after four times of debating administration officials, it is nice to be an administration official. [applause] i have had the unique role of working for two vice presidents and a very different vice- president in between. with all of them, the role of a vice-president starts and ends with his relationship with the president and what the president asked him to do. al gore said the vice president has one other do you which is to cast a vote in the senate when there is a tie vote. as he is fond of saying, every time i vote, we win. in the case of vice-president biden, president obama has asked him to be a counselor at large and take on special projects as they come up. right now we are spending a lot of time implementing the recovery act and have a lot of our staff working on that. on the foreign-policy side we are working on issues of non- proliferation. i think that we do aside from the specific responsibilities, the general role of applying advice to experience and some insights as did mr. she makes these decisions. in vice president biden states, a lot of it is a 36-year track reco

in the clinton administration they spearheaded anti-terrorism administration in the aftermath of the oklahoma city bombing, spearheaded the violence against women act and the brady bill. in the administration office, growth initiated the patriot act. if there's something, you talk about state secrets, whistle-blowers, that is another issue we are working on. there's something unique, we work with different components within doj to really balance out and work through, negotiate these institutional interests, the criminal division at the o.j. has different interests than the civil-rights division, or a d a made the primary focus, preventing trafficing, or h h s, how many have access to drugs. they have different interests and how we negotiate that to come up with the best policy, a neutral arbiter, so there are some big issues with state secrets and other issues and there really are competing interests. something that was fascinating to me, maybe this was naive, see the difference between republicans and democrats, maybe at a certain point people conceded difference between senator cli

more transparent than the bush administration was and the clinton administration was prior to that. to make, the real fight is about transparency. the fight was over executive privilege when it was putting congress against the presidency. you do not normally see that when both parties told the congress and the white house. if i hope at some point that the control of the congress and the presidency come to differ over the next two years, i think you are going to see this clashes and that is when you will see whether -- with the extent to which president obama is committed to transparency. i happen to think there is an enormous value with being able to shield some of your highest advise from public scrutiny. if you want the unvarnished honest advice of your visors, you are best off not splashing what advice they give you on to the front pages. i will use a congressional example. i do not think many members of congress would want to have made public the internal e-mail between them and their staff over what to vote on a certain bill and what considerations they take. that is the type o

bush administration did. i think the bush administration did some very good things with respect to india in terms of this opening in terms of the future of geopolitics and trying to get india a place at the table with american help. it is a great deal in terms of the different arms they will be able to get. but they oversold in terms of expectations. this administration is going the other way, which is when general jones was in india, the indian prime minister made a statement saying we are more than just about aspects -- let's widen the security aperture deeper, let's go back to discussing these other security issues besides -- we are swinging back the other way, there needs to be some middle way between very high expectations and back to a sort of appendage of that background. >> thanks, that is a very good note to end on. the title for the day's sessions is u.s./india relations in the obama era. before i turn to the audience i want to ask george if he wants to make a few comments about the likely or possib

i just would like your opinion on the current administration, the bush administration, the future administrations in a position to where they can't cut off those shipments because it would be perceived in the international community as being too harsh but yet make the american public aware that we're actually fueling the north koreans' military machine k. i have your comment on that? guest: sure. that is correct. in large part. i think the two countries that i think are most responsible for propping the north carolinians up because it is a failed state -- the north koreans up, because it is a failed state. they don't produce anything besides things -- narcotics and ballistic missiles and w.m.d. that they sell on the market. but china has been i think number one in terms of investment and aid to north korea. south korea has been a big supporter of neek neck's economy. and sos -- so have we. we did it under president clinton. we did it under president bush in the latter part of his administration and right now what i think president obama and his administration are grappling with is whether we're g

