tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN May 13, 2010 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
city so there is not sufficient security, but the taliban do not control the city. you could walk around the streets and there is business going on. it is a functioning city, but it is not at the level of security that makes the people feel comfortable. i cannot give you numbers of insurgence in and around the city, but they are contesting at various levels in the north, the west, and the south. that is more classic insurgency. in some cases they have brought in additional weapons. in some cases we have seen additional fighters move in. we are working through those methodically with our afgani partners. that is going to be a difficult fight as we go forward. i am absolutely confident that
, eggs and bacon and try to send a message that says, and -- they can try to send a message that says this will not last. i expect they will contest this as long as they can. i expect them to contest it for months incredibly, and i expect them to contest it after that any way that i can. there will always be some situations of insecurity, but increasingly, security will just get better and better.
the high school has been closed for years. things that you do not focus on, but change the minds of the people over time, are key. we coordinate often and have a solid relationship. we to coordinate our campaigns together. we will talk about what one can do to help the other. our subordinate commanders do that very well. is it perfect? and no. but i am really happy with where that is going. >> when you say that the taliban is not controlling kandahar city, and when you say that we are not going to see a d-day operation in kandahar, how do you explain what we are hearing
that the u.s. military is facing a tough time? >> i actually think the u.s. military would love to find an enemy that was dug in on a piece of terrain so that we could establish a d-day without hurting the civilians around. that would play to of restrengthen that the coalition has. what is difficult for the coalition and for the government of afghanistan is to deal with the more insidious threat, and that is the insurgency. to have to go into areas where civilians are living their lives and try to protect them there without destroying their property, without an intentionally causing harm to them, but at the same time trying to root out those insurgents that threaten them. i think this is a difficult and unique challenge. >> what we are facing in kandahar is going to be easier than what we faced in elsewhere? >> i did not say easier.
i said this is a very difficult challenge. it is very difficult to convince people of something that things have changed. you have to produce things that they see and feel overtime. i think that is part of the challenge that the government of afghanistan bases. we, as security forces, face being very precise and very careful to deal with a rising tide of security without lapsing into major fighting. insurgents would love to see a major block to block fight in an area like that. >> you are not using the word "operations." i know that afghans are very sensitive about the board. but your activities seem to have already started in the kandahar area. karzai said to the tribal leaders that nothing is going to start before you give your consent. is this something that the
tribal leaders still have to give their consent to? >> i think it is continuous. i talked to president karzai atlanta about this. he has given me his guidance. we are -- talk to president karzai at length about this. he has given me his guidance. we are involved in a more inclusive process. they participate over time and continue to shape it. that is what we are really looking for. >> two questions. is it true that you are contemplating a special honor for soldiers to avoid civilian casualties, and how important your strategy is the redeployment of british troops? >> there is no planned deployment of british forces to kandahar. the issue of courage, we have a number of ways to recognize
courage. i think courage in uniform can come under enemy fire in the most traditional ways, or it can come under actions that may not be as expected or as a traditional. it may involve protecting civilians. there is a great photographs from an operation of a u.s. marine shielding and afghan man and an afghan child with his own body. he was not shooting anyone. he did not kill any taliban. but i would argue that he showed as much courage as any that i have seen on the battlefield. so, when we talk about courage, i do not think we need a different metal to differentiate different kinds of courage. >> but you have the flexibility to make these awards? >> there is a chain of command. i do not give out awards. what i would like to focus on two groups that do not give a lot of publicity. one is the threat to terrorist
finances. the other is the special mission units targeting taliban insurgents. they may be used in kandahar city to go after some of these the session asian groups. >> the effect of the terrorist threat finance organization is a more holistic way to understand the challenges. that is one of the things that mike flynn played out in his intelligence report. we have not understood all of the pieces of this to the debt that i wish we had in the past. we still do not. we still need to do more. the terrorist finance allows us to understand and, where appropriate, bring legal action. it works very well. if it is another way to continue to tighten things down. but a lot more needs to be done. what we are trying to do is
maintain pressure on the insurgency, on their networks and their leadership's while we do what is typically thought of as more traditional counterinsurgency. it is interesting. some people think it is either or. that in counterinsurgency you are either handing out volleyball's or if you are doing a conventional war with tanks. that is not the tank -- that is not the case. it is as much civilian as it is military. in some cases it is targeted operations against ships. in other cases it is protecting afghan civilians in the street. we do have an ongoing effective effort. >> how successful has the kandahar effort then? en?be >> i am happy with how it has gone.
>> what are some of the lessons learned and what do you think the taliban and other elements -- what do you think they're that theyarned owere hope to incorporate for kandahar? >> i think it is not a done deal. i think there are still lessons to be learned. when we talk about that operation, we talk about operation stark. there were a lot of lessons learned. for me personally, this was the first time that we had engaged senior afghan leadership in the planning and the efforts of the operation to the degree that we did. was an absolute thing that i think must be the future. we briefed president karzai the night before the operation. he gave final approval. that is something that i think has to be the model for the future, his engagement. i think the planning that happen to the other has to be part of
that as well. it can be better, as we always learn. our engagement with the local civilians, some people question why we telegraphed our plans, why we announced what we were going to do. it was because, one, i was happy for the taliban to leave. we wanted to control the area. at this particular time, they did not allow the area to become a free fire zone. i was satisfied with that. we also wanted to engage the leadership inside the area and those who had left the area so that we could help carafe the political future of the area -- so that we could help craft the political future of the area. as we did that probably learned some lessons that we can do that better. the first forum we met with turned out not to be fully representative. over time, that was modified so that it was more inclusive.
the most dangerous thing that you can do in an area in afghanistan is to engage parts of the population through tribal structures or other interest groups and leave other parts out. if you leave other parts out, they obviously have a reason to be frustrated with the government and they become much more likely to join the insurgency. you are unlikely to get a durable outcome. tactically, we learned pretty much what we expected. we learned that there were a huge number of ideas. afghan forces performed well, but they are maturing as they go. we learned that partnering shoulder to shoulder with afghan forces is the way to go. coalition forces are better when they are shoulder to shoulder with afghan forces. we have time for one more. >> you said the afghans will be in the lead in kandahar. what is the actual troop ratio, and how long before we know
whether it is working or not? >> i do not have the troop ratio in front of me. they will be a significant portion. whether it is 1:1 i am not sure, because at this point, their army and police just do not yet allow us to be 1:1, as much as we would like to be. there are about 225,000 afghan security forces. they are spread all over the country. more particularly, we are thick with coalition forces in in the south. that affects the present it there. what was the second half of your question? >> how long before we know it is working? >> i think it will be the end of this calendar year before you know. i may know before that [laughter] i may know and feel before that, but i think it will matter when
the afghan people know. when the afghan people make that judgment, that will be the key point. that will be decisive in all of these areas, when the afghan people have come to the belief that this is the direction things are going and they accept that. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> during the last year, as i have served as solicitor general, my long standing appreciation for the role of the supreme court and our constitutional democracy has become ever deeper and richaer. >> and the next step for supreme court nominee elena kagan is her appearance before the judiciary committee. find out more about her online at the c-span and video library. watch what you want when you want. >> in "the relentless revolution" the author describes capitalism. >> president barack obama traveled to buffalo, new york, to travel -- to talk about his economic agenda.
he spoke at a plant that received funding from the small business administration. he spoke about taxes, health care, and education. this is 50 minutes. >> thank you, everybody. [applause] >> hello, hello, hello. it is good to be in buffalo. please have a seat. get comfortable. i am sorry for the delay. this is a secret. i thought i would tell all of i thought i would tell all of you, i had to go out and try the machines before i came out. if you see some problems, that is why. -- i had to go out and try a the drinks before i came out.
i cannot vouch for rice kris the medium. i would like to acknowledge a the mayor of a buffalo. stand up. york congresswoman is here. -- your congresswoman is here. your congressman from this district is here. congressman chris lee is here. and i brought one of my outstanding members of my cabinet who is working hard every day with businesses like this to help grow the economy, my small business administrator, please give her a big round of applause. [applause] so, this is my first visit to western new york.
it is just a thrill to be here. i am glad that it is not snowing. thank you. last sunday, right? you guys still got snow. sheesh. i thought chicago was bad. this is worse. i am really thrilled to be here, partly because it gives me a chance to get out of washington. i have been trying to make a habit of that. about once a week or so i try to make a trip outside of washington. don't get me wrong. washington is a beautiful city. i have a really nice office, and i live above the store, so the commute is really short. but, you have heard of it being in a the bubble. when you are in washington, sometimes it is just hard to hear anything else except the clamor of politics.
that clamor can drown out the voices of the american people. so, i am not going to give a long speech today. i actually want to take some time to take a few questions from you, hear about your concerns, your hopes, what opportunities you see out there. but before i do, i do want to say a few words about this thing that i know has been front and center of everybody's mind. that is a the state of our economy. i do not need to tell all of you that we are still emerging from one of the worst recessions in our history. it has been tough everywhere. cities like buffalo have been hit especially hard hit. even before the most recent downturn began, the years before, you were seeing jobs to disappear and factories shut their doors. costs, a family expenses went up, but wages, they flat line.
