that is covered in the npr. but if you're not going to play by the rules, then all options are on the table in terms of how we deal with it. >> on page 33 of the report -- and it tends to protect u.s. forces or partners or allies -- translate this to the middle east. does this mean that if iran attacks israel or the gulf states with conventional or nuclear weapons, the u.s. would attack them? >> i'm not going to go down a hypothetical road. >> on the alert status, why does that remain unchanged when so many other things are changing under the npr. can you tell us more about how the presidential decision making process will be changed under the npr? >> i think there are provisions, and the experts can get into this with you. there are some changes that we have made in command and control that tighten things up and also give the president more time for decision. what was the first part of your question? >> on the military alert status. >> we feel like the situation is a satisfactory one at the current time. we hav

what does the npr say about these and europe? what will be required of the russians as part of this process? >> the npr very explicit that any decision with respect to nato's nuclear capabilities will be handled within nato according to the consensus principle. as long as there are nuclear weapons that threaten nato, nato will need to maintain a nuclear capability. this is one of the issues that will be addressed in the strategic concept that nato is undertaking. i would say and invite secretary clinton to comment but basically, what is the npr does is draw attention to the number of tactical nuclear weapons and also to the number of non- deployed weapons that we are looking at and of these clearly should be part of the arms control agenda as we move forward. >> he is absolutely right. there is a section for those who have not had a chance to review it, including a picture, and in the chapter called strengthening and reassuring u.s. allies and partners, we make it very clear that any changes in nato's nuclear posture should only

, based on what the npr is laying out here? >> we expect to have an extensive dialogue with the congress on the npr and i'm sure with the senate as well. on the new start treaty, that dialogue really began months ago, when we initiated this review. and we've had extensive consultations with congress as well as the new start negotiations have been under way. i don't know if you want to add to that. >> jim is right. from the very beginning, our lead negotiator, rose got a mahler -- cote the molar -- rose gottemoeller, assistant secretary of state, has been going to the hill, briefing members on both sides of the aisle and their staff. we actually had senator kyl and senator feinstein come to geneva late last year as observers. then the duma brought some people to observe, so there was a sense of bilateral legislative interest in what is going on. and this is important, a new effort, because we have not ratified anything like this in a while. but i think that certainly we're very anxious to engage the senate and get their advice a

we're coming out of the review and the npr. in that study that is now under way, we're looking at penetrating bombers, standoff bombers, cruise missiles, potential global strike capabilities, as well as supporting electronic warfare. after having a hard look, we decided that we wanted to pull back and have a look at the broader portfolio and the family of systems. that is now under way. we expect that to inform the fy 2012 budget. we do have r & d under way and money set aside for these capabilities. from a policy perspective, when you think about the perspective of a potential proliferators, in this npr, we're trying to give them incentives. and to ensure that they do not have incentive to go the biological weapons direction. i do not see the possibility that any of the countries we talked about would have the ability to compete united states with united states. our second to none, and we have no question about the commitment to do that. >> a follow-on, for that reason, given there is no spot -- no prospect to compete on conve

i've been covering some of this for npr, the other npr. i wanted to ask, as we gear up for this big summit here, president obama is about to fly to prague to ink a new arms deal with the russians. i wonder if i could get any or all of you to weigh in with your assessment how significant that is and how it plays into the broader effort that is going to get underway here given, as you've all been saying that's an effort focusing a little bit less on superpower arsenals, and more on rogue states and nuclear terrorism? >> i think for the first time, with the immediate information that we've been getting on the nuclear posture review and the new reset, if you will in u.s.-russia relations you see certain sort of points in terms of orchestrating an agenda that will, that will turn the u.s. position, if you will, vis-a-vis the international community, to a more positive, more positive prism from the outside looking in. of course the posture view, i know you didn't ask about that but i think you have to observe that from two levels. how will the i

