congress, and certainly the chairman of the committees and when i worked for john dingell who was the ranking member, he viewed it similarly. the folks on the fcc really should be paying attention to the committee, and i think the people who hold the gavel and the people in the minority both expect the fcc to be responsive to the wishes of the congress. >> host: mr. waltzman? >> guest: you know, i always felt when i was on committee staff as well as when i worked for senator brownback on senate commerce that there was a good dialogue with the fcc, both the commissioners and bureaus many terms of coming up and doing briefings, you know? and both republican and democrat-led commissions, sometimes we liked what they were doing, sometimes we didn't. i always felt like there was a good healthy dialogue and the fcc always made themselves accessible to hill staff. >> host: this is c-span's "communicators" program. we're talking about the upcoming tuesday midterm election with

howard waltzman, former counsel for the energy and commerce committee when the republicans were in charge, and gregg rothschild who was the chief telecommunications counsel when the democrats were in charge. tony romm, politico, next topic area. >> host: thanks. so i think, you know, as we just said, there's been this huge preoccupation with net neutrality in some cases to the detriment of members who would like to see members talking about the national broadband plan. let's start talking about those items. the fcc wanted a connect america fund, a fund to help build up broadband to some of the hard-to-reach areas. but there was a poll that came out not long ago by the pew center that said a lot of americans actually didn't want the fcc to play that much of a role in expanding broadband by itself. now, some stakeholders had said, you know, maybe there was some misunderstanding of the question or maybe it was, you know, when voters hear government and broadband expansion, they think

government controlling the internet or something like that. i guess the question is, in this a gop-controlled congress, does it take the lead? does it wait for congress? what relationship develops there? let's start with you, howard. >> guest: well, again, i think one of the primary focuses in the next congress will be on spectrum, getting more spectrum out there, and spectrumming with the mean -- spectrum being the means for subscribership. the fcc can only go so far right now. there are certain bands they could make available for commercial use, but there are a lot of others they'd like to make available that they need congressional action before they can do so. so i see that as being a focal point. i mean, you know, the fcc sort of talking to congress and there being a dialogue back and forth, but congress acting to insure that more spectrum can be made available. >> host: do you foresee the republicans being supportive of senator rockefeller's proposal, and what about julius genachowski's use of the white spaces proposal?

>> guest: well, i mean, i think republicans have come down to different places on the white spaces proposal, and they've come down in different places on senator rockefeller's proposal. you know, certainly -- and, again, another example of sort of the bipartisanship on communications issues is, you know, waxman and barton had a bibe partson -- bipartson proposal for how to deal with the d block. it was different than the rockefeller proposal. i don't know that it will necessarily be embraced in the house on either side. >> host: sure. i guess to follow up on that, you know, on the d block in particular which is what we're essentially talking about, that small chunk of spectrum that could be given either directly to public safety or to be given to commercial carriers which would do some of the work in leasing the spectrum off, i mean, how do you see that resolving itself? do you see republicans, you know, taking the tack that

rockefeller did or kind of working on something similar to waxman what is given the support it's already gotten? >> guest: so far this issue is breaking down by house, not by party. and it'll be interesting to see how that resolves itself. right now it appears that senator rockefeller has taken the initiative in the senate, and the ball seems to be in his court. i would expect him to move earlier on that issue and to set the agenda and the terms of the debate. shortly after the hearing, i believe the ranking member, senator hutchison from texas, said positive things about the rockefeller proposal which indicates you might see a bipartisan bill which gives the d block to public safety and supports building the public safety network through auctions. >> host: sure. are incentive auctions that one component of the rockefeller bill that would voluntarily take spectrum and auction it back off, is that one of those items that just seems to be universeally supported? i haven't heard anybody on either side saying they're bad things, so do you think that's one of the things that wins the

day no matter what -- >> guest: i'm sorry. >> guest: i think the concept is there are a lot of details you have to work out in terms of how much money do the existing -- do the existing licensees just get compensated to cease business? do they get compensated to be relocated to a different band? you know, so there are lots of issues involved in how you do the mechanics, but i think in general using auction proceeds, i mean, look, the spectrum below 3 gigahertz is ideal for commercial mobile services. the spectrum below 1 gigahertz is even better because you have to build fewer towers. so there's a lot of interest in making more spectrum below 1 gigahert available for commercial mobile use. if you're going to have to displace existing lie licenseesu know, there's some sort of wrenching decisions that have to be made about how you compensate them and whether they're going to be in business in a different