they did not go up. that is tough on a family. that is devastating on communities. so, breaking our economic freefall was job #one when i took office. -- job number one when i took office. i want everyone to remember, because sometimes we have selective memory. when i took office we were losing 750,000 jobs per month. experts of all political stripes were warning of another great depression. that was not long ago. it is easy to forget just how fragile things are and just how scared people work. so, we had to take immediate steps to stop the crisis. some of those steps were not particularly popular. i had just inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from the
previous administration, so the last thing i wanted to do was spend money on a recovery package or helped the american auto industry keep its doors open or prevent the collapse of open or prevent the collapse of wall street' , banks whose irresponsibility caused this crisis. but i did know that if i did not act boldly and quickly, we could have risked an even greater disaster. the other thing we were not going to do was give into the partisan posturing in washington. half the time up there all anybody is worried about is what do the polls say, and making calculations based on what is good for the next election instead of the next generation. frankly, i have seen the one side of the aisle sit on the sidelines while the crisis unfolded. if we had taken that position, just thinking about what is good
for my politics, millions more americans would have lost their jobs and their businesses and their homes. but buffalo, i did not run for president to preside over america's decline. i did not run for president to watch the erosion of the middle- class continue. i ran for president to keep the american dream alive in our time, for our kids and our grandkids, and the next generation. we met our responsibilities. we did with the moment required. i will not stand here and pretend that we climbed all the way out of the whole. there are too many folks right here in buffalo and all across the country who are still hurting. i read too many letters each night from folks who are still hurting. they are still out of work. i know things are still tough out there for a lot of folks. you know, economists have all kinds of fancy formulas and mathematical equations to
measure the exact moment that a recession ended. it's great that the stock market bounced back, but you're still looking for a job, it is still a recession. you cannot pay your bills or mortgage, it is still a recession. it is not a real recovery until people feel in their own lives, until americans who want or can find it, until families can afford to pay their bills and send their kids to college. that is what we are working for. that is our goal. i want to say to all of buffalo, to all of you, to all of america, we can say beyond a shadow of a doubt, today we are headed in the right direction. [applause] we are headed in the right direction. all those tough steps we took, they are working, despite all the naysayers who were predicting failure one year ago. our economy is growing again.
last month we had the strongest job growth that we have seen in years. and by the way, almost all of it was in the private sector. and a bunch of it was manufacturing. this month was better than last month. next month is going to be better than this month, and next year is going to be better than this year. last month we gained two hundred 90,000 jobs. that was the largest increase in four years. [applause] last month brought the largest increase in manufacturing employment since 1998. strongest growth in manufacturing in 12 years. that is a good sign for companies like this one. i was talking to days. dave was telling me about the rebound in orders that we have
seen right here at this company. the question now is how do we keep that momentum going? how do we keep adding more and more jobs? we know that the government has to play a role in meeting this goal. but we also know that role is limited. government is not the true engine of job creation and economic growth in this country. businesses are, especially small businesses like this one. america's small business owners have always been the backbone of american economy. these entrepreneurial pioneers embody the spirit of possibility, the tireless work ethic, and the simple hope for something better that lies at the heart of the american ideal. these are the men and women willing to take a chance on their dream. they have good ideas and the drive to follow through. they started mom and pop stores. they have garages they open up
and they start tinkering, and suddenly that leads to some of america's biggest and most successful businesses. ordinary americans with a dream to start their own businesses create most of the jobs that keep our workers employed. in fact, over the past decade and a half, america opposes small businesses have created 65% of all the jobs in -- american's small businesses have created 65% of all the jobs in this country. the problem is, the small businesses have also been some of the hardest hit in this recession. they have lost 2.4 million jobs. because banks shrunk from blending into the midst of the financial crisis, -- from lending in the midst of the financial crisis, it has been difficult for entrepreneurs to take up the money they need to start a business. it has been difficult for those
who already have a business and to expand. government cannot create jobs, but we can create the conditions for a business to grow and hire more workers. the canadair -- we cannot guarantee success, but we can bring down barriers to getting loans or expanding in the future. when the day the -- when dave wanted to expand this business last year, he received a loan from the small business administration. it allowed him to pay his bills and purchase new equipment. last fall, he was even able to increase his work force. today, he feels optimistic that he will be able to hire more workers in the near future. a man and his brother are here today. where are they? there they are. [applause] it is good to see you guys.
they run a small business called imperial textile. and thanks to the small business administration loans they received they did not have to lay any workers off last year. in fact, they were even able to purchase a new building. isn't that right? so, today they are looking to start to hire again. all across america, we have taken steps like these to help companies grow and add jobs. last year, we enacted seven tax cuts for american small businesses, as well as what we call the "making work pay" tax credit that goes to the majority of small business owners. so far, the recovery act has supported over 63,000 loans to new businesses. that is more than a dollar sign26 billion in -- that is
more than $26 billion in lending. recovery contracts are going to private businesses. other steps to promote hiring are about to take effect. because of a bill that i signed into law a few weeks ago, businesses are now eligible for tax cuts for hiring unemployed workers. companies are able to write off more of their investments in new equipment. and, as part of health care reform, 4 million small businesses recently received a postcard telling them that they could be eligible for a health care tax credit this year. that is worth maybe tens of thousands of dollars for some companies. it will provide relief to small business owners who too often
have to choose between health care and hiring. we met a woman who owned a courier service. we asked what her biggest challenge was. she said it was trying to keep up health care for her and her workers. she is appreciative that she is going to get a 35% tax break on her health care costs this year. [applause] i told her that, and over the next several years we are setting up an exchange where she will be able to buy into the big pool that all the members of congress are a part of. with millions of members, that will give her more leverage with the insurance companies, and that will drive down our costs. she offered me some of her chicken wings. i had already put in an order. [laughter] all of these steps are going to
help, but i believe we have to do even more. maybe the single most important thing we can do right now is help ensure that credit or the small business owners can get the capital they need. in my state of the union address, i called for a $30 billion small business lending fund. that would help increase the flow of credit to companies that were hit hard by the decline in lending that followed the financial crisis. lastly, i sent congress legislation that now includes a new state small business credit initiative. that would expand lending for small businesses and manufacturers at a time when budget shortfalls are leading a lot of states to cut back on vital lending programs. i have asked congress to extend and enhance programs that have helped small business owners get loans so that they can create more jobs. and that is our small-business agenda. that is our jobs agenda. we want to empower small
businesses so they can hire. i hear a lot of noise from some of our friends out there who say that this is nothing more than big government. i want everyone here to understand, i personally do not think that giving tax cuts to business is big government. i do not understand how helping businesses get loans so they can grow and hire more workers is big government. i am not interested in another debate about big government persists small government. i care about whether government is meeting its responsibility to the people it represents. i want to unleash the great power of our economy so that americans looking for work can find it. i am hopeful that our small- business agenda does not fall victim to the same partisanship that we have seen over the last year. helping businesses create jobs should be something both parties can agree to. since this company was founded
more than a decade ago, you have done all that is asked americans pursuing a dream. you can tell that david has a lot of energy. has a love of his business and his employees. he has worked hard. he has met his responsibilities to his employees and its customers. millions of small business owners across the country have met those same responsibilities. now it is time that that same responsibility and that same success is rewarded with the ability to keep growing. keep hiring. key contributing to your community and your country. that is the opportunity i will continue to fight for as your president in the weeks and months ahead. i want everybody here to know, in buffalo and all across the country, we are on a course that is working.
this company makes me want to double down and work even harder. i am confident that if we continue to take responsibility and to invest in our future, our brightest days are still ahead. thank you very much everybody. [applause] thank you. [applause] thank you. have a seat. i have time for a couple of questions. yankees fan, right here. hold on a second. we have a microphone so that everyone can hear you, even though i can tell you have a good voice. introduce yourself. >> frank from new york. >> good to see you. >> during your time in office,
will buffalo's see the transit system improvement for the country arrive here in buffalo? >> the issue of infrastructure and transportation is big here and all across the country. the recovery act that we put forward has one of the biggest investments in infrastructure since eisenhower started the interstate highway system. but the backlog of work in projects that need to be done is so big that it is going to be a multi-year process that we need to embark on. my hope is that democrats and republicans, working together, are going to be able to find a long-term financing mechanism, and that we start investing not just in highways, but also in mass transit, high-speed rail,
and especially along the eastern corridor and, where i am from, chicago, where you have got chicago, detroit, cleveland and minneapolis. you have all of the cities that are pretty close by. they are a half hour, 45 minutes away, but if you had a high speed rail system, a lot of people would use the high-speed rail system instead of flying. it would be more convenient for a lot of folks and you wouldn't have to take off your shoes. [laughter] it would be good for business, because if we are building infrastructure that means companies like this one have new sources of business. it would be good for our environment, because one of the things, obviously, that we have to recognize is that no matter what we do, oil prices are going to be going up over the long term. year to year, they may vary.
