[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the ambassador christopher hill will be speaking japan antistate reporters will have live coverage of his briefing this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. eastern

oberon c-span. going to take you not the national press club for a look at the fiscal year 2011 budget for the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. there requested me billion dollar budget for the coming fiscal year. we're expecting to hear from the head and it should get underway shortly here at the national press club live on c-span 2. >> good afternoon, everybody. and welcome to the noaa fiscal year 2011 budget summary. my name is and he winer direct your for noaa. we want to welcome all of you do this session this afternoon. went to thank you for your persistence and patience. this has been a bit of an

extraordinary rollup or seems to have taken a lot longer than it probably does. but we do appreciate all of you taken the time to be with us this afternoon to listen to what we can now tell you about the budget for noaa in fiscal year 2011 and also be a lot to answer some of your questions. today will be. from turn one who is the undersecretary of commerce for oceans and i mishear as well as the noaa administrator. rossa joined on the stage by norick lack and steve gallagher who was budget year. and we thank you all for coming. we look forward to hearing from you in hearing your question and getting a chance to hear what you have to say and be able to answer questions. at this time i'd like to call to the stage dr. jane lubchenco. thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks very much, and he. and a warm welcome to each of you. i really appreciate all of your

being here both in% and others who are joining us remotely. i know that what the weather disruptions last week, it was a lot of back-and-forth about when we were going to be able to do this. so i really appreciate everyone's being here. i also want to thank you and i gaucher continued interest in an engagement and noaa. and i look forward to the opportunity to share some progress that we're making as well as answers to questions about what's in this year's presidents budget for fy 2011. before i begin, i want to invite the senior leadership at noaa who is pretty much in the front right here to just answer you cannot see them. these are folks -- ahead and stand up you guys. these are the people that are really responsible for most of the programs were going to be talking about and i just want to thank all of you and the vitality to you to help me think them for what they do.

[applause] the president's overall fy 2011 budget focuses squarely on moving the nation from recession to recovery and building a new foundation for long-term success for america. long-term prosperity for american families. in particular, the budget recognizes the central role that science and technology can play in stimulating the economy, creating new jobs and improving the health and security of americans. the president's 2011 budget recognizes that noaa's science, service and stewardship mission and the agency's record of accountability, reliability and of excellence do indeed support the well-being of the nation. and the budget proposes some very timely opportunities to

deliver even greater benefits to the nation. today's focus is on the 2011 budget request. and by way of team outputs in that request, i want to begin with some reports to you on our policy initiatives and progress towards some key goals and then go through some highlights of the budget and then open up the floor to your questions. noaa envisions a transform society that uses a comprehensive understanding of the wrote oceans, coasts and the atmosphere in the global ecosystem. to make the best social and economic decisions. now, this vision is not ours alone, but it reflects the input of many stakeholders around the country, including many of you who have participated in our next generation strategic planning. to achieve this vision, we must continue to strengthen noaa's core competencies and invest in

science, service and stewardship. when i first arrived at noaa, editor depreciation for the importance of noaa's mission, both on the ocean side as well as the atmospherics i hear it but in the one year that i've been at the helm, i've gained a much richer appreciation and understanding of the profound contribution that noaa makes to society and to the economy. and i also have developed a vision of the ways in which noaa can be more helpful and more relevant. some of this value to the american public is highlighted on this ride. or in science technology innovation to strengthen competitiveness, providing services benefiting the economy and ecosystem, supporting blue and green businesses with a solid foundation of environmental information and stewardship, informing climate change mitigation and adaptation

and safeguarding public safety and security. now all of these challenges exist at the intersection between science, society and the economy. and this is where noaa's mission has its greatest impact. the job at noaa does in collaboration with our many partners have a direct bearing on the nation's immediate and long-term concerns. shortly after coming to noaa, the noaa team in place and i laid out a few key priorities that really builds upon our mission and our strength, but focused our attention on key areas where we saw some immediate either needs or opportunities to make some significant progress. now secretary locke is fond of encouraging the bureaus within commerce to set stretch goal.

many of these were indeed stretch goals. they were really taking a hands-on directions that we knew would be very challenging. these priorities responded to key initiatives that have been defined by many of you, our constituents, and by congress. and they reflected the president, secretary and my priorities. and so i want to highlight these for you because this was sort of a year to go. this is why we decided to really focus on. building and core competencies to ensure the continuity of climate weather and ocean observations, both insights you and very important from space, strengthening climate science and services, improving weather forecast and disaster warning, transforming fisheries, protecting and recovering species and habitat, promoting healthy resilient coastal communities and ecosystems and strengthening arctic science and stewardship. now that's a pretty diverse

portfolio. and did indeed reflect the diversity of what we do at noaa. and reflects the diversity of you here in this room. there are lots of different interests and lots of different issues, lots of different things that we work on. i'm really pleased to report that we have made some very significant progress in many of these goals. none of them is complete, but we've tackled some pretty tough issues and are on track to deliver. and i'm really, really proud of how the team at noaa house really stretched itself to tackle some of these really important issues. and i want to give you a brief sense of some of the things that we have been working on in these four areas that are highlighted on the flight. starting with satellites, from the very early days of my nomination was pretty clear to me that one of our joint satellite programs has been very significant challenges from cost overruns, chronic schedule delays and technical

difficulties. given the critical importance of this program to the nation, for the continuity of our climate and weather information and despite the difficulties previously encountered in trying to fix earlier problems, fixing and post was a high priority of mine and of secretary locke. over the last year and with significant existence from secretary locke mo we have worked nonstop with osd p., the office of science and technology policy commissary alternative do documents. the office of department of defense and with nasa to develop a restructuring plan for a polar orbiting satellite program, with the goal of ensuring continuity of these critical satellite observations. we believe that this plan, with support of congress will get this program back on track. i'm pleased to report that our other satellite programs continue to go well.

we cheered, for example, the successful launch of polar night team and ghost 14 a geostationary satellite. these satellites are essential for noaa's weather and climate missions. turning to fisheries, we have made very important progress in rebuilding our fisheries that are so critical for a healthy america and for the livelihoods and communities that depend on fishing. we are taking concrete steps to build better relations with commercial and recreational fishing communities to better understand the issues and develop common solutions. we have identified some serious issues and our enforcement program that we are committed to resolving. we begin the implementation of cat shares for new england groundfish and issued a new catch share policy for public comment. but fisheries councils we have

taken important steps to develop annual catch limits and and overfishing. and we have improved our data collection capabilities, which were so critical for fisheries research and management. and to the sun, no commission of the fishery survey pisces which will be collecting information to support fishery data needs in the gulf of mexico and the southeast united states. so that package of accomplishment and activities in the fisheries world i think is very significant progress. lots more yet to be done, but i'm really pleased with where we are. on the climate front, we have announced the intent to reorganize within noaa are climate sizes and services into a single line off if called noaa climate service. in doing this, we are engaging our partners from other federal agencies, the air, the scientific community and many

others. and we look for to working with you as plans for this reorganization take shape. in fy 09, we issued important studies and reports on the potential impact of global climate change. we worked to enhance our supercomputing capability to run high resolution global and regional climate models and improved our capability and spatial density of climate observations. and just announced last week, we have created a new web portal to make it much easier to find and access a wealth of climate related information, data, products and services on our website. i invite you to check this out at www.climate.gov. give us your feedback on this. we want to continue to make it more and more useful and usable. and finally, turning to coastal

communities and ecosystems, noaa played a key leadership role in the president and regency test scores. the result of this was the release of a draft national ocean policy and framework for coastal and marine planning. the first time in the administration has so clearly committed to the idea that healthy oceans matter. protecting and restoring coastal habitat is essential for healthy oceans and resilient coastal communities and ecosystems. noaa is working on this front. in 2009, over 4000 coastal acres were acquired or placed under conservation easement by noaa esterase and land program just to give you a single example. today is the anniversary of the signing of the stimulus bill.

the president has announced that an highlighted much of the wonderful accomplishments of the bill today to. no one has also effectively directed public investment towards economic recovery, demonstrating that environmental improvement and economic growth can be mutually supportive. as you can see from the array of projects or categories highlighted on the side, are ara investments covered a broad array of activities from impaired ships to building new facilities. noaa's distribution and funds is a success story. no one has obligated approximately 70% of the we received. we have met all of our planned milestones and expect to obligate the remaining funds in the common months. and particularly proud of our efforts to restore critical habitat. today we have awarded 50 grand

for marine and coastal habitat restoration and 22 states and two territories. for example, in north carolina's pamlico sound, noaa is using ara funds to hire out of work watermen to restore 49 acres of oyster reads. so far, no one has supported the hiring of 85 people to plant 41,000 bushels of oysters at site in four separate coastal carolina counties. many of the restoration projects were located in areas of high unemployment and provide vital resources to our coastal communities and economies that they support. turning now to the president's fy 2011 budget request, this chart depicts a trend in the overall budget since fy 2005, comparing the enacted budget and green to the president's budget

and blue. as you can see, the noaa budget requests that are in blue were exceeded by the enacted budget in green. however, even at the higher level, the enacted amount remained essentially flat at 3.9 billion from 2,522,008. the increasing demand for noaa services coupled with a static object created a major challenge for noaa and delivering on expectations. this pattern changed in 2009 and again in 2010 when noaa's enacted budget rose to 4.9 billion then to 4.7. on behalf of everyone at noaa, we thank congressman each of you for your assistance and continued confidence and support that got us those higher funding levels. the president's budget request

5.6 billion, an increase of $806 million over the fy 2010 enacted. this budget reflects our efforts to focus on program needs, identify efficiencies and ensure accountability. it also incorporates major congressional priorities as articulated in previous years budget. we are indeed listening to congress. and it reflects the presidency and the secretary's commitment to public safety, to the environment, to science and to job creation. and here are some highlights. in terms of general highlights, the budget supports new r&d investments to strengthen our science mission and foster innovation. can best means to improve fisheries and the economies and communities that they support, target investments to sustain and enhance satellite observations including a major

restructuring of our polar orbiting satellite program. essential pathways to strengthen climate research and services and tools to support vibrant coastal communities and stewardship. this budget translated shows the 2011 request of 5.6 billion. while a significant fraction around 800 million of this increase is new spending on satellites, the budget also includes targeted investments in our operating budget. with the realignment of the polar orbiting satellite program, our capital budget is expected to peak in 2012 and keep the top line for noaa about 5 billion through 2015. let's look at a break down of the budget by line office. this chart depicts line office is, though without their formal

names, giving you more a topical name, which is a little more user friendly i think. and what we have here is by line office, comparing the 2010 presidents and enacted budget with the 20th of an president's budget. our 2011 budget request for each line office is higher than it was in 2010 and we are better aligned with congressional funding model than in previous budgets. congress has called upon us to address critical needs in a number of our coastal fisheries and research programs and we have listened. we have also been able to include increases for programs that have been funded at a higher level in the enacted budget for a number of years, such as the grant, ocean observations, kelp and habitat restoration. however, as you can see, we still have some work to do for example in oceans and coasts,

and the west, national ocean service and we will need your help. the only other item that i would highlights here are the increases in satellites or the nasa's budget and much of this increase is related to the realignment of the polar orbiting satellite program about which i'll say a little bit more about shortly. now i'd like to highlight some of those specific increases in our budget. this is not an exhaustive list and i direct you to the blue book for more specifics in particular areas, especially if they map onto your particular interests. strengthening science, we need to strengthen science as a basis for environmental decisions and policy making. this is a key component of the president science initiative and an overarching priority for noaa. this is the first significant increase in noaa's science budget in recent years. the budget provides $82 million

in increases for research and development activities have a totaling over 949 million proposes a balanced portfolio to address the highest priorities for climate, weather and ecosystem science. this is not all that we like to do, but it's a good start. turning to the oceans and coasts category, for each of the senate to give you a sense of the context, why this package is important and then we'll zero in on a couple of specific items that i want to highlight. so in the oceans and cause budget in particular, rising coastal populations indicate the oceans are important to americans. but these population increases drive demand for a wide array of coastal and ocean it says and they generate a lot more

conflicts. these conflicts arise, for example, among uses for recreation, residential, commercial or resident, oil, wind, wave energy, mining aqua commercial, commercial and recreational fishing, shipping, navigation and a lot more. multiple agencies are involved in this broad array of type goodies, but noaa has a critical responsibility for stewardship and economic vitality of our coasts and oceans and has a scientific and technical knowledge to assist managers and decision-makers. so within that broad framing, i want to draw your attention to two items, coastal and marine spatial planning, number one, a comprehensive systematic and science-based approach is needed to minimize conflicts and evaluate trade-offs as we make decisions about coasts and ocean uses. in the fy 11 budget, noaa

request a total of 6.8 million to support coastal unerring spatial planning, to create regional maps of important and rollable areas, identify area-based management authorities and provide decision support tools. in the second category of the regional ocean partnership grants, noaa is requesting 20 million to support regional partnerships a new item for the president's budget. this request will provide merit-based grants for regional ocean partnerships, such as the gulf of mexico alliance, the northeast regional coach and counsel and the west coast governors agreement to implement priority actions. this effort were more effectively facilitate regional management, communications and priority setting across jurisdictional boundaries for the nation's oceans and coastal resources. turning now to the fisheries line office, transitioning

fisheries to long-term sustainability is one of my top priorities. and although we have made some very significant progress, there is much yet to be done. rebuilding our nation's fisheries is essential to preserving the livelihood of fishermen and industries that support them. the vibrancy of our coastal communities, a sustainable supply of seafood for americans and restoring ocean ecosystems to a healthy state. the budget includes targeted investments that will help sustain local communities and restore a number of vital stocks and habitat. the first item i highlight for you here are catch share to improve effective management, noaa will provide fishermen mistaken the benefits of a well-managed fishery through catch share programs where appropriate. the fy 2011 budget request an

increase of 36.3 million for a total of 54 million to support the development, implementation and operation of catch share programs and pitchers across the nation. this increase will continue the transition of the northeast groundfish fishery to sector management, as well as support new catch share programs in the mid-atlantic, the gulf of mexico gulf of mexico and pacific coast regions. and secondly, i like community-based restoration. restoring threatened and endangered fish species requires additional investments to improve habitat condition and ecosystem functioning. the budget request would allow noaa's community-based restoration programs to increase the fish package, spawning and rearing habitat by implementing larger scale ecological restoration and targeted areas such as wetlands.

specifically noaa's is requesting an increase of 10.4 million for a total of 20.8 million for this program in 2011. in the fisheries budget includes 65 million for the pacific coast salmon recovery fund. turning to researchand climate, noaa has become a global leader in understanding and reporting on the state of knowledge of the climate. noaa's 2011 request includes investments for the core client services and observations needed to enable the nation to effectively address the impacts of climate change. climate science covers a range of inquiry from topics have been well studied and documented such as the tracking and fate of greenhouse gases to those on the cutting-edge of knowledge such as the consequences of ocean certification and the melting of sea ice. the items that i highlight here,

the first one is ocean certification. the increasing acidity of the world's oceans have the potential for devastating effects on marine life and ocean ecosystems. but the degree to which various organisms may be capable of adapting to a more acidic environment is uncertain and therefore more investments in ocean certification are required here at this request is for 6.1 million increase for a total of 11.6 total to support new technologies and ecosystem are monitoring systems to better assess the physiological and ecosystem level effects of ocean acidification on recreational and marine fish stocks and more. turning to crime and assessment services, scientific assessment are integral for enhancing our understanding of climate, how and why it's changing and how do changing conditions, what they mean to our lives into our

livelihood. noaa is working closely with the council on environmental quality, the office of science and technology policy and the u.s. global change research program agencies to provide climate assessments on both the regional and national levels that we use the best data models and understanding possible. .. more severe weather than any other nation on earth. from hurricanes in the south

and east to arctic storms in the north. weather impacts our lives and our economy. each year the national weather service issues more than 76 billion observations, 1.5 million forecasts and 50,000 warnings to mitigate the impact of weather systems and protect lives and property. and i'm pleased to note that the national weather service just marked its 140th birthday, 140th anniversary and especially those of us in the mid-atlantic and d.c. area saw first-hand with the forecasts that the national weather service issues over the last couple of weeks how helpful and useful those forecasts were especially in giving us so much advance warning to prepare for the storms that did indeed come and pretty much exactly as predicted. it was pretty impressive forecasting. i highlight two items for

you here. aviation weather. in 2011 noaa will work with the federal aviation administration, faa, to meet recenting demands of air transportation which is expected to double by 2025. weather is a factor in over 70% of the flight delays, costing approximately $29 billion annually. noaa requests an increase of 15.million for a total of 26.7 million to modernize our aviation weather forecasts and warnings. the budget will fund much-needed improvements and processing systems, models and new products for pilots. improved flood forecasts. water, resource and precipitation monitoring and forecast having become a particular challenge with increases in population and drought and frequent changes in commercial shipping needs. the majority of annually declared federal disasters

are due in large part to flooding. in 2011 noaa requests an increase of 7.6 million for a total of 12.9 million to research, develop and deliver water forecasting services for river, estuary and coastal flood forecast capabilities. turning to satellites, and, this is in two parts. i'm going to talk first about impulse and then our other satellites. this first slide focuses specifically on the program formerly known as n pace post-. weather forecasts are vital for citizens and businesses and noaa weather satellite that profied data and

everything system that make these forecasts possible. the white house decided, i mean the white house decision to create the joint polar satellite system, by restructuring the old npoess will continue development of critical either observing instruments required for improving weather forecast, climate modeling, i'm sorry, climate monitoring and warning lead times of severe storms. beginning in 2010, the program will undergo a management restructuring and capacity realignment that will transition the requirements to management by the respective agencies. noaa and nasa will oversee the procurement for the nation's civil and environmental monitoring needs and the department of defense will do so for military needs. so this jpss, joint polar satellite system, will continue to leverage our partnership with the air

force for ground system development and operations. in addition, it will increase our focus on developing international partnerships to insure the continuous availability of climate and weather observations. and, jpss will specifically address many of noaa's requirements to provide global environmental data such as cloud imagery, sea surface temperature, atmospheric profiles of temperature and moisture. data, and imagery, from the joint polar satellite system will improve forecasts and warnings, reducing loss of life and property and benefit the industry throughout the united states. turning to our other satellite efforts, a couple of highlights. we depend on noaa satellites for a variety of data and information. the continuous flow of environmental observations supports weather and marine forecasting, climate

assessment and change predictions, and even space weather forecasts. data and imagery from satellites are used by emergency managers for use in times of severe weather. they offer unique monitoring capabilities that support air, land and marine transportation, and provide support when performing research-and-rescue functions. i have highlighted two of these programs for you. jason 3, sea level rise dreshtly threatens coastal infrastructure through increased erosion, more frequent storm surge flooding and loss of habitats, due to for example, drowned wetlands. jason-3 will provide continuity of sea surface height measurements for scientists to assess impacts and develop mitigation stratbusiness to cope with this threat. in 2011 know wah requests an increase of 30 million for a total of 50 million to continue with the

procurement of u.s. censors and a -- sensors and award a contract for the mission's launch vehicle. and turning to discover. space weather has strong potential to disrupt virtually every major public infrastructure system including transportation systems, telecommunications systems, lek kral power grids and global positioning systems. noaa resources for geomagnetic storm warning forecasts from satellites have exceeded their two-year design life. know wu proposes increase 9.5 million for refurbishment of existing nasa satellite, discover. this will allow noaa to receive vital data which can help anticipate and mitigate geomagnetic storm damage of one to $2 trillion.

