. a cease-fire must be credible and we have to make sure that it involves effective protection of the civilian population. if i understand the second part of your question correctly, it

is about a prop -- about a possible partitioning of the country. we should do our utmost to avoid that situation. this is also reason why we have from the outset made clear that we feel committed to the territorial integrity and unity of the state of libya and i think a long-term and sustainable political solution to the problems in libya should be based on unity, and on a one state solution. >> secretary general, have to question, if we compare the kosovo operation with the libyan operation, the amount of strikes are a very low. my question is if you think we are right that a limit of

strikes, does it have the capability to increase the amount of strikes and forties? my second question is did the allies totally abandon the idea of arming the opposition? army and the libyan opposition? >> as regards to the tempo, i can inform you that in the first 10 days of this mission, nato allies and partners have flown over 1500 sorties across libya and almost half of these were strikes. that is a rate of 150 sorties a day. it is quite a high operational

tempo. the number of daily sorties will be determined by one single factor -- namely the protection of the civilian population. we will take the necessary measures to protect the civilians and if it is necessary, increase the number of sorties in order to protect the civilian population effectively, we will do that. as regards to the second part of your question, we have been asked by the un security council to enforce an arms embargo. nato allies have decided to participate in an effective enforcement of that arms and cargo. >> ukrainian media.

>> my question is about berlin. [unintelligible] >> next friday, we will have a meeting in bed native-ukraine commission. -- in that nato-ukraine commission. i was very encouraged by my visit to ukraine in february. my talks with the political leaders in kiev confirmed that ukraine stays committed to the

partnership with nato within the current framework, the current commission. at the core of our discussions next friday will be how we can further develop practical cooperation between nato and ukraine. >> we have time for two more questions. >> turkey, pakistan and afghanistan trying to resolve to reach some sort of consensus in afghanistan. the president of pakistan issued a statement that terrorism in pakistan is due to the afghan war. this discussion, which turkey is backing nato's member, these process have your backing and

nato has giving -- has given consent to these tri-party talks? >> we appreciate all initiatives taken with a view to solving the problems in afghanistan. that it also takes a positive pakistani engagement to reduce terrorism and find a political solution. >> i am from the kuwait news agency. you said you invited some arab partners to the berlin meeting. can you tell which arab countries you have invited to the foreign ministers meeting? >> i can tell you which partner countries have invited.

to participate in our meeting in berlin -- qatar, the united arab emirates, jordan, morocco, sweden and ukraine. >> thank you very much. hope to see wall in berlin. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> here is a look at our prime- time schedule starting at 8:00 on c-span -- part of a conference held by the aspen institute of race in america. first, how the family structure of african-american, latino, and muslim families have changed. then at the dnc interim chair person and former rnc

chairperson, michael steele, talk about how political parties are attracting minorities to vote in next year's election. later, a look at the differences between president obama's budget plan in the house republican proposal. >> tonight on "the communicator's" -- the fcc commissioner on the proposed at&t-t-mobile merger. >> what are the specific harm to consumers? if there are harms, merger conditions should be narrowly tailored to address those. but the merger process should not be an excuse to implement will making for issues that don't arise because of that particular merger. . that's tonight on c-span2 >> this morning, and internet and data protection attorney was on this morning's "washington journal" talking about federal policy to protect consumers from

cyber attacks. " continues. host: our topic now, cyber security at federal policy. at the table is randy sabett, an attorney here to talk about the trends in cyberattacks. what is allowable, vulnerability in this country? -- what is the level of all the ability in this country? guest: the level of vulnerability depends on what area you are talking about. there are i would consider a smash-and-grab attacks, where they are just trying to get credit card numbers and make use of them now because of the availability of credit card numbers, the value of those has gone down. and attack the people have g otten more aware of is it related to what we have seen it the past few weeks, the advanced

persistent threat, but it is becoming more known lately, and the notion there is that the attack is persistent. these people are very smart, they are inside your system for quite awhile, and it is not as several -- it is not necessarily like credit cards, but they are after personal information. host: what other types of the cyberattacks should we know about? step back for a second and explain what cyberattack is. guest: wow. host: we only have half an hour, 45 minutes. guest: a cyberattack is an unauthorized person enters into a network or has access to your data or other mechanism, or with the way that some of our laws are worded, it is when someone exceed authorized access. someone may have access to your system in unauthorized fashion, but goes -- in an authorized

fashion, but goes poking are round and get stated they are not supposed to get. when someone has access to your information they are not supposed to have access to. host: randy sabett -- part of his career was as a quid pro- engineer. educated at syracuse, where he has a law degree. he is here to talk about trends in cybersecurity. you mentioned credit cards and the advance persistent threat not go for the average person, for myself, the average person out there, what should they be concerned about? guest: the biggest thing folks should be worried about that is related to both of those are the types of attacks that are becoming more personal. in the past, you might get e- mail that might be from some strange e-mail address and and they oppose in at. all of you -- and they have

typos in it. all of the usual indications that it is not a valid e-mail. as the attacks are becoming more sophisticated, they are not watching blanket at tax anymore, where they are launching thousands. they may just launched 100 where they are targeting specific individual to get specific information, and then they further the attack. is not to get information and run off with it, it is to get access -- to part of a network or to other information they want to get at. they become more significant when you have breaches where the people who carry out the particular attack -- to interesting thing in that attack is that they did not get a hold of the information that is typically thought of when you think of a cyberattack.

all they got there was a name associated with an e-mail address. but with that they also know who had the e-mail address and the combination. you may get e-mail from your bank that says -- you are paul, and they go through and it looks very valid, because it has the combination, and they get you to do something that, again, furthers their attack of the system. host: may be a tough question to answer, but before we go to calls, we're to mainly the attacks come from? -- where do mainly the attacks come from? guest: i will answer that indirectly by saying that is one of the biggest problems. there is an issue known as attribution. one of the problems dealing with some of the more -- some of the cyberattacks that are not necessarily on the consumer side but the nation state types of attacks is trying to figure out who it came from in the

first place. attribution becomes a significant issue. a number of the attacks they have tried to track down originate, and they think, in western europe -- in eastern europe. some of the tax originate in the united states. but again, it is a difficult question. host: naomi, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling, really -- and players hear me out and please don't turn me off -- and please hear me out and please don't turn me off. i am a c-span junkie, and i listen to you all the time -- hello? host: we are listening. caller: i sit here every morning and i have my breakfast and coffee, and cybersecurity and federal policy, i will be listening to that. but when it comes down -- i am

