>> coming this thanksgiving on c-span, american icons. three nights of c-span original documentaries on the iconic homes of the three branches ofamerican government. the supreme court, home to america's highest court, reveals the building in exquisite detail through the eyes of supreme court justices. then friday at 8 p.m. eastern, the white house. inside america's most famous home. beyond the velvet ropes of public tours, our visit shows the grand public places as well as those rarely-seep space. -- seen spaces. and saturday at # p.m. eastern, the capitol, one of america's most symbolic structures. american icons, three memorable nights thursday, friday, and saturday at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. and get your own copy of american icons, a three-disc dvd set. it's $24.95 plus shipping and handling. order online. >> now an event with john

limbert, the newly appointed deputy assistant of state for iran. he was held hostage from 1979-1981. from the middle east institute in washington, this is just over an hour. >> quite an overflow crowd. this is all, i guess it's not unexpected, but i'll tell you the background to this invitation which is rather ironic. gives me great pleasure to introduce ambassador john limbert today, and he's here to discuss his very timely book, "negotiating with iran: wrestling with the ghosts of history," it'll be on sale downstairs after the event. the book was published by usip in 2009 clearly anticipating the obama administration's desire to break with policy and engage iran. those efforts, of course, have been complicated by the current political situation which few anticipated. as undersecretary william burns said at mei's recent annual

conference on november 10th, he said, we have before us a historic opportunity -- this is relating to iran -- but it will not last forever. it's time for iran to decide whether it wants to dwell on familiar suspicions and imaginary external enemies or make a positive choice about the role that it seeks to play in the world. you can find his speech about iran on our web site, by the way. this is a very fortuitous occasion for us because we had originally invited mr. limbert to come speak in october, and there was a scheduling conflict, and we rescheduled for today and, of course, in the meantime the administration had the foresight to appoint him deputy assistant secretary of state for iran. [laughter] which seems to be a position that was created for him because i think it's safe to say that there are few others in this administration or in the state department that know as much about iran as ambassador limbert. he lived there as a child, his parents served with u.s. aid in

iran, he worked there in the peace corps and studied and learned farsi there. and he had the honorable or the dubious honor of being in tehran in 1979 during the hostage takeover and spent 14 months as a hostage along with other americans. and afterwards when he came out, he received the state department's highest award, the distinguished service award as well as the award for valor. ambassador limbert later went on to have a distinguished career in the state department serving in many fine and easy posts like algeria, saudi arabia, and finally at the uae and as ambassador of mauritania from 2000-2003. your poor wife. [laughter] my father got all the hardship posts as well, so i know how it is. in 2003 he was one of the first civilian officials to enter baghdad for humanitarian assistance. mr. limbert has been a distinguished professor of

international affairs at the u.s. naval academy, he's authored two other books, "iran: war with history" among one of them. i should note he is here today speaking not in his capacity as the deputy but in capacity as author of negotiating with iran. if we want to ask him questions in his role. anyway, please, join me in welcoming mr. john limbert. [applause] >> thank you very much. well, thank you all for coming, for coming out today. let me say, first of all, at my publisher's request i am not going to read from the book. [laughter] the publisher said, if you codo that, who will buy it? so i'm not quite sure how to take that last comment. but i will spare you reading from the book. but i will make references to it.

the story of this, of this book and of this whole subject for me personally begins with a personal failure. it happened almost exactly 30 years ago. on the 4th of november, 1979. when a group of very unhappy young iranians stormed our embassy compound, they were unhappy because about two weeks before someone in, some folks in this town decided it would be a good idea to admit the deposed and ailing shah of iran, to the united states for medical treatment. well, two weeks later we found ourselves in the embassy behind

a steel door on the second floor of the old chancellor ri, the dearly-beloved henderson high that some of you may remember. and on the other side banging on the, banging on the door were this group of unhappy, unhappy iranians. well, it befell to me to -- having made one of probably the worst decisions of my foreign service career -- to go out from that door, to go out from behind the door and attempt, and i use this word with some trepidation, to negotiate with this, with this crowd to see if there was something we could do. maybe we could get them out or at least delay them because what was very clear to us already was

that there was, we were on our own. that if anything was going to be done, we had to do it. we had made calls to the iranian government at the time or at least what passed for the iranian government, something called the provisional government of iran. and it was very clear from that contact that there was no help coming from that direction. when i called, i think it was the foreign ministry, i got a secretary on the line who said, oh, thank you. it's so nice to hear from you. those passports we sent over for visas, are those visas ready yet? and that's what they seemed to be worried about was their visa. after all, they were hedging their bets, too, as to which direction the politics were going to, were going to go.

washington was clearly far away, it was 3:00, it was 3:00 in the morning on a sunday morning in washington, in washington. that and the normal resources available for washington to help us, for example, a high-level call from the secretary of state or from assistant secretary, from the assistant secretary hal saunders wasn't available. anyone who would have taken his call, such a call, couldn't have done anything. and anybody that could have done anything wasn't taking any calls. certainly not from american officials. so we were on our own. no one pushed me out the door. i did it on my own. it was a terrible idea. but it was -- no one had a better one at the time.

so there i was confronting this group of very excited young iranians, and my success at this particular negotiation, let's say, was less than perfect. they, it didn't go very well. and as a result, i and 50-some of my colleagues ended up spending the next 14 months as what the author mark boden has termed guests of the ayatollah. in and there we are. well, i've looked back at that encounter, at that failure of negotiation and often asked myself, is there something i could have done better? what were the weaknesses in my

technique? is there some way i should have negotiated that would have had a better outcome? maybe just stay behind the door? if that was the, if that was the case although i don't think that would have had a very good outcome. i don't have an answer. perhaps the only answer i come up with is that if you're at a, if you're at a high-stakes poker game and your hand is a pair of 2s, you had better either be a very good bluffer or you should not have been at that game at all. you shouldn't even be there. but from that experience or from that personal failure came really what i was writing about in this book. and if i could use a prop here for a minute, thank you, kate,

you'll notice deliberately i did not call -- i called the book "negotiating with iran." that's deliberate. i did not call it negotiating with the islamic republic of iran, i did not call it negotiating with president ahmadinejad. because, after all, those of you here and there are many i see here who are familiar with iran know that there is much more to iran and much more to negotiating with iran than the absurdities of presidential statements coming out of tehran and the nastiness of the current system.

the question in the book is not should we or shouldn't we. i mean, i have my own views about that, but that, to me, is not the important question. the important question is, when we finally end -- move to end our third, what has now been a 30-year estrangement, how do we do it? how do we deal with our iranian counterparts? whoever that counterpart is? and whatever government he or she, but more likely he, happens to represent? now, in the interests of full disclosure, let me say that by training and background i'm a historian. and my real love is iran in the 14th century.

and 14th century she razz. and that was a time when iran produced some of its greatest masterpieces in architecture, painting, drinking calligraphy and particularly in poetry. it was the time of the poet whose lyrics are not just some of the greatest masterpieces of persian literature, but the greatest masterpieces of world literature. so you had a creative, vibrant, artistic people living under rulers who, to put it bluntly, were thugs, pa gnattics and bigots. now, that's 14th century shiraz.

now, it may be consistent dental, but some people have noticed similarity between conditions then and conditions now, but i won't -- you can draw that conclusion for, for yourself. now, my historical bias also comes through the subtitle of the book which is "wrestling the ghosts of history." because my view is that when we and the iranians are in the same room or when we talk to each other or when we attempt to talk to each other that there are ghosts in the room and that we need to be aware of these ghosts. and these ghosts are numerous, their strong, they're very powerful, and they're very important. i mean, there is the ghost of,

of premier most debt. there is the both ghost of our cia activity, the old oil concessions, of mr. darcy, for example. there are the ghosts going all the way back to the treaty of you are the men chi. maybe there are good, benevolent ghosts out there. there's the ghosts of morgan schuster and the 'em bassty takeover. these ghosts are all there. and they're going to, like it or not, they're going to affect how that encounter happens. they will be in the room. now, i looked at four case studies here, and two of them actually have nothing to do with the islamic republic. two of them come from before the islamic revolution. those are the azerbaijan crisis of 1945-1947, the oil

nationalization crisis of 1951, '53 and then two come after the revolution. one is the embassy hostage crisis, the second was the crisis involving the american, american hostages in lebanon and involved in that, of course, was the whole iran-contra, whole iran-contra affair. and from these cases, from this history i have attempted to distillless sobs. -- lessons. what can we learn from these cases? what is there that can help the american negotiator dealing with his or her iranian counterpart? whoever they are? and the issue may be, may not even be political. it may be commercial, it may be, it may be technical, but whether

the issue is a nuclear program, whether it's terrorism, whether it's afghanistan, whether it's imprisoned american citizens, what can we learn from these lessons of the past? and i've distilled it down to 14 points. some people call this limbert's 14 points. [laughter] some people, some journalists have called it the 14-step program. but these, i think of these as simply ideas. here are some examples of what worked, and here's some examples of what didn't work in the past. and these things are not terribly profound or shocking. i think to most of you, things like choose your intermediaries with care, be sure you're talking to the right people, don't get tangled up in

legalisms, tangled up in legalisms, beware of the influence of history and all of these things. but i should make, also, clear that this program come cans with a disclaimer. it comes with no guarantees. you may do all of these things that i suggest and still make no progress. you can still fail. and why is that? well, problem is that between our two countries 30 years after the embassy takeover, 30 years after those events and about almost 30 years after the formal break in relations, hostility and suspicion still run very deep.

and they run deep on both sides. and let's look at this. i want to look at this for a second and just show you how this works and how this two sides continue to look at each other and how this mutual suspicion and mutual animosity gets in the way of making any, of making any progress, of getting off, getting out of this 30-year downward spiral. that's a phrase that the late richard cottom university of pittsburgh specialist used to use, he talked about this downward spiral of relations. you have on one side the iranian view, and i tipfy that in a famous rhetorical question that ayatollah khomeini once posed. when asked about relations with

the united states or negotiations with the united states, his reply was, what for? what does the wolf have to negotiate with the sheep? in other words, we are the sheep, they are the wolf, they are not interested in reaching a, an equitable and fair agreement. they are interested in eating us. or if not literally, humiliating us. and that was based on a view of, on his view, his view of history. but it became a reason for -- based on mistrust -- became a reason for continuing the estrangement. now, interestingly enough, on the american side you find something similar.

you find the view, and if you think this is not, if you think this is dead and buried, you're wrong. i can tell you this view is alive and well. i've encountered it as recently as last week, as last week. the view is that one could never have successful negotiations with iranian leaders who do and say what the current leaders of iran do and say. because they are too fanatical, too company phobic -- zen phobic, too suspicious and too untrustworthy to deal with. so let's turn khomeini's statement on its head and what we get out, what we get is what

do the rational have to negotiate with the crazy? and you can see a certain if you detect a certain mirror imaging here, you're not -- i don't think you're far off. so how do you get out of it? how do you get out of the downward spiral, how do you get out of the impasse? well, in my book i take as my starting point the all advice -- wonderful advice from the 13th century poet, sadi, also a native of shiraz. and sadi was talking about something that's very contemporary, i think. he said, whoever you see in the robe of an aesthetic, consider that person an aesthetic and a man of virtue. in other words, watch out for

the preconception. watch out for the negative assumption. that person may be a hypocrite, he may be untrustworthy, but until you know consider him to be what he presents himself to be. and i was reminded of this, very interesting connection here, back in january when president obama gave his first interview. you'll remember this interview he gave to -- five or six days after he was sworn in as president. and one of the things he said was, we need to put aside preconceptions and assumptions. he wasn't talking about iran specifically, he was talking more, i think, about arab-israeli issues. but it would certainly apply to

iran. because if you go into an encounter with iran assuming that they, the other side, are simply too stubborn, too irrational and too unreasonable, then i would say you will fail. and you will fail for certain. now, interesting to me you could ask the question, i asked myself when president obama said this in january, was he aware of, did he know about the poetry of sadi? well, he might because two months later when he addressed the iranian people on the occasion of their new year, he quoted sadi. a different poem, a different verse, a different verse, but there it was, there it was.

so let me, let me end it, let me end this way. and your -- getting out of this 30-year impasse, getting out of what i call 30 years of futility is going to take, it's going to take a paradox, a kind of mental paradox. we have to think two almost contradictory ways at the same time. we're going to need patience and realistic expectations on one side, but on the other side we're going to need high expectations. we have to be demanding. call it to be, to be patient and demanding at the same time. because on the patient side we

may have to, how would you say, define our measures of progress in a very special way. progress may not mean resolving a nuclear issue, for example, in one week. progress may mean something much less than that. symbolic, something not said, a change of tone, a hand -- simple as a handshake. but that given what's gone on over the last 30 years, in my view, represents a change and could represent a positive change. this is not going to be easy. i should say. let me quote i think it was one of our good colleagues, ryan crocker, when he was talking about iraq.

he said, he said everything takes longer than you think, everything is harder than you think, and where, somehow, someone's going to come along and screw it up. [laughter] well, he was talking about iraq. i think iran that probably applies three or four, three or four times. and we've seen it. we've seen it. all the way back to 1979, we had the javits resolution, we had the axis of evil speech, we had rhetoric about the holocaust, we had this fishy election and, and its aftermath. so there are going to be diversions, there are going to be, there are going to be setbacks, and when i say patience, that's where you're going to need patience. now, on the demanding side

here's where you have to keep your expectations high. otherwise you fall victim to your own low expectations, to your own negative, own negative preconceptions. if you go into an encounter and i don't care whether you're dealing with iran or anyone else assuming that you will, that you will fail because of the failures of the other side and the shortcomings of the other side, then you will fail. it's certain. however, if you assume that success -- however modestly you define it, that thing not said, that change of, that change of tone -- is possible, then you may be pleasantly surprised. by what you actually can achieve.

let me thank many who have helped with this, who have helped with this -- many of the people here in this room have in ways maybe they are not aware of have helped a great deal with this project, and you may, and may find their ideas shamelessly reproduced in the book. [laughter] so once again, thank you for your attention, and i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> thank you very much, ambassador limbert. hopefully -- i'm sure the president has your 14-step plan ask considering it carefully. because we have so many media, i think we'll do two or three at a time. >> that's fine. perfect. >> three. and let's start with the media. any questions from the media? if you could just state your name and affiliation. >> nina. hi, good to see you. i have a question regarding,

resolving the issues that are outstanding between the u.s. and iran. some people speak of a grand bargain, and some people say we have to deal with it one issue at a time. how do you see it developing? >> another question. >> thanks. right here. >> voice of america, persian news network. ambassador limbert, when -- at what point do you say enough is enough, it's not working? >> could you clarify that question a little bit? [laughter] there are many ways of reading that -- >> once you've gone through your 14 points and you've done all your negotiations, you've been

patient enough, you have set your expectations high -- >> okay. there was a question here. the man -- and then we'll take the answers. >> hi. alex, london daily telegraph. i mean, the urgency now is the nuclear issue. i'd be interested to know how profound do you think is iran's ambition to have a nuclear weapon? >> excuse me? >> how profound is iran's ambition to have a nuclear weapon? >> are you in the press? okay. one more, and then we'll get the answer. >> sure. today -- i am from south america. today we have -- >> from? >> south america. >> and your paper? >> [inaudible] we have ahmadinejad in brazil today, and i want to know if this is a message to the u.s. that ahmadinejad can talk to other leaders of the western hemisphere and try to enter negotiations?

>> okay. we'll take the answers. >> okay. let me, let me, let me try that. attempts, ms. arabi, for your question, attempts at grand bargains up until now haven't worked too well. again, it's that suspicion, and the barriers of suspicion are just too high. when one side has come forward, the other side has drawn back. the u.s. made a what i thought was a very reasonable offer back in the 1999-2000, in the last years of the clinton administration when secretary albright talked about a road map to better relations with no preconditions. and the iranians turned it down, turned it down, and most observers, non-american

observers, basically said the iranians blew it. this was a good opportunity, and they couldn't, they couldn't do it. in 2003 we had the same thing from the other, from the other direction. i mean, it's a good idea if you can get all of these issues, all of these issues out there, but it may be too hard to do. so maybe what you, maybe it's this -- or at least if not one at a time, at least dealing with them somehow individually although you can do it simultaneously, you know, you can do it simultaneously. the problem has been that when we've, when we have made progress on certain issues such as we did in 2001 and early 2002 over afghanistan, on afghanistan or as we did in the late '90s

when we were exchanging a lot of scholars and journalists and athletes and travel and tourists and travel became much easier and things looked promising, up until now those efforts haven't gone anywhere. you know, they haven't led to a lessening of tension, they haven't led to any broader engagements. but i still think, you know, i mean, the grand bargain would be a great thing if we could do it, but it may just be too hard to do. to answer persian, when is "enough: the phony leaders, dean-end movements, and culture of failure that are undermining black america -- and what we think about it"? when is enough enough?

i think from what i read and what i hear, this administration has decided it is worth it and knows it will take a lo t of -- lot of patience. again, 30 years of suspicion, 30 years of trading insults, 30 years of name-calling sometimes going beyond just, and sometimes exchanges going beyond rhetoric, that's tough to overcome. but, you know, if you thump your chest for 30 years, what do you get? you get a sore chest. so i personally, i personally think it's worth it. you need a lot, you need a lot of patience. now, you know, when do you throw, when do you throw up your hands? you know, hypothetically there

may be some point out there when that happens. but i think it's going to take a lot of patience. let me just give one example, first, that i was affected by personally, and that was the deal that former, former secretary warren christopher who was actually deputy secretary at the time, the deal that he negotiated through the algerians to get -- the germans and then the algerians to get us out of tehran. well, if you read the accounts, and i talk a little bit about this in the book, but you can read much more detailed accounts that he himself and others have written, by september of 1980 the deal was done. he had met with an authoritative iranian counterpart, mr. that

bibby, in germany. each side had laid out its conditions. there were no deal breakers in it. essentially, the deal was ready, was ready to be made. it, it took from september to january of the next year, so about four months to actually work the deal, work the deal. and there were times when i understand that at least the american side was ready to throw up its hands. and say, we'll never, we'll never get this done. and it was this the algerian intermediaries that kept coming back and said, no, keep at it. keep doing, keep doing it. it's a little bit, it's a little bit like i said about your assumptions and preconceptions. you know, if you go in with this assumption that, well, this will never work, this will never work, then it probably, it

probably won't. let's see. okay. the question about brazil. mr. ahmadinejad in brazil. one of the features, it seems to me, of the islamic republic since its inception has been a certain amount of diplomatic ineptitude. that very early on from the very early period they have made enemies gratuitously. people who didn't want to be their enemies but were often provoked into, into being enemies. as a result, they've had a hard time finding friends. which is a little surprising given all the money that they

have. but there it is. and so from time to time you'll see sort of diplomatic charm -- i've seen diplomatic charm offensives where they'll go out, and they'll say, yes, we need to establish this kind of relationship and, yes, we have different systems and all of these things. but they've had up until now, seems to me they've had great -- and you particularly look at some of their relationships with their neighbors -- they've had great difficulty continuing that on a consistent basis. so they've gone back and forth between -- and i think it was someone who said that they have difficulty making up their mind whether they are a state or a cause. and the pendulum keeps coming back and forth. >> we have a couple of questions from the overflow room -- >> [inaudible] >> okay.