and finally, program support. to deliver sound science and sound services, noaa must continue to invest in its information technology, infrastructure, the quality and construction of noaa facilities and the recapitalization and maintenance of our fleet. within this broad category of program support, i have highlighted two, the pacific region center and noaa facility construction. noaa needs to continue replacing key facilities to insure employee safety and maintain mission continuity. the budget includes a total of 14 million for the pacific regional center which brings together all the noaa programs on oahu. while the ara fund helped, while the ara helped fund the basic construction of this facility, additional funding is needed in 2011 to procure and install the information technology infrastructure for the new facility.

and i have highlighted miller freeman major repair period. a three of fisheries and hydrographic vessels are necessary to support the collection of the foundational data necessary to meet our scientific mission, to support, this fleet in 2011 we're asking 7.4 million to extend ship life service of the miller freeman. this ship is vital to important data collection in the pacific, the north pacific and supports the management of wildlife pollack, the largest u.s. fishery by weight and by dollar value. so, that in summary are some highlights of this year's budget. i want to draw your attention to the number of products that we have developed to make it easy for you to access information about what's in our budget and to be able to pose questions. the noaa budget summary or the blue book that was available on the table

outside, is available both in hard copy but also on the web site. our detailed budget narrative and other budget products are also available. if you have any questions regarding our budget, my staff and i are here to answer your questions on specifics. and you can also submit specific questions to, ask noah budget at noaa.gov. i would be pleased now to answer any questions that you have to the extent that i can. if i can't, i will turn to people who are likely to have answers. but again, i want to emphasize how pleased we are, with this budget. it of course does not do everything that we would want but it is a very, very good budget for noaa and i'm really pleased with our successes in delivering on what, on the resources that we had in the last couple of years and very much look forward to working with you

to ensure that this budget is a strong as it can be for our interests as well as for all of yours. so, with that, i'll open the floor to questions. and i think what we'll do, is alternate between taking a question here and one from the phone. does that work? okay. questions? yes. when you pose a question, if you could use the microphone. there are some that are here coming around. tell us who you are, and then your question. >> i'm karen schubert, with cns news. you had a slide earlier that said, noaa's value to the american public includes informing climate change mitigation and adaptation. i'm wondering your opinion on what climate change expert phil jones, the former head of the climate research unit at university of east agnglia when he told the bbc last weekend he agreed with the statement, that from 189895 to the present there has been no significantly statistical

global warming. i'm wondering do you agree with dr. jones there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995? >> i mentioned earlier climate impacts report was an inneragency effort produced by all of the relevant federal agencies summarizing the state of our knowledge about climate and how changes in the climate system are in evidence in the u.s., and not just for the whole country but region by region as well as sector by sector. and, one of the things that's in that report which is available on our web site highlights the long-term trends in global data for climate change and makes a couple of points about that are relevant to your question. one is that the, there is

very strong evidence that there have been global increases in global temperatures over, over, let's take the last century just for, to hone in on that, over that period of time, there have been significant periods where there are ups and downs and periods where there are no changes and you can, if you choose to be selective and highlighting any decade in there, you can see different patterns. sometimes increases, sometimes decreases, sometimes no change. what you really need to do is look at a longer history of temperatures records which is what we have because we've been taking good data, and that longer history shows unequivocal increases in global average temperatures. >> so you would agree with dr. jones there has been no significantly statistical

global warming since 1995? >> i am saying it is inappropriate to look at any particular short period of time to discern the long-term trend. other questions? let's go, who is handling, any calls from outside? we don't have any? >> [inaudible]. >> okay. thank you. it is really hard for me to see you guys in the back of the room because all the lights are in my eyes. if you need to get my attention, you have to really be animated. okay, other questions from the room here? there's one right over here. if you can keep your hand up so whoever has the microphone can find you, that will help us. >> thank you. i'm andrew wayne. i was wondering if there is anything specific in the budget weather radar having to do with phased array radar? >> yes. i would like to ask mary to take that or jack. do you want to? >> the short answer is -- is

this the mike working? the short answer is yes. we're continuing to advance that program and there's an increase of $6 million. >> steve, do you want to add anything to that? >> that's the increase and the, we're still committed to, further accelerations in developing that phased radar that is in norman, oklahoma. and we're going to add polarization capability on that. the idea is, our current next radar network will not last forever. it is coming to the end of its design life and we need to think about recapitalization and modernization of those systems. so you're going to see a steady acceleration or development of the phased array to, as an alternative to replacing next rad one day. >> thank you, that was steve gallagher our noaa budget director. before him, mary glacken, deputy undersecretary for noah. question?

-- noaa. >> adam with ocean conservancy. i was wondering if there was a specific figure for marine resource education project? i think fishery statistics line item? >> marine resource education. steve do that on the top of your head or can we get it? >> no. >> we haven't memorized each and every line that is in the thick blue book. imagine that. but it is, we can get that to you. >> staff will look that up. >> we can look that up. okay. other questions? come on, folks. >> jane, i'll ask one. joe witt citi. could you expand a little bit on education funds and increases. >> education funds, steve? >> the education dollars we're not at the level of enacted budget as you may know and, i think the overall request, just give me a moment, is, in the blue

book under program support. let me look that up real fast. overall the, president's requested 20.7 million for education. so, the enacted levels have been varying between 30, upwards of $50 million. where it is an area where we have the national academy looking at our overall education budget. it's a priority for dr. lubchenco to enhance funding in that area. what we're running into we need comprehensive assessment of our program that the academy is doing and we hope to take that report and build on what are the best areas for us to focus in and use that as a catalyst for future budget requests. so we're a total of 20.7 million but it's a priority program and we're going to look to see that to grow in future budgets. >> yes? we have one. from the phone. >> first question from the phone is from, donald kent

with seaworld institute. your line is open. >> good morning, dr. lubchenco. relative to marine spacial planning, there's money set aside in the budget for that and there's, i read from the interim task force report that there is a process underway to include marine spacial planning. i'm curious, towards the future, how will regulatory authority be tied in to make use of the products generated from marine spacial planning? it is cross administrative, cross-department issue who manages what offshore wind farms would be energy and aquaculture would be under -- how will marine spacial planning be used to, facilitate -- for different uses of the ocean? >> that's a great question, and one that at the, ocean policy has been talking

about and wrestling with. the recommendations that we will be sending as a task list to the president lay out some options, much of which will be focused on regional ocean planning entities. i can't remember exactly what we called them. regional ocean planning bodies or something. and, there will be the need for us to develop mechanisms to work with the relevant, agencies departments that have jurisdictions and i think we have yet to define exactly what that's going to look like. you highlighted one of the really important reasons for having integration across the departments and agencies, but also one of the challenges in making sure that that integration is consistent with existing

authorities but also that the overall suite of activities is getting us where we want to go in terms of having sustainable uses of oceans, maintaining healthy oceans, but also harmonizing all of the different interests and uses. so, i think the shortest answer that i can give on that front is stay tuned. this challenging issue is on our radar screen and we're going to be working through it in the years to come. >> thank you. >> other questions? yes? over here. >> i'm naomi rhodes with the humane society. you mentioned that there were serious issues with enforcement. i haven't looked at the lines either so i'm just wondering if there's been an increase in the request for enforcement for 2011? >> the inspector general for the department of commerce

has issued a report to me, dunn at my request, to look at our enforcement activities across noaa and to give us feedback how well we are doing and how we might do better. we take the report from the inspector general very, very seriously, and have implemented a number of steps to address some of the problems that he flagged in that report. i have charged my general counsel, lois schiffer and my new assistant administrator for fisheries, eric schwab, with immediately i can't responsibility for carrying out a set of 10 things that i identified as immediate tasks we would take on but also leading the charge

within noaa for evaluating how we can adequately respond to the problems that were highlighted in the inspector general's report, and the need to be addressing some of those. thank you, mary, go ahead. >> just to answer quickly in terms of the budget, there is no increase in the enforcement line. >> okay. other questions? yes, another one right over here. okay. go ahead. >> can you hear me? patty dorworth, american sport fishing association. the investment for catch areas is pretty obvious and substantial for transforming commercial fisheries but many recreational important fisheries are being seriously affected by requirements of magnuson-stevens and lack of adequate data from noaa fisheries to implement it

fairly. as you know, the economic contribution of recreational fishing is about the same as commercial. so what kind of investments are increases are included in the budget to help gather that data that noaa fisheries very much needs for recreational fisheris? >> we agree with you completely we need much better data on recreational fisheries and we've been working with asa and other representatives of, of recreational fishing interests, as well as with states to identify some ways that we can do a better job working together to get the kind of data that we need. there are, i can't give you the numbers. there are resources in the budget, and, it's partly a question of figuring out what we can get under what time frame, and having data that everybody has confidence in, and that we can use reliably. so, we're working with states as well, because they

have similar interests. >> thank you. >> thanks for that question. yes, another one on the phone. >> the next question from lindsey voss. your line is open. >> hi, thank you. good morning. i just have a quick question regarding noaas plan for using unmanned systems in 2011 and then maybe a couple years beyond for their research initiatives you have using uavs or uuvs and what some of the plans will be? >> can we pull that out? yes. >> i'll be happy to take that. noaa has been investing in both unmanned aerial vehicles as well as underwater vehicles. i think, to fulfill our mission requirements in particular, observing requirements. i think in both cases and particularly with the aerial vehicles, we remain in the stage of exploratory development. understanding, how these new technologies can best meet our mission requirements.

so that he is, that's kind of where we're remaining in fiscal year 11. as we continue to build the case for how these vehicles can help us in the long term. >> thank you. another question here? >> lori -- with cweb. i like to start on congratulating you best president as budget. i think nobody in the room thought thought i would break the five billion mark. so congratulations. two questions. one related to capitol hill and one related to research. i wonder if you can amplify on research side of things where you see dollars getting invested relative to ocean acidification. >> are you asking for the number that you're putting into? >> not the number but sort of where do you see that where do you see the benefits of that investment coming? what sorts of products and what sort of things, good things could we look forward

to from noaa as a result of that? >> it is really in two categories, laurie. one is getting a better sense of at what rate is, is the acidification of oceans changing and where. so a better job of just monitoring, number one. and, number two, research to understand what the consequences of changes in acidity are for different types of species. so mostly in those two buckets. >> great, hopefully with that great research we can communicate to people the importance of dealing with this. >> absolutely. i think that's vitally important. and this is an area where, there is a lot of very serious work to be done, and this budget is a start in that direction. there's lot more in this area that we really need to be paying attention to so that we can fully understand,

what is happening, at what rates and how we can, much of the initial information suggests for example, there is some spacial heteroge [ity how changes in ph are playing out. get a better sense of areas more changing more rapidly and changing more slowly that helps inform how we think about various uses of oceans for example. there is lot of work to be done in 24 very important area . .

and it is my strong hope that the opportunities that we have identified in the president's budget will be seen by members of congress as important things that they think are important for congress to be investing in. and i see much of a partnership. we have been listening carefully to the interest of members of congress and have tried to be responsive to those to the extent that we can and incorporating those into our budget. and i think that that -- i hope that will be viewed favorably. and i also hope that there are

areas, many of our key members have been saying how important they think noaa is and i hope that this -- that as this budget plays out, to congress this year, that that will be demonstrated. yes. randy? down here please. do not renishaw stacker with newspaper of the geophysical human. dr. lubchenco you opening your mentioning comments that the budget is good but doesn't do everything you want a red light to do. so can you please walk me through some of these further areas that you hope would be in the budget and perhaps you think i need to be pursued in future years in research on climate oceans and other areas. and also, how they understand the budget trade-offs and perhaps frustration that she's gone through with this budget.

>> randy, let me say that i think this budget really is a good budget. i think no budget does everything that everybody would want. but all of the budget decision that we make are a trade-off and the one you see in this package are very much a reflection of what we see as opportunities, but the secretary and the president's team thinks are important for things to be doing. in the budget reflects that totality. it's not -- i think no budget would ever be exactly what somebody would like to see in every single category, but it's a package that i think is a very good one. and over here. >> david black stainless national council for health and environment.

i know that communications of science has been a passionate viewers throughout your career. and so in that light, could you describe your vision for the new noaa qaeda service in the process by which you hope to bring about a vision? >> thanks, david. the noaa climate service that we announced last week is intended to provide one-stop shopping for the nation for citizens, for policymakers, for local managers, for business folks to access data information, knowledge, products of the tools from in a way that is much easier and also to continue to strengthen our scientific understanding of climate and have that new knowledge be more immediately available into the delivery of services. and so, the concept is by having

both the science and the service in a single line off if, we have the ability to both have areas that need to be researched, communicated to the researchers, as well as new science being folded into the delivery of new decision support tools, for example. this climate service is not just a thing within headquarters at noaa. it also has regional components and last week we also announced the creation of six regional climate service director position that will be co-located with our national weather service offices. and anticipate building communications, decision support tools that are appropriate to

regional decision-making about both adaptation as well as litigation. so we're very excited about the new opportunities for this office. we anticipate working in close partnership with other federal agencies that also have responsibilities on the science side on that service delivery friend. and so this is very much a government white partnership. we know that we at noaa have such capacity in both observations and monitoring, and madeleine kahn and assessment, and delivery of services that we already provide. we see that we have a very important role and so are doing what we think is necessary for us to get iraq together to be even more useful to the nation. so it's actually we're very excited about it.

dr. tom karl has agreed to be the transitional director for this office and the secretary of commerce, gary locke, made the announcement with me last week and it has to need to thank him for his very strong support and encouragement for doing this. reorganizations are never easy and the folks at noaa house than really spectacular are trying to work as a team to define what is going to work us for the science, for the services, for coupling them and were really excited about the new directions. i should emphasize that what we have announced is the entire to increase the new noaa client service because it has to go through this process of approval that is very specific dollar amounts, people, and approval

process that goes to the department of commerce, to office of management and budget and then to congress. as you also know, there is keen interest in the climate survey by many members of congress that have included this in legislation. and now that we have been able to announce the intent to create this reorganized office, we very much look forward to working with members of congress on both the appropriations as well as authorization type to make this be something as strong and as good as they can be. yes? a break here. >> a good afternoon, dr. lubchenco. with all the great interest in the climate services, can you shed any insight into the positive impact that this may have on the integrated ocean

observation system and the state of management acquisition centers that were so anxious to see get funded in the near future. >> i think the focus on coast spatial planning draws attention not only to the need to have place-based ways of resolving conflicts and minimizing impact on the environment, but also the importance of basing information information -- basing decisions on good information. and it really highlights the importance of observing systems and the importance of having good data and information at a variety of spatial scales. and the observing programs are ones that are incredibly important and we continue to work really hard to try to flesh that out and and a way that meets those needs. anymore on the find?

no? okay. >> hi, beth lowell with oceana. i do question on the fisheries research and management line items good i think that for the majority of the line items, there's no program changes for the majority of them except in patch chairs. i have two questions. one, how is the national fisheries service and proving fisheries management and some of the fisheries that are non-capture fisheries and the second part, if there's more clarification on the specifics of how the catch share increase of 36 million is going. i'm not sure if you have a guest on higher planning to spend that whether it's more the research and monitoring or establishing fisheries are supporting the council. >> steve, do you want to take the first part of that and onto the second. >> so i think a new question about the research of fisheries and management line come in the way the budget is built up is if we get congressional ads are

earmarks, they'll come out of the request and then program changes are increases in the budget will go back in. so in a lot of instances, there are a number of dedicated increases in the fisheries budget it may not be apparent from the net increase. so we have a list of those and would be glad to go through each one of them. we do have a specific breakdown on fisheries catch share dollars. we've identified working with the council's fisheries, gone through and prioritize what fisheries are in a position to adapt catch shares and we fit together very detailed budgets for each of those. and its diverse in terms of which type of fisheries we involve as well as with layer. so we've got proposals for fisheries in the pacific northwest and the mid-atlantic and in the gulf of mexico. and we do have a specific breakdown we can share with you. so a lot of the resources dedicated to that go into, some

of it than research, the other is observing. so both on ship and that.com is serving up the actual attach numbers. and we have fairly detailed information on that we can share with you. so if you stay after, will do that. >> you actually answered both parts. thank you. now, that's perfect, that's great. yes, back here. >> clare christian and arctic and southern coalition. we are very pleased to see that the u.s. another pdf created the npa recently and i was wondering what resources and programs at noaa are available to work on the creation of other npa is in southern ocean. >> i don't know the answer to that. anybody? will have to find out. as we do continue to work their tour southwest fisheries science center, which are no doubt aware of and i believe this budget is

a continuation of those efforts and ongoing priorities they are. >> other questions? yes, back here. >> university of maine. i noticed that noaa has become involved in aquaculture research. after previously not participating in a major way, do you have a niche in vision and that's very different from the usda's approach to marine aquaculture? >> eat, i don't know exactly -- marry, have there been changes in what we are doing? >> i was a little surprised by your opening comments because we have actually been working and agriculture both as an fisheries and the secret overtime. it is true that some of that has been earmarked in the past. so i'll stop there unless you

want me to do the rest of the question. >> go ahead. >> i think what the aquaculture program, we actually are working very closely with usda to ensure that there's not an overlap there. so we do have some co-funded activities, particularly for things like the kind of stock and feed that is used for there, that's done jointly with them. but i would say that a closely coordinated effort. >> other questions? yes, over here. >> hi, i'm back to the know. i'm disinterested if you could give us more insight into the project funding. either matching funds? what sort of mechanisms might be at work there. >> for what?

