tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN May 14, 2010 1:00pm-6:30pm EDT
not have the armed predators. if we havthe armed predators in 1999-2000, we might have been able to knock out bin laden. i worry about the overuse of the drone. i think it should be selectively used against. terrorist targets, not as actively used in counterinsurgency. we really need to minimize the collateral damage in reserve this wpon. if we overuse it, we will wind up losing it. host: next call for michael sheehan, greg on the independent line. caller: i'm more concerned by the people you have on the air. he says he studied 9/11 and the oklahoma city bombing investigati and he thought
they were done so well. there were people who were on the committees who mitted they were thwarted and they did not have the funding. does he have a comment on that? host: i have spoken to all the 9/11 commission members and i think there were satisfied with the report. of course, they had complaints about certain areas. perhaps not having enough time or not funding. the general principle findings of the report, i do not think any of the members had a major problem with. i know virtually all of them. i was interviewed by them extensively. think they generally got a story right. it generally, what today outlined happened on 9/11 is what happened. same thing with timothy mcveigh. host: elizabeth in kentucky, you
are on with michael sheehan. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just recently went through the floods here in kentucky. i found out that small, pertinent pieces of information that should have been passed on to the public, should have been in the plan. i would >> you can watch this on my act c-span.org. >> we will take you live to the national press club. thomas donohue will be talking about world trade. it is just getting under way here at c-span. >> the relationship of these neighbors may be described as less than harmonious since the current occupant of the white house moved in.
the president and the chamber have clashed often, but the to have found common ground on the capacity of trade to promote growth and create jobs. two weeks before he delivered his state of the union address, are speaker delivered his own address. factoring out inflation, the last time american exports expanded that quickly was world war ii. no one has ever accused our guest of lacking a vision. the chamber was then suffering badly from defection in the aftermath of the partial support of the clinton health-care plan four years previously. today, the chamber can once again claim the mantle of the world's largest business federation with all the political clout that measure in
tails. please welcome to the national press club thomas donohue. [applause] >> thank you very much. good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. i am very pleased to be here. a special thanks to all of our friends that we were able to coerce to join us for this event. let me start with a very clear statement that the greatest priority for our country today is creating jobs. the unemployment rate is 9.9%. it soars beyond 17% when you count those who have stopped looking for work and the underemployed. we have lost roughly 8 million jobs in the last two years. by the u.s. chamber's estimate, we will need to create 20 million jobs in the next decade
to replace those lost during the recession and to keep up with the growing population. although we have created 145,000 jobs per month on average this year, it is not near enough. under these circumstances, world trade month is the perfect time to point out that expanding american exports makes more sense than ever. unlike past recoveries, we cannot simply rely on domestic consumption. american consumers are tapped out in some ways and the u.s. government, some would argue, are maxed out. would domestic demand weak and the government's ability to stimulate the economy minimized, who will buy our products and services? will the demand come from? the answer, the rest of the world. 95% of the world's consumers,
87% of its economic growth, and 70 -- 73% of its purchasing power resides outside the united states. last september, the chamber said a national goal of doubling its u.s. exports in the next five years and then doubling them again. if we succeed, this would put us well along the way to creating those 20 million jobs. we were pleased that president obama at the back-to-school in his state of the union message. -- echoed that a goal in his state of the union message. what is standing in the way of achieving this goal? book abroad and right here in washington for the answer. countries all over the world continued to raise protectionist barriers to tilt the playing field and their advantage, to favor domestic industries, and to keep their markets closed. nothing new. this happens in every recession.
here at home, u.s. trade policies seems stuck in a state of suspended animation. there have been a lot of great talk, but precious little action. what does all this mean as we attempt to assess the state of the world trade system today? on one hand, there is plenty of trade and cross border investment going on today. after a sharp decline, during the financial crisis, a global commerce is now recovering. yet, that is only part of the picture. the rest of the picture is not so attractive. in fact, if i had to describe the state of the world trade today, i would do so into words. missed opportunities. missed opportunities to create new jobs, at to lift millions of poverty, to raise the global standard of living and to bring
people and nations closer together. the good news, we have the capacity to recapture these opportunities and unleashed a new wave of growth, progress, and prosperity here at home and across the globe. we must begin with a reality that global markets are not as open to american products and services as we are to theirs. the plainfield is not a level. in fact, since the financial crisis, the playing field has become even more on level. we are aware that the wto has found that new protectionist measures enacted since the financial crisis began to cover just 1% of the world merchandise trade. but it is done little to gauge the impact behind -- that
countries around the world are deploying at an alarming rate. at the forefront of our concern is the resurgence of state owned enterprises which are then it bestowed with preferential treatment that puts foreign enterprises at a disadvantagee china, for instance, is using industrial policies and an array of regulatory tools to foster national champions and to promote the transfer of technology and innovative capacity to their country. a case in point, china's so- called indigenous innovation strategy. i will be going to china next week to meet with the leaders in beijing and shanghai and to address our growing concern of our members on issues ranging from innovation procurements,
currency. looking beyond china, india, brazil, korea, and other emerging markets also need to play it by the same rules that we played by. they should take steps to further open their markets. india, for example, needs to open its markets to services. to retail into insurance and express delivery services. japan boasts a government owned enterprise that provides -- enjoys unfair regulatory advantages over its private competitors, both domestic and foreign. nearly 90% of the world's proven oil reserves are in countries where exploration and production are dominated by state monopolies. how did brazil respond to its
new large offshore oil finds? by laying plans for a new state owned company to control it all. in this antitrust arena, some nations manipulating their policies to protect domestic producers and keep competitors out, are not playing according to the rules. there is also an ongoing assault against intellectual property around the world. in addition to criminal enterprises, i.p. is also under threat by some governments that promote the view that i.p. rights are an obstacle rather than a catalyst to economic development and growth. the united states must continue to work with like-minded nations to raise standards for the protection of i.p. by including a robust comprehensive
anti counterfeiting trade agreement this year. this array of obstacles facing american exporters and investors abroad raises a critical question. how should we resignation and as a business community responds -- how should we as a nation and as a business community respond? let me start by saying how we must not respond. we must not respond by closing our own markets, there is too much at stake and it will not work. even with all the obstacles, the u.s. is still the world's largest exporter of goods and services. one in for factory jobs depend on exports and one in 3 acres of planted land in this country are 400 consumers abroad. more than 5 million american jobs are supported by foreign direct investment. an example of one way not to
respond was the buy american provisions in the 2009 recovery act. these provisions delayed shuttle ready infrastructure projects as local governments saw legal advice on how to comply. because other countries retaliate with by national policies of their own, such measures are much more likely to destroy jobs than to create them. american workers are also paying a high price for u.s. failure to open our highways to save the mexican trucks. mexico has composed $2.4 billion worth of retaliatory tariffs on u.s. manufacturing and agricultural products. by our estimates, these actions have cost the united states 25,000 jobs. there are other policies and proposals here in our own country that throw sand in the
gears of commerce and snapped the u.s. competitive advantage. every day, we hear about some new punitive tax proposals that would put key industries at a disadvantage globally. banks, insurers, energy companies, firms that deferred income tax on profits earned abroad. pick your targets and pick your poison. furthermore, our immigration and visa policies are plainly broken. a complex and emotional subjects that requires a whole other speech and i would like to come back and do it someday. then there are suggestions that we should lashed out at the bronx of others with high tariffs or quotas -- the wrongs of others with high tariffs or quotas. i fail to see help punishing our consumers will help families or create new jobs. these measures would do nothing
to expand our own sales abroad. when you smarter, boulder, and more comprehensive approach. one that opens markets and expand trade and investment, not one that closed markets and to seals the marketplace to our competitors. regrettably, we do not have such an agenda that in our country today. the reason why it is clear as it is indefensible. organized labor spent in excess of $400 million in the last election. to help elect the current administration and congressional majority. for reasons that defy logic or common sense, they vehemently opposed the very policies that
can create millions of new jobs for american workers, many of them unionized workers. it is the rest -- as the rest of the world prices to compete, america is being locked out and left behind. the united states, the largest economy in the world, has just 11 free trade agreement covering 17 countries. america is a party to only one of more than 100 negotiations of bilateral and regional trade agreements. they are also far behind on the race to reenact -- the unions do not like these either. it is especially in excusable for congress and the administration to be sitting on a three excellent free trade agreements with colombia,
panama, and south korea. six months ago, the chamber released a study which warned that the u.s. could suffer a net loss of more than 380,000 jobs and $40 billion in lost export sales if it failed -- if we fail to implement the agreements while the eu and canada went ahead with theirs. unfortunately, this scenario is already unfolding. the eu will sign its fta with colombia next wednesday. did he accomplish -- concluded negotiations with the fda with south korea next -- fta with south korea. cadillac and panama are signing a new fta today -- canada and panama are signing a new fda today. what does all this mean?
it would mean that the eu and canada will be able to sell their products in those markets at a very -- a much better price. we will lose market share and jobs. it is simple as a-b-c. that is not all. the south korean pact has the potential to be a model for other agreements across the asian pacific. in region that now accounts for half of the global economy. we are talking about the future right now. then there as -- then there are the president and the people of colombia, a good friend and critical regional allies who have courageously stood up to the drug lords and reclaimed their country. the united states gives them the back of the hand. it is unconscionable. if tax matter at all, i hope those who oppose these
agreements will listen closely for the result of a new study we commissioned an arc in -- and are releasing today. we looked at our at t. as implemented over the last 25 years. here is what we found. the fta created 5.4 billion american jobs. the overall trade relationship with those 14 countries supports a grand total of 17.7 million american jobs. i defy anyone in this town to name another budget neutral government initiative that has generated anything like this number of jobs. what about the trade deficit? trade skeptics always cite the trade deficit as the reason not to negotiate. taken as a group, the united states is now running a trade surplus in manufacturing goods with our fta partners.
that is on top of our global trade surplus in services and an agricultural products. let me underscore a critical point. if we do not act, not only will we miss out on opportunities to create new jobs, we will lose existing jobs as well. how can congress and the administration and the union, thinking about their members that they represent, sit by and allow this to happen. bilateral trade and investment agreements are critical as well, but we must take other vital steps along the way. we must not give up on a global agreement, no matter how many obituaries are written about it. a glance at covering goods, agriculture, and services is essential to the goal of opening markets and leveling the playing field for the united states. regional pacts also power --
also hold power. we need to enforce our existing trade and investment agreement. they are not worth the paper they are written on if we do not act to enforce them. we must work with allies around the globe to come back -- combat economic nationalism. we must also resist economic isolationism at home. failure to comply with our own principles are obligations under trade agreements in dangers americans jobs and undercut our efforts to open markets around the world. we need to modernize the u.s. export control system. at this point, i want to give the administration an important credit. we know that they are reviewing this matter and crafting a proposal. we like what we have heard so
far and we look forward to progress in the future. we need to do a better job of promoting exports. more than 280,000 u.s. small and medium-sized companies export and the account for nearly a third of all u.s. merchandise exports. even so, 99 out of 100 u.s. small companies do not export and we need to change that. finally, we need to get our own house in order. we need -- to compete globally, fiscal discipline is critical. our country is at the front of the less. k-12 education system is in adequate and high u.s. corporate tax rates all erode the global competitiveness. we're working to forge positive
solutions to these problems. let me conclude. let me do so where i began, assessing the state of world trade. there is a lot of trade going around -- going on around the world and it is growing and it has got to keep growing and we need to be part of that. policymakers at home and abroad can act to accelerate its growth or stand in its way. standing in the way means fewer jobs, less prosperity, and missed opportunities. the global business community could be doing a lot more to create jobs, to lift people out of poverty, to raise standards of living, and to force a greater stability among nations. if only our government and political leaders would lead us to sell. leaders from beijing to brussels to new delhi to washington must raise -- must rise above parochial views and narrow political interest. they must foster a positive
dramatic environment in which capital goods, services, and people, with all appropriate ground rules and safeguards, can flow freely across the globe. leaders in the business community and the labor movement have responsibilities as well. businesses must refrain from running to government to seek unfair competitive advantages in the global marketplace. union leaders must accept the reality that their members' livelihoods rely on the growth of world trade. they can no longer be allowed to dictate our commercial policy. those of us to believe in free enterprise and free trade have a responsibility, too. we must do a far better job of explaining the benefits of open markets while not crossing over the destruction that affects some workers and communities.
make no mistake about it, we have got to do something about that. we must devise ways to support to effective programs to help those people who are disenfranchised. that is no excuse to turn our backs on the promise of trade expansion and all the new jobs and opportunities it can provide across this country. friends and allies abroad are starting to wonder and worry and ask, where is the united states? when it comes to a bold ambitious and visionary trade policy, we understand the political pressure facing the administration and congressional leaders, but understanding it does not mean we should accept it. jobs are at stake. america's competitiveness is at stake. our role in damage in the world is at stake. waiting until after the next election is neither possible nor
defensible. there is always the next election. it is no secret that the business community and our current national leaders differ on some issues. i am here to say that bold positive action to move the nation's trade agenda for word wouldn't receive the enthusiastic support and praise from the chamber -- would receive the enthusiastic support and praise from the chamber and the business community. we will work our heart's content on the hill and across the country to move the agenda for work. the world economy is clearly not what it was 50 years ago, 20 years ago, or 10 years ago. it is time that we all embraced the future. we have the best product. we have the best services. we have the most innovation. the have the best workers and the best companies in the world. we also have tougher competition than we have ever faced before. we've been sitting on the
sidelines too long and it is time to get back in the game. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much for your time. there are many questions that we have to ask you this afternoon and many very timely questions. i do not know if there is ever a day were the had a chamber of commerce is here and we could not say that. one of the big issues happening right now is the issue involving the euro and a great debt crisis and the impact that could have on u.s. exports. the european union continues to lack mode -- most of the world in recovering from uncle recession. the budget cuts to contain burgeoning debt loads may hamper growth even further. how will europe situation affect the prospects for doubling u.s.
exports within five years? >> your introduction to that question is something i have been thinking about a great deal. the last sentence, i was not sure where you were going. let me just take a moment to make a couple of comments. what is going on in europe is really serious. i believe the whole concept of the euro and some of the issues about the eu are under challenge. i am perceived merely concerned about chancellor merkel losing that election the other day because we need her in europe right now. we all saw the new coalition that has formed in britain and now we are looking at what happens in greece, what happens in portugal, what happens in spain and italy. we cannot bail all those people out. it is going to have an effect on
our currency. we're going to be involved in that. it is going to have some effect on trade because we have a massive trading investment relationship with the eu, although a large portion of it is with germany and france and uk. i do believe that it is going to have an effect on the geopolitics that we are all engaged in. europe has a fundamental problem with the whole question of demographics and that follows an extraordinary social compact that caused -- cost a lot of money. we have to be helpful and thoughtful. we have to look 10 years down the road and ask a question. do we look like greece? do look and germany? to look like something else? -- do we look like germany? do we look like something else? >> many of the european
countries are considering to carry out a fairly substantial tax increases on the understanding that near-term economic pain is necessary. what role do you see for taxation in reducing u.s. government deficits? >> there are a number of things that the imf and the contributing nations are demanding of the countries that are going to get their share of this trillion dollar stack of money. the first thing they are demanding is to change -- that is what the big argument is about. all of the violence increase right now because the -- violence in greece right now because the free lunch is going to change. the major increase in taxes is the whole idea that -- in the
united states, we have a much more vigorous payment system. we have a history of understanding what happens when you raise taxes. you could take all of the money that the people of means have in this country. just take it all. you will not do away with all these deficits. the president did the right thing in appointing a good commission to look at the deficit. they will also -- obviously have cost cuts in them. nobody likes those. but we will have to deal with them over time. there are places where we need to reduce its and there are places where we need to increase it. we need to look for a third way to do this. this is something that i think is going to become more and more at current issue. the american people are very
concerned about fiscal deficits and long-term deficit accumulating and we have not even looked at the pension funds. we have a hell of a problem here. i hope that we can work together on it. >> following up on your remarks , d think enough people in the u.s. are paying taxes? do more americans need to be paying taxes? >> most people that make -- that are well compensated or have their own businesses, the pate meant it -- the payment rates -- the payment rate is near 90%. we have extraordinary compliance system. when you get into small companies, 30 million small companies, i would suspect that
the irs is right, that some of those guys are paying all their taxes. -- some of those guys are not paying all their taxes. there is a new thing in the health bill that will require all kinds of new irs agents. at the end of the year, to give the cumulative amount of money. they think there is a lot of money there. i think it will be interesting to see what small companies will think about that. >> the the debt crisis shows that debt can be a major problem. what u.s. spending -- what cuts to u.s. spending with the chamber caught? -- with the chamber caught? -- would the chamber cut? >> 62% of the federal budget is
entitlements. medicare, veterans' health care, all that sort of stuff. then you go to the states and you have a huge medicaid cost and then there is pensions, social security. social security stops giving us money to spend. we have been spending the social security payment and saying we owe it to you. we have a real set of issues here and we are going to have to start looking at ways -- had been great efforts. ,e're going to have testing some people working longer. when it put social security and medicare together, the average
-- let's keep working. i take responsibility. people are living so much longer and that is part of the problem and i like it. [laughter] the deal is that you have to look at entitlements. we are building all of these deficits while the interest rates are right down here. they're supposed to go back to 5%. you are looking at payments on an annual basis that will scare you to death. we need to take a real careful look at this. what spending cuts would you support? >> many congressional democrats have opposed ratification of free-trade agreements negotiated by the bush administration. iraq -- are labor and the environment legitimate concerns in crafting free-trade agreements? is there some middle ground that
can be found? >> ok. first of all, environmental and labor issues are legitimate questions between nations. i personally do not think you should put them in free trade agreements. if you listen to the arguments that unions are making about the labor issues, i can tell you, countries we trade with are not going to -- are not talking about health and welfare, but u.s. labor standards and u.s. pay levels because there are economies that are much lower. we're taking people and moving them out of serious and challenging positions. we're taking more people out of poverty than you can imagine. the environmental side, we are negotiating issues all over the world. we tried to do it in copenhagen.
