these will save consumers more than $8,000 over the life of the program. we have doubled renewable energy generation, advanced alternative fuels. to speak more about our role in expanding domestic production is secretary cells are. -->> thank you very much. it is important to note that the domestic oil production is at an eight-year high in the united states of america. domestic gas production is at the highest level we have seen in recent memory. as she said, we are importing the lowest amount of oil in 16 years in the united states appeared for my time as a u.s. senator and watching this debate now over the last three years, remembering back in 2008 when we were importing 57% of our oil from foreign countries to today, importing only 45% is a dramatic

achievement and one we're very proud of. on the level of activity that we have under way in united states, we had a 55% increase in the number of rigs that we're operating on shore for both oil and gas, as well as a significant number operating in the outer current mental shelf including the gulf of mexico. the gulf of mexico is back to worked again. on federal land and water, we have moved forward in the last three years with a 13% increase in oil and gas production just from the federal lands themselves. gas production in 2011 was one of the best years that we have had in the last decade. and the acreage that is being allowed to be developed by industry now includes about 72 million acres, both on land and in the sea. they had been leased to oil and gas companies were there currently not developing. we have moved forward to

continue the robust all of the above energy strategy that the president directed us to do so. by continuing to lease in the outer conned into a shell fell as well as onshore in 2010. we lose over -- we offered to lease over 34 billion acres of area in the outer continental shelf. oil and gas companies only lease 2.4 million acres of those offered. in 2011, a lease sale i conducted in new orleans, we offered to lease 21 million acres. it was a highly productive lease sale in terms of the amount of money coming in to the american taxpayer. about 1 million acres were released by the oil and gas companies. 2012, this summer, we plan on moving forward with additional lease sale of over 30 million acres. on shore, to make a quick comment about our continued efforts to lease out the millions of acres of the public oil and gas production, companies are sitting on 7000

permits that have been issued to oil and gas companies were they can move forward immediately and start producing those leases. a word on the renewable energy program, which heather zichal spoke about, this president has led a renewable energy revolution which we're very proud of the amount of renewable energy that has been produced here in united states. it has now doubled in the last three years. we are proud in the department of interior and through the public lands of america that we have permitted 29 solar, geothermal, and wind projects in the last three years. we are on target to meet the president's direction that we get to 10,000 megawatts of power, which will power 3 million homes by the end of the year. >> what i will do, i will call on folks. if you have questions for secretaries salazar or heather zichal, let's do those now. i will stick around for other subjects. >> secretary salazar, is that

all options are on the table in taxing the high gasoline prices. can you discuss the conditions under which you would consider release from the strategic petroleum reserve? >> i will just say that when you look at the history of the spr, as first used by president george h. bush in gulf war i, again used by president george w. bush during katrina, i think when you look at these issues, all options are at the table. the president obviously feels the pain that the american people are facing with respect to gas prices. i would say this is probably the most important point. i think when you look back from the formation of opec and even before then, price shocks of occurred in this country over a dozen times. every time you have oil and gas price shocks occurring, you have all the political rhetoric in the country rising to the highest volume.

but this president, what he has done from day one is to move forward from the kind of energy policy and strategy that improves the all of the above energy program we are implementing. it is the only way we're going to get to a point where we stop having the kinds of price shocks and disruptions that we have been seeing since the formation of opec, in fact even before the formation of opec. >> wealthy -- will this meet the strategic threshold? >> i will have jay answer that question because he has worked more specifically on that issue. >> as no, the president has said, as the secretary just said, that he looks at all options. and all options remain on the table in terms of a strategy to deal with the near-term issue of high gas prices. but we're not going to talk about the spr with any specificity, and i would simply note that the president is very

cognizant of the impact the the high prices at the pump are having on american families, that they may struggle to make ends meet. it is a reminder of why it was so important to extend the payroll tax cut, which by putting an average of $1,000 extra in the paychecks of the average american family's is helping those families, 160 americans, helping them deal with higher oil and gas prices. he is making sure that the department of justice has reconstituted the working group that is going to make sure there is no fraud or speculation, no price gouging taking place in the country as a result of these higher oil prices. and he will continue to review other options. he has also said, because it is is simple fact that any politician who pledges to the american people that he or she has three-point plans to cut the price of gasoline to $2 is not

on the the level. you guys know it. such a plan does not exist, not a plausible plan. the global price of oil is affected by a variety of factors, some of which are well beyond the control of any administration. and they include growth in emerging countries like china and india, brazil, as well as unrest in the middle east and other areas of the world. that is why the president is focused on the things that we can control, the things that secretary salazar and heather zichal were talking about in terms of and all of the above energy approach. >> secretary cammisa oil production is included -- secretary, you said oil production is included on public lands. are you putting out these statistics together to get production up or do you have statistics they do not have? if republicans keep saying production is not up on federal land, it is up on private land. more broadly, they say

repeatedly that these are bush administration policies that increased drilling. jay has acknowledged that that is the case but also that this president has increase in drilling as well. how do you sort that out? >> i would say that those attacks are simply wrong. the fact of the matter is that we are producing more on public lands, both oil and gas, both onshore as well as offshore than at any time in recent memory. when you look back at the year of 2009, 2010, 2011, we continued to make millions and millions of acres of public is data available, both on the land as well as on the 30 sea, even after having -- even -- as well as on the sea. even after the deepwater horizon disaster, we have continued to explore and develop the sweet spot of america and that is the gulf of mexico. today when you got to the gulf,

you will find that there are more rigs working there than in any recent time in memory. the fact of the matter is, just in the last 12 months we issued over 61 permits just to drill in the deepwater. about 100 to drill in the shallow water. we will have more of that coming when you think about alaska. the national petroleum reserve has essentially been off-limits because of bureaucracy that happened during republican and democratic administrations of the past. this administration has essentially solved the problems. we're going to be seen development in the npra for the first time in history. for those who sit as president and administration have turned back the clock on allowing our public lands to be used for oil and natural-gas production, they simply are wrong. >> i might just add to that by stating that the numbers speak for themselves in terms of oil and gas production going up every year since the president has been in office.

