matters a lot. and certainly cnn has a captive willing audience, but amazon's audience was a heck of a lot bigger and also they were first to market. selected a lot of it right there. >> host: a couple more 2010 books, both of which booktv covered. cars are, steven ratner, an insider's account of the emergency rescue of the audio industry and murder profits written by erik the taxes. laura bush told us that the national book festival this year that this is the book that george w. bush was reading and september into over. now, to your calls. 202-737-0001 for those of you in the east and central time zones. 202-737-0002 if you live in the mountain and pacific time zones.

karen in detroit, you're on with jenn risko of shelf awareness. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm curious for the publisher to ask, will writers begin to consider putting hyperlinks into their book to take readers to other spot or other locations that are relevant to the text of their reading? i think that could create a really dynamic reading experience. ten comments more than just reading the book, but then maybe a platform of going to a higher hyperlink. >> host: jenn risko. >> guest: i believe we can party to this this, can't we? for instance, if you're reading -- let me think about this. if you're reading "the new york times" on your kindle time you can click on it to link to other websites, right-click so if we take from that -- it gets a

publishing thing about whether or not we want people to be leaving the page. i see no reason why not to do that. i think we just have been embraced yet. but i can certainly see that happening. >> host: by the way, we did have this tweet following karo garlington's book, matterhorn. i believe this was a big part of his success. >> guest: if i left that out, please forgive me because it was the indie booksellers for sure that really handful despite the thousands. please forgive. i just knew he was one of the first people to see this. >> host: how did indie booksellers to this year? >> guest: i think indie booksellers did pretty well. what we are hearing is this is a much better christmas than last year, which is what would like to hear, so we're happy about that. >> host: a couple more books

have come out this year. james buchan, arab voices. stephen breyer, justice stephen breyer, making our democracy work. actuals would cover came out with his 25th book. joe biden, a life of trial and redemption. in another one, laura ingram, the obama diaries. this was one of the best-selling conservative books of the year. how did conservative books due this year? glenn beck came out with two, et cetera. >> guest: i believe conservative books did incredibly well. there's like a lot of conservative books and then stuff my dad says and chelsea chelsea bang bang. i think its either way. it's either conservative or that the financial crisis was a fun books. i heard from a lot of booksellers than nonfiction related topical list moreover than fiction, even more so than

in most years. >> host: was that a surprise? >> guest: i think it is a little bit of a surprise, yeah. but a nice one. >> host: all right, next call, cranford, new jersey. scott, you were on the air. >> caller: hi, jennifer. how are you? we're at the riverside and i wanted to sit there and say hello to you and say that we're all proud of you in self-awareness and wanted to thank you so much for getting my favorite child book and getting me that limited-edition copy. >> guest: okay. >> host: jen, is that somebody you know? >> guest: yes, it is. it is my brother. >> host: what is the book you got him? >> guest: this was years ago. it was his favorite childhood book that went out of print. i believe was back when bryn

mcnally is publishing children's books and it was his favorite, favorite book and i had to find it in a used bookstore for him. it was the little mailmen of bayberry lane. it's been out of print for 30 years. anyway, my brother is having a little fun with me there. >> host: well, speaking of children's books, there is one book that sold over 5 million copies. diary of a wimpy kid. >> guest: this is for sure the biggest print of any book that we know at this year. that was the initial print run was 5 million copies. 5 million. i mean, think about this. you know, kids -- we talk about her kids are reading anymore today. well, they are reading be kid for sure. i mean, there was buses and stories of people waiting up all night long. i mean, you know, eight, nine, 10-year-old kids waiting all

night long so they could get their mitts on diary of a wimpy kid. i'm guessing on this, but i think this is probably the top selling book of any book for this year, this diary of wimpy kids. >> host: out of the 5 billion sales comparison of the harry potter books clicks >> guest: it's close, but not quite as close. i mean, i don't remember -- i think the last couple harry potters were maybe seven, 8 million, something like that in the short run. could be more. so would be kid is not quite up there with harry potter or twilight even, but it's a huge, huge undergoing. >> host: a couple more nonfiction books that came out in 2010. near rosen's aftermath, following the bloodshed of america's wars in the muslim world. and also, bloody cry: chase for jefferson davis and the death pageant for lincoln's corpse. this is james swanson's latest

book on the civil war. and abraham lincoln was interviewed by edna medford cream of howard university for our "after words" program. don, humana, arizona. good evening. >> caller: my question is regarding the e-books. >> host: please go ahead, sir. >> caller: i have a nook and i was wondering if they ever thought about bundling -- if you bought the e-book, the electronic portion and if you could buy the whole book together as a bundle. >> host: all right, jenn risko, you kind of address that i'm a bit if you'd like to repeat it for him. >> guest: i totally agree with you. if you buy the book, it should be in both electronic and print format, that you should get a discount for buying, you know, a

discount on one of them are both of them, for buying them collectively. as you mentioned before, it would be nice to read your book at home, your paper book at home. when you leave to catch the train coming with nice to read your book on your phone or on your ipad or whatever it is. i think that, you know, it was a year ago or so that of miller was that harper studio at the time talked about doing more of this. and i think we are going to be seen a lot for this in the future. so i'm looking forward to it because books can be happy sometimes. and yet, i still like reading a physical book, too. >> host: to very heavy books they came out this year by two well-known heavy historians. ivan morrison, the last in his trilogy and theodore roosevelt, entitled colonel roosevelt. he was interviewed on our key in a program. and simon winchester appeared in booktv. his most recent historical book,

atlantic: great sea battles, wrote discoveries, titanic storms. christina and bloomfield, new jersey, you're on the air with jenn risko of shelf awareness. go ahead. >> caller: hi, how are you? good, i was just admiring jennifer rice said she is so pretty. but no, this has to do with books. i just read almost 600 pages in the last two weeks, a week and a half and i'm like really high on the power of books. it's a form of entertainment. you know, i like tv, but this is even better because it ties tv to books. >> host: what book are you currently reading? >> guest: i'm reading packer toll as he wrote two books that i have here. one is the power of now and i finished that one and a new orders.

