we're talking about the obama administration. are they taking the right approach to nuclear arms policy? we will continue that discussion. this is the "usa today" -- here it says that the czechs are torn over the u.s. nuclear treaty with russia. as obama returns, czechs differ over whether his conciliatory dialogue with their former occupier is dangerously naive or appreciabla praiseworthy step td global security. the article goes on to say that the russian president tried unsuccessfully to get limits placed on the u.s. strategic missile defense in the treaty. the line for independents, not seville, tennessee. good morning. -- knoxville, tennessee. caller: yes, i believe obama has done a very good job. on the atomic weapons, according to that i don't know that if we would have dropped the bomb in world war ii --as horrific as it was, i think that we saved thousands of lives, not only americans, british and others. i think that it was the thing to do. host: in "the washington times" as we continue the discussion we will take a look

whereas the administration has famously announced through an executive order would close the base of the facility on guantanamo bay, that it would seize the use, and that it would prefer more often than not to resort tetryls and civilians court rather than military tribunals of terrorist that we apprehend. i think it's clear from the administration's rhetoric that much of the reason that they have desired to do those things is to satisfy international public opinion. not because they feel they are actually object -- obligated to, but because they want to satisfy the view, particularly widespread in europe that those are the norm that is they should follow. when we see the administration either unable to achieve it's objectives of confirming american behavior to the european norm. it's not because the president feels it's the right thing to do. it's because he feels politically he's unable to achieve the objective that he still seeks and will continue to seek when the political at a miss fear becomes more conducive for him to do it. in the area of the international criminal court ther

and it was that rationale of the administration used. he president then used when he unilaterally and abruptly canceled the agreement we had with the pols and the czeches to build a missile defense system that would precisely be designed to shoot down intercontinental rocket from iran headed over to the united states. so that rationale now collapses. it looks as if the iranians are on a faster track. and the rocket test you show, the one in february where iran put up a rocket and satellite in space, that had a mouse on it. you remember at the time, i pointed out that iran is not exactly the leader in rodent research. it was showing its reach in being able to hit any country on earth. that was a two-stage rockrocket. intercontinental you need a three stage to hit the united states. but that is coming. we know it's coming. why the administration would cancel a system in europe that would help us, why it's reducing the number of ground space launches in alaska, that would shut down a korean rocket, and why it canceled the airborne laze chese

geopolitical mistakes made by the clinton administration and they were not corrected by the second bush administration. >> "after words" and several other programs are available for download us podcast. more with jack matlock and dimitri simes in a moment. >>> "after words" with jack matlock and dimitri simes continues. >> host: serbia. this clearly was a turning point in the u.s. relationship with russia. there were two different narrative's of what was happening in the balkans the clinton administration for thought premier li and serbian aggression, serbia and a atrocities. the russians were thinking about the civil law. while both parties were probably at fault and clearly did not want to allow the united states and nato to use military force unilaterally against serbia which was a traditional russian client. why was it wrong in your view for the clinton administration to move against what was received at the time as serbian aggression and atrocities against the muslims? >> guest: i think for the reason that you indicated the way that will stun was as we say counterproductive in the

policies first in the clinton administration and the second bush administration made it virtually impossible for any russian leader to cooperate across the board with us because of things we were doing were seen as attempts to undermine their own security and we do think there were opportunities to cooperate and there still are against terrorism and so on. but we have got to understand we have to take the national russian interest into account in doing so and pushing things we don't really need which the russians are going to see is against the national interest or simply going to deprive us of the cooperation we need to solve the big problems. >> host: you mention in the case of serbia the situation there more general in the balkans differently. the difference was more dramatic in the case of georgia and to describe in your book how it started in 1991 when a georgian president moved against south ossetia and abkhazia and how it started. could you tell this story? >> guest: yes. in the winter of 1991, january, did you worry, when things are very cold, not only had the elected leader at that

and the administration said they liked that, too. e problem is that-- >> do you think that that is useful, those are useful moves, is that right? >> sure, sure, less on the turn around efforts of bad schools, i'd rather see those schools closed and replaced. using student data to evaluate futures, absolutely, i'm glad the administration is encouraging that. the problem is that lots of those on the list had those applications up to snuff and the difference, the administration was quite upfront about this, when you listened to arney duncan say, what they like about delaware and tennessee, they got the union buy-in. the establishment, the public education establishment was behind the application of these two states and that's what a lot of the finalists didn't have. states like florida and louisiana did not have the union support of their applications like tennessee and delaware had and i would argue that should be a knock on what those states-- >> so states in this commission were punished if they promoted reforms that were so forward l