>> for projects with private industry, what sort of ratios. is it a one-to-one matching fund ratio or are there any sort of changes from a past practices in that regard? >> steve? >> that's pretty general. there are a number of activities within the ocean service and within fisheries where we have match requirements on different funds for fisheries for different coastal funds with state. we have arrangements with that. but they tend to exist with governments, in other words, leveraging state investment in overall coast fishery programs. so i can't think of offhand and i'll think about your question for more, about leveraging for private investment. but we do have a number of programs and a lot of them are articulated in the back of the blue back under the special exhibit area, where it articulates with the match

requirements are for the programs. >> okay. i'm seeing no further hands. let me just conclude by telling you how grateful i am that all of you joined us today. how important it is for you to be actively engaged in this budget process as we move ahead, simply because this is a good, strong budget for us doesn't mean it's going to actually end up that way. and it requires your active engagement with us, with others in the room, with members of congress, with whomever to help us end up in the best possible place for the american people. and i greatly appreciate the work that many of you have done to help us in the past and invite you to be actively engaged in the same way this

year. take advantage of the past noaa budget. what is that? katana screen. as noaa budget. ask any questions of the leadership that's here. thank you so much for joining us. will be in touch. bye-bye. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> with your wildest imagination if you're writing fiction you could not have made this story up. >> this weekend can gormley on the death of the american virtue. he's interviewed by greg craig

on afterwards, part of c-span twos booktv weekend. >> the next world economic forum on the global economy. we'll hear from white house economic adviser, lawrence summers and his counterparts from china, france, india and japan from diablo switzerland this is an hour and a half. >> were going to start isom promptly. my name is marshall wolf, from the financial times. i've had the leisure of moderating this on several occasions and it's always

been -- is it all right? it's already been very exciting and stimulating and pleasurable at least for me and we have a particularly remarkable panel i think today to discuss the issue, which i'm sure is closest to most of your heart, which is, are we out of the mass? and if we are, what follows? and the situation is obviously very, very different from what it seems to be a year ago and very, very much better. and we want to address not only the short-term questions of what might happen as they come out that the recession, but also we now have i think the opportunity to discuss some of the longer-term structural questions in the world economy and we will address those as well. before you introduce the panel on the issues, i have been

wanting to tell you first of all the recession will go on till midday, so we up longer than normal. but should give us time for questions from the floor, at least the last 20 minutes or so. so prepare your billing a question. after this is over, you're asked to say because were going to have the spectacle of the south african launch and you won't know what that is other than what they are launching. and i imagine that's going to be quite an exciting event. now let me introduce the panelists and starting on the far left is josef ackermann of the management board and a very distinguished representative of the financial services industry. and also a survivor which is quite something after the last two or three years. i admire anyone who is having an institution that still stands.

and next to him is lawrence larry summers, former treasury secretary and so forth to now director of the national economic council at the office in the white house and of course president obama's principal economic adviser. next to larry is christine lagarde, was minister of economy industry and employment in france. next to her is dominique strauss, and, fellow citizen of france, managing director of the fund, next to him is zhu min to his move from the bank of china and is not deputy governor of the peoples bank of china. the institution that manages approximately $2.5 trillion. so very important person in the institution. and next to him is deputy

chairman and i think i've remarked before in this place in addition to that, my very first boss. we worked together 40 years to go. i hate to say this. and finally immediately to my left is administer yoshito segoku in the office of japan. what are the issues? was far as the recovery is concerned, the short-term, a friend of mine, maybe his name is foreign policy said that the funds are an acronym for these recovery, which he was giving me as i mentioned in a blog is loved, luv is for the shape of the recovery of the european union. he was for the shape of the recovery of the united states and v. is for the shape of the recovery as asian-american

countries. and i rather like the sacrament. it seems to me to get it very well. and that very mixed picture, in terms of dynamism and overheating, obviously a great speed question about how stimulus should be withdrawn and for what to buy and how to differentiate it should be, obviously a very big question. and that in turn depends very much on whether we should do the recovery where not having as being a genuinely private sector. were seeing generally private sector like recovery or are we still relying on this simply staggering policy stimulus. i would like to remind you that the monetary and fiscal policy settings in the developed world today have simply no historical precedent, never seen anything like this in peace times. so that creates a huge issue in terms of how were going to get out of it, where the type should occur. but in the longer-term issue is

we face, you all know some of the issues, global imbalances and exchange rate policies, an issue which is being looked at at the behest of the g-20, the new institutional format for global discussion of the multilateral assessment program. we have the huge outstanding issues of financial sector reform which got quite a job last week as everybody knows that the announcement by the president of the voelker rule, which shot, astonished, amazed and excited and thrilled i should say people around the world. and we have of course on a bigger level, to, quite fundamental transformations in the relative success inside the nation, economies, the extraordinary rise of china, india and clearly the discredit

into which we must care about into which the western models have fallen and that raises the question of what the new normal as mohammed valerian causative going to look like. so as the background with that, let me turn first of all to view his view on the first dream to dominique strauss-khan. >> thank you, martin. i think in a nutshell, the news are better, we all know this. gross is coming back sooner and further than expected good i will have you keep in mind that this is still fragile and it's mostly fragile because when you look at the figures, it appears clearly that even this gross figure is rather good in the last we have from the u.s. are really increasing. a large part of this is still supported by public funding and the private demand is still

rather weak. so the question of when should we exit from the stimulus, which has been put in place, let me remind, by the way, that the idea of the stimulus in this stage two years ago by your leadership here at >> by you. >> thank you. okay, now we need to exit. >> so is it time to end that? >> there are two problems. the first one is that obviously the recovery is the most speedy recovery. i like your act around. it shows clearly that the asian part of the world has now closed to the total recovery. it's not exactly the same thing in europe. and so the question that dealing with the different speed than the recovery, especially in the relationship between u.s. and china is something you have to look at with great attention.

were not aware of the recovery as it looks as if it was the same thing. it looks to be sluggish, at least in europe. maybe in the united states as if that's one of the problems looking forward. if we turn to the exit, the question is of only a modest speed that the fact the situation is totally asymmetrical. if we exit too late, even if on a different time of course, if we exit too late as a way for resources and policy is increasing public debt and we should avoid it. we should avoid it. but if you exit too early, then the rest are much bigger. and even if our government and ims is available, the only reason why this kind of double that they may appear would be that the exiting of the after stimulus would we do go too fast and would be too early. and in this case, frankly, i don't know what it would do. because most of all the things we had in the toolkit has been used on the margin side on the

fiscal side. so they know that the risk is high if something like this happens. so it's really asymmetrical and because of the fiscal system ability problem is going to be one of the biggest problems, maybe the biggest problem in the coming years, but is also to be a problem for several years. the question is not a three month earlier or three months later. will have to deal with this for five, six, seven years depending on the country. the really the aftermath between exiting too early and exiting too late is very strong and our nation of course is not to exit too early, which means probably that all that has been paired for 2010 in terms of stimulus has to be really implemented. another pointed like to make very quickly is that besides the stimulus, one of the biggest things that have been discussed during the crisis was effective reform. and finally, we come to grips with this private sector reform,

another very bold proposal has been made. you just mentioned that obama's proposal has been proposed in the u.k. and i only have to applaud to the fact that the momentum, political momentum to deal with the financial sector is still there. my affair is that we may have this occasion forget one of the key lessons of the crisis, which is coordination. in the financial sector reform has also to be court made it. it has big risk of things that will be done in the country trying to fix the problem of the old problem of your own country, limiting the risk for your own taxpayer and creating problems in other countries. it's obvious that if you just have the kind of insurance whether you deal with the liquidity of your own financial sector and ask it to be the high level of liquidity, you may create problems in the rest of the world.

so the question of coordinating this financial sector reform is for me a top priority and i'm a bit afraid that we are not going exactly in this direction. so to key messages. first, the situation is better, fragile. let's look a lot on what's going on in the relationship between the traditional western world and asia, especially china. second message, we have to go ahead strongly in the financial sector reform, much more rapidly than has been done until now in the political pressure cannot wait for supervisory plans and the traditional time it takes to make this kind of reform. but we have to do it in a very corrugated way. and admit it has been asked by providing in april a report on this question of the contribution of the financial side you're to the resolution,

something like this. and i think that this proposal may be helpful to try to coordinate the different idea, which haven't been proposed until now. >> thank you rematch. welcome to the financial sector reform issue later on. i'd like to turn to you and i would be particularly interested in how far you agree other big change as mr. turned 11 has said if we were dollars stimulus too soon. >> martin, i agree with that principle and although it's not new, but i think that particularly now timing is absolutely critical. and i'll try to give you three examples. we used to operate under the principle of the triple t. last year, he would have to be temporary, targeted and timely. i'm afraid myself now under the triple our principle, where we have into the recovery and we have to empty the stimulus

package that we have and we're certainly going to do so. we have to keep up with the reform program that we have so that the economy becomes flexible enough to pick up the win as it comes. and third, we have to restore that finance. in the time of that and the balancing between the recovery process that has to continue, the reform that needs to be maintained and the restoration or the restoring of public finances is a tough line to draw. the second example of what timing i think is critical and has to do with the economy and the point that dominique just made is how do we combine the public opinion frustration and the necessary time that will take for the banking industry to restore some of its parameters and rehabilitate itself with those public opinion? big-time issue. what do you describe and what we're going to hear from other speakers is that we have this

luv. i think the shape of the al is different from the capital l. as we see it. the clearly it is going to grow slower in terms of accounted growth, relative to emerging market. and we see it clear -- you know, it's like tectonic plates which are readjusting and rescue readjusting at the moment. the question is, how do we regulate, combine, take enough leadership to control the overheating that is likely to take place either on the economic front or on the social, political front, depending on whether you are in a rocket growth country or in a slow growth one. again, a climbing issue. >> i certainly want to come back and talk a little bit more about what's happening in the euro cents. i think there's a very interesting discussion on that case or the lowercase. but either way the downlink has been rather horrible for many countries. but in fact, i think lisa ball

for france of the big countries in europe, including here of course, the u.k., so i congratulate you on the resilience of your country and this crisis. i'm not going to turn to montek ahluwalia four of what you view as much different and no doubt like a doll, just question of the size of the ugly. in india, you did have a slowdown in growth. is this all over and how do you see the prospects renewing indian policy in the next year or so >> tank, martin. well, certainly no downlink in terms of gdp as you say. i mean, after four years of growing a 9%, the next two years we average about 7%. domestically of course, you know, when you could use 29% and all that goes than an outcome even a tea federation is a natural concern but there's no doubt that the economy, like in many other countries, like in

asia, has weathered this very well. we assume now that assumedly get back to some kind of global normal, even if it's not the normal, we would hope in the coming year, or century begins in april. we would look at what comes from 7.5% this year to something over 8% next year and then get back to 9%. there's a lot of questioning obviously, that if the global new normal is now going to provide the export, export less demand to support this, why do we assume that we can get back to 9%? and our answer to that isn't going to to be domestic investment led, domestic investment replacing what would otherwise be in export demand. and that investment should be in infrastructure. i mean, that's the biggest thing lacking in india. so we're really working on whether we have enough projects

ready, whether we have the domestic financing mechanisms to support it and obviously they will have to be some external financing also and we're going to move from what was the kind of smear balance kindness account to a somewhat larger deficit. but i don't think the deficit would be more than 2.5% of gdp. and i think with the expected revival and capital flows that can be easily financed. the big question facing us and elsewhere is the whole issue like everybody else, we also resorted to a stimulus. i mean, if you measured the stimulus of how much did the fiscal deficit go up, the combined dataset of the central and state governments? it was about three percentage points higher in each of the two years of the slowdown. now, we are greatly helped of course by the fact that earlier the high indian deficits used to be compared with the master criteria didn't look very good. right now, this is the whole

point about comparing deficits, to look at what's happening elsewhere, we're reassured that the indian deficit is lower than the united states, lower than the united kingdom, growth is much higher. the debt ratio is not that much different. so really all the fears it might have existed about the microeconomics shouldn't exist today. but the signal we are clearly getting is we need to get back in the medium term to a more reasonable fiscal deficit position. it's not our view that the present fiscal deficit, which would probably be about 10% of gdp, taking both the center and the states together. it's not our view this is normal thing. i would want to bring it down gradually and that's a policy would be handout. meanwhile we hope that we can see a continuing rebound in investment. now the good news i and is that the successful performance of the economy in the short run has in fact created a lot of confidence in the air. in fact, there's a marked

difference in mood in asia in the mood let's say in the industrialized world. maybe we ought to be more worried about it. but the impact is investors are really quite happy. i think of supply-side or economies which have demonstrated a capacity to grow. so on the supply side is now a problem, we just need to make sure there's a global rebalancing of demand works or is managed. >> thank you rematch. and i think it's a very, very important point to stress the solvency relates not only to the deficit but also towards the growth of the denominator in nominal gdp in the country which is growing nominal gdp way over 10% a year. this is a rather easier than one worth actually thinking obviously a central point. and i can also imagine some pleasure in pointing out the number of developing countries with much bigger fiscal deficits than yours after all the lecturing that you have received. i am not going to turn, were talking about asia to asia's

developed country, japan. , which has been very hard hit by the crisis but initially has been to bounce back, but with the huge decline in gdp because it was so sharp. we're now going to turn to minister sat down for his remarks in japan. i think he will be speaking chinese. >> translator: thank you, mr. chairman. it is my great pleasure to be able to be with you at this annual meeting of the world economic forum. i'm very grateful to you. in terms of the short-term outlook, as well as long-term issues, probably there will be a better part of this discussion which will take this point not in terms of short-term issues.

now, in the process of correcting the excessive consumption in the qs, so it will take some time in our view. however, the year before last closed and asia afford in our economy and from that fold, japan and other countries in asia led by the growth of the asian economies and the china in our stimulus package of fiscal and financial stimulation. we are now on the track of gradual recovery. however, in the case of japan, when you look at manufacturing industries, the rate of operation is still 80% recovery is still at that level. therefore, we have a latent internal unemployment pair of ip very of business corporations. in other words, many companies

try to maintain the employment without laying of the workers here and therefore, we have relayed to be on the road to recovery. so that's how we see the set of economy now. but on the 19th of september last year, we have achieved a change of government that is the first in the government in the history of the japanese politics and of the democratic party of japan began the prime minister. this is a remarkable thing in history. we have 120 years of parliamentary democracy and the 65 years have caused since the end of the world war ii and the

85 years, establishment of a democratic element. and we have seen the substantiative change of the government at this point in time. now, when you look at the issue of economic structure, when you look at the post leave men years, where we had suffered not only in the world economy. also, suffered not only short-term, but would have to go through the major change in medium for long term. we have to achieve this or to change. so at this point in time in terms of economic culture of the political took place. in other words, we tend to -- rely on the external demands in order to change the economic structure of japan more dependent on domestic demand and

dependent more on the manage intensive services industry led by technology. so, maybe it will be lean and shock. maybe the case that we give us the opportunity to change the economic structure and it has a historic significance that we now are faced with this mission of changing the japanese economy. i'd like to conclude at this point here. >> thank you very much, minister segoku. we can't discuss with the structural changes might mean, particularly if we're moving towards more domestic demand economies and everybody always promises this end as i pointed out in a recent column by my rough and ready calculations, at least 70% to 80% of world gdp is an countries assumed to be

opening for expert lakers. it would be helpful if we diminish that proportion somewhat since mars probably isn't a very good import market. and now let me turn to the new asian giant in china, which has had an astonishingly successful stimulus program and a remarkable performance last year, which some about and i have to admit i am among them was somewhat skeptical about. so congratulations. and we hear a lot about the overheating bubbles and obviously the government is now withdrawing thinking or trying to rebalance the economy in terms of the success demand. and so what that 2010 hold for china and relationships with the world, zhu min? >> thank you, martin. china has had a good year and

will have gdp growth of 3.7%. but behind the number, i would say the structure is much more balanced. it is very strong at 16.6%. and if you're looking for the regions. east coast they have a lower growth rates around the 7% but the middle of the west have a 12% to 14% growth rate. so within china, the regional unbalancing has been improved. in the real world era has been improved in health care, education centers have been built because they support the stimulus packages. and also, social systems have been started building up. i think that those are the things behind the numbers. however, if you're looking for this year, the new challenges emerge. the full challenge is not as a self inflation and adaptation. i say inflation is not yet as

abductee shin emerges. it is 28.7%. in the long growth rate is a 31.7%, is very strong. a lot of liquidity in the market. old rule chinese still have a 0.7%. but in december, the cpr number jumped to 1.9%. if all the private all of the barrel and the enterprise still has precious upsides. it will further reform the prize, for example, and the particular growth in the path of humans much more stronger than m2, this means the cash flow when the growth is stronger than the general base. so that means the philosophy that should increase.

so that was part of this inflation adaptations. so we think that will be a very important issue for china policies this coming year. the second issue still moves in structure change and also overcapacity is. the structure issues in china and the remaining structure issue for years. obviously, the consensus and lower investment is very strong. yes, 15.6% is very strong, but we have to present investment growth. they sold all to each other. and we will pay more attention to stimulating domestic policies. further viewing the solution as health care, education, pension systems and allowing to the keep doing that to make sure there is something. and the way we hoped or

expecting this year in the gdp growth rate in the consensus contribute should will more or less equal to investment. but that's the target it allows me to do. the overcapacity also is a big issue to laster was very strong growth,. whatever 16% industry growth, but the head is 22% like industry growth, with the strong growth the capacity increase for example china has a steel mill 700 million total of domestic demand is roughly 520 million. with around 182200 overcapacity of the steel mill which is a part of the big issues. the things that happen are the few things that would understand

the consumer is around. last year we had an active 16% export jobs. so we have to be carefully managing the overcapacity issue which obviously is an issue for restructure. >> been they are still challenging the micromanagement of china. i very much agree with dominique strauss-khan's comments that it is still very fragile. we expect to see economic growth on the international arena this year. and particularly, within the u.s. economy, we have a increase quarter by quarter which obviously will have impact on china because for him to china's exports. and so what the consensus of macro management policy will turn to accommodating relatively accommodating and monetary

policy and make sure a baseball macro management to make sure the growth would pass the whole eurobond, which is also a major challenge. we are shooting for roughly 80% or 9% of gdp growth rate, but we're confident we'll get the number they are. but the key issue for china is not number rising, rather the quality and efficiency, the structure. we want a more balanced, more content driven this year with all the policy enhanced will probably be there, hopefully the international environment as a good. >> obviously, one of the many issues you raised there as if investment is growing at this rate and there is such an enormous excess capacity in some crucial industries, many people are very concerned that when we look at the picture in 2011, capacity will be even greater. and perhaps later we can come to the question of whether the chinese government has anyway of

getting a handle on that issue which i think terrifies the wits out of many people around the world. and the numbers you gave, if i remember correctly, your excess capacity and steel must be roughly the total production of the european union and vastly greater than the production of the united states or japan, which are after all not small economies. this is quite a phenomenon. how does the recovery to to you for your industry and argue back to monday and? many people say you're back to making fortunes for yourself, but there's no credit growth in any of the significant economies how far is the genuine heating of the financial sector as it bears on its capacity to support growth, particularly in the developing world where the problem over the next year or so, before we get to the

financial structure issues. >> thank you. well, i agree with christina probably in a somewhat pessimistic for europe, but i also think the untv is also optimistic for other regions. if you look on macro numbers, i think that, is leading because as many of you know in the investment sector, if you look at different segments for the correction has been 30, 40, 50%, even growth rates of 5% means that you will have years to wait before you reach the pre-crisis level. that's why you think the situation is still pretty fragile. and if you look at the financial markets, they have become pretty nervous again. there are a lot of threads on the rise in. there is inflation in some parts of the world. it's clearly the commercial real estate in some parts of the world. it's also what you're seeing in terms of characters. but of course also it has become

a major issue, legacy assets still in the banking system. so all in all i would say we better keep everything on the somewhat coarse. the banking sector is clearly benefiting from the tremendous initiatives been taken by government and by the central banks. but there's also of course the risk of the timing and the impact of the exit strategy, which is unknown to all of us because we have never come to it. and on top of that, we have a complete change in the geopolitical, what you just mentioned margin, these adjustments to the chinese growth, to the chinese capacities means a lot for the other parts of the world. and i think we have to go with that. and in the sufficient stage from a geopolitical situation you

have the superpower dominated to a multi-public world you will see a a lot. you will see a lot of the tv. and now for banks, those who have been more enough fair trading has been successful. also due to the fact that there was a lot of significance in the market. those who are more exposed to the real economy clearly have seen that the fault rates are going up and the situation in many parts is still not very satisfactory. and so, some of the legacy assets are still on the balance sheet. they are lending of course to this story, if the real economy slows down so much as it has done, the demand for credit is also lower and that has to be taken into account in talking about numbers. it is also true that the regulatory uncertainties and issues that have come out for

those of the rich get awareness that led to a more cautious credit policy which has an impact on the credit supply. >> thank you very much. and again underlined the eastern developed world is extreme sense of uncertainty, very much a contrast of course with a very different challenge we see facing indian and chinese policymakers. finally in this round, i'd like to turn to you, larry. how does the u.s. download in the global context you've seen set up. i one issue that i'm particularly interested in your comments on the sort of growth rate forecast were seen for the u.s. at the moment and for europe as well do not suggest any significant tightening in the later market. it will continue to be heading over of high unemployment, very high unemployment in the u.s. in a way showing the flexibility and the rapid rise in

productivity. does that concern you not only as an economic policy matter, but even of a political matter in terms of maintaining the general thrust of an open integrated world economy? >> martin, thanks for being here and more or less thanks for the question. [laughter] what we are seeing in the united states and perhaps in some other place is a statistical recovery in the human recession. gratified the most recent gdp figure, is suggest that the policies to contain economic collapse have been successful. and my judgment and i think most people who put out gdp growth wl continue at lea

rate for the next several quarters. what is disturbing is the level of unemployment. and this is not just a cyclical, but a heavy cyclical phenomenon, but a structural phenomenon as well. just to put it in a way that it's not usually put. one in five men in the united states between the ages of 25 and 54, is not working right now. in the reasonable extrapolation would be following the reasonable recovery. it will still be one in 741 and eight who are not working. that's in contrast to the mid-1960's, when 95% of men between 25 and 54 were working.