>> i'm sorry, repeat it for me. >> [inaudible] >> okay. what are iran's nuclear ambitions? i don't know. i don't have that kind of, that kind of information. i do know that they seem to have framed the issue in a, in terms of national rights and respect. so that what you, what you are dealing with is not so much a question of the technicalities about low enriched uranium, high enriched uranium which i look forward to learning about in my new job, but a question of what safeguards are national rights, what safeguards our ability to deal with, to deal with the rest

of the world as equals? >> great. we'll take a couple of questions from the overflow room, and then we'll get back to the press because people can't sit in this room. they can at least get some questions asked. these are mainly dealing with domestic politics. if the current crisis prevents the islamic republic from coming to the table, what should the obama administration do? that's one. how will that impact negotiation, and do you expect the full senate to consider the sanctions legislation that the banking committee passed in the near future, and what do you think about that? [laughter] finish. >> okay. let me ask, let me answer the first question, the last question first. one of the things they taught me is never, never comment on the work of the legislative branch. they will do what they will, they will do what they will do. so what do i think about it?

this place, i'll go, i'll fall back on what we always say which i haven't seen the details of it. so i really can't talk much about it. but it in this case happens to be true. the issue of domestic, domestic iranian politics, how that will impact negotiations. obviously, it will. the question about can they, can they negotiate when their domestic politics are in turmoil, that's really a question for them, isn't it? for the other side. my sort of watch word on this is that if you, if you're going to somehow end the estrangement

with iran, if you're somehow going to change the basis of this relationship, if you're going to break the downward spiral, if you wait for a good time, it will never come. it's always going to be a bad time. and you have to, you have to keep going. it may make things more difficult. you're going to the hear discordant voices, but i go back again to the negotiations that got us out of tehran back in 1980-'81, the domestic political situation at that point was in turmoil. but they struck a deal, they did strike a deal. in terms of the domestic situation itself, itself,

that's, of course -- i can always fall back on the words that the analysts love to use like murky and opaque. but actually what's -- one thing is clear, that the system that's been in place for about 30 years where you have a ruling men's club of about 25 senior people, and these people include names that are familiar to, i think, most, most people here, people like khomeini himself, people like ash my rafsanjani and these people who have been important since 1979 and have remained sort of the core elite of the

islamic republic as others came and went, came and went, two things are happening. to that group. one, to put, to quote the scholar, he says, their average age is now deceased. [laughter] they're getting old, they're departing the scene. but more important, the consensus which had existed among this group seems to be breaking down. and among these, among these insiders who, on whose cohesion allowed the islamic republic to survive some horrific shocks such as the iran/iraq war, such as the fall in oil prices back in, back in the '80s, such as some of the economic mismanagement that happened, that consensus seems to be breaking down.

and something, something different is coming out of it, and it's hard to tell what, but it seems to be now instead of this, this ruling men's club who all knew each other very well, many of them were related, they were in business together, they'd gone to school together, they'd been in prison together, the system seems to be reverting to an earlier model of rule by the gun. and rule by force. and it's ironic that a lot, some of the features that you see emerging now are reminiscent of what you saw under the panitys where the basis of support was very narrow, but with the

instruments of coercion in the hands of the government they held on. >> let's follow up with some questions about how to deal with this regime. mei you refer to the nasty iranian regime, do you refer to the approaches by khomeini and ahmadinejad? and after the flawed elections last summer, the obama administration's response was low-key to avoid claims by the iranian regime that the u.s. had instigated. now, the reformers are calling for more open u.s. support. is this a good thing, and what exactly should, exactly should the u.s. do? how should they deal with the reformers? >> okay. two questions then. do you see distinct approaches

to the u.s. by -- let me step back from that question. there were distinct approaches from the u.s. by khomeini and ahmadinejad. let me step back from that question. i'm not sure if it's one of the 14 points in here or not, but it should be. and that is, you have to be really careful about as an outsider of trying to game the iranian system. and saying, well, this person's on top, so we'll talk to him. or that person's on, that person seems to be on the skids, so we won't talk to that person. that's -- one thing, we're just not good enough for that. i'm reminded of some advice i got as a foreign service officer when they said when dealing with the u.s. military, we talk about

opaque, they said never, never second guess the military's chain of command. you'll always get yourself in trouble. find a point of entry and use that. and if this case it might be maybe we work through our protecting power, the swiss, the swiss, maybe we work through the mission of the united nations, maybe we meet at some other, in some other area, but really whatever, whatever works. the important point is what delivers. and to second guess the iranian political system, i think, is a thoroughly bad, a thoroughly bad idea because you usually get it wrong. at least that's been our record

over 30, over 30 years. >> let's take some questions from the press. let's start from joyce, i can't read your handwriting. [laughter] >> yes, hi. joyce with hyatt newspaper. mr. ambassador, i wanted to ask you about the regional situation in the middle east, mainly with the increasing sectarian divide. we saw the events in yemen and iraq and lebanon. where does this fall in the negotiations with iran, and how much does it complicate the efforts of the obama administration? >> yes. [inaudible] >> thank you. [inaudible] voice of america. mr. ambassador, serious negotiation between tehran and washington, do you think the subject of human rights should be included?

>> my name is ron, i'm with washington tv. your talk discussed bilateral relations. however, talks have been multilateral for many years, number one. number two, there are actors that have interests in the result of negotiations that are not part of it, namely israel and the arab world, so how do you factor that in as well. >> and one more up here. >> yes. i'd also -- also like to ask about iran's role in the region, particularly with respect to afghanistan, both positive and negative, and how does that factor into any negotiations, or is that something that can be used in the negotiations? >> okay. let's, let's see how we, we do this. it gets, the question you asked about sunni-shia issues, it

seems to me to get back to this pendulum swing that we talked about between state and cause. and which one prevailed. it's, it's very clear to me that the priority for the islamic republic in the last 30 years has been its survival. and it will do what needs to be done to survive. and particularly the leaders will do what they need to do to survive politically. so, for example, there are things out there that don't correspond directly to some ideological constructs such as, i mean, look at, look at iran's relations with the only other

shia country in the region. which is, what? azerbaijan. not very good. who is its greatest friend among its neighbors? armenia. christian, christian armenia. this shows pretty much a survival instinct, if you like, a survival instinct that goes beyond sectarian issues. having said that, you know, these issues are out there. i mean, the battle of safin is still yesterday's, is still hot news out there. of whatever happened, whatever happened. so these things are there. but they're not always there, and if you, if you, if you

somehow rest on them and they become your sole point of reference, i think you'll, i think you'll be misled. let's see. questions about others, i think you had a question about israel -- you had a question about israel? >> [inaudible] there are actors that are not part of the negotiations but have a huge stake in the outcome of that. >> of course. of course. everybody's interested, everybody's interested. everybody has, everybody has a view. and i think, i'm sure the iranians are well aware of that as well. it was interesting to me that in the last election campaign in iran president ahmadinejad came in for some pretty heavy criticism from iranians because

of his rhetoric, and particularly his rhetoric aimed against israel. it seemed to be, people seemed to be saying, sir, that's not helpful. you are not serving the interests of our country. very well. this is provocative. this is needlessly provocative, and you are going to get us into a conflict that we don't need. so, you know, of course others are, others are interested. and others see this. but again, i would be careful about making sort of the rigid categories and say, well, the arabs will say, will never agree with the persians or the turks will never agree with the, with the iranians. i think the, i think we're

seeing in the area a much more complicated picture, and one thing, another piece of advice -- i think it's one of my 14 points -- is that in any encounter you can't lecture, one of the things we probably should be careful of doing is lecturing the iranians about what their interests are. they know what their interests are. our misreading of their interests in the past has gotten us into serious trouble. now, if that account, if that applies to the iranians, i think it applies across the board as well. >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> of course. it, obviously, i mean, i speak

as someone whose connections to iran go back 45 years and more. as a scholar, as a teacher, as a researcher, as a member of a, as a, as a husband, as a son-in-law, brother-in-law, and it's very clear the iranians deserve better than they have. in terms of government. for a long time they have deserved better than they have. they deserve a government that treats them different -- treats them decently. should it be a matter of negotiations? of course. should it be the only matter of negotiation? i don't think so. i think there are other, other issues. i mean, we, i hope that we are smart enough to deal with more than one issue at a time, and i think we are.

>> [inaudible] >> did you want to follow up on your question? >> no -- [inaudible] >> okay. >> iran's role in the region and particularly afghanistan and how that would play into negotiations. >> okay. let me, let me -- as i've often done today and maybe you can see sometimes my bias as a historian coming through, i'm going to step back, i'm going to step back from that because iran does have a very specific view of its role in the region. and one that certainly others should be aware of and we should be aware of. and i call this a combination of grandeur and grievance. that iran at one time was a superpower. you can, and the monuments of that are all over the iranian plateau. i mean, you can see, you can see the baytrians, for example, from

afghanistan bringing tribute to the great king. you can see the syrians, the we nices, the egyptians all bringing, all paying tribute to the great king. you can see, later you can see another great king receiving the surrender of the roman emperor. i mean, this is, this is a big deal. and iran was a, iran was a big deal. unfortunately, for the last 300 years there hasn't been a lot of glory, but there's been a lot of grievance. ..

>> if someone has been gone for a long time and you see him, very often you will say to him, were you in kandahar? meaning you were, you know, you were on the moon. and that is often the way that it is viewed. i don't want to get into it now because i am really not so authoritative on the subject, but the way the iranians and afghans look at each other, is

probably the subject of a whole other book. >> are we in washington the victims of a lack of historical perspective? [laughter] >> god forbid. >> what is the relevance of mahmoud ahmadinejad's stated belief that the hidden imam is on the threshold of a hearing? and then a question here about a long one, many politicians believe in sentient, what is your opinion? >> okay. on sanctions, you know, in theory these things should work. pressure, but we have had sanctions, u.s. actions on iran for 30 years. i haven't seen them do much, but

what they have done i think, whatever their economic effect, the iranians don't like being singled out. it offends i think the sense of self untrimmed self worth and self esteem. they don't like being put in the same boat as north korea or libya or sudan. the effect of sanctions i think is less a direct economic one and more psychological one. it was interesting to me that in 2003 when the iranians put forth their so-called grand bargain proposal, or at least watch with

you to be their grand bargain proposal, because now there is debate over just what this was, but at the head of a list of what they wanted was removal of sanctions. so clearly what ever economic importance is and it feeds back into this other issue of the sense of self-worth and grandeur. let's see, what is the other one? lack of historical perspective in washington, that will come as no surprise. i think of any of you. americans are often accused of being a historical, of not, not remembering history. iranians might be accused of having too much history. of not forgetting -- of not forgetting it.

but certainly what put me and my colleagues into the soup in 1979 was exactly that. i still remember the accounts of the deliberations at the white house in october when president carter learned that the shah was sick and his advisers also to him, they said you should admit him. he has been an ally for 25 years or more. and so finally secretary vance, secretary vance who had been opposed to admitting the shaw for a long time, said well, if we do this, we have to tell the iranians that we are doing this only for humane reasons, and he

is coming only for medical treatment. now, what's the problem with that? no iranian over the age of three we believe it. given the history. because there is an example to me of where you missed the ghost. the ghost was in the room, and you didn't see it. and someone in that room i think should have said, mr. president, with all due respect, no one, given the history of our relationship over the last 25, 30 years, no one is going to believe you. and by the way, i want to you a story. i had a chance to test that theory, about a year and a half ago i was on a panel at columbia, with none other than the doctor. who was the foreign minister of

the government at the time. he was the one, ambassador langton had to go to on 2121st of october to deliver this particular message. about medical treatment. and doctor is a phd for united states. i think he was something in the medical field, not a physician but let for a long time in the west. and i asked him, i said dr. yazdi, when ambassador langton told you about the shaw's condition is being admitted only for medical treatment, what was your reaction. he said i didn't believe it for a minute. so yeah, history matters. and it matter sometimes in strange ways. you know, it isn't that you have

to know all about who the safford and two were, and who these people. but be aware that those girls are in the realm and they will affect, they will affect what happens. [inaudible] >> i'm really not a specialist. the question is what's the relevance of mahmoud ahmadinejad's stated belief that the hidden amann is on the threshold of reappeared. i have to beg off that one. i am not a specialist in the field of shia theology, whatever is going to happen. but i don't think i would read this as an apocalyptic statement. i mean, didn't we have a

secretary of interior a few years ago who said why bother planting trees, because the end of the world is coming and it won't matter. you know, this is an idea. it is a very strong idea, that the hidden imam is alive, he is in hiding, and will return, not necessarily at the end of the world. this is sort of unclear to me, but as i understand it is not necessarily the end of the world but to establish justice in the world, and to reclaim the usurp rights. that is why he is returning.

so i would be very careful about saying, well, all they want to do is destroy the world because that will bring, hasten the return of the hidden imam. it is a very strong belief. i am not sure how it carries over. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. [applause] >> we take you live now to the pentagon where a briefing with spokesman geoff morrell is just getting started. live coverage on c-span2. >> they deserve every effort will to show how thank the we are for their continuing sacrifices. to this and we here at the pentagon are doing all we can to provide a little taste of home to our u.s. service members deployed abroad. the defense logistics agency has made plans to ship thanksgiving

meal for proximally 180,000 troops in iraq and afghanistan. without waiting to far into the delicious details, our forces in the two theaters will be sitting down to thanksgiving feasts that includes 63000 pounds of potatoes, 8700 cans of cranberry sauce, 61000 pounds of stuffing, and more than 465,000 pounds of turkey. for dessert, there will be 67000 pies and cakes. to meet the needs of service members working different shifts, news will be served around-the-clock on thanksgiving day at many of the larger dining facilities in iraq and afghanistan. with this we sent to our troops a small reminder of our immeasurable gratitude for all they do to serve our country. also of course convey our hopes for their safe eternal. and with that i will take your questions. i was going to call unjust and first to be fair. he is there. he is in barbara starr see.

>> thanks, jeff. i really appreciate that. helpless that with the rollout on the afghan strategy next week. we know the president will make an announcement on tuesday. what is a secretary doing? is he going to testify or do we seek testimony from mcchrystal, petraeus perhaps? what is the deal there? >> as i assume all of you knew, who watched the president when he was asked this question and i did not hear him offer any specific date for when he would announce a decision about the way in afghanistan other than it would be after thanksgiving. so i'm not going to offer any more clarity than the commander-in-chief has in terms of timing. as for what would follow an announcement by the president, i think that the congress is obviously been patiently waiting throughout these deliberations, and i think the secretary and others are fully prepared to go

up to the hill in the aftermath of an announcement by the president, and explained the decision to our elected representatives. and as you've heard from the secretary or you say, i think was october the fifth, when he appeared with secretary clinton on cnn broadcast from george washington university, he said at the time the minute the president makes his decisions we will get general mcchrystal back here as quickly as possible and up on the hill because i will tell you, there is no one more knowledgeable and more persuasive on these issues than stanley mcchrystal. so without getting into specific date, i think the secretary has been clear, you know, really from the outset of this process that he intends to get there soon after a decision is announced, and he expects the commanding general to do the same. >> thanks for calling me. that time he really didn't see me. >> i didn't see you, you're right. smarty. >> you anticipate that the

secretary and the chairman will testify side-by-side and also that general mcchrystal and ambassador eikenberry will testify side-by-side? >> as for, you know, the arrangement, the stagecraft, the participant, i mean, i think those are things that are to be worked out. you can go back and look at previous hearings of this kind and can probably, you know, draw some precedent for having the secretary and the chairman and the secretary of state together. and then as you do follow on hearings, having representatives from country together. but i think these are things that are being discussed as we get closer to a decision and an announcement. but i don't think anything has been finalized. >> from your perspective, does ambassador eikenberry's, do ambassador eikenberry's

reservations about a troop increase complicate any testimony he might give either alongside general mcchrystal or the secretary? >> i don't know -- i don't have a position on the. i don't know the department has a position on that, and i think you are assuming -- you are assuming a decision that would make it uncomfortable for ambassador eikenberry or general mcchrystal. i don't know what the decision is. i don't know that a decision has been a. i don't know what the president intends to announce. i think it is premature to determine who will be comfortable or uncomfortable by whatever does he decides to do. i think at this point, people are making preparations for who would be a cast of characters, who would go and amplified or explained the decision to our elected representatives. but beyond that i don't think we are much further down the road. dan? >> on afghanistan, you hear a

lot about the need for the karzai government to deliver the need to combat corruption. what is the u.s. prepared to do if that doesn't happen since it is unclear, what are the consequences if he does not deliver? >> dan, i think this is a question that is probably best directed at the white house or the state department and i refer you to the secretary's remarks in terms of what this department would be prepared to do. he was up in canada on friday and asked the same question. obviously, there are enormous dollars better spent by this department in afghanistan. we lead very lucrative contracts that ultimately benefit the people of afghanistan, and we can use that as a vehicle to try to -- we can use that as a leverage to try to make sure that the afghan government is reforming at the pace that we

think is required. but i don't have much more to add beyond what he has already stated on this subject. >> geoff, the president today talked about not wanting to hand this war off to his successor and about the u.s. commitment not being open-ended. the military or the civilian side been tasked with crafting a plan that has a finite endpoint time at the end of his presidency and/or scenarios for gradually diminishing and ultimately ending the role and the war? >> i'm not going to get in what we are working on as part of his decision-making process. i think we need to respect the process and i'm not going to get into that kind of detail. >> one question on cost. what would an x. number of troops cost if there's a difference of opinion apparently, omb factors in about $1 million per troop. your controllers is closer to half a million. i would ask that you reconcile what the numbers or whatever amounts to come out next week or

the week after so you have some clarity. >> look is included on what the numbers are. if there are additional forces heading to afghanistan. why don't we keep the horse before the cart, and let's figure out what the president is going to decide, and if there are additional forces that he's going to allocate for this mission, then lets venues that number and work with the commander to figure out he's going to use them, where in the country, for what duration, for what purpose, what kind equipment needs that will require. and then lets make an informed judgment about how much it will cost. it does us no good in the abstract to try to come up with figures without knowing what the mission is, how many troops, how to equip them and so forth. right now it is a math problem with too many variables to come up with a conclusive number, and accurate number about what the costs are. obviously, costs have been a part of the conversation that

have been taking place between the president and his advisers. although secretary made clear to me it has not been a principal element to this conversation. the driving force behind this is obviously been the national security needs of the united states here is a trend. but clearly cost has been a discussion. as part of that discussion but i think the only way to get a concrete grasp of what the cost is is to first get a sense of how many troops, how long they're going there, what their mission will be, what their equipment needs will be, and all the other follow on questions that need to be answered before we can actually tabulate what the cost of the mission will be. >> ceo said a couple weeks ago, about a million per troop. you guys say about half a million. so there is some room for reconciliation there in the financial world. so all i'm asking is that you

come to some reconciliation of the figures next week or whenever figures -- to the announcement is made. >> tony, again, when something has been announced, i can guarantee you that the people who reside in the budget office, which is almost directly above this office, will be out there with the calculators tabulating exactly what it will cost. but we are not in a position to do so at this point because we don't know what is going to be asked of us. >> when there is an announcement made to be so you're taking a number. you are at the butcher shop taking a number and want to wait. got a. will come back to you. brian? >> another resource question, and that is the actual troops that might be required. if indeed there are more troops, even if it's 10, can you talk speedy's i love these questions that it's so hypothetical we're going to throw 10 out as the number.