trying to understand the previous administration and also the current administration at route to the syrian ankle i know that the turkish officials including the turkish president and also the turkish prime minister has expressed their engagement with syria has been widely appreciated by the bush administration may be they didn't start as so because they were against it but as did negotiations with israel went forward they think turkey that they start to this engagement with syria. that's one. so i would like to ask you how it was during the bush at the fenestration and on the current administration you emphasized strongly that engagement doesn't mean encasement. how do you see the turkish position on syria? do you think that their engagement means increasing the government? thank you. >> of the bush administration didn't favor at the time it began syrian-israeli negotiations because they let syria out of the box we had carefully constructed. syria was in that period if you go back to example the number of european foreign minister visits over 12-month period very, very small. syria

and honestly, in the obama administration that's what it's still there. end of the obama administration, still hasn't been close because they will be able to find any alternatives either. the war on terrorism doesn't fit the conventional law of war in some respect. but neither is it activity that should be consumed under the criminal law a paradigm. these are not, these terrorists are not simply bank robbers on steroids. they are people are waging war against us and our allies and our way of life, and they need to be treated in that context. i think it's really fairly remarkable, the shift in american public opinion that we have seen that at the end of the bush administration, the media and political elite had beaten the administration into submission. they had said let's close gitmo. senator mccain said let's close gitmo. it was one of the first acts president obama undertook as president, and yet just this morning i saw that a new cnn poll shows that support for closing gitmo is down to around 39%, down from 51% at the beginning of the administration, a

the second bush administration. you clearly disagree. was the u.s. foreign policy talk in the spirit that is why i was struck in the last sentence of the book. the last sentence i began in the mood to close to this buyer and in one of encouragement and hope is an nation can face up to its mistakes and correct them it will prove the faith in american shared by ronald reagan and barack obama is not misplaced. why are you more optimistic now? >> guest: i'm still optimistic of those the last year the might since i wrote that have seen some setbacks. but mainly i was impressed by the fact that obama during the campaign and also so far in the administration placed the nuclear issue back in the forefront of our attention. the issue that reagan and gorbachev dealt with and i thought headed dustin the right direction toward bringing nuclear weapons under control and even eliminating them as a fine thing. so his espousal of that early on and the negotiations with russia to bring that about give me encouragement. also in other

the previous in administration was always focused on the bilateral u.s.-soviet relation. the big question will be at what point can you bring in those other players? >> to follow up, i think that the administration feels that the treaty giving them is important. with the expiration of the start treaty, you lose the verification of the monitoring regime that went along with that. for the obama people to be able to replace the treaty and maintain a significant degree of that the verification is probably the most important achievement from the standpoint of u.s. national security with the treaty. for the russians, the numbers are -- talking over the last decade or so in nuclear circles with the russians, they can talk about getting down to 1000 weapons. that used to be a relatively reasonable proposition. it is interesting how over this negotiation, that seems to be getting to where we are with this treaty was harder than some expected and i think getting to that? that is the one to be harder if we are unwilling to address the strategic relationship and talk about the role o

at the end of the bush administration, the media and political elites had beaten the administration into submission to close at guantanamo bay. it was one of the first acts president barack obama undertook as president. just this morning, i saw a new cnn poll that showed that support for closing guantanamo bay is down to 30%. opposition to closing it is at 60%, way up from where it was, because people have seen at the base. they have made up their minds that guantanamo bay turned out to be the right decision. was it a perfect decision? no, of course not. but there wasn't any alternative. >> we will take this gentleman and then one other question. >> thank you. i believe that china and the united states are the only two nations that have successfully made a kinetic shootdown of a satellite in space. knowing how the central satellite communications are, both to our defense and our economy, how can an international law the assist or hinder that the venture? >> it is perfectly permissible to use international planes for military personnel -- purposes. this is a misapplication of the customar

working in the administration with a fairly close proximity. but i did not know the meaning of those facts. i turned decided to try to go beyond the mere fact still look for the truth and that is what happens when you write a book like this and you really open your mind and explore the facts and go beyond the mere fact and factoid day and to seek truth. i did that for myself initially i wanted to understand what the hell had happened. what happened to to the enterprise was which so much hope and expectation had been poured into and how we came apart so quickly. that is why i did it. once i did that for myself i realized not only i but the people of new york court in a similar position. january 4th 2007 they were told everything about new york state would change on day one and on march 122008 when elliott resigned, they knew that most things had changed and changed for the worse frankly and since then things of new york state have gotten even worse with no end in sight. i felt the people of the state of new york deserve to know what happened to a