that suggests quite profound issues that will ultimately impact politics. they impact the decisions that businesses make an underscore what president obama emphasizes and then state of the union address a few days ago, the embassy of jobs. and i might also suggest the primacy of maintaining the flow of credit to medium-sized businesses as a policy object dave. i am very optimistic about our support for an integrated global economy. i think for a whole set of reasons, the diversity of this

population, the openness of its institutions, the way in which it serves as a magnet for people from all over him. i think the united states is very, very well-positioned to gain from increased to global integration. but it's going to have to work for people. it is going to be politically sustainable. and that's why the job, the credit agenda are so very crucial. i might just also say that while i believe very strongly in the importance of growth oriented policies today because no one is going to have a healthy fiscal situation in a global economy that's not growing at a reasonable rate. i think it is also essential to

recognize and maybe this is a segue to our medium-term discussion that in the united states and in other parts of the industrialized world, you know, we're somewhat unique in the united states in doing every six months a careful ten-year budget projection. our projects become particularly salient. those are done in most other countries but if they were done in most of the year industrial countries in the same way our commercial budget office does that, it would not be pretty. and our ability to maintain constant over the short to medium term will depend not on taking over the rapid fiscal consolidation, which i think could be quite problematic, but in finding ways to provide confidence that over the medium-term we are not entre

jack reese good word that grossing at least more rapid than income. and so that to is a crucial part of the american macroeconomic policy picture, i think these to be kept in mind as a general issue. >> i feel remiss if i didn't address this issue now. i'm convinced there's an interface between them, which is how the external environment, without getting in the external environment, particularly relating to the balances program which is also being addressed and i don't think it's an issue we can avoid. exchange-rate policies around the world including those of china. how relevant you feel those sorts of questions are for the sort of short to medium term prospects of the u.s. or how much essentially they are still

within your own domestic control but there is no external bierman isn't found a constraint on your ability to deliver the sorts of outcomes that you need not only in terms of gdp but in terms of isaiah generating jobs for these people. i presume many of them have lost jobs in manufacturing. >> is up for me? >> that's for you. >> i will leave exchange rates to the secretary of the treasury, but i will relate very well to dominie comment that not anyone can have export led growth. in the way we get to that picture i imagine dominique is the countries that conditionally have export led growth desire to continue that export led growth and the countries that haven't had export led growth and has been substantial borrowers desire to reduce their

borrowing. and there isn't adding up problem and i think it's quite serious. and we do need some policy reorientation. ..

>> one of his last points he made in the writings were he died, paul samuelson amp sized the principal, some of the moat important qualification for the standard a economic arguments of for free tread went to situations in which there were significantly unemployed resources, with and aggregate demand short falls, and went with to situations in which merchant policies were being pursued in some parts of the world. i think the rebalancing issue is important both as the lingo in a conjunct choral con tect. >> i'd like to bring the

conversation to dominik straus. there are two issues that you might want to stress, the first one he discussed which is very interesting new initiative who is actually mandated by the g20 leaders themselves. you're supposed to produce some estimates of the compatibility, the adding up around the world, the big countries by april. and then also where we are on the financial reform question. you raised particularly yourself the question of are we all doing this in a coordinated way. we have a global financial system. obviously, everybody knows there was tremendous anxiety or distress whatever it may be or stressed about the sudden announcement by president obama last week. perhaps you would like to address those questions as well. >> well, thank you, martin. on the first question, i think the question of imbalances are

looking a little better than the before the prizes. if you want to make make -- we had a huge council with huge deficits, namely the u.s. and the huge council with used services, namely china. now what happens? on one hand the u.s. consumer is saving more. and i think this is going to be last for a rather long time because of important change in the household behavior. if it's the case, that's good news for the balances. maybe bad news for growth, we'll come to that later, that's good news though because more saving means less deficit on the current side on the accounts. on the other hand, the china the strong stimulus put in place was basically to shift from a totally export-led gross model to domestic-gross type model.

this also goes with a rebalancing of the situation. so on both sides things are improving. is it enough? obviously not. when you are looking to the new sources of growth and when you are asking yourself who's going to replace the u.s. consumer, it's this guy is going to consume less, then everybody's highs are turning to emerging countries, including china and hoping that decrease in u.s. consumption will be altered by the increase in emerging countries, consumption, china, india, brazil, and others. the problem is it doesn't add up as easy, it would take a lot of time to get the same kind of product. it's very difficult to shift this gross model in china. and so what we're being asked to do we the g20 and the first run will be provided by the minister in april is a kind of just assessment of what's going on.

when you take from the different forecast and countries, does it add up? does it make sense? or is there some inconsistency? obviously, we're not ahead of the process, but we already see there will be a lot of inconsistency. and then there, a second stage from april to the meeting of the leaders in june, where some policy can be suggested to correct those inconsistencies, some stimulation can be made to try to see, okay, having the figures which don't add up, what can we do to avoid the distortion and try to have a more overrated way to look at the future. i think this exercise, which is totally new had nothing to do with the different kind of forecast we had before. it may be very useful. but of course it relies on the cooperation of the g20 members and the willingness to work together and look at the problems together. i think the very strong consensus that took place during

the crisis at the beginning of the crisis is still there and the willingness to work together is still there. that's the part of hope. we will see how this exercise goes on. i think that really it's very important for the global economy to be able to see that we went through global prizes, there's no domestic solution, there can be only global solution. but to be able to assess the global solution, you need to have a vision of the kind of gross model we may have after the crisis, which may not be the same one after the crisis. now on your second point, i said a word about this before. a large part of the crisis relied on the lack of regulation, adequate regulation and superrer vision in the banking sector in the u.s. and

also in many other developed countries. they having a big coal to try to reform the system, trying to avoid legality and technical things in which i'm not going to elaborate. a lot has been done. it would be totally unfair to say the progress has not already been done. in my view, it's not enough. it's taken a long time, 12 years. but we don't have 12 years to build the reform of the new -- the final sector today. so we need to speed up. and the political pressure in most advance economies is very strong. and so i do understand why president obama and others may have to propose things. i think going in the right direction in maintaining the momentum of the political will to do something. now the point is, as i mentioned before, that we cannot have

different kind of regulation and different kind of solution in the different part of the world. this will not work together. and even not only to have been consistent, but it may also create new kind of problems. so my call is really a call to a more coordinated way. i think this is interesting. i can have some reservation on one part or another. but that's not the real issue. the real issue is that we want to do something to mitigate the risk of a new financial crisis, i'm not saying avoiding, we will have other kinds of financial crisis in the future, if you want to mitigate the risk, then we absolutely need to put in place which today are not really looked at potential. let me give you just one example. the one my institutions is working with every day. the banking has been one of the

major issues. and the way for one country have subsidiary and the other country what they are doing in subsidiary or creating, solving part of their problem as home but creating new problem elsewhere. this kind of sense has to be addressed. and we cannot have a reform of the system which will only deal with the problems seen by each country for it's own financial system. and again it may seem to you a very simple thing. obviously, but in the reality i'm afraid that we are not following this route. that's why i call on a much more coordinated way to look at this financial kind of reform. >> can i follow that up? i have a number of aspects. from your point of view, are the regulators the problem or the solution? >> well, they are absolutely part of the solution. and i must say that the dialogue

between policy and political leaders rev late the and bankers have to come very, very constructive indeed. i think we all know something has to happen quickly to restore confidence in the system. if i would -- if i may distinguish between three layers. the first layer is absolute harm monoization on a global level. that is for all of the aspect that is compete. this is capital a requirements, liquidity requirements. then you may have a second layer and for domestic reasons somewhere different revelations in the united states or you name it. and the third layer, this is the more complicated one is where some countries start adding new taxation for whatever reasons or are changing the business model. now how you do that on a global level? first of all, what is the impact on efficiency of the global financial system?

and secondly, of course, what does it mean in terms of complexity for managing global banks. that's why i'm saying in all of these aspects, i think we are in all agreement that things has to happen. but we need some sort of grandfathering. we also have to ask ourself what is the tradeoff? glen the tradeoff needs a impact study, not only an a corporate level for banks, but also on the economic side. we can stabilize in the real banks by having huge capital ratios but maybe the lending is no longer available. and many other things or what does it mean if you have specific regulations for certain activities for the efficiency and liquidity in certain markets? so in that sense, it is much more complex than we should start introducing it. while we are introducing, we may be able to adapt.

our goal is, this is the global task, not only ton resilient to shots, but also to help the real economy and the people to grow and prosper. that is also due through the mind. it's an optimization issue between stability and efficiency. if people think we can move back from market-based system to bank-based that would be an illusion. we are too far advanced in the global economy. >> thank you very much. i'd like to turn to -- do you want to make a comment on this issue? [speaking in native tongue] >> reporter: in the face of subprime loan issue, the lehman

and it led to the global financial crisis and what is described as investment is now speculation in very short-term sell through behaviors and also the multiple times of leverage. so a sheer speculation and in the background there was the state of global excess liquidity so far away from the demand of the real economy. i think it is the view shared by everyone here. so then the extreme bubbles bursting and then another generation of bubbles and bubbles. but after 1990, in the process of a globalization of 20 years, that kind of policy has been repeated in the world economy in

a way. so we need some kind of global center of regulation will be needed. or maybe the case like international solidarity tax to tax the transaction of currencies and others, and that tax revenue could be used for the aid assistance in developing countries or for alleviating the global involvement of issues. and whether the government in the world would agree to that and accommodate to that. that i think is a major issue. now we in japan or asia, shall i say, we have this philosophy of living with the name. and we always look at medium to long-term investment. i think capitalism in essence has the ethical backbone and

linking. so the lesson we should learn is the cap capitalism to nurture and grow the economy, not the level of capitalism of selling through and to serve the real economy. and the requirement. so capitalism should undergo a major change. the world -- the entire world should not look at the financial transactions short term telling and the abstract. without that it could cause entire fatigue of the economy. now in japan, it is committed to continue to excel in our manufacturing activities and ecological technology like a

clean energy and transit and marine and so forth. such advance technology we are willing to offer to all of the countries in the world and to make it as a part of long-term project but all and this is going to be a party of a national strategy to cooperate with all of the countries. >> your language is more or less identical to that of the french president. and so two very major industrial countries both think that capitalism needs comprehensive reform. the issue is probably a little bit beyond the panel. but it's certainly on the table. and then there's another sort of capitalism we hear constantly about state capitalism. and it's impact on the world. so that brings it perfectly you to zhu min, i'm going to raise a couple of structural issues with you.

some of us think that $2.5 trillion in reserves might be enough. and that maybe there are higher return investment and some of us wonder why you are so determined to let the federal reserve make your monetary policy. which is you -- as your own government has pointed out is wildly inappropriate for china now. so this is an issue about how you manage your external policies in the medium term. exchange rate, reserve accumulation, monetary policies, how is that going to evolve? it has impact on the world. and that fits very well with china's idea about the medium-term structure shift towards consumption and towards a better-balanced is going to exceed in the post-crisis era. how do you see them fitting together? >> basically, thanks for the question though. and as we mentioned and it is

the process to us a pure export-driven that is not sustainable. so we have to change it. we're working on it. and i think everybody would agree with with me, last year things are being improved. but it takes time. it's a structure issue on -- in the front that's income distribution issue. it's in the back, @ the social issue. a lot of financial instruments, will people be able to borrow money? but the real fact is that china get rich only goes through one generation. in uk, it takes 150 years from poor to other income. in the states it takes another six to 80 years, three to four generations for people to get rich. so the behavior is different. our is a old-fashioned process. this is the glasses okay, i will not turn them away to buy the

crystal. although my income will use it. this is allow us to be behind. we really want to increase domestic consumption, it would take some time. internationally, the $10 trillion a year. chinese together has more than 2 trillion, $1.65 trillion. so there's still very imbalance of structures. this is a lot of international cooperation to manager of the structure change for us to increase the consumption and afford other side to decrease consumption and increase savings intel. i think this is the fundamental. i think the whole thing is everybody see that. and everybody working on that. we saw on the other side, the increase and also the kind of deficits on the drop side and consumption stabilize.

and the up to have in china and india, for interest. but there is a lot of policy cooperation on the international level. because it's absolutely a global issue. and it's a long-term issue. you cannot do the whole thing over night. i'll tell you the good news, if the young people in china have a very different consumption pattern. they have $200 million to $220 million. that will hopefully buy more. but i don't know whether they can borrow money because they have no money. well, that's the position. the second issue is yes, china accumulated a lot on the exchain. everybody talk about that. this is a problem; right? how can we have no more money. people say you have too much money. how can this become a problem? that's the real issues sometimes that's difficult to understand. and feeling things, during the asia financial crisis, all of

the asia consumer need self-defense written. we need the reserve to protect yourself. otherwise, we are very vulnerable. we saw what happened in south korea, we have it in indonesia or whatever. they knew that. because of the kept it close and we still have enough for a reserve. i think it's a very important issue still today because within the globalization the result of the very global reserve system. and we with need those things. number two, this is a structural issue. the reason we need more reserve is because we have more savings. the reason we have more savings is because other side have a less savings. it's just a migration of the global savings in the different areas. we will be more than happy to have international cooperation on these issues to solve these issues. they are also require the

international cooperation and still long-term issue. i think this is an issue that needs to be solved and china is open and ready to engage in all of the process. >> i think that's a very impressive answer. i still have the change feel physician you sent a check $1,000 for every man, women, and child in china, they'd find some way to spend it. maybe that is a mistake. maybe thaw would invest it. they could -- the united states -- >> marty, do you want to chinese? [laughter] [applause] >> i don't think i'd make a very good chinese. [laughter] >> montek, how do you seek the structural problems? you have a very different picture in the world from china in this respect? nicely balanced, and this is just somebody else's problem. [laughter] >> how does it bare on your own

strategy? >> yeah, let me -- this is what you call a rich discussion in the sense that large number of issues have been raised. so i want to simplify a little bit and just take three points. we'll cover some of the different issues. the first is we've had a very good discussion on the rebalancing of global demand. i mean it's very simple. if you want to sustain a particular growth on the sir ply side which is feasible, it has to be the demand to sustain it. and we know that industryized country, some of the demand must go up. as far as india is concerned, we are contributing. we are trying to jack up investment, zoom in mentioned that china is jacking up consumption which is excellent. it makes sense from their point of view. consumption is a very small proportion of gdp. in this case, investment is good, but it's still 36, 37%. we want to raise that. the next result will be the deficit. not a kind of near balance.

so i think in that sense, we are small players in the big g20 group. but whatever it is, we are going to be contributing to global demand. now from our point of view to sustain that, we have to be able to finance the current deficit. so a lot of the financial reform issues that are being talked about are very relevant for us. we welcome the move in the global financial system to put in place a reasonable regulatory structure. actually, our banks will always -- what now is a great compliment we're boring backs. we weren't up there with the frontiers of the innovation. from our point the of view, the global regulation that's being talked about will bring the global norm closer to the more conservative thing that we are doing. though we will still have to move in the direction of financial reform and liberalization to get to what the world thinks.

we will do that. what we are concerned about is how is that going to affect flows towards developing countries. now in india's case, it could be argued that bringing in regulatory reform, once the system has settled down, should actually send more flows to developing countries. because we know that what was going on was an artificial creation of a belief that you could be highly liquid and on high returns in the domestic industrialized country market. that's no longer going to be the case. so where is it that high returns are going to be earned? maybe in the fast growing parts of the world. and when the financial sector has worked that out, which i hope they will, it should become possible for them to think that in the mediation of savings, it ought to be moving towards at least the faster growing emerging market countries. we are not going to be very dependent on commercial bank boring. so even if there's a temporary

constraint because the deleveraging. i don't think we are worried about that. our ability to absorb, to borrow what we want to absorb will not be affected. that is not just a matter of what happens in the financial sector, it's a matter of how people perceive globalization. so i'm hoping that we will get the the financial reform done, i'm hoping that it is a financial reform that will keep in mind that rational allocation of capital will mean more going to emerging markets and less going to exaggerated mortgages and et cetera, et cetera in the industrialized world, but a concern here is whether the regulatory reform will be a disguised form of financial protection. now that's an issue that as the form structure reform is played out, and we're glad that that's being done or should be done in the financial stability board.