okay. >> the main thrust of the question is the drawdown in iraq is contingent upon the parliamentary elections coming off early next year's. >> the drawdown in iraq is contingent upon the fact of the present policy is to have us down to roughly 50000 troops by end of next summer. that's what the drawdown in iraq is contingent upon. the commander in iraq would like to keep as high a level of forces as he reasonably can to the uncertainty of the election period and the transfer of power period. sorry for correcting the assumption. >> that's okay. my question is, if the parliamentary elections are delayed, and obviously the timing of it seems to be much in doubt now, how much of an impact could that have on the inability of the department of the additional forces in afghanistan? in other words, with the ability to get them in a certain time be

delayed? >> listen, i mean, there are just in the budgeting question, i'm number of variables involved here. and i really -- i am not comfortable getting into this point what are forceful plan is for whatever the president may or may not decide to do. i think people would not be making recommendations to him, advocating or requesting additional forces unless they were the means to supply those forces over some period of time. whatever he decides to do, this will not be done overnight, as the secretary and others have made very clear to you all. this is going to take some time to deploy additional forces to afghanistan, if that is the would we take. so i think there is time, therefore, for forces to continue to drawdown in iraq, and for forces to intentionally pump up in afghanistan. again, we do not know that that is the direction the president is going to go at this point.

so let's get a decision and we can talk to you and others in much greater detail about how we intend to supply the forces that the president has authorized, the additional president he has authorized for the mission. yes? >> what role if any do you expect nato to be playing whenever the rollout occurs, and can you characterize your reaction to the reports that the u.s. is targeting five to 7000 nato troops, new contributions to the afghanistan region? >> i will not get into numbers. i will say that, you know, clearly if the president decides to commit additional forces to afghanistan, there would be an expectation that our allies will also commit additional forces. but i feel it's my responsibility to remind you that frankly that's what's been happening over the course of the last three years that secretary gates has been here.

that as we have lost up, neil has plus a. some may take issue the kind of forces or the caveats that come with them and things of that nature but the bottom line is there is no denying that nato has ponied up significant numbers of additional forces, as we have added forces over the last several years. and i think that gets overlooked in the conversation. in fact, there was a stretch there where they were virtually matching us for support force that i think obviously with the addition of roughly 30000 troops this year, that obviously has changed. and we now have roughly 68000 forces in afghanistan to their i think 45000 forces. but if indeed we add more forces it would be expected that our allies would find a way to do the same. and i ensure appropriate conversations would be had with

them about what they can do and when they can do it. >> do you expect them to make an announcement within a week or so? >> you guys are blessed with. i don't think we do expect -- listen, we have been going through this process. we have been trying to consult with our friends and allies around the world, particularly troop nations, on what the president is working on it where he is hated and things of that nature. but they will be informed of this whenever the president makes his announcement, just as we all will be asked to the direction that the united states is going. so i think you would then be reasonable to assume that they have got to do their own determination about what they can do, as we are doing what we are doing. but i don't think there's any expectation that on the heels of whatever it is the president announces, that all of a sudden you have nations standing up in succession behind him saying that's right and i will raise you excited or x. thousand.

i think as you heard from the german defense minister last week, you know, which is the third largest troop contributing nations to afghanistan, that they want to wait at least until january when there's going to be a conference in europe on this subject before they make a determination about adding forces beyond the 4500 -- 45000 cap that they have right now. and i think other nations have signaled a similar desire to wait until the conference. obviously there is a force generation conference that nato is hosting in early december, we may see something than. but i don't think there is an expectation, guys, that you will see a bunch of nations standing out in rapid succession and declaring their intention of a large number of additional forces right away. i think this is something that will likely take, you know, several weeks probably to come to fruition. okay.

>> is there a concern that if the president builds up in afghanistan and the nato component will become somewhat irrelevant because they will be so far outnumbered by other u.s. forces there? >> they are so far outnumbered. >> if we were adding 45000 more troops. >> i don't know the pic you're just assuming that they would be. i just think this is still all in the area of speculation and we don't know what's going to be decided on what they will do in turn. but i don't think there is a worry that this becomes a u.s. mission. i mean, i don't know how it could be. there are 45000 nato troops on the ground. that is an enormous number, and we couldn't be doing this off without them. the fact that you have, you know, german forces in the north and in italian and spanish forces in the west, obviate the

need for us to have large numbers of american forces in those two regions and allows us to focus our effort, you know, almost exclusively on the south and east. and that is something that cannot be discounted, the fact that we get that support in the north and in the west. and if we can get more of it, that would help us because obviously we do have some forces that are in now doing some work in the north. and this would allow us to focus all of our efforts in the south, or much more of our efforts in the south which seems to be the hotbed of taliban activity lately. >> geoff, you said the plan in iraq is to get down to about 50000 troops by next fall because that's the president policy. does that mean the intention is to make that drawdown, regardless of whether or when the iraqi's have an election or

what the outcome is? >> i am just getting to you what the president policy is. the president announced what he had in iraq shortly after his inauguration, he laid out what he was calling for from this department. and that was to be down to 35, 50000 troops by the end of the summer of 2010. and that's what we're working towards. it would take a presidential decision to change that course. but, guys, we're not there yet archiving, there's still plenty of time for these elections to be held. the election law was passed again. i understand there is at least as i read it this morning, there is the possibility of another veto, and maybe some more twists and turns in this process, but here we are in november. it is due to take place in january. i think we're still operating under the assumption certainly the hope that these elections can be carried out as scheduled,

you know, early next year. >> if i could just follow up on that. if the iraq withdrawal is pushed back towards the summer or if the president decides to extend his deadline, how does that impact the department ability to provide forces to afghanistan is more forces are required to? >> i'm going to have to draw a limit on the hypotheticals. i mean, i've never counted -- i have encountered some is as i have today. i'm not going to go down this road. let's figure out what is he cited both by the president and by the elected representatives in iraq, and then make a determination about resources. okay? elizabeth. >> one second that it was the first. >> this is not a hypothetical. this is a basic factual question. is gauges work done right now on his decision-making process and he is leaving for thanksgiving, is he going to be in touch with the white house, are there still

things to be ironed out? >> i would say this. he does leave for thanksgiving recess, or break, whatever you want to call it. holiday, this evening. i think, elizabeth, it is his understanding that last nights meeting was in all likelihood the final one that his attendance will be required at. but obviously that could change and whatever he does he has the ability to participate in a meeting with the president securely. so he is available should he be needed. but i think he feels as though speaking to the nine or 10 meetings that have taken place over the last roughly three months, that it has been a very thorough and comprehensive review, and one that has resulted in everyone involved coming away with a much better understanding of the situation in afghanistan and the challenges we face there. so i think he feels as though

it's been a very worthwhile process, and he, like you, now waits for a decision. >> is there any further contact with the white house, the president, he has done? >> i don't know. there certainly is the ability to have additional contact, but at this point until he gets back from a short thanksgiving break, which has him back in the office monday, he leaves tonight. and obviously, he meets with the president this afternoon. well, the white house announced it. it was in the president daily schedule. he has his normal weekly one on one with the president this afternoon. they have spent a lot of time together lately. spent a few hours together last night. he is going to attend a dinner for prime minister singh tonight as well. and then he will take off tomorrow morning.

isotonic i'm sorry, he leaves tomorrow morning. jeff? >> i promised a lame. >> a big picture question on afghanistan. the president said today it is his intention to finish the job in afghanistan. without going into strategies specifics, from our perspective, the pentagon's perspective, what would that look like? >> d-link, i can only base it upon what i have read. what the president has said in some interviews that he is done on the asia trip in which he made it clear i think that he doesn't want to hand off the afghan war to whomever succeeds him. so that is his goal that he wants to work to solve this problem over the next four to eight years, and i think everybody who works in this building would be entirely in favor of being done with this, with being able to redeploy our

forces back home. but there is obviously still more work to be done there, and so everyone is committed to seeing it through, over whatever period of time that requires. but i think everybody here would be fully supported if it could be done in that period of time getting it done in that period of time, so the next president and the next generation of forces doesn't have to carry this on. >> you mentioned the four to eight years, could one realistically put a date certain on finishing the job in afghanistan? >> you would have to ask him whether that is a date certain. i think it is a goal, and it is one here think that everyone would want to work towards. i mean, i think it's unknowable how long it will take, but i think we all have to work with the idea that we have goals, landmarks, things to shoot for to get this done. if you don't, did you run the

risk of sort of being there indefinitely. and i think we all want to figure out the best way to get this completed successfully and get our forces home. [inaudible] >> i think, right now, the discussion is about adding forces, not subtracting forces. so i don't know that even in the stage now where we're thinking about what a residual force, if any, would be required in afghanistan. we have too much work ahead of us at this point. jeff and then we. >> thanks. when you were answering ryan's question, i thought i heard you say the president has authorized additional forces for afghanistan? was that part of your answer? >> i don't know what you're referring to. what was the more complete part. >> waiting to see for the additional forces. >> i think i said probably .5, to three times here, conditionally whatever the president decides, if or if he doesn't decide to add.

i do think anybody can walk into this room believing that i somehow, someway telegraphed a decision of which i have no knowledge. okay? just? >> geoff, thank you very much. thank you for taking the question. does the pentagon have any comment on the report in the nation today that puts a black water firmly center over covert operation and karachi in pakistan from an anonymous source within the military? the question is you keep denying covert operations in pakistan, but isn't this yet more evidence of one? >> the best person to address this would be the state department's spokesman, who has already put out a statement, or a correction. basically saying these accusations are entirely false. okay, but for more clarity and more specificity i urge you to talk to them.

as for what we are doing in afghanistan, or in pakistan rather, i think we have been incredibly forthright about this. and we have basically i think a few dozen forces on the ground in pakistan who are involved in a train the trainer missions. these are special operation forces. we have been very candid about this. they have been for months, if not years now, training pakistani forces so that they can in turn train other pakistani military on how, on certain skills and operational techniques. and that's the extent of our, you know, military, boots on the ground in pakistan. despite whatever conspiratorial theories, magazines or broadcast outlets may want to cook up, there is nothing to it. and obviously, we've also made

it perfectly clear that we are willing and able and happy to help the pakistani military in any other ways that they may see fit, but at this point that's the extent to which they would like our help in terms of american boots on the ground. and so we are totally respectful of that. and that's what it is limited to at this point. okay? >> i have a funny question related to the process of moving forces from okinawa to guam. to be a military construction of provisions bill that the senate has passed has kind of got more than two thirds of the new facilities, construction money. is that money come is that something that you all still want fully funded for this year's appropriations bill? >> i would have to get back to on if i should take a firm stand on this, because i betrayed the truth. much of our conversation with the japanese have been trying to encourage them to continue on

with this agreement as has been negotiated, but as you saw from the president's trip and in our trip, that there obviously are some issues that the japanese, new japanese government would like as a result before they are prepared to move forward. so let me take that question and find out if we've modified our desire for that money at this point. but obviously, what we are trying to do is a lot in a very short period of time, assuming that we all get the green light to proceed as agreed upon. and therefore, i think we would need this money up front so that we could begin to prepare the facilities in guam for the arrival of forces from okinawa. but i will be glad to take a question and see if there have been any nuance to that since the last time i dealt with it. >> is that the purpose of the meeting today between japanese defense officials and foreign ministry official? >> this is the senior bilateral

work that i think it is the second thing that happened i think it is in the wake of the president and the japanese prime minister's discussion about forming a working group to take a look at the replacement facility and the broader realignment agreement, and figure out the best way to proceed with implement that agreement as it has been negotiated. so this is the second such meeting that i do know how many more will be required, but i think it is everybody's desire to get this done. eyes soon as possible so we can proceed with a larger effort to move significant numbers of u.s. forces from japan to guam. brian? >> this is for planning, two big blueprints that the department is working on. nuclear posture review. can you give us any insight as to when they will be completed, when they would be made public?

>> - >> i don't have an update for the role of that, but i'm sure we'll make it abundantly clear when there coming. it's a great fanfare. >> that was going to be my question, but the fall onto that is there are several deadlines that have to be met as part of the qdr, the rollout. is a secretary satisfied as those deadlines will be met over the coming months, particular as it applies to scoring? >> frankly, i'm not the way with the deadlines that i will have to look into that for. >> since then the ama has come out against the policy. is there anything happening at the pentagon to lay the groundwork for any possible change of policies because i think that is as clear as much cleared as i want to offer to it. i mean, steve, we are well aware of the president's stated desires to do away with don't ask, don't tell. and he and the secretary and

chairman of any number of number of conversations about this issue, and all i can say is that we are working. at the end of the day, you know, it will require some sort of legislative remedy to do away with it, and whenever that comes i think our admonition, our concern is that we implement this in a very careful way. when it comes to be, if it comes to be. because we are obvious to a force that is under enormous stress at this point fighting two wars for the past eight years simultaneously, and so you can just flip a switch and change this place. but we are working it, and we are in close consultation with the president, with the white house on this subject. >> aside from any force the stresses on, do you see any now than when president clinton

tried to do the? >> i wouldn't be in a position to characterize the force as it i could sum up to you with one pronouncement as for or against. i mean, this is 2 million plus people, individuals from all kinds of different backgrounds, from all over the country, from different economic backgrounds, different educational levels and so forth. so i don't think he would be fair to care drives how the force feels about it at this point. and that's why whatever happens, it needs to be in a way such that all these different kinds of people within the force were to become familiar with, educated on, on a change, if that's indeed what we had. >> more than the whole force of? >> i would ask you to direct it to individual leaders then because they are individuals. they have their own opinions on

this matter. but there is no doubt among any of them with the presence of marching orders are on the subject. i mean, he has made that abundantly clear to this department. so there's no ambiguity there. so we are working this issue and we are at the same time waiting for direction from the white house in terms of an ultimate legislative remedy. the one thing i can tell you is the one thing the secretary has taken as you have heard him months ago, he has taken for review whether or not we can, as he put it, more humanely implement or apply the policy, the law, when it comes to individuals who have been outed by a third party, who have otherwise been in perfect compliance with the law. and yet someone has come forward and said that they are gay or

lesbian in serving in the fort. >> has there been more humane treatment of? >> what he is and is he has asked the general council to review this. i think there is a product that he will be reviewing shortly. >> can i follow-up on that? for. >> let me just share the wealth here. nancy? >> when the president does make his announcement, will it include an adjustment of numbers of forces of the united states? >> i don't know. obviously, you know, you saw in general mcchrystal assessment, his very strong belief that we need to rapidly grow the afghan national security force is. and i think you've heard from the secretary and a number of occasions talk about that as the ultimate key to our success, the sooner we can get up a force in afghanistan, be it the military, the police or intelligence, and

intelligence services that is capable of providing for its own defenses, it's capable of making sure that the country does not become a launching pad for terrorism again, the sooner we can extract ourselves. >> do you have another? >> i don't. >> was bad enough that any sort of benchmark or decisional points, and if so what does that mean for the benchmarks of the national security council laid out? >> i just don't know. you're asking me what the president is going to announce that what he will not announce their old he is in a position or his spokesmen of the white house is in a position if they so choose to provide that kind of preview. >> on afghan troops, have you heard concerns expressed either from state or elsewhere in the department of brass or expectations or limiting factors on how big and how fast the confidence can grow among the afghan forces of? >> i think you've seen a new commander takeover at the c.

stick at, lieutenant general caldwell is now at the helm of that organization. and i think we expect great things out of them. he's going to be under the gun, so to speak, to get the afghan forces and growing and even more capable and at an even faster rate i present. but i have not heard any sort of systemic kinds of concerns, any institutional concerns, any cultural concerns that we couldn't grow the afghan national security forces at the rate that the commander believes they need to. >> is there an estimate about when they would be ready to take on significant amounts of the responsibility of? >> i think we -- clearly, we've heard from president karzai how soon he would like.

weaver from president karzai how soon he would like his forces to be in charge of security. but i have not heard whether or not we as a department or we as a government for that matter have a timeline. that could be part of this announcement, if and when it comes. >> on afghanistan and pakistan, it has been repeated accusations pakistan is not going after some of the taliban leadership that is posing a serious problem for us. is this a concern and is being addressed? >> well, dan, i think the pakistani military has or had its hands full 80. they paid an enormous price for the fact that they have lived with a number of terrorist and insurgent groups in the midst. post 9/11 they lost thousands of

their soldiers. and have been with for the last several months involving nonstop military operations. now down in south waziristan. and i think we have a blog and every step of the way. but would we like to see more? i think we would like to see more of is the kind of thing that they are doing right now which is sustained committed deliberate operations against this in any within their midst. and that's what we're encouraging. obviously, as they take steps and again background and capture or kill these terrorists that then provides an opportunity to go after others, and we hope they continue on this course. that's the best way i can describe it at this point. let's take one or two more. just? >> the secretary talked we mentioned briefly that a new task force will be set up, task

force in afghanistan. i have asked over at cintas, at osu, have been a big any more information on this. do you have anything more you can talk about? >> well, we are obviously putting in a number of planes. we're putting in these 50 mc twelves. the first one of which will arrive and be deployed in january. and they will afford the commander of the kind of persistent eyes in the sky that he is looking for. obviously we have a lot of ifr is in afghanistan. we need more. part of it is clear completely devoted to sort operational needs. others of it is used for counter ied purposes much like task force odin was in iraq. england we have an ied problem so we will want to dedicate some

of these additional airframes to making sure that our rows are clear and making sure that we've got, we are watching these ied as they go about their business that we're mapping and diagramming the networks, and ultimately in a position to break into. >> if you find someone during an ied you can take them out with a hellfire missile? >> though, as you have scenes for those who have traveled down to greenville texas with us that these are not genetic platforms. the mc twelves are all about, you know, their full motion video, they're sort of persistent eyes in the skies, but we have other platforms are capable of taking out a threat. they can then call in, you know, an attack helicopter or a plain or if need be, a predator or another armed platforms.

but these in particular, the whole point of them is that we can build them cheaply and quickly and make sure we can get more of them. we're maxing out the predator line as it is now. so rather than wait until we can build more predators, we can get more eyes in the sky that are not armed that will allow us, as i said, bad, diagram, trace these networks as they are going about their ied in placing and ultimately use that intelligence to deploy forces on the ground to go after the networks. >> i would like to follow something you mentioned earlier. this conference in europe. what is your understanding of where and when that would take place, and the scope of its? >> it's a good question. as far as i have read and as far as we heard from the german minister lastly, i think it is

all tvd at this point. i think they're trying to determine what it should take place, where, and who will be included, things of that nature but i think the bottom line is they want of a larger conversation about this before they commit additional forces. >> it seems to be saying that it was going to be in germany, right? >> i don't know. >> wherever it is, do you anticipate the secretary will can't? >> i don't know that this is an american -- this requires an american presence. i think this is a european conversation. i don't know. if we are invited, i assume he would entertain the invitation, but i don't think -- i don't think it is our expectation at this point that his attendance would be required. okay. justin and brian and i will be to all a happy thanks giving. smack on don't ask, don't tell using to suggest they will be significant -- >> fox double-team from the left and right of.