i believe it is the first on classified npr in its totality. secretary gates is responsible for making this the most inclusive nuclear posture review in history. admiral mullin has been instrumental in working for many of the issues that were raised. the department of energy has brought its expertise to the table and i am very proud of the world -- of the role the state department played in making the policy and we will be working with our allies and partners to explain it and implement it. it truly was a collaborative effort in keeping with the agenda and goals set by president obama. this included more than 30 of our allies and partners. we have provided non-nuclear allies the specific reassurances and securities but the policies outlined in this review allow us to continue -- allow us to continue this role. this makes it clear that we will cooperate with partners worldwide to prevent nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. under president obama is leadership, we work to advance that agenda, beginning with last year's security council su

to these ends, the npr shows significant changes to the posture. some of the calculated ambiguity is removed. if a non-nuclear weapon state is in compliance with non proliferation treaty and obligations, the u.s. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it. if any state eligible for this assurance or to use chemical or biological weapons against the u.s. or its allies or partners, it will face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response. still, given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of biotechnology development, the u.s. reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of biological weapons. the review rightly praises the prevention of nuclear terrorism and proliferation of the top of the policy agenda. given al qaeda's continued quest for nuclear weapons, the ron's ongoing nuclear efforts and north korea's proliferation, this is appropriate and is central. -- and the central. the np concluder it that stable dete

the npr, new programs are needed? if it is not russia and china that are the rest but proliferation and terrorism -- how you contain the warheads? that seems like a high number. >> let's start with the 15 it 58 warheads. that number was the product of negotiations with the russian federation. the npr did extensive analysis with respect to the united states, with respect to both warheads and delivery vehicles. so, that number is one that's is -- that is associated with the product of negotiation. while parity -- perhaps the parity with respect to overall numbers is certainly not as important as it had been in the cold war, we still believe the approximate parity is important, in particular concerning deployment systems. to make sure there are not misunderstandings on either side and there is no disadvantage or advantage. as we go down a new start treaty and taking steps, fallen ratification and entry into the courts, we ought to do it by -- following ratification and entry to the courts, we ought to do it by working to

we're coming out of the review and the npr. in that study that is now under way, we're looking at penetrating bombers, standoff bombers, cruise missiles, potential global strike capabilities, as well as supporting electronic warheafar. after having a hard look, we decided that we wanted to pull back and have a look at the broader portfolio and the family of systems. that is now under way. we expect that to inform the fy 2012 budget. we do have r & d under way and money set aside for these capabilities. from a policy perspective, when you think about the perspective of a potential proliferators, in this npr,

we will take a few questions after that limited to the npr. the npr creates a road map for president obama's agenda for producing nuclear weapons in the international community. this review describes how the u.s. will reduce the role and numbers of nuclear weapons with a long-term goal of the nuclear- free world. driven by the changing nature of the security environment, the npr opuses on five key objectives. preventing nuclear proliferation and terrorism. reducing the role of u.s. nuclear weapons. maintaining strategic deterrence instability at a reduced nuclear force levels. strengthening regional to terrence and reassuring u.s. allies and partners. sustaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal. to these ends, the npr shows significant changes to the posture. some of the calculated ambiguity is removed. if a non-nuclear weapon state is in compliance with non proliferation treaty and obligations, the u.s. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it. if any state eligible for this assurance or to use chemical or

that is a common theme in the last two npr's, but it was not a major theme in the first npr.s administration has said over four years and want to lock down nuclear material. god bless and. i hope they can get there. it is an extraordinarily ambitious agenda. we have had bush under bush. would record amounts requested for the getter and lugar. it was approved by congress. that was increased again in 2007 and eight, and then again in this last budget. one of the programs begun under president bush was something that my friend madeline calls megatons to megawatts. taking russian nuclear material and putting it in nuclear power plants and burning it so usually have taken nuclear weapons fuel and eliminated it. so i would caution people to say that this npr is somehow so totally new and so totally different anymore than the 2001 npr was a radical change from 1994. there have been changes to the world has changed. the second issue is complies. as paula will talk about, and my concern is how do determined that a country is compliant with a nonproliferation treaty so that they use bi