as the president has also acknowledged, we're not at a point where we can drill our way out of this problem. that is why the report and the policies this administration has been working on since day one, from energy efficiency to alternative fuels, have been a top priority. >> the president often says there are no silver bullets to bring gas prices down in the short term, but he has called on congress to do away with subsidies for oil and gas companies. you have an estimate for how, if those subsidies are gone, it would affect prices at the palm? -- prices at the pump? >> at this time, it is a fairness issue. when looking at the budget and looking at where to make investments and where to cut, the fact that oil and gas companies are bringing in record profits and getting $4 billion in subsidies annually, those subsidies should be repealed.

the president has called for that, and i believe the senate wi soon on this issue. >> [inaudible] there would be some kind of a connection. >> correct. >> if production is going up every year, why is gas heading toward $5 or $6 a gallon? do the laws of supply and demand not apply any more? >> here is the reality, and i think all of you in this room are smart, students of history. when you look back at history, all the way back to 1857, a post world war ii era, you see price shocks for both oil and gas that have occurred in this country and the different responses that were made. those responses have been going on since the formation of opec with gulf war i and other things that have happened. but the reality is that the oil prices and the gas prices that we pay here in united states are

set on the global market. we do not set them and we do not control them. as president and congress cannot control those prices because they are set on the global market. what has failed for the last four years is that no one, until president obama came into office, has really embarked on an all of the above energy strategy. that is ultimately what will be the installation against these ups and downs and of these price shocks. when we talk about and all of the above energy strategy, what we're talking about is, yes, we will produce more domestically, but, yes, we will use less in the ways that we have done with the president's action and creating a much more fuel- efficient fleet system in the united states. and, yes, we will move forward with alternative energies and alternative fuels like refineries and the power and of much of our electrical needs in the united states. we are doing that with solar, geothermal, and other forms of

renewable energy. it is the commitment to sustained over time that all of the above energy strategy that ultimately will help us deal with this issue, which is a the result of the control of the united states. >> the president has been talking about the longer-term approach, all of the above strategy for a while now. there is a new poll out today that shows two-thirds of the public disapprove what the president's handling of the gas price issue and only 26% approve of the way he handled this. you continue to say all options are on the table. but as of the show the people on more immediate action? >> i think the fact of the matter is the president and the administration is not focused on polling data. we are obviously aware that americans are paying a very high price and they fill up their gas tanks. the president is focused on that and concerned about it and understands the kind of impact as a hard-working american families who are trying to make

ends meet. that is why he is focused on a broadly cast economic policy that includes a payroll tax cut to 160 million americans that gives them extra money to help make ends meet. a jobs-focused policy that increases employment, increases economic growth. and he is looking at specific alternatives and approaches to deal with both our short-term and our long-term energy situation. but it is a fact. this goes to the question steve had about why the price of oil is up. if increasing drilling or the answer in the united states to lowering prices at the gas pump, we would be seeing lower prices at the pump. because under president obama, we have increased significantly domestic oil and gas production. that is a fact. what also affects, obviously,

the international price of oil and is economic growth in china, india, brazil, other emerging countries, economic growth around the world. the fact is, the united states is growing. other parts of the world are growing. and that increases the demand for oil around the world, and that has an impact on the price closely. of course, also, unrest and uncertainty in the middle east, whether it is iran or syria or libya last year has an effect. these are all factors that we have to take into account as we make policy. and only reinforces the comparative that we do everything we can to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy, which is why this president is focused on and all of the above approach. this take two more here. >> you said that the administration was successful in solving some of the problems so oil production can take place in alaska. do you feel confident that the

administration could resolve similar problems and impediments so that keystone could take place under this administration 's watch? >> let me just say sending about alaska first. i think the npra had basically been off limits for a long time. we expect conocophillips actually to start a play there are not too distant future in terms of developing the npra. also, the months ahead we are in the midst of reviewing what will happen in the arctic seas as well. those have been debated for a long time, but i think there indicators that the administration has tried to look for oil and gas production for a lot of different specifics related to the country and its energy needs but also to alaska and the trans alaska pipeline. and the keystone pipeline, i would just say this, the president never reached a judgment on the merits, because it did not come here to the

state department and they did not reach a judgment on merits. there was a governor opposed to the initial configuration of the pipeline, and we're still application on the new pipeline. if people were to put politics aside, if they were to say trans canada should go forward and put its proposed pipeline route are the table and then have the process engaged silicon be formally evaluated and a decision can be made on the merits. >> colleges and add to that, one of the things we were encouraged by is the fact that cushing, oklahoma, the port arthur section of the pipeline will be going forward. from our perspective, that is an opportunity to create jobs but also to address an energy challenge. in cushing, we have a glut of oil. we will be able to move and more effectively. that is a portion of the pipeline that is not controversial that we can get started with. the president has asked where

the federal government has a role that we expedite the work. we're committed to doing that. again, that is one pipeline, and this administration has actually approved a number of oil and gas pipelines, including one from canada. whether it is oil and gas or what we have done in that the renewable sector or with our infrastructure, this administration has a record of success. >> yes, sir. >> yes gov i was wondering what the administration -- yes, i was wondering what the administration calculates the jitters reason that the middle east calculating into the price of oil today? >> i do not think that i can tell you specifically what that number is. but as jay as mentioned, what we're seeing today, and certainly the president recognizes the pain that