>> is this something he lay down from a priority from the start. we haven't offered as much clarity today. you seem to suggest it's going to be difficult to change this policy in wartime. i wonder if the president is sympathetic to that viewpoint? >> i think he is. if you go back and look at the statements coming from the president and the white house on this issue, that he is fully cognizant, this is a force that is under considerable strain, that has been, you know, working at extremely high operational tempo's sense late 2001. and that the course he says on this issue will be mindful of that. now, that doesn't make him any less determined to overturn change the law, but i think he and the secretary and the chairman are all very cognizant of the fact that we have a force that we have asked more of probably than any force in

history. and we need to be mindful of that as we make these decisions. >> has the secretary cast anybody internally to view the? >> i think what i said to steve and i will repeat to you, we are working on this issue. ryan, laflin. >> quick question. secretary mchugh as you know ordered this review of operations of the arlington national cemetery after evidence of unknown great -- >> i do know that until i read that. >> i'm curious given this is where america's war dead in many cases are buried every day. has the secretary at all paid attention to this? is he concerned about this? has he been involved at all and trying to figure out how to get to the bottom of his? >> i don't think he has been involved in it frankly, brine, and i don't think he is necessarily aware of it. i don't know how wide the coverage of this incident has been. i read it in an online publication, i think.

in reading it it was alarming, and i think we're all glad to see that the army secretary is going to look into it and see if there's any truth to the reports. it is a sacred place, especially for people who work in this building. and we want to make sure that everything there is as it should be, but as you know the army is in charge of the installation and they are the best people to take a look at what's going on there. or what is going on there. okay. thank you all. happy thanks giving. safe travels.

>> next a look at renewable energy, massachusetts congressman ed markey, chairman of the house energy independence and global warming committee takes part in the discussion. this is an hour and 40 minutes. >> this is really kind of fun. they have moved the furniture. so we will see how this goes. will have a bit of a different format on this session. each of the speakers is going to come down here and make some remarks and then will go up there and have a panel discussion like we had was the last one. i would like to open this session by saying this is about u.s. competitiveness.

u.s. competitiveness but where do we stand in the global market, and we're going to have a commentary from the gentleman from the u.k., who runs a very big wind business, a gentleman from dimarco binds one of the best ethanol businesses. and commentary who was the author of so much policy, not only in germany but around the world and then a couple of americans, john and myself to try to bring this home and talk about in this global construct how is it that the u.s. will be a coleader along with the other major countries in this space. let me start by inviting david to come down and open it. david has to take off. david is the assistant secretary as you know of energy for international policy. e. and i were in china together on monday. i was attending his clean energy roundtable in beijing that he chaired undersecretary chu and

secretary locke, and david previously in the clinton administration was the assistant secretary of state and then went on to the brookings institute and was the key person also in the clinical initiative, managing the climate center of that. please welcome really one of the people that i admire most, david. [applause] >> thanks, mike, and what a great crowd. this is either a testament to the dynamism of the renewable energy or mike eckhart bubbly personality. this is a packed room in the cannon house office building. it's very impressive to see what we have here today. as mike said, we saw each other last about 96 hours ago in beijing, and i think he asked me who to deliver a trip report.

just back from a very exciting few days in beijing. a historic summit overall between president obama and president hu jintao with his clean energy issues that you'll are working on very much at the center of the agenda and a series of very exciting and far-reaching announcements. at the summit, president obama and hu jintao announced at least six or seven initiatives. . .

>> we are collecting comments until december 7th and then planning on putting out a funding opportunity announcement in january for how to move forward on this. but we hope that the goal here is that we can mobilize the best minds in both countries to come up with clean energy solutions that will really make a difference for the entire planet. in addition, we announced an electric vehicles initiative in beijing. we had about six weeks ago the first-ever u.s./china electric vehicles forum which had about 80 chinese participants, about 60 american participants talking about the industry. the electric vehicles industry in china right now is, is impressive, it is, reflects a

very serious commitment on the part of chinese policymakers to invest in this industry. they have, interestingly, about 1 demonstration cities -- 13 knob -- demonstration cities that are launching products, the largest battery producer last year made 400,000 vehicles, internal combustion engines. they've announced the first all-electric vehicle, and there's a lot our two countries can do working together on this. our companies are going to compete in the global marketplace, but our governments have a strong shared interest in putting millions of plug-in electric vehicles on the road soon. and we're going to work together on joint standard setting, we're going to work together actually on demonstration projects under the stimulus act. department of energy has funded ten cities for demonstration projects for electric vehicles, about the same number that are

underway in china, and we're going to get those cities together to share data, figure out how they can learn from each other from sharing experiences. we're also going to do some technical road mapping under this program, and i hope make a big difference for this important industry. we announced a u.s./china energy, renewable energy partnership which is a series of initiatives that we hope will promote renewable energy in both countries. some technical road mapping as well as regional deployment solutions. critically, also, work on grid modernization. you know, china has rushed forward for those of you in the industry know with wind power development in the past several years, they've reached the point right now where there are wind farms sitting without grid connections for the export potential into that market depends upon grid mod americanization and grid extension in china, and we're

going to do some work on that front. by the way, china's state grid is building thousand kilovolt long distance transmission lines. the technical leadership in china on some of these issues is pretty impress i, and we have a lot to learn from each other working together in this area. we're also going to spend some more research funding in the renewable area and work on public/private partnerships together. so we announced a clean energy research center, we announced an electric vehicles initiative, we also announced a comprehensive energy efficiency action plan. this is the project of the two governments working together over the course of the past several months in identifying a road map for energy efficiency action in the area of building energy efficiency, in the area of industrial energy efficiency with programs for industrial

energy, auditors going into, into industries in china. and also on appliance standards where we have an enormous amount to learn from each other. we announced programs in shale gas. what's happened in the past couple of years in the united states in terms of shale gas is dramatic. experts i've talked to from the industry say we have doubled recoverable reserves in this country as a result of new, mainly horizontal drilling technologies. the potential in china is also significant. this is an important market for u.s. business that works in this area. this is also a very important opportunity for carbon mitigation, backing out some of the coal-based generation in china with shale gas. and we announced as well an energy cooperation program jointly between the department of energy and the department of commerce here in the united states with counterpart

ministries in china which is intended to be an umbrella group for companies that are interested in clean energy exports into the chinese market, and so we hope that you'll all take a look at that and figure out what opportunities might be there for you. you know, the optics and color on this trip, i thought, were extraordinary. the round table that mike eckhart attended on monday was a meeting of 40 or 50 americans and 40 or 50 chinese university and business leaders sitting in a round table format with senior government officials from both, both sides. secretary chu, secretary locke and counterpart ministers in china talking about the clean energy industry and what both of our countries could do. i think that it represents a couple of things, it represents a level of commitment to this industry that hasn't, you know, that didn't exist in either country just a few short years ago. and it also reflects, i think, the potential for working

together here. it is, it has been fun for me, believe it or not my fifth trip to china since june, and it's secretary chu's second trip. and what, under his leadership, the department of energy is mobilizing to figure out broadly how we can promote clean energy using science and technology and specifically international cooperation in this area has been a top priority. it's been particularly fun for me to see the reaction to him in china where he is revered, revered for his scientific accomplishments, revered for the combination of scientific accomplishments and his current government position, and it's, there have been some just wonderful moments there. so under his leadership, under president obama's leadership we're moving out in this area. you know, i get asked often, is this good for america, is it

good for jobs for us to cooperate with china in this area? here's my view of that, my view is if we invest in 20th century technologies and others invest in 21st century technologies, they will win. if we invest in 21st century technologies and others do as well and we challenge each other in the global marketplace, we all win. so i think it is imperative that our country continue the path that it's been on in the past year to invest in clean energy technologies, that we work with and we challenge competitors in the global marketplace to constantly do better. if we do that, i think we're going to create jobs in the united states, and the whole world will benefit. so thanks very much for having me here, delighted to be here. thanks very much. [applause] >> david does have to head off and do the work of the citizens here in a few minutes, but let's do the q&a with david, and then

we'll turn to the panel. david, when i was there, the slogan line i was giving in your session in that round table was in terms of the philosophy of things, was the country should cooperate and companies should compete. and let's not get that confused, okay? >> yep. >> america is not in competition with china about adopting renewable energy. both countries have the same goal, to scale this up. both countries have companies that are competing for market share in these markets. we have to have open markets to allow companies to compete, to have technology transfer and so forth. but our two markets are not equally open. so how can we address that? >> well, this has been a focus of our work, and as many of you know secretary locke on his trip a month ago with a group called, a group called the jcct struck a deal to open the chinese wind market to american exporters, in

particular to eliminate some of the local content requirements that had been part of chinese projects. so this is a continual part of our effort to open up markets for chinese exporters, or more american exporters into the chinese market. and, you know, i think that the type of relationship building that is going on in trips like this is essential to that effort overall. >> i, i'll just add to that, and then we'll turn to your questions. that'll be the first one right there, john. and that is, you know, china has some would say a competitive advantage in manufacturing. some would say the united states has a competitive advantage in development and finance. that's what our society does overly well, some say. how do we get our development and finance skills boo china -- into china because clearly their manufacturing skills are going to lead to some product being shipped over here. specifically development and finance, your thoughts on that. >> look, i think we're seeing it

all already. i mean, we see american development and finance teams over there and experts over there, and what i hear and i'm very interested in feedback from all of you on this, what i hear a lot from the financial community and others is that they can operate in part based upon the relationship the government is able to build. the government relationships at the senior level provide an umbrella that help them in their relationships in china, and that's what we're about, trying to cultivate those relationships for the benefit of american businesses over there. >> just in closing on that, some engineers, those of us who are engineers say 90% of solving a problem is defining it correctly, so i think we're beginning to define it and that leads to the solutions. firsthand up is john here. john mullen first, actually. >> sorry. >> my question has to do with international cooperation and trade specifically.

if we put a cap on carbon or have a tax on carbon and other countries don't or have weaker standards, doesn't that put our, our manufacturers at a disadvantage? how do we resolve that? i'm, i'm for the tax on carbon, and i'm for free trade. how do we resolve the issue? >> look, i think other countries, including china, are making major policy investments in the clean energy sector, and i think if we don't make the same type of investments in the clean energy sector, the competitiveness of our industry is going to suffer. that's a fundamental point here. i think we'll continue to have discussions with the chinese and other countries around the world about the international climate negotiations and topics like that as they play out, but, you know, make no mistake as i travel around the world other governments are not waiting to provide the support needed for long-term success in this sector.

and if the united states fails, you know, i think the united states needs to continue to make those investments so that we can have the type of leadership in the next several decades that we should have. john, good to see you. >> welcome back. i am, as you know, a huge proponent of what you're working on. is the, i want to ask you a little bit more about the research center which seems to be the centerpiece of what you're working on which sounds very good to me. i want to know how you think that might work. i know you're soliciting ideas, but since there's another partner in this, it's complicated. and then the second question related is, is this a part of or in addition to the biannual strategic dialogue? >> i just want to start by saying that, you know, john when he was in government did fabulous work on this as did a number of his colleagues and, you know, this is a real

bipartisan effort, i believe. it should be a strong bipartisan effort to move forward on this, so a lot of what, you know, i've been doing is standing on the foundation that john has done, others helped build, and, you know, this is, this is an american issue, you know, moving forward on this. so thank you for your leadership on this, john. on the clean energy research center, so more of this has been for those of you who want to dive into it, but the tentative idea we have now is to invite proposals in each of the three different priority areas, so one of them, for example, is going to be building energy efficiency. and we would make available $2 and a half million in, in a year, per year. to consortia that could match that amount and made us proposals for doing collaborative work with china.

with demonstrated ability to execute on that. and we do that in each of three different areas. so we're looking, we're looking initially and -- we're looking initially for whether the stakeholder community broadly, you know, from different areas thinks that's a good idea. and if, if they do based on the comments we receive, we're going to put out a funding announcement with more details on criteria for how we would choose which consortia would be selected. i think there's a hope coming out of this there'll be joint technical papers written by chinese and u.s. researchers, and other types of things, so that's the type of thing we're looking at. for those of you who follow u.s./china relations, the economic strategic dialogue is the umbrella infrastructure, i guess you'd call it, the umbrella arrangement between the the u.s. and the chinese goth.

it was -- government. across all issues, not just energy and environment. and this is, this, you know, it's interesting, there was a strategic and economic dialogue meeting last july here in washington d.c. and, you know, it covered every issue in the bilateral relationship from economic, energy, military, others, and i sat in the first day of that meeting, and i had to remind myself i wasn't sitting in an energy and climate meeting. this issue has become so central to the bilateral relationship between the u.s. and china that i think it's fair to say it dominated the first day of the discussion at that meeting. so this is very much part of that whole discussion. >> i just have one final question for you, and i know you have to go. but in a broader sense arena, the international renewable agency was formed this year, the united states amazingly enough and impressively enough within six months became a member. a full signed-up member and pleased to hear your perspective on that. >> a real opportunity.

and now we have to shape it into the best possible organization. this is, you know, this is an organization that's just getting going, and i think can make a real difference for the world, and so we need to figure out among the different directions it can go how it can make the most difference. and i, i have to say that i'm looking for advice from people like mike eckhart on that in order to -- and all of you -- to know exactly the right way to do it. i think it's got potential if we want to make sure it doesn't duplicate existing functions but really moves the world forward on renewable energy development. so sorry i can't stay with you all. terrific to see you all. thanks very much. [applause] >> thank you, david. i will, and i in turn will be looking to acore's 714 members -- i think we forgot to announce that, we're at 714

members -- to answer david's question. now, next i'd like to continue the panel introductory comments with john graham who's the president of bp wind energy. john has quite -- well, bp wind energy, you should know, has a thousand megawatts of wind farms in commercial operations and a thousand megawatts additionally in advanced stage of development and some 10,000 megawatts behind that in early stage development. he actually came into it as an investment manager doing innovative finance, also in the solar and the biofuels sector in bp as well as the wind and previously was very successful at mobile. so please welcome john graham. [applause] >> good morning, and it's a real honor to be able to address the american council on renewable energy. thanks in considerable part to

acore, renewable energy has grown from a niche player to being a very significant part of america's energy future, and that's a result that you can all be very proud of, indeed. bp recognizes the changing nature of the world's energy needs. as an energy supplier, we are faced with the need to meet consumers' growing demand and at the same time seek out energy solutions that offer better solutions to climate change. i occasionally do get asked, you know, what's a major oil and gas company like bp knowing about renewables? my answer is, quite a lot, actually. we launched in 2005 bp alternative energy, and we are focused on four key technologies which you can see here. wind, biofuels, solar and carbon capture and storage. we are on track to invest $8

billion in alternative energy and to take 24 million tons of carbon out of the atmosphere by 2015. so bp's commitment to the alternative energy space is, i think, quite obvious. but no company, indeed no industry, no matter how large or powerful can create the new value chain by it. itself. especially one involving such an important product as clean energy. policy has supported the traditional energy industry for the past century by providing a framework that allows the economic decisions on the risks and the rewards of investments today and in future. our company goal is to establish alternative energy businesses now that will grow to become both material and sustainable for the future. and the question we're asking here today is, is policy giving us a fighting chan of achieving

$chance of achieving 25 percent of america's electricity from renewable sources by 2025? over the last several years, the u.s. has expanded its energy policy breadth to focus on renewable energy and low-carbon technologies, and this has been very helpful indeed. but business is about managing risk and knowing what policies will be in place in the future would be helpful in making more long-term investment decisions. if all sources of carbon are not treated equitably, massive misallocation of capital and distortions of consumption can occur. a ton of carbon emitted is a ton of carbon no matter where it comes from. bp's favored method of encouraging alternative energy is to, is by our cap and trade system that treats all sectors of the energy, energy economy equally and establishes limits

on carbon emissions. a transparent price of carbon in the market is essential for the success of climate policy. now, let me show you, share with you briefly how the wind sector energy business has benefited by policy and also been impacted by some of the short-term policy changes. only four years ago the department of energy projected there would be seven gigawatts of wind capacity in the u.s. by 2007. and 16 gigawatts by 2025. by the end of last year, installed wind capacity was well over 16 gigawatts meeting the projected forecast 18 years early. today more than 31 gigawatts of wind capacity are installed in the u.s. u.s. energy policy has successfully accelerated the use of wind energy, but the growth of wind in the u.s. has noticeably slowed in the recent

time. a major reason is the current recession, clearly. which has dramatically increased pressure on utilities not to raise rates while also reducing the cost of competing fuels like coal and natural gas. a federal renewable energy standard would spur demand by encouraging electric utilities to buy the lowest-cost renewable energy sources available, and we support it adoption. the wind business is also impacted by the lack of capital available during this recession. growing transmission restraints and increasing concerns over siting and wildlife impacts. i'll speak briefly about capital and transmission. the obama administration has made a significant effort to increase investments in a range of alternative energies, and this has been very beneficial in creating a substantial number of new jobs, particularly in u.s.

