into their administration actually agree with that statement or not. going forward, very interesting to see how it affects their view of american national security. this is something i think that obviously goes beyond the national security area, the relationship between international law and american sovereignty. and i think it's something that the devotion to international layoff really infuses much of what the administration does. again, president obama said to the u.n. security council last fall, we must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise and the treaties will be enforced. now he was not specific about how treaties would be enforced. whether he would go to the international court of justice to do that. whether he would use military force. but the idea that somehow or another treaties that many nations sign and then dishonor before the ink is dry can be enportioned. i think shows the near theological significance that the administration attaches to the utility of treaties to achieve objectives, regardless of the actual perform

subpoena of the obama administration. >> we have been stymied by the administration. >> they said the defense and justice department is blocking access to witnesses and files. >> we have maintained the confidentality of the classified information coming before us. >> reporter: senators want access to personnel file of the alleged shooter hasan to see if there was evidence shoved aside by his bosses he was insider threat because of the extremist views and then there are the e-mails sent by cleric anwar al-awlaki described by u.s. counterterrorism officials as a talent spotter for al-qaeda. >> congress must understand the example of home based terrorism to find ways to prevent it from occurring in the future. >> reporter: fox news learned al-awlaki was spiritual advisor to two of the 9/11 hijackers and believed to be a link between the christmas day bomber and the bomb maker in yemen. friday, the justice department publicly released dozens of c.i.a. e-mails part of an ongoing investigation in the destruction of videotapes which showed waterboarding. in a statement, the defense departmen

feltman, the administration mr. obama and secure clinton and military officers have been saying with respect and i agree we should treat people with respect. my question and i hope you can answer is as a citizen and officer. my question is how do you consider treating with respect why we are supporting the most absolute dictatorship since saudi arabia and egypt [inaudible] >> a year ago i might have had to answer that question. [laughter] this is the time you get off the floor of the elevator like the national chicken association or something. it's not an easy question obviously as you yourself know because we believe that all of these governments should have the respect of their people, all of these governments we are talking about should earn the respect of the people. the people should feel the government are accountable, people should feel they have a chance of participating public life and to speak in their lives they can affect the composition of their government to election. sadly many of the government's fal

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

the kind of force structure of the administration plans, as well as the money the administration -- at least a policy the administration will pursue these heavy debt facilities -- the facilities, though labs. in the budget proposal that the president submitted to congress earlier this year is: 413% increase. up to $7 billion for what is known as the nuclear complex. the labs and other facilities that maintain and service the nuclear arsenal of the u.s. host: tells about the timing. the president has got a nuclear security summit in washington. he is also going to prague to address the issue. guest: that is correct. what we are seeing over the next month or so is really a major push by president obama and his administration on the nuclear arms control front. it began with the region of the agreement last week, sorry, the week before, with russia on a new nuclear arms reduction treaty that will hold a both sides mandate modest cuts in strategic warheads in the systems that deliver them. then that feeds into the so- called nuclear posture review. on thursday the president goes to prague w

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

also in other areas it seemed to me that the obama administration was taking a turn that was much more in accord with our interest than with the previous at minister since had. for example, in the middle east where i think it is a very clear that israel will not be able to achieve security unless they stop the settlements and began a real negotiations and clearly that has been an issue you also that the obama administration has taken on. >> host: the word registered democrat but almost prominent foreign policy positions under two republican presidents, ronald reagan and george bush. it's also very clear from your book that you admire ronald reagan. >> guest: absolutely. >> host: how did it happen that you became his foreign policy assistant adviser on all matters russian? the reason i'm asking is you were a career foreign service officer. you were known as a pragmatist. you were registered democrat. and then ronald reagan, welcome here was an ideologue, the ultimate cold warrior. why did he turn to you to have this is very important position? >> guest: first of all, my being registered

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

and the administration said they liked that, too.he 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

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

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 of the president's goal direction for the agency. all of us at nasa were honored to host the president one week ago at the kennedy space center where he said and i quote: i am 100% committed to the mission of nasa and its future. because broadening our capabilities in space will continue to serve our society in ways we can scarcely imagine. because exploration will once more inspired wonder in a new generation sparking passions, launching careers and because ultimately if we fail to press for in the pursuit of discovery we are seeing our future. since the introduction of the budget many have asked, what is the destination for human space flight beyond lower earth orbit? under the president's plan. as the president made very clear last thursday nasa's deep space exploration efforts will include a prudent best light -- v

