of course, we worked on that in the aftermath and ultimately the treaty was signed in the clinton administration at the very end of the administrati administration. >> i want to give harold an opportunity to respond. maybe just picking up on david to bring this story about the international criminal court. i would like to give you an opportunity to respond just your general reaction to both of these men as, you know, from your perch now as someone within the government having to deal with these issues on a practical level, and then we'll come back to the international criminal courts. >> well, my strongest reaction -- i had a book that i had out there for distribution out there tonight. [laughter] >> you can't do that in the government. i should say what a thrill to be here and with bill shawcross whose book i have read for many years. david scheffer and i were college freshman 41 years ago. and he's from oklahoma. my roommate was from oklahoma. and since he was a oklahoma and i was a korean advisor we'll see you at the holocaust museum 40 years later and here we are. i think i had a couple of r

. >> well not just the bush administration, the clinton administration.ome of the -- there was some deepwater, some deepwater production that recently came online and that was as a result of leases issued during the clinton administration just because the lead times are so long when you're out in deepwater in the gulf. >> one of the quotes that's getting a lot of attention the president says the u.s. holds 2% of the world's oil reserves. is that accurate? >> well, it's accurate in this sense. it's accurate -- the united states has 2% of the world's proved oil reserves. that doesn't mean we have 2% of the world's oil and that's the problem. "the washington post" did a fact check of this and called it a true but false statement which is we technically have 2% of the world's proved reserves. proved reserves is a very narrow definition. the securities exchange commission regulates this and that is what oil companies report as reserved. it's stuff that is oil that we currently have drilled for, that we have a really good idea that's there. it's not all the oil

we i was in the clinton administration we went along with it we got rid of glass steagall we you know pushed things to the point where wall street was able to take advantage of situation do what it markets always do overreach blew up demonstrate their power by first saying get off our backs then picking up the phone call in washington and say you know what we say about small government we could use a little bit bigger government right now to help us out then when they get back up on their hind legs what do they do they call up again and say get off our backs again and we did you know the dodd frank financial reforms not only were they kind of weak rules but we didn't fund their enforcement so it was kind of a fraud so we have more too big to fail banks than we did before we have bigger riskier derivative markets than we did before and we you know now i have the situation where our form of capitalism has become so discredited that i was talking to a very senior obama official and went right in the book and he said you know the chinese think they won the financial crisis why because our

of course, we worked on that in the aftermath and ultimately the treaty was signed in the clinton administration at the very end of the administratio administration. >> so i want to have harold an opportunity to respond and maybe just picking up on david to bring the story of the international criminal court. well, actually let me back up. i would like you to respond, your general reaction to both of these men from your perch now with someone in the government having to deal with these issues on a practical level and then we'll come back to the international criminal court. >> well, my strongest reaction -- i got a book out there. but anyway you can't do that in the government. i should also say what a thrill to be here and with bill shawcross, david scheffer and i were college freshman 41 years ago and he's from oklahoma. my roommate was from oklahoma and since he was from oklahoma and i was a core ren civics major i'll see you in 40 years at the holocaust museum and here we are. [laughter] >> i think i have a couple of reactions. one is, how difficult the challenge that both books are describi

in the clinton administration. >> you had some quick -- if you like --- >> who controls capital is an important issue because it drives the direction of society. i have no objection to private equity companies going out there. they help something growth and promote the creation of jobs, they sometimes are a little callous about it but i don't know that that is their responsibility. if we have a system that took care of people better in terms of dislocation, it would encourage that kind of entrepreneurship but having said that we have seen an enormous concentration of capital in the hands of very few people and the enormous concentration of wealth of a very few people and so the top several hundred people in the united states control more wealth than the bottom half of the population. i am all for creating incentives within a society but when you get to that point you are creating a disproportionate distribution of power. the ability to write checks to superpacks or influence who goes in and out of office for the ability to determine which companies succeed or fail to a greater extent