will not, according to the obama administration, let me make by points here -- weaken its commitment to nato, with from military from europe, agree to any revision of the continent's into blocks or spears and influence, four, close the door to further nato enlargements, and five, make any grand bargains with moscow over the heads of former soviet satellites in central eastern europe. . >> what commitments are made to mutual defense and the nato role of the coming decade. is it a global nato? is it back to basics or how can they be combined? there are different views on how this should be structured the concourse of the new missile defense system. i remember president obama canceled the bush version but has talked about his own version to which several countries have already quickly signed on to. the question there is exactly how this will be an integrated nato system, how russia will be included and if there will be included. it is worth remembering in this context that one of the reasons warsaw and prague initially signed on to the bush version was not so much defense against iran if

concerned at least with the beginning of the clinton had been a station and then from the second bush administration. you clearly disagreed with the direction u.s. foreign policy director during this period. that is why i was struck with the last sentence in the book and the last sentence says i began in close despair and one of encouragement and hope. if the nation can face up to its mistakes and correct them, it will prove that the faith in america shared by ronald reagan and abroad, is not displaced. why more optimistic now? >> guest: i'm still optimistic for the last year the months since i wrote that have seen some setbacks but mainly i was impressed by the fact that obama during his campaign and also so far in the administration has placed the nuclear issue back in the forefront of our attention. the issue that reagan and gorbachev dealt with and i thought headed us in the right direction toward bringing nuclear weapons under control and eliminating them as a final thing. so his espousal of that early on and the negotiation with russia to give me encouragement. also in other areas it seemed to

policy is first and the clinton administration but particularly of the second bush administration made virtually impossible for any russian leader to cooperate across the board with us because the things we were doing were seen as attempts to undermine their own security team -- and i do think that there were opportunities to cooperate and there still are against terrorism and so on, but we have got to understand that we have to take the russian national interests into account. in doing so pushing things that we don't really need it with the russians are going to see as against their national interests, simply going to deprive us of the cooperation we need to solve the big problems. >> host: you also mentioned in the case of serbia that the united states and russia, more generally in the balkans, the difference was in the case of georgia. you describe in your book how it all has started in 1991 when then georgian president and moved against south ossetia, the autonomy and how all started. could you tell the story? >> guest: yes, you know, in the winter of 1990 -- '91, january and febru

craig only left the administration in january. t in man who once had president's ear on major issues like wall street reform finds himself in the middle of a high profile wall street fraud case. sounds like the president is going back on his word yet once again. >> the president: when you leave government you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as i am president. i'm also setting new roll rules that govern not just lobbyists but all those who have been selected to serve in my administration you are enlisting in government service you will have to commit, in writing, to rules limiting your role for two years, in matters involving people you used to work with and barring from you any attempt to influence your former government colleagues for two years after you leave. >> sean: the list of broken promises keeps growing and growing. congress has been trying to look into the causes of the terrorist attack on fort hood perpetrated by army major hasan it appears the administration has been stonewalling those attempts.

the primary source the administration can cite is the 2002 future on study that is overly optimistic. the study was based on a survey of affluent individuals that predicted 33 commercial passengers would've flown between 2002 in 2010. to date, eight space tourists have gone beyond suborbital

ends up with the same kind of enemy combatant ill-defined policy the bush administration had. >> that's part of the problem. they wanted to distinguish themselves and at the same time the difficulty is trying to convince the rest of the american population that having this domestic trial is best suited for them and you don't know what the terrorists show you and the return to american home-grown terror is the real news not that militia in michigan are sprouting wings but they paved the path. >> schieffer: republicans didn't have much of a week last week with michael steele the head of the republican national committee getting stuck with the tab and the republicans seemed to have the strategy down and have not coalesced around it and i guess it's early for this. any one leader, nancy, who do you think will emerge that's leader of the reboun republican. >> you don't hear them clamoring for michael steele to step down or be are replaced because it's not clear to them who they would replace him day and one spokesman said anytime i can mention lesbian bondage club and republicans is a great

again, this was the spitzer administration. his was not a failure in the failing of simply one man. it was the failure of the administration. yes, ma'am. >> i am a marine. >> hi, morning. how are you. >> i am sure many people will think this in the coming months, but comparing eliot success during his tenure as a g. and then to sort of see him and compare the governor period of time, is it that much of a difference between the roles you play as an ag and the role you play as a governor, was a factor? >> as i said in a book i was asked, unit, 100 times in interviews, that was going to be the unofficial interviewee about eliot's manifest destiny. and every time i was asked, do you think he can make this transition, his weapons have been complaint, indictment, accusation, subpoena, can this guy -- so prosecutorial make the transition. and i said of course. i have seen him make transactions all the time. he does it with poise and confidence, and i do not believe that it was that disconnect, that it was, this guy was a born prosecuto