band. so i don't think it's clear at all where members will come down on any of those issues, but i think there's a real impetus to address that issue. >> host: mr. rothschild. >> guest: you always have to start with the premise that nothing in this policy arena is never universeally supported. so the notion ofny auctions at a -- incentive auctions at a very top line has the support of the wireless community, but there are a lot of questions where you could quickly see fizz yours start to develop among the industries very, very quickly. >> host: mr. rothschild, th issue of privacy, online privacy has gotten a lot of press attention in the last six months or so. how do you see that playing outsome. >> guest: you know, that's always the wildcard. i would just observe that i think since 1999, and, howard, correct me if i'm getting this wrong, in every congress when it's begun, the chairman has said, this is the year we're going to pass privacy legislation.

and each year we spend time on it, bills are introduced, and i think what typically folks recognize is they get deeper into the debate, this is a very complicated ecosystem. there's ad networks, there's publishers, there's content providers, internet service providers, and what's grown up is this ecosystem where consumers benefit from a lot of internet content that's made available for free. and the reason that is is it's supported by advertising, and it's becoming more valuable because of the targeted nature of that advertising. but it's also how that advertising becomes targeted which is where consumers sometimes object. and that's where the rub is. but when folks, when members of congress start to delve in and start to write rules, they realize quickly they are going to affect the that internet ecosystem and the consumer's experience in ways they may not like. and how that issue gets resolved will determine whether or not we

have legislation in the next congress. >> host: but the noise, mr. waltzman, around privacy has really ramped up in the last six months or so. would you agree with that? >> guest: absolutely. and, you know, the problem is as people do more and more online not just communicate, but participate on social networks, you know, purchase products, you know, as more and more of your information is sort of there online, it's more valuable to advertisers. and that, you know, for better or worse is the engine that drives the internet ecosystem. most applications, most web sites are free. and they're free because as gregg said, they're advertisement-driven. so the tug-of-war between people wanting to protect and keep confidential a lot of that information about what they're doing online versus, you know, sustaining the economic model, the internet, it's a very tough dilemma. but i absolutely agree with you, and it's every day.

every day "the wall street journal" series is a good example, and there are other examples. you know, there is a lot of noise about customer -- not even just customer, just even, you know, people participating on social networks having their information including personally-identifiable information being passed on to third parties and sold to advertisers. >> host: so i guess the next question, as you said, it's a tough dilemma figuring out that right balance. does that lead the subcommittee or the full committee to take more of around wait and see approach entering the 112th congress, see what the fcc and the department of commerce does, or does it take a more proactive role, you know, starting right when the 112th kicks off right where the 111th left off where members of many have been working on? this and that's for both of you. >> guest: certainly, the issue will have a high profile, and i think there'll certainly be

hearings, and members will begin to sort of debate what the best and be educated from witnesses on, you know, what the best approach is. i don't know that they'll necessarily begin with where the current legislative drafts are, but i certainly think the issue is going to continue to be important, and there's going to continue to be focus on if there's going to be a federal comprehensive framework in the online space, what should that framework be. >> guest: we just saw the white house put together an interagency task force on this issue. we expect the chairman of the ftc to release his report very, very soon. that'll influence the debate. you've had the private sector come together with a self-regulatory set of guidelines and policies which were just recently implemented, so i think congress will get together in january, and they'll look at all of that. there will certainly be hearings. we know for certain there'll be legislation introduced. the question will always be when that legislation starts to move, do the members feel comfortable voting on that, and do they

really feel comfortable they understand the ramifications of it? oftentimes, the most difficult reason it's difficult to move a telecommunications bill is members like to vote on things that they feel really comfortable with the substance. and on the issue of privacy because, because of the intricacies, again, of the internet ecosystem, i think it'll take a little while to get members ready to move that type of legislation. >> host: gentlemen, the verizons, at&t, comcast, facebook, microsoft, google, intel, cisco just to name a few very large american companies, who do they want to be in the charge, the republicans or the democrats? >> guest: i think you'd have to ask them. >> guest: i would agree with howard. i'd rather you asked them. >> host: next question. [laughter] >> host: i guess, i guess that does kind of get us into talk about what's happening with the subcommittee and full committee leadership. do you see there being a drastic change? we've heard a number of candidates from shimkus to upton if full committee doesn't lay out that stearns may be leaving