families are seeing at the pomp and they are already struggling to make ends meet, that those outside forces, including what we're seeing in terms of growth and demand from emerging economies, and india, with millions of new drivers on the road, as well as increased tensions in the middle east. we know those are driving up prices. that is having an impact on american consumers. that is what the president has directed his cabinet to take all actions available to help address these challenges in the near term. >> thank you all. >> thank you very much, sir. >> ok, with that we can move on to other subjects or even stay on this subject. >> a couple questions about the civilians in afghanistan who were killed by the american soldier. did you have a statement on that you want to read? >> no, go ahead. >> first of all, is this

incident one that the president fears puts americans in jeopardy there? >> well, the present and is always concerned about the well- being and welfare of americans stationed overseas, especially in a place like afghanistan, both men and women in uniform as well as our civilian personnel. that is certainly the case in afghanistan. force the six about what actions may be being taken -- for specifics about what actions may be being taken by the military or civilian presence there, i would refer you to the state the permit for defense department, particularly with regards to the aftermath of this incident. but you can be assured that the president remains a very concerned about that and will continue to be so. >> does this incident affect the president's thinking it all about the peaceful withdrawal of american troops? >> it is important to remember that the president's policy in

afghanistan, which was announced after very careful and thorough review of a war there they had under the previous administration that had begun to drift. they lacked a coherent set of priorities and goals. it has been to focus on our number one priority, which is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda, and in service of that objective, to help stabilize afghanistan to the point where afghan security forces can begin to take over responsibility for the safety and security of that country? because, after all, there is one reason why u.s. forces were sent to afghanistan, and that is because the united states was attacked on september 11, 2001. in a plot that was hatched in afghanistan by al-qaeda leaders. that remains his objective, and

that has not changed. it is important to remember that as part of that strategy, the president has been and isaf forces have been drawing down already. forces have been drawing down and, as announced previously. and that will continue. and it will be discussed in chicago when nato ministers meet. that process will continue so that, in accordance with nato policy said in lisbon, the afghans will take over control to the security of their country by the end of 2014. the pace of that withdrawal will depend on a variety of factors that will certainly be discussed in chicago at the nato meeting and will be discussed running up to chicago and in the aftermath of chicago. it will be determined by a variety of factors related to the situation on the ground. it is important in the aftermath of this terrible and tragic incident to remember why we were

there and what our objectives are in the terms of u.s. national security. >> you keep drawing us back to the broader objective. but in the meantime, you had the koran burning incident and or in the aftermath americans killed by afghans. now you have this tragedy of the american killing children in their sleep. when you say there are many factors that could affect what legal route, can you tell us whether sound like this would affect the president's thinking? >> we have been in afghanistan for more than a decade thanks to the president's focus of our policy and strategy on eliminating the al qaeda, we are in the process of withdrawing our forces as we turn it over responsibility to the afghan security forces. we have seen it difficult challenges in afghanistan before it during the course of these 10 years and as recently as in the wake of the inadvertent burning of the koran not long ago.

the fact is that even in the aftermath of that, in our negotiations and consultations with the afghan government, we resumed our work on the strategic partnership in a result of difficult long negotiated detention issues to sign an extremely important memo of understanding just last friday with regards to transfer control of detention facilities over the afghans. i bring that up only to point out that we will continue to have very direct and important negotiations with the afghan government as we pursue a strategy that is designed to bring our troops home as we achieve our objectives and to turn over, increasingly, responsibility for security in afghanistan to the afghans. >> just be clear, will there be any review of u.s.-afghan policy after the killings on sunday in afghanistan?

>> there is an investigation under way already into the events that happened and the tragic killings of afghan civilians. i would refer you to the defense department and isaf for more details about that. as tragic as these events are, the strategy is focused on it disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al qaeda, stabilizing afghanistan so that afghan security forces can take responsibility for the security of their own country, which would allow us to continue to draw down our forces. and that is a policy that the president is implementing. i am sure there will be discussions ongoing between u.s. military leaders, as well as civilian leaders in afghanistan and the afghan government in the wake of this incident. but our strategic objectives have not changed and they will

not change. and we will continue to discuss with our afghan counterparts the need to implement our strategy and develop a strategic partnership that will allow us ultimately to turn over responsibility to the afghans. >> is the president worried that the incident could harm his own standing of the american people who are worried about america's role in afghanistan? >> the president is focused on the national security interest of this country. and when he was campaigning for this office, he made clear that if elected president, he would refocus attention on our efforts in afghanistan, attention which had flagged because the focus on iraq under the previous administration, because he felt that our number one objective in the wake of 9/11 should be to eliminate al qaeda.

the development and implementation of his afghanistan strategy was meant to do just that, refocus our priorities, make clear what we are in afghanistan to do and make clear that we're not there to do more than that. he has focused very clearly on the implementation of that strategy and he has met with some success with regards to diminishing al-qaeda. but that fight continues. and this president is committed to fulfilling his responsibility as commander-in-chief to ensure that al qaeda does not pose a threat to the united states or its citizens. >> a couple weeks ago i asked if you had any idea how many al qaeda members there were in afghanistan. it had been under 100 a couple

years ago when then cia director panetta. you have an update? >> i do not. that is probably an intelligence assessment. if i did have it, i might not be able to share it with you. what i think was true then it remains true now, which is that the region between afghanistan and pakistan has been a focal point of our efforts. and that the goal of the afghanistan strategy has been to both go after and removed from the battlefield leaders of al qaeda, but also to create a situation in afghanistan that makes it in house billable to the hosting of al qaeda -- inhospitable to the hosting of al qaeda in the future. that continues. >> even though tens of thousands of u.s. troops who were there are great and heroic in doing what they are asked to do, indeed think that the presence