i would suggest to you that if you ever could take those issues and solve them right now, tomorrow morning, the labor unions would have another issue. these are not stupid people. they are very, very concerned about jobs. i respect that. they are not helping jobs. more than half of the labor -- organized labor in this country are public employees. they're worried about trade? we're not going to trade them away. i want to make note of what is going on in the next five years. there will be a war between the public employees that are unionized and private employees that unionized. public employees provide more and more tax increases and other payments to pay for their very, very attractive pensions, health and welfare things and huge salaries. to be paid for by a lot of
people, including 7% of the workforce that is unionized in the private sector. >> following up on the fault line that you expect to happen in the labor movement, are their fall lines in your own industry? >> people ask me that all the time. how can you have rendered thousand members and a representation through the state and local chambers 2 3 million companies and not have disagreements? we have disagreements every day. every day. the worst thing is that when you get the tax bills and they all, and form a circular firing squad to shoot each other. this year, we're going to try to get them to phase out. the differences in the business community are driven very often in the natural way. the differences between people in the services sector and the manufacturing sector, a
technology business and agriculture business. where are great challenges and our great strengths is the threat of our membership -- of our membership. >> you discussed exports today. are you forgetting about imports and its effects on jobs in manufacturing and what are you doing to police bad guys dumping? >> imports are very, very important. there are a lot of commodities that we cannot get from our own countries. there are a lot of products that we want to have that we cannot get. these labor union guys that all complain about trade, they all go to wal-mart to shop. the quality products at lower prices. does that set up a lot of competition?
does.e as thhell in terms of dumping, i am opposed to dumping. there are some people around the world that think that some of the things that we are pushing around the world are coming in great numbers. he did not get to be the largest exporter in the world without selling a lot of stuff to other peoppe. the balance is important. quality is important. safety is important. that is no reason not to negotiate agreement and stick with them that create more american jobs. >> there are several questions dealing with china. the exchange rate of the dollar has been a recurring source of tension with beijing. how significant a factor is
currency? how does that compare with other factors? >> china is a complex, a fascinating subject. i have long associated myself with those that believe that currency ought to be adjusted. the chinese have a very clear objective. they want to keep hundreds and hundreds of millions of people employed. their system of government requires -- otherwise, they do not know how to deal with that many unemployed people and the unrest that goes with it. i am probably more concerned about the fact of our international -- intellectual property. the changes that the chinese are making on the innovation side
trying to domestically control a lot of that. the counterfeiting of american products -- counter -- you know i am going there next week. we will talk about currency. i think they are getting there. i hope something happens at the g-20. if you make a moderate adjustment, it will not affect the trade balance a great deal. it will help a little. the chinese want -- the chinese will drop the price some more, which will help us on what we import and will hurt us and what we are trying to sell competitively. china's economy is getting more sophisticated and they're
getting more middle-class and the cost of doing things -- the other issue, which is very, very important, i talk all the time around the country and people say, all of these jobs left michigan and pennsylvania and new york and went to china. they went to the atlanta and texas and arizona. most of the jobs, with some very visible exceptions, most of the jobs that have gone to asia have gone there to try and take advantage of half of the global economy. to go in there and make business and keep the intellectual property and the engineering and all that stuff in the united states. it is clear that companies who can predict greater efficiencies of scale are over in china and other places.
>> u.s. trade is measured by exports and imports. how much attention should be paid to foreign affiliate's sales when assessing the size and impact of the trade deficit? >> that is a great example. you can see it in prayer for places. our largest trading partner is canada. a lot of that is in the automotive industry area. if you is an integrated system. how much of the in and out is really being done across a border that is really an integrated system? when you looked in china and other places in asia or in the americas, there are some who are
doing a lot of producing in foreign countries and bring it in. one other thing, since we have been working on this immigration and tightening down the border, it is much harder to get seasonal workers and agricultural workers. what are the farmers in california doing? they have gone to mexico. they are renting space in mexico, growing the crops there and exporting them into the united states. you've raised a very good question. having the exact numbers, i am not sure. we've been doing this for many years. the best place to look is mexico and canada. >> let's talk about immigration. what is your reaction to arizonas immigration law? what ripple effect could that have gone business? >> there may be -- i had an
extraordinary experience on saturday night. i was on ellis island getting an award on some things that the chamber had been doing over time. that is not why i went. i went because my wife's mother and her father separately came to this country from challenging circumstances through ellis island. you can imagine, i had some very emotional feelings about this. so many people in this country that made so many great things happen here arrived here the same way. i think we need an immigration law. we need to find a way to have a guest workers come back and forth to this country when we need them.
seasonal workers. we desperately need to find ways to keep the visa people to come here and get to be a ph.d. in chemical engineering -- we need these people. we need to do something about the illegal workers here. there are about 12 million, 13 million of them and their families. a lot of people want to send them home. first of all, they cannot find them. that would change a lot of people's views on this. it the bottom line is, we need a rational immigration program. we had 12 or 13 million people working in this country who are hard-working, who care, and were trying to make a living for their family. quite frankly, we do not have
the people to replace them. by the way, we have to protect our border. i am not worried about the people coming here to work. i am worried about some of the other crazy people and the drug people. i think a lot of the argument in arizona was because of all this trouble violence. as -- we are hosting an for the whole afternoon on wednesday. we're trying hard to help him. the drug trade comes to the united states. we have to work on this very hard. my final view is that arizona went too far. they went too far. we do not associated ourselves with those who want to stop the all-star game or stop trading with people. everybody else can say, let's not trade with california because we did not like their
environmental rules. we need to fix the arizona thing and we need to do it in a hurry because it is fundamentally on american. >> you made a passive reference to native americans. can you demonstrate the benefits of ftas would need americans? >> let's separate that. the american companies are certainly welcome in all of our travel deals. we had a little conversation with some people before. i am encouraged our members to go to china. i am going there to have some very serious in-your-face conversations with a few people in the room that you cannot do with a group.
i welcome any native american companies who are members of the chamber, who played by the rules, as we all try and do. i am not sure i know something about the free port issues. i do not know enough. if the person who wrote the question would grab me on the way out, i will get myself educated. >> a few weeks ago, we have ron kirk here. he was talking about one of the problems he was having. is that causing any problems for you in terms of your own efforts? >> ron kirk is one of the best people president appointed. he was the mayor, right down the border with mexico. he is a good man and he is trying very hard. he certainly should have his people confirmed. it took a while to get him
appointed, but now we're trying to get him confirmed. the congress is playing some games on that and part of that is the trade deal in part of it is the same problem that i articulated before. he has a problem. hopefully, he will get a winner really stand on the whole issue of contracting arrangements that we will make on sensitive goods. i am very hopeful that is a win for him. he has to get some help from the white house. and from the congress. his patients will wear thin pretty soon. >> does the chamber have any major objections to elena kagan and her nomination to be supreme court? >> i am going to answer the question at the end of the sentence.
at every supreme court nominee, we have a system to our institute of legal reform were we review their qualifications. we do that in almost every instance, we support them. it is the president's choice. if they are competent people, we are pretty much inclined to support them. we do the process, however, for the occasion of ones and how many times that everybody might want to rally around that. the chamber has not finished this process, but i have no objection to her. >> with the 2010 elections coming up, in what ways will the supreme court -- will the chamber to could be added to the supreme court ruling? >> we plan to be in the election. the most incorrect information that i have seen in this town in
a long time is all this stuff that came out on the citizens united decision at of the supreme court. the effort by members in the house and the senate to construct a bill that would basically be aimed at one thing and that is keeping the chamber at of the midterm elections. there was some testimony up in the house the other day and are lower your -- and our lawyer went up and testified and said that everything was unconstitutional. that will be very interesting in the courts. we just want to delay you and keep you out of the elections this time. that is sort of what he said. that is not going to happen. it still has to get the sense. it is so patently political -- it still has to get through the
senate. these are the guys responsible for seeing who gets elected in the democratic side of the house and senate. it ought to be embarrassing. even "the washington post" think so. >> if that were the case, would it be easier to get trade agreement passed in 2011? >> what is today? to date is may. the election is then in november. there are the primaries. we see what will happen in pennsylvania next week. all the political pundits that are running around to tell you who is going to get elected,
they get every morning. there are about a thousand of them. they all get excited. we will be there when the primaries are happening, some but not much. we will be there during the elections. we support democrats and republicans. i get a lot of heat from business people and supporting some democrats that a boat with us. -- back to votes -- that vote with us. we have a system. no matter who you are, we always support you. the bottom line is very simple. we are going to be in this election. when you get all finished, we will have more of these and fewer of those and you will have to fight the same flight on the
trade stuff because you still have the unions around. if we could balance the number is a little, no matter who is in charge, we would have a better chance. >> we're almost out of time. there are a couple of matters to take care of. i'd like to remind members and guests of future speakers. next wednesday, we have the honorable tim kaine, the chair of the democratic national committee. on may 21, we will have the owner of the washington capitals. on may 26, barbara bush, at the daughter of george w. bush and the president of global help corps will be here discussing. we would like to present our guest for the traditional national press club mug. [applause]
>> it is time for the final question. tdo not hold back. tell us what you really think about u.s. labor unions. [laughter] >> we work with u.s. labor unions on infrastructure and on immigration, on national defense issues. many of them are made up of people who come from my family. i do not have any problem with a labor union members. i have a problem with labor union leaders who have lost sight of what is in the best interest of their members and are in this town holding back this economy and reducing the opportunities to create new jobs
in labor union members and in non labor union members. when the government gets bigger, the people they govern, they have a real problem. as i predicted, i think you will see some conflicts within the unions. we now have a new person running -- it will be an interesting time. i came here not to talk about them as people whereas organizations, but to talk about the behavior that has caused to leave a lot of jobs on the side of the road. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for coming.
we would also like to thank the national press club staff, including its library and its broadcast operations center, for organizing the event. for more information, please visit our website. thank you again for coming today. this meeting is adjourned. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we will leave washington and take you live now to the kennedy space center. it is about 20 minutes away from the launch of the space shuttle atlantis. we will have live coverage.
personal, but what do you think about cutting the high-speed rail funding between richmond and washington? >> i would say to the gentleman, i have always, with before we encounter that stimulus bill, supported job-generating projects. the studies in the metropolitan area from where i come and represent in virginia could grow 165 jobs -- 165,000 jobs with that kind of investment. that has always been my position. when we look at some of these items that we're discussing, these are items that are niceties. host: what do you think about the gop program? is it a good idea or a gimmick? the numbers are on the screen. republicans, democrats, an independents -- and independent s.
what do you think about this program? is it a good idea or gimmick? we want to hear from you. here are a couple of things that have been posted on eric cantor's blog or on the republican whip site. just when you thought america's debt situation could not look any bleaker, the u.s. reported an astounding monthly deficit that is four times greater than it was in error, 2009. the government has posted 19 consecutive monthly budget deficits, a long string of shortfalls on record. -- the longest string of shortfalls on record. here are some of the proposed cuts, including taxpayer subsidized union activities, 6 $7 million in savings, $607 million in savings.
some federal employees spend up to 100% of their work week, paid by taxpayers, doing work for their union. they spend significant amounts on political activities and lobbying. it should they be subsidized by the taxpayer for their -- should they be subsidized by the taxpayer for their official duties? i propose reducing budget and staff by 90% of the following departments -- epa, energy, labor, as a beginning. trying to do this piecemeal will just generate the usual "what about me mentality" -- congress needs to cut the federal budget by 10% effective october 1st, 2010. what do you think about this? waynesboro, north carolina, a democrat. caller: i do not trust the republican cuts. i am not sure that they will not
revert back to their old habits of spending from the deficit surplus to a trillion dollar -- a $1 trillion deficit. it is quite political. it is given for political gain -- to gain seats in the house and etc.. i do not think there genuine. they have done this behind closed doors. the transparency was not there, relative to their plan. in the future, i hope that they will actually think about the american people. when you start talking about cutting spending, you're talking about dispensing paying. they have not done enough research to do it adequately. they did something willy-nilly and we're just supposed to excepted. they cannot be trusted. host: massachusetts, a democrat. caller: first of all, i learned
on c-span this week that the isernment's prevailing wage $79 an hour plus extremely generous benefits. that would be something, from the trash guide to the president, $79 an hour seems like a lot. as well, lying to congress gets you six months in jail -- maximum. i think that -- as an aside, i believe the program should be retroactive, maybe eight years back. host: hanover, pennsylvania. a republican. what do you think, good idea or gimmick? caller: after watching the hearings yesterday, i believe the senator from new york -- the democrat -- even with the stimulus package that they got only 50 policemen under that
heading of receiving some of it. they have less policeman now than they did for the world trade center bombings. with these recent attacks on new york -- or attempted attacks, there are fewer policemen and less things going on. you're giving money to things that we do not need to be. we have less policeman in new york. that does not make me feel safe. host: the next caller is from texas. what do you think? caller: i do not believe anything the republicans have to say. as far as i'm concerned, they have done no work this past year. nothing except -- and no, keep the democrats from doing anything at all. we know that our economy needs to be stimulated. i feel like the democratic administration is doing everything they can do to create
jobs and to keep this country going. i wish the republicans would shut up and sit down. host: you are ok with federal spending as it currently is. caller: yes, i am. i believe they will adjust it when they need to. host: what do you think? caller: i think they should cut 10% of everything and do away with the union people who are getting paid by the taxpayers. cut everything by 10%. cut the session down to six months for the legislators. pass a budget and come home. host: this is in "politico." the defeat underscores what many know to be true. their 2000 a vote on the troubled asset relief program is no asset to their campaigns.
the wall street bailout has turned into a millstone for many republicans who voted for the $700 billion fund. it is proving to be a crushing burden in gop primaries. it was clear in utah, where a smattering of delegates at the utah republican convention serenaded him with the chant "tarp, tarp, tarp." jackson, michigan, a democrat. what do you think about this program? what are your ideas for cutting federal spending? caller: i do not know about that so much. i am a little ticked off at the congress and senate. i have been watching them religiously. a lot of lobbying going on, the stoppage on certain bills is ridiculous. i got three weeks and one last year. -- three weeks of
unemployment last year. i will probably losing my house because of the ball going on in the senate. these people -- because of the bull going on in the senate. these people need to get it together. we are out here losing everything. host: henderson, nevada, a republican. go ahead. caller: am i on the air? host: we're going to move onto a green belt, ohio. don. collar >> thank you for everything that you are doing -- caller: thank you for everything that you are doing. i thought that program should be 20%, maybe even two to five years ago. on the immigration think, if they had done what they were supposed to do back in the 1970's and 1980's, we would not
have the trouble with immigration that we have. we probably would not have a 9/11 happen. that is my feeling this morning. thank you. host: a senator demint -- senate amends financial overhaul bill. they approved two initiatives on thursday, it aimed at addressing the role that major credit rating agencies played in the financial collapse, including a proposal to and the reliance on companies like moody's and standard and poor's. it could cut deeply into a huge uneasy revenue source for major banks. the pri -- the proposed something that would limit of these that banks can charge businesses -- limit the fees that banks can charge businesses to process transactions easing credit and debit cards. banks collected about $50 billion in such a fees -- in
such fees last year. the plan to limit card fees, jump and by senator durbin -- championed by senator durbin, author particularly poignant example of how unfriendly the atmosphere has been on capitol hill this year. good idea or gimmick? to reset in columbus, indiana -- teresa in columbus, indiana. caller: it is just to make them look good. this is a total gimmick. they do not want anything to be done. when they get in there -- they have never tried to live like those that have benefits. they have never tried to live like that. that is going to be really different. if they all switched places with others in the cost would like us to be in and label as for
needing help, social security -- label us for needing help -- social security and disability -- i do not like how indiana has done it. it is ruled by republicans. that is not a good plan. >> "washington journal" is live every day at 7:30 eastern. we are leaving this and going to take canaveral, florida. this is from nasa tv as the atlantis gets ready for its final launch. countdown clock has gotten started. it will be two more shuttle launches after this. live coverage is here on c-span. >> t minus seven minutes.