it is my home the administration will take the findings and recommendations seriously. we owe the commissioners a debt of gratitude for their service. the best way to show gratitude is by listening to them and charting our course based on where they revealed consensus is possible. finally, mr. president, will congress and the administration heed the commission's bipartisan findings and recommendations? i'm fearful that won't be the case. why do i say that in it appears the administration's preparing to take big risks in the negotiation of the start follow on treaty with russia. specifically, the president announced that he intended to seek a treaty that moves below the lower level of strategic nuclear forces permitted by the so-called moscow treaty. some reports suggest administration is seeking to go as low as 1,500 deployed nuclear weapons or a 30% reduction from present levels. i'm not going to prejudge the correct number of our nuclear forces. i will say, however, that i agree with the commission which referred to -- and i quote -- "the complex decisionmaking proces

why did the administration instead favor a merger between chrysler and fiat and on what did the administration base its conclusion that the new chrysler will be viable in the long run? did the administration take into consideration the effect that the aid to gm and chrysler would have on other auto manufacturers in the u.s.? what underlays the determination that the u.s. treasury should hold approximately 10% of the new chrysler and 60% of the new gm? by taking such significant equity stakes in the two companies, the administration has embarked on a disturb disturbing and i believe difficult road. we've been assured the administration would stay out of day to day management and it will not allow politics to influence the decision-making process within the companies. on the one hand, that's very reassuring. on the other, it illustrates the inherent difficulty posed by large government interventions in private markets. if the government intends to be a silent partner of sorts, how do they intend to protect the interests of the american taxpayer as a shareholder? i'm not sure you can have it both

administrative simplification is administrative procedures and if we can iron out i would be happy to do so. >> i agree and we are both talking about the same thing. cms seem to think they have the rules cover a different way and it turned out to be duplication, so if that is the case we will probably have it solved so yes i will wait on that. >> hopefully we will be able to sit through on monday. let's go to something that will be hard to zip through which is roberts number-one. in terms of roberts one, after -- if we go to page 323 section section 219 the current language says the center, meaning health outcomes reports and recommendations shall not be construed as mandates for payment, coverage for treatment senator roberts and his amendment would strong concurrence from senator coburn suggested an alternative that says what they would do is strike which shall not be construed and insert the words are prohibited from being used. is that accurately reflect the amendment, senator robert? >> yes, ma'am. >> now, again, in consultation with those in the washington policy department, the

we have several members of the administration up here, and given the pace of the new administration, i think spending a friday evening doing anything but being in a catatonic state is really an heroic effort. i know that the panel will be lively, and it just by way of one housekeeping business, you will get to ask most of the questions tonight. you need to reach into your back in right -- pullout a card and write your question on the card. people will collect them and give them to me. if you do not have a card, just write it on a piece of paper. i just want to set the stage briefly for this panel. change is a word we have heard over and over again during the past few months. we heard a lot of it during the course of blasters campaign, and i think for a reason. -- the course of last year's campaign. in november, after eight years of conservative leadership -- i wanted to say it failed conservative leadership, but they told me to pull my fangs in. the american people went to the polls prepared to send a clear, decisive message that they were ready for a shakeup in washington. the >> th

more from a caller comparing the bush administration with the obama administration with regards to detainees. caller: when fdr was president it was an overwhelming congressional majority. s the post portrayed he was no great humanitarian, enemy combatants were shot under roosevelt as evidence to wet the previous caller said about the germans. and he incarcerated all the japanese just for being japanese. host: clear lake, texas on our independent line. caller: thank you, i do not think that bush was mistaken in using his executive authority. i do not think close in guantanamo is going to solve anything, and moving them to another location. they must be processed in some kind of trial. just changing the location will be an expense to the taxpayer and will not address the core issue of having their day in court and what kind of justice system will be used. but guantanamo has turned into this poster child for america's foreign policy and is a red herring. i do not think the world is inflamed over the few detainees we have in guantanamo. i think that we need to be focused on the money we give isr

i think people in the administration had talked to other members of the administration in and outside of government i don't know of any in particular the president has spoken to. >> of want to follow-up from earlier today. >> michael jackson and? >> no. but if you want to follow-up. >> but if i get a chance i will. >> he ast if the president felt that president ahmadinejad owed him an apology and in his reply the president stopped just stop of short same president ahmadinejad botha and apology to the people but did not quite say that they do think that is what he is saying? >> i would simply point* to what he said i think he was fairly clear on what he meant and who it was directed. >> and a question and that was asked yesterday about the letters from congress? >> of the was looking for that but i do not have any more news on that. >> the president said the nuclear clock is ticking does that imply a deadline for military action? >> i certainly will not get into anything like that. i the ink obviously only to say that we continue to have grave concerns about steps they would take to ac