to go to veterans affairs, including walden who was once on the committee and gave up his spot. do you think those candidates -- i mean, i know you can't speak to the individual as you just said, but do you think those candidates, like, represent different, very, very strikingly different views on some of the issues that we talked about, or do you see them being in a similar camp so much so that it's safe to say no matter which one takes up the subcommittee, we're going to take a different role, policing the fcc, oversight role -- >> host: and just to further tony's question, does it matter if fred upton is chair of the energy and commerce committee or joe barton or cliff stearns? >> guest: well, i think that they all are going to be focused on broadband reclassification and spectrum. and, you know, again, given the noise on privacy, it's tough not to see how they'd be focused on privacy. i mean, i think those are going to be the committee priorities. frankly, i think they're the committee priorities whether the

republicans are in charge or whether the democrats are in charge, so i think it also, certainly, regardless of who's in charge of that committee, you know, those are the sort of hot button issues, those are likely to be the priorities moving forward. >> host: and just to follow up on that really quickly, what should we expect to see if upton who is widely believed to be in the running for the full committee, what should we expect to see in terms of rewrites? what types of things would an upton-led committee be up to? >> guest: i think he had an op-ed recently talking about concern about regulation and engaging in oversight. so i think we'll see a lot of oversight, both of the fcc, of the b-top program, everything sort of within that jurisdiction. but, you know, upton participate, upton and barton participated in sort of the last attempt at a comprehensive rewrite which was in '96, and

dingell and markey participated in that as well. so, e mean, he's, you know, gotten his feet wet with respect to, you know, a broad rewrite of the communications act. and so, you know, but that, again, that's not an easy task, it's not a quick task. but, i mean, that is something that he does have familiarity with. >> host: and gregg rothschild, if mr. waxman maintains or retains his chairmanship, what do you see his focus? >> >> guest: well, again -- >> host: particularly when it comes to rewriting of the telecommon -- >> guest: as you both know, he spent the last few months of the present congress attempting to gain some kind of con consensus around the issue of broadband regulation. i would think assuming he maintains the chairmanship, he'll try to continue those negotiations, work with the republicans on the committee, work with the industry, work with folks in the democrat and republican party to achieve that consensus to give the fcc clear direction on broadband

regulation. and on the senate side, senator rockefeller, obviously, has been following that issue very closely and was involved in stakeholder meetings on the subject, but he seems more targeted in focusing on the spectrum question, particularly on allocating spectrum to public safety to get a public safety network built as quickly as possible and using funding from auctions to support the building of that network. >> host: and we have to leave it there. thank you both, former lead counsels for the telecommunications committee. howard waltzman, republican, and gregg rothschild, democrat. tony rom politico, thank you all for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thank you. >> guest: thank you. >> you have been watching "the communicators," c-span's weekly look at the people and issues impacting the future of telecommunications. if you missed any of this discussion on how technology policy may change if republicans win back the house, you can watch "the communicators" again tonight at 8 ian right here on -- 8 eastern right here on

c-span2. >> coming up next, white house domestic policy adviser melody barnes. >> now, white house domestic policy adviser melody barnes. she recently attended a green conference in washington and talked about the use of energy sources. she's interviewed by atlantic's national correspondent james fallows. this is about half an hour. >> there's a lot of discussion about the climate bill, the fact that climate energy bill, the fact that nothing got through the congress this year and what that meant for a longer-term perspective for companies, for

scientific organizations and all the rest. how do you think people who care about dealing with climate issues should view legislative prospects? is this something that'll be five years before it comes up again, ten years? what do you think? >> i'm smiling and laughing because as elizabeth was saying, i've spent a total of about ten years working on capitol hill, and i guess one of the things that i've learned is if you start to put your money down on when you think congress will act, you will inevitably lose your money. i remember thinking on some pieces of legislation i thought, well, this'll be an easy one, and literally, eight years later we were still trying to get it through. that's always difficult to judge. i think, certainly the country -- and i hope we'll talk about this a little bit later, we were talking about it off stage -- the country has started to move, and the thinking of the country has move inside a different direction than it was a decade ago or, you know, five, eight years ago. but at the same time there are many concerns about moving this kind of legislation forward from