>> preparing now to retract the gaseous aoxygen arm. >> verify no unexpected errors. >> [unintelligible] >> fuel cells going to internal reactants. >> no unexpected errors. >> copy. atlantis, close and lock visors your o2.iate >> that is in works. >> t minus two minutes and counting. >> you are go for pressurization. >> activating the cameras on the
rocket booster flight data recorders are activated. t minus 31 seconds. the handoff has occurred. >> 25. >> solid rocket booster gimbel checked. water pressure systems are activated. t minus 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 go for main engine, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, and zero and liftoff of space shuttle atlantis. >> atlantis is go. >> roger. >> houston is now controlling.
atlantis is on course for a 51.6 degree, 136 by 36 mile orbit. three main engines have been throttled down as they prepared to pass through the area of maximum time -- maximum dynamic pressure in the lower atmosphere. engines are now beginning to throttle back. >> atlantis, you are going to throttle up. >> throttle up. >> all three engines are looking
really good back at full throttle at liftoff. the fully fuelled boosters waited 4.5 billion pounds. it has burn half of that weight in propellant. one minute and 30 seconds into the flight. all three of the auxiliary units that provide power are in good shape, as are the fuel cells providing electricity to the systems on board. atlantis is 19 miles in all to come down range from the kennedy space center, 20 miles, traveling 2,500 miles per hour. coming up on staging the point of when the solid rocket boosters will burn out and separate from the orbiter. >> booster separation is confirmed.
the onboard guidance system has done its job of selling out any of the distortions that have been introduced -- selling out any of the dispersions not have been introduced. atlantis has entered orbit filing -- flying into a historic sunset. >> two engines. >> copy. >> atlantis can now reach spain in the event of a single-engine failure appeared all three main engines are operating at full throttle, 104% of rated thrust. the auxiliary power units and fuel shells are in great shape. it is traveling 3,700 miles per hour, and down range from the kennedy center by 88 miles.
atlantis is getting a boost from the orbital systems on the tail. they have been burning for about one and a half minutes. >> atlantis, you are negative return. >> copy, negative return. >> that means atlantis can no longer will turn to the kennedy space center in the event of a n emergency board is
traveling too high and too fast to return to the launch site -- traveling 6,000 miles per hour, 180 miles from the kennedy space center, at an altitude of about 62 miles or about 33,000 feet. this view is from a camera on external tank, looking down the length of the external orbiter, as it heads into orbit on its 32nd voyage into space. >> atlantis, you are pressed to ato. >> copy. >> atlantis can reach orbit on two engines, should one fail. all three are in great shape. the ccoola -- coolant systems
are operating normally. it is traveling 7,700 miles per hour, 270 miies down range, 67 miles up in altitude. >> atlantis, you are single- engine ops three. >> copy, single-engine op three. >> standing by for the guidance system to roll to a heads-up position, which allows for -- >> you are press [unintelligible] >> copy. >> atlantis can reach a safe
orbit on two engines now. that is a reference to the guidance systems and choice of the roll maneuver --choice of the roll maneuver. you are go -- >> you are go. >> copy. go. >> good readback. >> it provides a good satellite communication link with atlantis, continuing its travel into space, approaching seven minutes into the flight. >> single engine press, 104. >> copy. >> atlantis can reach orbit on one engine now, should the others failed. all three are in good shape. atlantis is traveling 13,000 miles per hour, 580 miles away
from the kennedy space center at an altitude of 340,000 feet -- 340 feet or 64 -- three and a 40,000 feet or 60 miles -- 340,000 feet or 64 miles. it is approaching loads of nearly three times gravity. all quiet here in mission control. atlantis is traveling 15,500 miles per hour, approaching eight minutes into the flight, down range 740 miles, at an altitude of 64 miles, up 337,000 feet.
standing by for main engine cutoff confirmation as atlantis is in excellent shape heading into orbit. main engine cutoff confirmed. standing by for separation from the external fuel tank. atlantis now flying away from the external tank after separation. burn maneuver being performed by commander kenneth ham. >> not required. preliminary will be 37:30.
>> here in mission ventral in houston after a clean ascent of atlantis -0- >> watch this week's hearings on the gulf of mexico oil spill or look back at the exxon valdez hearings from 1989. that is at the new c-span video library. it is washington your way -- search, watch, clip, share -- every program since 1987 is available free and online. tomorrow on america & the courts moderates aan review. it is saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span.
>> alain kagen -- elena kagan is meeting with various people in preparation for confirmation did you can learn more about this process in this book that provides unique insight about the court. it is available in hardcover and also as an e book. -- ebook. >> from this morning's "washington journal," a look at closer -- closed circuit television surveillance. host: here is ron marks, a former member of the cia, including a clandestine services officer. he is joining us to talk about the use of surveillance cameras. mr. marks, how useful are the surveillance cameras that are around in cities? guest: is a good question.
-- it is a good question. mayor michael blumberg was in london to look at what they have there. -- mayor michael bloomberg was in london to look at what they have there. british has millions of cameras -- the bbc has millions of cameras. i hate to be skeptical about it. you want a layered defense. they tend to be a little more forensic, then they are for anticipating. look at it. cameras fall the guy of a london bombing so they know who had done it or where it was done. it hardly stopped them. i know there is a certain amount of prevention. we have seven elevens in the city that have tv cameras and it never stops those who want to rob them.
there are more frantic than in terms of stopping them. you go back and say, we follow this guy from here to here. that is what the london system really does. you can be photographed up to 200 times walking through london. host: how does the u.s. compared to that? guest: not even close. the numbers are squishy in terms of cameras. it may be a couple of million. host: could you defi those cctv? guest: closed circuit television cameras. sevenuld include atm's, evens. in the british case, it could be at a shopping center or in the downtown as the cameras are
here. there are several in downtown washington. they are useful. you have tons of tape or electronic -- i am showing my age. all these things are collected and they tend to arise after an amount of time. when you do that kind of follow- upthere is among liberties activists about how long you hang on to this stuff. who gets to see it? you think if they are going to be spying, etc. i tend to disagree with that. frankly, given the volume of information, they could not if they wanted to. but it does present a problem. how long do you hang onto it?
if you are using the cameras in a combination with other things, then you are fine. i have some biases. motivation is what you're picking up with human intelligence. the guys who blew up the buses and subways in london had been written off or considered clean by the british police. part of it was and they redoubled the effort to try to find more human intelligence that would point to that. closed-circuit television is a motivation -- it does not really say whether this guy is serious about going there. host: if you have all these cameras, the somebody watch all these cameras? guest: that is another problem.
how many people are you going to have a signed staring at a television screen? we have visionsf a mall cop and we have walked in a building and there is a television screen. to have someone watching all these television screens all the time -- i know technology is available where you have certain kinds of biometrics and you cannot monitor the process. let's face it. there is an enormous volume of information. you may look key buildings or street corners. in london, they have tried to do general sweeps through the area. the ring of steel is what those in london are talking the 3000 to 4000 cameras in the downtown area. this is what michael bloomberg
is trying to imitate in new york. you want to have an ability to scan through the area. how long has that car been sitting there? is there someone standing there with a backpack? it is labor intensive. the intelligence community -- i have enjoy over the years companie that was so you systems based on the volume of information they have collecte i ink you run into that with the closed-circuit cameras. there is only so much formation you can have. you have a room full of people and a wall full of seens. you need a combination of good police work and use these for forensic work. host:ow helpful was the camera
in times square to catch faisal shahzad? guest: it s people on the ground in the final analysis who were able toall a couple of police over and who were there on the scene. i think one of the final bottom lines of homeland security is that this is a form of the old fashion civil defense. it is up to people who were there and say, that looks silly court that looks suspicious. we should call someone over. frantically it was nice. we knew where he went to. this car has been here for awhile. in terms of going backward, it was beautiful. it is a tribute to the new york police for getting this thing done in about 50 hours.
when it is all said and done, it was up to those individuals who were there and were able to report to the police. host: ron marks is our guest. at one point, he served as the intelligence council for robert dole and trent lott. he spent 16 years at the cia. you're a clandestine services officer. guest: wdo not all look like jenner garner or matt damon, sadly. people think we are spies. we're trained to gather intelligence and trained to find people who can give you that intelligen.
it is not always as glamorous as it is sometimes depicted in the movies. james bond never had to file an expense report. it is a way to identify people who can provide you that kind of inrmation. host: did you serve overseas? guest: a number of my colleagues were overseas. host: can youell us about one adventure? guest: i am afraid not. i still have clearances with the community. i would love to do it but probably best not. i am writing a book right now on domestic intelligence. i've written about the uses of intelligence. it is a tool that has to be
we have a more willing press. you're not going to have nine of hidden background thing that you had with richard nixon or j. edgar hoover. so i am hopeful in that regard. i would rather have some form of debate about the question and some form of organization on the intelligence. there are over 17,000 different state and local police authorities in the united states. the intelligence gathered is divided among them in terms of local efforts, the central intelligence agency is providing information along with fbi. they tried to provide intelligence and they provide it up the line.
the fbi and homeland security are involved. there are a lot of cooks in pot.s o everyone's been awhile you'll hear somebody and they are less of an expert and say we should have a service like the british do. my response is, here is the first problem. this constitution we have built was built for one purpose. we have three branches of government. they're all countervailing. there is a lot state governments. there isome justification with central power and also about size. british are about 60 million ll. mi5 can work with the police
forcesnd the british are much more accepting of a greater intrusiveness of their lives as events by so many cameras around the country. they have more of a willingness anan experience. we do not have that level of experience in terms of dealing with terrorist activities yet and i hope we do not. host: ron marks is our guest and we're talking specifically about surveillance cameras and other domestic issues he can address. caller: thank you. i appreciate listening to this. my question or feelings basically is with the department of homeland security, i am questioning the overkill on this
political correctness and i'm feelinghat janet napolitano, i think that we're showing a week is in trying to be overly concerned about this political correctness. if it walks like a duck and talks like a doctor -- host: are you talking about profiling? caller: yes. host: is that a helpful tool? guest: it is a good question. major civil rights, a series of movements throughout the 1950's and 1960's, and we're in a position -- is a fairly equal society so people tend t not want to judge each other on that. this is a different kind of war
. it is concentrated among certain portions of the popation. you have to make a judgment as far as how far you want to push on that. i am split on it to be honest with you. to some extent, the profiling -- i understand where they are comi from. we have a given community and a small, small portion of the islamic community is biting into a very different radicalized form of islam which is way off the beaten path. the question is whether or not in an effort to protect ourselves, we wish to throw away some of our own restrictions and go after thein terms of profile and i would not care -- i understand that we probably will walk the middle line and it probably will be unsatisfactory. host: when a city has
surveillance cameras up, or that protect people? or is it the wild west? guest: it is interesting to see. for researching this book, i went back and i thought, there must be some laws or some rules of the road. with cameras, if you're walking down the road, you're walking down the road and you have essentially put yourself out. it is tough. i am not an attorney. my initial take is that if we're walking from here down to the wilson building downtown, the cameras will be falling us and there's nothing we can do about it. host: dallas texas, robert.
caller: i have a question about surveillance and decision making. i read the 9/11 report extensively. airports have the most extensive use of cameras probably anywhere in the country. the last plane, the last aircraft that crashed in pennsylvania was laidte. so the first aircraft had ordered crashed into the building before the aircraft took off. all the surveillance in the world did not avert the biggest disaster. indecision to ground stop all the aircraft because in the report, it talked about all the agencies could not make a decision. i would like to comment as to -- doesn't decision making have the
most important impact on surveillance as opposed to any type of surveillance? guest: first of all, i think that every american is interested and should read the 9/11 report. the narrative is shocking. i also know that since that time, a lot of measures have been put in place. we would have caught 18 out of 19 of these guys if we of t current system in place. it is always a touchy decision at an airport. you do have some forms of profiling, you do have se form of biometrics. the detroit bomber was someone who came in through a system that was weak and there's only so much persuasion you can use.
homeland security has been tough in trying to get it done at some of these entry points and so they're doing what they need to do. it is different now. i would never see this country again in quite the same way. the people w are doing this, they're not the most clever people, they are clever enough to know what we're doing. they have been anticipating and trying to switch their tactics. there are very few direct groups involved. there is a trail running back to people who supported this person. in terms of airport security, i felt security in the united states. host: we're collecting fingerprints and photographs of people coming into the u.s. guest: we have a lot databases.
we have an enormous amount of data bases. you are looking at a guy who used to be in the i.t. business. once you get millions and millions of bits of information, it becomes hard to sort through quickly. it does get stored away in multiple databases. the fbi has some, intelligence committee has some. the state department has some. what you saw with the underwear bomb was a problem of the national counterterrorism agency. you could put together sort of a profile of someone like this guy or this guy in particular. we need to get this down range and then to the
airlines. the good news is we are in an information age and we can commicate with anyone inhe world on our laptops. there is a lot of stuff and is hard to sort through. host: austin, texas. you're on with ron marks. caller here i am and i will talk about this. when people call them and they talk about something called a conspiracy theories, i think the biggest bunch of conspiracy theorists. and saveoing to come me, save me, mr. bush.
you are the biggest sinners. i want to know w has the contract for these cameras. host: that is a good question. who owns these cameras? guest: there are a number of manufacturers in the u.s. it and you googled get thousands of listings. the basic cameras -- you can set them up yourselves. there are any number of manufacturers out there. york is'll find in new that they will go to a giv company and say we have these specifications and we will put out a bid for them and determine what theualifications are and theyill buy them and put them in.
wi probably see more of it. there are a lot of them. host: is google and effecti tool these days? guest: without getting in too fine a point, the united states government has found google has a basic search engine is very good. it is a basic search engine in terms of looking at the most popular thing that is there. i met with the ceo of cool at at one point. it is a basic search engine. discover it is a good chevy but it is not a mercedes. you have to do some specific designs for these kinds of things. it is a good one stop shop. host: columbus, ohio.
ryann. caller: thank you for taking my call. on data mining, carl cameron did a series in 2002 on some of the company's like convee and infosight, and people cannot blow it because i believe fox news was forced to take up the website. can you talk abo foreign access to data storage and data mining? i encourage people to go look at that series. changes to fires that asa act what we do with technology now.
guest: someone has been paying attention. the data mining and data storage -- data mining is just what it sounds like. trying to go through a set of data. you go mining through the data and they're all sorts of algorithms and other ways to do it. in the data storage, there is an enormous problem and there are a number of companies who have done quite well to store this information. huge amounts every day. twitter wants to hang onto erything. host: the library of congress was contractors to take every twitter. guest: i would be curious to see
in 100 years someone going back to see the thoughts that were contained in twitter. there are a lot of companies in this business. the u.s. government has a teency to stick to using u.s. vernment, u.s. companies. a lot of it depends on how these databases are set up. one interesting thing the pentagon had to go through is they are quite net centered in having material available, but they were very open. china went in and took as much information out as they could. now there is a lot less information than there was. you are always playing that game of who has access to that. we also live in a day when it is not just nation states.