talking to the host -- to the republican line, independent line, and democratic line, i am not asking and requesting, i am pleading a host and the fairness -- i actually count and tally how you all of your calling and answering, and answering the calls per got the democrats and independents are like a three- one with the republicans called. i want to know why is that, because i pay my bill for c- span. i want fairness. when it comes to budgets and so forth, republicans and so forth, democrat issues, independents, we don't get the calls and the answers for got now, i tallied these things, and it is unfair. host: thank you for calling in with your observations. we will take note of it. judith, you are on with randy sabett. we are talking about

cybersecurity. caller: well, i think that cybersecurity is very important, but i also think it is important you hear from everybody. also, we have to have a full hearing on the budget. that means every item that is spent. i think it is very important for this countries security -- for this country's security that we actually factor in the wars that we get into a round world, and that makes as insecure because it reflects back on our goals and actual behavior in the world. in we could be more popular if -- did not -- i think we could be more popular if we did not start wars and use of force

other than a moral and ethical force. host: is there anything -- i'm not sure there's anything there you want to respond to on said the security. guest: i think one interesting aspect of the last call is the activities of war and how cybersecurity -- what people call cyberwar -- fits in, and the budget for that. there is the consumer side, the ftc, and number of things related to consumer behavior and what we do in this country. there is a whole separate aspect of several activities -- cyber activities and cyberattacks and cyberwar. won a thing to recognize -- one thing to recognize is, going back to the at tradition issue, cyberwar and the use of the war fighter, is figure out what attacks come from where, what

kind of isolation occurs. and what is the definition of the cyberwar? i think are a number policy issues when we start to talk about how it is used in war that have to be worked out as well. host: what other parts of the world or countries do you suspect or threats in the area of cybersecurity to this country? guest: i think any country that has a very smart population that is highly educated and can take up the types of technology we are talking about either wea ponize them or in a direction that it can be used offensively. china is a common place where people think the attacks are coming from. host: kirk on the democrats' line for randy sabett.

caller: love your show, love you guys provide you do a great job of it. china is a huge problem. they have a situation that is dedicated to nothing but bringing down a u.s. security. when we had trouble with mail flow, we started one of the first law enforcement efforts ever. why don't we bring the laws into line with cybersecurity because sensitive information is being passed through that cyber world the way back then it was in the mail system. first off, let's put some in forced into it -- put some enforcement into it, an agency dedicated to its enforcement, and real loss on the books -- real laws on the box. and firewalls as far as allowing them to get into the cyberworld

and allowing them to fish for information. host: we found this piece in "national journal" recently. "too bad that someone has not put someone in charge of fighting them." guest: well, i think it is a slight over-generalization. i would agree that the government has a difficult task right now in trying to tackle a number of different cyber issues from different directions. the government has made steps forward on the consumer side. they certainly have with the ftc, some of the division's stood up within at dhs, and also to your point about the law is changing -- laws changing, there are bills pending right

now that do focus on this issue and will help move in the right direction. the difficulty here it is that there is not one single solution. we are getting attacked from all sides. all of these things together have to be done in a coordinated fashion. i think the other thing to point out is that, from a legislative perspective, we can legislate as much as we want in the united states, but when there is activity overseas, that resolution only goes so far. if people just attacking from overseas and we don't have the ability to get at them, it is a very difficult problem. host: anne arundel county, maryland. paul is on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i'm actually a student here in anne arundel, and i am working on my information security degree. what you think in the future, if it becomes necessary, the possibility of having an anti-

cyberattack team that goes out and actively searches for cyberattack teams overseas? guest: i think we would need to look at some of the legal authority for that, and there might be authorities that would have to change. on the other hand, i think that there are already groups that are at least focusing on cyberattacks and invested it of cyberattacks overseas -- i don't think in this semi you're talking. i think what you are getting at is focusing on the actual physical taking out of those types of actors. i think the policy implications around that are fairly significant, and a lot more analysis would have to be done before we decided to make a policy change that would go in that direction. but certainly, up to the point

of carrying out some type of offense of activity, we have teams doing that in the united states already. host: hello, terry? go ahead, please. caller: i had a couple of questions about -- well, about cyber security, because of a personal attack -- i think because i am the manager of an apartment complex, my husband and i, and i think we were targeted possibly for additional information that could be gotten through our e-mail account. i ended up -- [unintelligible] my laptop. i have had no internet access for a year.

there was camera software loaded onto it. and our phones -- now is like somebody is rewriting our bill and it -- the bills don't match up. host: the connection is not the greatest, but it sounds like she is coming at it from an extreme personal standpoint. guest: as the caller brought up, any types of discrepancies you see with your accounts, any type of information that you deal with is going to be potential indication that something is going on at. certainly, anything that is connected to the internet is vulnerable. disconnecting the computer -- doing sort of a triage of it --

cleaning, redoing the hard drive, steps that can be taken, and other devices, if they are connected to the internet, can be attacked as well. people should be aware of any type of activity that are out of the norm. whatever they do it normally through their electronic channels -- something changes, they should be aware of it. host: how much of the cyberattacks are truly out there in the business world, and what are the trends? guest: i think the trends and the business world, like thae attacks we have seen, are different. they're not after the quick-use data. they are after intellectual property. they are out to find out who is on your customer list and what the latest orders were. ly, they nefarious

are out there to get into your system and essentially do bad things to bring your business down. businesses need to watch out for the types of things that we were just talking about how whatever might be out of the norm. they have to have a heightened approach to it because they are attacked on a daily basis. host: twitter for our guest -- big area, as you know. guest: huge area. social media combined with mobile technology, those are probably the most significant changes we have seen from a personal security perspective of. certainly, many folks have seen at the horror stories of putting up that picture that you

shouldn't have on whatever social media side you are on. one of the things that folks need to look for a look at -- look for or look at is the collection of data over time and what types of information you are sharing over time, and who they are sharing it with. another important aspect is what our policies of the companies they are dealing with, and how they changed. i council in a lot of corporate clients on policy and security issues. one of the things that corporate clients have to be careful of is if the date make a change to their privacy policy of their -- or their security policy, that he would in a proper way. a lot of times individuals are not necessarily aware of those changes. i think it is a huge issue. host: line for republicans for randy sabett, an internet and data protection attorney. go ahead.

caller: i was just calling because i was wondering, it seems like a lot of people are not aware of how vulnerable it is to use the internet. i probably sound archaic. for on-line banking, any type of cash or money transactions, i know that ultimately when you contact these people, even on the phone alive, they are putting the information into a database, into a computer. everything now i notice is referred to a website, referred to a website, and sometimes when you go to these websites, you cannot even get a contact number. it is very interesting. there is a lot of lack of education of being wary of that. i personally do not to online banking because i know that people can do these hiking types of things.