and as their various virtually motivating book. he talks about some form of spirituality to stay in the now. and you know, i think it's very powerful because with the many changes on the planet and in the world, this gives you a little bit of basic information on, you know, how we see the earth. how do we see humankind? and even it brings everything back to yourself. so i like him. i think it's great. my brother passed the buck onto me and and i read it and then i pass it on to somebody else. >> guest: this isn't overbook. >> caller: it was. i felt neutral about that. >> host: unlike jonathan friend. >> caller: i guess by reading you find out what really is a really great book.

and i wish that the author gets the proper credits and that's great. and reagan is such an enjoyable pastime. sometimes you have to quiet everything in order to read. i've seen them around, but, you know, i've even given some away, the reading is so beneficial to yourself. if emulates the minds and it tells the story. >> host: thank you for calling in. jenn risko. any comments for her? >> guest: i agree. reading is good. >> host: opera is going away. what if that will this have? >> guest: do know, i don't know that she's really going away. i mean, she is going to be doing her own show on their own network, right? i believe it is called on, oprah

winfrey network. but i understand that it's business as usual and that opera will still be talking about books. fishes that she will be on network tv. it will be interesting to see what effect that has. certainly of all the forces in the universe, oak room is at the top. >> host: okay, this is not a set of question. jenn risko come if you're a book publicist and you couldn't get on the oprah show, where would you try to get people to publicize their books clicks >> guest: it's not a trick question? postcode you do not have to say booktv. >> guest: i'd give it to peter. i think -- here's my feeling on this, that there is very few one-person outlets that make

that big of a difference. to me, what really makes a difference is, you know, as you said before lakewood matterhorn, that if you get to galleys in the hands of the booksellers out there, that should get them in front of the librarians, they should get to people who are going to review it online or on good reads or whatever it is. you know, i can't really answer because i believe in market grassroots kind of thing, but the more people you're talking about books, just like what christina said in a phone call from her brother gave her her book and opera may or may not have influenced that decision for her, as she felt somewhat neutral about it. i think that's the best way really is you get as many people talking about your book as possible. >> host: you did answer and that was a financier. here is a tweet.

why do these books sell so well? >> guest: why do these books sell so well? by the way, the numbers i just thought that keith richards 900,000, which is amazing. you know what? if we think about -- actually, another book that came out as well but has a really interesting story behind it is the chief e-book, decoded. that book has sold over 300,000 copies. why are they spoke so important? i don't know. we talked about the list and that was a lot of conservative books and a lot of funny books like stuff my dad does and chelsea chelsea bang bang is sort of an either or thing do we solve the serious side to things and we have the pleasure sides of things. and certainly it's a pleasure to read about all the rush with

that the keith richards has. who would want to know about that? the guy has a lot to say. how to delay those risks down for street riding man? in so many of the creepy sessions like patty smyth and keith richards, but not cheesy because he is certainly a big younger, but a lot of these great people that we grew up are getting a bit older and so it's nice to hear their stories now. >> host: here's noah feldman's latest work from 2010, scorpions, and battles and triumphs of fdr's great supreme court justices. now, if i do newspapers and other interest groups have put out their best of 2010 most. we'll start with overture's weekly. publishers weekly put out their best book of 2010. they included patty smyth won the national book award. they also included freedom coming about by johnson crimson

galore hillenbrand, unbroken. what was the reaction to laura hillenbrand's latest book? she wrote the book about seabiscuit two, didn't she? >> guest: she did. look, unbroken is the next book on my list to read. i had the galley for a file and maintained to read it because we are all waiting for the next laura hillenbrand. i loved seabiscuit. and in fact, the story of unbroken is about a guy who was running in the olympics in the late 30s in east berlin. you should stay rabble-rouser, a troublemaker. he ran up and grabbed the german flag out of the vice chance to read. and then he was preparing olympics and he went into the army and became a bombardier. at one point he was stationed off of a wahoo and his plane got

shot down and crashed and went into the ocean. and then he and his copilot were on a raft for 47 days. for 47 days as guys were on a raft. if the sharks coming in trying to eat them. they're punching the sharks on the nose to fend them off. they finally see an island in the distance. take it off onto berlin's and it is low and behold the japanese pow camp. so the spirit of the sky, louis, and what he had to endure to fight back from those experiences and also endurance and speed of the, see this date, i think it's interesting to note this especially because laura hillenbrand suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome and she's actually said this much that she gets to live a bit vicariously through these care nurse, through these stories.

>> host: because of that, she does not go on book tour. "the new yorker" put up a list of notable books that they think everyone should read and it includes peter binaries, the icarus syndrome, the history of american hubris, as well as alan brinkley's, the publisher. henry luce and his american century. by the way, does pose books were covered on booktv. again, booktv.org is the website. sibley coach of the upper left-hand corner, use the search function, typing part of the book title and watch them all in line at your leisure. jane, woodbury, connecticut. you're on the air was jenn risko. >> caller: hi, i so many things i want to talk about. for one thing dynabook reader and i just want to say i have a book club started long before opera. and we read classics and new books. and i just want to say chan, one

of the reasons that typewriter ever took off was because of book clubs and women who taught about that whole thing. but the other thing is i listen to books on cd in my car. i also have an ipad were i downloaded book because i can't get enough of a car and i want to read on what i call my e-book. but the other thing is i really think that a lot of people, you know, they read it in different edi, if you will. there's a book with paper and then the cd in the car. and then there is money ipad where i could download classics for free. my question to you as well, basically two things. one is i want to stress the fact that book club and women talking -- i shouldn't just say women, but it usually is to promote a book and it becomes really popular.