wind. federal tax policies have stimulated wind energy investments via production tax credit and an investment tax credit. both of which have been very successful in attracting investors with a tax base in the u.s. but i have received a number of calls from equity investors who would very much like to partner with us, bp, in the wind energy space, and i've been unable to take advantage of these offers because federal policy is not friendly to investors without a tax appetite. and i would just say here that, clearly, bp has a large installed oil and gas benefit, so we're able to take benefit of the production tax credits as david crane said earlier. but it seems to me there's a significant capital base such as private equity investors, international players and smaller developers all trying to find ways to invest in alternative energy. the policy appears to be overlooking them.

the itc cash grant program which was put in place earlier this year and has provided a welcome boost in short-term, in the short term during this recession is slated to end for projects to begin construction after 2010. and the ptc is slated to expire in 2012 which illustrate the challenge investors have in making longer-term investment plans when the financial framework is not certain. the times to develop a wind site varies, but it's typically at least 3-5 years. somebody said earlier it takes nine months to build a wind farm. that's true, but actually the whole process of developing, finding the resource, getting the permitting takes far longer, and as you can imagine, as a company we have to plan our investments on a much longer time scale than nine months. so if we want to attract more investment capital to finance the expansion of wind energy at

scale, longer-term financial incentives are needed. generating the power is one thing, but delivering the power is another. and there are tremendous wind resources in many parts of the great plains, yet the greatest may be many hundreds of miles away, and the transmission capacity is lacking, as we have heard. it would seem to me that a federal policy could be modernized to address and create a more expanded and reliable national grid. greater policy across the different power pools would be very helpful. a slower solution will serve only to eliminate the pace of capacity required. these policies should also retain perks to allocate costs over the wide pools of beneficiaries. so let me conclude. i would contend the alternative energy sector would grow faster if government policies created a level playing field to encourage

business to do more investment in energy innovation and development. to both meet the growing demand for secure energy in the u.s. and deliver climate solutions, we need a transparent price of carbon to enable the best economic decisions to be made. and in the short term cash incentives help during the recession and a clear signal about the ptc would promote more medium-term investment. a federal res is also very important in this regard, and a price of carbon has to be the ultimate goal to allow businesses to become self-sustaining. we applaud actions being taken at the state and regional transmission level and by the firc, and we encourage more of this. allow me to demonstrate what has historically happened in the wind industry as a result of policy changes. you can see from this slide

which shows the installed wind capacity each year in the u.s. expirations of the ptc in 1999, 2001 and 2003 resulted in drops in each of the following year how much wind was installed. this causes manufacturers supplying in the wind industry to suffer rapid declines in their orders resulting in very damaging loss of business confidence and jobs. over the last four years, you can see how the growth in wind installations has grown during a time when there has been greater confidence that the ptc would be available by giving signals that it would be extended for three careers. and -- years. and you can see the dip at the end is largely due to the recession. so it seems to me that having a stable, long-term policy framework can have the most influence on achieving 25 by '25. thank you very much.

[applause] >> our next speaker is steen riisgaard, and i'm really, i'm really looking forward to this talk because mr. riisgaard is one of the few true scientists who's a ceo of one of our companies. he actually has a masters in microbiology from the university of copenhagen, 30 years of experience working in the field of enzymes and novozymes is, to some people's opinion, considered one of the world leaders, and i'd also like to point out he's chairman of the worldwide nature. please welcome steen riisgaard. [applause] ..

>> for the conversion of withdraw into the decision. the facility is to date, the largest for ethanol facility in

the world. the next example, the big name this this air why, the spanish company. they opened their facility in june 1 of next year. but they will open in santa monica, not in the united states. people around us in brazil earlier this year that they banned to have demonstration up and running late 2010. this plant will be dedicated to the use of sugar cane and production. that holds an enormous potential since the gas is already collected. and ethanol comes from the same cane. they can do ethanol without

planting more cane. fourth, and final, in china, with we are working together to establish biofuel -- advance biofuel industry. the reason concluded that china can replace 10% of its imported oil with advance biofuels and at the same time create more than 6 million jobs. that has a lot of appeal to the chinese government. and the chinese government has asked us to provide a road map how they can develop and advance the biofuel industry. so why the u.s. might still be in the lead in terms of project being planned, it would be wise for the u.s. government and the u.s. biofuel industry to look over its shoulder and pay attention to the plants being built outside the u.s. the obviously question, why has

u.s. law started the previous? this, as we see it, one that was shattering recent that limits biofuel. with an already existing plant of up to around 9%, this is becoming a massive entrance for a preinvestment in the industry, and not for the development of advance biofuels. this arbitrary rule is preventing the biofuels industry from achieving the growth targeted in the energy independence, and security act of 2007, the isa. starting with the first stand up program, the artist wanted continuing with it too.

however, the recent target in the existing legislation, congress, and the president obama administration, must take additional actions. let me point to five tangible recommendations that if implemented would boost the biofuel industry and ensure that the u.s. would regain its competitive advantage. and at the same time, create more than 100,000 new green jobs in the united states. first, the epa needs a race to e15. this will immediately lead to increased advancement in biofuel, and the majority of these would be advanced biofuels.

i would think given president obama's november. the epa is currently reviewing the request to e15. significant volumes of data has been submitted in support of the request and epa should recommit to ininsuring their decision by the original date december 1. all new vehicles sold in 2014, for example, should be placed fuel vehicles. all major autoto makers market for cars in brazil. even in sweeten, every first new car sold is a car. so why not the united states. the cause is 150 per u.s. and the technology a well known,

automaker possess that technology. they will be over 85 by 2014. this initiative could be financed by a 1% reduction in the u.s. dollar subsidies given to the gasoline industry in the united states. and to fuel all existing vehicles will be 85. federal agencies today run more than 120,000ffbs today. but on advantage they use only 52 gallons of e85 a per year.

why not have 50% of the 120,000 ffbs fueled within the next 24 months. the course would be fairly i guess significant, since advance the biofuel of the darts, of course, is already done to a level of today that is more than $2, next year less than $2 per gallon. and most agencies probably today pay almost $3 u.s. dollar per gallon anyway. and then finally, the d.o.e. must ensure the fast development of the remaining funds of the $480 million u.s. $already acued for biofuel demonstration parts. as i understand it, d.o.e. will announce the grants coming in december, and the project out there, the technology is ready.

now we need fast development. these are the five recommendation that create more than 100,000 new green jobs in the united states. it is five recommendation that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the u.s. transportation sector, dramatically, and at the same time, reduce the dependency on foreign oil. here are five recommendations that is e85 and the mandates can be enforced without due legislation. to return to the theme of this panel, it will increase u.s. competitiveness significantly. the rest of the world is catching up on the united states

renewable energy. it is as street signsly competitive business. and there's no time to waste. but will the renewed support from the obama administration and congress, there's no reason why it shouldn't be the u.s. that continues to be in the forefront of the renewable energy industry. [applause] >> the u.s. policy and can articulate what they think it needed. these are not broad generalities. i'm very pleased. i want to give you a head's up. the power of webcasting that congressman ed markey is on his way here. he's going to speak to us in

about ten minutes. it is my great privilege and pleasure to introduce hermann from germany. he is a long-time member of the german house of representatives. he's been on the governorring board of the social party his entire career. he is the author of an idea of arena, and campaigned for it, and made it happen personally through his efforts over the years. he's one of the two authors. along with joseph, the two of them collaborated in the fund to get that done. to the late 1990s. i felt privileged in the late 1990s will be travels through europe, and working with hermann

scheer, and in hindsight, it was like being in philadelphia in 1776. that's what we take advantage of today. the tax incentives and the tariffs, and something he won't tell you. but he's the one that went to ontario. around the world he continues. all of it came out of the period in the late 1990s, but the whole continent. and it was the foundation of acore that was europe was rally around the energy. we take it for granted today. in 2001, this was not the right work. there were others and this kind of thing. but we saw that in europe, the possible -- politics and financing were getting comfortable with the idea of the renewable energy.

and it was hermann scheer that led the entire effort. please welcome. [applause] >> hello, ladies and gentlemen, the german philosopher brought in the first half of the 19th century. what an experience. and he spoke about three faces of getting, coming to breakthrough of the new idea. and the first phase, his idea, is almost as being ridiculous. and the second phase it is obstructed by the vested

interest who dangered by the imy miation of the new one. in the third face when the breakthrough came. all have been in favor from the early beginning. and this is exactly what will happen with the renewable energies. the energies will come. there's no doubt from the early beginning of the industrial age, there was no doubt, the time will come, and only the renewable energies will become consumed by people. produced and consumed by people. no other energies. but the question is now how long will it last? does it come sooner or later? the battle today is -- the

barriers in order to make it sooner and faster. because of the race against time, based on two reasons, which are indisputable, the first is the convention energies oil, natural gas, coal, even coal, and uranium do run out. we are approaching to the period of depletion. sooner than many people think or want to have it. the second is even if there would be much more research, it would with miss out. because the negative consequences, the negative gangs in others are overstresses our ecosphere and therefore our abilities for living. for the future.

and therefore we can turn around as much and as often as we want. we are faced with a challenge to come to an energy position within the next case. not -- it's the act of this century. but this in the next. in march 2008, when there was the environment conference, i had the opportunity to give the speech in the opening session. and i starletted to speech with the bad and good news, reviewing the global energy situation. the bad news oil is running out. and the good news is oil is running out. because what would happen if there would be much more research. i think there would be forthcoming of all of the endangerer impacts and dangering our nation.

therefore, we are on a race against time. and we are now in the second phase. the second phase of people who want to speak out for the betterment of the powers of energies. and on the other side, coalition of them. the coalition of postponers are represented by the possible losers of this development. and who are the losers? the losers are the suppliers of the energy. that's no doubt. because it is impossible to shift from being a seller, a supplier of oil, gas, uranium, or coal to become the supplier of some radiation and wind. it is the shift from commercially primary energies to

noncommercially primary energies. and this leads to a change of the holding cards. and this is a new challenge. one of the problems in the worldwide in the debate about new energies is, that it is act mated, including all of the negotiations for climate protection. p it is estimated as an economic burden. and what is estimated as an economic burden leads automatically into the endless bazaar of burden sharing policy ies. it creates lots of new benefits. nobody will wait for the outcome of negotiations. everyone would do it. and therefore, the deep, basic

essential, if you want to speak up, and to come to a fast decision of our energy structure. this is precisely for all things. because nothing can convert with energy. we know that. you're a member -- speeches of martin luther king in the '60s. when he fought for equal human rights. one of his moment famous speeches, i remember. he always asked himself and to all of the people, how long? and he answers, not long. how long? not long. how long? not long. the question people have now is how long does it last to come to the energy decision if and dream neat if you can't get the answer. it must not last long. it can be, it can happen must

faster than people have recognized or have in their mind. or what is told to them. because they became implemented faster than the renewable energy implications. whitman has an installation time of one or two weeks. and the device of some days or half a day, and some weeks. you can convert immediately after the solution. and that's power station. it requires several years of con sems. and it can start to work only then. that means what can be become implemented immediately. with a very short period of

construction and a very early beginning of the investment. and it allows us to speak in the category of a fast energy revolution. and to say to the people and to all possible antagonist, that it must not last long. it gives motivations in the society. activate the society, activate governments, activate contrastment. and this is the evacuate media for that. that means overcoming mental barriers. and overcoming mental barriers means to recognize that each

step to renew energies is great. macroeconomic benefits. but macroeconomic is not the same as microeconomic benefit for all producers and customers. therefore, the art of policy, what is needed, which is needed, is to find policy instruments to let instrument it. to adopt it. which enable us to translate the macroeconomic benefits into microeconomic incentives. and then you have the creation of a dynamic process. then you have the many investors. and this example, this is the example of the german renewable energy act. we give absolute priority to

renewable energies because the energies have the higher value for the society. a green energy has the higher valuable for the society. if we see the higher economic value which is society's value. in we have the justification to these energy legal priorities. and the legal implementation was and is guaranteed success to the great for each renewable energy power. and seconds to give the guaranteed payment in order to make investments possible. and, third, no track for that. it's a great decision. and this created investment

economy, this made it possible that many, many of you players joined the seam and started activities and started the investment. this made it possible to break within the industry. 300,000 new jobs. this made it possible in all of the last two years. to install, new renewable energies which is 5% of the total power demand in my country. this means it's the same speed. the same speed that was the early surface at 100%. and the high in that density. it's also possible in the united

states. it's a much larger area. and the density with a high, high meaning for the development. and therefore, we should save. against all who don't do what they know. we should say, yes, we do what we can. as you can. there are so many examples that this is much evasion, enough. and the result of this only in this year installation as it returns to 2500megawatt. this is more than the total installations in the united states in the moment. and i hope that the same speed will come in the united states.

it's better, better for the hour as the development did not come for the long, did not come for the comfort. in the last years to be alone in in development. and because all who claimed in my country, we would become isolated if we would go on with this feat. therefore, it was necessary, and it is necessary that it was this is the two most important alliance for the energies. the two most important is people. if it is the higher value. and then people don't look to the actual price. they have broaden the use. and 85% of the german people, we

want to have the faster implementation of the renewable energies. less than 10% say that they would be in favor for my power stations or new nuclear power stations. that means people have decided it. even even if there is new government. this brought the people. and the second, supporting through the industry. not the industry in general. because of the renewable energies, we come to a technology business. it is not any more of the business. we share from the few driving business to a technology-driving

business. that means all of the technology companies will be -- will belong. not only the producers of renewable energy technologies. if there is a new resource, then there is no economy without resources. any of the energy conversion tech technologies. this gives a new chance for the automotive industry, for the chemical industries, for the building industry, all has to do with the resources along the nonrenewable to renewable. they are faced with the challenge to come with new to introduce new conversion tech nothings -- technologies and

give the new economic drive. this is the second chance, the second chance for our industry. for the industrial process. we should think about that no technological solution, no, not one in the last 200 years, happened based on an international treaty. not one. and that means it happened because they are driving forces, and they did it, and they created the broad base because more and more could recognize the advantage. therefore, we should not -- no one should trace for the outcome of the international resources. there's no reason for that. they have some sense. but the driving element doesn't come by then. and nobody in the past has set 15 or 20 years ago. and we should make it slow into the action of a lot of laptops. because we should protect the

typewriting machine industry. nobody says this. therefore, we should not -- we should not protect the conventional energy suppliers on the shoulders of making the progress to renewable slowers. we have to hurry up, and we need, we need -- we need for these soft energies if you want to beat that. the heart and mind, that's my message for you. go on. [applause] :

>> the second speaker is the chairman of the select committee on energy independence and global warming, the chairman of the energy and commerce committee subcommittee on energy and environs, and the co-author of the future of the laws of america, please welcome congressman ed markey. [applause] >> thank you all. thank you for being here.

thank you for inviting me to be with you. we have a world now where the chinese and the indians, they point at us, and they say you want to do something about this problem? well, when we look up in the sky, most of that co2 is red, white and blue over the last 150 years. or e.u. co2. so the united states and the e.u. have to give the leadersh leadership, if we expect the rest of the world to follow us. and that was just a fantastic presentation and you have been a great leader in europe, and we thank you so much for everything you have done to set the pace on all of these issues. what i think is pretty clear is

that the united states is now poised to enter this race, this renewable energy race in earnest. back in the 1990s, when i was the chairman of the telecommunications subcommittee, i was able to pass the rebuild. won in 1992 that created the 18-inch satellite dish industry. then i moved over 200 megahertz spectrum for the third, fourth, fifth and sixth cellphone license that it neatly went digital and under $0.10 a minute. the first two copies were $0.50 a minute and analog. than a third bill was the telecommunications act of 1996. it was ackley 1994, but it was blocked in the senate. and that moved us from dial-up

broadband, moved on from black dial phones to blackberries. people in this room are able to look at the blackberry instead of listening to me while they are still in the same room. [laughter] >> and all of this one made possible in a very brief period of time. time. you came back 10 years later and it is google, ebay, amazon, youtube, hulu, thousands of companies. but if you had listened to the incumbent companies, they would've said it's going to be so difficult. this is a very difficult technology deployed. of course, until consumers got to see what the differences until they realize this is a technological revolution that was just being stymied. of course, and anyone in the third, immediately want at least one of these devices in their pocket. pocket. in disney world, and in the same way this whole revolution is being driven by the green generation, who are ready to go as soon as the laws create a new

marketplace. and so what we did here was we created a three-goal strategy as well. and that three-goal strategy after first of all, i have served for now my 34th year on the energy committee. my 34th year on the national resources committee. that is 68 years of energy hearings between the natural resources and energy committee. i know has ever tried that before. and in speaker pelosi when she took over and was sworn in, created a new select committee on energy independence and global warming. three years ago and asked me to be the chair of that as well. and there we created kind of a three-goal strategy. the first though was the 2007 energy bill. there we raise fuel economy standards from 25, to 35 miles per gallon. the first increase since 1975 in

the united states. in fact, our technology had gone backwards to 25 miles per gallon from 1986. unbelievable. we build a new incentives for appliance efficiency and four new cellulosic renewable fuels, moving away from the food versus fuel conflict that we had, more towards a cellulose is so we would open up the marketplace in a very significant way. then as soon as barack obama was sworn in as president, we created in the stimulus bill back in favorite of this year, $80 billion worth of incentives for renewable energy technologies, new battery technologies, and sin is when you efficiency within our society. that is in no way acting in a countercyclical way, which is still giving incentives for renewable energy companies to

deploy. their new technologies in our country as we sit here today, still in the middle of a recession. then the third bill, the capstone bill, is the waxman-markey piece of legislation, the american clean energy and security act bill, which passed through the house of representatives on june 262009. no one really believed that we could do it, that quickly, after no action for the preceding generation. but we realize that we had an imperative because the world was moving on all of these issues, that the world was going to be gathered in copenhagen, that there are national security implications for our country, that there are jobs in this manufacturing sector that will be lost to us if we don't begin to move more quickly. and so while every expert said that we could not pass, there

was and continues to be a power behind these issues. and inside of the legislation, what we're able to do is a number of things. number one, we create a renewable electricity standard for the whole country. 20 percent by the year 2020 for the whole country. 15 percent of a renewable electricity 5 percent of it more efficiently than the utilities have to extract from the electrical generating system of our country. only about 30 states have a renewable electricity standard out what this would not create a national market for renewable electricity creating a critical mass which will be necessary in order to tell a timeframe that it will take to see complete deployment across the country. and we put a price on carbon. we say that there has to be a 2%

reduction in greenhouse gases every year in the united states, out to the year 2050. and in that way we are sending a signal across the whole country that every segment of our society has to begin to think about what are the smartest ways to reduce the amount of energies which we consume, or define alternative nonpolluting ways of generating that energy in order to comply with that 2% reduction per year. so that's the challenge for our country. in addition, what we do is we add approximately $200 billion in the legislation through the year 2025 in renewables, and efficiency. 200 billion would be dedicated

to that effort. and that is an order of magnitude beyond anything that has ever been contemplated before. it also creates a clean energy bank, reed hundt is here and i think he will speak to you later on about this issue. we parted on telecom issues in the '90s, and now on these issues. and that clean energy bank which he will talk to you about, while it has $7.5 billion in it, it has the capacity to leverage $75 billion worth of capital out into the marketplace. and that is going to be available for all advanced new technologies, to serve as the funding. so everyone here, regardless of the new technology that you might be thinking about, you could qualify for that kind of funding in order to be able to enter this new marketplace.