which is now being democracyized, all of the g20 are members, we are participating in the process. i think we want to be sure that disguised financial protectionism does not find it's way into the system under the guise of improving regulatory structure. so the third point, that's going to affect a lot of, you know, investor animal spirits is what happens to all of the protectionist noise? now there is genuine concern around the world that there's too much protectist noise, there's actually also an appreciation that there's much more noise than action. and i think from a political point of view, we know that if you -- if you are experiencing a downturn, i think the point that larry made about the numbers of people who are out of a job because actually some of them have walked out of the labor force is much larger than the unemployment rate.

clearly, that's a political reality. the world recognized that. so i'm hoping that the protection noise remains noise and doesn't get translated into action. but, you know, one the issue that is we need to think about for the last five or six years in the industrialized world, the charge towards globalization and integration has been led by the financial sector. the manufacturing sector has actually taken it for granted and not been the leading force in pushing for the multilateral tradition negotiation, et cetera, et cetera, has really been the financial sector. now that sector as the moment can be in cricket termed, retired, nursing it's wounds, understandable, it'll come back. but as a result, in the short term you do not have in the industrialized world an organizized voice pointing to the need to maintain an integrated open global economy. as very encouraged by what larry

said. that this is a win/win situation. he said that yesterday on this forum. it's a win/win situation and in the u.s. is long-term interest and integrated global economy is very important. i think what's going to happen is that the ability of the world to resist protectionist pressure, which is actually now in the industrialized world. this is one of the great things. they were fighting a lot of nervousness in their country. we've done that. actually created a private sector that is open, confident, willing to get the on with the world. i think it's now going to be -- it depends on the quality of political leadership to make sure that something happening. this is where the doha comes in. the creditability for global action is going to be tested by

the doha, not my climate change. it's a very important issue, but it's a longer term issue. i find it very difficult to the believe that the global community can't resolve global transaction, it will be able to handle global climate change issues. thanks a lot. that's it. >> i'm losing control. you covered everybody. at least you've done my summing up. i'm losing control as i knew i would. it is the ultimate experience. i want to offer last word before we might get a couple of questions. if we are very disciplined, thinking about very, very short. looking at the new growth model and what we're going to do in the coming year, it's a different point. i don't want to address all of them. one is obviously that will be one of the main concerned for

many countries. another one is the one we are just discussing extensively on the relationship between surplus countries and deficit countries, and this thing. but the certain thing i would like to emphasis is the growth model obviously will be a low carbon growth model. and it may surprise some of you since we are conserved for imf, but it is. if i look at what happened in copenhagen, it seems to me the question behind the discussion was not only a question of binding requirement of thing like that. but also obviously a question of financing. and i cannot believe that the problem could be as big as we all know or saying that it may be the biggest challenge that mankind ever had to face that for several generations, the kids and the kids of our kids will live in a world that will be stopped by traditional

financing problems. so then if we have to think out of the box, then if it's obviously that the developing countried don't have the money to pay for adaptation and mitigation of the climate change problem, if it's that obviously that the developed countries don't have the money because they have this debt system, to regulate to the solution that we provide for this crisis, then have to find innovative way. we are going to provide some kind of idea, build around the green front, devoted to silence, $100 billion a year, which is commonly accepted for addressing the problem. it's based on a capitalization system coming from central banked backed by special rights issued by the fed. we are going to have a system that will be criticized a lot. that's not the problem. which provide a very innovative way to try to find the financing

to the deal with the question that cannot be seen as the huge problem with no solution. so the growth model out of the crisis is certainly has to deal with traditional question of growth model that's sustainability, imbalances, and those kinds of things. i'm not saying that's not important at all. critical importance. but also it has to do -- it has to be a low carbon growth model which means that the financing for this has to be provided and if it cannot be provided, obviously it cannot be through traditional and the way of balancing, then we have to find out-the-the box ideas and we are release a paper in a couple of weeks with one possible out-of-the-box with idea, obvious what we can do which is the issuance. i want to make the small

announcement. >>okay. [applause] >> another big structure issue. i'm particularly interested in two aspects, if you can very briefly, do you have anything to add to the financial regulation of things? and finally, there's the eurozone imbalances issued. many of us are concerned that the net pressure in the eurozone is fiscal contraction, and that will make it difficult to make a contribution to the global growth and the second largest economy. would you like to comment briefly on those two points? >> well, we would like to try to combine the two. because i think it's certainly the eurozone experience is relevant to the coordination that dominik was referring to. and coordination of economic policy, just like any coordination is extremely difficult. that's what we've been experiencing in the eurozone,

the eurozone has been existence for 10 years. but to coordinate and make sure we with adopt the same kind of policies and the same level is a tough call. it's an exercise of discipline that each remember has to adhere to. i have no doubt that all members of the eurozone understand the issue and understand the urgency of delivering against commitment. it's clearly an everyday test. so when dominik is referring to the need for coordination, and all of the panel speakers have referred to that need for coordination, i have -- i have enthusiasm and concern at the same time. and i believe that in the interest of time, which i believe is very much of the essence in the faceoff of public

opinion and readjustment between others and unemployment rising and many others, i think in addition to the long-term coordination goal that we should have which is difficult to accomplish which is a matter of discipline for each and every member, i would like to command the imf and ffb for the work they are doing. my suspicious is sooner rather than later they are going to have to enter into the job of reconciliation. rather than making sure everybody plays by the same rules and applying the same models, we're going to have to go to reconciliation exercise whether the rules applied here are consistent with the rules applies somewhere else and are trying to achieve the same purpose. if we look at the accounting ruling with for instance, and i won't bore you with the details, but if we look at the position taken by the fasb and the position taken by the iasb and

the goals and purposes of expectations in various corners, i don't see very well how we're going to converge in that respect. and clearly that's where, maybe as an alternative or pathway towards convergence and coordination, we're going to need the efforts. it's not the perfect solution. but in the interest of time, i don't see what an alternative would have at this point in time. >> thank you very much. we only have five minutes. and i'm going to take one question, on this stage. very pointed, does anybody want -- yes, the person has got their hand up there. i have a suspicious i might know this person. but of course i couldn't see him. >> i have to apologize, ft, four years almost to the day, the governor of the people's bank of china sat on examplely this

panel and committed china to rebalance demand away from investment and exports towards domestic demand and consumption and to slow the rate of growth and reserves. i don't now how we put it politely. we've had the same thing today. there might be a little bit of doubt in the commitment, can you answer why we should believe you more today than the boss four years ago? >> i cannot hearly clearly. >> the question was the promise you made for rebalancing, was made here four years ago by the governor of the people's bank. what is different this time? >> well, it's a long process. it's not an overnight thing; right? we're working on things. it'll probably be another fife or four years. but we're working on it. you will see the progress year

by year. i can promise you that. >> china is a very old country is the normal answer to these questions. time is measured differently there. i will take one more question. gentleman here, sorry, i can't see the back because of the light. would you stand up please? very sharp. wait, wait, wait, you need a microphone. >> it's my lucky day. >> you know, you are the man. very quick. the question is why i just don't understand why in appreciation of the exchange rate is not part of the rebalancing that you are talking about. even just a few days ago here you said that your seeing your currency stable. your currency should not be stable, it should just go up? okay. >> finally. finally. exchange rates, one issue --

>> one minute. >> i mean one and a half minutes. >> we will be short. >> as long as it's under your control. it's the issue within this rebalancing issue. but it's a small part. exchange rate, you will not be able to change the whole thing. we saw the experience in german, germany, we saw the experience in japan. the exchange rate are not necessarily changing the global tree bank. i think that's the very important thing. the second thing is china is a developing country and also big country on the stability, it's a big one. 70% gdp are sources we trade. a stable exchange rate, i think went the crisis coming in, global china also for the war, as i said, and when we're able or the other currency depreciated 20%, within doing.

it is a part in china as the stimulus package. we are sticking with the g20 meeting that the g20 meeting says the global was excess strategy. if the global is ready to do the excess strategy, china is ready. and including very sensitive equipment issues, exchange issues, and all of this issues. again, as i mentioned, and dominik mentioned, it's a lot of the global coordination. >> okay. i'd love to continue with that issue for the next two hours. i'm going make three points in 10 seconds from which i take to be the big takeaways. one, nobody is disagreed that -- surprisingly that the great danger is early exit from stimulus rather than late exit. which suggest they are not very confident about the sustained private sector recovery in the developed world. secondedly, there is no consensus on a completely new

capitalism. but pretty strong sense shouldn't be allowed to run quite as it be before. the new proposals need to be coordinated. and there's a lot of regulatory uncertainly out there. that clearly wasn't really disputed. and finally, this rebalancing discussion is going to be very, very long, and very, very messy. but at least countries are saying the right thing. because they do seem to realize that mars isn't a good export park. >> it could be long, but it could be more constructive. >> at least the panel is very constructive. i thank the panel. they have been excellent with the two subjects. remember south africa. [applause] [and you -- [inaudible conversations]

>> now a discussion of the possibly threat posed by a nuclear iran. exports discuss iran's nuclear program, u.s. foreign policy with the country, and options for a diplomatic resolution. hosted by the project for nuclear awareness, this is close to two hours. >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm bob edgar, i'm an united methodist preacher, i'm a former

member of congress, i was president of the yacht school, theological school, i was general secretary of the national council of churches, i'm now the president and ceo of common cause. my wife says i can't hold a job. i'm a little bit amused because i just got here from another opportunity that was actually was covered by c-span at hudson institute which is a conservative institute on the other side of the town. so it's good to be herer with all of you to talk about iran, nuclear nonprolive ration, middle east regional solutions. let me just tell you apart from my biography, why i'm qualified to be moderator. i've been arrested only four times, i have five honorary doctorate degrees, two of those times were out in nevada at the

nuclear test site, taking classes of seminary students to get arrested there. so i still have one more opportunity to even up my hon tear doctorate degrees with my civil disobese january. i also traveled with somebody who actually was in this building and is on the third floor. a young man named jim winkler, who heads the methodist church, we traveled to men rate the bravo explosion of nuclear weapons that was supposed to cover an area, small area, around an island that actually exploded and brought fallout on civilians, many, many miles away. many of whom are still suffering from that. i have some ability to talk about the middle east in april

of 1997. i paid my own way to the middle east and went to israel. in those days you couldn't fly directly to egypt after visiting israel. i went to greece and back to egypt. a young man invited my wife and i to come to alexandria to visit in the middle east peace issues. this is six month before the camp david peace of courts. and he said an interesting thing. he said he wished the old women was back, meaning naier. he thought he could talk with her and work with her. six months later as he was getting off the plane in tel aviv, they not only embraced, but they sat on a sofa and talked about their grandchildren. i've been back to the middle east on several occasions, i think the religious experience to baghdad in 2002 to try to

stop the war before it started. it was a religious delegation. we were doing a humanitarian inspection, not a weapons inspection. we feel the nation went in the wrong direction. you'll smile when i tell you i put a full page ad in the "new york times" that had a picture of george bush, and you it mr. president, you say jesus changed your heart. we play you'll change your mind. we had one the bishops in the methodist church speak directly to president bush. methodist, at that time, and tried to convince him that war was not a good idea. anyway, i'm excited about the opportunity of having the panel speak. how many of you are before nuclear weapons. i want to see a show of hands. i don't see any. we have the choir here. how many of you would like to see the middle east issues

resolved in a peaceful and -- yes, yes. we have a few other hands risen. we hope we can add some value to that. when i served across the street in the house of representatives, we operated on the five-minute rule. then if we wanted an extension, we would ask consent to extend for one or two additional minutes. one of my rules of thumb is to never have five people on a panel, because that takes for hours. but we have five people on the panel. and we have five dedicated people who are dedicated to staying under the five-minute rule. these are really, really, really important people. thoughtful people, educated people, people who have ideas and opinions. people who have deep roots in the subject.

because they have all of those qualities. so you are going to here from great people. i'm not going to give you a lot of their biography. because we passed some of that out. i hope each person will take an additional 30 seconds to tell us about your background in your own words. and what you don't cover, i may cover later. and point out some very famous thing about you. craig is going to go first. the chairman of the project for nuclear awareness. he's an expert on nuclear policy and ballistic missile defense, he's been a friend for many years. i greatly respect his thoughtfulness. i'm going to ask craig to begin under the five-minute rule with giving him additional 30 seconds to say whatever he wants about the background. >> thank you very much.

i started working on the nuclear issue in 1958 when i was 22 and in the u.s. diplomatic service. on a very important -- most diplomat left. and they said to me, now you're in charge of our nuclear and outer space program. and i said who? i looked back to see if my father was there. but i tell you, i basically disappeared for a number of weeks researching the topic and got myself up to speed. and then eventually ended up writing the outer space treaty. the problem of iran, which is our topic, is probably the most difficult issue facing the united nations in the world. the way to prevent states from acquiring the weapons is to

impose intrusive inspections but the international atomic energy agency. with a clear implication of violations will be met by stringent sanctions by the u.n. security council. that's the technique. in the case of iran, we have seen years in which iran has invaded nuclear inspection by the iea and has engaged in a game of accepting and withdrawing from policies where by the international community could guarantee that iran was not, in fact, developing nuclear weapons. the problem is complicated. but the fairly long history of bad relations between the united states and iran. in 1953, president eisenhower

authorized operation ajax which head to the arrest and overthrow of the government. that was in the 1953. so this dates way back. after operation ajax, muhammad was overthrown. on november 4th, a group of romanian students seized the u.s. embassy panel personnel for 52 hostages being held for 444 days. in the wake of the romanian revolution, they invaded iran with the clear support of the united states. just a lovely picture of donald rumsfeld shaking his hand. i'm sure he did not have it in his office.

the war continued for six years with iran suffering about half a billion to a million casualty casualtyies. that major insult was a statement by president bush that iran was a member of the axis of evil. not exactly a polished don diplomat. from the time of the this, the united states has not had full diplomatic relations with iran. in addition to this, the united states has strongly supported the nuclear program of israel, which constituted in the line of a major threat. it's now somewhere between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons with very precise rockets. the anger was made clear by ahmadinejad that denied they

even existed. this was a set of events which killed six and a half million jews and hitler's concentration camps. he denied that it even happened. so in dealing with iran, we're starting almost from scratch. the first step we have taken is to have diplomatic talks with iran. but clearly much more is needed to establish a relationship of confidence. meanwhile, however, we have seen iran with a fraudulent election, and execute protesters as the country becomes increasingly a military dictatorship as they take over the rules of the country. we strive for the security council to impose sanctions on iran for refusing to accept iaea

inspections, and if they have a nuclear weapon, we are in a dilemma. increased sanctions have been opposed by china and somewhat by russia what are somewhat dependent on the oil from iran. which is second -- which has the second largest oil reserves on the planet. although oil could come from other sources, like saudi arabia, they are not that dependent. in fact, we could make that switch very easy so that dependent on china, china's president has presented the company from iran could be switched. another problem is that the sanctions work is sanctioned in general. and the danger is that because

of these sanctions the population will unite with the government and the opposition will be radically weakness. the answer of sanctions is to impose sanctions which directly affect the revolution but not the people. have we now detailed the company, the banks which were the rebels that as assetting and it is perfectly plausible to get the support and imposed very directed sanctions. another parallel is to pursue to present negotiations with iran within would make all of the

nuclear material through a process outside of the country. we have tried to do that. iran has played foot si with us, as you know. by now, it is talked about enriching the iranian to 20%. which because of the tactic -- technical process between 20 and 90% which is the -- which is what you need for a nuclear weapon. what is to be done? obviously appointed sanctions, but beyond there a possibly of the nuclear free middle east. this would have to be guaranteed by the nuclear powers and would have to be credible not only to iran but also israel. is there any basic elusions to

the problem. is there an old joke about the middle east. the joke says an arab and jew die and go to have. they have the first audience with god. they are both agonized. they say, lord, lord, when will there be peace in the middle east? and god says, not in my lime thyme. -- lifetime. let's hope this story is not true. that we will eventually have peace in the middle east. :

>> okay. i'll bring them to me. i'm at the federation of american scientists. the federation was founded in 1945 by scientists who worked on the manhattan project who developed atomic bombs and were concerned about the development of weapons and have been working ever since for nuclear transparency and the abolition of nuclear weapons. i think there is no question the nuclear program in iran is a great concern to the entire international community. the fear is they are using this ambiguous civil nuclear program as a cover for a weapons, either

a balanced development or the potential to develop a weapon in the future. and many people talk about red lines. you are going to get to some point where we will be forced stacked. is that those red lines, the lines in the sand, whatever you want are not \ates on the calendar. they are measured in terms of iran's progress toward a bomb. the question then is what ti the potential to build a bomb. we had to guess at there potential. we knew that the pakistanis had sold plants from the europeans. fifty year old it centrifuge plants. so the assumption was that the performance of the centrifuge was roughly what the european machines of a half a century ago

would have been. we have some guesses for how many centrifuges they have, the capacity of each individual centrifuge. we knew how many. we multiplied together, and we got an estimate. what is different now is over the past year we have started to get results back from on-site inspections from the international atomic energy agency, people go there and take samples and sent samples back to labs in vienna and make measurements and published reports. and ivonka, a colleague, and i have been working backwards through that mathematics to figure out what the iranian capacity actually is. the iranians are appallingly bad at enriching uranium. they are just terrible. they are struggling to reproduce