but the other thing is, what about people that can't afford e-books? that don't have a kindle orie nook. even sony has a kind of nook thing. what happens with those readers? >> host: we've got the question. >> guest: i think the answer there is there are thousands of free e-books out there that you don't need a device to read on. so if you went to your local independent bookseller and asked them about the google e-books attention, they could show you right there how to download a copy of jane and her onto your desktop and read it that way. so i think it actually -- it actually frees up a lot of books for people who can't afford their own device. and not what i said earlier that i think what we're seeing is that things will move away from

the device specific comest if you can't afford a candle. although what about they cannot or new candle which was $130. >> host: 139, correct. >> guest: if anything, the google e-books store has opened it up so you can right now just read an electronic book on your desk top computer for free. >> host: a couple more books that came out in 2010. this is by rosemary nido greenlee and evelyn monahan, a few good women: america's military woman from world war i to the wars in iraq and afghanistan. and the reason i's jane addams: spirit in action. again, both covered by the tv in the past year. st. louis, go ahead. >> caller: thank you for

taking my call. i appreciate your show. i have a two-part question. my first question is how does a person whose writing sonnets or papers for class transition into a book writer and thereafter transition into a bookseller? and my second question is, what is the importance of owning your own publishing company? thank you. >> host: jenn risko. >> guest: i'm trying to see if i understand the question correctly. i think what he is getting that is how did he go from writing papers in school to being a published author? is that what you're understanding, peter? >> host: if you speak broadly about becoming a writer. >> guest: yeah, i think what it takes is, you know, talent and perseverance and a willingness to put on a show and be told no and keep going.

i mean, like we talked about matterhorn before. again, 30 years that gentlemen were dominant in the same boat. that takes a hard shell of being willing to say that i'm going to do this to matter what. and it also takes imagination. take some time. and then i think the second question was what is the importance of him in your publishing company? >> guest: postell the importance of your own publishing company and becoming a bookseller. >> guest: the importance of being a bookseller, you know, i wish i could grab any of my bookselling friends and have them say it. but what i would say is the important of being a bookseller is, you know, you get to put ideas out into the universe and get people to engage on that. and you know, words lead to

deeds. so i think that there's booksellers. it's not like booksellers make tons of joe selling books on the time. i mean, we do this because we love it. we love to read it works and we love to put good books into the hands of people and just turn on the world with different ideas and words. second question about owning your own publishing company. my guess is you own your own publishing company so you can publish what you want and that you're less susceptible to somebody on the very same with the bottom line should he. i have friends that moved to seattle. these two young guys who are just wonderful. they started a press called dark horse press and they just publish what they want. and basically their editorial meeting are, do we like it? does it matter to us? to watch but this out into the world? to rethink this writer has

talent? can they be developed over time? but mostly, do we take this? you know, what a cool thing to be able to publish what you want and put those ideas out into the universe. >> host: wiki publishing, can't anyone publish what they want? i thought i saw some this year that of published books tend to want were published by then books with publishers. >> guest: you can. and i think that number is only going to grow. you can publish -- you can publish your book by yourself tomorrow. the question is, how does the world find out about it? you know, how did it get out there? had the booksellers -- go ahead. >> host: is just going to say let's use the shack is an example. i was a self published book, was that?

>> guest: i believe so. i don't understood that well. >> host: did you read in a self published books for review in a self published books? >> guest: did we review some self published books? i think we did. we did some very microprose stuff. i'm sorry. what was the other question? >> host: that was it. we will move on at that point. the economist in the portal book recommends both can change in the bridge to biographies of barack obama. by the way, our next call comes from denver. anthony, go ahead. >> caller: gas, first-time caller. i love booktv. just a quick comment. number one, i would not want to watch the tv and have my nook. i have a nook and it's wonderful. my question for the guest is how do you keep up? had you read so much to know

what's going on? thank you. >> host: jenn risko. >> guest: had i read so much? because it's a pleasure to read. i mean, reading is one of the best things and it's always been that for me. but you know, look, i have a lot of help. everybody at shelf awareness, they are much better readers than i any day. mary dawkins can read a book about a day and john mutters the same and we have amazing reviewers that work for us and help us know what is out there and what's coming in. we also have amazing publishers to give us advance copies, put it back into her hands and say that this one is incredibly special. so we read a lot. all of us to have to shelf. but we do it because it's fun and we learn a lot and we love it. >> host: financial times best of 2010 includes a book by david curt hatcher, the facebook

effect: the insider story of the company connecting the world also covered by booktv. by the way, all of the list of your sighting here are available on her website under our news about books section. you can see it in the center column. all of these different list by newspapers and magazines and publishing industry newsletters have all. we've congregated them all and they are all right there in case you like to review them yourself. next call comes from gilbert and long beach, california. good evening. >> caller: good evening, how are you? i would like to ask you about self-publishing a book on e-commerce. my question is, do you have any advice on how to go about doing it and are there any self-help books or information that would hope one publish their book?