about the administration's going to zero agenda. which is secretary of defense gates said last week is not anything that's going to happen soon. but i mean, one of the fundamental problems about that agenda is that enlisting the support of other countries with it. beginning with the russians. and then the chinese. and then the indians and the pakistanis and so on down the line. i mean, nobody else in the world -- no other nation state in the world which is an officially recognized or unofficially recognized nuclear weapons state is particularly enthusiastic about it. because the united states enjoys -- particularly for the russians. here's the rub. for the russians, their concern is that the combination of their eroding the -- the tremendous eroding of their traditional weapons forces plus, the deteriorating numbers on offensive forces. plus the u.s. conventional weapons development in which there are weapons which is close or near nuclear capabilities plus, the development of missile defenses -- all of that from the russian standpoi

he talked about the obama administration's approach to security and terrorist threats. the woodrow wilson center international security studies hosted this even here in washington. it's about one hour. [inaudible conversations] .. today's meeting is cosponsored by the international security studies program and by our middle east program. the coseries of georgetown professor bruce hoffman sends regrets. he's unfortunately enable to be with us today. i'd like to extend a particular welcome to those who is viewing's today meeting on c-span. i welcome those who are attending in person. and the usual format after this meeting is over in one hour we will adjourn to a reception in the adjacent room. today's topic could not be more topical counter terrorism in the obama administration tactics and strategy and our speaker could not be more authoritative daniel benjamin a position held since me of last year. prior to his the placement as the state department counterterrorism coordinator can benjamin was a senior fellow and a research from the brookings is a tuition and room during

i think the acting administrator has done a fine job. given the urgency, i would submit her name to the senate, presuming she is willing to serve. host: the tsa is known as the second most hitting. even tom ridge had to wait in airport lines. guest: tsa is the one component of the agency that every american touches on an ongoing basis. depending on how frequently you fly. every american at one time, and many americans many times, have a direct interaction with that agency. often screeners aren't rude, but they seem complacent. it is a very tough job. sometimes travelers are rude to them. the hassle, turn elapses -- this has all given tsa a black eye. they want to restore morale at that agency. >> you can see "washington journal" every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. president obama is traveling to prague later this week. he will host a nuclear summit and it will be affected by leaders of over 40 nations. this panel will preview these events. this is live here on c-span. >> this briefing will be available later on facebook per it is also ava

counter terrorism in the obama administration, tactics and strategy. and our speaker could not be more authority tative. he is ambassador daniel benjamin, the state department's coordinator. it's a position he has held since may of last year. prior to his appointment as the state department's counter terrorism coordinator, dan benjamin was a -- served as a senior fellow and a research director both at brookings institution and the center for strategic and international studies. prior to that during the clinton administration, he was a foreign policy speech writer for several years and then went on to become a director in the office of transnational threats on the national security council staff. prior to entering government service in the 1990s he had been the foreign correspondent for time magazine and the "wall street journal." after leaving government during his think tank years, he co-wrote two important books on terrorism. the age of sacred terror, and the other was the next attack, the failure of the war on terror and the strategy for getting it r

host: you were in the bush administration. was there talk about a system like this that coordinates all the information question of guest: not really. the cpp, another part of homeless security, customs border protection, uses a system like this once a flight is down to the united states. it is charged to determine who is entering. host: they would be on the air plan already. guest: that is the problem. and that's gone -- in fact, in the abdulmutallab case, there's a -- with the question. it would have been too late. we need to do that at the inception of the flight. host: lots of callers. susan on our republican line. guest: hello, thank you. we are creating all of this terrorism and we would not need all of this it is rare but not exist. guest: but -- host: we have to terminate this. we have a rule that you cannot call more than every 30 days. we will see you and 30 days. louisiana, david on our democrats line. go ahead, good morning. washington, d.c., jeff on our independence line. caller: good morning. a couple of comments

the concerns that have been expressed by administration officials. e have offered, for example, to develop protocols to safeguard the information. we have pointed out that our committee rules prohibit the disclosure of confidential information during the course of the investigation. we have pointed out that the speech or debate clause of the constitution protected the materials that we develop or are given access to from being discovered by major hassan's attorneys. we have taken step after step, made offer after offer to accommodate any legitimate concerns expressed by these the administration. unfortunately, what we're dealing with are not ledgets mat concerns, but rather what seems to be an inexplicable determination to sail the mate and slow walk our investigation. i want to just -- and stalemate and slow walk our investigation. we do not take the step of issuing subpoenas lightly. when i was chairman of the committee we were forced to issue five subpoenas of bush administration officials and took that step very seriously as well. but once again,