sometimes it is $3 per gallon at the pump. sometimes it drops back down. we are not always sure what is going on. but the long-term trend is that china and india are starting to buy cars, so the demand on oil and fossil fuels is going to be greater and greater. we have to get a first-class transit system. we do not have one right now. we used to be at the top. now, look at china. they are building multiple high speed rail lines all across the country. they are leaving us behind. it is not as that. it is our ports, our airports, power source systems, our water systems. we are going to have to figure out how we make those long-term investments. that is a challenge i think it's going to be a priority. good question. the yankees are doing pretty good right now, but you know i
am a white sox fan. we are going to come after you. we got started a little slow. -girl song to go boy that folks know i am fair. let's get the microphone. >> thank you very much. about a month ago senator hatch visited buffalo. it was right after the health- care bill was passed. he called that the european ization of america, using it as a derogatory term. what do you make of this? >> orrin hatch is a gentleman. he was just visiting with the in the oval office. i do enjoy him. this is sort of a report in question, isn't it? this is a budding reporter. there has been a lot of rhetoric
floating around on this health care bill, so i will explain quickly what is in the bill, and you can make your own judgments instead of us slapping labels on it. here is what the health-care bill does. first, it is an insurance reform bill. some of these insurance reforms are starting to take effect of this year. for example, one of the reforms ensures that all insurance companies have to let you keep your child on your health insurance up until 26 years old. as a lot of your know, when you leave college, sometimes getting that first job you may not be able to get health insurance right away. we want to make sure those young people can stay insured until they get a job that offers health insurance. another insurance reform is making sure that insurance companies cannot draw simple
when you get -- cannot drop you when you get sick. another insurance reform is making sure that you do not find yourself, after you get sick, getting hit with what is called getting hit with what is called a lifetime limit. heaven forbid you have an illness that is expensive. you missed the fine print that says that at a certain point the insurance stops paying, so you go bankrupt even though you have been paying premiums. so a big portion of this is just insurance reform. the second part is what i mentioned already, and tax credits to small businesses. that way they can afford to either keep their employees' health insurance, or they can start providing health insurance to employees that do not already have it. for most small businesses,
they're going to get up to a 35% tax break on their health- insurance bills, and if you talk to small businesses, that is a big deal. number three, for people who do not have health insurance, and by the way, the majority of those people are working people. a really poor people who do not work are on medicaid. they have health insurance. a working-class families, a lot of them do not have health insurance. what we are saying is that we are going to set up an exchange, which is basically a marketplace where you can buy your health insurance through this big exchange and you will be part of a bigger pool that will give you a better negotiating power with your insurance company. that will drive down your premiums. if, even with a better rate, you can still not afford it, we will give you a tax credit to help you afford it.
finally, there are all kinds of other aspects in terms of encouraging prevention, but the other thing is that we want to work through the medicare and medicaid system to figure out how we can start controlling costs. even if you tell the insurance companies that they have to ensure people with pre-existing conditions and they cannot draw people when they get sick, and they have to participate in an exchange to drive down their costs, if the underlying cost of health care keeps going up, our costs will keep going up. we have to try to encourage and overalls health-care system to be smarter -- we have to try to encourage an overall health care system to be smarter. have you ever noticed that the doctor's office is the only place we still have to fill out forms three or four times in a row? that is because every other part
of our economy is computerized. but somehow, that is not true in our health-care system. what we want to do, for example, is provide the incentives for hospitals and doctors and so forth to get the electronic forth to get the electronic medical records , and we want to tell the doctors, you know what, instead of us reimbursing you every time you take a test so that you end up going to the doctor and you get one test and then he sends you to a specialist to get another test, and then you go to the hospital and get a third test, we're going to pay you for one test, and then e-mail it to everybody else. those are the kinds of things that help to save money. over the long term. we have got to try a bunch of different things in order for us to save money, but that is our basic approach. here is the bottom line to your question.
if you have health insurance that you're happy with, you're going to keep it. you do not have to do anything. the only thing that you're getting is, the insurance company cannot drop you if, for example, your child turns out to have a chronic condition. so, it is giving you more security. if you do not have health insurance, we are building off of the free market, off the existing system of private insurance, and we are saying, this will help you get health insurance that is a little bit cheaper. i do not know what that is called, but i think it is a good idea. >> th[applause] the gentleman here had a question. >> what, other than political talk, is being done to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, and
what is the argument, if any, to just do away with the irs and have a flat tax that is equitable for everyone? >> for those of you who do not know, the alternative minimum tax is something that was instituted a while ago. basically, what happens is, the original concept was that people were using all of these loopholes, and so some of the wealthiest americans were paying no taxes. the idea was, you know what? you get all of these deductions, and as long as you are not abusing them for your home or business expenses, you can take these itemized deductions. but if, at a certain point, it leaves somebody who is making a million dollars a year to pay no taxes at all, that is a problem. so we have an alternative way of calculating taxes to make sure
you pay the same rate your secretary does or your receptionist does. for here is the problem. they did not index it. meaning, they did not make sure that the amount but adjusted each year so that it would take into account -- amount bought adjusted each year so that it would take into account inflation. inflation. -- got adjusted each year so that it would take into account inflation. $250,000 does not by the same amount this year that it would have 10 years ago. more families creeping up financially are having to pay this alternative tax. to eliminate it would call -- would create a hole in so, each would create a hole in so, each year, congress works to make a
cap that keeps middle-class people from having to pay this. that was a big part of the recovery act this year was just making sure that the alternative minimum tax and did not affect more people. your question is why are we dealing with this over the long term. the truth of the matter is, we are going to have to spend the next couple of years making some very hard decisions in terms of getting our deficit and debt under control. it is not going to be any fun. it is not going to be as painful as it will be if we put it off, but it is still going to be a little bit uncomfortable. it is like going through the family budget. you started to get too many things you couldn't afford, and you have to start making decisions. what i have done is put together a fiscal commission
made up of democrats, republicans and private sector folks. we have objective people on it. it is chaired by former senator alan simpson and bill clinton's former chief of staff. their job is to report back to me and the congress over the me and the congress over the next five or six months , to give us a package of solutions to get the deficit under control. one of the things, i think, will be tax reform, that they will recommend. that should include simplification, and it has to more fair.hat' it is the main argument on the fair tax, the main argument that people make against the fair tax is the right now we have a progressive income tax. i made a lot of money last year because my book sold well.
so, i wrote a really big check to uncle sam. my rate was higher than somebody who made $40,000 per year. we have a progressive income tax, meaning the more you make, the higher your tax rate goes, until a certain amount. until a certain amount. now, if you have a flat tax , and let's everybody was paying 10%. that means warren buffett is paying 10%. it means the construction workers paying 10%. it means somebody who has a minimum wage jobs paying 10%. the question is, does that 10% take a bigger bite out of the cashier at the supermarket than it does out of warren buffett. because she is paying more of her income and food and rent and basic necessities.
does it make sense for warren buffett to be paying a little bit more? in order to have a flat tax that was revenue neutral, it would have to be a pretty substantial tax, but it would mean a huge tax break for warren buffett. the question is, is there a way of achieving a simplification but still having an element of fairness? that is part of what makes it complicated. i will be honest with you. a lot of the complications have to do with all lobbying in washington. that aspect of it we just have to eliminate. we have to clean house. we have to take out the holes and just eliminate a lot of the tax loopholes that are out there. i think we can do that. [applause] young lady right there. >> mr. president, thank you for your leadership.
in the president and ceo of a contract and service company in buffalo. i am a graduate of the small business administration's program. my question is for small businesses. besides the tax cuts and the health-care reform, is your administration looking to allocate any resources to the education for small-business owners, because it is so important the we have the tools to become profitable businesses and also effective businesses. education, i believe, is a key component in addition to all of the wonderful things that your administration is doing now. >> i think it is a great question. let me break it up into two parts. first, education for people who either want to start a business or have already started a business. even if you have a great idea, if you have never started a
business, you might make mistakes. it would be helpful if somebody was able to show you the ropes. part of what we want to do is make sure that being sba is providing an effective technical training and helping ended vice -- and advice to small businesses. even if they have already been successful, maybe they want to take it to the next level. we can share with you a whole host of technical assistance programs we have tried to set up on inventory control, marketing, and a whole host of other issues. one of the things i want to do one of the things i want to do is to get some of those good programs out into the community, and a little more proactive. sometimes, all of the federal agencies just sit behind a desk waiting for you to find them. i want them to find you.
i want them to be canvassing businesses and saying, here is what sba can do for you. then you can make a decision, it would this be helpful to you or not? the other issue has to do with our education system generally. i have to tell you that the economy is growing and we are moving, but if we are not able to train our people effectively, over the next 10, 20, 30, 50 years, we will fall behind. we used to have the best education system in the world, bar none. the truth of the matter is, these days we cannot make that claim. we still have the best universities in the world. we still have some of the best schools in the world.
but if you look at our young people's average scores on math, on science, the critical subjects that they are going to need in order for us to be at the cutting edge technologically, we are kind of in the middle. in some cases, we are kind of down at the bottom of the pack when it comes to developed countries, advanced countries. some of it is just numbers. look, we still produce more engineers per capita than china does. but china has over a billion people. so, they can produce so much more in terms of engineers, , computer scientist than
we can. that is why one of my top priorities as president has been to make sure that we are initiating education reform from top to bottom. it is not just money. what we said to states was, if you want some additional help for your schools -- first of all, one of the things the recovery act did was prevent the layoffs of teachers, including right here in buffalo, because we helped state budgets and municipal budgets. [applause] but then what we also said was, do you want some extra money? show us that you have a reform plan that is going to work. show us that you are keeping track of what you're student are doing, that you're setting high standards, and that you are making sure that teachers are trained to help students meet those standards, that you are looking after all children, not just those at the top, but those that are struggling as well. we call it "raised to the topic
-- race to the top." you have to show us that you are building excellent in your school system. at the college level, we have a reform of the student loan system. we have cut out the middleman. we said, we will take that extra money and give it directly to students. students. so, we have hugely expanded pell grants, a lowercase student loan rate and made them more accessible to students of -- lowered student loan rates and made them more accessible to students all across america. we have helped community colleges. if i wanted to get a job right now, i will tell you a secret. on one ofnot want me those machines in there. i would cut of one of my
fingers. it would make a mess. let's say i wanted to get a job machine operator. if i am trying to transition into a new career, community colleges are a huge resource for us to be able to train young people to get the jobs that exist right now. that saves dave money so that he does not have to train somebody on the job. he can hook up with a community college and tell them that he will hire five or 10 guys, or he can work with other companies around the area and designed a training program so that if young people go through it, they know there is a job out there when they get done. we have been working a lot at getting money into community colleges as a bridge. here is the point though. we have to make sure that our young people are trained and prepared for the future.