and finally, we create eight new energy hubs across the united states. $6 billion is put into the legislation for that purpose. and so the thought is that we have to really think about is how do we put producers and professors together, how do we put investors and investors together? and so inside of these energy hubs, what we will have our universities, venture capitalist, and entrepreneurs in different parts of the country competing to be designated as one of the energy hubs. so into thinking this way, these partnerships will construct an environment whereby it will become much easier to move from the laboratory to the marketplace. so that we move much more

quickly in deploying these new technologies in order to solve this catastrophic problem of global warming. and creating new jobs here in the united states simultaneously. the planet is running a fever. there are no emergency rooms for the planet, and so we have to engage in preventative care. and away we will do is deploy these new technologies in a way that lowers the theater as quickly as possible, while creating jobs and reducing the likelihood that there will be national security consequences of our continued increase of dependent upon imported oil in our country. in 1970, we imported 20 percent of our oil in the united states. europe has always been very fortunate by having no oil or natural gas, they quickly came to a conclusion they would be better if they move to new technologies. but we continue to operate under a bit of a deluded mentality

that we can drill our way out of this problem. but unfortunate is not kind ofa mathematical on for untrimmed formula. it is 3 percent of the reserves of the world in oil cannot continue to sustain one country consuming 25 percent of the world oil on a daily basis. over a period of time that would just collapse. my father always said to me, try to start where you're going to be forced to wind up anyway, because it's prettier that way. we are in a process of recognizing this fundamental flaw in this era's medical formula that we have deluded ourselves believing we can maintain indefinitely. and the way to do it of course is moving over to the electrification of the automotive fleet, generating electricity from low or

non-carbon sources of energy generation. and bend that way backing of the imported oil, reducing the amount of carbon that is going up into the atmosphere by, in fact, having this electricity generated from low polluting sources. so we solve both problems at once, and you have to produce it here in the united states in order to accomplish the goal. pretty simple formula. in one under 30 would call that a no-brainer. but very few people under 30 can vote in congress we have a lot of work to do. [laughter] >> adlai stevenson, someone came up to adlai stevenson in 1982 and set at july, at like, good is. every thinking vote is with you to keep it that is great. but i need a majority. [laughter] >> so we're going to work hard to get a majority to solve all of these problems simultaneously. there is no other issue like

this, this question. the roles that energy plays in our national security, our economic and environment issues. so as we are moving forward, the united states has a challenge. the europeans have a challenge. the chinese are coming. if paul revere was writing down the middle of my district heading towards, he would be yelling at chinese are coming, the chinese are coming. we don't have to be afraid of them, but we should respect them. we should respect their planning. we should respect their focusing upon solar, upon all electric vehicles. wind, technology. we should respect them and we shouldn't ignore them and pretend it will not pose a long-term economic threat to our country. so that's the essence of how we see this. let's respect them. and where possible, partner with

them. but let's have our own plan to have a plan. we should have a plan as well. so for me, this is a great challenge. i am optimistic that we will be successful. it's only been two years since we passed the first bill, the 2007 energy bill in december 2007. so we have turned around quite dramatically from the day that nancy pelosi was sworn in as president -- i mean, as speaker of the house. [laughter] >> and she was temporarily president of the democratic party in 2007 and 2008. and now we have barack obama who will sign, who will sign the legislation. when we get it to his desk. so i am actually, i am very optimistic about what is going

to happen. i believe that the same thing will happen here as happened in the telecom sector. i believe that what we will see in 10 years is the emergence of thousands of companies producing products that right now are not within the imagination of anyone in this room, but it will not be like putting a man on the moon. it will be more like why didn't i think that? why did that kid of west virginia who is now a freshman at mit and playing around with coal for the last five years since he was a freshman in high school, just a twist that chemical, biological corner just a bit and all of a sudden we have a completely different way of looking at these issues. that is not for politicians to do. for us, our job is to create a marketplace. to create a darwinian, paranoia and inducing marketplace. where ordinary entrepreneurs and

geniuses can move out into that marketplace, gathered venture capital funding, and they move forward. so the essence of our bill is this. number one, it is science-based. it will use the best science to determine the magnitude of the problem, and then we will move forward on that basis. number two, it will be technologically oriented. because ultimately that is our solution. we have very little in the united states but we are a technological giant. that is really how the world sees us and that is the role that 4 percent of our population should try to play in relationship to the other 96 percent of the worlds population in the 21st century. technology and science oriented. third, that it is consumer focused so that we ensure that we create a transition for consumers and our country, and for the trades multiple energy industries so that there's a

pathway for them to this new future. and finally, that it is market-based. we create a new marketplace where it is guaranteed and predictable that there is going to be a marketplace for these renewable and energy efficiency technologies, for the next 30 or 40 years. and once that happens the government is not needed anymore. we can get out of the way. and the same way we're able to get out of the way on the telecommunications revolution. but the problem is again that there is the most powerful force in life, is the homier sapiens of what you know. the status quo. so in the same way that alexander graham bell could have 15 years ago still recognize the telephone system of the united states, sad to say, if thomas albert edison came back today he would still recognize the electric grid in our country.

so that is our great challenge. the smart grid in many ways is only possible because of the telecommunications revolution. without broadband deployment across our country, there would be no way to manage the electricity that would be coming in from the desert, from the prairies, off the ocean, off people's roads. couldn't do the. we wouldn't have the information capacity to be able to manage it all to work out the millions of businesses and homes all participating in the revolution. so one revolution has now begun the next one. and it really is more like an electricity internet that a smart grid if you want to use correct terms. it is this matching up of the internet with the electricity revolution that makes it all possible to build a grid out to west texas, bring in this

intermittent source of electrical generation to be encouraging people to be deploying these energy technologies at their businesses or their homes. and so am i believe, this revolution that we are about to unleash in a way that is geometric and not arithmetic, i think we will look back in 10 years and see that this revolution has begun to another revolution or two or three that we could not have imagined. so for me, this is about as important an issue as any of us could ever be privileged to work on. the glaciers are melting, coral reefs are being destroyed, deserts are being created, somalia, dark for, all around the world to create national security risks to our country. the least that we should be able

to say in 2050, if we have made no progress and ribbon block is that we tried, we really tried. to solve these problems. that we try to protect against the consequences of what is now unfurling in an ever increasing. and it is up to the united states and europe to give the leadership, and i think if we can continue to intensify our efforts, that we will be successful. and by the year 2050, children will have to look to the history books to find that there ever was such a problem as global warming. i believe we can do it. i believe that we can put this into the history books as a problem. and we, the people in this room who led the charge, that created that revolution, that solves this problem, and i thank all of you for everything that you have

done and i want to work with you in accomplishing, and to pelosi, senator kerry, harry reid, barbara boxer, to the final production of the peaceful solution that makes the united states the leader and not a lacquer in this incredible revolution. thank you all so, so much for having me. [applause] [applause]

>> we are hungry for lunch, as and we are hungry to ask questions. how about if we go to questions, because it does move on but i know one gentleman asked specifically if he could ask a question that i don't know what it will be and then we will do one over here. [inaudible] >> as a native of dutch very massachusetts i would like to thank you for 30 years to the commonwealth, and wanted to ask you, we have a lot of talent in this room what your recommendation in term of a call to action for this group to facilitate your efforts? >> congress is a stimulus response institution. there's nothing more stimulating than a large group of future millionaires to visit their senators. to let them know how many jobs will be created in their states.

as these next several years unfold, if we can put the right policies on the books. so it's important for all of you to understand that collectively, as you partner with each other, that same energy innovation hub concept that we've included in the legislation, that's what is represented here. and meetings with senators that gather together the ceos, visiting those members in their offices, explaining how many thousands of new jobs will be created is going in the end, determine whether or not we win or lose. so to a certain extent it's up to you, and by banding together and thinking strategically in that way, we will win. so if we are right and we can create a million and a half or

2 million new jobs, then we are going to create people that begin in 10 years to compete with bill gates for a list on the fortune 500 list of wealthiest americans, okay? a lot of the undecided senators will respond to that kind of concept. it is wealth generation, yes, it is good for our national security. yes, it will help to save the planet. but there is a practical side to this issue in the middle of a recession. we know that the price of a barrel of oil is going back up to $147 a barrel. we know that. we are in a lull right now as the chinese, indians and other developing countries economy start to recover. the pressure on that limited amount of natural resource is going to go back up again. a challenge for us is to put a plan in place that created new job pays, domestically, in the

years ahead. that's really your opportunity to affect this discussion. and to the extent to which you have companies, investments, or you're thinking about investment in states around the union, that have senators who are not quite fully aware of this incredibly fast-growing set of industries, that's your responsibility in the next two or three or four months. is to get that meeting, put several ceos in the rooms, make the pitch and explain what is happening. this year for example the american wind association had 23000 people come to its convention in chicago. next year, they are going have the convention in dallas and there will will not deploy the thousand people there because in texas, there will probably be 35000 people. don't you think that's a good place at a convention, in the heart of oil country to have 35000 or so people show up

talking about wind and explain the job creation potential for years and decades to come in that sector. so that's how we are going to win this debate. and that's what you need to do, whether it be massachusetts as you invest in new hampshire or iowa or indiana or other parts of the country, to fly there to explain what you are willing to do and what it would mean to the long-term economic growth of that state. >> since we are so short on time, i would like to ask a second question which as you said earlier, the country should cooperate and companies should compete in the buildup of renewable energy. all countries share the same goals to adopt global energy. there is cooperation there. could you both address how can the u.s. and germany, how can the u.s. and china, how can the country's better or cooperate learn, whatever, in this

upscaling? >> i think the first and most important point is to use the chance of the establishment of a new energy agency, and to support us. and who also, to incentivizes organization to become stronger. the foundation of this organization is governmental agency is one thing. but now the work begins, and this organization should level the playing field of international energies institutions. the next years, which always had against new energies. and in favor of conventional energies. the old thinking and mentality.

and the international atomic energy agency with a clear mandate to promote atomic energies. in these two institutions have for years contributed into the underestimation of renewable energies. now the renewable energy agency is there. it must become established so you need several hundred people, not only 30 or 450 or 60, that need an adequate budget. they need at least similar budget for the membership, from the member states like it was given to the atomic energy agency. and the main matter is, and the main questions for the member countries, who can take part, who can contribute.

and most important is although the soft technologies, what we need in the world because we have to shift from few power stations, large power stations, to many centralized. we need many people. we need manpower, and most countries are not prepared and having enough manpower. therefore, the creation of enough manpower, the broad manpower is a question our education, to our universities, to the different professions, for their professional training. and it must be done. my proposal, my new proposal for that is in the framework of the international energy agency is to build a postgraduate open university based on e-learning

concepts, that needs to take, to address engineers, not all can go to a place and study. they have families. they have educated in the old technologies. young engineers, young architects, interested about that but not educated about that. to create a postgraduate education with concepts. this can be done very fast and this must be carried by some institutions, and i think this could be an american german initiative to do that. [applause] >> obviously, we cannot solve the problem of global warming just by actions of the e.u. and the united states.

ultimately, no matter what we do together, a will be ineffective if 95 percent of all growth of greenhouse gases in the next 40 years comes from developing countries, which is what is projected to happen. and so it will be necessary for us to create programs that make it possible to transfer these technologies to think in ways that will help the developing world, to make the same leap from today's technologies to the next generation in the same way that the breakthroughs that third world companies decided to just bypass wireline deployment and move to the cell phone deployment because you could go right to the villages and set up the cell phone towers. the same thing can happen here with the technologies that you are developing. because it would be a technologies that god has

created. it will not be putting a man on the moon in trying to figure how to get him back. it is something more osage and that. it is capturing the power of the moon that affects the tides and using your technology and capture energy there. it is capturing the power of the sun as it comes to the united states, not going to the sun. and developing these technologies in europe, united states are transferring into villages so that they can capture the power of the sun. so that they can look at the biomass in their own areas and capture the electrical generation and geothermal in their own villages to create electricity, etc., etc., etc. the technology breakthroughs will happen in our country's. but we didn't have to create a mechanism that funds the transfer of the technologies in a way that while protecting

intellectual property, also ensures that we move quickly to ensure that these countries as they develop with her four to 5 billion people who are going to come into this new economy in the 21st century don't repeat the same mistakes we made in contributing to this problem that has warmed the planet to dangerous levels. i think we can do that and you're right. it is the kind of partnership that we should have. carbon capture and sequestration is a good example. i bizet, china, india, russia, other countries are going to continue to burn coal. at rapid rate. so we have a responsibility to find the smartest ways of sequestering that co2 and then moving that technology to other parts of the world. so there is no option in other words, to try to go down clean coal agenda.

and talking about it like it is an oxymoron, like it is jumbo shrimp or salt lake city nightlife. we don't have a chance. [laughter] >> we have to do with it. we have to do with it as something that has to be our goal because if we don't solve the problem, of coal, then we can't solve the problem. that's just the bottom line on this. and so those kind of technological breakthroughs could then be used as part of an international partnership. >> well, you can plan an exciting conference and sometimes it turns out even more excited. [laughter] >> and so let me before, we think these two heroes, i also want to be thanking our fine panel, and john and steen from coming overseas to give us thei talks. are cochair in the session, i will thank him greatly first. [applause]

>> and secondly, because i have your attention now and i have to read some administrative things before, a reminder to please remove your trash after lunch. it's my job. if you want a kosher lunch, see margaret cho and who will raise her hand right there. we have those. the session, where only 40 minutes late. that is not so bad. that is less than 45. so we will reconvene here at a quarter of. at 45 after the hour. a fast lunch. if you can do that. all right? and now for the obvious wonderful moment. please thank these two heroes. [applause]

>> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> saturday night as america's lay down for sleep, moderate democrats lay down their beliefs. sold out their constituents. ruled high pressure from barack obama and harry reid. they voted to move forward a government run health care bill our nation does not want and can't afford. one members hold her vote to the highest bidder. one member sold out his principles. to more lost what little credibility they had on fiscal responsibility. another put the interests of the left of his party before his own state. and another voting one way after saying she was for another. it makes no wonder why democrats voted in the dead of night.

>> you can rea read the senator health care bill and the congressional budget office's cost estimate online. sees this health care hub also has a video of hearings and speeches town halls, and debates. that's all at c-span.org health care. >> next a senate hearing on distracted driving. the witnesses are transportation

secretary ray lahood and fcc chairman julius genachowski. jay rockefeller of west virginia chairs the commerce and transportation committee. this is one hour and 35 minutes. >> this social event will come to order. and i'm going to give my opening statement, and then the ranking member, kay bailey hutchison will do the same. and then we'll call on an interesting very successful, beginning a political person

from the state of new york i think. the honorable charles -- yes. thank you so much. and i needed that. i needed that a law. okay. at this very moment right now, 11 percent of all drivers on the road are holding an electronic device. they are calling home on their cell phone or they're reading text from a friend. or they are sending an e-mail to their office on their blackberry. or they are looking up directions with a gps system. that amounts to, please note, 812,000 distracted voters at any given moment. and those 812,000 drivers are

not focus on the road. they are focused on their devices. and in this is much danger. they are putting their own lives at risk. that is their right. they are putting their passengers lies at risk. that is not their right. and the lives of everyone else on the road which is not their right. in september 2008, a 13 year old person by the name of marty sheedy of florida was riding home on a school bus. a truck driver who by his own admission was distracted by his cell phone slammed into the back of the bus. the bust happened to be stopped with flashing red lights. on. the bus caught fire and she was

killed. her terrible story is just one of thousands. last year distracted drivers killed 5800 people, and injured 515,000 people. one almost doesn't know how to respond to something that awful. best like this are devastating and has interesting, they are totally preventable. we define distracted driving broadly, reaching for an object or reading while behind the wheel counts. but cell phone using and testing in particular have increasingly -- have increased in recent years and so have the number of accidents and deaths that they cause. we stand by and enjoy our

blackberries and all the rest of it, and it goes on. commercial motor vehicle operators who are texting are 23 times more likely to cause a crash or near crash. texting takes your eyes off the road. long enough at high speeds to travel the length of a football field. cars and trucks of a distracted driver are deadly weapons, in fact. and a heavy responsibility get them off the road. several states already have taken action, but not enough states have done the right thing. so with senators hatch hutchinson, lautenberg, klobuchar and bitter are not all cosponsors of this magnificent piece of legislation to undo a

horrible part of our life. the centerpiece of this legislation is a grant program for states that enact texting and handheld use while driving. we are all guilty. we are all guilty. to qualify a state would have to enact an absolute ban on texting while driving. and you ask the question, how does that work? we are going to have to figure how that works because it will have to happen. and it has to carry significant penalty for any driver who causes an accident and there are no deceptions. states also would have to limit cell phone use to devices with hands-free capabilities. but no driver under our bill under the age of 18 could use a cell phone at all while still

gaining experience on the road. to truly make our roads safer, we need to think bigger and more comprehensively. and so this legislation models of a new national education campaign based on the treatment is success of the drunk driving and frankly, the seatbelt advertising campaigns. this particular senator remembers ignoring the seatbelt law for a period of years. i can't explain to you i. maybe it was because it was law. maybe it was because my parents were talking to me about it. but i ignored it. and what a fool i was, but i overcame that foolishness and i am still alive. so we can all do this without raising our deficit $0.^001. the new grant program and advertising campaigns would be paid for i redirected unused

surpluses from the current seatbelt safety program to it, no new costs we shouldn't have to mourn the tragic life of a more precious lives needlessly cut short that it is time to bring a new sense of safety and shared responsibility to our roads. this is a major subject for this committee. i call on the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank you for calling this hearing and for taking the lead on the bill that we are cosponsoring. i think this is a very important issue, and i think the way we have directed the legislation is the right one, and i will talk about that in a minute. driving while distracted unfortunate is not a new phenomenon, but as technology has developed where no longer

talking about just on a cell phone. we're not talking about blackberries, gps systems, inc. the three players, televisions and texting on the phones, as well as just listening and other computerized devices. it means we do have to take action. the national transportation safety board report that in 2008, almost 6000 people died from crashes that resulted from distracted driving. this accounted for 16 percent of all traffic fatalities last year, up from 12 percent the year before. i think most of us would agree that driving while distracted poses serious safety risk to the drivers, but also to passengers and anyone sharing the road. unfortunately, studies have shown that while people are aware of the safety risk, cost by using cell phones and blackberries, they still participate in doing it.