we all expect the obama administration to disagree with many determinations by the bush administration but the criticism of the ndic extends beyond the previous administration. the report by the g.a.o. back in 1993 cited 19 other drug intelligence centers that already existed. whose functions the ndic duplicates. it's not just the previous administration. long before that, we've recognized that this is money that should and could be saved if we closed down the center. as reported in "the hill" on may 14, a review of o.m.b. agreed. they concluded the ndi crmbing's efforts were duplicative of other intelligence agencies. a spokesman for d.o.j. said the resources for ndic should be realigned to support priority counterterrorism and national security initiatives. mr. chairman, this is a center begging to be shut down. i don't need trow mind anybody here of the problems we're having fiscally. we're running the biggest deficit we've ever run. we have public debt that's just astounding. we have unfunded liabilities that should make us all shudder and we simply can't keep a center like this op

administrative simplification is administrative procedure, and if we can iron out this, i'd be happy to do so. >> i agree. we're both talking about the same thing. cms seemed to have the operating rules in the same way and it turned out to be duplication. if that's the case we'd probably have it solved and so i would wait on that. >> hopefully we'll be able to zip through this on monday. let's go to something that we have to sift through which is roberts 1. in terms of roberts one, after our and it really -- if we go to page 323 of the bill, section 2 219. the current language says that the center meaning will come, reports and recommendations shall not be construed as mandates for payment coverage or treatment. senator roberts in his amendment with strong concurrence with senator coburn suggested an alternative which says that the center would do is strike -- shall not be construed and insert the words are prohibited from being used. does that accurately reflect senator roberts? yes, ma'am. again, in consultation with those in the washington policy department, they objected to that

earlier, this year, in the mohammad khatacase, the administration maintained that the prior administration's sweeping assertion that the very subject matter of the case was a state secret and that that should prevent judicial consideration of the case. the case was about torture. a few months later, another case was brought against the government for all unlawfully spying on its own citizens. our administration again sought outright dismissal, arguing that litigating the case inevitably would require the harmful disclosure of state secrets and that the court need not examine any actual information on whether the case might proceed. it is too secret. we cannot even talk about it. what do you mean, a remedy with rights? this is a right, apparently without any remedy at all. it is too secret to talk about. don't you get its? -- did you get it? we cannot even hear the case to determine whether there is a right or a wrong or whether it is a case that was brought in error. we remain encouraged that the administration is taking a fairer review of the state secrets privilege, and his this assurance,

we will focus on how to read the obama administration.oining us to help interpret that is john shaw. if you have to pick below points to consider on how to grade the administration on its bank policies, would you say? guest: it is too soon to tell with the agenda for the financial-services industry, whether it is working. they inherited a very complex and chaotic situation. you start out by saying it is too soon to tell. broadly it will be measured by the degree of stability that enters the financial system and to which banks can lend to consumers. this whole notion we hear about systemic risk, but institutions became so in snared and complex, that brought the whole system into jeopardy. the long term will be the sense in which banks lend, to which consumers and businesses can borrow at a reasonable rate, the degree of stability in the system. host: with the money that has been given back -- is that a pure way to sense if there is stability arriving in the market? guest: it is an indication. i was at a hearing yesterday with tim geithner

this is an administration that is eager to hear good ideas. i do not recommend regular mail to the white house. i received an invitation to an inaugural party. it was being irradiated someplace. e-mail and through the website and talking to us. >> this white house's office of public engagement is of a vibrant part of the white house. just in terms of being involved in substantive policy. they have an e-mail that is -- someone actually checks it every minute. it is checked and someone processes it. the technology peace is going to be more vibrant. it turns out for the folks on the campaign, there were restrictions that did not apply. new rules are being promulgated as they need to to make sense. there is a process under way and the technology tools will get better as the year progresses. >> i think it may be fair to characterize this and i am trying to pull a couple questions together. the bush presidency ended up being consumed by iraq and a single-minded in its focus on the war on terror. particularly the war in iraq. this president may be is