50-year-old. their machines are operating at 1/4-1/5 of what the earlier estimates have been. the number of centrifuges has been going down slowly. the iaea might know, the inspectors might know why, but they don't report this. they respect. this is a legitimate commercial activity, and so they protect what they would consider trade secrets. there might be a variety of reasons. we have some evidence that in the past russians have sold uranium, i mean aluminum that is critical to the manufacture of the tubes that was not as good quality as it was supposed to have been. after a couple years the centrifuges wear out after stress. we don't know that, but we do know the number of centrifuges is going down. what this means is that if you think there is some point where we have to go, we will be get passed we are forced to action, let's say for the sake of

argument. the best thing to do is go and bomb the facility, whatever that point is, we are approaching it 4-5 times more slowly than we were a year ago. the clock is ticking more slowly. we are still living in the same direction. we have more time for negotiations. more time for sanctions, more time for diplomacy. let me just close by saying there is this question about iran has made the statement that they are going to start a enriching uranium to 20%. it is usable for nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs. for a nuclear reactor in the enrichment of 5%. for a bomb you need 90%. this is a quite significant jump. that says they are limited by and their ability to concentrate

uranium-235 it is far l ess-technically significant than it first appears. technically whether you are using your limited in its capacity to encourage a small amount of material a lot or a lot of material a little bit, and it doesn't change how fast you fill up the tab. and so it is just simply by concentrating, focusing their enrichment capacity on a small amount of material does not, at this point, speed up the process toward a break out toward a bomb. >> thank you. for an academic career usually talks in 50-minute segments you did really, really great. >> thank you. >> let's turn now to dr. trita parsi. he is president of the national iranian american council. he is founder and president of

it. an expert on u.s. iranian relations. we are glad to have you. >> thank you. thank you so much. i may be the odd man out on this panel because i would say that's probably my key point here is to say that the nuclear question is the footnotes. the headline on what actually is taking place right now is the internal developments. and all too often the iranian government has been all too clever and all two is due to at using the nuclear issue in order to divert attention from what is really happening inside the country. it is not a coincidence that the same week the government decides to execute a couple of people, essentially for protesting even though they were arrested before the protests, there are some wildly exaggerated statements made about the nuclear achievements knowing very well what the focus and the west will be. that is exactly the executions and suppression of the human-rights. i would say that we are now in a

situation in which the obama administration's efforts at diplomacy clearly has run into some significant obstacles. the conclusion seems to have been that the obstacles are there because the iranian government is not sincere and is not willing to engage in genuine diplomacy. that may very well be true. it may very well be that there actually wasn't any interest in diplomacy to begin with. sure. it may very well be true that there wasn't any particular interest diplomacy to begin with in iran, but it also may be a completely different explanation after as to why we have ended up in the situation. mindful of the political fighting and the fact that there is a significant conflict between the government and the people and a significant conflict within the elite themselves which has become an increasingly brutal and violent conflict in which it just this

past week the children and wives of opposition leaders were beaten and tortured by government-sanctioned militias. you are having a situation in which the country simply is politically paralyzed and is not capable of conducting a foreign policy in which it would steer a completely new course for its foreign policy. rather, under these circumstances it seems like there are two paths that the iranian foreign policy is driven by. one is bureaucratic inertia in which all decisions are just some place and continue to guide the foreign policy even though, perhaps, at a bit slower rate. secondly, the decision that within the political context are risk-limited as possible, which unfortunately does not include a decision to make a compromise with the west. the compromise with the united states and the iea within iran's political context is a risky and

at the same time potentially very profitable decision. it is a risky one. the non-risky ones, unfortunately, are the decisions to escalate and confrontation. now when it seems like the obama administration's path of diplomacy has come to an end, and we are entering the pressure path, we are interesting but pressure path at a time in which the internal political conflict in which the only way of responding seems to escalate further. >> wow. we are glad to have you here. i'm not sure we disagree as much as you might think about your conclusions. i want to turn to genevieve, director of the iran program. she will say a word about herself and speak for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you very much for inviting

me. about ten years ago i was a correspondent in i went to air on. i lived there for three years as a correspondent and was eventually expelled. since then over the last decade i have followed domestic internal politics in iran. that is what i thought would be my contribution today, to try and give you in the next five minutes a much, sort of, more in-depth idea of what is going on in the country other than what you might read in the newspapers. i will start with the opposition movement. i think that what we were just discussing a few minutes ago, there has been a lot of attention over the last week over the so-called the defeat of the opposition movement as a result of the protests and demonstrations last thursday, which was the 301st anniversary of the islamic republic and revolution.

i think that we need to see much far beyond what happened on thursday. yes, the opposition movement did not come out in great numbers as supporters for the state did. however, i think it is important to understand who this movement is and what they have achieved so far. despite the nice westernized faces that we are familiar with and that we see on the television news the opposition movement actually now is much more broadbased than it was seven months ago. it has come to include even the religious iranians, conservative iranians who historically have supported the state. so we have seen within the population some defection within the base that has really elected president ahmadinejad and that elected him five years ago and up until june still supported him. we have seen support within the labor movement even though they

have not seized upon calls for national strikes. we have seen that the labor movement now does, parts of it to support the opposition. at think we have to understand that this is a movement whose base is expanding. it is not just young people out on the street. at the same time, however, the movement, of course, has a lot of, they are facing a lot of obstacles. one of which is because of the movement's diversity it has no real leadership. what exists now, the figures you read about in the newspapers, the cleric, former president, these are the symbolic leaders of the movement. they are also leaders of the movement outside. some of whom are even in the united states. and so they receive, the grassroots receive a lot of conflicting instructions. that is one of the obstacles they face. they also, of course, this brutal force from the islamic

revolutionary guards and from the militias under their control. this is what they are facing in the long-term. they haven't, until now, seems to move the movement, the focus of the movement beyond the street protests, at least in concrete terms. what they have achieved in more abstract terms is more important. i think that this movement has really, to some degree, diminished theological underpinnings of the regime. this is a movement that now questions whether an islamic state, a theocracy, is viable in the 21st century. i think this is very, very important, at least a theocracy that wants to also function as a republic. this movement has also really questioned another ideological pillar of the regime, which is anti-americanism. this is a movement that is not necessarily anti-american politically in a political sense. this is a great threat to the

government because without this type of ideology that has basically perpetuated the islamic republic for 30 years this is a great, sort of, serious question to its legitimacy and credibility. so i think that these are some of the successes that the movement has achieved that really are far more profound than how many people they are able to gather on the street. now, what we know about, i guess, the stability of the state at this point is, again, we should not be misled by the millions of iranians we saw on the streets on television last thursday. even though the hard-liners to have a great constituency they have supporters in iran. they have a popular base. it is important to understand that they also face, as trita mentioned, great instability, more instability than they have ever experienced since the revolution. this is why we are seeing this increasing brutality and

aggression because the state feels that for the first time it is under great threat. why is that? it's not only because of the opposition movement. there are now serious cracks within the system. when i was in iran, for example, the two big secrets in iran have always been their nuclear program and where their clerical establishment, the system. even when i was in iran two years here you can say with some authority that a lot of the clerics within the establishment did not agree with the way that shiite theology has been interpreted since the revolution, particularly under the power of ayatollah. even 10 years ago many clerics did not necessarily agree with the system. they have expressed their disagreement very publicly. this very important part of the system, because it is an islamic state, no longer believes that the system has religious

legitimacy, and this is very, very important. what the opposition, i think, is able to do, is to allow these grievances within these very secretive corridors of power to be able to express themselves now. this is what the movement has done in terms of its, of making a much more profound impact than what we see on the streets. so, in inclusion, i guess because this is a discussion about the nuclear issue, i think one of the questions that is often posed, particularly in washington, if we had a different leadership in iraq, not the hard-liners in power now, would iran's position on the nuclear issue be any different? would they not want a nuclear enrichment program? would then not want to be some sort of regional power? and i have to say with some modesty that the answer to that question is probably no. if you look at even the position of some of the opposition figures and if you look at

iran's historical position on its nuclear program, it's fairly consistent. the big difference is the sort of constitution of the state and the players within the state, but their different behavior which could come about either through a political compromise allowing more moderates into the government, this would change the behavior of the state. so even, and from the last presentation it seems very unlikely, but even if in the near-future iran became a nuclear militarized state we would see a different behavior, and that is very important. >> thank you, geneive. our last panelist came in just a bit late. dr. jim walsh is research associate. just to brief you, all the questions that need to be answered have been. you have very little left.

>> that is consoling. i feel good about that. >> we are giving each person 30 seconds to tell us about yourself and five minutes to give your presentation, and then we are going to get lots of questions, but from me and our audience. >> terrific. and i have a little timer here to keep me honest. i'm jim walsh from mit. i apologize. i just got off a plane from boston. we had some bad weather and snow up there which explains why i'm wearing timberland boots with my suit which i know is uncool. in newfoundland -- >> we call that business casual. we had bad weather. we have been able to make ourselves feel better because we can turn to each other. most of my time is spent in cambridge, massachusetts. i am in iran or occasionally in

north korea. my focus is traditionally been how the countries make decisions on nuclear weapons, how they decide to pursue them. in most of the cases how is it did decide to pursue them. a vast majority initiator start down that path stop and reverse course. that is the unsuccess story. many more states have started down that path, stopped, and come back. this has relevance to the current situation because we would want to know under what conditions might iran change course and remain a state that does not have nuclear weapons. so, that is why i talk to iranians. i'm hoping to return. i have been invited to go back in april. you never know. but hopefully i will be back and have a better sense of things. i want to talk briefly about the nuclear program. most conversations about iran's nuclear program begin at the

end. the conversation is about sanctions or military action or we should be doing to stop iran. i prefer restarted the beginning and ask ourselves, why is iran behaves the way they do. then after holding hopefully try to understand that we will be in a better position to ask what the remedies are and ask ourselves whether our current remedies, sanctions and other instrumentalities actually match the diagnosis or whether there is a mismatch. as far as trying to understand iranian motivations, there are too broad competing theories. there is one that says iran is determined to get the bomb. everything that they do other than that is simply deception. they are playing for time. you can't take any of this seriously. the other theory which i associate myself with is that

the nuclear question is still to be determined. it is an open question and one that very might well be defined by what is happening inside iraq iran. we had a chance to test those there is reason the when we had the tehran research reactor deal. you remember this was a deal that was tentatively agreed to in october in which they would give up some low-enriched uranium and in return receive fuel rods for a research reactor. well, they agreed to that tentatively. then the deal fell apart when it got back to tehran. half the pundits on tv said, look, this just shows that are trying to be deceptive. of course if they're really trying to be deceptive you think they would have gone ahead with the deal rather than having it fall apart. that is exactly what happened. it went back to tehran. the deal actually endorsed by ahmadinejad. when it returns to tehran it was

attacked by reformists who said the deal was selling out iranian interest and anti-ahmadinejad hard-liners who said the same thing. one person came out and attacked the deal as a sellout as did the newspaper. in other words, unfortunately, iran has turned into the united states where people take positions not based on the merits of the case, but on who is supporting it. if my enemy is supporting this, then i'm going to attack it. so ahmadinejad's enemies on both sides, the reformists and the anti-ahmadinejad hardliners because there are divisions came out and attacked him, and the deal fell apart. what that tells me is that it is going to be difficult to negotiate with iran right now because of there their internal divisions. that is, you know, i don't like hearing that message, but that is what is inside. every four years we have an election in this country. every time that happens everyone

says, don't expect anything to get done. it is the president's election year. well, they just had a political meltdown six or seven months ago. this regime is deeply fearful that it may lose control or that things will turn against it. this is not the environment that is generally ripe for negotiation and big leaps of faith, a big risk taking on the parts of government. in fact, if anything, what governments tend to do under these circumstances is withdraw. we are facing a situation where they are likely to respond to our request for negotiation. the question is what do you do about it? the answer so far has been sanctions. we will continue with our policy and sanction as if 612 and the election ever happened. no one thinks that sanctions are

the magic wand that is going to solve this problem. you can have any sanction you want. what is the most likely outcome is iran will dig in its heels and deeper and be more defiant and continue with this narrative of blaming the west. so, does this tool, to any of these tools actually matched the conditions? it may be that what we want to do is step back and lets iran domestic politics play out until there is some sort of resolution before recharge in and try to resolve this problem. it may be that simply have no control over this right now until they get their own house in order. going forward the least we want to do is do no harm. we don't want to take actions for the sake of taking them. it may make it more difficult to arrive at a negotiated settlement further on down the line or might make the regime

worse than it is. so i think rather than charging ahead with the same of policies and debates, engagement, we need to step back and reevaluate and try to take a deep breath and go from there. >> thank you, jim. thank you to all of our panelists. let's give them a round of applause for all of their work. [applauding] >> jim, you have a colleague mit by the name of peter sungate. peter wrote a book called "the fifth discipline." in his book, in chapter two he lists a very intriguing list of 11 learning disabilities of organizations. if you get a chance to look at "the fifth discipline" it might be helpful in your thinking both those nuclear proliferation and the problems in iran. he talks about the fact that we learn from experience.

often our experience is wrong. he has done a number of thought about organizational dysfunction. i want to start my questioning of that panel first on the issue of nuclear proliferation and then move more directly to iran itself. i have got a crazy question to ask, a particularly these people who have been a part of the negotiations. there are a couple of folks, former defense secretaries, former secretaries of state. 3-4 years ago, the headline in the "wall street journal" made a very persuasive case including a guy by the name of henry kissinger who we sometimes hear talking who was raising the issue, what is the military use of nuclear weapons? can you paint a scenario where

some country could, in fact, use a nuclear weapon and exploded to enhance their position? what is -- what could we argue that if we were at the pentagon as to why every nation should not have nuclear weapons. >> can i? >> i'll go first. >> one of the things you have to keep in mind here is we have, we, in the united states, with 40 years of the cold war, think of nuclear weapons. a deterrent. in iran, the same case. the danger they face is an overwhelming conventional superiority from the united states. if i am an iranian worrying about invasion from the that the state's there is sack, i would make a promise to the world, i will never explode a iranian

nuclear weapon outside of the iranian national boundaries. if you come after me i reserve the right to explode a nuclear weapon inside iran. how are you going to answer that? i believe there is also the question about threats against israel and wanting to standoff against israel. that, i'm sure, has a certain ideological cachet, but i don't think that is the driving force. i think it is the fear of the conventional superiority from the united states and western allies. >> jim, how do you answer that question? >> i'm glad you raised that. the former officials made an argument. first of all, they made a security argument that says the cold war was meant to deter other states, primarily the soviet union, from attacking us. that is not the threat we face anymore. it is arguably terrorism, terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction that are a greater strategic threat to the united states than a country that is going to commit suicide

by launching a nuclear weapon at us. so you cannot reduce the danger that terrorists will acquire weapons of mass destruction or more likely the materials to make those weapons unless you begin to draw down nuclear stockpiles. terrorist, the wmd, the primary threat, the primary way to deal with that is to reduce nuclear-weapons. it is not the national interest. it is good politics. the u.s. is on board with its obligations and wants to reduce the dependence and reliance on nuclear weapons. that is more politics because we cannot achieve our n on-proliferation aims unless we have the cooperation of other countries. this does not mean everyone will follow our example, but it is hard to on the one hand build a

bunch of new nuclear weapons and then turn around and ask countries to cooperate with us. it is smart politics and a smart security. i think the iranian program is driven less by threats. i think it is much more a program that is a function of national pride and internal politics. that is almost tougher to get your head around. >> craig. and then i have another question. >> at the part of the reason that countries develope nuclear-weapons is they feel threatened by countries to have them. they don't intend to use the weapons, but they think of the nuclear weapon as security. we can respond. one of the reasons iran is moving toward nuclear weapons is israel. israel has the capacity to whip the country out, and has even talked about it at one. by having nuclear weapons they

will permanently secure themselves as that kind of threats. i think that is why they do it. in the case of north korea, north korea felt threatened. felt threatened by the fact that the u.s. was using south korea as a nuclear weapons base. this prompted nuclear weapons. >> let me play devil's advocate. i would invite everybody to be part of this. what moral authority does the united states have anywhere in the world to tell other nations that they can't have a nuclear weapons when we continue not only to have them, but recently and, perhaps, even in this changed administration leaders have been asked to build a

bunker busters' nuclear weapons, enhance the so called a stockpile of nuclear weapons so that as we go down from 9000-8000-7000-6000 they will be smarter and more effective. what moral authority do we have to tell iran that you can't have nuclear-weapons if, in back, we supplied those nuclear weapons ons to other nations in the middle east and the region and allowed them to proliferate in a nearby nation. and in relationship to north korea, and i spent time and not to real, i don't think if they actually pushed the button on a missile that it would actually work because the electricity does not work very well there. if you're going to pile in a whole bunch of nuclear material in south korea what moral authority do we have to say to north korea or iran or any other nation that you should not

pursue this direction. if you're just trying to be nice we will be nice back and have full opportunities for trade. how would you answer that question? >> well, it is affiliated question. this is, of course, the iranian argument that the united states has no moral authority. and so i think that as a people alluded to earlier, perhaps, rather than trying to focus on a this clock is ticking as to whether iran will develop a nuclear weapon, perhaps the smarter thing to do, since we cannot really control whether they will or not is to have inspections to encourage some sort of transparency of what they do have. and, i think, also what is damaging politically is that because the iranian position is that the unisys this does not have any sort of moral authority

to be able to dictate its nuclear program this is having come to some degree, and affect internally. this is giving the states some ammunition to say, the net states is still the same superpower it was 30 years ago. this is why we are very anti-american because they believe that they do have the authority to dictate to us our nuclear program even though israel has, you know, nuclear-weapons or other countries that have nuclear weapons. their is a double standard. that plays very well domestically. to a certain degree by more there is a focus in this country on the political side of the nuclear issue the more we, sort of, reaffirm what the state has been telling its own people about the net to ed states intentions. >> i'm going to let you answer this question. would i have more power if i were in charge of u.s. policy if

i announced that i was trying to cut my nuclear stockpile in have unilaterally? would that give me any leverage to talk with the people there? what i have to go down to renounce nuclear weapons totally? >> let me address the first question because you were talking about the moral authority. at think we may be forgetting that there is a legal authority. as a result unfortunately this with legal basis is oftentimes forgotten. full legal authority. >> do we abide by its? >> that is a different issue, and i will get to that. we do have as an international community the ability to insist there is no big clear weapons in iran. the problem is that for too long we did not draw the line. that is not supported by most

people's interpretation. as a result the non-proliferation treaty, which an article for, there is reference of inalienable rights to pursue nuclear energy, development of nuclear energy. this is something that iran is insisting on. incidently a lot of countries in the world, not just some small third world country, but a lot of very important countries are in support of that position. if our strategy is more based on the legal authority that they cannot pursue weapons and we use the strategies that have been mentioned on this panel, which is inspection and verification, we would be in a much stronger position. we would not face some of the dilemmas that i think we currently are facing. >> thank you for that.