and the npr that came out today, not your npr and the nuclear security summit is going to be one long week of kind of nuclear, you know, discussion and repositioning. but again, i come back to this point. s.t.a.r.t. -- we always kind of knew where s.t.a.r.t. was going to do. we don't know where this nuclear security issue is going to go. it's a lot more difficult. it's more expensive and more moving parts than just dealing with the russians. >> i think we're seeing u.s. leadership finally in keeping our country safe. in keeping weapons and materials out of the hands of terrorists that can harm both us here in the homeland but also our i think it's all part of this new nuclear security agenda that we're seeing. the u.s. take leadership on some part is s.t.a.r.t. and reducing the weapons. and part of securing the materials. securing them and then eventually eliminating them so they don't get in the wrong hands. and then hopefully eventually we'll see test ban treaties so these countries that already of these weapons a very strong demonstration of u.s. leadership moving forward. >> one t

npr will make clear -- 2010 npr. it strengthens the existing u.s.ssurance and states and u.s. will not be is weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. at the same time, the npr reflects continued concerns about biological weapons. any state eligible for this assurance that uses biological weapons against the u.s. or its allies would pay -- would face a devastating military response. individuals responsible willie held fully accountable. -- will be held fully accountable. the u.s. reserves the right to make any future adjustment that may be warranted by the proliferation of biological weapons. this does not apply to nuclear weapons states such as russia or china, nor does it apply tuesday it's not in compliance such as iran and north korea. u.s. nuclear weapons still play a role in deterring conventional attacks against the u.s. or our partners and allies. all options are on the table. to address the nexus of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, the npr when is the commitment to hold fully accountable to any group that supports or enables ter

then we will take your questions in regards to the npr. road map for implementing president barack obama's agenda for reducing nuclear threat to the international community. this tribute will reduce the role and numbers of nuclear weapons, with a long term goal of a nuclear-free world. the changing nature of the security environment causes of the npr to focus on five objectives. reducing the role of nuclear weapons in the u.s. national security strategy, reduced nuclear force levels, strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring u.s. allies and partners, and finally, sustaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal. the npr it includes a is significant changes to the u.s. nuclear posture. new declaratory policies removed some of the ambiguity in previous policy. a non-nuclear weapons state is in compliance with the non- proliferation treaty, and the u.s. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them. if any state eligible for this assurance were to use chemical or biological weapons against the united states

that we have identified in the npr. the administration cares about the work and knows that it is important and is sustainable over multiple congresses. our focus is moving forward consistent with the principles of the program. on your question about the funding, what we typically do for a budget year, where we know for sure where our allocations need to go on a site-by-site basis, we allocate those in the budget. we have the last remaining category, the headquarters account, which are resources that will be spent out in the field. because we are waiting for final adjustments, we have not allocated them to a specific site. the general is aware of the adjustments that he needs to make, the moving of resources into these accounts, to make sure that the sites are properly maintained and he is working with the sights on that. we have a key element of the budget. we submit our program and budget in the five-year increments. >> if you're really going to convey a commitment to scientists and others, playing these games of holdi

the administration has met forward with that npr that is much more clarifying and significant and itsweapon states to strengthen the npt and does have paid strong piece which in the and the president believes will make us safer. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman and welcome to all of you i will s.t.a.r.t. by commending the administration and by moving us beyond the cold war mentality that has gripped our deterrence for a long time we are two decades beyond that in terms of the reality on the ground if this begins to create a situation that is much more in line with the threats reface today. also on it joaquin though walk this is a live service we have received in the past when it comes to investing in infrastructure or more of importantly our personnel i really appreciate the shift. i want to get fairly specific first off secretary d'agostino. what are the implications for our security not having to be that program completed by 2017 and how confident are you the life extension program will be ready to deliver to synchronize the weapon with the arrival of the new at 35