mid-term election, first term of the bill clinton administration, congress taken over by the republicans and suddenly, they talk about austerity, balancing the budget. they don't want to spend money. whereas in the reagan administration, we had military -- they spent like mad like in the george w. bush administration. >> we had the big three under the bush administration, bush 43, the tax cuts, two rounds of them. that were not paid for. we had a couple wars that were not in budget. what is the best case that the obama administration and democrats out on the trail looking for votes, what is the best case to make with this scenario the way it's played out? >> well, what they can say quite honestly is that president obama did the best he could with the terrible hand he was dealt, primarily by the george w. bush administration, not with standing the absolute inability and unwillingness of republicans in congress to cooperate on anything. this economy is struggling and finally getting out suddenly, gradually i should say, out of the gravitational pull of the great recession, the worst recess

i have come to know the prime minister well, since my days in the clinton administration when i was chief of staff and now have the opportunity to meet with him regularly each time i go to israel. from these visits, from these visits to israel and my frequent meetings with israeli leaders, i am acutely aware of the dangers that confront israel and the significance of our defense relationship. as a consequence the level of interaction between our militaries and intelligence agencies is deeper and stronger and broader than at any other time in my experience in government. and let me assure you. that the security bonds between israel and the united states will only grow as america goes through an historic turning point after a decade of war, even in the face of budget reductions posed by the congress, the defense strategy that with we have designed at the department of defense for the future makes very clear our commitment to confront and defeat any adversary any time, anywhere. although we have ended the mission in iraq and begun a transition in afghanistan, the threats in the world that we

. >> walter is a former solicitor general in the clinton administration. >> clearly where they are going to come out, but justice kennedy did not. they asked tough questions of both sides. >> but justice kennedy was among those that questioned whether the federal government has the power to order people to buy health insurance or anything else. >> that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way. >> the four liberal justices offered a ringing defense of the law. >> a disease is sweeping the united states. and 40 million people are susceptible of whom 10 million will die. can't the federal government say all 40 million get inoculation? >> state government can solve those problems. federal government is limited government. >> how can you wait until after you get hit by a car to go out and purchase insurance? it's impossible. >> no. obviously once you go to the emergency room, they can sign you up. >> but the justices tough questions do not always presage their final vote. and justice kennedy, the potential swing vote here may have had just

director in the clinton administration. >> well, here was the problem. louis freeh was head of the f.b.i. in 1993 a few months into the clinton administration and he quickly determined that the president of the united states was not the commander in chief but the target of a criminal investigation. the target of several criminal investigations run by the f.b.i. freeh fought in a rather awkward position. and during the eight years of clinton's presidency, these two men spoke face-to-face or on the phone five or six times. now, this is a recipe for disaster. you cannot have silence like this. between the f.b.i. director and the president. or between the f.b.i. and the c.i.a. which was also a serious problem. and this failure to communicate was one of the approximate causes of the success of the 9- 11 attack. the f.b.i. under louis freeh with all respect to louis freeh, great f.b.i. agent, great federal prosecutor, fair-minded federal judge, he had everything it took to be a great f.b.i. director. except a sense of proportion i would argue. the f.b.i. spent

he was also pointed ambassador for the kingdom of saudi arabia for the clinton administration in 1984. let me end the introduction of s morning by suggesting he served two years as a service war father officer on cruiser little rock and was offered a full bright scholarship and held a woodrow wilson fellowship. ladies and gentlemen, join me in welcoming your podium, the honorable ray maviss. >> thank you so much for that wonderful introduction. i appreciate the hospitality here in ottawa. you're far more hospitable to me than your senators were last night to the capitals. although the capitals have evidently -- i don't know how many of you sawed game or went to the game. but they perfected the puck off the face into the net. it's really hard to plan that play. i'm very honored to be here with you. like to speak for a few minutes and take whatever questions you have. the united states and canada, allies, friends, neighbors, our trade and military partnerships are strong and enduring as our border is long. the connection between our two countries is far more than geographical. it encomp

big jump, and dramatic change, however, has come in the last decade, during the bush and clinton administrations, when, as i mentioned, for the first time in history, intrasession recess appointments have exceeded intercession appointments by a 5-1 ratio. if the olc opinion is accepted and practiced as dogma, there is nothing left to the senate's confirmation authority. remarkably, and tellingly, i believe, the olc opinion avoids any mention whatsoever or discussion of the appointments clause itself or the framer's debates over the general power of appointment. those debates, however, were heated, contentious and refusal -- revelatory of the perhaps of their decision how they would vest control over the appointing power. the recess clause, however, on the other hand, was adopted at a constitutional convention without debate which strongly suggests that the framers thought the clause would not affect the meticulously developed scheme of checks and balances of the general appointments process, which requires action by both the president and senate to affect any appointment. this view was corrobora