for the same reason the obama administration has. it is an extremely effective tool to ensure justice to protect the security of the american people. let me be clear. this administration will use every tool available to fight terrorism. every tool. this includes both civilian courts and military commissions. indeed, we have already referred six cases the prosecution and to commission. we will no doubt prefer other cases as well. we have deployed the full extent of our intelligence military and law enforcement resources to defeat terrorists and we achieved i believe significant results. it would jeopardize those results to prohibited the use of the criminal-justice system to prosecute terrorists if some in congress have proposed and would seriously weaken our national security. instead of pursuing a narrow approach to fighting terrorism we have to be flexible. we have to be pragmatic and we have to be aggressive. and in every circumstance we must choose the weapon that will be the most effective. with that said, i know you all have que

why is the administration waited almost 18 months to push financial regulatory reform? where they tried to cut republicans have the process? is said that they want an issue that will drag on into the election season, not a solution that will truly protect customers on main street? i wish we were here today debating tremendous product that have input from senators on both sides of the aisle and perhaps a little less input from the administration. the american people expect the administration to implement the laws that congress passes but they elected us with to write the laws. we could have done a better job had allowed to work in a more bipartisan way. unfortunately i have to encourage my colleagues to oppose derivatives portion of this bill because i think it will have undesirable consequences for mainstream businesses and consumers who are already struggling in this weekend economy. we will have amendments to correct the deficiencies in this bill and i hope we will receive bipartisan support for those amendments because they truly will reflect common-sense solutions to

it's the cost of administration of the program. that is causing sponsors to discontinue sponsoring the program. >> and you would attribute that to what? i mean, why has that changed all of a sudden? >> well, one of the things that happened in the last year is the -- the reimbursement for administration was reduced because of the tie to the consumer price index, which went down. that caused the reimbursement rate for certain level of homes to go down. also the administrative burdens of paperwork and the additional block claiming that has become a requirement caused programs to close. because there's -- it requires more visits. and it can't be accomplished without increasing the reimbursement for the administration. >> all right. thank you for that. miss rivas, you make two recommendations with respect to the dietary guidelines. and one is that it's no longer sufficient to simply try and meet the goals or that it's sufficiently you're attempting to meet the goals of the dietary guidelines. you think the dietary guidelines in and of t

and that's those are two forces that neither the bush administration nor the obama administration have been willing to take on just for the purpose of dealing with the iran nuclear program. likewise, if we were to actually follow the law called the iran sanctions act, european governments would be upset. so so far we wouldn't -- haven't been willing to upset anybody, offer anything, or threaten anybody in order to get sanctions on iran, and that's why we don't have anything but the smallest efforts at the tiniest sanctions. >> congressman, we have time for one more question. >> i suppose this bodes somt asking. but nonproliferation costs money, costs money whether the united states is buying back highly enriched uranium or whether the u.s. is helping other countries to convert their supplies. and there's not that much money floating around that's available right now in the federal budget. the health care plan was very expensive. the plus stimulus plan. in terms of bipartisanship, is there a consensus that it is worth spending hundreds of millions of dollars to further the cause of inte

>> i think that the bush administration also failed in this regard. k that when you get into a situation where you are spending all of your time and energy trying to get agreement at the united nations on a series of sanctions that have no bite, you are buying titime. we did it and now we are seeing it happen in the obama administration and it's dangerous. each day that passes is one day that the iranians are closer to a weapon and we are closer to i don't know what, getting the chinese to agree to a series of sanctions that effect nobody. >> this reminds me. republicans, it seems to me, is trying to politicize what had been previously kind of american, you know, policy with regard to stopping proliferation. >> it's not politicizing it, i just disagree with it. >> you want to have a broader conversation about obama's policy. >> i don't want to have a -- >> chris: a minute left. 20 seconds, juan. >> you are trying to politicize the argument rather than look at it for what it is. it's saying we're trying to control the spread of nuclear weapons. bombs, l

and the much larger bet that the obama administration has placed -- or higher priority the obama administration has placed on winning the war in afghanistan. and, therefore, the role the russians play in providing supply and transit of materials both lethal and nonlethal to our troops in theater. and the third is, of course, the nuclear security agenda, which without making progress with russia is impossible to move forward on. i think there's no question as we look at, you know, the 15 months or 14 months since the obama administration has taken power that the u.s./russian relationship has improved considerably. it improved from a very low point. it's a very low bar. in fact, if the relationship had not improved, which it was basically frozen at the end of the bush administration after the war in georgia, there was the danger literally of a new cold war. amongst the achievements one of them which is not talked about so much and maybe i should knock on wood when i talk about this is the fact that there has not been another war in georgia in the last year and a half since the war in august of 20