i will do to barbara, but i don't think in her years at npr the fact that some of npr's funding came from the government impede the vigor or the effectiveness of npr's journalism. i think we need to look to ways to do that. there are some terrific models and we can talk about them. people have proposed. we certainly want to incubate. i'd like to have something like a national endowment for journalism like the nea and neh to make new models and try them out to assist people trying to develop new and different ways to do it. it may well be that we will not come of in this new environment for a journalism that is truly self-sustaining without some governmental role. and i think this needs to be a very important part of the discussion, seeing how government can do this. in a proactive way. >> thank you. and in the next part of our discussion we will get to some of the specific proposals. so i won't pressure on that. now i want to give gene a chance. gene has first amendment in the title of his job. >> i'm going to run with that idea and tried to take the sort of longer perspective which

we reject that. >> the npr. >> is in the npr, sorry. so many documents.he word effective is such a key word. we could keep refurbishing if we use all three options of this strategic posture commission. they recommended reuse, using systems -- using systems that have already been produced. refurbishment, which means modifying things slightly or replacement, which means replacing them completely. if we used all three strategies, we could probably keep our current nuclear arsenal, are stockpile all live for five years, maybe 10. for the long-term future, there is no hope. >> let me see if we can take a question. the thing that i really wanted to get at is, can you do all of that without nuclear testing? to ensure that what you have got really works, even if the weapon is properly designed? >> if we go into the rear used, refurbished, replacement -- the ncr says replacement aside. you practically have to get an act of god to use replacement. for a few years, imagine in your community a fire engine that you're going to depend on to save your home or save your

. >> i have been covering some of this for npr, the other npr. as we gear up for this big big summit here, president obama is about to talk about the arms deal with the russians, and i wanted to get any or all of you to talk about how significant that is and how it plays into the broader effort that is underway, and given what you have been saying that it focuses a little bit less -- a little more on the threat from rogue states. >> the immediate information that leads to the nuclear question and the new research in u.s.-russia relationships, qc points in terms of orchestrating an agenda that will turn to the u.s. position to a more positive prism from the outside looking in. we have to observe that from two levels. in terms of racking and stacking them, there is the domestic play on if he can save enough republican voices in terms of how strong he is that he can get things ratified as it pertains to the quality of agenda. russians are willing to look at it on those levels, in your not getting the totality of the picture. it is part of that same

and i think that's a reality that the npr takes into account. and i think the carping about, you know, somehow the united states is not going to respond to some kind of chemical or biological attack by nuking the perpetrator most likely, which would be a nonstate actor. so i'm not sure we would even be able to identify who they are is not necessarily -- is not necessarily a credible -- a credible argument. if it's a state that is a rogue state, you know, like what we used to call them, then i think it's, you know, something to consider. but a nuclear response to anything other than a nuclear attack is extremely serious business and i don't think it should be devolved down to a political football which i think is happening today. >> i think the review is a first step toward reducing the role of nuclear weapons. reassuring nonnuclear weapon states that we won't threaten them with nuclear weapons. and we are committed at least over the long term to moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. but it's only a first step. and i personally wish that

>> we expect to have an extensive dialogue with the congress on npr. that dialogue began months ago when we initiated this review. we have had extensive consultations with congress as the new start negotiations have been under way. >> jim is right. from the very beginning, our lead negotiator was the assistant secretary of state. he has been briefing members on both sides of the aisle and their staff. we had senator kyl and senator feinstein come to geneva last year as observers. there was a sense of bilateral legislative interest in what was going on. this is an important effort. we have not ratified anything like this in a while. we are very anxious to engage the senate and get their advice and consent for ratification. >> in october 2008, secretary gates said, "there's no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either testing or pursuing a modernization program." this report says there will be no new testing. what has changed? why is it ok not to test now? can we maintain it without testing?