i just don't trust it, i just don't trust it. the only site i do like to use is paypal, because they have an insurance policy is anything -- if anything goes wrong. i'm curious about your take on that and what type of education is really out there for people, because a lot of people are intolerable, a matter what age they are brought -- a lot of people are vulnerable, no matter what age they are. guest: the caller has a great point as far as education. certainly, the attacks that are occurring in and of themselves are educating people, but it is coming into a bit late. there are a number of different groups that have looked into this issue and have made recommendations related to education, and we need to make education into schools about computers and security.

the steps are starting to happen. they might be a little bit slow, but they are starting to happen. the other thing that folks need to understand is that we have, in my opinion, for too long look that internet issues in a way that really borders on anonymous. in other words, you deal with your bank, but on an anonymous level did a lot of banks are starting to improve their security features so that there is authentication and number of ways. a lot of banks are starting to use harbor tokens -- hardware tokens. a lot can be accomplished in this area, a specifically the area of authentication. on friday there is going to be released to the national strategy on security. if we can make sure i am talking to the person i'm supposed to dog him to -- i'm supposed to be

talking to, we are starting to get towards an internet where we understand better the people that are coming into our system, the people we are communicating with, and the machines at how they are communicating. host: tell us more about this rsa device. guest: many business folks use it, either in a form that goes on your key chain or -- it is the second factor of the authentication. you have a password, but you have this added element that is essentially a random number that is matched up algorithmically. they don't think this was a quick hack. they think that people were using a number of different techniques, including social engineering, to get to the right

information to essentially break the system. they're not in a lot of technical details released yet, which is probably a good thing. you don't want people taking advantage of it before it has been fixed. but it illustrates the problem with relying on just a single type of security. you need but we call in the industry -- you need what we call in the industry and approach that does not rely on a single mechanism. there is already talk about how the problem has been contained. again, it is different from the attacks that have been happening, and again, the corporate level. host: when we invited you to come on the program, this was with the threat of the government shutdown, which has been averted. here is a twitter question for you.

guest: if we look back historically, the last shot down was in the mid-1990's. i'm sure everybody remembers what they were doing on the internet in the mid-1990's brought we certainly were not doing what we're doing today. internet security existed, but mainly within government or educational institutions. i think the landscape has changed significantly since that time. the i'd like to is how government goes about defining what the critical personnel, and who are the folks would not be furloughed. they cannot look back to the old lists, because the old lists would not help you. you need to look today who are the critical people who are within your organization that are not only responsible for making sure that the government continues operating, but also making sure that security is being maintained at. host: maryland, independent

caller. caller: i heard the guests say just a few minutes ago that we do not have much options if we got that too is acting as far as punishment or anything overseas. i'm wondering if we can get the country it to be responsible for policing their own people. can we put pressure on big government instead of the sponsoring cyber-terrorism to start cleaning it up? guest: i think that is a great point. the ability to be successful in doing that, though, it is, i think, an uphill battle. in other words, working with foreign governments that are sponsoring this kind of terror activity is going to be difficult to get them to step up to the table and sign onto some treaty that is going to, in effect, make what they are doing a violative of that

treaty. a number of countries are looking at a number of different types of mechanisms, including treaties, that would strengthen the ability for our government to take action in those countries that sign on to the treaty. to your point, the ones that are sponsoring the terrorist activity won't sign on to the charity. host: austin, good morning. caller: great program as usual, and as i enjoy your program, questions are flowing into my mind. i have not heard this mentioned, the ability of state and county computer systems being jeopardized and being attacked and the possibility of taking down the power grid, or wiping out the traffic control system within a city. is that realistic?

is that eight realistic of vulnerability? if so, what is being done to prevent that? a second question -- it has been a long time since i've been to a computer class, but the last time i went to one, i met a gentleman who knew some guys who wrote viruses years ago. he told me that trying to access the secure side with authority -- a robot is sent out to try to locate where the computer is located that tried on authorized access of that site. it is that true? what types of security measures are being taken to try to foil cyber-crime? guest: ok, the first question, as far as state and county and local governments and the power grid, the attention that has been placed -- a significant amount of attention has been placed on the smart grid, not necessarily a corresponding

level of attention being paid to security associated with the smart grid. setting the smart grid aside, it is a particular focus because it will come into everyone's home eventually. at least that is the plan. with the current power grid and a some of the control systems the remotely, via internet, there are valid concerns. if those systems are not secured properly, it is possible for an attacker to get in. if you remember the brufcce willis movie from a few years ago, "lethal weapon" i forget which number, i forget the phrase that they used, but it involved simultaneously bringing down multiple systems. do i think something like that is possible? probably not, not with the protections we have in place.

this is where the lack of uniformity is actually a good thing. they can attack one system but it will not necessarily work on another system. it could certain aspects of the power grid be brought down? again, if they are not protected properly, yes. but i don't think it would be the kind of thing you see in the movies. to the second thing, robots being sent out to locate an un authorized person was accessed your system, certainly there is technology available that would allow people to be tracked using different techniques. it does not happen automatically every single time. it is usually a specific technique that a person puts into place because they are trying to track someone. however, there could be companies that -- one of the mechanisms they used to protect their system is to do the automatic tracking of anyone who

comes in from an authorized -- unauthorized ip address or connection. host: next call. caller: the lady who called from texas i leader who was talking about -- earlier who was talking about paypal -- they have had some problems over the years, but that is an aside. is there a way of a posting security on the internet, number one, and number two, isn't there a plan for unique id for each individual computer being assigned so they know exactly who the security breaches come from? guest: on the first question, ipv6 is something that would be able to assist with security. one of the biggest issues is going to be its adoption, and

interoperability with ipv4, and how the systems migrate, and what that does the security. as a general proposition, i think it will help, because of the different aspects of it that have been designed for security a. as far as the plastique unique idea, i remember back in the late 1990's there was a plan for the intel chip, and when people found out about that, it became a huge policy issue and and they basically had to back off and tell people how to turn it off. i am not aware of any plan for there to be ubiquitous identification of every computer. certainly, with the ip address system which really have, there are a number of ways for hackers to hide behind it, but going

towards a national id -- one of the concerns of going to a plan where you have a unique id for each computer is that that would be associated with the preserson that could stand in for a personal id. host: take us into federal policy. what is on the horizon for legislation and perhaps money being spent for cybersecurity? guest: it is funny in a scary sort of way, because we have obviously got toi budget issue is still a -- we have obviously got the budget issues still looming and large cuts being talked about. we know that one of the problems with the cybersecurity is a lack of funding. there is a penchant with trying to strike the right balance. -- a tension with trying to strike the right balance privileges light of perspective, there are bills pending -- from the legislative perspective, there are bills pending that