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

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

what was the record of the bush administration speak with the administration did i think white wine tryings in article iii courts and use cepa to prevent the dissemination of information of secret information from any of those proceedings. >> and one of the leading prosecutors and america coming u.s. attorney for the northern district of illinois, patrick fitzgerald who was in charge of the prosecution of the southern district of new york, the african terrorists said afterward that he could do this without disclosing intelligence information following the law. backed up by others who would do the same experts. have you had complaints of u.s. attorneys when you consider article iii prosecutions that somehow that may jeopardize and disclose intelligence information? >> no, i've not had a complete and i think our history shows that article iii court are capable of trying cases without putting at risk intelligence sources and methods of the same is true i think of military commissions. >> and that would be an option that you would protect if you could make a choice. let me ask you this. for

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 i

administrator that nasa didn't conduct market research to show that this private launch market even exist. let me repeat that. the white house advisor on scientific knowledge of policy testified that there was no real research or verification done on the viability of the administration's approach for the commercial market to sustain the future. instead, this administration is relying on information provided by the very people who stand to receive billions in tax or subsidies to promote their unproven products. 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

the last administration and this administration limit themselves to sending smart people to beijing andow to try to convince russia and china that they should be on our side because, after all, that is the smart thing to do. the other example on china is that, forced to hear that there might be some lack of total openness of our market to their exports if they continue to subsidize north korea and protect iran, here you are up against wal-mart and wall street. 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 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

of the national highway traffic safety administration. along with dave, the president and ceo of the alliance of automobile manufacturers. viewers can also call in or tweet their questions. that's live at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span. c-span.org and c-span radio. >> i know what the challenge is. and we're in a unique position to go to work. what we need is policymakers in washington is to develop a road map so we can get it done. >> something about energy policy that you'd like to talk about on your blog? at the new c-span video library you can search it, watch it, clip it, and share it. over 160,000 hours of video from yesterday or 10 years ago. every c-span program since 1987. the c-span video library. cable's latest gift to america. >> this year's c-span studentcam competition asked middle and high school students to create a five to eight minute video dealing with one of the our country's greatest strength or challenge the country is facing. here's one of the third place winners. ♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] >> one of our nation's greatest stren

the obama administration's that we stand ready to fight last week. could he do that and would russia even be open to that? >> could i

it's not like when the administration, bush administration found itself in possession of terrorists capturedan and in other locations around the world. it's not like we rushed to the conclusion that we're going to move into guantanamo. the very real, very hard question, what do we do with them? and guantanamo actually turned out to be ideal because it's not american territory and at least at the time our lawyers thought that meant the constitution and interference by civilian courts would apply. but it also wasn't in afghanistan or another country where we would not, we would not have clear control and jurisdiction over the people. but that's not to say that anybody was enthusiastic about guantanamo bay. nor would they enthusiastic about the idea of some of these terrorists would have to be held indefinitely. which you know as close as you can come to analogizing to the geneva convention is under the geneva convention, real prisoners of war can be held for the duration of the conflict that it was because there weren't alternatives. there were good alternatives, and many people in the adminis

again, this was the spitzer administration.this 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 prosecut

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

the challenge for the administration or any other administration is how do you shift from the diplomacy of prevention in the case of iran to the diplomacy to detainment in deterrence without suggesting, without losing your allies, without suggesting that you've given up on preventing iran from having nuclear weapons or without suggesting somehow it's acceptable. .. the credibility of the u.s. deterrent and on wednesday the president will sign in the start agreement which will extend the process of further reducing both in numbers of u.s. nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. there has been too much discussion about the coupling between these proliferation discussions, we've been concerned about with respect to iran and the reduction in u.s. nuclear capability. but on the commission on the u.s. nuclear posture that was chaired by secretary perry it took some very persuasive testimony about the concern and that many allied and printing governments have about the reduction in u.s. nuclear capabilities so i wonder if this factors likely to have an impact on whether regional consequen

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 standpo

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

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

the concerns that have been expressed by administration officials.we 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,