we do ask that folks making $1 million a year go back to paying the rates in the clinton administration. let's see what happened in the economy back then. what this shows is during the clinton years, 20.8 million jobs were created. after president bush took office, they did lower the tax rates, net 653,000 jobs lost. by the way, 2001, just before the tax cuts, that disproportionately benefited the wealthy, that was the last time we balanced the budget. we balanced the budget and had great job growth. that's why we propose a balanced approach. the issue is not whether we reduce the deficit, not whether we reduce the debt, it's how. yes, we have to make spending cuts, i hear cloges on the republican side coming down here saying you can't do this all on the revenue side, we get that. but you know what, if you do it without asking the folks at the very top to pay a penny by closing loopholes and getting rid of tax breabs, what does it mean? it means everybody else pays the consequences. those decisions to support the wealthy, not ask for shared responsibility, comes at the expense of our se

i just checked, we gave north korea during the clinton administration over $1 billion in fuel and food aid as well as money we spent building their light water reactor. and of course they violated the agreement that they made. the only reason i bring that up, i hope that if we start a dialogue with them we realize their history is one of -- that you certainly can't trust. even though kim jong-il is gone and we have a new leader there, i think it's extremely important that the state department get everything written in blood, so to speak, to make sure we're not shafted again. recently tom do not lynn and chairman of the joi -- donnellin went to visit israel. the tone was, they were urging israel not to take any unilateral action as far as attack on iran is concerned. i know just recently they said they certainly weren't in any way going to involve the united states to give us some semblance of separation from that. i wonder why it is that the administration doesn't give complete support to israel and say if ran continues with its program, we will do whatever is necessary to stop the pro

he's a former member of the national security council during the clinton administration. welcome to the show. >> thanks, vago. >> let's start out. what do we know about this incident and why do incidents like this appear to happen in a fell swoop to sort of reverse months of gains that we made? >> right. it's obviously a huge, huge mistake, general allen's very fast apology demonstrates we wanted to quickly take responsibility and that's one of the first things you do when you make a mistake like this, and we as the force made the mistake. what exactly happened here, the investigation will work through the details of that. but what you saw with general allen and then with president obama apologizing is trying to very quickly quell the anger and there's certain justified anger in this because of the role that islam plays in that society, and to get past it. it's taken longer that he we hoped for us to get past it, but i think we're starting to see things calm down a bit. >> what does this tell us about cultural sensitivity training across the force? >> well, it's huge. you

and i just checked and we gave north carolina during the clinton administration over $1 billion in fuel and food aide as well as money we spent building their light water reactor and they violated the agreement they made. if we start a dialog with them, we realize that their history is one of -- that you cannot trust. and even though kim jongil is gone, it's important that we have a state department that gets everything written in approximate blood so to speak to make sure we are not shafted again. recently the chair of to joint chiefs went to on visit israel and the tonight of the reports that i received and of course, all this is not in writing, but the tone was that that they were ur urging israel not to take any unilateral action, and they said that they would not involve the united states to give us a bit of separation from that. i wonder, why it is that the administration does not give complete support to israel and say, you know, if iran continue s with its program, we will do whatever is necessary to stop that program. and give israel the support that i think they need, right no

to deputy attorney general of the united states, a position he held until the end of the clinton administration. in july, 2001, mr. holder joined the washington, d.c., law firm of covington and burling, representing clients in complex civil and criminal cases as well as internal corporate investigations. in 2008 president barack obama nominated mr. holder to be the 82nd attorney general, a nomination confirmed by the u.s. senate on february 2nd, 2009. general holder is the first african-american to serve in this critical post. he is also a key member of president obama's national security team and in this rollover sees the efforts of federal prosecutors, investigators, analysts and fbi agents who work on counterterrorism and counterespionage issues. during attorney general holder's tenure the justice department's work has been marked by significant national security achievements which include successfully confronting some of the most significant terrorist threats our nation has 9/11, st departments decade-long track record of successfully tracking terrorists in our federal courts, dismanneding