and the public being able to see what the administration is doing. the question is how does the public really communicant with the administration. how does a regular citizen or member of a cs major policy concern or issue no to the administration. lisa, do you want to? [inaudible] one of the things that goes along with transparency, this administration is using technologies in ways that you have not seen before, and has a very vibrant website and is really encouraging interplay on the website. so i think that obviously is one with it the other way as sort of the traditional way which especially for acs member scott talking to all of us. we really do want to hear ideas. this is an administration that is very eager to hear good ideas right now, so i don't recommend regular mail to the white house because just last week received an invitation to an end i drove party. [laughter] >> it was being irradiated someplace. e-mailed answer the website and talking to all of us. >> i think this white house, it's a very, very vibrant part of the white house. not ju

have they worked with the administration or not? what is the general feeling toward the banking industry. guest: they have been convicted. there was a lot of skepticism on the creation of the tarp program. republicans thought it was going quite a distance from their basic philosophy. the bush administration pushed it. the republicans supported it. the tarp program has not been popular with republicans anymore than with democrats. in terms of the banking industry, they have been surprised at the problems that have been made apparent. the they are fairly active in putting together the reform packages. their general view is still that there should be less regulation then maybe the democrats want, but the notion that a stronger de-regulatory focus is not even popular among republicans. there has been a shift in the bankers view. they will be active in this debate unfolding of a the lisvet half of the year. host: do you expect because of this current policy attitude that you will see an increase as far as those who lobby on capitol hill?

now, as i said, this is early and it's true the administration as all new administration to it has undertakena major review of trade, or undertook a major review, which is supposedly finished now. but when you do that in trade, then you get the kinds of things it seems to me that we got in the stimulus package and divide america, whether it was the intervention, and my argument, my feeling would be that he really, it was said that he intervene in a way that was meaningful but i don't think so. by america which is happily going on at the state and local levels. the same thing with the mexican trucking proposal that the congress vetoed. and more recently, the president made a great statement over the weekend about warning about the question of having kind of automatic what seems to be an automatic proposal for retaliation, some years down the road, but it was quite late. and that, in very well may be that in the bill just as the buy america was in the final bill. we don't know that yet. that brings me to, i should say there are three things. the second, and that is in general in trade, i think,

>> the president directed the administration. >> who did barney frank of? >> i can't comment on people who are not in the administration. >> let me go a different angle politically than. the greatest generation we all herald, we have statues and tributes to the greatest generation, many of which invested in bonds for our retirement. gm was going to be something they found and i imagine there circumstances, gm bondholder, a 90-year-old veteran who expected retirement, has been basically made test by the decisions of this task force. if you look at the uaw's component, they have done really well from the standpoint of their ownership. i really respect him and he answers questions very clearly, as do you. i have been a little discouraged to hear that we don't need them anymore. we have to have workers. there has been an overt concern that if you didn't do everything necessary, they would strike. number of occasions you'd pointed to what happened in new york state. educate as a little bit on that thinking, and basically these guidelines where bondholders invest

new york times columnist david brooks talks about the administration -- the obama administration. then, the health and human services secretary testifies. the you're watching public affairs programming on c-span. >> coming up on tomorrow morning's "washington journal." jarrett allen of the hill paper has written about detainee interrogations'. and for the sixty fifth anniversary of d-day, we will talk to john mcmanus, author of "the americans at normandy." >> today, the labor department reported in 9.4% unemployment rate for last month. that is half of a% higher than -- that is half a percentage higher than in april. it is an hour and 15 minutes. >> i would like to welcome the chairman for holding this meeting. they will brief us on the most recent unemployment data. this morning's release reported may job losses totaling 345,000 . almost half the losses in recent months, but an unemployment rate of 9.4%, a jump of have of a percentage from the previous month. workers at part-time workers who cannot find full-time employment, the unemployment rate jumps to 16.4%, the highest rate