two questions, we're looking at the release of the npr tomorrow.i want to ask how this all fits in with this. india, pakistan, they will be participating in the summit. and curious what kind of interplay between those two countries you'll be watching over the next month, and also, how karzai's recent comments in afghanistan will factor in the news in prague and expectations. >> i will start on the npr. the nuclear posture review, not national public radio. the long awaited nuclear posture review, what this has done in the past -- is a congressionally mandated document. it sets out the role of nuclear weapons in u.s. national security strategy. it is no coincidence that the bush administration's nuclear posture review basically said, well, we can go down to -- i guess it was 2000 war had sought and that is what you saw -- warheads and that is what you saw in the treaty. this time around, if will talk about what are the primary uses in nuclear weapons, what are the levels that we can live with -- i do not think there will be a lot that will be very s

it does npr bring us back from this, per say? i think it does and some ways. i think it is important to view it more as the beginning and not the end of the journey, but the beginning of a step in the right direction toward reducing the role and number of nuclear weapons. host: secretary gates commented on the release. >> of the npr is very explicit in referring to the fundamental rule of nuclear weapons being for deterrence. i know there has been a lot of speculation outside the government and there was a lot of discussion inside the government's of how to frame that and how to describe it, whether it would be the sole purpose, whether we would forgo first use, and so on. and i think there was agreement within the administration that we didn't think we were far enough along the road toward getting control of nuclear weapons around the world to limit ourselves so explicitly. so, i think there was general agreement that the term fundamental purpose basically made clear -- and other language makes clear -- that this is obviously a weapon of last resort. host: a

i believe it is the first unclassified npr in its totality.secretary gates is responsible for making this the most inclusive nuclear posture review in history. admirable mullen and joint chiefs have been instrumental in working through a lot of issues that have been raised. the department of energy has brought its expertise to the table and i'm very proud of the role that the state department played in helping to set the policy and we'll be working with our allies and partners to explain and implement it, so it truly was a collaborative effort in keeping with the agenda and goals set by president obama. the consultations that supported this process included more than 30 of our allies and partners. it has helped prevent proliferation by providing al allies with reassurance and security. this policy allows us to continue that stabilizing role. this also makes it clear we will cooperate with partners worldwide to prevent nuclear terrorism. under president obama's leadership, we work to and advance that agenda. thursday, the president will be back

we're looking at the release of the npr tomorrow. the white house says. and i want to ask you how it all fits in with this. and then also india, pakistan, they'll both be at -- participating in the summit. and i'm curious what sort of interplay between those countries you'll be watching over the next month. and also how president karzai's recent comments in afghanistan you think will factor into the meetings in prague and all the discussions in terms of what to expect? >> i'll start on the npr. the nuclear posture review not national public radio. [laughter] >> the long-awaited nuclear posture review. what this has done in the past -- it's a congressionally mandated document. it sets out the role of nuclear weapons in u.s. national security strategy. and it's no coincidence that the bush administration's nuclear posture review basically said well, we can go down -- i guess it was 2000 warheads and that's what you saw in the s.o.r.t. treaty, the moscow treaty. and so the nuclear posture review this time around should -- you know, it will talk about what ar

. >> the npr mentioned several times the transparency with their nuclear arms. >> obviously, proliferation will be a big part of that. obviously, whenever we get together with china, discussions about energy will be on the table. discussions about the global economic recovery and discussions about what the president has talked about in terms of a market-based currency will be there. we will know more the end of -- at the conclusion. >> robert, on karzai's statements,

next is ari shapiro of npr. ari does national security reporting, but he also has a broader portfolio, governing legal affairs all over the country and various kinds of legal controversies, including some of the jurisdictional questions that turned out to be particularly thorny in terrorism cases and who can try whom and where. at the end of the table, not least by any means, is judge robert sack of the second court of appeals in new york. judge sack was a distinguished media law practitioners for his entire pre-bench career, very highly respected. he has been on the court of appeals for the second circuit for least 10 years, maybe a little bit more than that. a very well thought of member of the federal judiciary. in addition, he is a scholar. he has a superb treaties on libel and scandal. he continues to write a law review articles while he is on the bench. he teaches a seminar at columbia. i am very happy to have all these people here. we are not going to have been the opening statements. this is going to be