>> non-proliferation treaty as three basic divisions. first of all, non-nuclear states not to go nuclear. the second provision was that nuclear states not to give technology or this'll material to l to non-nuclear states or states which are not party to the treaty. the third was that the nuclear states would gradually rid themselves of their weapons. i the the united states ates has not met its obligations under that treaty. we still have a large number of nuclear weapons, enough to decimate the planet several times. we also have violated the technology agreement by the fact that we made a deal with india in which we provided india, which is not a signatory of the

treaty, with fissile material and technology. through our moral position, it's very weak. i think we will need to really get involved in a genuine nuclear disarmament and a prohibition of the state of our technology with other countries in order to achieve the moral authority to promote non proliferation and nuclear disarmament around the world. >> i have one final question, and i will let all of our panelists answer the question and then go to the audience. first, let me share a comment. some of you have heard me share this "before. in a book called "where do we go from here" written by a young clergyperson by the name of martin luther king.

in the last paragraph of that book he says this, we are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. in this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. procrastination is still the thief of time. life often leaves us bear, naked, and digested with this opportunity. we may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is death to every plea and rushes on. over the blades to bones and residues of ues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words too late. because of that paragraph we saw two choice today, nonviolent coexistence or violent total annihilation. this may well be humankind's last chance to choose between chaos and community.

here is my final question. how do we create community? what do we do about all of this? what do we do about iran? what to do about nuclear proliferation? let me put it in this context, each of you have just now been elected president of the united states. you have the power. you are here in washington. you can use that power. you can use its forbidding your message out. if he were president of the united states knowing all ll tht you know about iran, its internal politics, what is happening there, knowing what you know about nuclear proliferation and weapons, what would you do, president ivan? >> i think that one problem is currently we have limited leverage internally in iran. i think based on what they are technically capable of doing, we are able to wait. the question is not, is iran going to make, is the government

in iran going to make a nuclear bomb before sanctions have some affect? it is is the government and iran going to last long enough to make a nuclear bomb. if i were president i would make a declaration that nuclear weapons are no longer legitimate instruments of national power. the purpose of u.s. nuclear weapons, the sole purpose, is to respond to nuclear use against the united states or its allies, to deter that nuclear use in the first place. i would make concrete steps toward taking weapons off alert and for starting to reduce the numbers of weapons. at first unilaterally and then later on with the russians because the two countries together still control more than 95 percent of the world's bit their weapons. i would also have ready, because

the iranians, i'm not a an expert on iran. they have invested huge amounts of national pride in this nuclear program. there is a lot of faith involved. they have painted themselves into a corner. when there is a chink in the armor we have to have a plan ready. hillary clinton has to have an her back pocket some sort of appearance of conciliation and cooperation that will allow them to save face. >> i was not going to interrupt the presidential comment. your secretary of state just made a statement in the last few days that enron is being more controlled by the guard then rde government. would you try to address that issue or would you, do you think she is right? >> i the she is right. i am not quite sure what we will

do about it. i will certainly defer to others to know iran much better than i do. >> that is why i asked you the question. >> i think that it seems clear that iran, the revolutionary guard is slowly but surely taking over the economy and political strings. it is not at all clear. that is an unfortunate development. it is difficult to see forward. getting popular control in the hands of the government. on the other hand i don't know that there is much the united states can do. >> very good. president abdo, you are the first woman president. we are interested in your inside. rodrigo from hair? how do we create a community out of chaos? >> are we still talking about the nuclear question with iran?

abcaeight. kid. well, i think on the the nuclear question i think i would de politicize this issue. really move its to only the domain of the iaea and create a policy that is strictly about monitoring verification and de politicize the issue. that is what i would do to deprive the iranian states of using this issue as a form of national pride and that sort of thing. i guess the other thing i would do, we have seen, as you mentioned, secretary of state clinton's comments have had certainly indicated a shift in policy of the obama administration, if, in fact, her comments to reflect, and we assume they do, the policy of the obama administration. we are sort of now back to the bush doctrine on iran to some

degree. talking somewhat inflammatory rhetoric about the system, even though, of course, she is right. the islamic revolutionary guards to have enormous power. as president at the ls and we have learned about iran is that despite efforts to determine a new policy of engagement we are back to square one. >> madame president, would you continue your secretary of state's position and broken in the i? do you think maybe more diplomatic or inhumane responses are needed? >> i think as long as there is political instability in the country hands the approach has to be a more aggressive one. the approach of engagement was interpreted by this particular iranian government as a sign of weakness by the united states. some recent high-level delegation of arab diplomats

came back to report to me that the iranian government was very pleased with the obama administration's policy. that was about two months ago. >> president parsi, i would like to respond to any of these questions that you would like to respond to. >> i would first to agree that precisely because of the fact that we do have more time we should similate patience and give this movement inside of iraq and the time that it needsn and not try to adjust our policy and strategy in regards to iran internal development to coincide or be in sync with our nuclear clock, but rather do it the other way around and but the internal clock in the bit more at the center in adjusting strategies in accordance with the internal clock.

that would be critical when it comes to resolving the nuclear issue and making sure that we don't do anything that could derail an indigenous movement for human rights, civil rights, and democracy inside of iran that i think is of tremendous importance. and on one small point i think we have to look at the opposition and ask ourselves in what ways it would be different. i would add one more very important reason as to why they would be different. we are talking but individuals who when they were in power pursued a different policy based on a different world outlook, one in which they saw some value in transparency. they saw how security could be achieved through transparency. talking about a dialogue of civilizations and tearing down laws and mistrust in comparison

to the ahmadinejad crowd that has a different world view in which they see the outside world as being inherently anti iran and if you lack of transparency as winning a iran security. that is a very different world view that translates into different policies. i don't think that is a point that should be forgotten in this conversation. >> that is very helpful. president, it is great to see you coming from the great state of pennsylvania. >> if i were president i would make a radical shift between. right now we are giving 2.2% for foreign aid. we are giving $15 billion a

year. we are spending 744 billion on weapons. i think if we changed some of that and started using some of our resources benevolence . we increase. i think that position would be radically different. i think we have basically e-bay extended in a sort of way which has basically sically heard our security and not, of course, help other countries. >> thank you. finally, president walsh. >> i like the way that sounds.

>> mr. president. where do we go from here? >> well, first things first. before i give you my answer i have to commend the project on nuclear awareness. you know, it's really makes a difference when you have a minister, a man of god, who is your facilitator. you know, if you get different questions you get different perspectives. you know, i said all along i think the iranian problem requires both patients and urgency. that is the paradox. it requires the right type of patients and urgency. you can make arguments that things are just about to go bad. because they're going to be so horribly that we have to take risky actions to prevent this thing that we feared. that is probably the wrong kind of urgency, but it is a problem that has consequences. i do not want iran on a path to acquire nuclear weapons. i don't think the world would go away the next day.

but as someone who does not like nuclear weapons i don't welcome the addition of another member of the nuclear weapons club. this is a program that is having some technical problems. this is a country that is having some political problems right now. and so i think it is urgent that we don't need to overreact and we need to step back. part of what we have to do is look at community, but also community and national interests. the u.s. has, obviously, a variety of concerns. but you have some plain, good old fashioned, national interest. 100,000 young men and women in iraq. we have what will be 40,000 more young men and women in afghanistan. iran does not want afghanistan to fall apart. so there are issues of commonality. there are common interests that

we can have discussions about. as far as moving forward, it is always the same old same old. sanctions, with the literature and research is not very promising. if they work, which the data lot of the time. when they do work the work over the long term. a military strike, heaven knows we don't want a third war. that is what all uniformed military has said. they don't want military strikes because of the complications and dangers it would put to our men and women. there is containment, but that is after you have given up. and after all those are done you are left with negotiation. i think obama has made a significant effort to try to negotiate. as president i promise i will make a significant effort to negotiate. it takes to.

sometimes the other party isn't ready. that quote from martin did the king is so appropriate. it is a history of mr. opportunities. back and forth over the decades it has gone. but if we believe that negotiation is the least costly way out of this mess right now and for it to be successful we have got to figure out the conditions under which they are going to say yes. if we say you are an evildoer and must agree to everything we said, well, they are not likely to do that per reedbuck them more likely to agree to something in which some of their interests are partially met, some of our interests are partially met and both sides can go back and tell them that it was a success. that is the nature of negotiation. it is unavoidable. >> mr. president. he told us when you began your comments that you were open to go to iran in april.

i hope when you go and you will come back with invitations for others. i met with the intersection in new york about taking a former member of congress delegation to iran. prior to the election there was interest on the part of the iranians to take some of former, may be more progressive democrats and republicans to iran to begin an exchange of ideas and thoughts separate from the formal debate, what we call but tried to the policy. so if, while you're there, you can help stimulate some additional taxes to the policy that would be very much helpful. also, on your point on sanctions, when i went into iraq in december of 02 and did the humanitarian inspection had discovered a really interesting thing.

as i visited hospitals and went particularly do emergency areas for infants where they had interests the equipment to fix the incubators were on the list of things that were sanctioned because parts for the incubators could come in fact, be used for weapons of mass destruction. it got so bad that you couldn't import pencils because somehow the lead in the pencils might be used for some kind of weapon of mass destruction. i'd think many americans think only of trying to stop military equipment for things that you would normally talk about when you talk about issues of mass destruction. it actually impacts civilian life in a very important and tragic way, and i think finding ways around the issue of sanctions or if you do sanctions make sure they are targeted sanctions and they actually impact on the right people.

one final dr. king quote. you and i will have to repent. when you give your question first give your name and your affiliation. we also have microphones there. if you will step up to the microphone. first, second, third at the microphone. name and then your question. or comment please be brief. >> howard moreland. >> you are on. we can hear you. >> private citizen. i am always curious about the contrast between iran and

israel. we talked a lot about how we have little influence over iran. our sanctions may or may not work. they don't depend on us. it is curious to me that we have even less influence over israel, which does already have nuclear weapons and which cannot exist without our support. since we have no problem with israel having nuclear weapons it seems to me that the entire campaign against iranian nuclear-weapons is de facto a campaign to protect the israeli nuclear arsenal. >> thank you for your comment. to any of our fellows want to speak to that? >> i agree that israel will be the hard case. in fact if you really do think about moving toward a global zero it is almost easier to imagine the superpowers getting rid of there nuclear weapons than the smaller powers.

the last ones will be israel and north korea. we are going to have to figure out some way to get israel on board that might come in the interim, be a decade or two. explosive security guarantees. i shouldn't say for israel, but for nations in the middle east. we want to make this not looking at specific countries, but to give security guarantees to all nations in the middle east, one of which would be israel. >> i'm going to put my former congressman had ongoing until you the secret to. i'm going to get in trouble for telling you the secret. the israeli law be obeyed double is one of the most powerful lobbyists on capitol hill. they do it in a very important

way. i ran for congress in a district that had not hands of elected a democrat since the civil war. ..

i took him with me and we went to israel, the day he resigned, and rich traveled up to the heae shine up in the golan heights. we went to egypt and met with anwr sadat and met with a jewish couple, biosecurity, no searches, nothing. very strong supporters. the point i am making is they have one of the best most attractive ways of lobbying in each of the 435 districts in each of the 100 senate races. that is untrue and has not been true particularly of the moslem community throughout our history. i think the one piece of good news about the bad news of 9/11 and in is that i think the muslim community has begun to

step forward, islamic society in north america has moved an office in washington and have begun to participate in a more public way and a more balanced way. but i think our politics is on balance at this point in terms of our elected leadership. this is going to get me into all kinds of trouble which is fine because i am old enough to be in lots of trouble, but it just points out that there is like in the the defense industry in every congressional district there is this other force the protection of israel and to find democrats, republicans, independents, whoever gets elected the is strongly supporting. we have public financing in of campaigns through what's called the keira elections act, if we consider to special interests you could lobby but you can't put money in and candidates can

raise resources for public financing system, i thank you would eliminate some of this awkward mess and the imbalance of political process so i apologize for jumping in. >> and nuys have been? i would like to offer a somewhat different point of view on this issue than the one you articulate. i know people have stronger feelings and i know what iran to have nuclear weapons or israel to have nuclear weapons or them to have them, ultimately there are more dangerous to have them than not to have them but i think in the case of fire and in israel these are really separate things going on. i don't think iran is seeking nuclear weapons because of israel and and know that israel could get his nuclear weapons in 1996 because iran. iran gives us some legal leverage you're for addressing concerns about the program, israel is not unfortunately and so that is not available to them. and i would say though i think

iran the status quo power, is unlikely to decide to wake up and commit suicide by launching an attack on israel. if you are sitting in tel aviv and you hear and read the press, it sounds like there are all old vicious things being said and there are people who would like to wipe off the map. i think that was misinterpreted, but whatever, if you were sitting there you are going to feel more uncomfortable. you are going to feel as a threat so i think that programs genesis is unrelated the, the iranian program is particular in the iranian situation is with the israeli situation. i think they will pose dangers for their own peoples and for the region and that we should treat each to try to make progress there but i don't see them as intimately connected. >> thank you, your question

that. >> i am a journalist. my impression from this panel is we should wait and see what happens inside iran with the radicals won and they make the bon? what we do? thank you. >> [inaudible] >> i think research director and pointed the things and i think with regard to israel i think we have a basically a position there. we shouldn't use to get israel and the love of leverage to basically have them reduce their nuclear weapons. >> geneive it. >> i think what we are seeing here as far as i can tell is not necessarily that we should wait, but that there should be other sort of approaches to dealing with nuclear issues and scientific approaches rather

than a political approach. i think that as we are in agreement about because the political diplomatic track hasn't produced any fruits. >> respond, don't react. >> teeone to make a comment about that? >> i would agree with geneive, at the end of the day as explained earlier on the pace of the program is moving foreign, we have more time so we don't have to rush into solutions, first of all, of them don't have a high likelihood of success and a ways. instead we can give ourselves the time to figure out the best source approach while the same time taking into consideration new factors such as the internal situation in new york. >> i am the director of the project and a clear awareness. and i think we have a wonderful panel here, thank you all for coming in for joining us here.

my question is kind of maybe broadening out the picture a little bit. jim said earlier it takes to negotiate and sometimes you don't have it to the already i think that's exactly on target. i remember a time when that was true of the united states in the then soviet union and it took some time and to get negotiations going men. what, my question i guess is fairly simple -- what could the the u.s. and then our russian federation still by any measure the two nuclear superpowers and the world by 95 percent of these dangerous weapons, what can we do and what can they do to set an example? what is happening with star, which should happen with china

and others and also would like to separately ask dr. trita parsi and geneive abdo, while we are waiting for the iranian regime to be ready for negotiations what can we do to help the aryan people? >> what should we do? the. >> i think one of the things to keep in mind is that the question of what is the leverage that we have with iran a recent example and people say the iranians will do what they do regardless of what the u.s. and russia do with our nuclear weapons taking off alert and such but it isn't just those two powers engaged and so there have been times in the past where we have a bear in barely been on speaking terms with the iranian regime and has to work through france and britain and the germans and these are democracies that are prone to respond to their own public opinion and we put ourselves in a much stronger position it with the rest of the world was going

to do with iran. i've been interviewed by iranians and they're always very, their feelings are hurt when the chinese agree with the americans. it's like even the chinese are turned against us, this means something to them. we are not trying to set an example of where iran it and get influence but with all the other countries in the world where we can try to act in concert with. >> i think that you raise an important question, how can the united states or all of us helped the iranian people? one way in particular is to highlight the human rights violations happening in the country now that are unprecedented appearance as trita mentioned, young people are now being executed. the net has been cassowary wide as to who's arrested so i think that's one way that really has not happened in a significant way and i think the other way we can help is to try to figure out

how would ever penalties are going to be imposed upon the iran for political reasons, sanctions, how those penalties do not affect people's lives as we all know the country is undergoing severe economic crisis so those would be the two suggestions i would have. >> president geneive has to go to the situation room immediately following his answer to this question, but i think him for being on the panel. >> thank you so much. the me give a brief answer, i had an article recently informed policy magazine with that iran preparation and said what we can do the way we can support is simply by giving the people more space have this can be achieved as four different things, two of which geneive mentioned, make sure we are outspoken winning comes to human rights violations and make sure there's absolutely no doubt that the united states condemns the stand against human rights violations of the iranian

government is engaged in paris secondly, if sanctions and the been necessary then targeted sanctions that hit the bad actors within the government and spread the population is important, not just as something that signals the house i roles displeasure with i iran's policies but also to signal the population that we actually really try to make sure that we design sanction such a way that they don't harm the population. as an important signal to send the. thirdly, keeping talk about military action and those things as low as possible because they've been tremendously and helpful to the pro-democracy movement in the past. it's tough enough to ride for democracy and even tougher if you have to do it under the shadow of military invasion. for a sleek, make sure that we don't adopt any time frames or unrealistic time frames in doubt take into consideration the

dynamic. >> thank you very much for being part of the panel. [applause] >> next question. >> my name is elias representing the direct alliance of of the and a usa and out like to explore the issue of the internal dynamics and iran ahmadinejad claimed that while whole opposition movement was actually a west instructions and $0.21 when the elections were going on icon a sense that in the west we're too old to happy to invest -- to accept there is a movement and we are embracing perhaps exaggerated the reality on the ground so my question to you would be, can we all say at the panel that the west hasn't had an influence on irene politics and the second part of the question would be, does our continued support of the movement jeopardize the mere

existence of the movement in terms of them being accused of being anti iran and not being iranian another? >> another one of our panelists asked to leave as well unfortunately. she sits to my right. let me ask her to respond first. >> it is very difficult to try to find ways to support the movement without painting it because the iranian government does -- has planned since june the protest movement, the opposition movement on the west particularly the united states and has tried to make the argument that the u.s. is behind the movement so obviously it would not be in the interests of the opposition for the u.s. two publicly endorse the movement. as secretary of state hillary clinton said the and would not be helpful sell its problematic.

how can the united states help this movement? but i think that there's actually legislation that's been drafted in congress now that lays out specific steps that could be taken, for example to address the whole issue of communication technology and the run-up to the demonstrations of state rallies last week. a week before that the state basically blows down the internet coming it was in google reported very low users provide iran. they interrupted cellphone connections so people have very difficult to make canings of these other things that some people in congress people are trying to consider as a way to help the movement from a distance without tainting and. >> thank you very much for your presentation. [applause] >> let me just ask our panelists said they have a couple of quick responses to this question and

then i'm going to ask our questioners to ask your questions and then let the panelists give a response and then we will all go and consume the cookies and coffee in the back. first let me ask if any of our panelists have a response to the question. >> thank you, i think more than that need to be very careful of the action of the cia. the cia has gone absolutely enamored with covert action which started in 1947 and intelligence agency. not as a semi independent representative of foreign-policy actions. i think we need a grant for the cia giving the excuse of saying to the opposition roster by the cia. i think that the cia had to generally it withdraw from covert action and go back to his

original funding as an intelligence agency. >> i just want to say i thought that last question was is due to and very subtle. first, i don't think we are actively -- are we doing anything on the ground and let's make clear i do not think we are, i don't know but i guess we are not. you may remember in my opening remarks one of the principle should be do no harm. i know everyone's upset about this and rightly so, i have walked the streets that the protesters have gotten this is an emotional issue and i understand that. but we seem to be swinging from one pendulum question to the other. on the first day of protests everyone says the government is at fault and now we have protests in this week and everyone says the protest movement is dead. i think neither of those are true and in french i don't think anyone knows what's going to happen and i don't think the people and iran know what's going to happen. if you are a betting man and i

am not, reverend, you and say the guys with guns normally hold the power and you say but they are unpopular but i can think of lots of the regime's that persisted for many years despite their up on popularity but that's not a necessary thing. i think there's great uncertainty about was going to happen and that's why i have argued for let's back off a little and take a breath or a pause because it's very unclear what the right thing to do is when no one knows what's going on. sometimes prudence is the best course but i care much appreciate this. >> and human exchanges, people to people exchanges as much as we can encourage that kind of thing could be helpful. help with the former soviet union. >> i think that we have to as you say we endorse the opposition in iran and that will take them and do much more harm than good with there are certain things that we can say

consistently in the mean, we can speak out against human rights abuses, speak out in favor of the rule of law etc. that are clearly helping the opposition but not directed specifically at helping one particular group or within the opposition in iran and i think that's how we can -- we have to the united states has to set an example we will support human rights and supporting the rule of law and you guys have to work it out but when we're done that's what we want to see. i admit i don't know who in the opposition -- isn't as though we have to realize it's not the opposition in iran. it's a complex spectrum of people. >> now we are going to ask for questions common name first, your question, then you sit down and the next person named in question, said down, name and question, and then we will give our closing comments and then we will share the cookies and verdes.