those who pose it. oppose it. and also i think the country taking in and absorbing, you know, big pieces of legislation we've already passed like the health care bill, that that will effect the environment and how we proceed forward on energy legislation. at the same time, the president feels that it's critical that we move forward, and whether or not it's through legislation which would set a big comprehensive framework for companies, for the private sector, for investors and for the rest of the world to see, and that would be important and, obviously, that's a priority. that's why we tried to move id in the first two years. there are still other ways we can advance this energy agenda. again, going back to that new foundation speech because it's so critical. >> right. and this is a question you've been asked a million times but i have to ask it, any second thoughts of having made health reform as opposed to climate energy the first big effort

legislatively? >> no. you know, we -- i was on the campaign for the period from the primaries until election day, and i have, obviously, many colleagues who were on the campaign for the full two-year period. and one of the things that we heard consistently whether it was from families, individuals, whether it was from the private sector was that we had to deal with the issue of health care both when looking at the fiscal state of the nation and this issue around cost. when you're looking at trying to -- or taking the appropriate steps forward necessary to create certainty for the business sector and also to help the business sector create, compete globally and, also, the issues of family security. all of that hinged around dealing with this issue of health care, and it ties directly into the issue of jobs. i mean, health care is one of the fastest-growing areas for job creation as we are in a period where we are anxious and eager to create more jobs. so we believe that's integral to

an overall picture, but that's also why we were trying to push health care and energy at the same time. we really felt like it was a walk and talk, walk and chew gum moment. >> while the center of your work has been policy over the years, you've had broad political experience. you've seen senatorial politics. it seems this political campaign is all about deficits and about jobs. as you think about american politics in the larger sense, how do environmental and energy concerns play into these two pressing issues of the moment? is there space to make a energy environment climate pitch when people are talking about deficits and jobs? >> well, i think the big problem and, again, i keep returning to the idea of investment in these critical areas is when we disaggregate them, that's when we've done great damage to the country. when we haven't looked over the horizon to see where are jobs going to be created, where are the big innovations going to

take place, where should we be putting our r&d dollars, what signals should we be sending to the markets and to investors, that's when we've created a big problem for ourselves, and it's clear that energy is going to play a big role in the kinds of jobs that we're able to create. i know that you'll be hearing from my colleague, john holder, a little lateerer today, and just talking to john as he's recently been out, i think most recently he was in china and india recently, and talking to other colleagues who have been traveling globally, they say, look, when we sit down and talk to science and technology ministers, there is no debate globally about the importance of this issue. it's when we return home that we're still, you know, pushing and shoving and trying to convince people that the nation has to move in this direction. so if we are, indeed, serious about job creation, then we have to focus on this as an important, as an important

marketplace, and we have to do all the things that are necessary to insure that we're ready. that includes r&d dollars, that also includes an investment in this education which is one of the reasons we focus so heavily on science, technology, engineering and math and making sure that our students are ready, also making sure that those already in the workplace are getting the necessary credentials and training so that they are ready for these kinds of jobs. it's, it's critical. it's integral, it's all intertwined. >> you've given me one opening i can't resist just as an observation, and then you've also mentioned a question i want to ask. the new foundation speech which was a great speech by president obama, i was once a speech writer for jimmy carter, and he had a speech called the new foundations. there's a little band of us hoping that president obama would have some slightly different configuration, but the idea concern. -- [laughter]

it's an important one. internationally there's no doubt about the importance of investments in energy and climate technologies. i have an article coming out in the atlantic actually next month about chinese/u.s. collaborations on some energy issues, and one of the contrasts is the chinese can say we're going to spend on this the next ten years, and everybody knows they're going to do it whereas people have seen past american efforts know there is a stop-start phenomenon. how can the u.s. get past that stop-start pattern we've had for years? >> well, in part this goes back to our conversation about legislation which, again, helped set a glide path, creates a framework, says to the business sector, says to those in r&d, this is where we're going and starts to provide some level of certainty as, you know, regulation as the blanks get filled in after legislation has been signed into law. so i think that that's an important way. i think it's also critical that we continue to engage with and

learn from the private sector, what the private sector needs to move forward. where they believe the best investments can be made. i mean, one of the things that the government has done exceedingly well over time, and you look at, you know, the different around pa, the different entities that have been set up is to put money into kind of beginning stages of innovation that the private sector can take and run with and take to market and, you know, profits and jobs and, you know, are created. so being in concert, being engaged with the private sector around that, doing what government can do well but, also, at the same time recognizing that there are things that the private sector has to do, does well and letting the private sector move forward with that and also the investments in if job training and education so that we have a work force that's ready to move into the energy economy. >> there is a concerted initiative the administration