i know buffalo is a big hockey town. i know that gretzky was not your diapeguy. they used to say something wonderful about why gretzky was so good. he did not think about where the puck was. he thought about where it was going to be. the same thing is true when it comes to our economy. we have to thinking about where the jobs of the future are going to be. what are the needs of the future, whether it is transit, health care, education, business, where is america going to be 10 years from now? 20 years from now? we want to have the most efficient, cutting edge private sector, and we want a government that is a lean and mean, but working effectively with you, not wasting your tax dollars, but investing in those things that will be absolutely
necessary for us to be prepared. if we keep that vision in mind, even as we are making some tough decisions about the budget, even as we are making tough decisions as we are making tough decisions around how to deal with our deficit, i am confident that we are going to be able to come out with a stronger competitive posture and a better future than we have ever had before. that is going to be true right here in buffalo as well. thank you, everybody. god bless you. ♪
>> elena kagan is meeting with senators and advance of her confirmation hearing. learn more about the process and the nation's highest court in c- span's highest book, " the supreme court,"providing unique insight about the court. available now and hardcover and also as an e book. our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and on-line. you can connect with us on
twitter, facebook, and you too. sign up for hours controller to e-mails @ c-span.org. and >> discussion on the energy and comic legislation released by john kerry and joe lieberman. from today's "washington journal." this is at the c-span video library. host: darren samuelsohn is here to talk about energy and climate legislation. here is what john kerry had to say about it yestery. >> we are caught in an economic wnturn that is forcing millions to search for the next new engine of growth and jobs. we are weighed down by an energy policy built on a dangerous addiction to foreign oil. we are threatened by the impact of a changing climate. right now, as one of the worst oil spills in the nation's
history watch is on the shores, no one can doubt how urgently we need a new policy in this cotry. now it is the time to take action. the path to progress has been long, but despite washington conventional wisdom, we are closer than we have ever been to a breakthrough. host: darren samuelsohn, john kerry mentioned that oil spill. this is in the "miami herald" -- front-page this morning. how did the oil spill impact the crafting of this legislation? guest: right now we have pp executive to find the same week that they rolledout this bill. certain individuals backoutof
the negotiations because of immigration politics. because of the oil spill, i is too uncertain. the investigation need to continue, and senators are not ready to weighin on an overhaul of the energy policy. host: so what does this do to the thoughts about offshore drilling? guest: they wanted to expand before. that was the point of lindsey graham's participation. one of the reasons he would agree on a county greenhouse gas emissions would beor new offshore drilling, new nuclear power. what they were able to do here is put some place holders in place but have a moratorium on drilling as the investigation continues. at the same time, theyave set up veto ranks four states who do
not want any drilling to happen next to them. based on an interior department study, showing wind and current patterns, whether or not this sort of disaster could have been in virginia, that state could have veto power. if they did allow drilling off of their short, or in a neighboring state, they could receive quite a bit of revenue. host: how much mey are we talking about? if states go forward wh offshore drilling in retain 35% of federal revenue, how much is that? guest: i think it is probably in the billions. we still have to see how much is on the east coast. host: has anybody done the
calculation of how much this moratorium that we're having right now will put a dent in revenues coming into federal coffers? guest: i do not think we have come that far yet. host: on average, how much does the federal gernment get in revenues from leases, royalties from offshore drilling? i think i saw $13 billion yesterday. is that average? guest: yes. host: is there a cap and trade? what do they do about carbon emissions? guest: that was sort of the trade of the kerry-lieberman partnership. they put limits on power plants and set some goals six years later. it is slightly different in the
house bill. they try to curb emissions from power plants, refiners, and other locations together. they are familiar with cap and trade from the 1990 clean air act. think our companies stood up with tm yesterday, as they introduced the bill. john kerry said after that now what he thinks will happen is utilities will now be comingo capitol hill to lobby the senators. we think that this provides regulatory certainty in terms of the regulatory changes that are coming down the pike, with respect to a supreme court decision in 2005. there are a host of reasons why energy companies wanted this. host: but on utilities, critics have argued that there will be more cost to consumers. their monthly bill will spike under this type of legislation.
guest: what this bill does come of the house bill, is they create a refund system. you get yur energy bill, and it will funnel money back to you that will compensate how much energy prices are supposed to spike. they will go through a local distribution companies first. they are a rate-regulated state utilities that will be -- there are rate-regulated state utilities that will be watching over this process. basically, hundreds of billions of dollars in allocation that these companies will have to purchase in order to comply with the system. host: manufacturers? guest: they are the next big source of the missions, aside from transportation. petroleum mills, paper pu
mills, these types of facilities. when you look at what is happening in developing countries, concerned about plans that could move overseas, what they are trying to do about those it is phase in the air emission standards over six years. in the course of that time, they will also get free allowance, transition of lunch, freeoney to help them transition, make them more carbon-free. that the transportation sector is completely separate from the trading that is going on with the power companies, however, as refiners purchase allowances, these will be determed by what utility pric are paying. this is what is called as the linked fee.
chevron and conoco felt were working on this, pitched it to the senators over the past month, trying to refine the language. host: we are speaking to darren samuelsohn about the energy and climate bill released. they have a brkdown of everything in the bill. questions and comments. don on the independent line. texas. caller: first of all, c-span rocls. -- rocks. is there any hope of doing anything to the environment with this type of legislation? we are not the only ones feeling things into the atmosphere. as a second, somewhat related question. this oil spill in the gulf of mexico, it seems like they did not have any plan for a
disaster. don't you think that people would have planned for these types of potential of these -- eventualities? guest: the house passed their bill in june by a pretty narrow margin. nancy pelosi pushed a bill through. it is sitting in the senate now. it has been pushed back behind e healthcare bill, behind the financial regulatory reform bill now. majority leader reid said that he would not bring this within sight of the floor unless he could get 60. i think the next few weeks will be about shaving blocks of senators on the fence to bring them on board. host: you are counting 41 in support? guest: yes, that is correct.
host: who do you think are the closest to coming on board and supporting the legislation? guest: probably your coal, oil- manufacturing representatives frostate representatives. sharon brown. mark begich of alaska. . sherrod brown. -- sherrod brown. host: mary landrieu? guest: yes, this was a big deal for her. she wanted language in the bill. she is somebody that you could
count on more than someone like byron dorgan or kent conrad. you could probably count them as no votes. host: any republicans close to supporting this? guest: lindsey graham has said that he would be the 60th vote, but he has some concerns about immigration. you have to believe he has an ownership about the bill the next republicans would have to be olympia snow, susan collins. susan collins, perhaps less. she has her own bill. this one is simpler, only about 40 pes, compared to the one that we have now which is about 1000. other republicans to watchoutfor, scott brown of massachusetts. he is definitely hearing it from
john kerry. up for reelection again, so presumably, that is another big issue up there. george lemieux of florida. we will see how the senate race influences things there. judd gregg, we should mention him as well. a retiring senator from new hampshire who had shown interest in the issue. richard lugar, people who have worked with democrats on other issues, sitting across senator kerrey. we will see whether or t they really want to negotiate on the bill. host: ky. mary jo on the republican line. -- kentucky. caller: we have a farm that has oil wells on them, but they are
not capped. they have been in production for years. we do not have the environmental protection agency person coming to look at these things. these are open wells. another thing, on cap and trade, do you ever think about the amount of heat that concrete puts off? guest: i think the cap and trade legislation that senators are trying to push is trying to be choreographed with theclimate on time a change, which is what i think she is getting at. certainly, there are questions
about whether this bill would have been in effect on global temperatures. the bill seeks a reduction by 2020. most environmentalists believe that is not enough, but it is getting started. that would private investment in cleaner energy come away from fossil fuels, like coal and oil. host: next phone call. democratic line. caller: i have not fallen this legislation particularly carefully, but -- i have not been following this legislation particularly carefully, but i appreciatethe effort from john kerry, mary landrieu of indiana. my concern for the general public is, want our cake and eat it, too.
people were up in arms about the mining disaster. all of this pollution concerns me. i also know that we all want our homes to be cool in the summer, we want our lights to be turned on. we want to drive big cars and protest will companies. it seems to me -- oil companies. it seems to me, we are a country that wants our problems fixed by somebody else. do you think th thisill adequately protect the environment while ensing the jobs of the people that work in those industries? guest: i think most people would agree that this bill does not get us into the projections that scientists would tell us -- this
is a global issue, china, india they are and will be taking on a larger sre in the coming decade. the point of this legislation is tory to demonstrate leadership, which, in turn, is meant to spur the chinese and india into investments. there was talk about how the chinese were happy about the fact the climate change bill seem to be dead. in terms of whether or not this bill meets the test, environmentally, you are certainly hearing it from the far left that this bill falls short, does not do enough by the long term. by 2015, this is supposed to reduce emissions by 80%. i am sure that there will be future things that we cannot
even envisioned now. so what is being debated here is certainly a first chapter in the climate change saga. the clean air act has been amended about three times since it has been written. host: next phone call. eric in michigan. caller: i have a solar power on my chicken coop, and i have had to unplug it because it is raining. we are getting a lot of cloud cover. we are talking about utilities, big oil. it seemed to me, it is going to get more expensive to me. i am just a small guy. guest: the way that the legislation is being written, revenue is supposed to be returned primarily to the lowest income earners.