the administration has a moral obligation to share this administration with the american people. over the last month, both the house and senate stripped all funding from these transfers and inserted language into the fiscal year 2009 emergency supplemental bill that would require the administration to provide the american people with a clear plan before any action was taken. since march, i have written the president, the attorney general, the secretary of homeland security asking for answers to these and other questions and i still have not received a single response. i repeat, not a single response after two months of some of the most basic questions about the administration's plans. for weeks i asked the f.b.i. for briefings daily only to be told the attorney general would not allow them to meet with members on these issues. although the president delivered a speech on may 21 at the national ar dives on the closing o-- archives on the closing of the detention center at guantanamo bay, we have had no more information about his plans to close guantanamo than we did before. we sti

the administration did not seek this outcome. it arrived at the conclusion that it represents a more responsible way to protect taxpayers while giving gm an opportunity to succeed. as the president made clear, we will manage this investment commercially and exit our position as quickly as we can. both restructurings have required deep and painful sacrifices from all stakeholders, including workers, retirees, suppliers, creditors, and countless committees that revive on a vibrant american auto industry. . . taken have not only helped to stabilize the auto industry and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, but for the first time in decades, they have also given gm and chrysler a chance to become viable, competitive american businesses, with bright futures. before taking your questions, i want to give a brief overview of the process the administration has taken in addressing these issues. on february 15 of this year, the president appointed an auto task force to oversee his administration's efforts to oversee and restructure the over

the obama administration. [applause] while there is much more work to do, we can point to important changes that we have put in place. i have signed a memorandum requiring all agencies to extend as many federal benefits as possible to lbgt families that current law allows, making it real difference for federal employees and foreign service officers who are so often treated as if their families do not exist. i would like to note that one of our key voices is our director of the office of personnel management who is here today. [applause] i have called on congress to repeal the so-called defense of the marriage bacact. [applause] to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. i want to add that we have a duty to uphold existing law, but i believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbates old divides. it no way lessens my commitment to reversing this lot. i have made that clear. i am urging congress to pass the domestic partners benefits and obligations act. [applause] my administrati

barack obama's administration, george bush's administration what this company to outsource jobs.hey demonstrate that by their actions. one person used to say you are known by your deeds. barack obama is known by his deeds with a comes to china just as george bush was. we are getting new numbers friday on on employment in the country. it will be about 9.6. it will be 10 before we are done. host: what does that mean? is there a psychological aspect associated with that number? guest: it will largely be felt on the political side. it will not have a real effect on the economy. at some point, the obama administration will have to stop blaming president bush for our problems. if the unemployment rate stays above 10% for a long time, the republicans will get traction other arguments the rea scene with government spending and other things that do not work. it is how we spend the money not if we have government spending. this stimulus package demonic -- unlike the chinese stimulus package does not do a lot to create jobs. there were a lot of bold claims about jobs being created. economis

the obama administration has set forth a plan for the two companies post-bankruptcy. choosing to bypass the normal bankruptcy process the administration presided over the restructuring through an alternative, ad hoc process. today's hearing i hope will give us the opportunity to understand how the administration came to the conclusion that this support was warranted and expectations about how the new taxpayer investments will be managed and ultimately unwound. i look forward today to understand what considerations drove the outcomes of both the gm and the chrysler negotiations. why didn't the administration9 address the significant excess capacity in the u.s. possibly by merging chrysler and gm? why did the administration instead favor a merger between chrysler and the italian car maker fiat and what did the administration base its conclusion that the new chrysler will be viable in the long run? did the administration take into consideration the effects that the aid to gm and chrysler would have on other auto manufacturers in the u.s.? what underlays the determination