has put out recently i want to ask you about for a few minutes, and then we'll have questions for the audience. this is the partnership for sustainable communities, and as you said, there's lots of latitudes you're taking in the executive realm since legislative barriers have appeared. and this is interesting in both policy and structural approach. could you say more about how you came up with this idea and why you think it's significant? >> sure. well, the partnership for sustainable communities is a partnership that includes the department of housing and urban development, the environmental protection agent and agency ande department of transportation. and the three, the two secretaries and the administrator, so lisa, sean and ray has been doing some work together. and as they were going to different cities, going to different regions, one of the things that they were realizing is they just listened to these conversations, we aren't -- the federal government -- aren't set up properly to think holistically to think comprehensively about the work that localities and communities

are doing and to be responsive to their needs as they try and think holistically and comprehensively about housing, transportation and the environment and how those three pieces come together to make communities more vibrant, more viable, more economically competitive. so the idea was to come back and through the work that we do at the white house and coordination -- and particular this came out of our urban policy office in the domestic policy council -- to try and create an environment that we were being more supportive of that work. so thinking about proposals that we are getting from localities, from states, from communities and having those three entities work together, analyze those proposals, think about how they could fund them and support them together so that we were responding to people out of our silos. we weren't just making transportation, housing, environment, but thinking about how those three things have come together.

and we've just started to announce a series of grants that are going out, about almost half a billion, over $400 million worth of grants based on monies that were already at those two departments and the agency to fund projects that think about how all of those pieces come together, and we think that that's a much smarter way to fund and also will help us think about ways that we are lowering policy barriers and regulatory barriers so that we're being most responsive to states and communities. >> and on the environmental effect, aspect of this plan, what are some illustrations of ways in which you think it will make a difference in energy use and land planning and all the rest? is. >> sure, absolutely. well, for example, there is -- we started out with a pilot around brownfield, and a pilot looking in five different cities, you know, denver, i think culver city, boston, a couple of other cities and focusing on how we can take these contaminated areas and

focus on mixed-use housing. also think about multimodal transportation and economic business investments in those areas. and then not only how those different components will grow and kind of spring out of the granteds and investments that are being made. and mind you, the federal dollars here are important but not huge. what we're also trying to do is leverage private sector and philanthropic dollars in these areas. but also see what sprouts out of it because we are funding good proposals, we believe, but also what do we need to change, how do we need to dial things up or down, what levers do we need to turn on and off so that we can go and build off of these pilots and do this better in other areas? you know, i can give you examples in los angeles, in iowa, all over the country, some in tribal communits as well as we're -- communities as well as we're thinking about light rail, multimodal transportation, and doing all of these on these six

livability principles that undergird the partnership. focus on housing, transportation, how to leverage our investment, how to be more economically competitive. >> and is your experience so far that this is being received with the same polarized political reaction that we see in general? how is it being received? >> it is -- it's been fabulous, actually, and very, very refreshing. we, for example, when you look at -- get kind of wonky talk -- >> you're entitled. >> okay, thank you. [laughter] my dad used to work for the department of the army, he'd come home with all these acronyms, but anyway, we have these tiger grants that come out of the department of temperatures. we have about $600 million in the second round we could put out the door. we received applications for $23 billion worth of grant funding. so there's a huge, huge response to this, and those applying for the different kinds of grants available are from every state,

literally, every state in the union and crosses geographic lines, obviously, but also political lines because, again, we're thinking about how to better use transportation, how to lower transportation costs, how do create greater efficiencies, how to create communities where businesses have access to markets that they didn't have access to because we're thinking about how to layer housing on top of that and how to layer transportation on top of that. so it's a job creator not only in the bidding of the systems -- building of the systems, but also people that have access to businesses and to amenities that are important to them. and then, quite frankly, i think we can all attest to this, it's also a question about how you want to live your life. i used to live out in northern virginia. my commute could take 25 minutes, or it could take an hour and a half or two hours. i literally spent years in my car. people are doing that and thinking, i'd rather be spending this time with my family and

create an easier and better lifestyle for myself in addition to all the better benefits we see out of this, so there's a great response to it. >> one more question to ask, but i invite people to come to the microphones which are here and leer, and i'll be happy to call on you for your questions. you certainly have seen enough political administrations to know that everyone comes in saying they're going to break the barriers between the departments, they're going to have a new, streamlined way. what gives you faith that this approach that the administration is applying will be different from all these partially successful programs in the past? >> sure, absolutely. one, because it comes from the top, and the president is really insistent on it, and he's very focused on it as we are thinking and planning. two, because, you know, we're not just -- if you're a gardener, kind of pulling at the leaves and of the weeds and saying, oh, okay, my garden is now clean. we're trying to get underneath and dig out the roots. so we're also working closely with office of management and