the lowest will be receiving more money. or the other three quintiles, there is supposed to be an increase. house democrats said that the cost would be a postage stamp of date. that is the question for the american public. how much will they be willing to pay for gasoline, electricity bills? polls showed that americans do not want to spend much more than a nickel or dime. so it will be difficult to get people to change the way that they live, the way that they travel. the overall bill of the goal -- you are hearing many other message is chaired by the sponsors. ho: next phone call. you are on with darren
samuelsohn. caller: i have been listening to everybody calling in. we are getting closer and closer to socialism. this cap and trade program that they are trying to push, it does not make sens why are you going to pass collector companies to increase their prices and then this is a redistribution? people are sick and tired of everything going higher and higher, as far as prices are concerned. incomes are not increasing. jobs are not there. we are getting further and further away from where we should be. host: we have your point. let us move on to natural gas. what does this bill say about that? guest: a couple of things. t. boone pickens came up with a
caller: you would be driving and consuming less gasoline and there would be more electric and hybrid cars. that is the goal. right now, the amount of solar and wind is in the single digits and terms of efficiency you get from those. the goal is to get up to 15 or 20%. these are federal mandates there will be trying to put into place. grenoble's are more likely to happen in some parts of the country than others. it is trying to transform the
elections to the grid to get the renewable to the urban centers. >> is it for tax incentives? host: there is a mandate for renewals. if you put a 20% mandate on the country, that is what you have to meet by 2020. it is in the house bill and and the senate bill that was marked up last year. lieberman has incorporated that bill and to their bill. harry reid has to decide whether to pick it up or to try to take this bigger climate bill and put it in together. or to take this picture quantico and put it together. a -- that he passed last year or to take this bigger bill and put it together. host: albany, new york, david,
independt line. caller: i agree with the caller just before. let's face it -- let's face it, climate change armists of is a scam. schools are teachi it -- all are ms. ahman -- alarmedisinm ia scam. schools are teaching it. and they put it in our trade policies. host: what about at last point? guest: there is a border adjustments the tanagers are putting into their bill to try to make sure that any bills that come in from -- and the goods that come in from foreign countries, if they do not have equal protection in the united states, they will have to pay a mortar attacks.
there is going -- are going to be challenges that since you as country spoke of with the u.s. is doing. and your are actually seeing it come back toward the u.s. ran out, countries upset by the fact that the u.s. does not have reporter change block. we're seeing the beginnings of a potential trade 4. that is what the senators are trying to get around -- a potential trade war. that is what the senators are trying to get around. host: next call on the republican line. caller: i agree with the last caller. this is one of the biggest scams ever pulled off on as. i live in illinois and last night we just had 6 inches of rain. the other thing is, these senators and congressman, they are trying to steal our money.
and when you stand up here on the plane, there are just the just go over constantly. when you think about that -- like last night, we got close to 6 inches of rain. anything that is produced on the ground ever grows up over 25,000 feet. and anything that is polluted into the air at that level comes back down in rain. anything over that stays in the atmosphere. a judge will burn close to 2,000 gallons of fuel. -- a jett will burn close to 2,000 gallons of fuel. none of that was ever put into the equation. that is why it is all a scam to steal our money. guest: bill is aimed at the 7500 biggest industrial facilities in the country. those are the primary sources of greenhouse gases in the country. it is not aimed at farmers. it actually exempt small farmers.
-- actually exempts farmers. skepticism has been growing in the u.s. in the last six months, last year, in light ofthe nails that came out from the research -- in light of the e-mails that came out from the research center. investigations have shown that the scientists were clearly not trying to hide anying. but the level of skepticism as up and you are hearing that more and more accurate -- is up and your screen out more and more. host: robert riesch has a piece this morning in the "new york times" and he says that the energy bill includes incentives of $2 billion per year for carbon capturing sequestering.
what is going on with this technology? guest: carbon capturing sequestration is pretty much with the coal companies are banking on. the technology is pretty much a bank -- a decade or more away. theyave been trying to sdy the country's geological under ground to get a sense where they cod be putting co2 underground. there are places it is more likely to happen that others. there's a lot of money in this bill to push the forward -- to push it forward. the same thing happened in the house when congressman rick doctor helped push that bill through. -- richard bowsher helped push
the bill through. all of the technologies exist in separate forms, whether it be capturing of the smokestack or at the commercialization, trying to get it from the powerplant to the place where they will put its underground. i fully putting all three pieces altogether -- actually putting all three pieces together to scale is the problem. that part of the technology exists and it really is a matter of spending money to try to get this up to a commercial scale. host: david in cincinnati, democratic line. caller: good morning mr. samuelsohn. the fellow who just called about 6 inches of rain in illinois needs to go back and take a ninth grade course because he
could not pass one right now. to say this is a scam is ridiculous. but i want to oust mr. samuelsohn, has america for ron th our entire policy ha been -- has america forgotten that our entire policy has been steeped in secrecy by mr. cheney and others? host: do you care to respond? guest: the cheney energy task force that he is referring to from 2001 and ultimately led t two energy laws pose -- pushed by the bush administration and they both had clean coal technology and changed the fuel economy standards. there was allotted of discussion in the spring -- there was a lot of discussion in the supreme court about who can afford the
ideas -- came up with the ideas. ultimately, president bush agreed done and what -- agreed that the set -- a climate change was happening. at the very end of his term, democrats had taken over congress and were pushing a bill throughout that time. it did not come close to the 60 votes needed in the senate. since president obama came in 2008, this has been one of the top three or four domestic policy items that has been up there. host: north carolina, markets, independent line. --arcus, independent line. caller: i want to say that i think most of america agrees with me that this is just a scam to create one world tax and global government. and thousands of scientists signed a petition in 1998
created by an american physicist to say that all of the plan isin the stores as a marketing harder at an equal break. host: -- and getting -- all of the planets in the solar system are getting hotter at an equal rate. host: next call from arkansas. caller: i use about 20% to 25% of my gross icome on energy. what you said before about farmers being exempt, how would affect is that? -- how exactly is that? and farms are shrinking in america. they are growing in south
america, obviously. and they're cutting down a rain forest to create more capacity. every time they pass that to america is creating more pressure on america and south american farmers are cutting down reinforced. what will they do to ensure the survival of the american farmer? guest: it is a 900 and something page bill, so i admit i have not read the entire thing yet. it exempts farmers at the source, i understand. there is not going to be a "cow tax" or any limit to how many cows can be on your form. -- on your farm. you will see economic projections are for the next couple of weeks and months
trying to determine how much this is going to cost on a state-by-state basis. that is what to be difficult to prove out, in terms of whose study is right. and there will be a lot of them in the coming months. in terms of what else it does for farmers, like they said, kerry and lieberman, they did t want to pick a fight with the agricultural committee. -- community. collin peterson, the chair of the house agriculture committee did in a tangle with the democratic sponsors of te bill over who would be in charge of some of the programs created in this bill, whether it would be the usda or the epa. they are trying to appeal to america in creating carbon offsets, ways to pay farmers for
leaving trees standing. and ways that they can produce combinations and power companies can purchase that of these subsidies. and payment can be made to people who work e land and actually make out in the black as opposed to the red. host: next call is from run on the democratic line. -- run on the democratic line. -- ron on the democratic line. caller: what this really has allowed us to do is to put aside -- a sign near the sites go on to clean coal.
the republicans continue to shoot talking points that i heard on a.m. radio months ago on cap and trade. cap and trade work for us of rain. it will work for this bill. guest: on the capt. trade and the onpoints, they have been coming out -- on the cap and trade and talking points, they have been coming out. when you look at the bill, there is not necessarily a gas tax or a federatrust fund. the federal highway fund is the primary recipient of the gas tax. that is not what is touched by this bill. there is a fee on transportation fuel and the process. aware consumers will see the price is the question. -- and where consumers will see
the price is theuestion. they almost want to put a sticker on the pump. that will be debated here in terms of where people will see the price increase in their gas prices. host: next call comes from arizona. before we go to that, do you know whersenator mccain is on moving forward with climate change legislation? guest: mccain had been a sponsor of the lieberman bill for a longtime producer pretty much since -- for a long time. pretty much since the provincial campaign he has not done much. that is why you see others taking the lead on the issue. senator kerry is focusing on recycling. it is kind of a poking a finger at senator reid.
john mccain is facing a big conservative challenge from his right fr j.d. hayworth and has shown no interest in working on this issue. it is hard to believe he could actually vote no on the climate go, given where he has been over the years. and there will be the question, if this bill does come to the floor -- euna, does it come up before or after -- you know, does it come before or after the august recess, that could put him in a tough spot. host: go ahead, caller. caller: john mccain better not pass up on cap and trade. i have been calling my senators and holding their feet to the fire. i think it is just the biggest
scam ever committed on the american public. co2 is a natural gas. it is natural to be in the air. to cap it and trade it and sell it is the biggest scam committed on the american people. i cannot believe you are or to cap it, sell it, and traded. -- trade it. have youver heard of the chicago and london -- exchange of obama in the 1990's? --guest: it was a market for companies taking early action, anticipating in the 1990's. it was started by a gentleman that has since stepped down. it has been seen by a lot of companies try to get a head
start in the process. also, it has created an agricultural offset market. there are pharmacists in iowa who are practicing novato practices -- no-till practices. host: i think the caller said that president obama started this. is that true? guest: not exactly true. i think you could connect three or four people who obama worked with in chicago to being on the board of the chicago climate exchange. host: bonnie on the republican line, you are a lot - our last phone call. caller: is john kerry going to give up his private jet? is he going to give up his big suv? all of these politicians have private jets, suv's.
we pay for it. and they want to tell us we have to drive a small car, where is richard entering your heat down. -- wear a sweatshirt and turn in your seat down. host: do you know if john kerry has a projects guest: i do not >> senators joe lieberman and john kerry refilling ain't energy bill. a republican senator who had been involved in crafting the legislation did not attend this event. this portion of the news conference is 45 minutes.