i'm clearing the senate to the administrator of fail road railroad administration. glad to have you here. i know you have a long record of experience. hands-on experience in railroading and welcome to our hearing, the first 06 many you'll have before this committee or subcommittees. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member micah and members of the committee. certainly it's an honor to appear here before you today to discus the faa's progress in implementing the american recovery and reinvestment act. in addition to putting people back to work, the recovery act also sets the stage for one of the most significant new initiatives of president obama, vice president biden and secretary la hood. that's the development of high-speed rail in america. fra's total appropriation in fiscal year 2008 was approximately $1.5 billion. the recovery act appropriated $9.3 billion over and above fras 1.7 billion appropriation for fiscal year 2009. despite the significant new responsibility, fra takes great pride in the fact that we've met or exceeded every one of the milestones set

the administrators are looking at this process. as well as the outcome from that process which is how much money is going to economically distressed areas. we have seen in a number of states, i referred to michigan, 77% of the funding that has been obligated to date in michigan is used in economically distressed areas. we are seeing similar figures in mississippi and idaho. it is giving us some sense that the provisions are being adhered to and we are seeing money flow to economically distressed areas as part of the economic recovery funding. >> does your agency had any kind of mechanism to make sure the money obligated to use in order to actually put it to good use rather than abdicating the money that has it sit there? movement -- >> we are seeing the project move very quickly from obligation to advertisements to underway. we are looking at 5,000 projects that have been approved, 1500 of those projects. we are seeing projects move very quickly through the pipeline. the dots are committed to that, as are the local governments. we

one with a bush administration investigation of the destruction of cia interrogation videotapes. the second involved an investigation of several attorneys in the justice department who authorized the use of abusive techniques like water boarding. senator white house and i asked the then attorney general to give us a copy of the investigation and report of the office ever -- office of professional responsibility but the activities of these three persons. he did not do that. although i understand the opr completed the investigation, he would do something extraordinary -- he submitted the report before you get to the public or congress to those who had been investigated to review and comment on the investigation. i understand they have submitted their replies some six weeks ago. the obvious question is when can we expect to receive a copy of this report? >> i just sat down yesterday and talked to the head of the office of professional responsibility. this is one thing we discussed. they're close to getting to the end of their process. it was lengthened by responses to receive from p

i am not here to defend the obama administration. this is something that the united states congress must do. they must do it to reach a quarter of balance of powers and the separation of powers. we ought to be looking at, how are things classified? there is somebody in a cubicle somewhere that just 3's it. -- redacts it. you made a statement that says it can be unduly burdensome for the courts to review the information. what leads you to that conclusion? >> that it would be unduly burdensome for the courts to review the information. those are challenging extensive secret programs, there may be enormous amounts of data. >> you haven't been involved in any of these cases? >> i am not a litigator, i am a researcher. >> ok. i have interacted with judges who are trial judges. let me assure you, the judiciary has the capacity to suggest it is an undue burden on the judiciary simply is not accurate. you ought to speak to some litigators and judges before you make such statements. i say that to you with respect. >> gentleman from georgia is

the fact was that the prior administration had set in place a set of procedures that if the companies did not present a viability plan that was appropriate you would call the loan. you have not done that and instead, you are putting in place a plan. i just want to get the record straight on that. let me talk a bit of money about -- a bit about the money that has gone into this. we have $50 billion in gm, $16 billion in chrysler and a $5 billion in the suppliers. my understanding is, and i see some of the other senators moving along around a little bit with section 136 money in the energy bill, how much has gm applied there and how much do you expect to get in another pocket, if you will? it is all our money. >> first, a small correction, i think the total u.s. government commitment to christ service $12 billion. the remaining funds are from the canadian government. >> $81 billion. you know, we had a guy named mark zande appear who told me that if we put $1 in these companies we would end up between 75,000,000,100 25 billion and obviously we are are blowing past that. -- $75 billion at

it was the clinton administration over here. he chose to work with the republicans on the hill in an attempt to sideline what he saw as pressure coming from the white house. however when he was here in washington last month, i think he encountered a different reality, after hearing clear statements from the white house regarding some of the activity. he went to capitol hill and was surprised, according to his aides to find out at the hill and the white house they're speaking with one house and can't lean back on supporters in congress to do the work for him on the hill in washington. so i think, having said that, i think he understands now that there is no daylight between congress and white house and he will not be able to use lawmakers to insight any attempts by that administration to free settlements. host: david, on our line for republicans reporting from white lake new york. good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. i would like to discuss with you american-jewish voting behavior and how it harms israel.