a number of states have addressed this issue and have enacted different types of laws that will regulate the use of cell phones aren't sending text messages. the areas have been addressed in different ways and i think that our bill will clarify what would qualify for the grants. but most appropriately i think, the states should handle this issue. the state should devise these laws that best meet the needs of their states. that is why i was very pleased when we worked on the bill together, that this is a piece of legislation that takes the approach that states rights will be respected. i do not believe states should be threatened with a loss of their federal highway funds for not enacting these laws. but i do believe offering incentive grants to states that do enact laws that combat is is

a healthy way to address it. it would be funded through existing programs so we are not spending one additional taxpayer dollars. i think this is another very important component. i don't think i could have possibly signed onto a bill that would increase our debt. but this does not. i look forward to working with the chairmen and other committee members and we consider this legislation, and i also will say i hope we take up the motorcoach safety legislation as we are also looking at this safety measure because i think that these two steps would take a major direction changed for the states and for our country if we would address these two important safety issues. thank you, mr. chairman, and i will look forward to hearing from chairman genachowski and secretary lahood. >> and senator sherman spirit and senator sherman, of course.

we know we will hear from him. >> you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i very much appreciate you and senator hutchison extending me the honor of testifying before a great commerce committee today. i want to thank you, members of the committee, secretary lahood, fcc chairman genachowski, who worked for me way back when. for being here today to discuss the importance of combating distracted driving. mr. chairman, when my two daughters first learned to drive just a few years ago, i worried about their safety. that was when cell phone use was pretty widespread. and i worried about him talking on the phone and driving. but text messaging wasn't as popular as it is today. so in a few short years, the roads have gotten only more dangerous. 10 years ago most of us do know what texting was. now it's become ubiquitous. last december the last month for which we had statistics,

americans spend over 110 billion text messages. that doesn't count the billions of e-mails sent my blackberry which is probably even greater. the technologies is a blessing and a curse but it is a blessing in that it improves medication but it is a curse because when used improperly, such as a driver behind the wheel it causes enormous risk. and they all have seen the research which concerns what we know intuitively. it is extremely dangerous for a driver to take his or her eyes off the road to send, receive, text messages. so this summer along with senator klobuchar on your committee, and senators menendez, and hagan, together we introduced the other drivers act which would mandate that states passed laws banning texting while driving. more and more states are passing texting bands it remains the case that fewer than half of the states have banned the practice as of today. mr. chairman, i am thrilled that you've introduced legislation

and look forward to working with you on both of our bills as move forward to enact a ban on taxing. chairman rockefeller's bill and our bill are slyly different. senator rockefeller and hutchinson's approach focuses on carrots in the forms of grants to states to help them enact texting dance what our bill hughes allies stick to incentivize states to enact bans. but regards of the difference of our approaches, we all have the same goal in mind, to make the roads safer by keeping our drivers focused. and many of us support each other's legislation because we think the best way to go is both carrots and sticks. you, mr. chairman, have graciously cosponsored our bill as well as senator lautenberg, and of course senator klobuchar was on there from the get go. so it is my hope and believe that in the end we will have a bill that combines the best of both worlds. i just want to explain, take a minute to explain how the other drivers act works and why we crafted it the way we did.

it takes tough no excuse approach to a texting then. it requires the states to enact bans that meet federally set minimum standards or lose 25 percent of their federal highway funding. we thought long and hard about how to write this bill and told the late model it after the national minimum drinking age laws, which passed in 1984 which also withheld the percentage of highway funds for many states that did not have and enforce a minimum tricking age of 21. we did this because we saw that the drinking age law by building the threat of withholding highway funds work in getting states to comply. before the law of the country face an epidemic of drunk driving, mostly among young people, only 20 states similar to today have passed a minimum drinking age of 21 when the law passed. three is after it passed, every single state did, and the pattern has been repeated with other similar federal laws such as the zero-tolerance law, and

not in any case any of these laws as any state ever lost a dime of federal funding. as a result of laws that condition highway money on safe driving laws. and of course, it is a federal responsibility safety of the highways, ever since the national highway act has been a federal highway -- federal responsibility. public support is growing. the ford motor company endorse our bill. so did the american trucking association, even though their members would be affected by this. now we are not naïve. we know that banning texting while driving will not stop every texter on the road, just like outlawing drinking water writing has a stop people from getting behind the wheel after a few drinks. and incidentally, it statistics show it is more dangerous to text while you drive than to drive drunk. it is an astounding statistic that is counterintuitive, but it is true. we owe it to the american people to do everything we can to promote safe driving. that means passing the ban on texting behind the wheel.

i look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with you, mr. chairman, and your committee to do so. thank you for the chance to testify. >> thank you, senator schumer, very much. and i would ask now secretary lahood, if you could come forward and perhaps at the same time, chairman genachowski could do the same so you would be both at the witness table and we could -- we can question you both. >> mr. secretary? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and ranking member hutchinson and numbers of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the most important issue of distracted driving.

chairman rockefeller i especially appreciate your leadership and the leadership of others on this committee. transportation safety is the departments highest priority. distracted driving is a dangerous practice that has become a deadly epidemic. our research shows that unless we take action now, the problem is only going to get worse, especially among our nation's youngest drivers. this trend distresses me deeply, and i am personally committed to reducing the number of injuries and fatalities caused by distracted driving. four weeks ago, the department of transportation hosted a summit to help us identify, target and tackle the fundamental elements of the problem. we brought together over 300 experts in safety, transportation research, regulatory affairs, and law

enforcement. than 5000 people from 50 states and a dozen countries also participated in the summit via the web. we heard from several young adults who had engaged in distracted driving and to discuss the terrible consequences of their actions. we also heard from several victims of this behavior whose lives have been changed forever. mothers and fathers, who lost children, and children who lost a parent told their stories. and i want you to know, i personally promise these families that i would make this issue might cause. we were privileged to have senator pryor and senator klobuchar as well as senator schumer participate and want to thank them for attending and for dedicating time and energy to addressing this problem. . .

>> 800,000 vehicles were driven by someone who used a handheld at some point during their drive. people are using a variety of handheld drieses, such as cell phones, personal digital assistants, navigations devices, however, the problem is not just vehicles on the road. it affects all modes of transportation. expect three there are three types of distractions, number one visual. taking your eyes off the road. number one manual, taking your hands off the road. and number three, cognitive, taking your mind off the road. texting is the most troubling because it involves all three types of distractions. in the word of dr. john lee in

the university of wisconsin, this produces a perfect storm. i announced a serious of concrete actions that president obama administration and d.o.t. are taking to put an end to distracted driving. it sends a strong unequivocal signal to the american public that distracted driving is dangerous and unacceptable. the executive order prohibits federal employees from engaging in three ways welcome while driving vehicles, in using electronic equipment while supplied by the government, and driving on official government business. the ban takes effect, golfwide, on december 30, '09. however, i already adviced all of the d.o.t. employees that

they are expected to comply with the order immediately. d.o.t. is also working to formalize compliance measures that we are in closed consultation and the office of personal management providing leadership and assistance to other executive branch agencies to ensure full compliance with the executive order by all federal departments and agencies no later than december 30th this year. d.o.t. is also taking other concrete actions to reduce distracted driving across all modes. for instance, we began enforcing limitations throughout the rail industry. we are taking the next step by initiatives three rule makers. one, restrictions on the use of cell phones earn other electronic devices in real operations. consider banning text messaging and restricted the bus operators

while operating a vehicle. and a three disqualifying school bus drivers convicted of texting while driving from maintaining their commercial driver's license. we will work aggressively and quickly to evaluate regulatory options and initiative rule making as operation. moreover, or state and local partners are the key to success. we have in addressing distracted driving. i have encouraged our state and local government partners to reduce fatalities and crashes by identifying ways that states can address distracted driving in their strategic highway safety plans and commercial vehicle safety. and to assist them, i have directed d.o.t. to develop model laws with tough enforcement features with all modes of transportation. there are other measures that states can take immediately to reduce the risk of distracted driving. for example, we are encouraging rumble strips to get the

attention before they divert from their lane. education, awareness, and outreach are also essential elements of our action plans. we are informing audience about the dangers. we are still researching the effectiveness about the enforcement with outreach campaigns in the distracted driving context. we are hopeful that such efforts may prove effective in the same way that we've been able to reduce drunk driving and increase seat belt use. all of these measures are the beginning. not the end, to solve the problem, of distracted driving. d.o.t. will continue to work closely with all steak -- stakeholders to collect the data needed to better understand the risk and identify effective solutions. and the administration will continue to work with congress. state and local governments, industry, and the public to end the dangers posed by distracted

driving and encourage good decision making by drivers of all ages. we may not be able to raise awareness and shape the consequences. and i want to particularly thank congress this committee, for its dedication. >> thank you secretary lahood. now chairman. >> i commend your leadership in holding the theory to address this urgent problem and the introduction today of bipartisan legislation, the fcc hopes to be a resource to you as you consider this legislation. i also want to commend secretary

of transportation, lahood for his excellent statement and consistent leadership on this issue. let me begin by giving some context to the serious and dangerous problem of distracted driving caused by the use of global communication devices. and then describe some avenues that the fcc is pursuing to be a constructive part of the solution. first, context, mobile wireless drieses and networks are a major contributor. wireless from 1999 to 2008 totaled $90 million. it has been astrono, ma'amic. only 4 million people had subscribed and we heard earlier today on the amount of text message using that we are seeing. today the vast majority of teenagers, four out of five, have mobile phones, as parents well known. mobile devices connect us every

day to family, friends, and colleagues. they hold the promise to meet the nation's challenges from empowering first responders to provided instant medical assistance to letting us operate energy savings smart grid. the popularity of mobile guyses, however, has had some unintended and very dangerous consequences. there's no way around it. this is an urgent challenge, with literally fatal consequences that must be addressed. however, as others have said, no single solution to the challenge. the responsibility lies with all of pup in in regard, i'd like to

acknowledge the work of cia and coordination with national safety council for initiating a joint campaign. and educating teen drivers on the dangers of distracted drivers. and teens that include suggested ground rules for driving. and rolled out psa while texting and drivers. individual wireless carriers have launched educational campaigns. i hope they will be measured. and continually improved based on their results. in the federal level, i applaud secretary lahood and the transportation for leading an effort to increase public awareness of the dangers of distracted driving. and i salute the leadership the president has shown to prohibitsal workers while driving and using government vehicles. i also recognize the role in the states of the area, and

recognizing it. according to the 18 states and district of columbia have made it illegal to text while driving. the majority of states have not. we've heard a discussion about that already today. the fcc has a role to play here as well. for example, potentially identifying data that can help address the issue. and helping to educate the public in supporting innovative problem solving. we can bring the outreach experience as well as broadband to increase public awareness of the dangers of distracted driver. consumers and governmental affairs, and it is now preparing a broader educational campaign. we hope to serve as a resource

to a variety of organization, such as schools, public safety, and others. i've also directed the agency bureau to provide educational information on the fcc web site on the importance of reducing distracted driving. with links to other information. in fact, the bureau has launched a web page on distracted driving. and is working hard on other educational initiatives. new ideas, advancing with and technology, can also bring on changes in driving behavior and otherwise help address the serious problem. parents want tools to help keep their new teenage drivers focused soully on driving behind the wheel. the fcc can play a role in

enabling and encouraging the deployment and development of marketplace solutions. in the past the fcc has authorized for the purpose of promoting safety around various forms of transportation. there may opportunities to use by the censored technology and key chains that would disable on the mobile device activated by the start up of their car. there is technology which simulating the sense of touch, creating the impression of buttons or controls on flat surfaces. it can be used to give drivers more control over their cars while keeping their eyes on the road. this is the technology to be used to improve safety. or even these technologies too

dangerous while in the car. these are all questions that should be exploited. fcc can play a farther in encouraging technologies that reduce injury and loss of life due to distracted driving. we're examining whether there are ways in which we can create a climate to have more options in addressing this serious problem. finally, with respect to fcc staff, i've been urging fcc employees to set an example. i reinforced the agency the important of complying with the order, banning the use of advices as well as banning the use of personal devices on vehicles. they text and drive at all times. to encourage their families and friends to do likewise. in closing, i look forward to continuing to work with the committee, to comply.

>> thank you very much. i will start the questioning. it seems to me, you're talking about 800 to 12,000 people at any given moment. and they are driving lethal weapons. and if they get away with it, that's fine. when they don't get away with it, we already know that 5,000 plus people pie, -- die and half a billion people are injured. and yet it's a part of our lives. nobody has ever really done this sort of kind of thing before. we have to stop it. we have a help on arkansas that senator pryor will discuss has done this. but then again, i don't know how do you change cultural habits. texting, if you watch president give a state of the union half of the congress is texting. that's a little exaggeration, maybe a quarter of the congress.

i doubt this much value in that texting. but they are doing it because that's what people get trained to do. everybody texts around here. you want to text. if you don't, you are not with it and educated. so you text. and, but i mean this. i mean this seriously. and it's lethal behavior when you get in a car. now when you get in the subway of this capital building or when you get in the car, it's lethal. and i am skeptical about being able to change people's behavior. simply by passing a law. and with respect to that, i mean, we're going to do it. and a it'll either be the, you know, chuck harder or senator shrewer's harder one or our carrot as he referred to. my first question to both of you, i'll start with the secretary. how do people know if somebody

is texting. for example, if there are two other passengers in the car, and they perceive the texting and know their lives are at risk. the figure of the football field is terrifying to me. if that's advantage texting experience is the length of a football field. all kinds of accidents and deaths take place in that amount of time. they can turn the driver in. they can use their cell phones since they are not driving to call somebody up, and say this guy is, you know, i don't know how you stop it. even with laws, i mean this is incredibly serious stuff that we are doing here. but it's the state police aren't going to do it, because they can't see it. they can see if they get at the right angle on the cell phone. the feds don't have people. we don't have federal, state

police so to speak. so how do you -- how do you observe -- how do you make people feel that they are being watched? and that by the second part is the only way you can do this is through technology? that, in fact, you can't change people's behavior, because that's the way they operate. that's the way they exist and live. that's the way they talk to each other. brother and sisters text each other. even if one is on the first floor and second floor. they don't talk. they text. they don't read newspapers. they read it off of iphones. i mean it's all different. and yet this is a dangerous national problem. so can i have your thoughts, sir? >> well, this is a epidemic, mr. chairman, but it can be stopped. the classic example is .08. who would have thought 10 years ago we could get drunk drivers off the road. we've done it. everybody knows what .08 means. there's strong law enforcement on this. people lose your license, in

illinois you lose it for three months and you have to go to jail and serve at least five days for your first offense. click it or ticket is something that people understand. that's why people put their seat belts on now. so there's three ways in my opinion. education is number one. we have to get into driver education programs. that when you get in a car, you put your seat belt on and put your phone in the glove department. saying to teenager if you see your friend texting, tell them to put the phone in the glove compartment. we have to make sure that we persuade parents not to try to call their children when they are driving to school. and their employers can't be calling their employees when they are driving home from work. we have to get in, we have to break these very, very bad habits. part of it is education. part of it is personal responsibility. telling one another, this is bad behavior. you can't do it. you can't drive safely while you are texting.

and a then i think enforcement. we know that enforcement works with .08. and we know that enforcement works when it comes to click it or ticket it. people do get tickets. that's something that law enforcement can observe. we know that when law enforcement people are driving and they are over .08, they get arrested. and they get thrown in jail. and you can put tough penalties on these things. there is a law in washington, d.c. you can't use a cell phone. it's inlegal. but anytime you drive down the street in washington, look around you. we're hooked on these things. so it's personal responsibility, it's education, and it's enforcement. and that's what happened with .08, and click it or ticket it. we cannot give up on finding solutions, because this is an epidemic. we will save a lot of lives, and a lot of injuries, finding wayed to do this. and we have proof that we can do it. >> mr. secretary, i'm overusing my time here.

if somebody is drunk driving, the state policeman, they can usually see that. in fact, they don't approach the car. it's not the individual that they are looking at. it's the motion of the car. if and they can have a sense of that. and you say it's stopped it. i would say it hasn't stopped it, i would say it's diminished it. and maybe, it is a worthy goal. but what occurs to me is that you are almost have to put this out of the control of the driver using a cell phone or a text so that some kind of technology which the fcc will come up with. by the end of next week. that as soon as you from a car, jr. -- enter a car, your cell phone and your texting, you know, your texting equipment is just disabled by some electronic

impulse. i don't know how else it gets done. i don't think you can train people to do this. because people do it down here. you know? they have to talk up here. but they can text it silenced or many of them, i don't think they are going to change. and i don't think drunk driving is, i don't think it's a proper connection. because people are looking at the car. you can tell. you cannot tell if people are texting. >> i would say this, i would say if somebody is texting, they are weaving back and forth. they find out they haven't been drinking. they can say have you been texting? if there's an accident, what caused the accident? were you texting on your phone? and maybe taking the phone and looking to see if they were texting. there's a young women in my hometown, all by herself, ran off the road. was killed. was on the front page of our

peoria. these things can be detected. there has to be good education not only by training programs, but law enforcement. there's ways to do it. maybe .08 isn't perfect. but we've taken a lot of drunk drivers off the road. click it or ticket it has given people the idea that fasten the seat belt, they will save an injury or loss of life. >> i have way overgone my time. i apologize. i still believe that our approach is right. because i don't think we ought to get into states rights and have regulations that don't fit a state. and the states have addressed this in very different ways.