>> host: jenn risko. >> guest: let me understand the question. the question is how does someone go about self-publishing a book on e-commerce? >> host: what advice would you have for that person? >> guest: you know, basically if you want to go the way of self-publishing, i would just google how to publish a book. i would be careful about places and ask you for lots and lots of money. if you're going to self publish it, it shouldn't cost that much money. it depends on whether or not you want to have it retain and distributed or if you just want to have it be e-book only. there certainly markets for that. if you're publishing on e-commerce, doesn't need to be printed or? my guess is your audience is tacky and peak enough that they are fine with it being only an

e-book. >> host: in a few minutes we'll look at some of the books coming out in early 2011. here is another history by picking up this year. gratification: the people debate the constitution, 1787 to 1788. the author, pauline maier, also the author of american scripture. james, st. paul, minnesota. you are in the air with the jenn risko of shelf awareness. >> caller: hi, i am 86 years old and for purposes of disclosure and a 100 shares of apple stock. about nine months ago i bought and ipad and i've been so pleased that because i can download the many books, kerry so many books with me and with my eyes make to print larger. and the access to vast number of free books and books from kindle

or from barnes & noble or from the ibook package makes a wonderful invest and that i've made in a really appreciated. >> host: james, did you say you are 86 years old? >> caller: yes. >> host: your friends in her age group, are they also using the ipad or another electronic reader? for had they stuck with hardback books? >> guest: >> caller: i think some of them do. and the others call me a nerd. >> host: james emma what are you currently reading? >> caller: i am currently downloading some at scott fitzgerald and heath wharton and those kinds of books in that era. and it is just so much fun to read them. a friend of mine, charlie davis has been teaching some courses and his show so much fun to read

about and go through these books with my ipad. thanks very much. >> host: thanks for calling in this evening. jenn risko, i want to add a subset in to this comment for you to respond to as well. either demographics for e-book reader purchased as? are they being adapted by folks about 50? >> guest: so, james is. actually, we've seen -- i haven't seen as much on this as they would've liked to. yeah, it seems like their older folks embracing the electronic book market. sometimes i think it has a little bit more to do with what kind of a reader they are. the one of the things we thought recently and a study was women who read romance novels -- i don't know if you know about

this, but women who read romance novels can read probably two or three in a day. so they are a mass consumer books. these people buy more electronic books that i think any other subject category is women's romance. i believe that the number one selling on e-book is for romance. i think it has not to do with dh but how they consume the current >> host: couple more books that came out this year. former joint chiefs of staff came up with his autobiography, without hesitation. nigel hamilton, british were a sin. bledsoe the president. franklin d. roosevelt to george w. bush. ..

what my question is there are some delightful buddhist books out now from a young buddhist man who was doing testing on the mind and the university of wisconsin. the joy of living.

and it was a scientist said -- neinstein -- weinstein said that in his opinion, buddhism is the only religion that was really copacetic with the progress of science. so i'm kind of wondering if you have any feeling about the books today or what the books becoming more popular than say 1970 or the 80's or is there a lack of progress? do you have any feeling for that? i know you don't have the statistics. >> host: thank you, bill. jenn risko? >> guest: in trying to understand correctly. we have a feeling if buddhism is more popular now is that what he asked? >> host: kind of. i don't want to paraphrase his question. i think he was trying to compare -- would you like to answer about what he said?

>> guest: you know, i'm sorry i don't -- yeah, i don't have -- i don't have a feel for it. i'm sorry. >> host: that's fine. in the past year booktv has gone to several book festivals. here are some of the ones we have attended. we have either cover them live or on a tape to basis. that includes the "los angeles times" festival of books in l.a., an analyst in annapolis, maryland, we've been to chicago to the printers row looks just, we went up to harlem for the harlem book fest. we covered the national book festival, of course, here in washington, d.c., started by laura bush in 2001. we were in austin, texas, for the of texas book festival. we were in tucson for the tucson test of of the book and finally, the virginia festival of the book in charlottesville, virginia. those are some of the book festivals' week's cover, most of them live in the past year. one of the big sellers for the big talked-about books this year

was marked mean's autobiography. jenn risko, what you want to tell about that? >> guest: yeah, this is quite the runaway best seller. the numbers we have seen in the 350,000 of these have been sold. i believe the first print run they considered for the book was way back in the early spring, late summer was like 7,000 books. the demand for this was just a lot higher than anyone could have possibly understood. it's just been the runaway best seller. they did have stock problems over the holidays, but i'm told they are printing them as fast as possible and the people who have them on order really do want them whether it is before or after the holidays. you know, it is just an amazing story. university of california press had to get larger tracks to just transport enough out there.

you usually only carry i think 7,000 copies and they found special trucks to carry 10,000 copies instead. cnn did a little profile on the publisher who printed the books for the university of california press. it was such a sweet story about people who have been laid off about a year ago and got hired back on for christmas and went into overtime because this is all you're doing is printing the mark twain book. some cried the kuran we bestseller. >> host: go ahead. >> guest: it was 100 years after his death, so it was -- this is the first volume. i saw the other day on amazon someone was trying to sell the first edition, first printed -- first printing copy for $800. that was interesting. we also had some funny moments in self awareness where

booksellers were riding in and they had customers coming up to the counter asking for the mark twain book but they want a signed copy, which was a lot of fun. >> host: that would go for more than $800 by that. >> guest: yeah. >> host: let's look ahead, jenn risko. here are some of the books coming out early in the 2011. this is by abbas malani. michael's osama bin laden. to ronald reagan books. ronald reagan would have been 100-years-old city were the sixth. this is by his son, ron reagan, my father at 100, and by his other son, michael reagan, the new reagan revolution, how principals can restore the greatness today. jenn risko, when you see the

list for january, february, early march, 2011, what stands out to you? >> guest: i think the trend that we saw all over christmas eve of political memoirs and more of the conservative ones i think it sounds like that is what is going to stand from what is coming out soon. we've got conservative political memoirs and then we have also got, juneau, the books like we had henrietta lacks and warmth from other suns and cleopatra. it sounds like that is going to continue. >> host:, one of the books coming -- i want to ask if you have gotten any word on this one yet -- donald rumsfeld's autobiography, his memoir, "