would have a good effect on the landscape we're talking about earlier, where they would address consumer issues, business issues. there are actually some of the bills that would address the issue of education and in fact buildup programs that have a more robust cybersecurity workforce. i think there is a lot happening that will be good. host: time for a couple more calls for our guest. bill, independent for randy sabett. hello, bill? bill is not there. our friend from indiana, carroll, are you there? caller: yes, i am. most of what you're talking about is way over my head ca. anyway, i had a message, saying that "your add security is not

right," and kept coming up and coming up. all of the green at checkmarks were there, but i did end up calling technical support. i just wondered, since it was said that you can get in and destroy the business, can you build your business up? it ended up costing $400 yesterday, i was on the telephone all day with technical. guest: well, i think that -- so the package that you were discussing, i think, is an anti virus package. the costs associated with fixing a computer if something goes wrong with it is going to be dependent on how much work they have to do. can businesses recover? certainly they can recover from a separate attack -- from a cyberattack or some type of the cyber-activity that has brought them down at. the issue comes down to the level of experience that the

folks have within the business for putting the network back in place, but also the desire to get back up and running quickly. that is what is going to dictate how much it costs. host: robert, republican for randy sabett. caller: yes, there is a comment i would like to make. one figure that has not been brought up, and that is because the use of microsoft windows in particular over the length of time that it has been available on the market, all through their versions, they have had a long history of the vulnerability after vulnerability after vulnerability. trendmicro a couple of months ago released data that there is

over 1 million the viruses and trojans through it. that is on the database for microsoft windows. i am a linux advocate. what i would like to see is microsoft being brought to task for the -- either forced to redesign their operating system with security in mind, or to at least mitigate a lot of these damages that it has caused through breaches and in alice. -- and everything else. guest: i think you are touching on at two really significant issues. one is software licensing, and the process that we use currently in the industry for disturbing the software.

in those cases, as you probably know, and most folks probably know, the software that you get contains a very limited amount of warranties and any action you can take against that company. but the other thing you need to recognize is that -- actually, two other things specific to microsoft. one is that microsoft, as with most other commercial software companies, are in a difficult position. they are being pushed by their shareholders and the public to get better features, out there quicker, out there in a way that makes more money for the company. but then on the other hand, we are demanding that the software be secure. i am not saying that either one of those should be given up. i am saying that the balance that has been struck in the past between those things, in most cases, not just in microsoft's tase, has tended toward favoring getting the problem out there and then fixing it after the

fact. we are in a much different environment, and if you look at microsoft's computing initiative, along with other techniques that other companies have taken, there is attention to security. but security is a very difficult thing. there is a joke about analogizing microsoft windows -- i will not go through all the aspect of it, but if you take the analogy -- it as someone wants to attack you with their car, do they have the ability to go in and modify your spark plugs in your engine? no, they don't have access to it. it is different with a computer print with software, there are multiple ways you can get in there -- it is given with a computer. twith the software, there are multiple ways you can get in there.

companies are getting a better affixing them, but i think we are still at a point where more can be done. i don't think it makes sense to upend the apple cart and start going after software companies with product liability theory that has not been well thought out. host: jeff, teaneck, new jersey, independent. caller: i have been a computer programmer for 20 years. i been following the security debate for many, many years. going back to the previous caller talking about liability, how do you feel about liability for companies who may not have done the best job maintaining the networks? it does not really -- not too much when there is the data breach. guest: i would approach that

differently. i would not assume a guilty until they prove themselves innocent. i would set the epsilon outrageous side, because we do not know -- the details yet e -- epsilon breach aside, because we do not know the details yet of how that happened. in some cases, yes, we know that the company did something wrong, something that potentially could be categorized as being negligent. i think that the big problem, though, with automatically assuming that they didn't do what they were supposed to do is that they may actually have done that. in fact, in one case there was a day to reach into a financial institution -- the data breach into a financial institution and we have case law that said that this company was not negligent, and not only were they not negligent, but they did the right things from a security standpoint.

we are all taking risks going out on the internet. you cannot assure 100% security. you have to accept that certain risk is going to exist, and if people are persistent enough, and they can get at your information. the take away from all that, particularly at the consumer level, is only share what you are willing to potentially give up if there were a bit rich, or make sure that the people you are dealing with, -- if there were bad data breach, or make sure that the people you are dealing with are secure. host: our guest teachers information policy as a professor, an >> on tomorrows "washington journal" -- the budget deal on friday and the upcoming debate

on the republicans' 2012 budget proposal. then more on budget issues with a house freshman republican member. then a discussion with mac destler on the expected departures of several members of the obama administration's security team. that's live tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern, here on c-span. here is a look at our prime time schedule -- starting at 8:00 eastern time, part of a conference held by the aspen institute on race in america. first, a discussion on how the family structure on u.s., african-american, latino and muslim america -- muslim american families have changed. then how political parties are attracting minorities to vote in next year's elections.

then a difference -- look at the difference between president obama's budget plan and the republican proposal. >> on april 12th, 1861, confederate forces attacked fort sumter in south carolina, igniting the civil war. this month, the nation commemorates the 150th anniversary of the bombardment. american history tv on c-span bring issue -- on c-span3 bring to the sights and sounds with reactors from the north and south. get a complete schedule at c- span.org. >> let -- let's meet one of our top winners from this year's student camera competition. we asked students to produce a video on the topic of helping them better understand the roles of their federal government.

today, we talked to an eighth grader. why did you create a documentary about the funding of indiana's education system? >> i made this film because over the past year, our school had to make cuts in several programs. they took out classes like a foreign language and [unintelligible] >> what did you learn about the financial state of indiana's educational system of? >> i learned there is not enough funding for the programs we have and cuts will have to be made. >> do you think the financial state of the indiana situation is affecting your education? >> it could if [unintelligible]

without it, i would not have been able to enter this contest. >> [unintelligible] to keep important clauses like a foreign language. >> what did you learn with your interview with the indiana superintendent of education? >> he plays a key role in helping the indian education crisis. he's the man everybody goes to. [unintelligible] >> in your interview, he says high expectations can outweigh a limited state budget when it comes to student achievement. what does he mean by that? >> as long as we have high

expectations, we can overcome the education crisis. >> what the message you would like to share with people through your documentary? >> i would like to share that basically basically, there are y of things that need to happen to solve this education crisis not just in indiana, but everywhere else. if lots of things need to happen. >> thank you for joining us today. >> thank you. >> and here is a brief portion from his documentary. >> some activities in some communities may be more or less important. i think you have to begin to have those types of discussions

so you can identify how important our foreign languages. are they a part of the core mission? >> we go live in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 -- >> i'm sorry, kids, but this program has been cut due to budget cuts. we are eliminating all glasses and all programs that do not have a direct impact on scores. zydrunas computers and videos off. you need to leave. >> -- turn those computers and videos off. you need to leave. >> tonight on the communicators, fcc commissioner robert mcdowell on the proposed at&t and team mobil -- t-mobile merger.