i would just@@@@@@@@&@ @ @ @ @ r the obama administration is ahead of previous administrations. >> the only two so far, right? >> so far. >> do not over claim. we are up to four. >> things are moving along. there were only a few nominations in the bush administration and most of the people when we talk about confirmations, september, that kind of thing. >> that is it on timing. we were up to four. what kind of people will be put on the court? to counterbalance and balance out the conservative judges particularly on the court of appeals that president bush and previous republican presidents have put on. what kind of attributes to uc president obama looking for in selecting judges? >> i can speak from the transition standpoint where we worked on this. it was clear that he was looking for very capable, intellectually gifted lawyers, jurists, law professors. that was first and foremost. clearly superior qualifications. i think my sense of the extra factor that -- the distinguishing factor was more just a sense that this was a person who understood -- who had a sense of why they wanted to b

this is not a contest between this administration or that administration or any administration. it's to uphold the principle of open government. >> why would the president have any objection to the public knowing who is coming in here to visit? >> i think we have taken actions to let people know who are. again, peter, this dates back to litigation long before we ever showed up. >> do you think you might have to uphold precedent here? >> that's part of what's being reviewed by the council. >> will the administration provide emergency aid to california or are you rejecting that to avoid similar requests from other states wacs. >> obviously, many states throughout the country because of the slow down in our economy find themselves with severe budgetary constraints. the president believed and addressed part of this in the recovery and reinvestment plan by ensuring the largest amount of fiscal relief that we have seen mood to state in the history of our country. it's obviously not an easy time for the state of california here we will continue to monitor the challenges that they have,

i am not here to defend the obama administration. this is something that the united states congress must do to reorder if you will the balance powers and separation. we ought to be looking at how are things classified. i know how things are classified in some agencies. there's somebody in a cubicle somewhere that is just redacting. you've experienced that. mr. grossman, you make a statement that says that its -- eight could be unduly burdensome for the courts to have to actually revealed the information. what leads you to that conclusion? >> that would be burdensome to review classified information? uncertain case is especially those that are challenging extensive secret programs, there may be enormous amounts of data -- >> how many of these cases have you been involved in? >> directly? i'm not a litigator. >> the answer is you haven't been involved in any of these cases? >> i'm a researcher i do not litigate any of these cases. >> fine. let me suggest to you -- i have been involved as mr. hutcheson as a prosecutor in numerous cases.

the administration is not asking for the administration to come to a close. as far as they are concerned, work on the authorization should continue through dialogue through the administration, the house and the senate and we should have a meaningful conversation about where we should be standing up in the next 18 months to come to an agreement on the finances. we have a multiyear bill. the economy being where it is. the administration is not comfortable talking about administrations at this time. that is why the increase is meant for 2010 they are strongly of the view that they should not be of any remark. that is the proposal on the longer-term bill and the residence everybody age to promote it. >> that does not indicate the economically affected area. making sure that is the state giving priorities to those areas that are distressed? offer the governors are simfully am owe indicating fund $for political purposes. what we are seeking to do is to have as many of those projects in the economically distressed areas. an overlay on where are those projects. our d

the administration's picked up -- or -- where the bush administration left off in three pending cases. thition lambic foundation and others. during an april television interview, you stated that in your opinion, the bush administration correctly applied the state secrets privilege in these cases. now tomorrow the senate judiciary committee will begin marking a bill. last year after hearings were held on this manner in the 110th congress, attorney general sent a letter expressing the justice's department's views on the state secrets protection act. the department of justice had several concerns regarding this legislation. chief among them was the constitutional questions raised by the proposed legislation. this bill seriously limits the ability of the executive branch to protect national security information under the well established standards articulated by the supreme court. my time's up but let me just finish this question, if will you, mr. chairman. i'd be grateful for that. for that courtesy. but i also don't want to -- i don't want to get on the wrong side of the chairman. >> yo