>> i'm veronica and i am rep. here from christie usa, a peace movement, and out like to ask our remaining president's here to put the question over. you have been encouraging that there is sometimes we need a little patience to step back, that negotiations -- what are you going to say to the american people and to your congress who are the fear level that is so high and the lack of information that people immediately want an aggressive action. how will you get them to buy into a policy? >> jim, do you want to dash forgetting my own rules. >> i will give an old affiliation, i was vice president of the philadelphia

projects for global security so i'm glad to see my old friends from philadelphia here and now i'm with resolution at george mason and responsibility. my comments have to do more with as a conflict analyst. one is article for is a trap for nuclear power which i also cornyn as toxic radioactive power that as long as we have that we will have problems with iran and also with susan campbell who got me my first pass in 2000, and on the global council working with ngos on presentations for the delegates that were addressing that. in the international coble energy association to replace it clear power. also it was mentioned it that nuclear concession of nuclear is a status symbol of national pride and also the more that we

threaten and coerce and try to punish them the more there are going to want them i think. so according to the law of opposites the kind of actions we take to pressure them have the exact opposite and in one case of a 100 stations failed 86 times. >> you're question greg's. >> i think we need to use positive inducements and security assurances but it's against our psyche now which is we have to threaten them and purple and punish. >> conflict transformation it. >> i am susan mcbride in them here from philadelphia with the citizens for global solutions my question may be very very nagy, but how about if we just recognize iran the light kissinger and nixon did after 37 years of not talking to china and just in terms of stepping back, you think about martial

arts, used up back in order to have somebody have to -- step back in terms of conflict and just go ahead and do the people to people, i like what dr. walsh said about giving them time and giving them space but it feels to me as though over the last 50 years we've been so confrontational with iran that i was hoping with obama we would actually do more people to people, do less of this and it seems like we're back there and am wondering what you think about just going ahead in recognizing them and getting in ambassador and not going to the u.n. all the time. >> thank everyone for your questions and comments. i'm fine to ask our panelists that are remaining here to give their closing comments on any of these questions and then i have a closing word and we will be adjourning. >> i think we need to very much intensified in different diplomatic erasion -- relations

with iran and that would be recognition. i think what you want to do is establish a basically a dialogue and you cannot do this unless you are talking with the recognize sovereign state. i think that is essential and you don't have to agree with a sovereign state, and you can basically oppose their policies, you can invoke sanctions, but i thank you need fluent diplomatic relations and i think if you have that you create a level of confidence between the two countries which has definitely good iraq's. >> i thank you have the next of the last. >> first question, i think it is important that we be able to show progress moving toward success mohole lot of desire to do things that might be dramatic but dangerous and we need to

also make the argument that we are working in a coalition of nations that all have to share similar goals with iran and i think that will hold off the more extreme calls from congress for action. question about recognizing iran to a part of the problem is to be honest iranians have done everything they possibly can to make it as difficult as possible to give them the benefit of the doubt. it's hard to know given a particular history of the united states and iran how on this woman that's going to be in the cards because anything we do will appear to be rewarding them even if it isn't -- is in on best interest. i can see that happening at this time and attention at. >> three good questions. veronica, you asked about people want action. and i feel that people want the answers and able to do something. bad things are happening and i

want to do something and we are americans, the can-do people, we want to do something but sometimes it's better to be smart and reactive. sometimes you win freer moment before you do something and that improves your chance of being able to be successful. of course, that's politically difficult and i think obama has shown a great resolve in how he managed the whole process after the 612 election and still was quietly secretly negotiating with his european allies on the tehran research deal. that took guts and the deal is falling apart and he will take kids for that but as a presidential leadership is about to be able to communicate to people and explain it is smart and better than reactive. on the pressure, i hear which you were saying. but i think also -- we have to be too little about it and say sometimes when you pressure

people they withdraw, react and dig their heels and and sometimes you pressure people and the pressure changes their calculus and they do change and that the question is, when you do that pressure, when you not to it, and how you frame it? my problem isn't so much with -- part of my problem with the sanctions is it we just did it quietly and let it take is a fact and the government saw the results then they would be in a better position to the iranian government and we would respond but we have to shove it in a racing column and on and so then they feel that they do anything that is positive ahmadinejad was criticized on the tehran reactor deal because it is hard line and his critics said he is giving in to the pressure. so sometimes it's not only what you're doing but how you do it, that affects whether you're going to be successful or not saw not generically and gas

pressure but again we should be smart about the way to an end not force people into a corner rather only option is to define mr. buyback. finally on susan's point on recognizing iran i think if things move in a positive direction at some point today, a year, whatever from now, that's fine to be part of the process. recognition will be part of the negotiation and discussion process and the movement toward globalize relations. but iran wouldn't want to do it tomorrow. iran has a lot invested at least the current government does in us being the bad guy. and that the west and the entire imperialists and all of that. they are a revolutionary government after also part of their identity visavie their population is opposes the west. their not ready to jump in now and they need to take those steps over time is the

opportunity presents itself and may not so if it does and we're ready for it and act wisely then you start a process where each side who has grievances and who rightly mistrusts the other side we rightly mistrust iran, iran right mistrust sauce so we will then have it. it's about building trust and confidence in some momentum and that would culminate in some of these things we're talking about. >> thank you and thank you to our panelists. i wear this pin often, actually every day. it is a planet earth and a green ribbon, there's only one of them here. it was my mantra when hours of the national council of churches which was to address fear, fundamentalism and the fox news with a commitment to peace, poverty and planet earth. [laughter] i think that -- of a the problems we face in the united states is fear and lack of

understanding and information in an ad forums like this there are helpful to spread the word, but it is like he did monday, it ain't enough in the sense that educating the general public. my hope would be that all across the united states we would have conversations about iran and have conversations about nuclear proliferation and that we would encourage people who aren't here this afternoon to think about these issues to actually dig deeper and yet get a sense of the texture of these issues. i reminded of an african proverb that says simply goes if you want to walk past, walk alone, if you want to walk far, walk together. you can build a constituency across the country that understands there is no defense or military use for nuclear weapons so let's get away from that fear and move to a strategy where we have less nuclear proliferation and, in fact,

since world war ii are conventional weapons have become equally terrible end of the terrorists they don't mind as building more nuclear weapons and more aircraft carriers, it doesn't scare them all. we really ought to think differently about how we deal with the dynamics of our planet. secondly, we've got to figure that we live as brothers and sisters on this fragile planet earth. ..

>> one final thank you actually. i want to thank bob edgar, who has not yet been thank. and is hold wonderful panel. [applause] >> for a great, bob said you know, this conversation that has to be held around the country. well, that's what the project with awareness is about, holding his conversations. i just want to thank the other people here who helped us do that. kim, if you would raise your hand or stand. is in the front here. she is webcasting this as we speak so that youth all over the country are watching it. c-span is also year, the voice of america.

and finally, our assistant director for development. in these conversations could not happen without them. so thanks for coming, and please join us for cookies and coffee. >> consider yourself twittered. [laughter] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the national gay and lesbian task force held a conference last week on the committee's

political agenda. we will hear remarks from the organization's executive director, rea carey, as this event taking place in dallas. this portion is 35 minutes. >> i love you, too. [laughter] >> we are here. a year ago, when we came together, as kay said, we were digesting a couple of high profile losses. but at the same time, we were filled with hope, our minds filled with possibility and promise. our sweat, votes, money and work had helped elect a new president, and a more pro-lgbt congress, and finally, it seems, we might, we might start building a solid floor of legal equality from which we could reach the sky of freedom.

the bush-cheney years were behind us. change was coming. and it was no longer a question of if, but when. and for those of us who have been fighting for so long, and that's everyone of us in this room, and millions who are not with us today, when was sounding pretty good. we believed, and why shouldn't we? he said, i am running for president to build an america that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all, a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. we believed. he said, it's wrong to have millions of americans living as a second class citizens in this nation, and i will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all lgbt americans. we agreed, we were eager to see what a fierce advocate could do.

but, now, it's a get into this new administration. it's a year into this new congress. there have been glimmers of advocates, but certainly not justice. speeches are not changed. changes more than words. change is action. [applause] >> if we really are all created equal, if it really doesn't matter who we are or what they look like or who we love, then it's time for this president and this congress to take concrete steps to ensuring that the quality. [applause] >> and since the president and congress brought up the topic of don't ask, don't tell lastly, let's start there.

if the administration does, in fact, implemented soon what it now states, that it can do under the existing law, the lives of thousands of servicemeservice members will begin to improve, and the witchhunts will end. and i thank the president for showing leadership in taking these steps. i really do. [applause] >> but, but let me be clear. a year-long study does not a fierce advocate make. [applause] >> a year, year is far too long to wake him and it is time the executive branch to stop these discharges now while the military and congress move to bring this shameful and

discriminatory chapter of u.s. history to an end. [applause] >> mr. president, the ball is in your court. you have the opportunity to go down in history as one of the few presidents who acted decisively to move human rights forward. now while we have criticized the president, we must hold equally, if not more accountable, the members of congress who stand in the way of legal equality. [applause] >> their hands are not clean. i have been out in gay america for 27 years since i was a teenager. i know that change takes time, but happen, it must. things take time we are told. we are into wars, facing an economic crisis.

we are tending to healthcare reform. there's climate change. look at the calendar, we will get to you. well first, i say, those issues concern us, too. [applause] >> and i am looking at the calendar, and it is 2010. 2010. showed freedom have to wait any longer? should be quality be something we scheduled? should we only act to end blatant discrimination when it is politically convenient? no. that's why we have come together this weekend. because the change we seek must come from us, from our strategic work together. we thought we were finally going to have leadership that would stand with us, work with us, and for us. but that hasn't fully happened yet. and so, it's still up to us to push, and in fact, to lead. [applause]

>> and we, we in this room, we across the country are the agents of change. we have the power to compel change. and while this struggle has become a political struggle, one used to divide people and turn groups in our country against each other, around intellectual and political favor, if you step outside this entrenched political battle, at its most basic, this is about our humanity. our equality, and frankly, the integrity of our country. and when it comes to equality, full equality, you either haven't or you don't, and we don't. [applause] >> last june, we asked people to send us letters, many of you in this room wrote them to us. that i didn't hand-deliver to the president.

and when a school teacher wrote, that she has to hide the fact that she has a partner, and to kids, and that she'd lose her job if anyone finds out, she is not equal. and we are not equal. the quality is a moral imperative, because who we are and who we love should not be the subject of political debate. it should not be put up to the political whim of voters, and certainly our lives should not have to be on trial. [applause] >> there can be no compromise on civil rights. no piecemeal of human rights. these rights must be unabridged, and we stand with all those who seek the promise of equality, and who still struggle for its fulfillment. [applause] >> and i suggest to those who say don't push so hard, just

wait. that sounds like advice from somebody already enjoying the benefits of equality. someone who can marry who they want, someone who can serve their country freely, someone who can enter a nursing home without having to go back in the closet, someone who doesn't have to face the indignities of filling out form after form, deciding if they will cross off mother or father, and write in a new word, just to reflect the realities of our families. i know the pain of how this in visibility of text our children. and to that person, asking us to wait, a little reminder. there is no such thing as being just a little equal. what has gotten lost in washington and communities across the nation is that this is not a political question. this is a moral question. justice and freedom are not just

american promises that they are not just lgbt promises that they are human rights. [applause] >> and when the president, when the president says he's committed to equal rights and congress takes an oath to uphold the founding principles of our nation, that doesn't mean some rights. that meets all rights. nonnegotiable. it is 2010, and we have waited long enough. [applause] >> if we -- if we don't leave here this weekend together focused on real change, last year's win will become if once again. compelling change to happen is and always has been up to us. and honestly, i take faith in that. because i've seen what we can do together. when we dedicate ourselves, when we decide we're not going to

settle for anything than what we deserve, so while we wait for action, for the president to move beyond words and into bold actions, and for congress to find its moral compass, we're going to keep pushing and keep working. and much of this change will happen in our own cities and states across the country. [applause] >> and now work is not easy. it takes sacrifice. both personally and for our families, we in this room know that deeply. we have seen long days and long nights. and while at the end of those days, there will be wins and losses. regardless, we keep moving forward. we keep working together. we keep getting more support, and we keep getting stronger. no matter what happens along the

way, the dignity of our lives will not be denied. [applause] >> and that's what the pundits missed in their postelection discussion and analysis of the main. that one ballot measure was a reflection on our movement. or on our goals. maine was a definitive or attorney of the tide anymore that it turns out california was. do our losses hurt lex particularly for families in maine, in california and elsewhere? absolutely. does it mean we are giving up, allowing a temporary losses to stand in the way of history? absolutely not. [applause] >> this year, this year we gained mayor to equality in vermont, iowa, connecticut, new hampshire, and washington, d.c..

[applause] >> you did that work. we did that work. we successfully fought back at chance to roll back protections like places like kalamazoo. you did that work. we did that work. [applause] >> and in cities large and small, like salt lake city and reading, pennsylvania, we ensure nondiscrimination protections to thousands more. we did that work together. our grassroots support is strong and growing. our progress on the local and state level is definitively for word, not backward. and mark my words, we will regain marriage in california and maine and elsewhere. [applause] >> my grandmother, my

grandmother has a magnet on her refrigerator. she's had it for as long as i remember, and i keep a copy of it in my wallet. it says, fall down seven times, get up eight. [laughter] >> and well into her 90s, it has served her well, and it serves our movement well. we've seen that when we come together, when we focus, when we roll up our sleeves and dig in, we create change. in the past decade, through our work together, the number of states recognizing same-sex relationships increased from two to 11 plus the district of columbia. the number of states outlawing discrimination based on gender based on sexual orientation increase from 12 to 22. the number of states outlawing discrimination based on gender based on gender identity, and expression, jumped from just one to 14. [applause]

>> and we, we have elected hundreds of pro-lgbt candidates and defeated those who are not our friends. [applause] >> and just in this past year, through our work together, as kate mentioned, we finally passed and got signed into law the matthew shepard and james hate crimes prevention act. [cheers and applause] >> let us not forget, let us not forget that one of the important things of the signing of that act was that for the first time in this nations history, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are covered in federal law. [cheers and applause]

>> and through the advocacy of our new beginnings federal policy project, a collaboration of 20 organizations, we have already made tangible federal policy changes that will improve the lives of lgbt people, including seniors, people with low incomes and transgender people, and we have ensured that our marriages and our partnerships will be counted and reported out of the 2010 census. [applause] >> this is what can happen. this is what does happen when we work together and we pushed together. this year, i have been reminded again and again that our real inspiration comes from each other. that's what keeps us pushing. it enables us to get up day after day and keep working. that's who truly inspires us and keeps us going.

it's the transgender high school student that goes to school every day dressed as she wants, no matter what is said and no matter what fingers are pointed. it's the soldier determined to fulfill his or her dream and who's love for our country is greater than our country's love for them. it is the parents of those killed by hate, who have committed their lives to stopping violence from happening in the first place. it is the game and working against racial profiling, and it is the straight neighbor who walks side-by-side with us in the streets of protest. these are our heroes. these are my heroes. [applause] >> for those of you who look at the last year and are angry, to those who are frustrated by the

pace of change and the circuitous route it has taken, i say, so in my. [applause] >> but that anger, that anger and unless challenge will not bring this change. that frustration unless redirected will not move us forward. that frustration turned upon each other is destructive. [applause] >> and may i say, may i say that is exactly what our opponents want. that one is distracted and downtrodden. they want us splintered and sniping in arguing that one tactic will save the day over all others. they want us disorganize, working separately and second-guessing ourselves that our opponents have seen what we can accomplish, united, and it

scares them. [applause] >> that's why, that's why this year we will not ask for change. we will not debate change. we will not plan for change, and we will not wait for change. we will create change. [cheers and applause] >> there will be a day when people will wonder how our right for even an issue. this state of any quality cannot be our children or our grandchildren's and arrogance. [applause] >> that means stepping up and answering the call at this moment in history. we have an opportunity to lead. it is up to us to define what

must happen next, and what will happen next. if we do not step up, with an expansive view of what it means to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, if we do not explain that being lgbt is simply being human, we will be making a mistake. who is calling is that, if not hours? an agenda? i have an agenda. [laughter] >> certainly. let's fight the legislative battles, including let's and don't ask, don't tell. let's overturn the so-called defense of marriage act, passed a can past both acts and the domestic partnership benefits and obligations act for federal employees. [applause]

>> and state-by-state, state-by-state, let's enact anti-bullying laws to protect lgbt youth. [cheers and applause] >> but, but let's not be defined by those battle solely. let's not be limited to those ways of defining our lives. we can't let others see us as just these issues. that others see our struggles as more of a movement for justice, equality and liberation as a movement for human rights is critical to our success. and so, as we step into this new year, let's really, really lead. and as of today, fortunately, there are no places, and i do say as of today, because tomorrow we will see, but as of today, there are no places that

face an imminent threat of an anti-marriage or anti-lgbt discrimination ballot measure in a city or state this year. however, if they come up, we will be there. [applause] >> and yet, with a ward connerly-backed ban on affirmative action on the november ballot in arizona and the likelihood of a parental notification initiative in the ballot in california, and potential anti-immigrant measures, we must be at the ready to step up and work on these issues that affect our lives. [applause] >> let us work. let us work for meaningful healthcare reform that protects lgbt people.

[applause] >> let us stand with the fair-minded people in uganda to fight off homophobic laws and expand the global movement for freedom. [applause] >> we must help to get cosponsors for the resolutions on this topic that were introduced in house and senate just this week. our voices need to be heard in these fights and on these issues, but not just on these issues. we must lead on all issues that affect our lives and our community. take immigration. if we are truly a community and a movement, committed to freedom, justice and equality, then reforming our nation's cruel and broken immigration system must be on our agenda for action. [applause]

>> today, today there are at least 12 million immigrants, including at least half a million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are forced to live in the shadows of our society. there are people like harold, an 18 year old gay man who came to this country from the philippines with his parents when he was five years old. this is really the only country he has ever known, but today, because he is undocumented he cannot get a drivers license, cannot get a job, cannot get a student loan, at his in constant fear to get arrested and deported to a country where he cannot speak the language. there are people like victoria, and undocumented transgender woman who was swept up by the immigration system, put into a detention jail where she was denied hiv medications and

medical attention, even when she was vomiting blood. this costa victoria her life. she died of change what hospital bed with two immigration guards standing at the door. and of course, there are at least 36,000 by national couples who cannot live together here in this country because federal law bans recognition of the relationships. so yes, immigration reform is an lgbt issue. [applause] >> at some point, at some point the president and congress will take up immigration reform. this fight will make the push for healthcare seem like a walk in the park.