. >> i will start on the npr. the long awaited nuclear posture review. what this has done in the past is set out the role of nuclear weapons in u.s. national security strategy. it is no coincidence that the bush administration's nuclear posture review basically said that we have 2000 warheads and that is what you saw in the treaty. the nuclear posture review this time around will talk about whether the primary uses of nuclear weapons, what are the levels we can live with, i do not think there is going to be a whole lot that is going to be very surprising but it should support what the obama administration is doing with the start treaty and follow-on negotiations there. on india and pakistan, pakistan is probably even though the nuclear security summit is not designed and hopes to avoid pointing fingers at any single country but obviously, the issue of nuclear security is a big one in pakistan. both the security of nuclear material and the security of nuclear weapons. i do not thinks that we will see too much progress between india and pakistan at this su

explain what the npr is. it's not a public radio network. >> no, the nuclear posture review.nd as the president pointed out, the real threat today is proliferation and terrorism. this treaty, of course, doesn't have anything to do with that. third, i think you have to examine three documents together: the nuclear posture review and many of the presidential intentions as expressed in there, like when we would use our nuclear weapons and how we're going to modern size them. second, the start treaty itself and, third, the documents i referred to earlier which is the plan the president must submit that details how we will modernize both the facilities, the manhattan project era facilities that are now very old and aging and the weapons themselves so that we will have a credible deterrent in years to come. >> lehrer: senator kyl, would bit correct then to state that your position going in is one of concerns and you are... you're not a sure vote for this. is that correct? >> well, i can tell you this. i think the senate will find it very hard to support this treaty if there is not

i heard your interview on npr.ould you recount again what joseph kennedy's attitude was toward churchill and england in general at that point? i was astonished. and secondly, could you talk briefly about what drove churchill out of office and how that all can about? >> i think i addressed the joseph kennedy and church of thing before today. joseph kennedy, churchill was a drunk. has been. he was going to lose. person was going to lose. we need not to get into the war we needed, we meaning the united states, should not give any money to burn. what drove churchill out of power is one of the saddest things in the book. the churchill was a fantastic war leader. no question. he not only saved england, he saved civilization. if it had not been for him i'm not sure the british people would have stood up the way they did. he was not a man to leave the country after the war. the british people by the end of the war had six years of hardship, of rationing, of shortages, of being bombed. they wanted something. they wanted som

. >> except on npr. >> they had great courage of health care on abc 7. >> nothing like that on a national tv, nothing at all. >> national public radio. >> the rnc is not a good place to put your money. >> that is the head of the family research council, urging members to give money directly to candidates and individuals they feel reflect their values instead of the rnc. the rnc has been in the news lately, michael steele as well. staffers spent a couple thousand dollars on a visit to a lesbian bondages strip club. michael steele had nothing to do with it. >> he did not go. >> oh, come on, how small minded can you be? these guys wanted to relax after a hard day at the office. >> the staffers were fired. >> it is amazing to me that michael steele survive all this but at what point will they tell them -- >> they all survived -- >> it is not easy. >> it takes a large number of state chairmen to come together -- >> let's give him a break. you have for virginia, new jersey, but the big senate race -- >> and it happened because of michael steele? i don't think so. the question is, will he get th

and then long -- far below that comes book critics and npr. that's why these social network book review sites are taking off that's what people used but they have a larger circle. you talked about assignments. >> yeah. making that match and how much of a time-suck that can be? >> we spend a lot of time doing that. first just trying to find the books to review and then trying to find the reviewer. and what we're always looking for what katherine was talking to me before we began -- what we're looking for is someone who will read this book sympathetic and they'll read it with understanding and what this book may do it. but we want -- we never want what we call a setup what we call in our assignment. we get once in a week and i think it should go to these three people. no, she hates that kind of book. that would not be fair. we would never, ever do that. what we're always looking for the sympathy or empathy. but for fiction we don't want someone who's written about that subject because it would be an overlap. but which do want a critical nol of t