those are two forces that neither the bush administration nor the obama administration have been willingake on just for the purpose of dealing with the rent nuclear program. if we were to actually follow the law of the iran sanctions act, european governments would be upset. so far, we have not been willing to upset anybody come offer anything, or threaten anybody in order to get sanctions on iran and that is why we do not have anything but the smallest efforts and to the tiniest sanctions. >> we have time for one more question. >> non-proliferation, which is the focus of the summit, is expensive. there is not that much money floating around that is available in the federal budget. the health care plan was very expensive. we had the stimulus plans. in terms of bipartisanship, if it is -- is it worth it to have that cost? >> bipartisan defenses and hundreds of millions of dollars, compared that to the cost of the world economy. the best investment we can make in our national security are steps to try to keep the worst hands of the most powerful weapons and nuclear material. that being sai

the bush administration was here for eight years. they pursued a policy of talk tough and carry a tooth pick. they talked tough, but stopped nothing. and for eight years the centrifuges increasesed -- increased in number and went round and round and came closer to a nuclear iran. now we have an administration that comes with a policy of big sticks and carrots. and says first we will engage the iranians. we'll show them the advantages and we will by so doing establish the foundation for unified not unilateral sanctions action against iran if necessary. now we have reached the stage where we have to start engaging in real sanctions. and we have allies and we will get those sanctions and we must take tough sanctions to avoid the hobson's choice. this resolution before us is part of that to impose tough sanctions on the iranians to make them reconsider or to make it impossible to them to develop nuclear weapons. . so we must pass this resolution because we don't want a hobson's choice of a military action or a nuclear iran. the latter of

and if the bush administration. so it comes along in 2002, axis of evil, pretty threatening, mobilizing forces. working to do iraq first, iran is next year that's pretty threat in. strategy of regime change, which by the way is very threatening, but not which are supposed to do if you're trained to get people to stop building nuclear programs or b. you believe in deterrence because your idea of deterrence is if you behave differently and change behavior, you go to excess and we have a nice relationship. but if your policy is no matter what to do in getting rid of view, that's kind of an inducement to do step to keep you from getting rid of them. but in any case, it there was threatening stuff. so the argument is that we've been too little threatening and done it today, i would argue no, actually that was done earlier. now you could argue well, the way the iraq war turned into thousand four, 2005 took the threat away because iranians said the u.s. is losing. you know, we can talk about that, but we've tried these thin

i agree with the administration in the regard. as the president said when introducing it, it is our responsibility to ensure that the taxpayer dollars that supported these actions are reimbursed by the financial sector so the deficit is not increased. that's the end of his quote. so, mr. chairman, i want to work with you, and all of our colleagues on this committee, to get recovery legislation ready in time to be included in financial reform legislation, that will soon be kiddconsidere the floor. my question to you, mr. barofsky is this and you talked about minimizing the losses, the government holding billions and billions and billions of dollars of these kind of assets and things. and what do you think the administration can do, congress can do, to minimize the potential losses? you indicated earlier, it will take years to know exactly what our losses will be and now we are moving on here and i think we ought to look at how to minimize our losses, could you comment on that, please. >> one of the areas that is near and dear to ou

the bush administration was here for eight years. they pursued a policy of talk tough and carry a tooth pick. they talked tough, but stopped nothing. and for eight years the centrifuges increasesed -- increased in number and went round and round and came closer to a nuclear iran. now we have an administration that comes with a policy of big sticks and carrots. and says first we will engage the iranians. we'll show them the advantages and we will by so doing establish the foundation for unified not unilateral sanctions action against iran if necessary. now we have reached the stage where we have to start engaging in real sanctions. and we have allies and we will get those sanctions and we must take tough sanctions to avoid the hobson's choice. this resolution before us is part of that to impose tough sanctions on the iranians to make them reconsider or to make it impossible to them to develop nuclear weapons. . so we must pass this resolution because we don't want a hobson's choice of a military action or a nuclear iran. the latter of

those 13 banks and bankers who represented them were saved unconditionally by the obama administration and when you talk to senior people in the obama administration and i do talk to them and take them very seriously. i don't know they take me seriously but they do talk to me. they say they had to save those 13 bankers, they had to say that the financial system, i do agree -- our economy can't question without credit, i thank you all know that -- but they insist they had to save these 13 bankers, their jobs, their bonuses, their pensions, their perks, their boards of directors, their key starts, their empires, their attitudes. they couldn't ruffle a rather on their backs -- you get the general idea -- they couldn't disturb a hair on their head without causing a deeper recession and increasing the probability of a major and financial calamity. i don't actually think that's true and in the book we go in detail why we think the government -- this administration had other options in march last year, but just assume it's true. assume for a moment that there right and that is an accurate sta