budget, for example, and thinking about what kind of guidance we're putting out to agencies, so as they're doing their budgets, working together, they're thinking about these issues and putting it in their plans so that's undergirding their plans. and also because we have -- and maybe other administrations have said this as well, but i really mean it -- we've got cabinet secretaries and senior-level officials who really, a, they've done this on the ground, so they get the problem. but they also really want to and work very, very well together. you know, if you have spent time with ray and lisa and sean, you know that they enjoy actually interacting and thinking creatively about how all these pieces can work together. so i think, you know, as personnel is policy, so those people working together, but also as we're putting together the framework internally within the executive branch, we're doing it so that we can move these ideas out. >> great, thank you. i think somebody's here at this microphone first. yes. >> hi. i'm brad johnson.

even as we, even as climate disasters are increasing in frequency and severity like this week's land hurricane or chiclone, you know, the thing that doesn't make any sense that we've never seen before, republican elected officials are launching criminal investigations saying that they want to investigate climate scientists for fraud or hoax or conspiracy. what do you think is a greater threat to the future of this nation, the impacts of unchecked global warming pollution, or the republican party's assault on scientific thought? [laughter] >> well, i'll say this -- >> and i know it's a leading question, but i'm very curious to know that. [laughter] >> sure. one of the things that the president did early in the administration, and most people remember this day because of the executive order he signed on stem cells, was he also signed a

presidential memorandum on scientific integrity. so, again, setting the stage and saying we have to operate on data. and i can tell you from that broad framework to work i do on very, very specific issues, we're always focused on what's the data, what's the information. i think that the american public, you know, through what they're reading, the impact they see as a result of the shift in the climate are also moving in this a different direction and pushing in a different direction. i think the political debate is starting to shift. it isn't where, completely where we would want it to be. as i said, when my colleagues travel globally, they often come back very frustrated that we are having, you know, ground hog's day on some of these issues. but i do think it's shifting, and i also think the american public is insisting that it shift, and our economy is demanding that it shift. even, you know, if you for whatever reason don't believe the science, you've got to believe the economic imperative around moving to a clean energy

economy. so i think we're, we are moving, and i think our focus on science and data is one that we are continuing to push and, certainly, undergirds what we're trying to do in our conversations as we go to capitol hill. >> and just to clarify one point there, within the administration is there any don't believe the science camp, is there any debate about this? >> within our administration? >> in the administration. >> no. >> okay. [laughter] >> so, yes, over here. >> yeah, hi, good morning. >> good morning. >> i'm steven jordan, i run the business leadership center, and we work with corporate citizens across the country. and one of the frustrations that a lot of the companies that we work with feel is that political space, you know, political jurisdictions were designed in some cases in the is theth sent -- 19th century, 18th century, 17th century, and the economic footprint has changed, the environmental footprint might be across multiple jurisdictions, the social impacts like you were talking

about here in northern virginia and d.c., you know, like a booz allen or a knorr -- nor thrum grumman, they feel like the whole area is one thing when you're dealing with it, or like pennsylvania, they feel like they've got to deal with multiple, multiple local jurisdictions. is there -- and, apparently, this is a big issue particularly in the environmental configurations with, say, water, electricity, whatever -- >> uh-huh. >> is there some way maybe through the sustainable community initiative where we can start figuring out ways to bring some of the political municipalities together? >> yep. >> i mean, it's just -- some of these things just seem to transcend some of the historical, political boundaries. and i'm just curious if that is something that maybe we could work on together. >> yep. absolutely. that's a great question. and definitely something that

we're not only thinking about, but, again, trying to adjust those levers and encourage and incent the kind of breaking down of political silos that you've talked about. in a couple of ways, certainly in the partnership for sustainable communities, and we recognize, you know, as we are, as we're trying to be response i have to local -- responsive to low cac todays and trying to change the way we do business to encourage the kind of change that you talk about. it's difficult. you know, change is hard, big change is harder, but the breaking down of those political lines to see areas as metropolitan areas or regions is really critical exactly for the reasons you discuss, and that's one of the things that we're encouraging in the partnership and the way that people think about coming together and funding. and, in fact, they're not only local planning grants that are being given out, but they're regional planning grants that are being given out through the partnership for the very reason that you describe.