colleague of many years and with john podesta, a great leader of the white house during the clinton administration and a remarkable leader and indeed founder of this institution. i appreciate very much the hospitality. like many in the administration including i suspect the dozens of cap alumni currently serving, we look to cap on a regular basis for sound policy ideas and analysis. so, it's a pleasure to have the opportunity to at least try to return the favor this morning by giving you and sharing with you some of our thinking about iraq. sunday, as rudy said, will mark nine years since the start of the iraq war and three months since the last american troops crossed the border into kuwait ending one of our nation's longest and most divisive conflicts. the wisdom of going to war in iraq is something that is going to be debated for years. and i'll leave that debate to the historians. but what's beyond debate and what news coverage of iraq in my judgment too often failed to acknowledge, is that iraq today is less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous and the united states more deeply engag

this got up to the level of the top level of the clinton -- i guess the clinton administration. and there's a time -- i think it's like 2025. this has to happen. or idaho will no longer be obligated to receive this waste. so this -- this has implications. the fact that we're just letting this thing go on and on and on, i think is a big mistake. and i was here. i voted for this. to go -- to do it at yucca mountain. i that i is the law of the land. it hasn't been changed. i think you're going to wind up -- i think the courts -- i can't believe the courts are going to sustain your position. so you better start looking at these alternatives. you better start figuring out how you're going to get yucca mountain moving forward. you just can't declare something that it is no longer the law. you have to come to congress and get the law changed. that hasn't happened. >> well, that was another very important recommendation in the blue ribbon commission. it is really up to congress if congress wants to change the law and we would be willing to work with congress to do that. and we take the

states secretary of defense, serving from february of 1994 through january of 1997 in the clinton administration. he was instrumental in winding down the cold war and forming new and more productive relationships with countries including the former soviet states, eastern europe, china and japan and served as deputy secretary of defense and undersecretary of defense for research and engineering. one of the early pioneers in silicon valley, he served as a principal of a firm. he's currently senior fellow at the hoover institution, and the michael and barbara professor ameritas. he's co-director of the preventative defense project, a research collaboration of stanford and harvard universities. dr. perry received his b.s. and m.s. degrees from stanford university and his ph.d. from penn state, all in mathematics. we're delighted to welcome the wonderful lee perry, who is here. sam nunn is co-chairman and chief executive officer of the nuclear threat initiative. a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working to reduce the global threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. he served as a uni

i just checked, we gave north korea during the clinton administration over $1 billion in fuel and food aid as well as money we spent building their light water reactor. and of course they violated the agreement that they made. the only reason i bring that up, i hope that if we start a dialogue with them we realize their history is one of -- that you certainly can't trust. even though kim jong-il is gone and we have a new leader there, i think it's extremely important that the state department get everything written in blood, so to speak, to make sure we're not shafted again. recently stop tom donilan and the chairman of the joint chiefs went over to visit israel. the tone was, they were urging israel not to take any unilateral action as far as

during tho is t some time during the late '90s, the previous democratic administration, the clinton administration, made it no longer fashionable to use the words tax and spend liberal and perhaps with good purpose. we've seen some of the things accomplished during th '90s. it seems this president is using every effort possible to bring tax and spend lib wall back into parlance. at least that's fair, being honest about where his party wants to take the country. folks on this committee, many folks in this town, who would be okay with a tax and spend approach if it at least provided us with some balance. if it at least provided us with a budget that balanced eventually. of course the most glaring fault, the most glaring error in the president's budget, is that it never balances. doesn't even try to balance. in fact it's hard to call it a budget if it never really balances. the president talks abus approa. most people would expect it would ultimately arrive at something that balances. but it doesn't. in fact, different term for the president's budget, because it can't be called a budget. they're supp