there was a non-nati state act. there were 14-year-old in moscow or beijing and they can do one of the dangers of cyberspace is that there is -- there are very few rules there. access is an ability of your cleverness to get to it. it is a worthy question. the fisa question is interesting as well. the foreign intelligence service act was done in 1978 as a way of trying to guide the united states government as to how they were going to do wiretaps. that was when phones had wires. it was reworked for 9/11, to try
to deal with systems that were of a very different ilk in terms of cell phones. there was a lot of controversy over this. it does not really cover it, whether or not it should is a good question. host: the next call comes from texas, a republican. . 'm just calling about the airporsecurity. people need to get over it. i had a mastectomy and flew to my daughter for christmas. because i was a lopsided, i got stopped and frisked both going and coming. i am a 59-year-old woman born and raised in dallas, texas. people need to get over it and
understand security is for our betterment. host: we are collecting all this information. where in your view does the privacy, civil liberties issue come in? guest: i think there comes a time when there is too much. i think the tsa is a miserable job. one of the first things that happen is you set up a tsa. you put people through an airport quickly. at the same time, you are getting into biometric data and breathing rates andng rate heat of the body a taking a
quick forensic picture of you inside your clothes. how much money and time do you nt to spend on this thing? the underwear bomber would have been caught if the machinery was up and running. is that worth while in the sense of our 200 lives worthwhile versus the tens of millions of people who have to go through this each year. i think it is. maybe we will have had enough at some point. i still think it is crucial. the americans dealing with this issue. we have not had experience with this yet. in israel or the u.k. where you have been bombed and has seen hundreds of people killed, you are willing to tolerate it, as
the lady was saying. even if it seems extreme. el al has some of the best security in the world. that is a value the israelis determine the want to have in their system. we are not really used to that. we were pretty wild and free here for a long time. after 9/11, what doeshis now mean to us in terms of our own personal liberties being pushed back, in terms of our own policy being pushed back? there is a trade-off. there is a trade-of here. if you're willing to accept it, it is great. host: melvyn in florida. caller: i want to give some
pepective from law- enforcement. the cameras are very good hopefully tracking people. once an individual leaves, you can always take thoseameras and put them in an area which can be an escape route. with the cameras in wasngton, cameras are there for surveillance purposes can only be used during major defense in the downtown area. they're not running 24 hours a day. the cameras are there and are real good if individual calls, but if a crime happens. if you have enough cameras, you can resume them in -- zoom them in. host: wt kind of law
enforcement the do? caller: ised to be in charge of demonstrations in the city. guest: that is a tough job, too. it allows you to go would and explore where these people have been. it allows you to keep an eye on what is going on. it gives you some awareness. you want to have some additional juice behind you. d.c. has really ramped up. cathy lanier has been working with homeland security. there are so many districts around here in terms of maryland, virginia, d.c., homeland, and all the counties ound here. she has done a nice job to the
joint operations center to get there. cameras can get large scale circumstances. they are up full-time. there is a joint operation center. they do ramp them up at some times. it is a good system. host: how long are people keing these digital images? guest: we are still new enough into the system. it depends. some private systems they are wiped out within 72 hours. they are kind of on a loop. they are relatively new. you can hang onto it for a number of years. it is a storage problem. host: when is your book coming out?
guest: the author always has his fingers crossed. the book was sent to the publisher on wednesday. we're looking at a september release. the publisher may be listening. host: st. louis, nick. caller: i would like to say one thing. we need to have more advocates and less of a centralized government. this man is from the cia. we had people earlier that will represent the climate change and more security. the airport security situation is, " when you think half the cargo on those anes is not inspected by the cameras are focusing on the bodiesf the passengers. our borders are not protected
whatsoever. no cameras. we have no idea who is coming into the country. the report last year focused on third-party advocates, anti- abortion people. what is happening with the security? it is turning on the people. we should haveameras in washington. that is where the real crime is. gues i tried to emphasize -- it is easy when you lived in washington. there are 17,600 state and local authorities out there. these are the first responders. there are 800,000 police in the united states. i may be wrong with that number. we forget the importance of those people and what kind of support they need.
it was two new york city policemen who were there and they were first on the scene. in any of these other places, you often see these guys -- down the border, is the state and local authorities. there has meant a program for several years where thehave been trying to construct a fence on the border. there have been a number of financial problems. new.of these sysms work neere on that a real tear one. if wstuck holding this stuff up, what are we going to do? there are random checks and information that will allow it to search for nuclear devices and this kind of thing.
but is a problem. host: next call is california, theelaine. caller: i cannot help but feel there are some corrupt people in high places because we do allow the drugs and guns to com into our country. there is a lot of killing on the border on our side. it seems we would protect our people before we sent them abroad. we have drugs in the high schools. there is no protection there. we used to survey the border very closely but no one seems to be talking abouthe drugs now and what is coming over. immigration is a subject that has not been discussedecently because it is not popular. i agree with arizona and i would like to see other states do it,
too. do you think there are people high up were getting money from drugcoming in? guest: i would always like to tell you that it would never be the case but we both know life does not work on he never evers . people are trying to do the best job they can with a fairly diffult situation. the mexican border is about 2,000 miles long. there ha always been restrictions. we have use military troops. we have used troops on the border. border patrol has been most responsible for the efforts down there. it is a tough call. drugs are a tough business.
my assistant is in our gallery 20's and i am 54. -- my asstant is in her 20's. the cocaine problem was insane. several hundred people were killed. there was corruption at different levels. i do not think we've reached that by longshot, but it is a dangerous problem that needs to be focused on. host: last call comes from north carolina. caller: can you hear me? how can you expect me to take homeland security seriously when the government refuses to close our border. don't tell me they cannot close the border. they did a pretty good job during world war ii. politicians are me concerned with baltic then securing our
borders. host: is securing the border an ise? guest: there has been enormous concern from day one. janet napolitano deals with this. there's always a concern terrorist would slip across the sohern border. not a lot of evidence. there was concern that would be an avenue for that. there's more concern on homegrown terrorism. host: ron marks with the 9/ >> sunday, a new british prime minister david cameron and deputy prime minister at their first news conference since forming a coalition government.
also, remarks by outgoing prime minister gordon brown. sunday night at 9:00 on c-span. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online. it could also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. signup for our schedule alerts e-mails. >> coming up live at the state department at 4:00, and assistant secretary of state holding a news conference on the u.s.-china dialogue on human rights. we will have that for you live here on c-span at 4:00. following a cabinet meeting on the corporate and governmental response to the gulf of mexico oil spill, president obama had some firm words for the companies involved. here is the president from earlier today. it runs about eight minutes.>> .
i just finished meeting with some of my cabinet and administration officials on the efforts to stop the bp oil spill. i want to give the american people an update. i also want to underscore the seriousness and urgency of this crisis. the potential devastation to the gulf coast, the economy, require us to continue our relentless efforts to stop the leak and contain the damage. there is already been a loss of life, damage to our coastline, fish and wildlife, the livelihood of everybody from the fishermen to hotel owners. i saw firsthand the anger and frustration felt by our neighbors in the gulf. let me tell you, it is an anger that i share as president.
i am not going to rest her be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source and the oil in the gulf is contained and cleaned up and the people of the gulf war able to go back to their lives and livelihoods. the most important order of business is to stop the leak. i know there have been varying reports are ready last few days about how large it is. since no one can get down there in person, we know there is a level of uncertainty. the admiral said that our mobilization and response efforts have always been geared toward the possibility of a catastrophic event. what really matters is this, there is oil leaking and we need to stop it and we need to stop the testing as possible. we're using the best technology that exists.
our second task, has been to contain the spill and protect the gulf coast and the people who live there. we are using every available resource to stop the oil from coming ashore. over 1 million feet of barrier boom has been deployed to hold the oil back. hundreds of thousands of gallons have helped to break up the oil and about 4 million gallons of oil water have been recovered. 13,000 people have been mobilized to protect the shoreline and its wildlife, as has the national guard. this week, we also sent to congress legislation that would provide us with additional resources to mitigate the damage caused by this bill. i ask for prompt action on this legislation. it would help with cleanup efforts, it would provide job training to folks whose jobs are affected by this crisis and it would help with the region's economic recovery. that is why this legislation is
important. it would also help ensure that companies like bp that are responsible for oil spills are the ones that pay for the harm caused. not the taxpayers. this is in addition to the low interest loans that we made available to small businesses that are suffering financial losses from the spill. let me also say, by the way, a word about bp and the other companies involved in this mess. bp has committed to pay for the response effort. we will hold them to their obligation. i have to say though that i did not appreciate what i consider to be a ridiculous spectacle during the congressional hearings into this matter. executives of bp and transocean and halliburton, falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else. the american people could not have been impressed with that display and i certainly was not. i understand that there are
legal and financial issues involved and a full investigation will tell us what happened. but it is clear that the system failed. it felt that the. for that, there is enough responsibility to go around. all party should be willing to accept it. that includes the federal government. for too long, for a decade or more, there has been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill. it seems as if permits were too often issued based on a little more than assurances. that cannot and will not happen anymore. we will trust, but we will verify. from the day he took office as interior secretary, ken salazar has recognized these problems and has worked to solve them. oftentimes, he has been slammed by the industry, suggesting
that these necessary reforms would impede economic growth. well, as i just told him, we're going to keep on going to do what needs to be done. the secretary to conduct a reform of the management service. this week, he announced the part of the agency which permits oil and gas drilling and collects royalties will be separated from the part of the agency in charge of inspecting the safety of oil rigs and platforms and enforcing that way there is no conflict of interest, real or perceived. we've ordered immediate inspections of all deepwater operations in the gulf of mexico and have announced that no province, no drilling new wells -- wells will go forward until the environmental review is completed. we're also closing the loophole that allowed some oil companies to bypass the critical
environmental ordinances. as i've said before, domestic oil drilling continues to be one part to of an overall energy strategy that now includes more clean renewable energy and energy efficiency than any other time in our history. it is absolutely essential that going for, we put in place every safeguard so that a tragedy like this is not happen again. this is a responsibility that all of a share. the oil companies' share it. the manufacturers of this equipment share it. the agencies and the federal government in charge of oversight share that responsibility. i will not tolerate more finger pointing. the people of the gulf coast need our help and they deserve nothing less than for us to stand up and do what is necessary to stop the spill and prevent further damage and to compensate those who been harmed
already. that is our job. it is also our job to make sure that this kind of message does not happen again. it is a job we have been doing and we will keep doing it until this well is capped and the spill is cleaned up. thank you very much. >> we'll have live coverage of the next oil spill hearing monday afternoon at 2:30. the senate homeland security committee hears from the bp ceo. that is live this coming monday. onwatch this week's hearings the gulf of mexico oil spill or look back at the exxon valdez hearings from 1989. it is at the new c-span video library. it is washington your way. every program since 1987, available free online. >> a state department briefing
on the u.s.-china dialogue coming up at 4:00. live coverage. until then, we hear from the senator who chairs the energy and natural resources committee. he joined us on today's "washington journal to talk about climate change and energy legislation. now joining us is the chairman of the senate energy committee, senator jeff bingaman, ademocrat of new mexico. he is here to talk about the oil spill, climate change, and other energy issues. senator, if we can start oil spill. as chairman of the energy committee, is bp doing enough? what is their liability as opposed to the federal government's liability? should the federal government be doing more? guest: bp is doing everything that they can think of.
as far as i know, they are doing everything that others have thought of that they could be doing to cap it. i have difficulty saying that they are failing to take action th others are urging them to take. i do not think that is the ca. as far as liabilities go, the president has made clear that bp will pay the bill for this. they were responsible, and this was their operation. they have indicated their intention to pay all legitimate claims. of course, there's a lot of discussions on what that will result in. i think the liability issues will be sorted out by the courts. bp's stated position is that they want to go ahead and be responsible and make good on
whatever damages people have suffered as a result of this. host: do you believe that the federal government has in place the right safety mechanisms? guest: there are technological issues that we need to get to the bottom of as to whether or not this blowout preventer worked as it should have, for example, and other technological issues. there are human error allegations that we also need to get to the bottom of. one is the drilling operation and the closing of the oil well in the way it should have been done. and then there are regulatory failures. i do not doubt there are failures in the regulatory system. inadequate requirements on the company'ies that were engaged in it. i think the question is, how do
we sort out what those procedures need to be? how do we ensure that there followed? can we sufficiently eliminate risk and be confident that drilling can occur at this kind of depth. host: what did you hear from the hearing this week? guest: the hearing fleshed out a lot of the questions. it was a lot of the questions. it brought bp, halliburton, an the other companies involved, and we began to flesh out the questions that need to be answered. we do not have any definitive answers yet. the administra is doing two studies. there will be a report on the 28 of this month, i believe, by secretary salazar.
there's a long-term study done by several agencies working with the department of interior. congress is supplementing that. congress is trying to understand whathappened. that's the proper function for congress. it is an oversight responsibility. then we will have to decide what legislation we propose, and what changes in regulation we require. host: senator jeff bingaman, you have introduced a climate change bill that has already passed out of the energy committee. there was another one released this week, the so-called kerry- lieberman bill. how is it different? guest: the bill i have reported out of the energy committee is not a climate change bill. it an energy bill. the committee's jurisdiction does not extend to putting limits on greenhouse gas
emissions. that is something that would be done through the environment committee. our bill did not try to do that. it did not put in place a cap and trade system, or any type of limitr requirement for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. senator kerry has put forward bill that tries to do most of the kinds of things we did in our bill, but also tries to put in place a cap and trade system, or a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and a requirement that those emissions be reduced in future. host: do you support it? guest: i am still reading it. i think there are 1000 pas or close to it. i compliment senator kerrey and senator liebern for the hard work they have put into it. the's no question that they've
spent a great deal of time developing the legislation. i have not passed any final judgment. host: senator jeff bingaman is our guest. the numbers are on the screen if you would like to talk about the oil spill, climate change, or other energy issues that we're facing in the u.s.. the first caller for senator caller: i have a couple of questions, if you can tolerate them. i worked in the industry -- energy industry and have for many years. my first part is actually about the possibility of assisting the renewable industry by some type of doctor model that might somehow have utilities to pursue the obligation of buying
all renewable energy that is produced once they actually -- the local utility in hawaii, it appears from the language, it is actually not going to obligate themselves to buy it. in the end, it will be a renewable rflp. the most important thing right now is the oil spill. the emergency tools that should be in place, a friend of mine was a navy scientists to help stop the oil spill of the santa barbara and they used seepage tensts. the oil companies, even though they promised to be ready, at the really never created the mechanism of testing technology
before problems occurred. there -- they are only reactive, not proactive. host: let's get a response from the senator. guest: let me respond. on the renewable energy and the idea of the terrace, -- terrorists, i strongly favor some type of medium work -- tariffs, i strongly favor some type of media. the utility would have to buy the power that is produced and buy it at a cost presumably that is comparable to what they sell the power for. in most states, the metering is
a requirement that just applies up to the extent that a consumer is using energy, so that you can get down to zero utility bill if you are producing as much energy as you are using, but you cannot get in the business of producing energy beyond that. think that would be a major step forward for us in the country. that is not the tariff. in germany and other countries in europe, they basically do b anything that is produced, and it's a great encouragement to renewable energy. it also puts a significant additional cost on other ratepayers. that is the response on the first point. on the issue of emergency tools, i think he made some good points. it is clear thathe companies involved here have not made adequate preparation for anything like this kind of a spill.
again, the regulations and requirements imposed on them were not adequate to ensure those preparations had been made. host: there was a bill in the senate yesterday, and this is from "the huffington post." a bill to increase the liability cap was defeated thursday by senator murkowski. are you familiar with this legislation? guest: i am familiar with it. a 75 million-dollar cap on liability, which is the current law, is not aquate. the real question is, wha
should it be? or should there be any cap on liability for companies that are drilling? bp has taken the position that they will not subject themselves to any cap in the case of this accident. they have said they will be good for whatever it cost to remedy the situation. that seems like a better stanrd than having some kind of artificial cap that the congress would arrive at. ht: the next call for senator bing comes from reagan county,ga., robert. caller: good morning, senator bingaman. i read an article last night on "the new york times." they said there were 18 different disbursements, and 12 of them wermuch more
effective. some of them were 10 to 20 times less toxic to the wildlife and the ocean. i do not understand how the epa allowed bp to select which poisons to put in the ocean. it also reports that they -- where they're getting it is another company that was owned by bp or halliburton. guest: again, we have not done the necessary preliminary work to determine the toxicity. we're dependi on what the companies are telling the government about the fact that these disbursements are not a warharmful.
epa needs to be ready in the future. for purposes of the future, we need to have a goopeer reviewed research. host: are you supportive of the moratorium on further offshore oil drilling? guest: yes, i think secretary salazar has acted approiately. we will have a hearing next tuesday. he is coming before the committee to talk about what he has done and what plans he has to take action in the future. i'm sure you'll get questions about that. host: i want to get your
comments on the lead story in "the new york times" this morning. guest: yes, i saw the article. it's a distbing set of allegations. we certainly need to get to the bottom of it. if permits are required to be issued by noaa and those rmits were not issued before the minerals management service went ahead and permitted the this drilling, then that's a serious
concern. host: amarillo, texas, republican line, you are on with senator bingaman. caller: senator bingaman, my question is on energy. i know president bush gave the auto industry $200 million for year on r&d. the auto industry is very slow at putting these vehicles out to where we can purchase them. guest: the caller is exactly right. there's been a substantial delay in getting election vehicle on
the market. the auto industry, including u.s. automakers, are finally focused on getting this done quickly. i believe that as early as the end of this year, we will bin to see electric vehicles coming on the market that people can buy. i do think that one of the great hopes is that in the future, we will be able to reduce our dependence on oil in the transportation stor. and in particular imported oil. i think electric vehicles are in maine way that we hope to do that. ho: are there provisions in your energy bill that was passed out of committee that promotes electric vehicles and other alternative power sources? >guest: in the last two major
energy bills we have passed, we have brought them to the floor, and then we added a package of provisions to incentivize people to use hybrid vehicles, to use electr vehicles. we would expect to do that again with what ever energy bill comes to the floor this time. if ware able to get consensus, it will have additional incentives. we also put in a lot as part of the recovery act that was passed this year, some incentives for production of advanced energy products in the united states. the idea being that if we get people hooked on or interested in buying electric vehicles, we do not want to put them in a circumstance where the have to go overseas to get those or to get the batteries for those. we want to have the production
here. host: next call for senator bingaman. orlando, joe, democrats line. please go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to draw a parallel between this fiasco in the gulf and the banking crisis. i think the question that we have to consider -- what was the government's supposed to be doing in terms of overseeing both situations? how much regulation was there. were there any laws broken? the previous administration, my personal opinion is that they were big advocates of law is a fair -- leave us alone. the consequences of that philosophy are evident in the banking crisis, and also in this
situation. guest: he is making a good point in that there have been regulatory failures in connection with the banking crisis. we have a bill on the senate floor right now to try to change those regulations and reform wall street. weope that the refos contained in bill legislation -- in the legislation we are considerinwill prevent a future meltdown of the financial system such as we experienced a coup years ago. in the case of this oil spill, you can say that there were almost certainly some failures to adequatel regulate, and failures by the government to require the kinds of precautionary measures that we now wish we had required.