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

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 qu

administrator. albert einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. i believe that is the case here. with this past experience in mind, where are the truly rent independent market analysis of the booming commercial sector for delivering people to lower earth orbit and back. we should make those public and debate whether taxpayers should carry the cost building space shuttles for millionaires. the taxpayers i believe will be called upon to bailout these programs and their investors. a recurring theme within this administration. there is no evidence that nasa has done any in depth analysis related to the safety concerns of putting humans on a commercial rocket. i remain steadfast in insisting on safety as a priority for the space program. nothing less is acceptable. contrary to nasa's position on safety, the advisory panel whose sole focus is to ensure that lives are not needlessly lost our space program stated in a 2009 report th

the challenge for the administration or any administration is how do you shift from the diplomacy of prevention in the case of iran to the diplomacy of containment and deterrence in the case of iran without suggesting -- without losing your allies. you know, without suggesting you've given up on preventing iran from having nuclear weapons or without suggesting somehow it's acceptable. so i think as george said, a lot of the things i talked about -- you know, i can talk about it openly given my status. 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

regional administrator. he has of -- never kwro*e seen a procurement -- never overseen a procurement budget where in 2005 $10 billion was spent on 63 contracts. he asserts the largest procurement budget he's been involved with was one quarter of that, $2.5 billion while at the general services administration. given the vast difference between mr. borras' experience and the requirements of the job, i agree with two of his former supervisors who told me that this job is a big leap from what he's done in the public and private sector. in other words, they said this is a big leap from what he's done. further, when you compare mr. borras' qualifications with the qualifications of past nominees for this position, there's even more concern. for example, paul schneider had over 38 years of federal service when he was nominated to the d.h.s. under secretary for management. and much of that experience was with the navy, a large, complicated organization like d.h.s. similarly, elaine duke had more than 25 years of prog

counterterrorism in the obama administration. tactics and strategy. and our speaker could not be more authoritative. it's ambassador daniel benjamin. he's the state department's coordinator for counterterrorism. it's a position he's held since may of last year. prior to his appointment as the state department's counterterrorism coordinator, dan benjamin served as a senior fellow and a research director both at the brookings institution and the center for strategic and international studies. prior to that, during the clinton administration, he was a foreign policy speechwriter 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 a foreign correspondent for "time" magazine and the "wall street journal." after leaving government during his think tank years, he cowrote two important books on terrorism. the age of sacred terror. and the other was the next attack: the failure on the war on terror and the strategy

we've done way of the profiling by nationality and the administration rushed into a declaration that people from 14 coutries that touched terrorism, somalia, yemen and other places and now they're looking at threat analysis and personal profile characteristics and see which people should in pulled out ever line. >> schieffer: there's lots to talk about and we'll take a break and come back and talk about it. >> schieffer: we're back with our round table and i want to go back to what we talked about in the beginning, michael and david both and that was the bit of good news the administration got the jobs situation adoes appear to be a little better but it looks like to me we're a long way to getting back to where the economy ought to be. >> no question. the president understands have you to target the most vulnerable populations an uptick in terms of creating jobs but it's not any kind of job. you have a dirth of low-skilled, high-wage jobs and the service end industries are bloated with people who have jobs in name only but none of the benefits and that's why health care reform was so

this administration browbeats the banks to try to get them to lend more money. >> i think the administration has declared war on wall street and i think it is going to win. they are browbeating the bankers, and they are going to get financial reform. the big banks don't mind financial reform in many ways it is in their interests. >> there are so many loopholes, it doesn't matter. >> goldman sachs to some degree is in bed with the administration. you get this version of financial reform and the big banks are solidified in their elite position. they can borrow money cheaper because they've got a government bailout guarantee in the background. >> sean: part in perpetuity this is it. >> would you agree stuart the sec had the authority to be able to stop what they are saying is fraud if they had been doing their job at the time we don't need additional laws? >> i believe is correct. >> another exercise in futility. >> if you get version of financial reform it is a massive expansion of executive branch power, without a vote. without the legislative branch voting. the executive branch will be able

this is a tax and spend administration. we have the biggest deficits in the history of the united states. and when i hear my colleagues talking about all the good things they're doing for america, i wish they'd look at the unemployment rate and look at what people are taking out of their salaries and what this country is going through economically. it ain't what they're saying. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm here to recognize the new start treaty that was recently signed by president obama and the russian president. the recently released 2010 nuclear posture review. i believe it's important to realize that the cold war is over, and it's a time to align our nuclear policy with a new generation of security threats. the biggest threat facing our country today is having nu