of u.s. troops in afghanistan right now is actually making it more stable and less hospitable for al qaeda or is it doing the exact opposite? >> i do not think there's any doubt that we have had success in the implementation of this strategy and making life a lot harder for al-qaeda. and that has been a direct result of the president's approach in afghanistan and pakistan. i really do not think anybody could doubt that. there is no question that this is hard. that the situation in afghanistan has been and remains difficult and the challenges that our men and women face are significant. but it is important to remember that it is all done in the name of and with a focus on the

number-one priority, which is to enhance american national- >> and the stabilization of afghanistan, of its government and the building up of its security force is his done in service of that goal. that is why the mission is so important. it is not the case -- and this was debated at the time -- that our policy it oar should be about -- or should be about trying to create a jeffersonian ideal in afghanistan. i am making the point of why the focus of the mission is so important. >> one national security expert said to me we have reached our limit there. >> we have been there a long time, and the president has made clear that his policy is designed to allow us to draw u.s. forces down as we accomplish our goals there. it is a very specific plan. it has a time table attached to

it, which some take issue with, although you have to wonder why. he understands the impact that more than a deck ailed of war has had -- decade of war has had on our armed forces and the families of the men and women sent to iraq and afghanistan, on our economy, and that is why it was so important to him when he was developing in that deep dive, an afghanistan strategy, that we get it right, that we have the right priorities and the right focus, and a process in place by which to achieve our goals and draw down forces. that is the president's plan. >> at this point, in concern in the white house that the presence of u.s. troops, even though most of them or almost all of them are doing what they were asked to do, is not doing more harm than good right now? >> i am confident that our presence there is having the

desired effect in the implementation and achievement of our objectives. the implementation of the plan and achievement of our objectives. there are challenges we face, and instances like this do not make it any easier, no question. i think i said alexis first. what roll do afghanistan and the government of afghanistan play in this? >> for the investigation and the specifics of that, i would refer you to the defense department and off-- isaf. the president is confident and believes it is important that there be accountability for what happened, and the defense department is clearly investigating this matter. i refer you to them for details. >> did he say anything about the role he wants afghanistan

to be able to play? >> i have not. i think that the united states military is investigating this matter, and we have confidence in the defense department to handle it. >> so this shooting will not impact the time table for wrauth -- for withdrawal? >> no, it will not, because the strategy is focused on the objectives that i have laid out a couple of times today and certainly previous to today. those objectives haven't changed. we will continue to work with the afghan government, with afghan forces in the implementation of our strategy. we will investigate this tragic incident and make sure that there is accountability, and we will continue to pursue our

strategic objectives in afghanistan which are about the u.s. national security interests and the protection of the united states, our personnel and our alleys -- allies. >> a lot has been said about the trust between the u.s. forces there and the afghan forces. is there concern at all that this could further impact the skepticism between the u.s. and afghanistan? >> well, i would probably suggest that the best people to answer that question are the defense department in afghanistan, military and civilian. this is a challenging time, no question. the focus of our policy is designed to hand over greater authority to and responsibility to afghan security forces and the afghan government. i think that demonstrates that

our interest is not in staying any longer than we have to. it is a strategy that fully respects the sovereignty of the afghan nation and the afghan people, and we will continue to focus on the implementation of that strategy, to continue to focus on taking the fight to al qaeda. there is a reconciliation process, afghan-led, that is important in moving forward. all of these aspects will continue. >> another matter here. in five counties in southern illinois, i am told, were denied disaster aid from fema, and i am wondering why? >> from illinois? >> yes, because of tornadoes and other storm damage, they had requested disaster aid, and it has been denied. i am wondering if you can tell us why? >> well, the process by which

team -- fema evaluates requests for disaster aid is the same no matter which state makes request. the criteria for kentucky are the same tie tear ya that may -- criteria for a denial for another state because they haven't been met, and it is judged based on the objective that the state has the where with all to handle storm recovery on its own. fema has a presence on the ground in a lot of these states. our efforts at the federal level to assist states affected by the storms will continue. >> is the president still planning on going to watch the basketball game tomorrow?

>> his schedule has not changed. >> just to follow up on the afghan question, you seem to be saying two different things. first you said no, it will not have any impact on the time table, but earlier he said the pace of the withdrawal will be determined by a variety of factors. we have to assume this is one of the factors that the nato managers will discuss. >> i think you are finding a distinction that doesn't exist. the focus of our overall strategy is not in reaction to a single event. anymore than it was two months ago. the evaluation of the pace of the draw-down will continue based on a variety of assessments made by u.s. military leaders as well as leaders of our isaf partners, and i think my point to dayton was this incident does not change the strategic imperative

embodied in this. >> you said you didn't think it would change the time table -- >> let me be clear. i do not believe this incident will change the time table of a strategy that was designed and is bees implemented -- is being implemented to allow for the withdrawal of u.s. forces, to allow the tyrants fehr of lead security over to the security forces of the afghans, a process that will be completed no later than the end of 2014. the discussions about the pace of that draw-dawn have been ongoing, as i think secretary pinetta discussed not long ago. he was having discussion with fellow defense ministers, and it will certainly be a subject of discussion among the heads of state in the nato miguel in may. >> turning to syria, you have said repeatedly that assad's

fall is imminent, and yet senior officials have said it actually holds a strong position. do you maintain it is still imminent? >> you are citing anonymous sources? there is no question that assad continues his brutal assault on his own people. there is no doubt about that. we continue to believe that it is not a matter of if, but when assad will be removed or remove himself from power. his legitimacy has certainly long since been lost, and we are working with a broad coalition of partners around the globe to believe as the

united nations security council resslation made clear, that there needs to be a transition in syria. there needs to be first a cessation of the brutal assault on the syrian people and something that allows for the greater fulfillment of the syrian people. that continues to be our policy. we are not going to put a time by which that will happen. we will simply continue to work with our international partners to pressure assad, to isolate him, to make the cost of his assault increasingly higher and work in any way that we can to assist the syrian people who are suffering greatly under his brutality. >> and according to a "washington post" report, there