and then there are other kinds of initiatives that we're doing that are cousins of the partnership. for example, our focus on regional innovation clusters recognizing -- i think as elizabeth mentioned, i went to college in chapel hill, and that triangle area is well known as being an area that thinks of itself as raleigh-durham and chapel hill, and how do they leverage those assets for the betterment of the entire region as opposed to just raleigh thinking about raleigh and durham thinking about durham. that's obviously relevant in this area. and i say this as a virginian except for all the people used to say to me, i'm not going across the bridge. [laughter] we're not asking you to go to siberia. that's a way that we're thinking about policy, and that's something that we're incentivizing through the grant making that we're doing. but it's also something that, i think, local regions recognize because they recognize they can get a bigger bang for their buck

if they're building off all the assets in this a region as opposed to those within their specific political lines. >> thanks. so we have about two minutes now. we have time for one more question. please, it's you. >> alan greenberg, department of transportation, although the question is my own. with the failure of cap and trade, the one element that seems to be really important that is now missing is how one puts an incentive on people individually to reduce their carbon emissions. wondering if there's an effort afoot to try to figure out how to construct that in a way separate from cap and trade? in the transportation field, i can think of two ideas as well as others in some other fields. for instance, we allow employers to provide parking benefits, and that occurs in most cases only a small portion of employers provide transit benefits. if you provide the parking

benefit, you have to offer an equivalent benefit in lieu of that. second idea similar -- and, again, this is about getting the individual user to -- >> right. >> -- to see the cost. and the second idea is insurance people pay a fixed fee for insurance, if they pay per mile for insurance, you'd have an awful lot less driving. brookings did a big study, 8% reduction in driving. and, clearly, that's the link between your risk is when you're driving and you don't face a risk. i'm wondering -- these are two specific ideas, more broadly whether there might be some effort to try to figure out how to put incentives on the consumers on transportation, utility use, etc. outside of this framework that is the cap and trade framework that, unfortunately, has been deemed politically dead. [laughter] >> thank you. >> thank you. and we've absolutely been thinking about this at every level. and as i think local communities

have been as well and, also, as we're thinking about the federal government being a model employer. so how we're interacting with our own work force. but as we think about livable communities so, you know, more sidewalks, more light rail, you know, we're giving grants and trolley cars and streetcars, how do you better connect the forms of transportation in a community, all of these things to try and incent the better use of clean sources of transportation by consumers. and also, again, being in communication with the business community because i think the business community is also thinking about what it can do as an employer not only for the benefit of it employees, but, you know, many being, you know, great global partners and thinking about ways that we can address, you know, the big climate issues that face our country. and as i said, also, with the federal government trying to be a model employer and to the very

specific kinds of initiatives that you talk about in offering, you know, the smart card and offering ways that people can easily use light rail and other forms of transportation to get to work. so we've got to think at every single level as we, also, try and figure out what are going to be the big incentives that we put in place and, also, the kind of assurance that we want to put in place so the market will respond accordingly. but it takes everything. and i think, hopefully, since you work with the department of transportation, you know we're always looking for good ideas from everyone around the administration and actively seeking those ideas. so i hope you've shared those with ray as well. >> there are lots more questions, but we've reached the end of our time, i'm sorry. please join me in thanking melody barnes for a wonderful presentation. >> thank you. [applause]

>> coming up, a brief pro forma session of the u.s. senate. then, a discussion on prosecuting and defending cases involving classified information. >> the ninth circuit court of appeals in san francisco is meeting today to decide whether to uphold a lower court's decision that struck down parts of arizona's immigration law. it requires police to inspect a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable belief that the individual is in the u.s. illegal he. illegally. the lower court ruled that arizona preempted the federal government's authority to set immigration law. watch the oral argument live today at noon eastern on our companion network, c-span. >> the u.s. senate is about to

gavel in for a brief pro forma session. no legislative business will be conducted. this is one of several pro forma sessions scheduled during the congressional recess before the chamber reconvenes later this month. these sessions were part of a deal reached in exchange for not blocking certain obama administration nominees. republicans called for these brief sessions every week in order to, technically, keep the chamber in session to dissuade from president obama to use recess appointments during the six week break. we now take you live to the u.s. capitol here on c-span2.