known and unknown a memoir." have you heard anything about this book? >> guest: i got a little information on this today. i believe it is coming out in february if there is going to be a huge amount of media going on about this. the suggested printing that we are hearing is half a million copies. which is pretty big. so -- and i think the interesting thing donald rumsfeld did on this is that he did not accept a an advance on this book. he wanted to write at his own pace. i thought i was interesting. i think it's also interesting all of the proceeds from this book will be going to his foundation for promising young people. so he wanted to do it in his own way and his own time and good for him, hands off. 500,000 is a really nice print run. >> host: that is being published by mary matalin. two other books that came out this past year, secret history

of mi6 by keith jeffrey and william f. buckley's dalia aires, athwart history and its by reason some of his columns. new hampshire, you are on the air. go ahead. >> caller: what impact will the books have on people in the library system? will that cause a centralization of fluttery conflict because we can download it from one source rather than look at the library, the local provider? >> host: jenn risko? >> guest: i'm not sure what impact is when to have. i don't think electronic books are going to meet the local library go away although it seems to be making your local library going away is a lot of tax problems, a lot of revenue not coming to them so that seems to be more about what is making

some libraries close which is a terrible thing. i don't think that electronic books are going to have an impact that way. i think that, you know, libraries are now in the business of providing information to communities and what of reform that takes. >> host: another book coming out in january is another book by eric alterman, kabuki democracy the system versus barack obama. grass has a new book coming out as well, threat matrix the fbi war in the age of global terror and author karen armstrong as a self-help book, 12 steps to a compassionate life. fargo, north dakota. barbara, you are on the air with jenn risko. >> caller: thank you very much. i have enjoyed all of this book talk a great deal but i did want to point out that there is still a certain official dividing this country, and there are people who can't afford computers or

books were internet access or live in places where internet access is not convenient, and i would just like you to remind people that they can get most of these books from their local library, even if they have to put it on the waiting list. >> host: thank -- >> caller: and they can get computer access and instructions on how to use a computer and how to use these various sources from their local library ins, that is with your therefore, it's what people pay taxes for. >> host: thank you, barbara. jenn risko? >> guest: yes. just what i said, you know, libraries are in the business of providing information and content to their communities, so by all means, if you don't -- you can't afford a kindle or ipad anbar into buying hardcover books, put your name on a waiting list and wait for that book that you have been waiting for.

of course. >> host: another book coming out in early february is massachusetts governor deval patrick's, "the reason to believe, lessons from an improbable life." that is looking ahead to 2011. here are a couple more books from 2011, robert dahuk, well-known historian, his latest lost piece, leadership in a time of torian hope, 1945 to 1953. toxic talk, this is radio talk-show host bill press's most recent book how the radical right has place in the americas's to airwaves. book tv covered a book party for bill press over media matters and you can watch that online if you're interested, and then maria bartiroma can now put this book the weekend that changed wall street an eyewitness account. she was on our "after words" program. jenn risko, when it comes to books about the two crisis what

do they do? we know about michael lewis and the big short of course. >> guest: the big short very well and there's another one out from pain when i believe it is called all the devils are here that people are talking about, that people want to understand what happened so that is why those books are doing incredibly well and i think they will continue to do well. >> host: bill kristol was coming out with a new book. it is his late father, irving kristol's column that kneal conservative persuasion selected esssays, 1942 to those of nine edited by bill kristol. denver, sally. you are on the air. good evening. how >> caller: hi, how are you? i am so delighted to see this. i am a c-span junkie and a book tv junkie in by an amateur leader who is reading everything from history to politics to political thrillers, etc..

and my question is i like the technicality of ebook degette i will probably not by any reader -- and e-ready unless i take a trip around the world i can download a lot of books, and i use my library quite frequently. denver has a wonderful library system. so my question is what do you think the future is of the physical book? >> host: thank you, sally. jenn risko? >> guest: you know, look, we have had a lot of attention to what is going on with the books, but keep in mind there are maybe 9% of the overall trade book market. there are many people who are saying just like you did that they are interested in reading electronic books they have to take a trip around the world

than they can download 20 books on to their kindle or ipad or nook or whatever but i also hear a lot of people say that they spend most of their working days staring at a computer and the last thing that they want to do when they come home when they leave for entertainment is to look at another computer screen. so, you know, look, again i don't think that the physical book is going anywhere anytime soon, but certainly there will be lots of people reading electronic books and people who will be reading vote depending on what works for them in that moment. >> host: clarence jones has a new book coming out in january. he worked with martin luther king as an attorney. behind the dreams the making of the speech that transformed the nation. that's coming out in generate. author paul roberts as well as a new book coming out, the future is exxon is the name of that one. michael and alabama. you are on the air on booktv. good evening. >> caller: good evening.

you don't know how honored i am, madam come to speak with you. i've forgotten your name but that is because i have it on another channel. i'm going to ask these three questions from the point of view of an aspiring writer in for a children's book market who comes at it not from the degree in english, i wish i had an english meijer but from a lifelong -- lifetime love of doodling and now and although design and now animation. i go in the hanna-barbera disney style. now, what do -- what impact will e-books and kindle have on the way graphic layout designers as well as photographers, cartoonists and illustrators to for page layout, for all that stuff? how will they have to change and adjust that work for publishers and say we are going to put this

on e-books and kindle also? second, i will take my questions off the air and let you answer them -- the second is, let's see, i know that you're going to have to accept rejection and that each publisher has probably just a children's division alone, children's book editors have thousands of unsolicited stuff each year. i know that they like to see your work published first, and i am getting some articles ready for the small, what are they called, a magazine article market, complete with might illustrations and photos. but i read on this internet site that if you are a cartoonist or illustrator why that does give you a leg up. they prefer that you be willing to illustrate other writers' books first before you send them any manuscripts.