>> it should not be an excuse to implement rulemaking so that -- to address issues that do not arise because of that particular merger. >> the communicators tonight on c-span2. >> the aspen institute held a conference earlier today on race in america. one panel focused on how to reach out to minority voters. here is an exchange between the interim chairman and the former rnc chairman on why they feel the 2012 election will bring another year of change. >> you deal with the -- i deal with the tea party on a regular basis in south carolina. and i said that the republican party was the most liberal dot

group in the room. it was unbelievable. i am going to get in trouble for saying this, but the tea party is a fad. it does not have any political death. i am big on ideas, but there is not one big idea that has ever come out of land paul or jim demand's mouth. -- rand paltz or jim demint's mouth. i'm very happy that -- in line >> i'm very sorry to cut you off. let me make one clearly distinguishable par. . the tea party is not a member -- is not a part of the republican party. some associate themselves with the gop. some associate themselves with the blue dog elements in the democratic party, not at the same level or degree, but

everybody makes this league because of -- this week because some in the media or in the democratic party have done this or elsewhere. but the reality is that when there was no tea party back in february of 2009, or in march of 2009, understanding where their argument is, it is an economically based argument. by and large, they are not socially driven. there are those that have tried to move into that movement to do that. >> they are not racially driven. >> they are not racially motivated. they are economically driven. everybody wants to be a part of it because that is the engine that is turning, but let's be clear here. the tea party does not associate itself as being part of the republican party. and the republican party cannot coopt it. we cannot claim it. we cannot control it. this is a movement of people,

very much like we saw coming out of wisconsin over the last few months, people moved by an issue that motivates them, a nurse them, frustrate them. >> i will make three quick points. i believe the tea party grew out of frustration with the republican party during the bush term. and the frustration with the republican party, they were steaming mad after 2006. they largely stayed home in 2006 when the electric fired the republican party and they re- emerged as a force in american politics and with a story and and and then tear it -- and a narrative in 2009 and in 2010. there's a certain backlash that we see. we remain stuck with the ideals of the 1960's and the backlash of the 1980's. this goes to the core role of government. i think in 2012, one of the big

questions -- and i've talked about the electoral map already -- is whether a child born in the united states of america in poverty can become president one day. that is sort of this story of barack obama. have to we're going to answer the question what the role of -- the proper role of government is. that will be a conversation that will hopefully engage all political parties to focus on how we get further down the road in the 20th century so we are not stuck between the ideals of the 1960's and the backlash of the 1980's. >> if you would like to see more , we have the conference here add 8:00 p.m. eastern. president obama will unveil his

deficit reduction plan on wednesday afternoon. this is close to an hour. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. before i begin taking questions, i would like to remind you that at the end of last week, the first lady, michelle obama, and dr. jill biden are launching an initiative for service members and their families. it is to spark action from all portions of society to ensure military families have the support they have burned. many of you saw this -- they have earned. many of you saw this press

release. i just wanted to remind you that beginning tomorrow, will begin several days of intense focus on this with the first lady and dr. jill biden. with that, i will start with your questions. i want to come back to 2006 when president obama talks -- refused to sign the bill raising the debt ceiling. can you explain why that is not hypocrisy compared to his position now? >> i can tell you as was said yesterday, he regrets that vote. he thinks it was a mistake. he realizes now that raising the

debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that even when you are protesting that administration's policies you can play around with. you need to take very seriously the need to raise the debt limit so the full faith and credit is not put in a precarious position. the consequences of not raising the debt limit would be armageddon-like in terms of the impact on job growth and interest rates. it would be devastating. according to henry paulson,

economist david wise, they have said that it could cause long- lasting financial disruption. another has said, if anyone wants to push that button -- in other words, failed to raise the debt ceiling -- which i think would be catastrophic and horrific, i think they're crazy. the point is, the president through his actions both in the first two years in office when he demonstrated the way he created the health care recovery -- or rather, the affordable care act with its steps built into it with his signing -- or rather, his agreement on friday to enact the deepest discretionary spending cuts in history has shown that he is committed to deficit reduction. we do not need to play chicken with our economy by linking the raising of the debt ceiling to

anything. but we should do that right of way. >> he cast that vote five years ago and issued these strongly stated views. as recently as this year he was asked about this and did not say it was a mistake. when did he come to this realization? >> we ask him and he now has made it clear that he has come to understand it was a mistake. when you're in the senate, you want to make clear your position if you do not agree with the policies of the administration. but there are many other ways to do it. i would say also there is the fact in this case, the efforts to link this to the president's debt reduction are necessary precisely because he demonstrated his position so clearly, and will again when on wednesday he lays out his plans

for long-term reduction. he has established that the economic impact of holding hostage the debt ceiling vote to other issues would be catastrophic. the need to move on this is quite clear. >> do the american people expect this to be a speech in which president obama literally laid out a plan, which is akin to budget representative ryan, or should we expect more of a speech about principles and goals? >> what i would like to do is not preview the speech in any detail. i would liked president to speak for himself on wednesday. but he will clearly will lay out his death -- his vision for deficit reduction, the need for it to be balanced, the need for it to be bipartisan, the need for it to address the long-term drivers of our debt. and for everyone to share in the burden of bringing our fiscal

house in order. beyond that, i'd rather not get into the details. i would rather him do it on wednesday. >> are you exclusively ruling out any specific spending cuts? democrats have said they would not agree to any large concession in negotiating the debt limit. >> we believe we should move quickly to raise the debt limit. and we support a clean piece of legislation to do that. concurrently, not linked, but concurrently, the demonstration -- the president is going to demonstrate on wednesday again his commitment to debt reduction. we believe he has established that, and he will again. he looks for to working together with members of congress in both

parties to find a resolution to our long-term fiscal issues that is bipartisan and can be supported by the american people and is good for the american economy and the american people. he believes separately that we should raise the debt limit so that all the good work that has been done to move the economy forward to create an atmosphere now where we are growing regularly, quarter by quarter, creating jobs month by month, that the progress is not put into jeopardy. that is what would happen if we were to raise the debt ceiling. >> do you envision a bipartisan process? do you have a gang of six? >> the president noted in the state of the union and has noted since that there has been a lot of good work on the issue. he believes that the fiscal commission that he set up last year and reported its findings at the end of last year, that it