host: do you foresee your energy legislation coming to the floor for debate? guest: i do believe senator reid will have to decide what package she brings to the floor. i think he intends to make that decision sometime when we return from this memorial day recess. i think he does want to bring an energy bill to the floor. i have advocated for bringing the bill that we reported out of our committee to the floor and see what else we can add to it. at seems toe a logical way to proceed. host: if people want to read your bill? guest: they can go to energy. senate.gov. we think there are some good provisions.
i think it does address capping greenhouse gas emissions, and that is an important thing to do. that's not something we attempted to do in our committee. host: next call for senator bingaman, long island, albert, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, senator. guest: senator. caller: i'm sure your commission is doing very good work and you are leading it professionally and well. under crisis management, that says before we startefind out wo started the fire, and what we can do to prevent fires and the ture, let's put outhe fire. senator, what will you do today, personally, to stop the oil spill today? if the honest answer to tha question is nothing, w
the scope of the honest answer to the question is that i do not know if i can, by picking up the phone or making a call or writing a letter, would change what is happening in the gulf. i do believe that the company with most responsibility, bp, is working 24 hours a day to try and a weight -- tried to find a way to stop the flow of oil and gas. i believe the department of interior and the coast guard and all of the other agencies that are focused on are assisting in every way that they can. frankly, it would be presumptuous of me to suggest that as a member of congress, i am going to fix this problem where all the experts and all of the agencies with -- better on the scene working on and are unable to.
host: beside asking the questions, were their answers? did you encourage the ceos of these companies to go in in eastern direction? guest: what we encourage is that they do what they actually are -- actually say they are going to do, making good for all of the damage that is occurring. we also tried to probe what could have caused the accident, what steps they have taken to ensure that these problems will not cause a similar accident in the future. we have had several briefings in congress. by officials from the administration on all the steps they're taking. i think there's a serious effort going forward to do that. host: john, republican, your honor with senator jeff
bingaman. caller: good morning. president obama says he has been on this since day one. i saw the head of the epa and she did not mention the oil spill until the sixth day. she was too busy going to these earth day festivals. a good leader has a pan b. what is t government doing? something should be done by now. guest: i think that the coast guard, is in charge of this coordinati for the federal government. they've been working with the secretary ofnergy. i know what some of our national laboratories, to be sure that any good idea that exist out there for how to stop this oil
spill from continuing is seized upon. i know they're doing that. i know they're working hand in glove with bp and their operations. host: this is the first time this situation has ever occurred, the way it has deloped, and the way the oil is continuing to come out? guest: there have en other oil spills like this. i do not know if they have been of this size. there was a very large oil spill off the coast of mexico's several decades ago. it took several months before that was stopped. i hope it do not take several months to stop this. host: concord, new hampshire, nancy, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i read some information about the oil rig and how it is produced.
in nory drazil, they require some type of gadget on the oil wells. i think it is a pre warning system. is there some way for you to look into the energy policy that was put into place behind closed doors by vice president dick cheney and the courts did not allow u- we did not know who they met with and all that stuff. when they say what comes out of the grou goes upor sale -- on the sale -- what do they mean? thank you. guest: lemme try to respond on the last question first. wh oil is produced, it is refined or sold on the world market. that is probably what was meant
by people who are suggesting what ever comes t of the ground wind up being sold on the world market for commodities. that's just the way that occurs. as far as the secret meetings that are alleged to have occurred with former vice president cheney, i think those were in connection with trying to develop an overall energy approach. the administration then sent us something that was more of a brochure that said this is the kind of thing that the bush administration thinks should be pursued in an energy policy. i think most of what was in that is prettyell known. it was heavily focused on more production. the was very little attention to increase conferenconservatior
increase renewable energy. the current administration and president obama ve a very different set of priorities. he has continued to support production because of the nds, but he has also tried to put much greater emphasis on shifting away from fossil fuels and also focusing on conservation. st: tell us about new mexico as an energy producing state. guest: it is very much in energy producing state. we produce a great dealf natural gas. i think we are fourth or fifth in the country as far as the different states and the amount of natural gas we produce. we also produce oil -- not quite as much, but some oil. .
various incentives for farmers to go ahead and construct some nuclear power plants. try to expand build some new plans. i think that would be a good thing. host: what is the status of -- guest: they do not want to pursue it as a permanent repository for nuclear waste. i believe that the department has withdrawn their application. the nuclear regulatory commission to get a license to use that facility. they have withdrawn that application. secretary of energy has appointed a blue-ribbon commission to look at what
alternative we have for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes in light of the decision or in response to the decision not to use yucca mountain. host: do you support that? guest: that has been my view. if that is not going to happen, then i certainly support setting up a blue ribbon commission to tell us what the alternative should be. we will get a report late this year or maybe early next year from that commission and hope they come up with some good suggestions. host: west chester, pennsylvania. thank you for holding. are you with us? please go ahead. caller: i apologize.
this is chicago. i was calling -- i first had a comment. i thank you for the work you're doing, senator. your name is peter, right? c-span, which i do enjoy, and it is educational, but if you think is in existence for the consumers that pay the cable bill, then we need to have questions answered. you are cutting people off and that is the advice of other outlets that turn people away. constructive criticism. senator bingman as i have been watching hearings, one of the callers did asked and it is not
a shot to you, sir, but shouldn't congress be more proactive as a lot of people be saying instead of reactive? it has to be disasters such as the oil spill and this, that, and the other. the american people continue to be out of. guest: i think the caller makes a good point. one of the big challenges for congress is to be proactive and to try to anticipate problems and get out ahead of them. this is a circumstance where we did not get out ahead of it. the case of the financial meltdown, we did not get ahead of that, either. some cases it is congress that
is failing to get out ahead of the problem and sometimes it is the ainistration, and sometis is industry. there a shared issue whether it is a financial disaster or an oil disaster. the continuing challenge is, how do you see a problem that might occur and keep it from happening.backs host: caller: i have been watching this energy deal for 50plus years. i use aot of energy. it goes back when gasoline was less than 30 cents a gallon when started out. anytime you increased e cost of energy, you will increase the cost of everything. people are not going to beble
to pay their electric bill or afford to have cable and watch c-span. everything you produce is energy. everything takes energy. we need to keep energy as cheap as we can or we're going back to the jungle. energy is what drives this planet, it ves us a modern scientific advances. host: charles, we got the point, thank u. guest: i think in addition to wanting to keep energy cheaper, we need to recognize that there are real costs that the society is paying. if we have side effects from energy use that are not in fact
factored in. that is what the whole global climate change issue is about. if it does not cost you anything to put as much greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere, then you'll just keep doing it. thought of putting a price on rbon or putting a charge on is people want to pollute is a way of saying, let's get the cost of the energy we're using reflect what is actually going to cost society. that is the idea behind it. i assume that is what the caller was getting too. if we went ahead and did something, it probably would result in some increase in energy prices where the energy is produced from a particular sources.
that way you could discourage people from -- they could produce it from different sources. host: are you in favor of a so- called carbon tax? guest: i do not think -- i have not seen a proposal for a carbon tax that i thought could get the support it needed through the congress. that is one way to try to put a price on carbon and to discourage greenhouse gas emissions to the extent possible. i think we should look at its along with the various cap and trade proposals that have been put forward and choose the one that does the bes job of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and keeping energy as cheap as possible. host: next call comes from
louisiana on our democrats line. caller: good morning. i am on top of this and i'm wondering, is there a point where the replacement of the drilling mud, the dead battery, and not pulling the final cement plug, does this change to make regular -- does this become iminal? something else that burns me. someone was charged -- some corp. was charged with a corporate felony. i committed a felony and went to jail. could you explain this? host: where is your town? caller: almost the end of the
world. we work with the oil industry. the problems we have in the past are boats going 60 miles per hour. we work together with them. it is notike they just cam down here yesterday. we have gone along over years and years. deregulation is the main problem. guest: i think the caller is asking some good legal questions about what are -- what are the civil and criminal liability that might flow from a certain set of facts. i think in general use start by saying was the company negligent? then the question becomes, it was their gross negligence and was there any misconduct?
if you get into anything that is haveul misconduct, you potential criminal liability. if you have negligence or just gross negligence, i do not know if there is a criminal penalty that attaches to individuals or to the corporation itself. i do not know the answer to whether some type o felony conviction of a corporation would result in a fine or what the solution -- in most cases, i think the assumption is that finding a company -- fining the company is all u can do to the company itself. you cannot throw a corporation in jail. it doesn't mean that individual officers and employees of the
company could not be pured. host: last call comes from sunrise, florida. caller: good morning. i would likeo say something about the drilling. we have an oil spill down in the gulf. one of the drilling offshore where it is hard to control these spills? the government -- we have land permits, water permits from the state. why cannot the government takeover this and that way the billions of dollars of profits could go to pay off our debts? guest: as to why shell would want to drill offshore, i assume that is where the determine that is where the gas is. that is why they have made a
determination to drill in that area. the government of taking over the l industry, we have that in quite a few countries. we have never had that in the united states. we have always felt private companies should do that and the government should regulate them and get a royalty from the drilling that occurs on public lands and get taxes from the companies on the basis of their production. you can argue either way. realisticay, i have not seen any serious proposals in the congress about the federal government becoming anil company or establishing an oil companies. i i do not think that in the
we'll hear from the head of the u.s. delegation, assistant u.s. secretary of state, michael posener. and we will have a discussion on u.s. and china's handling of climate change. we check in on the senate, who continue to work on a regulations bill. we talked to a reporter earlier today for a recap on this week's action. action.
>> dick durbin discussed an amendment that allows the federal reserve to limit fees that card issuers can charge retailers for transactions. the federal legal limit to the amount of fees that can be charged. >> one of a number of amendments considered over the past week. these changes to the bill, what will they do when the bill comes forward. >> it remains to be seen. it depends on how it is perceived. it could make it harder for people to decide how to vote. if it makes it more extreme, and the bill could come to the
floor. >> in one of your articles, and he wrote that there was some tension in the democratic party about passage of the bill. what did you mean? >> whether everybody can get together. i had an exchange with banking committee chairman chris dodd on the floor thursday who said there are bills that would ban speck of credit defaults swaps. dodd has to get this moving, and we can't let it get laid down. >> talking about amendments, what are going to see next week as the end result? >> an amendment that would allow each state to set a cap on the
interest rates charged by credit card companies operating in that state. it is something they will fight hard against, but it seems like we're seeing the tide shifting more and the direction of that sentiment. so that is one of the amendments that could really gain support. >> what can you tell us about the latest timetable that senator reid have on the bill? >> there's a motion that if approved would set limits to only those that are germane, but its precedents. the vote might not happen until wednesday. we are still thinking this is something that could happen but the end of next week if everybody comes together. we are voting tuesday,
wednesday, and thursday next week. we could still have voting on amendments saturday. we could wrap this bill up by next saturday. >> with an update on the senate financial regulation bill, stephen sloan of "congressional quarterly." thank you. diplomats from u.s. and china wrapping up talks. everything is just getting under way, live on c-span. >> we would happy to be chatting afterwards on any other details. >> good afternoon. let me just give you a few details about the dialogue. we met yesterday and today, with secretary steinberg, kirk
campbell, assistant secretary for east asian and pacific affairs, but other agencies who participated, labor, commerce, justice, and trade representatives and members of the judicary. it was led by general cho, director general of the ministry of foreign affairs international organizations. representatives from justice, labor, and the supreme court. yesterday, we discussed religious freedom, labor rights, rule of law, racial
discrimination, and multilateral cooperation. today we visited several sites. sandra day o'connor hosted us at the supreme court to discuss rule of law and the role of l awyers in society. we talked about the relationship between religious community and government and humanitarian issues. we also met with officials of the federal mediation quarter to discuss labor rights, collective bargaining, and we met with tom carothers, talking about the nexus between human rights and rule of law.
the discussions were candid and constructive, including areas where we disagreed. we pledged to continue discussions in a variety of forums and set dates to restart discussions soon. we also agreed to a next round of the dialogue for china in 2011, and we are discussing further discussions on religious freedom issues and labor. i look forward to working with counterparts to continue these discussions. >> i was hoping you could talk about what cases you raised, if you could give us any idea of china's response, with
concessions or looking into areas of concern, and to talk a little bit about what you expect china to do. work projects were described as a way to show this isn't just talk, but progress. can you talk about this? >> sure. i view this discussion as two tracks. on one hand, we are advancing discussions on rule of law, where there is real possibility of dialogue, shared experience, and shared dialogue where we work together, in the religious and labor areas and perhaps others. ambassador huntsman said today, and it's the sign of a mature
relationship between are -- our countries if we are able to discuss differences in a candid, honest, respectful, detail way. we discussed a range of cases, and we will continue to raise our concerns about specific cases, and the fact we have this dialogue provides an opportunity. the more we can regularize the discussions and make them part of routine dialogue, the more likely we'll get success. >> the spokesman often mentions things the state department it is concerned about. lay out what you mentioned.
>> one, we talked about a large number of cases in very different places. in some cases, we will be more effective if we continue pro -- privately. other cases, we will continue to raise. in that case our judgment is it is important for us to be literate in our concerns. another lawyer whose case we expressed concerns about, we will continue to do. we generally are committed and spend time discussing very specific cases and concerns in the areas where disagreements are most profound. >> what are some benefits of the
state department with the feeling about religion in china, also concerning monks asking for [inaudible] religious freedom? have you spoken about freedom of the press? >> indeed. we had a discussion yesterday afternoon on free expression and talked about that issue in broadest terms, including resttictions on the press, on journalists, on bloggers. that is the broad subject that we were discussing there, and there are real differences, but we had a good, detailed discussion about all those things.