this started under the reagan administration and continued under the clinton administration when he passed a bill that allowed the military to pass on weapons to police departments across the country. and since 1994, 1 million weapons have been passed on to police forces to use on u.s. citizens. so look this up. it's fascinating information. next week, we're doing a show about how the u.s. conference of bishops got so powerful. and why these men are dominating the conversation about birth control. and why are we debating birth control in the year 2012? we're also discussing the lack of regulation on imported food, and we're doing a show about occupy the prisons. this is happening this monday at san quentin. they're busing in a number of people from ash the state to san quentin. and you can find information about this action online. so what i try to do on the show is really talk about solutions, because i mean, the fact is, we know what we need to do, right? we know the solutions. it's just there's no political will. and what i hope to accomplish tonight is to really get past the sort of ca

states is simply seeing africa as a source of natural resources the united states under the clinton administration passed the after growth and opportunity act which was an act which was to encourage trade with africa and to create a duty free entrance of african products into the american market but we got to get those products for america united states is trying to put in place policies for transparency anti corruption i think the u.s. government doesn't do enough to support american companies and africa but we're covering a kind of i don't know what i want you know you know it's like you know we're almost out of time here what is the legacy of this film in your opinion i mean is are we know who people know more or less or the wrong things about africa. well i think people know slightly more about africa to expose this africa for its frailties and its issues which are still tsunami out of the continent sadly but i think it puts africa back in the spotlight i mean the numbers of people that have watched the video only celebrates that fact but again it's also shows that africa has from look at itse

care act the way jerry produced videos denouncing the efforts to reform health care in the clinton administration. socialized medicine. this model needs to a problem in a plug in community. they want to get together once a week with those who are ultimately situated. i don't fault them for that. we need to pay attention to that the. >> of first church of christ? am i left, you're right, in terms of social services, how does a major church out reach defer the other than esiason with the parish hall model? >> can read do a couple added time? is that you? >> my question is you did fall well a great deal of credit -- credit for changing christianity but to was a really fall well were i agree and philip? they came to a strange. >> but to identify as catholic? >> it seems when you talk about the capacity for friendship was he not playing a part in the fundamentalist more the evangelical christianity. are they behind it? >> there is not a significant difference. i could not find any evidence. it is not either zero or but both and. but those to political realities he changed the way he spoke mia in phil

lawyers are not at all happy with how they went. >> the clinton administration -- >> i'm sorry, did i say clinton? the obama administration. >> clinton, i don't know, he hasn't been president for a while. >> having said all that, they've got all these long brief, all of these long documents. >> yes. >> that have been submitted to the court, is it fair to say that these oral argument, the six arguments that they're going to have really makes a difference? don't these nine justices basically know where they're going come down by now? >> the bigger the case, the less the oral arguments matter because these justices have well known feelings. >> it's for months and years. >> you talk about abortion, affirmative action and these justices have dealt with these issues for years. if you ask the supreme court justices, how many does an oral argument make a difference and they say two or three. >> and usually in cases on obscure areas they haven't thought that much about. yes, it's great theater and yes, it's important in focusing the issue, but in terms of lawyers changing the justices' mind,

budget asks the top 2% income earners to go back to paying the same rates they were during the clinton administration. a time when the economy was booming. the republican budget asks nothing of those individuals. and as a result of that, asks a whole lot of seniors on medicare, of students in terms of cutting student loans and all sorts of other consequences. but it goes beyond that. what is really amazing is that the republican budget is now proposing another windfall tax cut that will benefit millionaires and the wealthiest americans. and i'm clicking this thing, and it's not -- oh, i've got to turn it on. that would help. let me see. there we go. not working. there we go. there we go. all right. and so the issue is what happens when you drop the top tax rate from 35% to 25%? and i think we should have a fact-based conversation. not many runs on these issues have been done by the joint task committee. but last fall, last october the joint task committee was asked to do a number of analyses that shed a lot of light on what the impact would be on this issue. there was a republican proposal that was s

under the reagan and the bush administration, certainly not under the clinton administration. the people just didn't do it. or if they did, it was a routine, quickly forgotten thing. and they -- they just -- the documents weren't paid attention to, or it just wasn't done. and nobody paid a price for not obeying the order. somebody would have to pay a price. and, again, i think some of the weaknesses of the order should be removed. it could have been much stronger than it was. for example, one weakness, a serious weakness, never defined what it was it was defending. it never defined, what is the family we're measuring this against? what is the structure of the family? if you don't have that in place, i -- don't even bother. if you're not having an ideal against which you're measuring policy, or at least a structure which you say -- this is what we're interested in protecting, this structure, if you can't have that, there's no reason to even bother. so i think -- i hope they will reconsider doing it and make it much stronger. and enforce it. >> let's take one more. >> how would