because they were the bailout administration and they were overseeing those. 're trying to pin republicans on the issue of financial regulation reform. they can use those numbers in their favor. >> i was going to say. >> you're defending those guys. >> that hedge fund numbers today and this other stuff on ceo pay almost guarantees that regulatory reform will get through. the question is how strong. >> some breaks are getting -- are occurring for the obama white house which wasn't getting breaks far while. look at the treasury's sale of the citicorp stake. they're going to make an $8 billion profit. all of a sudden the administration is accumulating some talking points in terms of the recovery of the financial system as represented by the profit they're making on t.a.r.p., but also their argument for this bill where republicans are trying to stop it, they're going to get rolled if they don't cut a deal, and that's what we're waiting to see in the next couple months. >> how much can you attribute policies of the government to how wall street has been able to be s

for the same reason the obama administration has. it is an extremely effective tool to ensure justice to protect the security of the american people. let me be clear. this administration will use every tool available to fight terrorism. every tool. this includes both civilian courts and military commissions. indeed, we have already referred six cases the prosecution and to commission. we will no doubt prefer other cases as well. we have deployed the full extent of our intelligence military and law enforcement resources to defeat terrorists and we achieved i believe significant results. it would jeopardize those results to prohibited the use of the criminal-justice system to prosecute terrorists if some in congress have proposed and would seriously weaken our national security. instead of pursuing a narrow approach to fighting terrorism we have to be flexible. we have to be pragmatic and we have to be aggressive. and in every circumstance we must choose the weapon that will be the most effective. with that said, i know you all have que

the administration knows what they want to do with missile defense. it's knowable by the russians, they say they'll withdraw from missile defense is pursue. my concern is the administration will support start, be pursuing a missile defense system that russia objects to and it might weaken this administration's resolve for this deployment system. mr. akin: the history of missile defense goes back to the days of ronald reagan who proposed the idea of missile defense and liberals made fun of it. they said it's star wars, it'll never work, it'll destabilize relations between nuclear armed cubtries like us and the soveed union. ronald reagan said, no, i don't think so. we have a responsibility to defend our citizens and need to build missile defense. of course, all they through the time of reagan to 2001, we had not done it. president bush went to the russians and the europeans and said, sorry guys, here's your six months' notice, we're going to start developing missile defense. of course the democrats have been opposed to it. but they were in the minority

i also think the russians viewed that they have leverage with the obama administration. they viewed that the agreement was more important for it obama than for moscow, and that led them to press hard in the negotiations, and they never quite got beyond 97%. number three, and maybe the most important, this agreement like any other agreement between moscow and washington, it brings into the debate the whole relationship itself. i want to remind you that for the russians, they are still operating under a military doctrine which identifies that principally the united states and nato is the number one risk or a threat to their security. our strategic outlook are quite different. the united states -- i think that we have really moved on from the cold war and we're looking at a different threat environment. the russians are not quite the same and that is a problem. it is clear that some political forces and military forces were obstructing the agreement at the tail end. but we got it. the other point i would make is that the role of nuclear weapons is asymmetry for washington an

i have the right as the administrator to take any car off your line at any time. if it does not meet standards, i can shut down your factory. in a capitalist marketplace that is a powerful tool. the recall apparatus is powerful to. they're saying they believe toyota did not tell the truth. you have to have that integrity for the system to work. >> a phone call from new york -- barbara. you are up. >> that you for taking my call. i have two questions. it seems there were sudden acceleration charges made against bmw a few years ago. i do not remember them being treated the same way toyota is being treated. my second question is -- as i understand it, it has not unproven that there is anything wrong with the cars yet. with nasa and the national academy of sciences -- if they do not find anything, will there be an apology made? will the fine be refunded? thank you for taking my call. >> that is a great and complex question. i will try to dissected into its parts. i will take the last one first. it is not just a toyota issue, with respect to the complaints about sudden