>> [inaudible] blacklisted, their families here underground. many chinese that live here have to visit back home. >> we discussed again in the context -- i don't want to get to every detail, but we raised concerns, both about religious restruictions and broader human rights concerns, and we will continue to do that. >> human rights violation conversations, any different than the previous discussions? >> the last one was in 2008, before that, 2002. one thing i am eager to do is make this a more regular
exchange, because i think it will enhance our ability to have these discussions and get a greater result. i am pleased that we had a good two days of discussion. respectful in tone. at the same time, direct in content. there are a range of issues where we can work together, but a number where we have differences. we may not change in points of view, but we laid the foundation and will continue. >> [inaudible]
>> we spoke in broad terms about the issue of internet freedom. we did not speak to particular companies or details of that nature. the secretary's speech in january articulated a policy promoting an unfettered, open internet across the globe. it is a reaffirmation of our commitment to free expression and desire in china and everywhere is people to have the ability to use the itnernet to gather and disseminate information, and those are issues where we have a range of concerns. >> more broadly, there has been criticism of china acknowledging concerns and it would not go
anywhere. is there something in the short or long-term debt is deliverable? >> i view this as laying a foundation to have these become a more regular pattern to exchange ideas and look for ways to cooperate. i think it is critically important that these issues are part of broader u.s. engagement policy in china. it is significant to me to have representatives from the commerce department and white house said the irs and whitbread justice department's -- and
labor and justice departments. i will be going to china next week. i will continue to discuss these issues. we need to take a whole government approach to human rights generally and in this case in particular. today and yesterday, did we resolve that issue? we have a lot of work to do, but i know i have the commitment of the secretary. >> there are areas where china turned the tables and raised complaints about u.s. practices on the globe or at home? can you give some examples? >> part of a mature relationship is to have an open discussion
where you raise not only the other guy's problems, but your own. we have experts from the u.s. side, for example, talking about the treatment of north americans in immigration. we had a back end worth about dealing with those sorts of questions. so throughout the day yesterday and today we had a discussion about the relationship with food safety, ball, and human rights. food safety is a big issue in the united states ended issue in china and in some cases we're talking about the same thing. we had a discussion yesterday about labor, not enough labor inspectors and factories in china or the united states. that is something we should work on together. we have got all the answers,
telling the chinese how to behave. we are both obligated, and talking about things we can figure out, can we help each other, and how can we mitigate those differences? i am not going to get into the details, but we certainly continue to be concerned about the prisons. >> does negotiation come up? who brings it up? >> we bring it up early and often. it was an issue in the first session, and it is a troubling trend in our society and an
indication that we have to deal with issues of potential discrimination, and these are issues. much debated in our own society. >> with other concerns? >> no. >> was the dalai lama raised? >> there was a range of issues in discussions of religious freedom, practicing freely without constraint, and we raised specific issues.
again, a number of cases, some of the lawyer cases involve lawyers who are disbarred or have their licenses not removed. in part, these are people represented, so with right to due process, we raised those issues. >> [inaudible] >> i am not going to get into details. >> are there any specific benchmarks? >> i think as far as i am
concerned, and get the dialogue under way over the next few months. we're eager to work also on these parallel discussions and religious issues. i think it is important to track some of these in individual cases, also other concerns. my intention is to make this a more regular, normal kind of conversation. going out there next week is an effort to make some officials and others to get a better picture of what is going on, and
to be able to raise our concerns but also obtain cooperation. >> [inaudible] >> we had a range of discussions. i'm not going to go any farther than that. >> talking about china and north korea? >> eric schwartz joined us at lunch. in by both raised a number of issues involving north korea, cambodia, and burma. this is may be another area where we had a discussion about
refugee protection issues that could be useful, and we are following those cases. >> did you have a discussion about whether this would be regular? >> yes, i am encouraged by that. i was invited back to be part of the dialogue in beijing next year, which i accepted. but we are going to take it once bought at a time. every other year, but every six years -- we are not committed. but it should not just be two days of talks, experts areas
time regularize specific cases throughout the year, and we will continue to do that. i certainly would have been surprised if there was a resolution. >> there has been a long gap. what surprised you most about the chinese posture, stamps, aptitude? >> i would say i was encouraged by the degree to which we had a back-and-forth dialogue. i come out of the ngo world, and i spent a lot of time and frustrating meetings, and i wanted to get to the real issues. we're talking to the real
recitations without back-and- forth. we really have a discussion about both issues where we can agree and move forward in a cooperative way, but we also had a constructive dialogue, respectfully talent but a very direct about things where we do not agree. that is very encouraging to me. this morning we went to see sandra day o'connor, and she spoke about the role lawyers play in this society and the role attached to the independence of judiciary and lawyers and the importance of pro bono representation. you really get a sense, i was really proud to be there and i think our chinese guests got a sense from doubt that it is deeply imbued in our society.
so it was interesting and encouraging to me that we were able to have discussions like that that took it to another bubble. -- another level. >> a resolution about china's human rights work? >> i do not know if there is any plan to do that. we did have a good discussion about the review which the government undertook last year that we are undertaking this year. we talked about some areas where we have differences, some where there are similarities or shared interests. the human rights council has been for us an uphill battle on
these issues, but we will continue to press, and it is good we are able to talk about places where we can cooperate as well as places where we will have differences. >> we will take one or two more. >> there is criticism that the dialogue is not transparent. >> again, i used to be one of those guys saying that, so i do not know what to say here. there is value in having direct conversation between the two governments. there are a range of things that need to be said and we did say in a respectful way, and i think that serves a purpose.
to the extent we can encourage that, there is advantage and open up the dialogue to involve society and environmentalists and whoever else, experts, legal experts. if we can succeed in establishing again this more mature relationship, i think there is room for a more open process and to have a more robust discussion. >> [inaudible] >> we did not tell china anything. this is a discussion among two important countries. the idea here is, how do we find ways to work together on areas where we have the potential to
mutually benefit, and how do we find a way to address our differences? it is important to me as far as as much of the things we were saying expressed concerns about real issues. the town of the discussion was very much we are two powerful countries with a range of issues we are a gauge it, and weird going to continue -- we're going to engage in continue to discuss. >> are you planning to meet with activists in beijing to hit the other half of the story? poppcan you talk more specificay about some of the illegal operations -- legal cooperation?
>> when i travel, i meet a range of people. i'm not going to say more than that. on the dialogues, i think there are in range of issues discussed in some detail where reform has been discussed, new laws are being proposed, and there are a range of issues where implementation of existing laws is being discussed. contract law, from examples by 2008, how that gets reflected. both to talk about laws being proposed or debated as well as the implementation, and another area where there will be a discussion on the role of
lawyers and the judiciary. so i think we will be looking for ways to integrate those three aspects. thanks, everybody. this is the part of the week which a german friend of mine once translated as miller time. so i will not take a couple of quick questions. -- i will now take a couple of quick questions. >> people are accused of violating human rights, and there was a big demonstration.
are you concerned that iran, a lot of people have been executed in recent months? >> we have expressed a number of things. it started out with iran's human-rights record, not only concerned about what they are doing to their own people inside their borders but also how they are acting, not constructively in other parts of the world, but also in the middle east. so yes, we have tremendous concerns about iran and the record, and one of the reasons we worked very significantly to stop, grabbing a seat on the human rights council. the secretary had a meeting, and
we will be making final decisions can be announcing the pchedule early next week prior to departure, so we are pretty close to setting the trip up but we have not prepared the announcing schedule. >> what about reports that al qaeda members have been able to travel more freely out of iran? >> we have long had concerns about al qaeda and members, leaders who have been residing, and iran is probably the most significant state sponsor of terror in tte world and this is just another indication. >> has there been any movement or conclusion on global talks? >> we have not reached the
conclusion. we were satisfied at the meetings and we will continue to work with their government. >> could the defense secretary is still come out to discuss and coordinate? >> it was a very detailed discussion. it started with a 10-minute 1- on-one discussion with the secretary joined by step on both sides, we have a working lunch and went back and forth as the secretary outlined in the remarks, pakistan and was a topic, iran was a significant topic, a very strong relationship, and we traded some
ideas on how we could work cooperatively and also how they could have their own dialogue with pakistan on issues of mutual concern, including security. >> for their conversations with brazilians about the trip? >> yes. we had a discussion with former ambassador amarim on tuesdaya = -- tuesday. she had a conversation with him and followed up on a conversation she had it in new york at the beginning of the npt conference earlier this month, and as the secretary said upstairs, we will look to see what happens this weekend.
>> [inaudible] >> not to my knowledge. iran did come up in the context of the discussion this week but president karzai since obviously afghanistan is a neighbor of iran. we are touching a wide range discussion with a wide range of countries and will be watching closely the meetings that occur in tehran this weekend, but as the secretary said, we believe it is time to apply more pressure to iran, and we think that is the best way to get them to engage more seriously. >> ambassador crystal is slated to retire this summer? >> chris hill is working very hard and iraq, whenever there
are changes in embassadors overseas, they must come from the white house. >> they are saying the times square bomber has no connection? >> if you read the morning paoer, pakistan has made to arrest in conjunction. -- made some arrests in conjunction. before we wrap up, i do not want to overlook the fact that the secretary met today with president of the marshall
islands, and the indication was that the primary topic of conversation was global warming, as you would expect, but we obviously welcome the french ship of the marshall islands with the united states. you have the assistant secretary. you have questions. i have many miles to trod before the weekend. >> do you and the chinese ever talk about labor, because there is a concern in this country about labor groups and that the same time, there are different
neighboring countries like burma and all those that attorneys have connections with. >> sure, absolutely. this was about china, about issues in the region but also affect china. the issues that china faces on the labor front are shared by other countries in the region that have export economies, and overtime, you could have both economic growth, and when i say labor standards is in everyone's interest to move in that direction. so yes, these are the kind of issues we have a wide range of countries. one and we will wrap it up.
>> [inaudible] i have not gotten a read on that meeting. but we are cooperating fully in that investigation and i would expect them to come up in the discussion today, but we will continue to support the investigation. >> the same question, whether the secretary is related to the incident? secretary clinton, everything there? >> we have not announced her
troubled yet. -- travel yet. >>. trip to north korea is based on additional findings out of the china incident? >> i would not link the two together. the investigation is ongoing in south korea. i think it is in the final stages and we will be talking to south korea about that investigation and its implications. there are preparatory discussions of important bilateral issues related to our lives. but i think in the full range of bilateral and multilateral discussions, i am confident that
>> sunday, david cameron and his deputy prime minister at the first news conference and the formation of the coalition government, and a speech from gordon brown as he leaves downing street. sunday at 9:00 on c-span. >> c-span, our public affairs content available on television, radio, and online, and you can connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. >> up next, a discussion on how china and united states for dealing with global climate change. this is part of the discussion that has been going on throughout the week.
>> good morning. i and the director of the center for north east asian studies at the brookings, and with me is cantilever fall -- kenneth leiberthal, and it is our joint privilege to welcome you here today. the subject is u.s.-chartered corporation on the big issues. washington and beijing will soon convene for second dialogue, and that the first dialogue last summer, president obama gave this speech about his view on bilateral listen, saying that
the relationship between u.s. and china will shape the next century. that is the responsibility we looked to share. my confidence is rooted in the fact that the united states and china shared neutral and trust -- about a shared national interest. we will be better off because our ability to partner with each other is a prerequisite for progress on many global challenges. john does like the global economy, proliferation, and climate change have boot to the center of the u.s.-china relationship, and you can see that in the joint statement released last november. we also believe that
cooperation is the only way to address those challenges. it is also the optimum load of interaction in an increasingly multipolar order. president obama's vision does raise some questions. number one, do the united states and china each understand the challenges in the same way? after all, each of these issues test its inherent logic which our countries may or may not accept. do we indeed share a mutual interest on these problems? what is the actual degree of overlap between how the united states sees its stakes and how china does?
even if the answer confirms -- conforms to president obama's views, how effective has our corporation really been? does it truly just challenges, or is it superficial. does it significantly limit how we can work together? what is the likelihood the current mode of cooperation will effectively address or contain each of these challenges? that is the purpose of today's session, to assess the extent and quality of u.s.-china cooperation concerning climate change, iran and north korea, and the global economy. there is what i call it what to of the problem, and we will
start this morning with climate change after break for lunch hearing from the deputy secretary of state, we will get the obama administration perspective, and after that we will discuss the global economy. so thank you again for coming, and my colleague jeken le iberthal will chair the first session. >> i want to express my appreciation in advance to our speakers and members who have come from out of town to participate in this event today. the first panel is on the major issue of global climate change, clearly an issue with the united states and china are the two of biggest players on the issue, in
a sense, unfortunately, as each of us now accounts for 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions each year. as the focus is changing, the u.s. to start the has clearly been the largest single contributor, the largest responsible country in terms of gas emissions, and since gasses remain in the atmosphere long time, that history matters. but the u.s. has now peaked in emissions, and the issue is the schedule. china is nowhere near their peak. increasingly, we will shift to china as accounting for a very large percentage of the increase as we move forward.
therefore, increasing optical to deal with this issue overall. that is why we are leading with this issue. the issue has enormous global importance. the u.s. and china are enormous global players. we are engaging both bilaterally and as key players in a multi lateral a arena. we have two terrific panelists to introduce this topic and discuss it with you. you have their biographies, so i will not simply read what you have in front of you. let me just note that one is managing director of the brookings institution. he has long had a keen interest in the climate change issue. the president of brookings, this week, on friday and he are publishing a book called "fast- forward."
it is about the climate change issue. our next guest is from the peterson group of international economics, right across the street. he has done enormously useful and insightful work on china's relevant policies and on the u.s.-china interaction on the china -- on the climate change issue. he has just finished a six month stint working with a special envoy on climate change, working up to copenhagen. he brings a very fresh experience to the discussion this morning. we would like to have both presentations and then open it up for questions and answers. each presentation will be roughly 20 minutes long. we will begin with trevor. welcome. trevor and then welcl.
>> thank you very much. about three years ago, i was asked to speak here, and it was one of the most terrifying and rewarding experiences of my life. i am glad to be here. i am grateful that i was able to take his request to be here now that my schedule is a bit more my own. everything i am going to say is my own opinion, which i am now free to offer now that i am not in the cone of silence of government. i have talked a little bit about this before. i will lay out the context of where we stand in terms of
climate negotiations and map out some issues going forward. i have been this close to the issue with no room for actual creative thought or strategic thinking, and so i believe that all to build -- to bill. the current round of climate negotiations were launched about 2 1/2 years ago. the u.s. and china were in many ways at the center of why the international community felt it necessary to pick off a round of negotiations. the existing international architecture regarding climate change, in the form of the kyoto protocol, had to absences. the first was the united states. over time, it has become increasingly politically untenable for other countries like europe, australia, japan
and russia. the kyoto protocol only had emission reduction standards for developing countries. in the decade between when it was signed and now, rapid growth in emerging economies made it clear that any long-term solution could not be a developing country solution alone. countries have been buoyed by a rise in both scientific convictions and awareness of the challenge. you will remember al gore on the intergovernmental panel on climate change kicking off the current round of negotiations, which we are supposed to conclude in copenhagen. in the two years between mali and copenhagen -- bali and copenhagen, at the u.s. saw
encouraging movement. right before the agreement was supposed to happen, there was a change in government indeed -- in australia. there has also been a change in government here in the u.s. the government changed hands in and japan. that brought about much more ambitious climate change target. the developing countries were not alone. we saw in september of last year, for the first time, china announced a countrywide climate change oriented form. they announced that they would do three things by 2020. they would increase the amount of primary energy from on fossil sources. they would increase forestation by it 1 million a..
and they would reduce the carbon intensity of the economy by a significant amount. in late november, they announced what that amount would be, and it was a 40% improvement. that is the first time they have made a reduction target. that came a few days after the obama administration announced a goal of a 17% reduction by 2020, followed by continuous reductions thereafter, until ultimately and 83% reduction by 2015. after china made the announcement, and by the time the copenhagen conference started in september, we have policies or targets from all major companies -- all major countries. there has been bilateral and multilateral cooperation on this topic, and it has been expanding.
a group of leaders, in july of last year, produced a pathway for developing and non- developed countries to pull their own way. last summer, our counterparts in beijing negotiated a memorandum of understanding on climate change negotiation that mapped out a pathway for what our countries could do together. this has been an area that can either be a pillar in the bilateral relationship -- it is one of the earliest areas of bilateral cooperation between the u.s. and china. an agreement signed in 1979 has served as the foundation for all of these years of energy corp.. or this could be a source of
tension. the goal announced last july was to map out a path going forward. in november, during the president puts a trip to beijing, there were sweeping initiatives announced regarding climate change. a similar set of initiatives between the u.s. and indonesia are out there. we have all of these positive bilateral relations. none of this was actually translating to the international commission actually tasked with coming up with a climate change agreement. for two years they were completely mired in debates over both content and form. there are a lot of reasons why international negotiations have struggled. at the core, the most important issue is in the difficulty of translating political will into an actual treaty.
that has to do with the legacy of climate institutions and agreements that were left with uncertainty about the future. you have three positions in the negotiations that are difficult to reconcile. you have the developed countries that are part of the kyoto protocol, who cannot continue to be in that framework without the united states. you have the united states, who under the obama administration are willing to, not signed the kyoto protocol, but the part of a new, binding international agreement. and, they are willing to allow for differentiation between what developed countries do and developing countries do. but they also believe that any country who signs needs to be bound legally. they can commit to do different things, but there is no justification for some countries to be legally bound and others to be taking a voluntary action. for emerging economies like china and india, the kyoto protocol works pretty well. while those countries have put forward significant domestic
policies, they are reluctant to translate that into internationally binding commitments. my view of why, in the case of china, is that while china is fairly confident that they will be able to meet their targets for 2020, they're uncertain what the pathway looks like to get there. if they were to agree to a legally binding pre -- a legally binding treaty in which they were making legally binding commitments, and it had global goals, that might imply a future chinese commitment that is greater than the leadership currently thinks they can deliver. there is a difference between energy and climate policy, and other areas of international law like trade and finance. when there is an agreement to reduce tariffs, it is pretty straightforward about how that gets implemented. if you commit to climate change targets, emission reduction charges -- emission reduction
targets, it requires a broad away -- an array of policy tools. we do not have experience being affected at meeting those objectives. just look at the u.s. wind and solar incentives to get a good sense of that. there has been significant engagement directly by heads of state in copenhagen. we were able to sidestep the ultimate questions of legal binding and produce a political accord with broad agreement on the key areas of substance and a pathway for action going forward. more importantly, i think the copenhagen accord signified a fundamental shift in our approach to this problem internationally. from the top down approach that was embodied in the kyoto protocol, where we negotiate with each other and see who needs to do what, to a bottom up
approach where countries come with their own policies and offer those up, and compare, and take stock of how each other is doing going forward. that bottom up approach also means we will likely see movement going forward on multiple forums. there will be a series of decisions that can help move forward progress on finance, and transparency, and adaptation, on technology. it will be challenging to make the progress, because there is sick -- there is still uncertainty about what happens to the akiro protocol. it continues, and the developed countries you are a part of it are expected to take on additional commitments. we will also likely see more work on climate change in other forums, and work on some of the issues that help address climate change, though not directly, like the deployment of clean energy.