the example for all of the problems -- occasional problems that there are, the cpb model with nps and npr has worked remarkly well. and that's a mixed system. and also i think the tax laws to permit public-spirited investors to sacrifice some rate of return in exchange for assisting local journalism in their communities has great promise. and these are -- these are platform-neutral, viewpoint-neutral things. so i do think we need to design them. i do think that you make very, very important warnings about the kinds of problems that can arise. and we need to design around them. >> okay. there's a question here. >> we heard on the earlier panel that broadband internet is a disruptive technology and we've clearly seen its effects on the newspaper industry. does it pose the same risks for broadcasters, local broadcaster journalism? how about national news networks? and if so, are we going to be back here in five years talking about subsidies for those news-gathering efforts? >> do you want to answer that? >> well, again, i think it's too soon to say. we own broadcast stations. and it's been a

i will leave it to barbara but i don't think in her years at npr the fact that some of npr's funding came from the government impeded the figure or effectiveness of npr's journalism. i think we need to look two ways to do that. there are some terrific models and we can talk about them. we certainly want to incubate. i would like to have something like a national endowment for journalism like the nea and the neh, to take new models and try them out, to assist people and trying to develop new and different ways to do it. it may well be that we will not come up in this new environment for a journalism that is truly self-sustaining without some governmental role and i think this needs to be a very important part of the discussion in seeing how government can do this in a proactive way. >> thank you, and in the next part of our discussion we will get to some of the specific proposal so i won't press you on that now. i want to give gene a chance to get in. gene has first amendment in the title of his job. >> i'm going to run with that idea and try to take sort of a longer view and bigger i

some of them are funded by subscribers, members like those who contribute to npr, and they are starting to produce hyper local news and information for people in geographic communities. we're seeing the same thing happen with investigative projects. they're happening often state-wide, often anchored around the state capital, and i think as news moves into the future, we're gonna see a few national publications, and we're gonna see a lot of hyper local publications with some statewide investigative networks. >> jan, you won a pulitzer for public service because you actually brought change from the articles that you were writing. is that what they local sites are trying to do? are they trying to bring some sort of change? >> well, i don't know that they have an agenda other than just to connect people in their community to what's going on, allow them to know what's happening. i mean, my goodness, i live in bethesda, but i can't tell you what's going on in montgomery county because it isn't in the "washington post," you know. and it's very hard to find out what goes on in your community no

you in a broadcast earlier this year, on jenna every third, on npr were discussing how the obama administrationhad a new opportunity for the american constitution society. you said that under the obama administration and i will quote this, "they had an opportunity to get our ideas and the vision of the constitution -- our vision of the constitution in law and practice." what did you mean by "our ideas" and york"progressive views -- your "progressive views?" >> that was referencing the ideas that underpin the american constitution society. the mission statement of that organization braids, it is a dedication to certain basic principles of our constitution genuine equality, libertine, access, and a broad commitment to the rule of law. >> is it described as a progressive? >> i think many people have described it that way. that is fair. the organization. the values are those of the constitution. i would not say they are progressive or conservative. those are the values in the constitution. >> you describe the opportunity to get our ideas and the progressive vision of policy into practice. i assume

. >> i know a lot of liberals and we generally sit home and listen to npr. just because you deny that those elements are in the tea party doesn't make them go away. they're there. >> it begs the question, ann, what are the white men so angry about? the numbers are clear. many americans, two million, in fact, are being -- are struggling with the economy, but the numbers are clear. black folk, brown folk, poor people are getting crushed by the economy. what are these white men so angry about? >> that's a good question. >> you're right. the numbers of blacks are hurt larger than whites. >> so why the anger? >> well, i would like to address your characterization of the tea partiers as just white men. okay, it's true, 85% are caucasian, but this is the first time i have heard black people complain about this. you can't say everything that's majority white is by definition racist. what about the philadelphia machinists? >> i don't think it's a complaint. it's an observation. >> from steve cohen, white liberal representative -- >> it's like the kkk. >> they're not

competed the effectiveness of the the journalism of npr.here are some terrific models. we certainly want to incubate. i would like to have something like a national endowment for journalism to take new models and try them out to assist people in trying to develop new and different ways to do it. it may well be that we will not come up in this new environment for a journalism that is truly self sustaining without some governmental role. i think it needs to be eight -- and a very -- a very important part of the discussion. >> thank you. in the next part of our discussion, we will get to some of the specific proposals. i want to give gene a chance to get in. she has first amendment and the title of his job. >> i am going to run with that idea and try to take a longer, a larger perspective. it is -- let me react to what has been said here. the concept of public funding for laboratories and experiment, for new development, to assist industry in -- that has never been all that good at innovation, quite honestly. we change the width of the columns