have been discussions about possible military intervention, possible towards arming the opposition there. can you confirm that? >> these are reports specific to the fact, as is almost always the case when there are international crisis or events, the pentagon develops con attention -- contingency plans. our belief is that contributing to the further mill tarization of syria is not wise right now. it could lead down a dangerous road. we are focused instead on what i just described to you, which is working with our international partners to help provide whatever humanitarian assistance we can to the syrian people as well as continuing to pressure and isolate assad. terry, did you have a question,

from austin, texas? >> to your energy policy, last week there were congressional hearings on alternatives. one gentleman talked about how alternatives are great in theory but it is difficult to get americans to buy them in part because they are so expensive right now. how dow fix that -- do you fix that? >> well, the president's approach is to invest in clean energy technologies so that they become industries that create jobs in this country, not just overseas and in ways that help reduce the price of alternative energy. a good example is our increasing share of the market in advanced battery technology. as greater break throughs are made in advanced battery technologies, the cost of those batteries deadlines, which

flults a -- declines, which results in a lower cost for the vehicles. someone will dominate the alternative energy industries, like wind, solar, biofuels, advanced batteries. the president believes that those are quality industries that create well-paid jobs, and he believes that they should be here in the united states. we should not change our reliance or foreign sources of oil to a reliance on foreign sources of alternative energy. more over, we create those jobs here, and we reduce our dependence on foreign sources. it is a win-win. that is why you have to have a long-term strategy.

as he and others have said, we have 2% of the world's oil reserves. we consume 20% of the world's oil. there is no way to drill your way out of the problem. you have to drill. you have to increase production. the president is committed to that. but you have to do everything else as well. that is not just advanced batteries, biofuel or wind and solar. it means granting the first permit to build a nuclear power plant in 30 years. >> some would argue that is why gas prices are high, that you need prices to be high for them to do that? >> that is cat gorkally false. the president is doing everything we can to mitigate the effects of high gas prices on american families and to lower prices. what he is not willing to do is to look the american people in the eye and claim there is a

strategy by which he can guarantee the price of gas will be $2:50 at the pump. any politician who does that is lying because that strategy does not exist. it is a simple fact that there is no such plan that can guarantee the price of oil or the price at the pump. you have to have an all of the above approach, and that approach can limit the effects or reduce the effects of high gas prices on americans. it can also reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that when there are fluctuations in the price of oil internationally, we are more insulated from the effect of that. >> pat roberts has introduced a package of amendments that basically revisits that package that we repeated last week. the president was taking calls

last week. i was wondering if he is again making calls on this one. >> i don't have any calls to report. when that report emerged, the president had conversations with members of congress with some them out. let me give others a chance. >> jay, what was the reason for the president's meeting with mayor bloomberg a few weeks ago? >> they speak from time to time. the president appreciates the mayor's insights into matters of policy. he appreciates his leadership on issues of immigration policy and other issues. and they had lunch. >> was it a job interview? >> absolutely not. they are focused on policy matters. >> and what is the reason the president is taking the prime minister to a basketball game? >> well, because i think it is an opportunity for the

president and the prime minister to spend some time together outside the official trappings of washington and the white house and an opportunity for the president to show the prime minister a slice of american life. march madness is just getting started. some of us enjoy it quite a bit. many americans do around the country, and he looks forward to shaurg that with prime minister cameron. i would be happy to attend that event with them just to make sure everything goes according to plan. >> two questions on afghanistan. i wonder if you had any response to house armed services chairman who said this week president bush gave over 40 speeches about iraq trying to educate the country to understand what we are engaged in. president obama has given three speeches about afghanistan. he hasn't done anything to educate and bring people along. >> the president has spoken a great deal about afghanistan and his policy in afghanistan.

i will leave the irony of the comparative there to others to assess. i would say the president is focused on a strategy that is effective, that is in the national security interests of the united states, and ensures that every bit of effort expended by american men and women in uniform and civilian personnel over there is aimed at our strategic objectives over there, which is to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda over there. it was a result of 9/11 that we sent forces to afghanistan to begin one, and we have refocused that issue. we are in the process of drawing down from afghanistan, transferring responsibility to afghan security forces, and in the prods of supporting an afghan-led process of

reconciliation, which has the hope of or creates the hope of a political resolution, which is required for the long-term stability of that country. >> a less substantive question. how was it that the president was in the car when he had the conversation with karzai. >> i don't know the specifics, but it often can be the case that in setting up a call with a foreign leader, especially when there is a great time difference, that when it goes through, you want to make sure you have the call if it works for both leaders. that is why he sometimes has those conversations on air force one and sometimes in the car. is greg here? no. last one. >> the killings in afghanistan happened a few days after a

coalition helicopter killed several civilians. karzai is holding out on the partnership agreement for the end of night raid. particularly in light of this recent killing, and karzai saying this is unforgiveable and possible intransigence in relations, are you willing to move on night raids? >> i am going to defer that question to the defense department, isaf, perhaps to the state department. we are focused on implementing our strategy and doing so in a way that ensures the success of that strategy and the safety and security of american personnel both in afghanistan and around the world. the speves of the negotiations with the afghans i will -- the speves of the negotiations with the afghans i will leave to the state department and the defense department. jared? >> do you have an answer to

this. where in the priorities list is do no harm? >> we are in afghanistan for a reason. i think we have made clear what that reason is. if you are suggesting, as i think you might be, that the actions that happened yesterday were harmful, certainly they were. that is why we have made clear that is a terrible and tragic incident which will be fully investigated, and there will be accountability for it. but as the president made clear in his statement, it does not reflect the actions -- they do not reflect the mission. they do not reflect the values or the professionalism of the american military men and women who are in afghanistan. and they are tragic and unfortunate. >> i know that the president is going with the prime minister