i'm going to call up administrator bolton to present the administration's testimony, administrator bolton is really also general bolton who served in the marine corps with a great deal of distinction. a graduate of the naval academy like john mccain feared a marine helicopter pilot who went to the astronauts hall of fame. so we look for to his testimony. i am wanting to remind members that we have a two-tier hearing that after the administrator bolton and questions from our colleague, we will also then hear from john frost of the aerospace advisory committee. i know that this committee is deep commitment. i understand you have a time challenge an ad like for both administrator bolton to present his testimony and then once worked out how we can accommodate everyone with greatest courtesy and robust questioning. >> thank you. administrator bolton administrator bolton add administrator bolton madam chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the budget. and i am incredibly grateful for the support and guidance of the subcommittee and i look forward to working with you on consideration

the lesson here, however, is that the bush administration left legacy of tremendous debt. ultimately, it's a story of missed opportunity. the drug benefit was not paid for and the precipitation drug benefit. and then you have tax cuts that by all accounts have not produced the general results they were promised. the legacy of tax cuts and spending are still with us and create budget problems. that means going forward, we cannot relitigate where we were by going forward, we have to take a hard look. the ones proven to be ineffective, we need to take them back. for instance, paying for some of the healthcare benefits and finally starting to increase healthcare. >> andrew biggs, would you focus on reducing spending or is there going to have to be significant tax increase? these deficits are so large, you have to do both. they are very large deficits. my case for spending reduction if you are in an aging society, you want people to work more and save more. if you raise taxes, they are going to tend to work less, save less and retire earlier. there's a resent study by two econom

that was not true in the last administration. it was true in the clinton administration where we created a surplus. the only president in the lifetime of anybody probably watching this program that has had four years of surplus was the clinton administration. and a net surplus after 96 months as president of the united states. it was almost a $63 billion net surplus. no president has done that. we need to get back to that kind of balance. >> mr. hoyer, you've indicated some concern about the tone of the political dialogue right now. threats against members. actually some arrests for threats against members, angry exchanges. is there anything realistically that you can do to improve the relationship between the parties and sort of make it more civil? >> well, certainly i try. and i think that's my reputation, and i think i deal with the other party in a civil, constructive way. i think many of their leadership believe that's the case. as a matter of fact, as you well know, one of their former leaders, roy blunt, who was the republi

hearing with the head of the national highway traffic safety administration. he was qualify questioned about toyota last month. david strickland poke. here's part of that. >> chairman rush, ranking member and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the department of transportation's vision for the future of a national highway traffic safety administration and its safe -- and its important safety programs. transportation safety is department highest priority. n.h.t.s.a.'s safety programs are an interval part of addressing that priority. even before i was sworn in as administrator on january 4, i knew n.h.t.s.a.'s program worked. and they work well. we just released numbers that show a continuing dramatic reduction in the overall numbers of highway deaths. the secondary this morning released a report that projects that traffic fatalities have declined for the 15th consecutive quarter and will be 33,963 in 2009, the lowest annual level since 1954. but we must do more. the loss of more than 33,000 people represe

i hope the administration does it quietly. and i hope perhaps the countries in the region in iran notice it. and our public rhetoric would still concentrate how do we convince iran in stopping its illicit nuclear pursuits? >> bill? >> thank you. >> bill snyder. i had the privilege to chair the defense science board which did some work on the proliferation issue. and there's a compelling body of evidence that suggested that perhaps the most important factor in containing the spread of nuclear weapons was the credibility of the u.s. deterrent. on wednesday, the president will sign the s.t.a.r.t. agreement which is going to extend the process of further reducing both the numbers of u.s. nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. and there hasn't been too much discussion about the coupling between the -- these proliferation discussions we've been concerned about with respect to iran and the reduction in the -- in u.s. nuclear capability. but on the commission on the u.s. nuclear posture that was chaired by secretary perry, took s

that was not true in the last administration, but it was true in the clinton administration. he created a surplus. he was the only president who had four years of surplus and a net surplus after 92 -- after 96 months of his presidency. no president has done that. we need to get back to that kind of balance. >> you have indicated some concern about the tone of the political dialogue right now. there are threats against members and arrests for threats against members. is there anything you can do to improve the relationship between the parties to make it more civil? >> i certainly try. i think that is my reputation. i deal with the other party in a civil, constructive way. i think many of their leadership believe that is the case. as you well know, one of their former leaders -- roy blunt -- what the republican whip -- roy blunt, the republican whip -- we worked very respectfully together. that is what americans expect of us. that is what i do with mr. kantor and mr. boehner. we do have serious policy differences on where the country can go. we disagree on economic policy. very

with the iraq administration. it was negotiated entirely secret from congress. congressmen and senators -- one of the reasons we found out what the negotiations were evolving, this agreement, which commits american troops, was never approved by the congress of the united states, actually, i should emphasize. it was -- we found out about what the resolving negotiations were because the the iraq government leaked texts of the agreement, and the christian science monitor translated the arabic text in a