how do children's book writers let alone the editors and publishers of the giant corporations owned by media conglomerate -- >> host: michael beagle to questions we have to leave it. thank you so much. jenn risko, graphics on e-books? >> guest: you know, talking to john, our editor and business partner at self awareness the other day he was talking about his wife who is an editor at the metropolitan museum of arts and they were talking about, you know, how do they get these gorgeous art books to translate on to an ipad and i don't even know about a kindle because it's still black and white and i think this will definitely change. i think that the ipad if you are going to have to look at anything with graphics and illustrations in my opinion the ipad is superior but there again we are not sure what is

going to go yet. there is still especially for graphics right now there is no substitute as much as there is paper. at the other question was about publishing children's books? being requested to do illustrations for children's books and other people to do children's books. >> guest: i think that when the request to do illustrations for other people's books they obviously would like to see your range and how flexible you are and they are taking less of a risk of someone unknown in the industry if you are doing get for their work. >> host: another book that is coming out in early 2011 s by another politician who had a little bit of trouble with the law and this is vincent's book, the former mayor of providence, rhode island. call me buddy is the name of the

book. another that can out in november this past year, gerald with lisa, the kennedy details. "spoken from therebecca skloot,d this? >> guest: i did not read it, but i am hearing really nice things about this book and it just came out when is it, november? >> host: yes. >> guest: so just about november, starting to crop up and i am starting to hear a lot about this. i talked to somebody that simon and schuster today and they said it looks like there is over 70,000 copies out there. this is an amazing account from one of jfk's secret service man who was there on the day of his assassination. think about that for a moment. think about it your job is to protect the president of the united states and he is assassinated, fortunately that day you field and what that has been like for this gentleman and

the incredible bond that he has with of the kennedy family and his perspective of what happened on that imaginary day. >> host: hot for the holidays according to jenn risko and self awareness, matterhorn. stacy schiff, cleopatra unbroken the emperor of all maladies, a biographer of cancer. bill bryson, at home and keith richards, life. now, jenn risko, how did books sell this past holiday season? >> guest: the sold very well. they sold better than last year. i was talking to the author a few weeks ago and he said that his books soared 44% in the weeks during christmas so, you know, right there that is an amazing number.

44% of the trade paperback novel in one week that his been on the times for at least 80 weeks straight. all of a sudden out of nowhere 44%. i think people who gave books this year as christmas gifts which is typical. books have always been somewhat recessionproof. and it's because of the gifts that the gift. >> host: another book coming out in march of 2011. jeff greenfield's latest book "then everything changed stunning alternate histories of american politics," and francis fukuyama has another book in april, the origins of political order. and andrew's new book is righteous indignation -- excuse me while i save the world. this tweet from andrew. how has stephen johnson's new book where great ideas come from done this year and why do you think it hasn't sold better?

>> guest: i don't know how this book did this year but i am guessing from the second question that it didn't do so great. triet >> host: did you hear anything about it? >> guest: actually i didn't. >> host: we will leave it there. anita, you are on with jenn risko. good evening. >> caller: yes, good evening. i am a new author and my book goes to published december 30 if and i just trying to find out what would be the best way to promote my book, tell my people william. its spiritual and i live here in atlanta georgia, so i'm trying to just get a little bit of feedback. >> host: did you publish it yourself or is it a publisher?

[inaudible] what advice would you have for that author? >> guest: i would hire a professional who knows how to get the word of the book out who can pitch it to the review in use and can get into the hands of booksellers who know how to advertise and who know how to market such a book. i would enlist professionals. there's lots of professionals that know how to do that well so that is what i would do. >> host: do you think young author books will continue to do as well in 2011? why do you think they sell so well? >> guest: young author? so books by people who are --

[inaudible] i would like to do miley cyrus. no. [laughter] will young adult books do while? the did incredibly well this year and i haven't actually had enough time to really look into this, but i eat read a couple of young adult novels this year that were just amazing and in fact what's coming on we see more and more there was more crossover they'd appeal both to adults and young adults. i think it says something about how sophisticated our young people are becoming less and less different between what is known as a young adult novel and known as an adult novel so that is something that is interesting to looking to put yes they are going to continue to do extremely well and i hope so because so many of them are so great.

>> host: book producer put together these books this evening with the lists in the different books and arrest, jenn risko. mexico, don. you are on the air. >> caller: high. i just want to make an observation. you know, peter talked about the oprah affect, and one of the pleasures of watching jon stewart reading and promotion of books and earlier you talked about the book all the devils are here by bethany mclean, and one of my concerns is that we are just going through this great recession and i was really surprised that bouck didn't appear on the reader list were often and the second point i would like to say is i just returned from seattle. i was there in the early part of december and was on the way back to help casseaux with somebody that had a kindle, and what she had pointed out is that she got

all these books and her husband had put a hold she could only by free looks as a result of having this kindle because she found she was born in more books as a result so what is your comment? >> guest: actually we have seen some studies that seem to suggest that people have the kindle and ipad and nook are billion more because it is so easy. think about amazon marketing campaign. almost every week and you look at "the new york times" book review next to the best-seller list what you see is an ad that says in less than half 30 seconds you can be reading this book. so our people volume more books because it? i think so and i think it is because it is just so easy. yes, i want to read the book and 40 seconds, so it only takes 40

seconds to download it and it only takes like a second, split-second to decide you want it. i can see where this woman got in trouble with her husband by her body and to many books. i think it is really easy to do. >> host: as more books become available digitally will piracy become an issue? >> guest: i think there is a good chance piracy could become an issue just as it did in the music industry but i think that publishers are very aware of this and so i think that they actually have a lot of this figure out about how not to have books be pirated come and get on the other hand, the way the technology is going is that coming to know, you can already share some of your books. i believe i could be wrong, but i believe on the google in