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 av

this administration got stuck with cleaning it up. where i would fault this administration. they inherited the debt -- the devastation. because, well, the deficit comes down in the first five years quite sharply. where i would fall to them is the second five years. and that is why the fiscal commission, i believe, is critically important. i would applaud the administration for coming forward with the fiscal commission after center greg and my proposal to have the statutory commission did not get the supermajority vote necessary. that is where we are. i believe that when the history of this time is written, the steps taken by the previous administration, when the collapse was occurring, and the follow-up steps by this administration in the federal reserve were absolutely essential to avert a global financial collapse. it is also true that we now have to pitch. we now have to pick it and focus on deficits and debt like a laser. the question before us is, what is the right timing to make that pivot. i don't believe it is this year. i wish it were. we still have almost 10% unemp

because they were the bailout administration and they were overseeing those.y'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

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

national highway traffic safety administration. along with the president and ceo of the alliance of automobile manufacturers. viewers can also call in or tweaked their questions. that is why 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span, c-span.org, and c-span radio. >> c-span -- our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for schedule alert e- mails at c-span.org. >> several experts in u.s. security talk about president obama's trip to prague later this week to sign an arms reduction treaty. that will also discuss the summit here in washington. this is hosted by the center for strategic and international studies and is about 55 minutes. >> this will be on the itunes university. my colleagues are some of the top experts in the world in this region. they have got a lot to say about various things that are associated with this visit. in addition, you will find before you an example of our critical questions. this is on the nuclear security summit

that the administration inherited from the bush administration -- correa, colombia, and panama. -- korea. no doubt they contain important positive aspects but also flaws and when they were being negotiated we made clear to those negotiating that they had to be changed. they were not. and now we need to fix them. last week without a bipartisan meeting of key house members. four of us republicans and democrats, with the new u.s. t our leadership working on the dole hot negotiations -- usta leadership working on the doha negotiations. we are going to be working together, i hope, on a broad range of issues. we will save it transpacific partnership agreements and all so the issues of currency. we are going to actively offer our support for the administration's g-20 initiative to address unsustainable global trade and financial balances, including addressing currency policies. china's currency is clearly undervalued and it is an important cause of our country's major trade deficit. and i will continue to work with this administration over the next few months as it addresses in the g-20, as it

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 qu

previous administrations were always focused on the bilateral u.s. russian or u.s.soviet to -- the obama administration said we will pursue multilateral arms control so the question will be at what point can you bring in those other players. >> two follow-up on that i think for the administration the most important thing is that we get the tree down, with the expiration of the start treaty in december would lose the entire verification of monitoring regime that went along with add so i think for the obama folks being able to replace the treaty and maintain a significant degree of that verification and monetary regime is probably the most important achievement from the standpoint of u.s. national security with the treaty. but for the russians the numbers are -- the russians -- talking over the last decade or so in nuclear circles with the russians, you often, they can talk about getting down to a thousand weapons and i think as soon see be a relatively reasonable proposition for them. kind of interesting how that is over this negotiation and this seems to been gettin

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 republ

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 durin

. >> the administration doesn't want to stand for that.hey want it to stay with shall. >> it's the difference between whether the volcker rule is a rule or whether it's just how the regulator feels that day. the political mood can change a lot. it would transform wall street. the volcker rule would mean some institutions particularly goldman sachs in fact would be very, very different. they would have to choose which side of the fence they're on and they don't want to do that. >> shall and may equals millions and millions, maybe billions of dollars. >> billions. >> billions of dollars. >> so the political contribution is relatively small amount. but whenever a controversy like this comes up, people say aha, you took money from goldman so you have to give it back. blanche lincoln who you mentioned earlier the chairwoman, chairman of the agriculture committee. she has a democratic primary in her home state of arkansas. it's tough enough but a primary first. her opponents say give the money back. you put the question to her will you give it b

did the measures that were taken by both the bush administration and then the obama administration weressive, decisive. >> yeah, i think so. i think that, obviously, this crisis comes from what we didn't expect. i mean, the system, the united states system, but as soon as the crisis has been identified, as soon as, and probably the imf role plays into this, then i think the measures taken by both administrations were the right one, and because of the size of the u.s. economy, it's one of the reasons we avoided this big collapse. if things had been -- have been worse in the united states, no way for the global economy to recover. u.s. is still one fifth or so of the global economy, so it's really the motor of the global economy. but if you have the broad view, really, what has been done, what was what needed to be done. >> help us understand, what does it mean to see greece in this situation? we think of this as a european country, part of the eu, host of the olympics, and now we learn that the finances of the country are in shambles. what happened? >> this crisis put a lot of pressure o