very different ways. but many of them are dressing it. so mr. secretary, i have to say that you have through rule making indicated that you would ban texting altogether by truck drivers. i think that is the responsible role. because truck drivers are interstate. but yet we have a problem with school bus drivers. and that really ought to be dealt with at the state level. so i want to ask, mr. chairman, if there are technology ways that we could for heavenning with an issue like this, or is this data collection that might be available if at the commission? i want to say that if you look at the telecommunications industry. and here are the organizations that are supporting our bill. verizon, at&t, t-mobile, cpia,

the wireless association, american trucking association, advocates for highway and auto safety. i think they are being very responsible here. they want to prevent these kinds of horrific accidents. so what can we do that doesn't infridge on states rights but gets to the heart of the problem. >> senator, i think there has been the multipart solution. i agree with secretary lahood, and all of the remarks, education of personal responsibility has to be part of the answer. friends don't let friends text while driving. law enforcement, as to be part of the answer. and i agree that technology has to be part of the answer. and technology might be in ways that we may not be able to participate. i think we can look at the fcc are is what is the data.

can we get better data on practices of driver, consumers while driving, can we find ways the different kind of technologies that may work. parents they want their kids to have a particular technology. mothers maybe in interested in particular technologies. drivers themselves might be interested in technology. i'm an optimist about the role that technology can play in driving solutions. technology, to some measure will respond to market demand. there's a real relationship between education campaigns, and helping parents understand what the issues are here. i think maybe parents do. but the awareness is even larger. the awareness on where there will be market demand on the technology. we can look at data, and we can look to see if therer ways to incentivize technologies that will get the direction we want to go. >> and mr. secretary, i know you

have studied what the different states are doing. you also are acting in your own capacity in what the best practices are of the states or any other data collecting that you might be able to have from the agencies that are studying these accident statistics. >> well, as usual, the states are ahead -- they are the incubators on this. i think there are 18 or so states that have passed very tough laws against texting. i'm proud of my own home state of illinois. they just passed a very tough law on eliminating texting while driving. i think the best practices from the states. because they really are the ones that have taken the lead on this. and we will be happy to provide

that, not only for the record, but for you personally. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, now senator. >> thank you very much. thank you, both of you. i think the conference is very good idea. it brought some national attention to the this issue. i wanted to make go up in the air a little bit with this distracted driving issue. secretary lahood, as we had in minnesota and then into wisconsin, the ultimate number of distracted driving. that was distracted driving at 37,000 feet or distracted flying. as we found out this past week. i first wanted to thank you for your agency for taking prompt action. i know that the license have already been suspended for the pilots. and they are still competing their investigation. they are preliminary findings. it seems to point to the fact that they are distracted.

they didn't fall asleep, but they were checks on cruise schedules when they had hundreds of passengers in the back and flew for 91 minutes not answering their radio signal. can you shed some light, secretary lahood, on what we could be doing about this in addition to our focus on distracted driving. if we should look at it, if we should try to ban laptops for private use in cockpit, which is already a rule. or we should look at some kind of a loud buzzer in the cockpit, so they can hear it. it's almost ludicrous to think about it. but i wondered. >> sure. any kind of distraction, whether you are driving a train, plane, car, school bus, transit bus, light rail, you can't do it. you just cannot drive safely. and there are many people, almost all of us who board a plane or train, and put their children on school buses with the idea that it will be the

safest way to get where we are going from one point to another. we are not going to equivocate on this. any kind of distraction, it is a distraction, and we should figure out ways to get these cell phones and texting the use of cell phones, the use of laptops out of the hands of people that are delivering the public some place safely. >> and right now while it is an airline use to not have private laptops in the cockpit, it's not an faa rule? >> we are going to look. but we are the ability to suspend the license. >> even because of the fact that they weren't flying. >> that's correct. >> all right. thank you. back to the distracted driving issue. one the criticism that senator rockefeller brought up, it's not effective. you can't enforce it. i never heard that click it or ticket it thing. that was very nice jingle.

could you just explain why there are not much of a penalty for the seat belt, at least initially, there wasn't, but it changes an entire culture. how did that happen? how can you see the lesson learned for the texting issue? >> i think if you say something, all of us in politics, if you say something often enough, people start to believe it. >> even if it's not true. >> exactly. but it is true. you'll save and injury or life. we do it year in and year out. i went to a school this year nearby. we had a click it or ticket it asemi. we talked to kids about fastening their seat seat belts. notwithstanding what the chairman said, most americans know .08. and they know you are going to lose your driver's license, lose your privileges, you may have to serve time in jail. ten years ago, most people

didn't know about that. if you say something often enough, in driver education classes, if you tell kids, you cannot text and be safe, and teach them that, or -- >> if you text it you're wreck it. not bad. probably cheaper than an ad agency. gwen cow -- we all know that was sort of slow in starting. and it picked up speed. thank you for that, can you talk about what lessons were learned that could be applied here? >> one, there's no substitute for hard work. other the transition, staff members of the fcc were very hard working at agency and thinking about how to craft a message that people could understand.

and two they went out to where the most relevant audiences where in lots of different ways. whether it was at shopping mall or sports game to communicate with them. there were -- they had the combination of the offline and online. we'd be happy to get back to you and think more concretely about what the lessons were that would be applicable to an awareness campaign. i think we need to identify the elements of past campaigns, whether drunk driving or seat belts or others and pulled out some lessons learned. this isn't the first time or last time that we will be sitting around educating the public ann -- about dangers. i wouldn't people more strongly about the benefits they spring. including around public safety. if you get into a car accident on the road, being able to communicate through mobile

device with someone is a huge benefit. we want the first response effort to have broadband 24 mobile communication devices. i think we can want that, and have a very clear campaign that being distracted while you are driving because of technology is just wrong. the problems will keep oncoming up. and they've been trying to isolate what we have learned from past campaigns. especially around technology that can be an important part of this. >> thank you very much. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator pryor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we thank you for holding this hearing. mr. secretary, let me start with you, if i may. and i appreciate you inviting me to your distracted driving seminar. it was very useful. i think people got a lot out of it. in your opening statement you mention that the major finding is we have a problem. it's a major problem all over the country. but my question is are you all preparing a set of specific

findings and maybe some steps that we can all take as a follow-up? >> absolutely. we are are putting our team, and d.o.t. is putting together some very good information, some very good recommendations. we're -- we'll have three rules or three enforcement actions. we are putting together some of the key recommendation. and some of our enforcement actions that we will be taking. we are putting that together. >> we work forward to seeing those when they are ready. i'm not trying to draw you into this legislative discussion. but i would like your thoughts on the carrot versus the stick approach. if you have a preference on how that would be structured. >> i like both, senator.

>> so you think we can do both, huh? okay. that's fair enough. okay. now let me ask, we don't have a director. >> let me put it to you this way, we -- it is eminent. >> and it would help to have someone there. >> well, we have a very good acting administrator, ron has done an outstanding job. i don't know that there's -- well, he's a very good safety guy. he's done a great job. >> and have -- has the federal motor carrier safety administration looked at initiating a rule making for commercial drivers. is that underway right now? >> yes. for the fcc, mr. gwen chow ski,

thank you for being here. has the fcc looked at what might make the world safer. how much authority do you have? where does your authority begin and other people's begin? >> we haven't done a survey of the technology solutions. but it's something that we plan to do. we plan to understand the technology landscape better, and to ask questions about what we can do to help accelerate the development. at the beginning, i know the legislation would give the fcc some concrete tasks. we look forward right now to be the resource to the committee as it looks at this. it involves transportation, and i hope we can all work on it together to pursue the strategy that we need to tackle. >> are you aware of any wireless

firms who are taking initiatives to educate their customers in the general public on that danger. >> i believe they are. i believe senator hutchinson mentioned the trade association, some of the carriers have. to me, what i would hopefully see, is not simply the launching, which i commend. >> and my last question is, i know that some causes, i'm sure others have this as well, the technology say called sync which is built into the vehicle. that somehow you're wireless device will sync with the vehicle. i'm not sure how it works. i'm assuming the fcc has a little piece of that. because it is wireless communication. i'm assuming that they have most of the responsibility.

have we thought about trying to make the approach more widely available. and perhaps required in all u.s. vehicles. either of y'all looked at that? >> well, i was just in detroit, senator. and i visited ford, gm, and chrystler. this technology is something that will be in automobiles. but i will just tell you this. that point of view, i think any distraction is a distraction that takes away from driving safely. you can put your phone in this little container that they have in the middle, it does sync. it sync all of your numbers. you can sort of voice. that's a distraction, senator. but that is the latest technology. and all of the car manufacturers have it. i think if you are eating a hamburger, shaving, putting your makeup on, use texting, using a cell phone, talking to somebody, all of these things distraction from your ability to drive safely. >> well, one last thing.

you mention as we close, you mention that it does have some -- 21 states ban teen drivers from talking on all cell phones. arkansas is one of those. 17 states school bus drivers from talking on cell phones. arkansas is one of those. 18 states ban all drivers from texting, arkansas is one of those. so i'm glad we're talking about this today. i'm glad we are having this hearing. because it is something i think that we should deal with. >> thank you, senator pryor. >> thank you opinion i appreciate the hearing. i've learned a lot. and i hope that authors have the respect and will help me to be

the devils advocate for a moment. we've heard discussion of the stick or the carrot. the secretary said he likes both approaches. if forced to choose, i would choose the carrot. but i would also suggest to my colleagues that tonight we might want to let them tonight to work on this for a while longer. now mississippi, my state, is one of the states that is already acted on this. we've heard learned members of the committee today say that states should handle this issue. well, states are beginning to handle this issue. and some states are quicker than

others. we also have heard testimony today that states should be the incubators for this. that we need to decide what best practices there are. we need to be involved in data collection. i would suggest that the states should continue to do the ranking member suggests. there maybe legitimate reasons. we would all like to know what we can at the federal level. what we are empowered to do under the constitution to prohibit distracted driving. i agree with the secretary. i think eating a hamburger is a

lot more distracting than talking on a cell phone. and it's -- perhaps we ought to include eating the hamburger in this legislation. since it almost goes without saying that that's more distracting. and this is -- don't misunderstand me, this is personal with me. after my daughters first year in college, she was driving back from virginia to mississippi, and on interstate ho, -- 40, ther of a vehicle reached down to get another combat disc. the car turned over three times. my daughter was in the hospital for quite a while.

she thankfully is okay. and she is expected my first grandchild now. but it might be that the states would want to experiment with talking about that kind of distractions, mr. secretary. our chairman has said he is skeptical about how any of this is going to work. and he says we'll go through with it, and we'll do it anyway. regardless if we might be taking an approach that would be determined to work better if states roll out the agreeing to our witnesses and to my colleagues. 49fcs restriction on lobbying. no funds appropriated to the secretary to the national highway traffic safety administration. it will be available for any

activity specifically designed to urge a state or legal legislature to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislative proposals. then they would go for the state and the local poddy. we have prohibited calling it from urging the adoption of legislation at the state or local level. and yet with this legislation, we're going to say unless you as a state legislature have certain specific things, and we are specific enough, there's a total ban in one respect. and then there's new bans based on age. we say that it's okay for us as a congress, not only to specifically urge legislatures to take certain actions, but there's a rule out there, some

you are going to get it, and some aren't going to get it, based on if you follow what we in washington, d.c. feel should be the approach. so count me as someone who wants to listen about the various approaches, who appreciates what the secretary has done with respect to interstate commerce, and to say that i have confidence in the states to take testimony just as well as we can to act on this. and so i would choose the third approach. and that is to continue letting him be the incubator on this issue. and i thank the endorsement of my colleagues. >> i thank the senator. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. with respect to senator klobuchar's comment, i will be chairing the hearing on the reauthorization.

i assume we will be talk about the distraction in the come pit -- cockpits tomorrow with the national safety board. i listen with interest to my colleague, senator wicker. i have been involved in these issues for a long while. my mother was killed by a drunk driver in a high-speed police chase. i got involved in wondering how many states was it legal to drink and drive at the same time. put your key in the ignition, and have the bottle of gym beam and drive all all -- jim beam and drive all completely complying with the law. some states still do. you can drink and dry. just can't be drunk. i've been involved with madd, mothers against drunk driving, we didn't make process because we asked people to take this serious. yes, we used carrot and sticks. doesn't work without it

unfortunately. i think here the issue is pretty clear. there are people losing their lives because of a change that's happening. and people are texting on the road. we all see it. we drive and watch and see what's going on. i do think, i do respect, you can eat a hamburger without looking at the meet. you can't be involved in texting without looking at the text. and so when you see people text on the road, they are looking down at this language. i do think there's a problem here. so here's the proposition. you talk about technology, frankly, i don't know that there's going to be a technology that addresses this. there are technologies out there that i suppose in which we talk about high-speed police chases in which you can put something in the car. we can't allow that to happen. that technology probably exists.

some of the cars are advertising blue tooth capability. and i think this text issue is separate and rises way up here with respect to danger. but distraction in the car, take a look at these cars that have these sophisticated councils up in front with maps and navigations capabilities and 130 different channels of satellite radio. we saw it right here. in fact, if you get in the taxicabs, they have to suction cup and put them right in the middle of the drivers window. distraction, sure, i suppose it is, right? and it gets back to the point that there are a lot of distractions. but i do think, having said all of that, this issue of texting while driving, particularly riseses to a different level. so i don't -- i mean i appreciate the work that the chairman and the ranking member

have done here. i think it's a stick isn't the right direction. almost always on these kinds of issues, whether it's seat belt obvious drunk driving or required training and high-speed police chases, when it's appreciate and when it isn't. almost all carrots have been required to be add to a stick of some type. and then things change completely. when i start working on drunk driving issues, some people get picked up. everybody understood. it happens. no more. those are killers on the road. if we move in the thoughtful direction here, with legislation that's properly crafted, i think we'll make a difference here. i know that the other evening i was watching the national news. i think there's one state that

has passed the state law that says texting while driving shall be equivalent in penalty and seriousness of drunk driving. if you are picked up for texting, it's the same. i think that's utah that is now changed the law. so, i mean, there's progress being made out there in the states. but i do think that ultimately, there's going to have a be a pull and push. and i think from what we've done today. the chairman and ranking member is something that is worthy in terms of moving us in the direction of safer highways and safer streets. i appreciate that mr. secretary, your testimony, and mr. genachowski, let me just ask the question quickly. i'm almost rid of the time here. on the technology, because in terms of the asking, will there be technology. my sense is i don't think we're going to solve this by technology. do you really think that? >> i think no single part of the

this will solve it. i think we need education, change norms, and we need to look at the technology piece of it. and we need to, this is going to be around for a while. we will continue to evolve. and putting in place different mechanisms now. >> especially with the new vehicles. the cars are starting to look like the inside of a cockpit. there's so much sophistication. and the information of the driver. >> again, let me just compliment the chairman. i think the issue of texting, and use of cell phones is a very serious issue. and i think you advance that by holding the hearing and legislation. >> thank you, senator. senator, you are up you can get

your seat. >> we've been hearing several problems in the agency. with the accidents and particularly when it's something that happens with a large truck. it's accidents. we know that they are inviting the cell phones, chairman talked about it. in use that more and more people getting out behind the wheel of

a truck, car, train, school bus, and cell phone, and checking the text message. it's just a bad time. and a bad outcoming. now i joined with chairman rockefeller, and introducing the legislation that would give states drawn incentives to ban texting or using handheld cell phones while driving. and secretary lahood was glad to see you as we are mr. genachowski. do you think that it's an investment regardless of the input, to prohibit texting for using in, you know, cell phone? do you -- that's pretty good assessment for wanting better safety on our highways.

we have no problem. >> no, sir. i agree with that. >> it's been proposed by a lot a lot of folks to use technology to block wireless signals in car. however, they are raised about the legitimate communication, and even 9-1-1 calls that might be excerpted. how do you see dealing with that opportunity. or does it present a larger problem than it does a sort of? >> first thing i'd say is the one thing in which there should be no confusion is texting while driving is bad. and whatever the legal framework is, it shouldn't happen. and as i said before, friends shouldn't let friends text while driving. with respect to specific

technologies or regulatory steps, like the one that you suggest the, i wouldn't want to get ahead of where the fcc is. i think wee -- we need to take more of the work. obviously the transportation department rule as well in the area that we can work on together. i do think that overtime we will get better information on what strategies exactly work. because the bill is introduced today. it doesn't mandate the particular state. it allows for some exper mennation. we will get better information on which strategies work. and as a country, we can pursue, and accelerate. >> . sounds, however, like a good opportunity to stop the risk in both forms. the question is, do we lose

anything by having cell phone there? or -- i mean you look at the 9-1-1 calls otherwise that are -- they might not be made. but there'll be a lot more consciousness on the highways. last week from san diego to minneapolis overshot. that's the investigation by 150 miles, one hour late. the private set, as we see in public, they were using their laptops from traffic control. however, faa does not regulate the use of laptop hurts above 10,000 feet. what might the department do to regulate the use of these devices to make sure that when

commercial air fare, that there is enough. we take every possible action to prevent this kind of distractions from occurring? >> senator, administrating the suspended the two pilots from flying, they have a right of appeal. because of the use of laptops in the cockpit. we're going to look at that entire issue. but, excuse me, they've been suspended for flying because their licenses have been pulled. they have ten days to appellee -- appeal that. >> does anything come to mind or that is being considered right now to eliminate or reduce or

prevent the possibility of that kind of an accident taking place while in the air? >> well, i have my own ideas about this. but i'm going to work with the faa and the folks at the faa and in our department to deal with this issue. >> you have your own ideas. we know that you'll use them. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thanks, a number. i don't know maybe there's something wrong with me. this hearing is not going the way i wanted it to go. it doesn't strike me as having the urgency which i expected it to have. i keep thinking of 800 and 1200 people now and now and now and and forever. texting or being on a cell phone 37 or otherwise be distracted.

and then i think of that football field. and i think of what can be done in the way of damage as the car loses control. and we all know the feeling. we've all done that. so we now the feeling. and nothing happened. so we go on. and then we start talking about, should this be don by senate, states? and that becomes a big philosophical debate of the constitution. we're talking about educating a generation. well, drinking is one thing. but when you have people from the age of 5 to the age of 50 or 70 all whom use cells, you know, education is a good thing. and let's get those red classes, and schools pumped up on that. and the educating them. you think that's slow.