to this game. it is not the best game in the ncaa tournament. wouldn't he rather -- >> are you saying that syria might pay for a trip to the final four or something? >> if you want to talk about cross promotional things. >> ok. [laughter] >> seriously, why isn't he instead catching a little bit of bo peep wednesday night, skipping out on the dinner? that would be more fun for everybody, wouldn't it? >> we will look at that option. look, prime minister cameron is here tomorrow and wednesday. this is the opportunity that presented itself. march madness is a wonderful tradition in american sports and american culture, and the president very much looks forward to having the prime minister join him for this

game. >> are you saying the president would not have watched this game? >> i didn't say that? [inaudible question] >> we will have to provide details for you. i am sure there will be the traditional interaction with the press with the prime minister. there is a state dinner of course and then bilateral meetings. thanks. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> ahead of tomorrow's presidential primaries in alabama and mississippi, we will have live coverage this evening of a candidates forum held in birmingham. newt gingrich and rick santorum are scheduled to speak. we will have that live in a

little more than a half hour from now at 6:30 eastern here on c-span. now a discussion on 2012 politics and the overall influence of southern politics in presidential lexis. it is from "washington journal," and we will show you as much as this as we can before our live coverage. now mitt romney in an effort to secure delegates and wins in those two states. can we expect? guest: you can expect a pretty close finale here if you look at the polls.

in alabama they had gingrich up with 21 points, romney with 20 and santorum at 17 on friday. actually we have seen polls in alabama over the past week in which all three of those candidates have had the lead at one point or another. romney looks like he is in a little better shape in mississippi. he had a seven-point lead in the last poll there. i am going to be interested in the impact of kansas because it is so class. the fact that santorum sort of ran away with it in the kansas caucuses. possibly if you are looking for any kind of a late-breaking thing, it could give him a little bit of a boost in those states. if there were any surprise this tuesday to look forward to, i think it might be another kind of santorum break-out like he had in tennessee or kansas.

host: let's look at the results in kansas with rick santorum winning with about 15,000 votes in the caucuses over the weekend, 51%, to 21% for mitt romney, gingrich and ron paul coming in third and fourth respectively. in william, romney winning the caucuses. he won with 577 votes, compared to a couple of hundred votes behind for rick santorum. what can you read from either of these two weekend contests. guest: well, i think you can read two things, and it is sort of the yin and the yang of this campaign. social conservative, maybe rural republican voters are just not that warm to romney, and he is having a problem winning them over. the other result is the slow slog of delegates and the hardening cement of the delegate race if you will.

as i say, if he is polling ahead of the other two candidates in mississippi, if he can hang on to that and come out of tuesday with a few delegates, then i think he continues to say it is inevitable. host: mitt romney campaigning with what he is calling his unofficial southern strategy in alabama and mississippi. here is one of them that received a lot of attention with the former republican governor of massachusetts. born in michigan. let's watch. >> this guy i see every daytime after time after time, and this is a guy from mississippi. his name is garrett jackson. come over here. four years at oil miss. he is now turning me into an unofficial southerner. i am learning to say y'all, and i like grits. strange things are happening for me. host: we come back to your reaction to those comments by

mitt romney? guest: they are pretty silly and probably stick in the craw of a few southerners. i remember george h.w. bush campaigning, and even though he is from houston, some of the things he said was distant from southerners. before ronald reagan i guess became ronald reagan, when he was still out there as a kind of a mask governor from california making tours through the south, he had a few instances of cultural disconnections, too. the difference is ronald reagan had terrific communication skills, and he overcame that over time. we are going to see if romney has anything similar. host: our guest is tom baxter, joining us from atlanta. he writes for the atlanta journal constitution.

we have a link to his blog at c-span.org. i want to ask you a fundamental question as we look at a map. what is the new south, what is the southern strategy, and what is the southern vote? guest: that is a good question. if you look back to the last presidential lexi, you saw two significant things happen. one is that obama carried three of the larger southern states, virginia, north carolina and florida. so there wasn't a solid south in anything in the eps like we have spoken about in previous elections. the other thing about that election was that if obama had not won any of those three states, he still would have had the electoral votes to win that election. now we come into this year with the south again being the beneficiary of reapportionment,

with a net seven electoral votes, several from texas. it makes it necessary for the democrats still to contest in the south and to try to take some of those states away from the republican candidate so that it won't be a solid south. host: james is host: james from grand forks, north dakota, on the independent line with tom baxter from atlanta. caller: when you talk about the primaries, you talk about mitt romney and the two other candidates. i'm sure you are aware there are three other candidates running. guest: the other is ron paul and we should not ignore him. if we're talking about expectations for the results next week, i think almost every one of the polls has had him in the single digits.

are you aware of any that have him higher than that? caller: the polls are unreliable when it comes to his numbers. the primary numbers are unreliable as well. i tend not to even trust the numbers very much because they seem to be spun from a false web. guest: he sounds like a native southerner more like romney. there is some potential of their, but i think this will probably be a day in which social conservatives' turn out very heavily. those mid stirring conservatives in the south and are generally ignored but are really an important part of the votes are more establishment leaning. host: ron paul has yet to win a single contest with 23 primaries and caucuses. caller: there is always a first time.