the courts incumber seven did he to look behind what does it administration or any administration says determine whether those are well founded. presidents and government officials have been known not to tell the truth on occasion, especially when it is in their interest to conceal something. the founders of this nation is there need to be checked for the government to prevent such abuses from taking place or in the words of the ninth circuit in the recent jeppesen decision the executive cannot keep its own judge. to allow that and these are now my words, to allow that is to abandon all the protections in their founding fathers established. core seven dutiful to protect national security secrets but they also have a duty to make an independent judgment as to whether state secrets have any merit. when the government itself as a party the court cannot allow to become the final arbiter of its own case. the purpose of this legislation is to insure the correct balance is struck. i would just that i'm disappointed the department justice has declined to provide a witness to discuss this very

but the administration's actions belie its words. during a campaign appearance with pastor rick war on august 167, 2009, then-candidate barack obama made clear that his goal was to, quote, reduce the number of abortions. in fact, he said that he had, quote, inserted this into the democratic party platform. how do we reduce the number of abortions, end quote. now given the administration's expressed support for roe v. wade i never expected nor do not expect it to suddenly reverse its course. however, one way to reduce the number of abortions and a way that works and one that is a common ground issue for the american people is not to allow taxpayer funded abortions. violating the consciences of millions of pro life americans to fund a procedure which they object to based on a deeply held religious belief, a moral belief by allowing taxpayers to fund abortions actually increases the number of abortions performed. according to the research arm of planned parenthood. honoring the deeply held religious and moral beliefs of taxpayers actual

we're very much hoping to work with the administration as much as possible on that but congress will continue to monitor and potentially propose and pass legislation in this important area as well. nine, the office of legal counsel. i've referred to that office before, but we conducted an oversight hearing of that office in the last congress, have continued to work serious issues, serious problems with the extent to which that office which is supposed to be a neutral, careful arbitor of constitutional issues for the executive branch, has been turned -- had been turned into an office that effectively told the white house what they wanted to hear with respect to warrantless wiretapping, interrogation, et cetera, et cetera. now, again, there's been real progress here. there was a bipartisan statement of principles with which members of our committee strongly agreed, that was signed by former people of the democratic and republican parties that was adopted and several of the individuals who signed that are already working in the office of legal counsel today and one of the drafters of th

the acting deputy administrator, federal highway administration. >> chairman, members of the committeehank you for the opportunity to discuss the federal highway administration's progress in implementing the recovery act. through the recovery act fhwa is playing a key role in playing jobs. the administration estimates of the highway portion alone other recovery act will create or sustain close to 300,000 jobs by 2012. it is provided a lifeline for americans who work in construction and have been especially hard hit by the recession. on march 3, president obama and vice president biden joined secretary lahood at dot to announce that $26.6 billion was available to states for highway investment. and within hours of the president's announcement, fhwa began to approve projects. as of yesterday, fhwa division offices have authorized more than 5000 projects in all 50 states, dc and the territories, for a total of $15.7 billion, which represents 59% of total funds available. i am proud to say this would not have happened without the strong commitment of the fhwa employees. they have worked har

>> this is something that dates back to the beginning of the clinton administration. i actually just read in a book called innocents abroad where he talks about the idea of syria first as sort of the icebreaker that will lead to all of the peace. i personally don't believe that syria is in a position where it can make peace with israel given the fact that is embedded iran and can get out of bed with iran given the fact that his -- hezbollah could draw syria back into conflict with israel even if syria tried to pull away. why this continues to be attractive to policy makers is really beyond me. and syria is a smaller world a regime but a world regime on the last. >> we have a question up front if we nine. >> my question is about a lot of people seeing the great hope of potential moderate palestinian leadership and what you see as his future and will be able to gain the credibility among the palestinian populace in the near future? >> fayad is an interesting case. he ran in the 06 election but didn't get a lot of support and i think a couple feet under a party known as