i think the other significant change following copenhagen is that we are going from a climate oriented focus to a multi-issue focus. political support for policies to reduce emissions for the sake of addressing climate change has taken a bit of a hit in the past few months. fortunately, the means to the end of the dressing climate change addresses another -- addresses a number of other end as well including security, economic growth and employment creation. those narratives continue to be important and powerful politically, and to drive policy. i expect we will see that be more and more important in driving policy. there is a good news story to that, which is if we look away from allocating the pain it to taking advantage of the game,
then we can all negotiate a little more easily. insttad of thinking that we need to wait for china to move, if you are telling us an economic employment story, there is an advantage to being first. there are other policc candidate -- other policy challenges which are going to increase in their profile. the deployment of energy in all countries requires funding, either from the government, or in the form of high energy prices. in the u.s. is stimulus package, there is a local content requirement. this is a trend that, if it continues to escalate, creates significant challenges globally. if we all make everything is soup to nuts in the clean energy system, and energy prices will
be higher, deployment will be lower, and our ability to tackll the problem will be less. but if you are going to trust that we buy things that china does better, we also need to trust that china will buy things the u.s. does better. that requires being smart here in the u.s. about where we have comparative advantage. on the flight down from new york this morning a newspaper article saying that when you go to the negotiating table with china, you need to know what you want, and that presupposes a strategic view about the u.s. role in the world economy. i think we are still looking for that strategic view. in the clean energy space we need it critically. that will drive the narrative going forward. i will make a couple more comments then wrap up.
whether we are trying to address energy security, trying to address employment creation, a local environmental protection in a way that also reduces emissions at the same time and tackles climate change, i think we will deliver meaningful results within the next five to 10 years. but it is not a long-term solution. ultimately, to meet the kind of goals that the scientific community has laid out, it will require things that actually cost money. our freedom of air, we have a little bit of room right now to experiment with what works, and what works best. we do not have to have a top- down approach where every country is allocated a certain amount of rights. we have flexibility for the next decade. as we go forward, that flexibility is reduced. our margin of error, in terms of meeting our long-term stabilization goals, will be lowered. that will once again bring us back to core issues that are difficult, that were left
unresolved in copenhagen. we need to begin laying the groundwork for that conversation now. i think that means a few things. first, we must pass legislation. we will be in a different place in 2020 than we are today. chinese per-capita emissions will be higher than ours. chinese economy will be higher. the impact on both countries will be much greater than they are today. the political conversation we had in copenhagen will have a distinctly different town and 2020. but if the u.s. cannot pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation, if we cannot demonstrate that we believe what we say and that it is possible to de-carbonize your economy while maintaining prosperity, it will be very difficult for any u.s. diplomat to put pressure on other countries. second, that legislation needs to deliver financing to the most vulnerable countries. one of the reasons why it is
difficult for us to make progress today in the negotiations is because the u.s. in particular, and developed countries more generally, have yet to seriously follow through with commitments they have made for the past two decades. we are in some ways rightly criticized for moving the goal post further down the line. we made some important commitment on finance in copenhagen. $30 billion for developing countries between 2010 and 2012. a commitment to mobilize public and private finance annually by 2020. i think it is critical that we come through with that pledge, but to help the countries that desperately needed, but also to build the credibility that will be required for other countries to take us seriously. that is all i have to say. i look forward to hearing bill. [applause] >> thank you.
thank you for inviting me in putting this on. i joked before hand, being asked to talk on a panel on u.s.- china climate cooperations is like bringing coal to newcastle. i think there has to be a clean energy politically correct way to say that. in this case, bringing coal to charleston, west virginia, or to china. that is in some ways the heart of the story. going back for one second, i do work onsay that ken's this issue has been passed breaking. -- pathbreaking. i read congressional testimony from last fall on this area, and it really has laid out judd
ground work on an intellectual level -- laid out a ground work on an intellectual level. i start my own assessment of this both looking at material interest and ideological, or i am going to be a little bit more down in the week as to how the countries themselves deal with these issues. trevor did a great job of giving the broad negotiation overview, which i will touch on a bit. a book i have co-written on this topic will be out this friday on amazon. 80% of our energy comes from fossil fuels. 20% comes from nuclear and renewables.
from that, we produce just under 6 billion t of carbon dioxide per year. china produces 90% of their energy from fossil fuels. that creates about six gigatons. from those two countries, you have 12 out of the world's 30 gigatons. in order to keep temperature growth beneatt two degrees celsius, we need to get global gigatons down to 15. right now, china and the u.s. together produced 12, and we have to get globally to 15 in the next 40 or so years. that is a huge challenge. it is a huge challenge of technology. it is a challenge of finance, and of changing both the regulatory nature of our economies, but how the economies
themselves operate. each country has a different set of material economic requirements to get there that end up getting teamed up with a set of political requirements to get there. it is not surprising that somebody who knows a lot about politics, richard gephardt, describes this as the most difficult political transition in the history of mankind. that is fair to say. think of what it took to get health care passed in the united states. that is one sixth of the u.s. economy. that is the same size as our energy economy. and we have to do this in countries around the world, starting with the most politically complicated, the united states and china. we have completely different economic systems, so doing it in both places is actually rather different. through a number of different efforts, and both systems, political systems and economic systems, are starting to
understand whaa it takes in one another's countries in order to make the transformation. from an ideological, from a political perspective, both countries are adjusting to that challenge internally. in both places, that is a real conversation between political policy-makers and the public. in the united states of the challenge that we face is that we essentially have parliamentary parties. that is, our party is have become more polarized and more hardened around ideological positions, but we do not have a parliamentary system that gives one party or another a mandate to do what it wants. we have this divided government system between the two branches and the two parties.
what you see with public awareness on climate is a growing acceptance on climate change in the center part of the country, which is where the bedrock of public opinion is. the political extremes in the united states elected four separate -- in the united states -- the left for several decades believed climate change to be real, the right decided to deny it. for some reason, the science has become politicized. still, among moderate centrist and independent voters in the united states, there is a pervasive belief that climate change is real. they do not know how much is man-made. they do not know how much public policy can address. but still, there has been an advance in the belief. that has not affected the political debate that much. almost one year ago when the u.s. house of representativess
passed climate energy legislation, it was done purely on a party-line vote. one could look added -- look at it as a high water measure of bipartisanship, because seven or eight republicans voted for the bill. that was extraordinarily high. the reason was that barack obama four months before had won their congressional districts. they also had specific reasons. one was from the jersey shore district where environmental issues always poll high. another representative was for the climate change legislation before he was against it. another member from upstate new york is now the secretary of the
army. he was already from a moderate district. you see on this issue almost all republicans in voting against. that is what we see is the tee up to the debate that is going to be happening later this week when senators lieberman and carry introduce comprehensive energy and climate. there are again, about seven or eight senators on the reluctant side who are thought to be considering voting in favor of this because of a number of odd circumstances. i think what you will continue to see on the republican side is what we saw in the state of utah. the hard right is forcing members to vote in favor -- or to vote in against climate legislation. more conservative members come
from states more heavily dependent on fossil fuels. we will see what happens if a candidate in the democratic primaries are forced to be more in favor of climate legislation. on the china side, climate change is not a huge area of public opinion concern in china, though it is growing, but what you have is a very high understanding of the issue among policy-makers. they are divided. that broke openly in the run-up to copenhagen and actually, at copenhagen itself. when china was negotiating with barack obama, the top negotiators disagreed with the president and told the -- and in another negotiator told a translator to stop translating. it was a moment when private
negotiations suddenly became public. it was critical as a moment for u.s.-china cooperation on climate change, because we saw, literally, two heads of state negotiating with one another and at the same time, having to negotiate with the political forces that they have to deal with. that is the sort of wrestling match that defines the issue moving forward. what that means, i think, and there is island agreement on what that means for the next several years. -- there is a violent agreement on what that means for the next several years. in the united states, signing a treaty means going to the senate and getting 67 votes. that is very difficult when you can barely get past cloture to pass legislation. it is nearly impossible. on the chinese side, at the
chinese understand what an identity profile looks like for 2030, but beyond that, to 2050, it is very difficult to understand. those emission levels have to come down, but china does not want to be constrained. both countries are trying to see what they can do by themselves before they deal with an internationally legally binding agreement. on something like the copenhagen accord, it is politically binding but not legally binding. the story from copenhagen was how the u.s. and china were to gather for the course of he year, starting with hillary clinton right after the inauguration, where they went to china for a number of different biological -- bilateral contacts between the two countries.
then, on the ground in copenhagen, the two leaders really did get together and make it all happen. in fact, in europe what you see right now our newspapers where people are talking about how the u.s. and china conspired to break up a legally binding treaty. on some level that is true, but that may actually be a good thing, because it allows the whole world system to try to move forward. so, at the national level, and that the international level, you see this kind of cooperation. perhaps the most important cooperation is happening at the corporate level, where you see a number of different engagements of foreign countries going against what is happening at the government level in terms of domestic legislation with subsidies and tax breaks. i will get to protectionism in the second. what you see our company is cooperating.
two weeks ago i was in nevada for the launch of a wind turbine plant that is being built by a chinese company in nevada to build a wind turbine farm in texas. that kind of cooperation is happening in china as well. china is in north dakota to build an all electric vehicle that will be built in china but sold in the united states. instead of taking coal to newcastle, someday we will be taking lithium to phoenix i guess is the new metaphor. those kinds of things are critical, but they also face their own set of roadblocks. these subsidies pose problems. perhaps the biggest one out on the horizon is in the context of getting its domestic legislation passed in the united states, it
seems likely that there will be something called "border tariff permits," which many people consider to be taxes or tariffs against companies that have not adopted comprehensive climate change or energy allegis legion -- or energy changes. imports from those countries would be forced to purchase admissions -- emissions permits at the border of the united states. for me, the biggest question is, when these kind of things get phased in, if they get phased in by 2020, that appears to be enough time for china to establish domestic roles. it also gives them the ability to implement the rules, so the one can say whether or not they have acted on climate change.
it also gives the u.s. time to demonstrate that it has acted. if, however, these things go into law and into operation as soon as american domestic legislation goes into operation, then that poses real challenges, i think. it is essentially setting a standard that we ourselves have not proven that we can live up to, and the chinese have not had an opportunity to demonstrate that they have the domestic capacity to move forward on. finally, i just want to sketch out a few potential areas for cooperation that the two countries can continue to work on. some of these i have just seen in the last several months. perhaps the biggest is the issue that came up in copenhagen that almost derailed the talks, which is the verification of the counting of emissions in developing countries. this is an enormous issue that is enormously complex. the chinese reason for opposing
this, although they did end up acknowledging part of the -- part of it, is the lack of capacity to assess and monitor the levels of emissions. in other words, there are two ways to monitor emissions levels. you can look at the fossil fuel input that the country takes, how much oil they import, how much coal they import, or how much they mine domestically. the key thing for carbon emissions is not just how much you use, but how effectively and efficiently you use it. that means going in and looking at the actual technology that you have in place. the chinese have cause for concern about that, because it opens up almost their entire economy to external monitoring and verification. in addition to that, you're doing it in the context of a politically inspired -- a politically binding agreement.
there was great concern among the chinese that they would be giving away their sovereignty. that is an enormous issue to work on both diplomatically and that the technical level. are there ways to monitor emissions that are not as invasive as the chinese fear them to be? this is a critical set of questions moving forward. two as i mentioned, is the trade issue. i think there needs to be greater understanding of what the border permit system would look like, both in the united states and china. for this comes to an issue that was pointed out awhile ago. we have talked about national and international cooperation between china at the global level. there is an important middle ground of state level cooperation. we have to understand that the four big players that we talk about quite a lot on climate change are big, complicated
federal systems, the united states, india, china, and the european union. among those four players you have 60% of the world's population, about 60% of the global emissions, and almost 70% of the nuclear reactors in the world. a lot of the regulation in the united states on energy and environment, up from the kyoto agreement, the greatest learning that has happened is at the state level. states, and also california, in looking at an adopting climate changed legislation, they have gone to europe and learn from what is happening in germany, the u.k. and france, how they regulate emissions. they are about the same size and same complexity as those state
governments, so that kind of learning between the united states and china, between the united states and india, between india and china, is really critical over the next 10 years. if you think about it from the standpoint of a governor, where they can learn about international diplomacy and economic diplomacy in a very hands-on way. people forget that when bill clinton was governor he did a number of trade missions with china. he really did learn to talk about the global economy. this is where governors could learn to talk about not just the global economy but the global environment. finally, this issue of nuclear is very critical. china is ramping up its nuclear technology quite quickly. it obviously has an important non-proliferation side. has important financing dimensions to it. it is a huge regulatory challenge for china. they have announced that they want to double the number of
nuclear regulators in the country. we have enormous experience with that in united states. there has been some concern that we have not replenished our own next generation of nuclear scientists because nuclear reactors have gone out of style in the last 30 years. they are coming back. people expect as many as 30 permit applications for a nuclear reactors in the united states in the next 10 years. this is a huge area for cooperation between the united states and china and one that i would encourage very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. between the two of you, you have really cover the landscape. i want to open this up for questions and answers. please raise your hand. when you are identified. , we have a couple of microphones, and we will bring them to you. please indicate who you are, and
then if you want to direct your question to one panelist or the other, feel free to do so. before i open it up, i want to ask a question of both panelists. the next 10 years are going to be extremely important in terms of how the world begins to deal with china -- how the world begins to deal with climate change and how the u.s. deals with china. as we look the other side on this issue over the coming decade, what are the big ticket items that we need to be concerned about? are there a couple of things that we should all be really focused on from an american perspective as we worry about china, and vice versa? what are the chinese really worried about, concerning america, on this issue, over attend your perspective? -- a 10 year perspective?
>> i can divide chinese ways to reduce emissions into two camps. in the near term, the most bang for your buck comes from reducing the amount of emissions through lower energy use, both in terms of technical efficiency, but more importantly, through the structure of the economy. the rapid growth of the missions we have seen in china in the past decade was not the results of less efficient chinese production. it was a change in the structure of the chinese economy that changed the carbon intensity of chinese growth from 0.4 to 1.2 forever a 1 of economic growth.