>> thank you for coming today for this introduction of the american power act. the bill but we are introducing today will restore america's economy, reassert our position as a global leader in clean energy technology. it will create millions of jobs, move us toward energy independence and strengthen america's security and it will give us cleaner air. we are offering america, today, chief executives of major countries, different industries, members of faith- based community, internment community, a national security community, have all come together to offer america a chance to break out of a trap. we are caught today in an
economic downturn that has left millions of people searching for the next new engine of growth and jobs. we are weighed down by a broken energy policy built on a dangerous addiction to foreign oil. we are threatened by the impacts of changing climate. right now, one of the worst oil spills and the nation's history is washing onto our shores and nobody can doubt how badly we need >> we are closer than we ever have been to a breakthrough. two congresses ago, we had 38 votes for climate change legislation put up last congress, we had 58. we want to make this the senate where we finish the job and cast the decisive vote for the future.
present is a never before seen coalition for clean energy and jobs. the coalition, put together across american life, all of them, including key stakeholders that are increasing the energy in, the legislation for the very first time. these groups and companies are not giving up on a new energy economy on the contrary. today, there are tumbling down. they understand that this is not a choice. it is a necessity. we need to get it done as soon as possible. our policy today is stock and a web of contradiction. year after year, we perpetuate policies that we know are wrong for america's features while putting off what we know is right we are sending $1 billion overseas every day for foreign oil. we could invest those billions
into safe and clean energy right here at home, for jobs that cannot be exported abroad and that paid more money than jobs today. washington is standing by while generals and admirals warn that climate change will multiplied the threats that we face and make the world more dangerous when we know we could prevent that catastrophe and protect our air and water. washington is watching as other countries to take jobs from us, literally, steal them from us. we know those are jobs that could belong to american workers. we could push the boundaries of innovation and create millions of jobs in this country. the american power act is a decision to seize this moment to transform our nation's energy policy from a national weakness into a national strength and the it is a message to the world that america is ready to take back our role as the world's clean energy leader. as we do that, we _ that the
technology market that made many people while they was a $1 trillion market with 1 billion users. the clean energy market that we are reaching for today is a six trillion dollar market billion users. if we want to claim our share, america needs to lead. as president obama said, america should not settle for being number 2. the chinese are not waiting around. they just surpassed us and renewable energy investment for the first time ever. the germans are not waiting around. there renewable energy sector is now the second-largest purchaser of german steel. if that is not reason enough to move, every day that washington fails to act, america sends another $100 million to iran.
the american power act marks a clean break from the failed policies of the past and a fresh legislative start. it creates major incentives for clean, efficient, and renewable energy. the positions america to lead the world in electric cars, invest in our highways, how electricity travels to and from every section of our country. it helps clean technologies be developed and lays the groundwork for a new generation of admission-free nuclear plants. more importantly, this bill finally creates a fair playing field that drives the right kind of competition, recognizes the true value of clean energy and protect american consumers every step of the way. to meet these goals, the american power act uses a reduced and refund approach. we reduced our liberal -- our
level of carbon pollution and reduce our dependency on foreign oil, the energy gap and the jobs gap with china. that is what we reduced. we refund the revenues from our efforts back to the american taxpayer and their families. after we help companies hold down their cost and adjust to the new standards, all of the money goes directly back to the american taxpayer. we help consumers to reduce their energy bills and give taxpayers a refund. what is more, after 20 years of seeing the cost of pollution passed on, the reduce and refund approach finally returns us to common sense. it is the polluters, not the people, who should pay. that is reinforced as we see today. i have heard the washington conventional wisdom that big answers to tough problems would
be dead on arrival. replaced by a watered-down energy bill or even nothing at all. joe lieberman and i came together because we knew there had to be a better path forward. we welcome all good ideas and all stakeholders, including many of those whose thoughts and concerns are reflected in this bill. we put everything on the table and sought practical solutions, made painful concessions and found common ground companies, some of them standing here, who have opposed every past piece of legislation to date are now standing with environmentalists who support this bill. ceo's and religious leaders, a venture-capital lists and consumer advocates, small and big business, members of the coal industry, transportation industry, farmers, utilities, are all united around a common
vision for a better energy future. the president and harry reid are with us and i have heard even several republicans and these days tell me in private that they are encouraged by what is in this bill and they are anxious to review it. there will be those who say this is the wrong political season. we are here today because we believe that good policy is also good politics. this is a vote for clean energy. this is a vote to hold polluters accountable. this is a vote for millions of dollars for the next generation of jobs, including coal and safe nuclear power. this is a vote to " america's addiction to foreign oil and to safeguard the air our children brief. this should be an easy vote. history teaches us again and again that fundamental change never comes without a fight.
those who doubt declared that health care was dead right up until we passed it. then they left banking reform for dead. that bill is alive and kicking, ready to become law and a day. with the help of president obama, we believe we can do it again. some would prefer to defer the tough choices and settle for an easier road and go home and clear victory. that is the single most sure way to guarantee we have the same conversation in five years, 10 years, or even 20 years, when other countries have cornered the market and it is a lot tougher for americans to catch up. every year we wait, it costs us billions of dollars in lost market share, lost opportunities, lost leadership, lost jobs. we need to send the market a signal about carbon that will unleash transformed of new investments in clean energy
right here in america. that is the measure of a serious bill. i understand congress's reputation for avoiding tough choices and even numbered years. we need to remind people that we passed the clean air act in an election year and updated eight in another election year to fight acid rain. in 2010, we need to show america that we can still do what americans sent us here to do. those who spent years stalling need to understand something -- killing a senate bill is not the measure of success for victory. if congress cannot legislate solutions, the epa will regulate one. . .
my colleague in this, as a great friend over all these years, going way back to college, i am delighted to be working with him now for. he has been a great help during this effort -- joe lieberman. >> thank you veri. it is true are relationship goes back to college. i cannot tell you we were talking about climate change
their. we were having a good time and having great debates. the truth is john kerry was one of the people who convince me to run for the senate in 1988, so there is a good feeling i have in having worked with him as closely as we have over the last several months to get us to this day. i want to thank him for all his work, for his practical leadership of the house to enable all of us to come together to launch the american power act. we call this legislation the american power act because it will protect and increase america's national power in this century, and it will do so by changing the way we power america. it will stop the flow of dollars out of america to buy oil, just as it will stop the flow of jobs
out of america to build a new energy systems that are replacing oil. our legislation creates a market-driven partner showed between america because private and public sectors -- partnership between america's private and public sectors. this would mean three challenges -- our dependency on oil abroad, the loss of jobs of home, and the threat of harmful carbon pollution in our air, and it does all of that without adding a dime to our national deficit, but it will add billions of dollars of private investment to america's economy, create millions of new jobs for the american people, and refund hundreds of billions of dollars to american consumers.
our legislation will price carbon to reflect its real cost to our economy and society, and in doing so, i think will light the spark that will ignite america's entrepreneurial and innovation engine to solve some of our most serious problems. this proposal does not cater to the politics of the moment, but it will protect the future of our country and our families, and ultimately, that is the best politics, because that is what our constituents sent us here to do -- not to play to the lowest common political denominator of the moment, but to make their lives and the lives of our country better and more secure. the challenges we face today are
clear, and so are the choices we have. we can lead, or weaken the lead. we can grow, or we can shrink. -- we can lead, or we can be led. we continue -- can continue to send our resources to chavez, or weekend generate our region weekend generate our own source of electricity right here in america. -- we can generate our own source of electricity right here in america. we can create the jobs right here in america. this still faces the challenges. it makes the tough choices, and i believe it will not only preserve america's straightness, but help us in our generation achieve -- america of's
greatness, but help us in our generation achieve our destiny very good -- our destiny. i am very proud of this bill. it is strong. it is balance. it will work, and i am proud to be here with this group of people in introducing it, but i will tell you this. we would not be heard today if we did not feel that with the help of the people here we can and will adopt the american power act in this session of congress. there is more i can say, but we have gathered the largest and most avers group of supporters that have ever come together on behalf of an energy -- the most diverse group of supporters that have ever come together on
behalf of an energy bill. kerry and i know this because we have been part of every bill. why am going to yield to those who know more about the details and to discuss why the american power is so critical who preserving america pause national security in the decade ahead -- preserving america's national security in the decade ahead. i am proud to introduce the former commander of central command, which covers the middle east. [applause] >> thank you very much. this is an unusual turn of events for me, because in most of my previous experiences -- appearances, i was facing the committee when the cameras and the audience looking at the back
of my head, of this is not too frightening to the audience this morning, but i want to thank senator kerry and senator lieberman for being here today, and to solicit the efforts of yourselves and colleague senator lindsay gramm, for your dedicated worker in a most collaborative ending collusive manner to try and address some critical issues -- in a conclusive manar to try to redress some critical issues. these related issues that are of great import to american citizens and others are energy, climate, and national security. the energy consumption in this country continues to increase, and reliance on fossil fuels, particularly for power generation and for transportation with motor vehicles is the accelerating climate change, and it is this
carbon pollution that is resulting in greenhouse gases and is causing global warming. this affects -- effect is resulting in changes not lead to the atmosphere, but particularly to water supplies and related aspects of water throughout the world, and this for 10 significant challenge to national security. climate changes affecting available water supplies, and the indicator is this is going to continue, and one does not have to go too far -- i was recently done in the anarchic, and there's a lot of guys down there, and the -- in the antarctic, and there's a lot of ice down there, but certainly it is more obvious to many.