host: asheville, kentucky, on the republican line. caller: how are you doing this morning? i guess i have a question and it regards to senator santorum, a comment that he made at a catholic university three years ago where he made the statements that he felt protestantism was not mainstream. ins a protestantism was shambles. noneust curious as to why of the "protestant religions" have not asked him to explain that. guest: it might perhaps of something to do with the fact that the other two candidates he is running against are protestant. you are right in your

presumptions that that, it would not go over well with a lot of conservative protestant republican voters in the south. really, the discourse of this campaign is being determined by these big super pac's and they are not getting into that territory. host: tom baxter, let me put a few scenarios on the table to get your reaction. let's assume the decision is split. santorum wins one state, and and at romney wins the other. what does it mean that? guest: i think the question is what that would mean for newt gingrich, who has given mixed signals. there has been a last hurrah quality people have bred into

man in his campaign. he has said it that he fully intends to go on to tampa and a matter what happens this coming week. whether he stays in the campaign or not, if he does not perform pretty well, and a good performance would have to be probably be winning in alabama and coming close in mississippi, then whether he stays in eleonore not, gingrich begins to receive and it becomes a long, drawn-out battle between the one remaining viable conservative challenger and mitt romney. you know, looking at the calendar, you get past these two states this coming weekend the next big clump of votes is burgeron into april, mostly a lot of northeastern states. if romney can come out of this

thing on tuesday with at least a partial win with some delegates to say that he is continuing that long march, he is not winning pretty, but he is moving towards the goal, i guess you could say. host: conversely, if newt gingrich wins one or both, what does that mean? guest: it prolongs the argument the little longer. i guess there would have to be a little bit of a sorting out between santorum and gingrich. again, i think gingrich has pursued pretty much exclusively a southern strategy. he did not contest in kansas over the weekend. the first thing he would have to do is find some good

northern states to get to make an impression. host: clearwater, fla., on the democratic line. caller: good morning. can get the tax money out? as a former nurse, i have not heard anything about having about a health care system where we actually have competition to raise the quality and decrease [unintelligible] insurance should cover alternative medicine. i do not see any real suggestions. i would like a free, open market system. right now it is run by the insurance companies. president,'s see a or candidate, can really come up with a real solution.

host: tom baxter, a quick reaction? guest: that's one. newt gingrich has tried to stake out, being the candidate who has some innovative, free- market-oriented solutions in health care. unfortunately, that has been drowned out in a lot of the name calling in this campaign. it's amazing to have 20 debates with really so little fundamental working out of the issues in all those debates. host: our guest is tom baxter joining us from atlanta. let's show you how newt gingrich is going after health care in this web ad. [video clip] >> he said he made it obam-ney care. >> this is the same bill romney

passed in massachusetts. host: that is the argument that newt gingrich and rick santorum have been making. now he will be campaigning in mississippi and alabama over the next few days. guest: it has some resonance, i think. obama is not popular in these states. the governor of massachusetts to has passed a health care plan will be a somewhat suspect. you have a lot of voters in

these states who, their first priority, will be to turn the president out of office. they will be pretty pragmatic about which one they think has the best chance of doing that. host: on our independent line from parkville, md., welcome to the conversation. caller: i wonder how many people will be like me. i am a registered independent for romney, not obama. i will not vote at all if santorum is the nominee for the republican party. host: why do you say that? caller: i think santorum is too far on the religious side. i do not like that part of the republican party. host: we will get a response

from tom baxter. guest: that may be a conviction your firmly set in, but i wonder if the news stories of the past week have had any impact on you in that regard with the rush limbaugh story which has gone pretty much viral in georgia with a legislature or in georgia that is making an analogy between women in the question of an abortion bill and farm animals that he had handled. i would just ask the caller is that feeds in to that sentiment. host: can you follow-up on what the caller was saying in this issue from the front page of "the new york times," writing about the president's efforts to court women. there will be a series of mailings going out to millions

of women in the battleground states in three separate versions foremothers, older women, and young women. the obama campaign is trying to use the current political climate to regain a traditional part of the democratic base. tom baxter, your reaction? guest: i think that is a pretty obvious course of action. i think it probably has had some impact over these past few weeks. host: are you still there? caller: yes. i have always been against santorum. i agree with rush limbaugh on different things. they're using this to try to get the women votes and they have ms. fluke, which i think is it put up by the democratic party i was a republican at one time, but i get out of the party because of all this right wing religious stuff. host: thank you for the call.

from atlanta, where tom baxter is this sunday morning. jonathan? caller: good morning. i am libertarian in a lot of things. when it comes to abortion, you know, my views are fixed in stone, but the question of the viability of the fetus is common sense. abb in the third term of gestation deserves some kind of protection or recognition under the law which is something that santorum talks about. i listen to santorum for the last year on a bill bennett's talk radio show. the guy is probably as knowledgeable about how government works as anyone i have ever heard. when it comes to the economy, one thing that i think romney really needs to do, and

gingrich touched on this several times, is talking about economic history when it comes to tax reform. in 1983, i think republicans need to compare and contrast obama's third year and ragan's third year. one month in 1983, september, we produced 1.1 million jobs. it there was an average of 300,000 or more jobs per month. this was 30 years ago. we had 8% quarterly growth figures. one quarter was 9.3%. we had 1.7% last year. we need to hammer this, and win over the political will with a knowledge of history. a parent they do not know it. it talked about kennedy, the 1920's and george bush's tax cuts and we had the greatest time in our history.

people need be informed about this, when over the political will, talk about tax reform and reducing taxes. host: thank you, jonathan. tom baxter? guest: if his point is that republicans are having a hard time getting up the message, i think it's true. as a plea on jobs, it is always the latest statistic. that is something i learned a long time ago. it is never the big numbers but the small matters that mattered most. if your brother in law gets a job, that matters more than it added 200,000 jobs nationally or not last week. i would certainly agree from a

strategic point of view that republicans have really let themselves get off track on this. they have not concentrated in their lack of focus, at the national and state level. if you look at how much jobs legislation or economic development legislation is coming out of any of these legislatures across the south, even the newly elected lieutenant governor of south carolina resign, be invited to come and be convicted on the same day. you have the collapse in alabama of this bingo trial, and for viewers not from this part of the trial, but the alabama legislature went from democratic to republican two years ago largely on the