-- for every 1 of economic growth. they will have a massive carbonnade dividend. -- carbon dividend. in the long term, it is a bout changing the sources of energy supply. it will be renewable energy and electric vehicles. there is a horse race between nuclear power and other sources. there are significant challenges that need to be addressed if they're going to be viable in the next 20 years. on the u.s. side, the most important thing is going to be getting a regulatory framework in place. we have an opportunity right now where our emissions are lower.
the epa reported that our emissions are down 9% from the year prior. that is going to make the reduction target a lot easier. there is not a lot of structural demand, so we are at a juncture where it is cheaper for us to act, and we're doing so can kind of solidified these energy prices domestically that will make the long-term costs much less. >> i am going to now flip and complement trevor where trevor was very focused on the eternal of our economy -- in journals of our economy -- internals of our economy. i am going to focus globally. what is important to china is to
is doing the negotiating. is it president barack obama, or is it someone from the negotiating team who saw copenhagen as a way to delay domestic action? the question is, what happens with the negotiation from copenhagen in future if yuen negotiations -- u.n. negotiations? in the past, they a failed to endorse copenhagen. every one of the pieces of that three page agreement has no standing right now within the united nations. they have to take each of those pieces and running back through the functional equivalent of a committee system. taking one piece apart from the other pieces, say one part goes
through but another part get stuck in committee, that makes the agreement fall apart a little bit. china is the pivotal vote with regard to developing countries in the united nations. the biggest fear for the u.s. is that the progress made in copenhagen between the two heads of state will end up getting bogged down in the united nations system. this is what happened three years after kyoto. there were still three years left on the clinton administration clock. there was a dog fight about what emissions trading men. after three years of negotiations, negotiations broke down. while everyone was counting the votes in florida, there was a climate meeting in the hague. kyoto essentially fell apart right there. at the end of the day, the
europeans ended up adopting a year later what the u.s. wanted, but we had a lost decade of international negotiations as a result of those three years when there was not agreement on the details. we cannot let that happen with the agreement made in copenhagen. the u.s. may fear that china will not be a constructive force in the process. what china will be looking for from the u.s., is to not walk away from the united nations. the u.s. started this major economies forum. the u.s. tries to bring climate change into the non- formal un sessions because of the process can be so cumbersome. that makes china's relationship with the number of other developing countries much more more vulnerable countries do not trust china to negotiate with the u.s..
they believe china will walk away from their interests. what the u.s. can continue to do is reassure china that it takes the yuen process seriously. again, it will only take it seriously of china is not us -- but if china is not obstructing them. >> i have a couple of comments. the first is on an international issue. china and the u.s. are both good, big countries. there is an issue of natural -- national security. either wen jiabao or obama
cannot make decisions. obama has ingenuity. he ways of the advice -- he ways to wen jiabao in the airport. this whole thing about the united nations and the agreement. this particular visit involves a sovereignty. this is a basic problem because the congress considers this. i have heard all kinds of discussions in the u.s. u.s. discussions forgot what the problem in the u.s. [[nintelligible]
i don't know when we going to have climate change policy. >> we have a lot of people who want to ask questions. do you have a question? >> and no, i only have a critical comment. >> thank you very much for the presentation. one issue that i want to see if you can clarify for us, there was some confusion after copenhagen as to whether china said it was not going to be asking for a transfer of financial assistance. where does that stand? if china were to agree to that,
that would provide tremendous leverage and put pressure on the u.s. >> i think that china understands that there will be finite funds available. what chinese negotiators have said publicly is that they will not compete for those funds with more vulnerable countries. the person who spoke to the financial times can be an expressive speaker. whether he mistook -- missed spoke or was going beyond his mandate is not clear. it is one thing to state publicly that you're not going to take any of the money. that is a difficult position to defend domestically. i think there is fairly wide acknowledgement within the
chinese delegation that the financing that is made available, the more vulnerable countries will be first in line. nancing that's made available th more vulneble countries will be first in line. >> i just only have one thing to add there. everything that tremendous vor said is exactly right particularly about official government financing. that is also ntroversial. china and india have already benefitted. and the real question moving rwar think,e wet stther onot ad wh ohe s goeoatioy
ot o thisff wasea l gacd stusexpedited. it wasn't that different from ou in ssens >> the one thing that i do know is that chinese investment in this is both considerable and likely to continue and expand over the time horizon. how much of it is going to be used internally, and how much for export is the real question moving forward. it does not necessarily translate into emission reductions domestically. this may simply be another export opportunity for china, and that is one of the reasons that people are very concerned that china is not talking about an actual target at some point in the future. at what point that kicks in is a real question. it is not yet clear from a
climate standpoint how it plays out. the last question that i find most interesting deals with chinese intent. this is a country that is no longer a black box. for me, the most interesting thing that came out of post- copenhagen china was the debate that erupted not just at the negotiating table, but in the weeks thereafter, where you have chinese scientist saying essentially bets -- saying essentially that china should be more aggressive than what they committed to. the government is spurring economic growth but saying that china gave away the store in copenhagen. a debate is breaking out in china that is just underneath the surface, people are probably not quoted as much in the press,
though some may be increasingly willing to be quoted as criticizing government policy. there was a message to both sides saying, stop fighting over this and let's get serious about what it takes to implement this domestically. just in the last few days we have seen that the chinese emissions intensity back slighted -- back-slided. sunday there was a 3% decrease -- suddenly, there was a 3% decrease. it is hard to say what china's intent is. there are different forces out there. the government seems committed to the plan from copenhagen, which as was correctly described, is a bottom up approach. they're using the next set of gears to benchmark how well it does obverses what it can do -- set of years to benchmark how
well it does verses how well it can do. >> i want to focus on the stimulus. whether it is directly in the form of fiscal allegation -- allocation or bank lending, a lot of those work projects that ultimately could reduce carbon in china. high speed rail will reduce vehicle miles traveled or bottlenecks in traffic that will leave the diesel vehicles idling for hours at a time. the balance of the chinese economy between the service sector, which does not use a lot of energy, uses a lot of people, which is why beijing wants to grow that sector, because it creates a lot of jobs, and heavy
industrial sector, has said one -- has as one with the stimulus into a more energy from the economy. whether these projects have a dividend in terms of their lower energy in the long term remains to be seen depending on how efficiently that is done. but that is the near term. >> just one quick thing on that. in the u.s. we had a similar thing. the challenge can be seen in our own cash for clunkers program. china did a bigger one. some people argues that it takes fuel inefficient cars off the road and put fuel efficient cars there, but it kept the auto industry moving. one of the reasons we had a lower emissions last year was because the economy crash. cash for clunkers got the
economy going, and it is likely that emissions will increase as a result. in china, the cash for clunkers program was even more expensive. >> are you smiling at their overconfidence? >> i was smiling that one of them was going to answer the question. >> back here. i am from resources of the future. i taught environmental science at university in western china for two years. i am very aware of how alert the universities and students in china are to the need for fighting climate change. however, i am appalled by the discussions here in the united
states, how seldom it is mentioned that per-capita, the emissions in china are one- quarter the emissions in the united states. it seems to me that the effort here should be a much stronger than in china, where there is so much more poverty, and that the need for development there is a greater, but the need for efficiency here is stronger. the need for cooperation on our part with the chinese is a very strong. it is the 1/4 per capita the keeps bothering me. >> the number per capita also makes a difference. all of us have responsibilities. >> that is true, of course, and that is part of the debate that makes this so challenging. india would offer a target, has offered a target that their per-
capita emissions will never exceed the west. china will not make that deal, because they know their per capita emissions will accede europe shortly. it would be more ambitious than they would like to see. china d tehis earlhi isifnt ea kf lev amontde expected from china iss. e t is that out to date? there are countries that have per-capita income and commissions far lower than the vast majority of developing countries. if you look at the developed countries, today the top 40% of
developing countries are richer than that including singapore, all of the middle east, and a large swath of emerging economies. it is appropriate to have a conversation about equity, per- capita emissions, and appropriate allocation and irresponsibility. it has to be based on more. you -- there has to be gradient beyond that. >> i think that is right. the basic point is thht all may well taken, it is incorporated in everything people are talking about. the united states has gone on record as saying it will cut the emissions by 80%. the chinese have said it will cut the growth of the emissions. everyone except the chinese emissions will continue to grow
because their per-capita emissions will continue to rise. it is a troubled standard for a couple of different reasons. right now, per unit of economic output, china produces more emissions than the united states does. india is slightly more than the united states. there and get back my -- thei economicr output continues to rise. the number of capital are really does matter. this is where population grows. i read this in the wall street journal. i am not alone in india as the many things they are too many indians. that is not the case at all. those extra half a billion people, if they each produce 5
tons of carbon a year, and that is a lot of carbon they are putting up in the atmosphere. these formulas are really quite tricky. simply using per-capita as a standard unit of gdp, that is where the conversation is more going to. >> i might add a footnote to the comment. we are at a conference in aspen last summer. it brought in people from around the world. at the end of that conference, one of the key representatives from africa got up and was really angry. he said, every time i hear china groups with africa, a climate change i give very upset. we have nothing and, with china on climate change bit of nothing but if they have technology that
we do not happen if they have manufacturing that we do not have. they have world that we do not have. the great damage that we do not create. we suffer. the need for this in the same category, we are dead. do not do it. all it does is highlight the reality that on this issue of the world is not developed. the world is more complicated than that based on how many people we have, the growth rates, all kinds of things. you can almost see yourself on that. there is an ankle anyone can take to make themselves look better. every fall short of having the top 15 carvin and matures in the world, -- carvin and matures in the world, we are in deep, deep trouble. >> this is a question for any or all members of the panel.
i want to probe of its a bit more on the domestic politics of this issue in both countries. i will not use the term "drill down." >> drill, baby, a drill. yourm interested to get assessment of where each of these two countries stand respectively on the two components of this politically. one is the awareness and acceptance that the problem exists, which is arguably on science. it is more than that but then secondly, it is then the policy component of then what do we do about it. in china and in the united states, you are reading today if we had a scale of one to 10, one
being it is all hooch's polkas and 10 is the source -- hope are we on thecus, component? where are we on this second piece of that? >> i will take the first crack at this. in the terms of facing climate science, with our problem right now at four, down from 86 last year -- a 6 last year. china is higher, maybe a six or seven. where does it fit on the priority list?
for china, there is a much greater voice. when you stack it up and priorities, i think it comes slightly down below. the goodness is that when you start to translate that into policy, there are a number of issues that have the same means as a dressing climate change where both countries score much higher. they are trying to find the industries that are going to create economic activity and employment. all of these four very high. china continues to score very high in the u.s. but of a policy package will be motivated by debt collection of tools with climate's probably being if not last, next to last. i would not be surprised if when
senators in kerry released their bill on wednesday climate change is mentioned pretty far down. economic growth and job creation will be the head 9. >> not much as of a disagreement. i would probably retire in the u.s.. -- rate it higher in the us. the numbers had been about 75% of americans thought it is either serious or somewhat serious two years ago. and now the number is around 58%. are you willing to pay something for that? i tend to bit of an -- to be a bit of an optimistic. there are quite a large number of moderately inclined legislators on the republican side that actually understand
the scientific challenge despite of the climates death, e-mail files from last year. others identify with the issue and see the next generation of college age students set fire residence for the issue. we are a college educated society. we increasingly believe the climate change is real. the younger they are, the more so. that extends all the way down to grade school level. we got into our prius one day. my 60 feel the need for turning on the air conditioning. when i explained and not only is its energy efficient, she cannot tolerate it. we do send their school to a public school in the middle of virginia.
i think --for him is a values issue. middle america. sp gulf oic e ch mor diflt deal to pull there is a moral charge to this that i think the oil spill helps draw attention to. the chinese side is very hard to really get arms around. it is is very hard to make generalizations about a country with 1.2 million people they live in rural poverty. they are dying to move into the cities.
there is certainly a government commitment to the issue. the thing that drives that is the extraordinary impact that the natural environment plays on chinese society. the impacts are felt in a very direct way. i remember him me showing the relief map of china even if they got the date wrong, and the fact that runoff from those mountains would be affected in a warmer world is a big issue that really worries the chinese that water tables are dropping in the north of china. it is an enormous set
challenges. chinese authorities believe this is a kind of crisis that they want to get ahead. they face the challenge of an expectation of 7% to 10% economic growth a year to keep up with the flow of people. that is the biggest constraint. bacon said that economic growth in a greenway. i think that is terrific for them. they do not want to pose any constraint. >> in back. in front of the camera. >> it is good to see you. thank you for the presentation. i want to ask this passion -- question to the panel. no one doubts the effort the chinese government has made toward a blow carbon economy. if natural gas accounts for 3%
of the country's total energy consumption. nuclear counts for less. nuclear accounts for about 5%. the ballpark of the energy will come from coal. it is providing less than 1%. the process of installing it can be very energy intensive. if you look at the landscape, a the two areas where impacts can be very significant our energy deficiency and coal. call is providing over 77% of
e entire energy consumption. then you wonder how the night states can make an impact. [no audio] there was an annual decline of 5%. now the record seems to be pointing to the other part can the united states really had an impact on the efforts in china? all the efforts seem to have the internal problems and challenges.
technical deficiency pra. in terms of where the u.s. the best interventions, after the experience of the past year, we announced seven u.s./china clean energy initiatives ranging from one unshelled guest to renewable energy to energy efficiency. all of those are important areas of cooperation. we have to be realistic in their view of how much our work together is good to change. in the u.s., we are a two trillion dollar -- $2 trillion energy company. there are areas where we can
have a cataclysmic affect. i think that in places where there are either institutional knowledge or in for a structure bottlenecks to deployment, there will work in catalyze change. in renewable energy, in the u.s. are bumping up against chemistry for broader wind power deployment. you have installed all the wind turbines to can and mongolia or texas. there is a hole there that this -- whole there that is greater than the sum of its parts. we are finding where are shared knowledge can be useful.
it is the best policy that will make the change. >> i'm afraid our time for this panel is of. a 12 mention a couple of logistical items before thinking our panelists. the presentation by the deputy secretary will be at 1245 in this room. please, be here and be seated by them. i hope you will be here. for those who do not have other plans, there are sandwiches, coffee, cookies out in the hallway. the free to go out and enjoy it. we appreciate your removing of fastening cookies from the premise before you leave. third and finally, i want to simply think our panelists for getting the staff to a terrific start. with afford to seeing you when
mr. feinberg shows up. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> of making taken -- elena kagan is meeting with senators. learn more about the supreme court in c-span's latest book. it provides unique insight about the court, available now in hardcover and and as an e-book. every weekend, c-span2 features 48 hours of nonfiction books.
"the reluctance by." he talks about life in the agency before and after 9/11. he is interviewed the them. president obama and eric holder honors the police of a sears. those honors are nominated by their fellow police officers. this is about 10 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states accompanied by eric holder. >> good morning. please, have a seat.
it is wonderful to see all of you. to tom and the outstanding officers standing behind me as long as there family. welcome to the rose garden. it is my privilege to welcome the top cops back to the white house, men and women who stand as shining examples of the bravery, persistence, and good judgment was so many of our law enforcement. i think that eric holder has done an outstanding job at the justice department. he is here because one of his key jobs is supporting local law enforcement. he truly appreciates extraordinary service the local law enforcement does each and every day. then the couple members of congress here that i want to recognize, senator max baucus
and tim ryan. to the other officers from and the national association of please organization, thank you for coming. thank you for the great work you do. i want to congratulate this year's top cops. it is fair to say that the folks behind may never imagined they would be here today. these officers will say they are just professionals doing their jobs as best they could. they will tell it that there thousands of law enforcement officers in every corner that there just as brave and dedicated and capable as they are. that is all true. that is exactly what makes these officers and all of our men and women in uniform. heroes. the ability to put on a badge and go to work, in no danger may
be around the corner. the next call could be the one that changes everything. it is the knowledge that at any moment they could be called upon to stop a robbery or to save a life some people have not base their moment yet. by the hand of fate, these officers were tested. and when the moment came, they did what they were trained to do. have jumped into cars to rescue victims held at knifepoint. they've pulled trapped children from a burning car seconds before it was engulfed in flames. they've leapt in front of+ hijacked buses, faced armed suspects, led six-hour manhunts through the dark, and saved countless lives by risking their own. and in the moments when these officers were under fire or choking on smoke, they weren't thinking about themselves. they weren't thinking about the medals or commendations. i'm pretty sure they weren't thinking about being honored at the white house.
instead, they were focused on their partners, on the face of the child who was in harm's way, on the victim and the innocent bystander who desperately needed their help. and that's why we honor them. because while these officers may think of themselves as ordinary - as just another sheriff or trooper or patrolman doing their job - their actions were extraordinary. and for that we owe them our undying gratitude. but honoring top cops means doing more than just saying thank you. it means supporting our entire law enforcement community, so that no matter what the challenges we face in the months and years ahead, our men and women in uniform will be prepared to answer the call. and that's why, from the very beginning, my administration has been dedicated to giving state and local law enforcement the resources they need to get the job done. so far, $3. 5 billion of the recovery act has gone to support local law enforcement - $1 billion for the
cops program alone. that money has helped to create or preserve almost 4,700 law enforcement jobs for three years, and made progress towards our goal of putting 50,000 new police officers on the street. next year's budget would more than double the previous request for the cops program. and at a time when our nation is emerging from the worst economic recession in generations, we'll maintain strong funding for justice assistance grants, known as the byrne-jag grants, and bulletproof vests to keep our communities and our men and women in uniform safe. we'll make sure you continue to have the resources and support that you need - because we've seen the results of that work. in the first half of 2009, crime the 1960s. homicides dropped by 10 percent. car thefts were down nearly 20 percent.
and property crimes declined by over 6 percent. much of this is due to the men and women and their counterparts all across the country that are doing outstanding work. but it's also a reflection of the role that ordinary americans are playing - taking back their neighborhoods from violent gangs and open-air drug markets, educating their children, being vigilant. of course, the most recent example and most visible example of this partnership between citizens and police happened two weeks ago in times square. alerted by two street vendors suspicious vehicle, nypd officer wayne rhatigan immediately realized the potential danger and, along with other officers on the scene, helped clear the area quickly and safely. the nypd's elite bomb squad unit then spent over five hours defusing the device. and just two days after the attempted terrorist attack - thanks to the outstanding work of local, state and federal officials - a suspect was in custody. and yesterday, i had the
privilege of visiting the nypd real time crime center and meeting officer rhatigan and other officers whose quick thinking and cooperation may have saved hundreds of lives. like the folks behind me, they succeeded because they were well trained, they were vigilant, and they were ready. being a hero isn't always easy. as officer ryan jacobsen, who is being honored here today, said of his own experience, "it's one of those things in your life you can never prepare for fully - and that you hope never happens again. " so we are incredibly proud of the courage that all of you have shown in the conditions that we can only imagine. it's a distinction that none of