helped create an environment of like we have seen in recent years -- not like anything we have seen in recent years. these are very difficult issues that require everyone to give a little bit, to not get 100% of what they want. he looks for to working with members of congress of all kinds. the potential for finding common ground is there. >> on the deficit, why wednesday? why didn't he lay out his plan in the budget proposal? republicans are saying it is a leadership role. the >> leadership is not about, in the president's view, laying out positions to score political points. he made a very deliberate decision, as we look forward to

this year and as the year began because he was serious about the need to address long-term debt reduction and -- that he would put forward a serious down payment that demonstrate his commitment to death reduction, more than $14 trillion in debt reduction. he laid that plan out two months ago and does it in a balanced way with spending cuts, tax expenditures, and in a way that helps protect the very investment that will help us grow with investment in education and research and development. and he also said that he looked forward to having a conversation with those lawmakers who are committed to doing something about this in a reasonable and

calm approach. the decision was, putting a specific plan at that time with a lot of details was a way to reduce your chances of success. the environment for the speech he will deliver on wednesday is, we are now in a situation, having accomplished what was accomplished on friday, and in reaching an agreement on fiscal years ending in 2011 that includes the deepest spending cuts in history, and the greatest spending cuts as a percentage of gdp since 1982, ronald reagan's first term. having dealt with last year's business, we are now in a position to move forward. but this is very much a downpayment for this. it is a blueprint for the balanced approach that he believed me to be taken. >> speaker boehner says there is "not a chance" that the debt

ceiling will be raised without significant spending cuts attached to it. your position that you want it to be clean seems to be a nonstarter on capitol hill. >> i will remind you of something the speakers said earlier, "if we were to fail to raise the debt limit, we would send our economy into a tailspin." key also said, "you cannot create jobs if you default on the federal debt." we could not have said it better. that is a vivid description of why this is an important vote. the president's commitment to deficit reduction has been established, was established on friday, was established in his 2012 budget proposal, was established in the midst of the worst recession and great depression.

the way he worked with congress to pass the affordable care act, it was demonstrated. that measure, as scored by independent economists, reduces the deficit by $200 billion in 10 years ago from more than $1 trillion in 20 years. it addresses the need to address the -- address the debt in terms of long-term debt. >> what we had from the reagan years, that will not even cover what we are borrowing this month. >> i agree that the six month continuing resolution is but a portion of the problem, and a small slice. that is the point where making for a long time.

it demonstrates a commitment to spending reduction, spending cuts, and a commitment to making tough choices that are not the kinds of choices in an ideal world the president would want to make, or the democrats would want to make. it shows a willingness to compromise and find common ground, that it can be done if we all work together and are all principal -- reasonable. if we're all willing to retain our principles, but willing to negotiate any way that allows us to reach agreement. -- in a way that allows us to reach agreement. >> the debt ceiling could be raised $1 trillion you are talking about billions. what you're talking about is a drop of water in an ocean.

it is nothing. >> first, your dismissal of the size of the spending cuts is remarkable, given the intense interest in every half billion dollars as recently as last week on the hour. all of these things are difficult, and what was established on friday was if the leaders stay focused on the need to do what is right for the american economy and the american people, they can reach an agreement that is good for the american economy and good for the american people. these things build on themselves, we hope. we hope that the bipartisan tax cut that the president signed into law in december, which no one in this room would have predicted in the wake of the midterm elections as the possible outcome, has predicated the bipartisan cooperation that

we have had has also had a positive impact on the economy. independent from the white house and from economists, it will tell you that has added to our abilities so far. all of this stuff is hard. all of these negotiations will be difficult. but what i think the american people should take away from what they have seen happen in recent days is that there is hope and reason that we can work together and get done what the american people expect us to get done. but >> is that -- you have a comment on the latest from libya? also, the latest from the ivory coast. >> we are glad to see that mr. badmadow -- gbagbo has been

arrested because we made clear that he is no longer the leader of that country. the general elections displaced him free and fairly. we support the efforts of those who would convince him to remove himself from our. we have been very involved in the effort at the international community level to make that happen. it will welcome that. on syriana i would say -- >> libya. the >> i'm sorry -- >> i'm sorry. [laughter] you can tell the unrest in the region is quite broad. in libya, our response to the "ceasefire" is that what matters

here is actions and not words. colonel gaddafi and his regime know full well what they need to do. they need to stop menacing as the billions, the citizens of libya. they need to pull back from the city's and they need to garrison themselves and their forces. that would be a good development. but we are in no way pausing. we are in no way letting up the implementation in every aspect of the un security council resolution 1973. it continues and will continue. and we continue to pursue our diplomatic and economic measures. and we continue to support those that are fighting to have

the result of having him step down from power so that the people can take control of their government. >> david on a talk show yesterday said, well, security is not one of the issues right now the president is hoping that will be part of the discussion. be hard farfight will enough, why have an issue like this? >> i think what he said was that the president has for a long time, and certainly in the state of the union speech made clear that, number one, we do not believe social security is driving our deficit problems in the medium term. but he also welcomes further efforts to strengthen social security in the long term. that is the position of the

president. >> and carson ryan when asked past a, he said let's get 2011 and then we can talk about 2012. are there any element that the president agrees with any ryan plan? >> he agrees with the goal of -- in at the brian plan? >> he agrees with the goal. we need to reduce what is driving our deficits. we strongly disagree with the lack of balance in congressman ryan's approach. it is simply, we believe, not appropriate and would not be supported by the american people to have a fiscal plan that relies on dramatic restructuring and reform and the kind of programs that we need to have for the elderly and

disabled. ended at the same time gives enormous tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. it again, we understand that people will come to the table with different views. the president believes we have to have balance and we have to be sure that we protect the most vulnerable in this nation as we approach this problem. and a plan that congressman ryan laid out fails that test. >> medicare and medicaid are on the table as part of the discussion. how does the president convinced the american people is worth taking out -- taking up?