addition site you can share the book with a couple of people. i may be wrong but we are already working on the technology so that you can say i would like to give this to my husband or wife and and you have the capacity to pass that on one were to other times. so i think in the beginning we are always nervous about piracy and then i think in the and we tend to increase it a little bit. within reason. >> host: jenn risko, we have 30 seconds left. for 2010, supplies and disappointment? >> guest: surprises, ghosh, the bush book, almost 2 million copies. >> host: and a surprise? >> guest: i don't see any. i'm sorry, and why such an optimist? don't have any. >> host: jenn risko is the co-founder of the industry newsletter self awareness and it's also a web site,

self-awareness.com. thank you for being on booktv and our look at

continues. james billington is just introducing laura bush. >> hi am referring to laura bush who brought the concept of the national book festival to washington from her home state of texas where she has conducted it if great success. [applause] she comes to the national book festival throughout her years on pennsylvania avenue. she is a former librarian. [applause] she is a teacher, an offer of multiple books

including her latest, "spoken from the heart". former first lady, you speak to the heart of all of us. she will do a reading and take questions. microphones are on either side. keep your questions brief and on point. she honors us by taking time out from an extraordinary schedule involving the united nations, oral -- her championship with many other good causes. please join me in welcoming the woman i have been able to call with full genuine conviction leader in chief of the united states of america. [applause]

>> thank you very much for all of your good work, thank you for being such a great partner for the national book festival and thank you for continuing to build this national book festival. this is the tenth national book festival which is so terrific and icy looking around, is hugely popular with people all over the country. so thank you for coming and thank you for the warm welcome. i want to thank david reubenstein for your generous gift to the library of congress which will ensure that the book festival will continue. thank you very much. [applause] i love the national book festival and i am happy to be here this year as an offer.

, have spent most of my life surrounded by books. i was an avid reader as the child. my mother and i were regular fixtures at the midland county public library which was a magical place not only with thousands of books but because it was in a basement which was a very exotic place for west texas. going to the library was the only time i ever got to go underground. i continued my love of books through college, elementary school teaching, dallas and houston, graduate school, science and as a public library and in houston and school library in austin. i have made a career out of my love of books and helps spread that love i helped found the texas book festival and the national book festival. but while i love reading and never thought i would write a

book. certainly not one about myself but in george's eight years in office to a close publishers began calling asking when i was going to write a memoir and realized there was a lot i wanted to say. our years in washington, first decade of the new century were as consequential as any other time in our history. we lived through the most vicious attack on our homeland in the history of our nation. i was on capitol hill on the morning of september 11th and i will read you something about that. george and i cried with the grieving families and grieve with the nation and never forgot that day for the rest of his time in office and will never forget it for the rest of our law is. i met so many of the brave to and women who volunteered to defend our country to give their lives so that the rest of us may never know terror again. i have met the voices for

freedom like the former czech president, the great intellectual and play right who for years was imprisoned by the communists but never gave up hope for freedom. when the iron curtain fell he stepped up to lead his country and is still speaking out on behalf of the oppressed. i met the dolly llama from tibet, female candidates for parliament in kuwait who ran for office in 2006, the first year that women there were granted the right to vote and i met women in afghanistan who under the taliban could not leave their houses alone, who could not get an education. who would have their fingernails pulled off as they so much war a code of fingernail polish. now there lives a changing. in my book i wanted to give voice to all of these remarkable people and to share these

experiences with others. i wanted to remember the many wonderful people i met at home. volunteers from the red cross and the baptist men who drove all night to storm ravaged gulf coast after katrina to cook meals for those in need and who stayed for months helping the people there rebuild. the brave coastguard volunteers who rescued some 30,000 people stranded after the hurricane struck. i wanted to tell of the days i spent with the young men in our cities and towns, many of whom were ex gang members who were trying to turn their lives around. why was never more proud than was part of helping america's youth high was able to welcome kits group of ex gained members from l a to whitehouse. the same house where we hosted the queen of england and the pope on his birthday.

the more i thought about it, the more i realized i had some great stories to tell, even about the great easter egg caper at the 2006 easter egg roll where if you want to know what happened in that story i think i will let you wait and read it in my book. i had so many wonderful memories to share. memories about the white house. stories about our lives and our families and of course, many of my happiest and most enduring memories are of the national book festival. i remember something from each of the eight festivals i attended during time at the white house. remember talking with my favorite authors. hosting vladimir putin at the second festival with the national basketball association players who were our partners. the beautiful gala dinners, wonderful authors at the white

house on saturday morning. and so many more happy memories. but i especially recall that first national book festival. september 8th, 2001. it was a magnificent day, sunny with a beautiful blue sky. just the kind of weather we hope for. friends came from around the country to stay with george and me at the white house. 40 came from boston all away who had worked with me on the texas book festival. i remember how patiently the festivalgoers waited in line to meet their favorite authors. that festival was everything we hope for and more. three days later, our world changed. since we are here in the history cab i thought i would read from my book a little bit about the day that changed our world.

tuesday morning, september 11th, was sunny and warm, the sky and brilliant cerulean blue. my friend at the national book festival have all thrown home and even george was gone in florida for a school visit. george h. w. bush spent the night but they already left on a 7:00 plane to catch an early flight and i had what i considered a big day planned. i was set to arrive at the capitol at 9:15 to briefed the senate education committee chaired by edward kennedy on the findings of early childhood development conference that i held in july. in the afternoon we were hosting the entire congress and their family for the annual congressional picnic. the self lawn of the white house was covered with picnic tables are awaiting their fluttering cloth.