this change in water on this planet i believe is going to be significantly destabilizing to our future, affecting people, inducing probably more poverty as the climate makes many lands was habitable, and affecting -- less habitable, and affecting agriculture, and the risk of conflict from just the tension between people is going to be a very significant effort we're going to have to deal with. we need easily understood policies, which are going to make this country and our people stronger economically and politically more secure, and certainly less reliance on outside resources. the u.s. would be more secure if we reduce our carbon emissions of persuaded others to do the same. these challenges need an active
leadership. we have got it. we have many years of effort trying to come up with enough momentum to make the changes that are necessary. we are going to need active leadership, not only of the people in this room, but of the legislators in washington and certainly in support of the american people. we are long overdue for an opportunity to get moving. i salute you, senators for this, and i look forward to supporting you in this effort. thank you very much [applause] >> tim rogers -- jim rogers. >> i am the chairman and ceo. i am delighted to be here today, and i want to start by thanking kerry and lieberman
for working tirelessly to put together the american power act. i also want to thank senator gramm for putting so many hours into this as well. my judgment is this bill is all the better because of the time he putin in helping shave it going forward. for duke energy, this bill is about three towering america -- re-towering america. we need to go forward, giving us the road map where we can provide the solutions, where we can raise billions of dollars of investment and create jobs and move this towards energy independence and at the same time make our air even cleaner than it is today. these investments we will make and are prepared to make will not only create jobs today, but
tomorrow and in the future, and that is going to really lead to the recovery of our economy when you see the trajectory of the jobs that will be created over time. the legislation can also -- i am selling this from tom friedman. it can help us -- sealing this from tom friedman. it can help us get our economic mojo back, and we will get that back, and it will give us a chance to lead on energy and technology. we should not see that leadership to anybody in the world. let me try to spend a moment and talk about the impact on the lecture consumers in america -- on the electric consumers in america. i started my career fighting
rate increases of utility companies. i have, long way, but i am still a consumer advocate, -- i have come a long way, and i am still a consumer advocate. we have touched the lives of 11 million people in five spades, who depend on coal for the majority of their elises city. i am also here -- for the majority of their electricity. i am also here for the tens of millions of electric consumers. in my judgment, this bill helps give the transition right to a low carbon world. it helps get a clean and modern power system in a manner that protects family budget and
protect american factories that depend on affordable power. the bill also creates incentives for clean coal and nuclear, two key technologies that must be in accelerated in their deployment going forward to achieve our national goals. this bill will indeed protect consumers and a charge of the course for our future. -- chart the course for our future. it is time to work of the details and come together for the american people and make is still a reality for all, and most importantly, if you take any message away from what i am saying, take this message away.
we can protect consumers while we pursue our clean energy goes. thank you for this opportunity to be here today. [applause] >> i am president of the environmental defense fund, representing american families and individuals for. we are in the middle of a rapid and fundamental shift in american public opinion about energy right now in this country. every day when we turn on cnn, we see pictures that remind us that the safety and security of our energy supply is in question and that our environment is threatened by our dependence on oil. every day, the business pages remind us that if china and other countries are eating our
lunch when it comes to new energy technologies and taking the jobs that come with them. for decades, congress has been arguing over stupid things while ignoring these problems in the meantime, is investing in its future. i think the president and congress should turn the focus on energy, the concern about our environment, and the fundamental need to growth jobs into a referendum of of building a better future for america and a better america the provides not only a protected environment, good food, well-paying jobs for americans. the american power accept -- power act is the opportunity for the american congress to do just that. the draft being released is the product of a six-month effort to
get the best ideas from everybody of the table -- environmentalists, energy, democrats, and republicans, but it is really the product of years of discussion about how to do energy policy the right way. it can be the vehicle for new environmental safeguards. it has strong goals for reducing carbon solutions to address the threat of climate change to our economy and our environment. it will remove the shackles of uncertainty that have been strained our investment in new ways of generating power, and it will do this in a way that protects consumers. because of that, it has the support of the most important stakeholders, who will work hard to improve it and push it across the finish line.
i have been after this for a long time, but this is the first time and i'd like this has had such broad support. it is the best opportunity we have ever had to achieve real, meaningful change. it will require some bipartisanship, and it will require leadership from the president and from the majority leader. with their help, it can be done, so i salute you, senator kerry and senator lieberman, for getting this bill out in public so we can get it enacted this year. [applause] >> good afternoon. we represent a leger utility, and -- companies in the united states and around the world.
you and me always have to disagree about something. i would say the senate never does any important work. thank you very much fear yet i appreciate it. basically, i am glad to be here with members of the business community and environmental community and many other government organizations. this is a historic achievement, and i want to commend senator kerrey of lieberman for the introduction of the bill today. i also want to commend them for the collaborative process they undertook here to essentially include every asset of the economy as well as all the tools that are important to continue our economic process, and that is exactly what they did. i also want to commend lindsay ground. -- lindsay ground. it is a much better product as a
result of all his efforts. today does mark a critical milestone. i want to particularly thank the senators for their realization that customer protections are an incredibly important part of this legislation. we started to try to figure out how to deal with climate legislation more than three years ago, and we got all the companies together. we work hard over that time, and as you can imagine, it is a difficult thing sometimes to get everybody to agree upon things, but we managed to achieve that. we managed to the death the idea that in order to achieve this goal, we needed to use all the technology we could possibly use -- renewals, natural gas, all those technologies to move forward, but we also had to have a vital component, and that was to make sure the consumer was
going to be protected, and it was not for it to be economic problem for the economies. i commend the senators, because with the inclusion of provisions, inclusions then made sure there was not a great price of volatility to customers -- they made sure that we can do this task, and we can achieve a major reduction in greenhouse gas emissions at the same time we are protecting customers, so i commend the senators for their efforts. we will be working vigorously with them as the process continues and to make sure the impacts both regionally and nationally are considered, but we look forward to working with you to continue the process and eventually enact a good climate and energy legislation.
thank you very much. [applause] >> david cody, the ceo. >> honeywell may be the biggest company you have never heard of. we're about $33 billion in sales, 120,000 employees, more than half of which are outside the u.s.. when we think about this, one of the things that surprises us is that in all the discussion about climate change, one of the most important point was missed, and that is that this is about economic and energy security, and the premises that low-cost clean power yields sustainable gdp growth, and that is what yields jobs. if you start with that premise, that takes you down two paths -- one for a generation and one for efficiency. on the generation side, i would
argue it is more of a technology issue. we need to make sure we stay neutral and said good standards on what constitutes a clean energy and then let 1000 flowers bloom. we need to engage the creativity of the american people and american businesses to make that happen. on the efficiency side, this is more about behavior, and i would point to our own company. if the u.s. aggressively use existing honeywell products and technologies, it would be a 20% to 25% savings for the u.s.. because we come from a nation of lawyers and were most people say if a ceo is saying something it has to be questioned -- it is 20%, which raises -- which raises the question, how come nobody does it. you have to change a lot of the incentives and the way people think without reducing
standards, and i think we have the opportunity to make that happen, and when you look energy efficiency, a megawatt save through energy efficiency is about a third of what it costs to generate the same megawatts. we need to think, how do we encourage that efficiency. in both generation and technology, it is important to recognize the rest of the world is moving. too often i have heard things like we should not do it unless india and china do it. i can tell you, traveling the world of law, those countries are moving, and we should not be confusing political discussions about copenhagen with what is actually going on economically. as countries are moving, they are focused on efficiency and generation, because they know low cost fling power is what
creates sustainable gdp growth, and that is what yields jobs during give we need an energy policy for our country. we do not have one, and i am hopeful what are senators have proposed, that we can finally have one and be on a sustainable cdt path. -- g.d.p. pasth. thank you. [applause] >> i am a pastor from florida. i am also on the board of directors of the national association of evangelicals, 420 million members, but i came to speak to the broader aspects than just being a part of the christian faith.
these practical benefits you have heard of so far are also part of broader aspect of this bill. it is never too early or too late to do the right thing. religious people and non- believers alike have a sense of being accused third of our earth and our atmosphere is the right thing to do. in addition to that, all scripture's -- feed through encryption, the crime, all say the to protect -- hebrew and christian scripture as well as the karan also is the purpose is to worship god. they say we should hold of a third, and that means we need to balance production with production. that is to say we are not so interested in fighting pollution. we are interested in fighting
poverty. we think green should mean a growing economy as one of us a healthy environment, and the time for action is now. it is the business of those with political perspective to calculate the chance of success, of legislative successes never the standard for moral action. i personally do not want to be standing before god on judgment day, saying, i really wanted to protect the earth but was not sure the votes were there. [laughter] it is never too early or too late to do the right thing. thank you. [applause] >> i am the ceo of florida power and light.
we also of the utility's, one of the largest electric utilities in the nation. we also are the largest renewable energy producer in the united states. senators kerry and senator lieberman deserves tremendous credit for helping to move our country in the right direction on energy and climate, while creating jobs and protecting the u.s. economy. i really think they have done a fabulous job of balancing all the interest of people standing behind me today, but many other constituents, and it is incredible what they've done and who they have listened to.
a small example of that is the fact that jim rogers and i can be on the same stage supporting this bill. seriously, jim and i both have been studying this comet issue, and we think it is a serious threat, so we have been on the same page -- this climate issue, and we did it is a serious threat, so we have been on the same page. the did news about this bill is it protects all the customers -- the good news about this bill is a project all the customers. this bill works, and it is important we move this forward. after many years of debate, the united states still lacks a national energy strategy, and this is our chance to fisk bought -- to fix the.
as the ceo of a number one renewable energy company, i can promise you this. with the price on a carbon and the other aspects, we will invest billions of dollars more in renewable cents for every single year. we are going to create thousands of jobs and far more than what is under our current energy strategy. i want to thank senators kerry and lieberman for drafting a solution all parties should be allowed to support. i will welcome the director of the national wildlife foundation. [applause] >> i am the president and ceo of the national wildlife federation. we have more than 4 million members across america. i am here to thank ythe senators for their unwavering leadership.