>> i will not get into what the president was said on wednesday. what i will say that health care spending is a major driver of our deficit and health care. and he has shown this by the way he addressed the affordable care act and the chief savings in that that we will save over 20 years. and yet shown in his 2012 budget proposal, which shows another $60 billion in reductions. he believes we can do that in a way that will protect these programs and are designed to protect and support these programs. he believes that we have to have a balanced approach. these things have to be on the table and we have to approach them in a balanced way and make sure that the approach that we

take in the and in this bipartisan compromise that he hopes we achieved is balanced in terms of the sacrifice it requires and that it protects the very things that we need to invest in in order to grow for the 21st century because growth is one of the most important things in terms of creating the economic environment that allows us to drive down the debt and the deficit. you will not get very far no matter how many programs to cut if you do not grow. that is another reason. back to the debt ceiling that that would be catastrophic folly not to raise the debt ceiling at a time when job creation and growth are moving forward and helping as pull ourselves out of the environment

that would allow us to address our deficit and debt issues. >> is the president telling the republicans that he will not sign this bill unless it is clean? a i'm saying he supports clean piece of legislation to raise the debt ceiling. what i will not do is pretend that you are john boehner and i'm the president and hash it out. but all the reasons are clear for all of the reasons that everybody has laid out that we cannot play chicken with the economy in this way. it is too risky. it is not appropriate. >> is in bad when you are doing, setting up the game of chicken by saying that you want a clean bill? >> this is an issue in which every leader of congress, of

both parties, agrees has to be done. >> they started at 61 and you start -- and you work your way to a reasonable compromise. >> playing that kind of brinksmanship would be too severe, to catastrophic. it would send all the wrong signals. >> compromise would send the wrong signals? >> no, to hold hostage a vote in return for some proposal that one party wants is not the tree -- not the way to treat this issue. it is too dangerous. >> is indeed a dangerous thing to play chicken while there is an compromise? >> we can do this for five

times -- four or five times. the dangerous thing would be to hold hostage the simple raising of the debt limit, which everyone agrees has to be done regardless. in those statements and what -- i read you, they were not equivocal. they were regardless, we have to do this. we should do it. and we are, at the same time, showing how serious the president is -- the president is showing how serious he is about having a serious conversation about the long-term deficit and debt. >> on the deal that was reached friday night, we still have not seen many details. there will be $13 billion cut from labor and hhs, for example. to these details exist and you're just not telling us what they are?

>> we got a fairly detailed framework that includes some of the things that dan laid out. the leaders agreed on it and now up on the hill, the fine print is being worked out. but the outlines of the agreement were very clear and that process is now proceeding up on the hill. this reason we need a short-term cdr is that it takes a little bit of time the way the legislation is written. >> should we expect the president to embrace the work of simpson vols and their team on wednesday? >> i will repeat what i said about that, which is that he thinks their work is extremely important. he does not agree with every proposal in it, but it was a very important and helped create the environment we are now and

we now have republicans and democrats are willing to address this issue any serious way. and it starts with, you cannot do this without doing is in a balanced fiscal way. you need to look at entitlements. you need to look at tax expenditures. you need to look at military spending. you need to look at all of these issues. you cannot simply/entitlements. or it -- you simply cannot cut entitlements, lower taxes and call that a fair deal. he believes it was important work to help create the ground we stand upon now. if the leaders are all serious as we move forward, he is optimistic that we can get something substantial

accomplished for the american people. >> senator reid said the other night he will not support tinkering with social security. he does not believe it is an emergency. does that say to the white house as social security is part of a deficit plan -- that social security is a part of a deficit plan as far as the non-server? >> the president has also said that he also believes that social security is not the issue when it comes to our short and medium term problems with the deficit. but he also does look at ways of strengthening social security to ensure it provides and the new benefits for recipients going forward. but i will not preview audience. to say on wednesday. >> the you think you will ask to raise it big enough to the point

where you get to primary balance? by 2017 the uc running year the deficit? -- do you see running yearly deficits? >> i do not know. the secretary of the treasury spelled out as early as january our position on this and i'm sure the treasury would be a better place to go for the answer to that question. >> you have not issued a visa threat for the non kleim debt ceiling legislation. the >> we are making clear what our position is. the secretary of the treasury has also made clear going back to january.

we are not suddenly paying attention to this issue. we have been talking to members of congress. it is not an issue of issuing veto threats. it is raising the issue around the country. i know it is esoteric to a lot of americans, understandably, who have their own problems to deal with. the best way to explain it is that the united states is the most powerful economy in the world. it needs to be credit worthy. the impact of anything it would do, that the congress would do that suggests that the set -- the united states was not credit worthy would be calamitous. that is something that americans can understand. it can be framed in a way that

sounds bad politically, but the reality is that the u.s. is the largest economy in the world. it is looked to around the globe as the anchor of the world economy and must establish its creditworthiness. >> republicans have said in the last few months on the issue of debt ceiling, if the president is serious we will talk. wednesday's speech, is that an attempt to -- do you hope that wednesday's speech, that those members who called for the president to get more serious, that they viewed this speech as, ok, he gave us this, will give him that? >> i do not want to project what members of congress will think

once they hear the speech. but i will say that it will once again stress the president's seriousness about debt reduction and he will signal that he wants to work with them to address these issues that are important, but i affect our -- that affect our capacity to grow in the future. part of winning in the future is making sure we have our fiscal house in order. he looks forward to republicans and democrats to do that. >> you basically drew washington and the government and the residents use them as a last- minute tool during these talks. and you say, ok, you can let the budget restrict this and restrict that. but once again, they do not have self rule.

>> 19 -- one line that he has made clear he will not cross in negotiations is the insistence by republicans that a measure be included that defunded a program that gives family planning services and women's health services to poor people across the country. he also said from the beginning that we have to make tough choices and she has to agree to things that in an ideal world he would not want to agree to. that is the nature of compromise. if you do not get everything you want, but if you know what you are about and you know where your priorities are, you protect the central things. it is so important to growing the economy and making sure we have the ability to compete with the rest of the world and the

21st century. >> you said that [unintelligible] by a corollary, is it also not a balanced budget that reduces entitlements? >> again, i think that is an effort to try to get me to review what the president is going to say. but i would say that balance includes shared sacrifice and i think the president has made clear through his actions that he he understands that health care is one of the major drivers of our debt. yeah show that by the deficit reduction he has already put in place. -- he has shown that by the deficit reduction he has already put in place. the fact that this president signed into law a bill that reduces the deficit through health care savings by over $1

trillion does not get acknowledged as often as as it should but he continues to show in his 2012 budget proposal that savings and health care are essential to any balanced approach. you're asking me to season and specific about what the president is going to say, which are not going to do. i would say that savings and health-care are essential to any balanced approach is pretty clear. >> yesterday on meet the press cala it was said that you're talking about. -- olen "meet the press," it was said that you're talking about raising the deficit -- the debt ceiling. >> he was making the point that i have made that the president's commitment to debt reduction

continues. it has been made already within his first two years. he has proposed more than $1 trillion of deficit reduction. it came up again when he talked id senators boehner and rea about cutting discretionary spending. he will address this further on wednesday at george washington university. >> [unintelligible] >> yes. recallable the details for you. >> what about -- i will get the details for you. >> what about the time that the president said he needed to give a speech about deficit reduction. is that a planned for this week? experts -- >> as i have had this

job and in close to the president and the way he thinks about these issues, this is very instructive. sometimes it is not in a way that satisfies the press or others in washington. he approaches his engagement on these issues always with an eye to, where do i want to go? what am i hoping to achieve? he was telegraphing that in his state of the union address. and he was thinking about it before and in his discussions about how he would approach this year. under any circumstances, whether there be -- if there had never been a showdown over a shutdown, committed to addressing our deficits and debt this spring.

