our new long term objective of attempting to make nuclear weapons go away is also unattainable. they will be with us forever. our best course by far is to build upon the two-tier system so wisely established by the nonproliferation treaty. restrict possession of nuclear weapons to a small number of large responsible states. charged these states with the responsibility of enforcing nonproliferation by force if necessary. an implicit role they've had from the beginning which they failed to carry out these five nuclear weapons states. finally require these nuclear weapon states to improve and test their weapons regularly to increase deterrent capabilities as threats eve of. thank you. [applause] >> any questions from the audience? [inaudible] >> stephen young with new conservative scientists. just one question for you in terms of say you were given all of your wishes to we have an active and growing program, we had a new type of weapon. you're whole wish list was granted starting it never went away, we headed through the entire last 20 years as well. what would have changed in the

they have to be unattainable in the sense that they have to be politically unattainable and economically have been set up so far have a degree of absolute as to them. but we live in a very uncertain world where economic conditions can vary where there can be wars, where natural disasters can strike, where there are inevitable economic cycles. and there has to be some kind of flexibility within the system one is designing. with respect to date for achieving the goal, we all agree that getting to fiscally sustainable position will take time, and given the current economic situation, it's going to take a good deal of time because we had to get the economy back on its feet. but whether the goal should be achieved in 2018 or 2020 or 2025, it's very hard to make a case one way or another, if this makes the whole challenge that much greater because of procrastination and avoidance is really the things that this town does best. with respect to pass, that's also difficult because there are 1000 roads that will get you to any particular goal. and there is no real consensus among our political lead

they have to be unattainable in the sense that they have to be politically unattainable and economically untenable. we don't want to get ourselves trying for goals that would undermine the strength of our economy. and finally they have to be flexible. all of the goals that have been set up so far have a degree of absolute as to them. but we live in a very uncertain world where economic conditions can vary where there can be wars, where natural disasters can strike, where there are inevitable economic cycles. and there has to be some kind of flexibility within the system one is designing. with respect to date for achieving the goal, we all agree that getting to fiscally sustainable position will take time, and given the current economic situation, it's going to take a good deal of time because we had to get the economy back on its feet. but whether the goal should be achieved in 2018 or 2020 or 2025, it's very hard to make a case one way or another, if this makes the whole challenge that much greater because of procrastination and avoidance is really the things that this town does best. w

i don't claim an objectivity which is unattainable, try to be honest with the reader, and say i have views and these are what my views are. i thing so long as you are straight with the reader, is doesn't matter if you have views. you ought to express them but make it clear to the reader you are expressing them. >> host: mr. johnson, did you know the led howard zen, and who of some of your american historian friends? >> guest: i think mr. zinn was a very bias historian, and i don't think he was a very good one. but, however, i think he made his opinions fairly clear. everyone knew that he was leaning heavily on to the left. so i think he was reasonably honest with his readers but that isn't a sufficient reason to read him, in my view. now, a good example of an american historian whom i respect was the late arthur schlessinger. he began life with a wonderful book about the age of jackson. i still think it's his best book. he then went on to write some very important books about modern history and the age of roosevelt and the kennedys and biographies and so forth. and i very much admire

zero is unattainable so if you could give as a goal, what percent, by what date and benchmarks becausethat is the only way to get results around here. it's one thing to talk about things and something else to quantify it with numbers. because we understand numbers. working together on a six month basis and will be back here again i am sure some time in the next years. we will have a chance to talk about this. but again we want to work with you. this is not to pursue on the spot but to work together. >> i look forward to it. >> and i have a last point? i wanted to come back to that point, we have a loss of a federal property that we don't use in our inventory. senator baucus knows we're trying to confirm an administrator for managing thousands of federal properties across the country. we have a lot of them that are vacant or not used or underutilized. we pay utilities and security in all kinds of other costs that relate to the facilities. when agencies want to even if they want to sell them and spruce them up and get them ready to market them, and the properties sold, the agency doesn't

i don't claim and objectivity which is unattainable. i tried to be honest with the reader, and so i have views and these are what my views are. i think so long as you are straight with the reader, it doesn't matter if you have views. you're bound to have views and you ought to express them. but you must make it clear to the reader that you are expressing them. >> mr. johnson, did you know the late howard zinn? or two for that question, who are some of your american historian friends? >> well, i think mr. zinn was a very biased historians, and i don't think he was a very good one. but, however, i think he made his opinions fairly clear. everyone knew that he was leaning heavily on to the left. so i think it was reasonably honest with his readers. that that isn't aids sufficient reason to read him, in my view. a good example of an american historian whom i respect was the late arthur schlesinger. arthur schlesinger they can live a wonderful book about the age of jackson. i still think it is his best book, and then he went on to write some