levels, the top 2%, to go back to the same top marginal rates they were paying during the clinton administration, a period when the economy was booming. mr. secretary, i want to ask you about one of the proposals that's been put forward by the chairman of the arms services committee to deal with sequester and what he proposed and the piece of legislation that i have right here is across the board cuts in civilian personnel, both the defense department and outside the defense department. i think it's worth noting that 36% -- 36% of executive branch civilian employees employees ar defense department. almost one in four civilian employees in the federal government work at the defense department. that's 764,000 out of 2.1 million federal employees. so that proposal would result in the department of defense cutting over 80,000 civilian workers over the budget period. now as part of your budget, you've emphasized the need to strengthen the defense acquisition workforce in order to save taxpayer money, to make sure we have sufficient capacity and capability. you say this workforce determines the qualit

undersecretary of state for political affairs back in the second clinton administration speaking at a national u.s. arab chamber of commerce ambassadors forum yesterday here in washington. this is c-span radio, wcsp, channel 119. it is time for "washington today." >> we're bringing a new trade case against china and being joined by japan and some of our european allies. this case involves something called rare earth materials, used by american manufacturers to make high tech products like advanced batteries that power everything from hybrid calls to cell phone. >> the president in the rose garden earlier as he announced the u.s. joining the european union and japan filing a challenge to the wto against china's export restrictions. china produces 97% of all rare note materials. we'll be focusing on this story coming up in just a moment. welcome to hour one of "washington today." i'm steve skully. thank you for being with us. the afl-cio announced it is endorsing the president for his re-election bid and will mount a massive effort for democratic candidates to counter the flood of money

in fact it was greater than with the previous administration, the clinton administration. so that's going on, the research. i can't disagree with the lady who said but you've got to run this machine auld america in the of now pool for example is used to -- then of course you've got gas and oil. if you pull that away, there isn't enough energy to thrun country. and what's going to happen? i suggest to her that -- in fact let me just put it this way -- going back to the administration of the e.p.a., i asked her a question at one of our hearings, and that's televised. i said if we were to pass that, at the time it was, -- would this reduce the c.o. 2 emissions worldwide? she said no, because the problem is not here. in the china and other places where they don't have emissions. i eff -- guest: for example, we have not put any new coal fair to generating plants in the united states. they are cranking out three a week in china. so this is the problem we have. back to the lady's question. if they'll go back and look, the same people, the same people who are saying now that globa

damaged by lead but whatever it may be murder rates now they've been dropping ever since the clinton administration most crime where it's america is safer now than it's been a long time and yet there's this constant be afraid be afraid be afraid isn't that basically the only thing the right the hard right has to say. if their alternative is to say oh and by the way we want to take away your social security when the question is why and in the period i think of great cultural change within our society we're moving from minorities to a minority majority country by twenty fifty we're going to have a lot of agents a lot of indian americans a lot of americans and all kinds of chinese americans here constituting the majority of the united states and in this period of cultural change people are getting used to new ways new habits and you norms of the society that they've lived in and some are resistant to that change and i think in that context when you're resistant to it it's the role of all of us let's change advocates to make them understand that this isn't something to be fearful of there are those few

airstrikes right now i there he had multiple times within these hearings today went back to the clinton administration and had tried to remind everybody what happened and. and use that as an example of why the u.s. should launch air strikes in syria now what do you think about that comparison actually i thought it was a fascinating argument to make against obama because if we think about what happened with president clinton and he was really working very closely with tony blair the prime minister of great britain on this issue and what tony blair called this was muscular humanitarianism i mean that's what he was talking about in kosovo and bosnia and he's done this also in africa where the idea of coming in because of humanitarian crises the willingness to almost unilaterally come in and if you can't get an international agreement and you can't get everybody in the room you do sort of what we did in iraq where you get. the leading countries of the world and those can sometimes be you know well to el salvador if you know where you can get three guys from here and so you send out a couple of dogs you ca