he will continue to engage the way he will continue to engage negotiations, which is reviewing every public appearance not as an opportunity to score political points, but to advance the cause of finding a way to do the business that the american people want him to do. that might sound corny, but he is protecting the principles that he believes so important. to answer your question, he has been thing about this for a long time. >> khandelwal says he consults with outside the white house on this? his jobs canceled, his export council, some of them have been pretty clear that the -- is jobs council is exports council, some of them have been pretty clear that the deficit needs to be

lowered. >> i can tell you that it goes beyond congress and his administration. it includes the business community and it includes labor and all sorts of individuals and groups that in comes in, -- contact with. -- that he comes in contact with. that is part of the way that he has conversations about this issue and a variety of others. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not want to get into individual conversations that have hahas had. he is proud of the work bathat e has recently done, which he

feels has created a compromise. it beyond that, i do not want to get into it. the national security adviser is traveling to saudi arabia and the united arab emirates to meet with key leaders in both countries. obviously, there is a lot going on in the region and he looks forward to meeting with king abdallah. in auburn dhabi he will meet with the crown prince -- in abu dhabi he will meet with the crown prince. he understands the importance of the relations that we have with both countries and one thing we can do with the crown prince is enforce the un security resolution 1973. our relationship with saudi arabia is very strong and continues to be. this is the kind of conversation that we have with leaders a

saudi arabia reggaeton lead. >> discuss the timing of the speech and what the president considers the goals after 2012. [unintelligible] >> yurista. . he was not second. he put forward a 2012 -- here is the point. he was not second. he put forward a 2012 budget that deals with the balance of our long-term debt and deficit issues. the approach he took was the smart one to help foster the

environment that will hopefully enable us to reach a bipartisan compromise on a very difficult issue. >> by you do not think he has demonstrated himself to be less leader-like. >> i think he has demonstrated ample leadership. the compromise on friday would not have happened without the president's leadership. i think a bipartisan deal to give tax cuts to working americans, including a payroll tax holland -- a payroll tax holiday is helping americans. none of these things happens without presidential leadership. how you decide to use your capacity to lead it is very important. when he decided he did not want to do was draw some lines when

he felt at the time that the best way to approach it was to call for a bipartisan conversation and create an environment where a compromise can be achieved, not just winning a political argument. >> thank you for your comment. [unintelligible] way, it was my turn next. -- wait, i was my turn next. but i just wanted to thank you for your comments. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not have any more scheduling events to announce at this time. >> does the dnc pick up the cost of that trip?

>> i do not know the answer to that. >> and will the first lady come to chicago or not? >> i do not know. >> what kind of strategy busey -- how do you think he will approach getting an agreement? what will be the approach? it was the golden lads in mind if it is not this debt limit -- what is the goal in mind if it is not this debt limit? >> i think that precisely his desire to reach a result prohibits me from playing out our strategy from the podium before he has even given his speech. he will speak to this on wednesday and obviously, we will

continue to fill in details in terms of how we are approaching it and how we believe the process should go forward. >> [inaudible] did they talk about some things leading up to the events today? >> i will have to get back to you. maybe you could check with tom your kaleb about the specific conversations with the un secretary general about the ivory coast. the general is engaged with this at virtually every day at this time and you know about the video that he takes and the calls that we have made and the engagement i have with the united nations, which has a security presence in the ivory coast. >> also, on the budget, leading into everything that happened friday, americans were very concerned.

they were scared about budget cuts, about losing jobs, about not be able to get their irs checks. we saw on saturday the president reached out for -- to america for about 10 minutes. what is the president going to promise of america wednesday that you -- >> without getting into the specifics, he will approach this issue the same way that he approached the cr, which is tuesday, he gets up every morning thinking about what he can do to -- which is to say, he gets up every morning peak about what he can do as well as what

can i not do to in any way jeopardize those goals? for those who have doubted, for reasons that i cannot quite understand, that the president's commitment to debt reduction -- he sees it as part of his overall revision -- overall vision for growing the economy. he wants it to become like it was in the 20th century when americans worked very hard for everything they do. that will and made his speech on wednesday. >> number one, has the president

or will the president said downin to [unintelligible] my question is sort of like carries, but i will give it another shot anyway. given the makeup of the house republican caucus right now, does the president expect that whenever he lays out on wednesday will actually yield any legislative action by the 2012 election? or is it more that he [unintelligible] >> he very much hopes and believes that there is a possibility for, if ever one approaches it in a responsible way and with a commitment to compromising, he very much believe this can produce tangible results.

it >> before the election? >> correct, before the 2012 election, absolutely. i'm not saying it is going to happen. i'm saying he believes it can. >> what efforts are you making to get information on or to secure the release of the four generalists, two of which are americans, who were detained in libya last week? three of them were last seen in a libyan detention center. >> i notice the department is working very hard and we are well aware of this issue of -- i know that state department is working very hard and we are well aware of this issue. i do not want to go into details about what is being done. that we areed

working on it and we take this very, very seriously, as we did with other journalists were detained. >> in past cases, they have always let the journalists talked to a western embassy or something and that has not happened in this case. >> i do not want to say too much about the situation, but there is great concern. recall all around the world for the release of any journalist detained, anyone detained unlawfully or inappropriately. and specifically with those journalists in mind, we call on and demand their release. >> tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of [unintelligible] is there anything from the white house? [laughter] >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i wish i had the great one

liner in russian or in english, but i do not. but we certainly congratulate the east -- the russian people on the historic accomplishment. the moon first, but -- [laughter] it is an amazing thing and i know that having lived in moscow, praise them for their accomplishment. >> [unintelligible] >> in order to achieve these two -- 82 state -- a two-state solution, the two sides need to sit down and negotiate a compromise. thank you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> throughout the month of april, we will feature the top winners of this year's c-span studentcam competition. nearly 1500 middle and high school students submitted documentaries on the theme "washington d.c. through my lentz." watch the wedding videos -- winning videos just before washington journal every morning at 6:00 a.m. xtreme all the videos out any time at studentcam.org. >> up next on c-span, a discussion on race in america, moderated by one williams -- moderated by one williams --