strength of this vote buying scandal having to do with the video games. this past week, the government case against six of these defendants were found not guilty and completely cleared of these charges. and then in mississippi, you have this furor over the hailey barbour pardons, when you add these together in gives you a picture of other republican party that have had a hard time beating out where to go from here. host: let's get some historical perspective. i want to assure you it photograph from president lyndon b. johnson 1964 signing the historic voting rights act with the martin luther king behind him. i also want to take a look at the electoral map dating back to 1956 when dwight eisenhower won easily but the south remains

solid for adelaide stevenson. this is back in 1956. then you can see how it changed. in 1964 when lyndon johnson said they lost this out, he indeed did lose the key southern states of louisiana, mississippi, alabama, georgia, south carolina, despite the fact he won everywhere else. whate 1980's, this is jimmy carter look like winning, but of course he was from georgia. du can see the south remaining pretty solid for ronald reagan. what does this tell you? guest: what was happening while all of that progress was going on for republicans was that

things were moving very glacially slowly up the local level. you of all over the past 30 or 40 years with the bifurcated politics where you may have locally elected state legislator tors, but increasingly people would vote for the republican presidential candidate and maybe the senate or gubernatorial candidates. the really big news from this last election, the 2010 election was that after years and years of efforts to drive this down to the grass roots, in 2010 it exceeded completely with a republican majority legislate tors and holding the governor's offices all over the south. lyndon johnson's predictions sort of came true, but it took a lot longer read it took the

election of an african-american president in addition to the passage of the civil rights voting act all of those decades ago to really complete the process. host: this is what the 2008 map look like. joining us from illinois, good morning -- caller: their references to the religious in this country. we have a division of church and state which i think is very important. the religious aspect has no place in our political and irina. in my opinion, the right-wing christians in this country are just as dangerous as the extremist moslems. as for santorum, that leaves them out completely for me.

also the woman should have the right to do what she wants with her on body. that is debatable but that is my opinion. i appreciate you letting me make my opinion known, thank you. host: thank you. any reaction? guest: we talked a lot about the impact of religious conservatives. they are a very loyal voting bloc and they will certainly have an impact this year. if religion becomes too central question, i think in this

primary process, there is a danger. i imagine this gentleman who just called i could predict will vote for barack obama anyway but they're a lot -- but there are a lot of independent voters who are may be conservative on one issue in middle of the road on the other but they have a healthy distrust of religious extremism and if things go too far, that could become a factor. host: "the baltimore sun" about this this week -- lawrence's joining us from hickory, n.c., welcome to the program. caller: maybe you could walk us through how the electoral college would choose a candidate if none of these

fellows reach the magic number. is it possible that of gingrich could join romney and combine their electoral votes if one decided to be the running mate with the other to steal it or something? guest: at this stage of the game, we're not talking about electoral votes for the electoral college that will elect the president in the fall but we are talking about the republican party system for allocating delegates to their convention. when you look at the states, they are not proportionally allocated as they were in the past because the party now gives bonuses for republican performance. if you elected a republican u.s. senator or republican governor, if republicans took over the legislature, you get points for those.

as were the reasons why the southern states actually have a fair number of delegates. republicans have done pretty well there. with that being said and the fact that it is harder for any candidate to get the 1147 -- something like that -- that many delegates quotes that are required to cleanse the republican nomination, another reform has been that these states are not winner-take-all but they are allocating their delegates proportionately. it is a longer, slower process but it still rewards the candidate who's got the resources to go to the places to guam and wyoming to get delegates wherever they are.

you are asking me what happens -- i think you are saying what happens when we get close to the convention and we don't have any one of these republican candidates with a republicanlock -- -- with a solid lock --after that, you throw away the rules and make new rules. host: people say it would not be a brokered convention. the last time we saw a republican convention in which the potential nominee did not have enough ballots going into the convention hall was 1976 when jerry ford was being challenged by ronald reagan. that headline from "the washington post" --

another call from the south in tennessee, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning, i find it interesting that the state of georgia is made up of around 65% black and 40% of white. you go through atlanta, you turn your radio on and all you hear is the blasting of the current president. i wonder where this representation of a majority of democratic 60% black bar?

guest: it is not 60% black in georgia. there is no stay where blacks are in the majority. it is close to, i believe, 30%. that is closer to the actual percentage of african-americans in this state of georgia. caller: i don't hear them getting their information out in georgia. i hear it is all biased one way. guest: i will tell you an interesting insight into that -- if you're driving through atlanta, you are right, you hear a lot of ahnnity and limbaugh and there is a lot of that on the airwaves. there is a lot of help the average american radio, too.

one thing that is coming along that i think is not in anybody's sites right now but the influence of hispanic radio across the south. there are dramatic instances of this. the demonstrations opposing the georgia immigration bill at the state capital this year were organized largely through hispanic -- the spanish-language radio. in these immigration bills and the struggle over these immigration bills and alabama and georgia, a hispanic radio which is all the way on the right side of the am dial and very few english speaking conservatives or white or black go over and listened to that.

it is having a growing impact in the region now. host: let me share with you what "politico" is reporting -- do you think it would end for rick santorum or newt gingrich? guest: i know the answer that rick santorum or newt gingrich would give to that. the romney people what this and they want it to reach a conclusion very quickly so they are trying to force it. at the same time, a win by one percentage point would preserve that shaky aura of inevitability that he has now. host: this is the headline from "the chicago tribune" --

in this survey, between 16%-18% but remain undecided. alberta, mass., independent line -- caller: i am sick of every time a politician, especially from the south who was baptists or whatever, i don't like to go after religion or anything else, goes after women and women's rights. they try to terrace up one way and the other because of one thing -- -- they try to tear us up one way or another because of one thing of how they do wrong to people. at's see them run as politician and not as a person to tear down women. it is sickening. that's all i have to say. our health care in our health care in massachusetts