i spend much of my time tracking the unreflecting damage, the devastating impact. it has only just begun. the vast damage to marine life has not been measured. the price of paralysis can no longer be hidden. when oil flows into our gulf waters as fast as our money is flowing into the persian gulf, it is time for a new energy policy. we put our economy, our national security, and our environment at great risk. the american power act has one ingredient that is absolutely essential for any energy bill worth doing. it holds companies accountable for doing their fair share to reduce carbon pollution. that means more clean energy
jobs and more clean energy. it means less pollution. it means investing in energy alternatives and breaking this addiction we have to foreign oils. less pollution means cleaner air for my grandchildren and a healthy environment for them to inherit. i appreciate senator kerry and senator lieberman for making this moment possible, and i trust they will continue to work on this bill as we go forward. there is still must to be learned about the tragedy in the gulf, and we must incorporate what we have learned in this legislation as we move forward. we must protect our coast, are marine life and all of america's wildlife resources. the work is not finished, but it is a vital step, and the senate must finish this work this year and deliver a comprehensive clean energy bill that america can live with. we will be mobilizing our 4
million supporters to help lawmakers in this important moment. thank you very much. [applause] >> midafternoon. i am the president and ceo of the nuclear energy institute. we have over 300 members it is hard to add to the comments without repeating them, but i would like to thank the senators for a very involved process. i certainly want to thank senator brown. all of us support a diversified portfolio of technology.
there is no single bullet as going to solve our problem, and i think one of the things recognized, and you heard the talk about it from a customer standpoint -- is a very big recognition of the affect on the economy and a big recognition of looking at energy security as one of the outcomes we want. the bill does a lot to enhance and expand our ability to move nuclear energy forward. we have plans going forward right now but nothing like china and india are doing. they are moving much more aggressively than we are, but we think we will be about to move forward, creating jobs and meeting our energy supply needs. i will close by offering our support to work with the senators, their colleagues in the senate and house as we try to move this through to get to the president's desk. thank you very much.
[applause] >> thank you. i am bob hansen. in the past five years, the joy in ventures have announced approximately $5 billion in domestic investments in solar energy technology. these have created over 2000 direct jobs and countless indirect jobs. we are encouraged by the legislation unveiled, and we look forward to purchase of getting in the process to ultimately result in a comprehensive bill. as the leading u.s. manufacturer of alternative energy and components, we welcome the proposal, which encourages further development of
renewable energy, inflation, and implementation. we definitely want to be part of the solution, and we appreciate the opportunity. thank you, senators. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tomorrow morning, efforts to prevent homegrown terrorism. we will look of climate change and energy legislative rigid legislation. ronald marks discusses honda surveillance is used in london to try to lower crime. every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the u.s. house us complete legislative work for the week.
members spent yesterday and today on science and technology programs for the next five years, the beijing more than 50 amendments. the democratic leaders pulled the bill after a republican motion was accepted to freeze spending and our funds to pay government workers disciplined for viewing pornography on work computers. we will hear more from the capital reporter. house democrats stop the final vote from occurring today. why? >> they pulled the bill from the floor of the republicans succeeded in passing amendments that effectively gutted the bill, and the way the republicans were able to do that is they were able to attract democratic votes by sitting in a provision saying that federal employees who are disciplined
for watching porn on their government computers would be fired, and that was hard for democrats to vote for, even though there were provisions they supported. democrats pull the bill, saying they're going to come back next week, they're going to rewrite the bill to include the anti- porn revision and tried to keep the rest of the bill intact. this is an authorization bill that does things like research grants and education grants, and it does not actually spend the money directly. it authorizes spending over a number of years, and they have to appropriate standing, so it is a two-step process. the interesting thing is republicans now seem to have a formula for forcing democrats into some tough votes, and the democrats have been folding over
the last few weeks. last week there was a similar amendment that shrank in -- it was an energy authorization bill last week, and the republicans were able to get their amendments passed by using a provision requiring people who are going to give these grants under this energy bill to make sure they were not child molesters are sexual offenders, so democrats did not want to vote against the amendment, so it seems like democrats -- republicans have figured out how to put republicans on the defensive, but they are crying foul, saying the republicans are playing politics and using these gimmicky kinds of legislative language to shoehorn much bigger
changes to these bills. >> how often are these motions successful? >> they are not successful but often, but they have been pretty successful over the last few weeks. there is a third one that dealt with criminal background checks that passed in march, so it is not unheard of for republicans to the will to pass one of these motions, but it is pretty unusual for democrats to have to pull the bill. one reason democrats told me they pulled the bill is that in addition to their concerns that the changes made gutted it was that they want to get the business community, which strongly backs the bill, of molas of business groups and by this bill -- they want them to
put heat on republicans and say, let this go. do not play games with this, because they want this bill. the democrats are hoping a few days of a lobbying from those groups would give republicans to relent, and republicans are please. they think they have scored an important victory by saying, we were able to cut $40 billion in authorizing money from the scylla and pave the democrats as free-standing -- money from this deal and paint the democrats as freestanding. they have a tv commercial made for the fall. >> thank you. >> due to be with you. >> during the last year as i served as solicitor general, my long standing appreciation of
the supreme court's role in our democracy has become ever deeper and richard. >> the next step for elena kagan is her appearance before the committee. find out more about her at the c-span video library. watch what you want, when you want. every weekend, booktv features 48 hours of nonfiction books. this weekend, the former cia officer talks about life in agency before and after 9-11. find the entire weekend schedule at booktv.org. >> the ucla professor joyce apple be discusses why capitalism as a cultural system,
not just an economic one. >> elena kagan was on capitol hill today, where she continues her visit with senators ahead of her confirmation hearing. among the senators, arlen specter and charles schumer as well as scott brown. this is about 15 minutes. >> could morning. -- good morning. >> the publication is about four
>> you are going the wrong direction. >> she is such a good lawyer. she is able to combine brilliance and practicality. that is a good combination. one of my worries has always been that they are way up in the ivory tower, and they did not quite appreciate the practical consequences on businesses, governments, and people i have known alani kagan is within her goals, and one thing -- alani kagan is within her goals. people say, what kind of experience as she had of thelma
-- does she have? she ran an illegal business. -- a legal business. it was like a legal factory, and she ran it with so many egos, and she made it into a well- running, smooth business and my daughter was at yale, and she said, one reason i hope elena kagan is chosen -- [inaudible] i think she has just the right kind of experience, and in a court where we do not have anyone who has had that kind of practical experience, i think that is a welcome addition. i believe she is a moderate.
i do not like them too far right or too far left, and i also believe, knowing her and seeing the warmth and strength of her personality, that she would need a criteria of the president set out, which is that she is very likely to be one of five votes, not one of four votes, and i think that is perhaps the most important criteria. >> republicans are making comparisons between the two were they diametrically opposed their positions from last time. you are also in a different position, so i wonder if you could talk about this.
>> my problem with harriet myers was that she did not have legal acumen. i think if you had to pick through practical experience what would help you be a good supreme court justice, running a large law school is probably pretty good. you have to meet a budget. you have to bring people together. you see the practical affect of your decision. >> she actually brought of the five -- she has confirmed there will be four new yorkers on the court, which they said that is too much. >> quality of people should be the number one criteria, not where they come from. we have a lot of high quality people syrian -- people.
>> [inaudible] >> i talked about some of those issues we mainly talked about who she was and where she comes from and being a justice. i think she is balanced now. >> can you talk about funding levels? >> did you discuss the forthrightness of nominees in front of the judiciary committee, and she did -- did she criticize any current members of the supreme court? >> she did not, but the is something i have stood for for a long time. i told her when you ask him if
the sky is blue, he said, i cannot answer that because the case might come before may and i might have to judge did, that was not going to get by, the she would have to answer questions, and i think she understood that. >> liberals have brought of the she has some issues possibly with her decisions. when we approached it, but i am not going to get into the specifics. >> can you talk about the possible problem at harvard with her hiring? >> i am not familiar with that, so i could not do that. >> white house officials said they are cutting the funding, and you may be could explain that. >> i talked this morning about
this. here is my view. first, in this round new york stock 11% of the transit and i terror funding. we get far more than 11%. we seem to be 75% to 100% of the target. in terms of the point of view that new york got a lot of money from the stimulus bill, that is true. the threats have increased. we have seen over the last three or four months cohea new group t is targeting new york. they did not have success, but they came all too close. the old formulas do not work, and one thing i suggested to the white house is they could make
up with it with the money that would be allocated in the next month, and they can make up with those losses. there is no question in my mind that new york did not get a fair share on a percentage basis for the amount we should get in terms of all the things we have to do to protect our citizens. >> what did they respond? >> they are looking at it, and they said to me, what about stimulus money? >> [inaudible] >> here is what i think. i do not think it is fair to blame this on the president. this was probably put in place before all the new information has come about, but i do say
homeland security should have seen this and caught it. my hope is given the president sympathy for new york, that is one of the reasons he is visiting the nypd this afternoon. we need to take the sympathy and understanding and translated into action and dollars, and that is what myself and the rest of the new york delegation will try to do. thank you, everybody. >> thank you for coming. we appreciate it. let's get to work.
>> thank you very much. >> you are welcome. >> hello, everybody. let me just say one thing. i am going to be brief, because i have to go. did you talk about [inaudible] i did. the military had concerns about that, but she inserted very honestly, and she is supportive of the men and women who come to protect us and the military a level -- eyes of whole -- as a