think what the president will greatly resist is the notion that the protection of consumers is unattainable financial reform. >> been without knowing what exact vehicle might come in a bipartisan proposal from the senate, obviously be a good look at this assuming strong consumer protections and authority was in the legislation but i did not want to get ahead of that proposal and what it might look like. >> just asking if the opinion of changing the rules if the republicans could not demand the cloture votes as often. just looking if they throw support behind the dick durbin go and also harkin they would not be required. >> i don't know if we had a conversation with senator durbin. our no there has been great frustration on either side on capitol hill or hear about the sheer amount of times we knew that cloture had to be invoked. we've certainly invoked the frustrations relating to noncontroversial legislation and nominees. you heard the president discussed said gsa director that has been stalled for nine months. had to use the cloture but then she was it approved 96/o. you realize this is a

zero is unattainable.ut if you could give us a goal, you know, what percent by what date in benchmarks because that's how we're going to get results around here. that's one thing to talk about things. it's something else to quantify it with numbers.

the president greatly resists is the notion that somehow this is the protection of consumers is unattainable and financial reform -- >> that's not the question though. >> what i'm saying is without knowing what exact vehicle might come in a bipartisan proposal from the senate obviously we would look at this assuming that strong consumer protections and authority was in that legislation by don't want to get ahead of -- i don't want to get ahead of with that proposal might look might look like. >> last month i asked you if the president had an opinion on some of the discussions and changing the senate rules so that the republicans or the minority in the future wouldn't be able to demand the cloture by 60 votes as often he said he would check with affairs. my understanding is one of the president's close allies in the senate, durbin, they are starting to support behind the bill from tom harkin and the would introduce a sliding scale so the 60 vote thing wouldn't be required as often. have you guys disgusted with senator durbin? >> let me check again on whether we have had conversations with sen

i would like you to get a goal, zero is unattainable but if you could give a goal what percentage, by what date as in benchmarks because that is how we are going to get results around here. it's one thing to talk about things and something else to quantify. with members because you understand numbers, and again we are working together on a six month basis and will be back here again i'm sure some time in the next couple or three years and we will have a chance to talk about this. but again we want to work with you. this is not to put you on the spot is to work together. >> i look forward to it. >> can i have a last point, i just want to come back to that point. we have a lot of federal property that we don't use in our inventory and senator baucus knows we are trying to confirm an administrator for the general service administration that manages thousands of federal properties across the country. but we have a lot of them that are vacant or are underutilized, we pay security, all kind of other costs that relate to the facilities. when agencies want to -- if they want to sell the money

i'd like you also to give us a goal, zero is unattainable.but if you could give us a goal, what%, by what date is a benchmark. he goes that's how we're going to get results around here. it's one thing to talk about things. it's another thing to quantified, with numbers. because you understand numbers. >> right. >> again, we are working together on a six-month basis. we will be back again i'm sure sometime in the next couple, three years. and will have a chance to talk about this. >> sounds good. >> we want to work with you. this is not to put you on the spot. >> i look forward to it. >> and i have a last point? i just want to come back to that point. we have a lot of federal property that we don't use in our inventory. senator baucus nose, trying to confirm an administrator for gsa, general services administration, which manages thousands of federal properties across the country. but we have a lot of them that are vacant, not use or underutilized. we pay utilities, security, all kinds of other costs that relate to the facilities. when agencie

president would greatly resist is the notion that somehow this is the protection of consumers unattainableand financial reform. >> [inaudible] >> when i am saying is without knowing exactly the vehicle might, in a bipartisan proposal from the senate, obviously we would look at this assuming that if strong consumer protections and the authority within the legislation but i don't want to get ahead of -- i don't want to get ahead of that proposal might look like. >> last month asked you if the president had an opinion on some of the discussions in changing the senate rules so that the republicans or the minority in the future would be able to demand 60 roseç as often. my understanding is one of the president's close allies in the senate, dick durbin, is starting to support the bill with talks with our can brought up and introducing a sliding scale so the 60 votes would be required as often. have the best discuss it with senator durbin? >> let me check on whether we've had conversations with senator durbin. there's been great frustration on either side either on this side or on capitol hill a