my understanding is and we have been briefed on this carefully that nasa has a human rating npr. it was recently updated in 2008 and did not specifically address and exempted commercial providers. it was aimed at the type of program where nasa managed by hardware. that is critical because the way you explain then tracked the safety requirements depends on the kind of program it is. if you are buying a taxi ride, you have a different set of requirements that if you were developing a taxi. that was exempted. the asap made that a primary recommendation for two years that that section of the standard be built out of the people trying to develop commercial vehicles knew what to enforce. general bolden has taken the initiative to make that a priority. some type of standard for those commercial providers will be provided by the end of 2010 to set the requirements. >> if, in fact, you say to these bold, innovative companies that we are betting the future of our astronauts on the space station or a low orbit, there will be a safety standard but we will not have a complete until 2010? >> t

he'll be appearing on npr's fresh air with terry gross to talk about it soon. eric? [applause] >> thank you very much. i grew up in louisville, and i spent a lot of time in car michael's book store when i was growing up, thinking about how i wanted to be a writer and i just want to say congratulations to carol and michael and carmichael's book store for being the number one independent book store in the country. that's amazing. [applause] i want to -- i live in lexington now, we have the large he per capita carbon footprint in the country, and i want to talk a little bit about how we can begin to work on that. i know you'll have to really big one too, but i want to start by talking about this false dichotomy between jobs and the environment. in 2006, two miners died in an underground mine, because of a conveyor belt that caught on fire and they ended up dying of smoke inhalation. a few weeks before they died, don blankenship, the president of massey energy sent a memo to all employees of massey energy saying if you've been asked by your group president to do anything

he sent us a postcard from a speeding train after an appearance on npr's diane rehm show. a conversation with judy woodruff, just honored with a lifetime achievement award from the edward r. murrow school of communication. she describes her early years in the newsroom and offers advice for budding journalists. plus, find a link to tonight's "frontline" on the dancing boys of afghanistan, an ancient tradition where boys are dressed in women's clothes and taught to entertain male audiences. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. jeff. >> brown: and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm jeffrey brown. >> warner: and i'm margaret warner. we'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. thanks for being with us. good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions capti

find an update on health care-- npr's julie rovner explains why the insurance industry decided to stop discriminating against patients with pre-existing conditions. on "art beat," jeff talks to the young winner of the "poetry out loud" competition. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. judy? >> brown: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. i'm jeffrey brown. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. we'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening with mark shields and david brooks, among others. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> what the world needs now is energy. the energy to get the economy humming again. the energy to tackle challenges like climate change. what if that energy came from an energy company? everyday, chevron invests $62 million in people, in ideas-- seeking, teaching, building. fueling growth around the world to move us all ahead. this is the power of human energy. chevron. ♪ >> very funny. and the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and a

this week, npr foreign correspondent deborah amos talks about the plight of the sunni muslims in the middle east after the fall of saddam hussein's sunni-dominated government in iraq. she looks what has happened to the sunnis and iraq, jordan and lebanon. she discusses her book with mohamad bazzi, middle eastern studies senior fellow at the council on foreign relations and journalism professor at new york university. >> host: i am here with deborah amos, author of "eclipse of the sunnis power, exile and the people in the middle east." deborah, you argue iraq is now a virtual country with so many of its people outside its borders. what does that mean exactly? how does iraq function as this foretold country? >> guest: in the refugee communities in damascus, iran, they wrote, i iraqis recreate a little bit of home. its most interesting with this population because the internet only came to iraq in 2000 under saddam and then you had to go to a local library or an institution to sign up. it was all really quite watched. in 2003, iraqi bloggers and were ahead of other bloggers in 2003. so