come per rainy from buffalo, texas, was setting up his chuckwagon. entertainment would be old fashioned square dancing and texas swing music by ravens and and his classic band asleep at the wheel. in silence going over my statement in my mind, i was very nervous about appearing before a senate committee and having news cameras trained on me. had the tv been turned on i might have heard the first fleeting report of a plane heading the north tower of the world trade center. and said it was the head of my secret service detail, ron sprinkle, who leaned over and whispered the news in my ear as i entered the car a few minutes after 9:00. my chief of staff at the white house, domestic policy advisor margaret stallings and i speculated on what had happened. a small plane may be. a cessna running into one of those massive towers on this

beautiful september morning. we were driving up pennsylvania avenue when word came that the south tower had been hit. the car fell silent. we sat in you disbelieve. one plane might be a strange accident. two planes were clearly an attack. arafat about george and wondered if the secret service had already begun to raise to air force one to return home. two minutes later at 9:16 we pull up to the entrance of the russell building. in the time it had taken to drive less than two minutes in the two miles between the white house and the capital world as i knew it had changed. senator kennedy was waiting to greet me. we both knew when we met that the towers had been hit and without a word being spoken we knew there would be no briefings that morning. together we walked a short distance to the office. he began by presenting me with a

limited edition print. it was a face of daffodils, a copy of a painting he had created for his wife victoria and given to her on their wedding day. the print was inscribed to me and dated september 11, 2001. an old television was on in a quarter of the room and i glanced over to see the plume of smoke billowing from the twin towers. senator kennedy kept his eyes averted from the screen. he led me on a tour of his office pointing out various pictures and pieces of memorabilia. even a framed note that his brother sent to their mother when he was a child in which he wrote teddy is getting fat. the senator who would outlive all his brothers by 40 years laughed at the note as he showed it to me finding it amusing.

i kept glancing at the glowing television screen. my skin was starting to crawl. i wanted to leave to find out what was going on. to process what i was seeing but i felt trapped in an endless cycle of pleasantries. it not occurred to me to say senator kennedy, what about the powers? i simply followed his lead. he may have feared that if we actually began to contemplate what had happened in new york i might dissolve into tears. senator judd gregg of new hampshire, the ranking republican on the committee and one of our good friends, in mock debates at the ranch, arrived as i was -- senator kennedy invited us to sit on the couch as he continued chatting about anything other than the horrific images unfolded on the tiny screen across the room. i looked around his shoulder but could see very little and i was still trying to pay attention to

him and his conversation. it seem completely unreal, sitting in this elegant sunlit office as an immense tragedy unfolded. we sat as human beings driven by smoke, flame and searing heat jumped from the top of the twin towers to end their lives and as firemen in full gear began to climb up the tower stairs. i often wondered if it was ted kennedy's defense mechanism. after so much tragedy, the death of his oldest brother in world war ii, the assassination of his brothers jack and robert and the death of nephew's including john jr. whose body identified when it was pulled from the cold dark waters off martha's vineyard, if after all those things simply could not look upon another

grievous tragedy. 9:45 after george made a brief statement to the nation which we watched clustered around a small television that was perched on the desk, ted kennedy, judd gregg and i walked out to the reporters my briefing had been postponed. i said you heard from the president this morning and senator kennedy and senator gregg and i joined his statement in saying that our hearts and prayers go out to the victims of this act of terrorism and our support goes to the rescue workers and all of our prayers are with everyone there right now. as i turned to exit, lawrence mclaughlin asked a question. you know children are struck by all this. is there a message you could tell to the nation? i didn't wait for him to finish but began. parents need to reassure their children everywhere in our country that they are safe.

as we walked out of the briefing room the cellphone of my advance man john myers rain, cnn was reporting an airplane had crashed into the pentagon. within minutes the order given to evacuate the white house and the capital. the secret service decided to take me temporarily to their headquarters located in the federal office building a few blocks from the white house. following the oklahoma city bombing their office was reinforced to survive a large scale blast. outside apps go, the city streets were clogged with people evacuate in their work places. in the time my reach my medicaid flight 93 had crashed into the west side of the pentagon which had begun to collapse. in the intervening years senator judd gregg and i and many others

were left to contemplate what if flight 93 had not been forced down by its passengers into an empty field? what if shortly after 10:00 a.m. it had reached the capital dome? walking through the hallway in the circuits service building i saw a sign with the emergency number 911. had the terrorists thought about our iconic number when they picked this date and planned an emergency so overwhelming. for awhile i said in a small office area off of the conference room silently watching the images on television. i watch a replay of the self tender of the world trade center roaring with sound and collapsing into a silent plume offering my personal prayer to god to received the victims with open arms. the north tower had given way in front of my eyes sending some

1500's holes and 110 stories of concrete buckling to the ground. inside secret service had courted i asked my staff to call their family and i called my girls who were whisked away by secret service agents to secure locations. in austin jenna was awakened by an agent pounding on her door. in her room at yale barbara heard another student sobbing uncontrollably. a few doors down. then i called my mother because i wanted her to know that i was safe and i wanted so much to hear the sound of her voice. late in the afternoon we got word the president was returning to washington. at 6:30 we got in a secret service caravaned to drive to the white house. i gazed out the window. the city had taken on the cast of an abandoned movie set. the sun was shining but the streets were deserted.

we couldn't see a person on the sidewalk or any vehicles on the street. there was no sound at all except the wheels of the ground. by 7:30 we were up to the residents. i have no memory of having eaten dinner. george may have the non the plane. he tried to call the girls as soon as he was upstairs but couldn't reach them. barbara called back at 8:00 and george left to make remarks to the nation. we finally climbed into our own bed that night exhausted and emotionally drained. outside the doors of the residents the secret service detail's sat at a very usual post. i fell asleep but it was a fit for rest and i could feel george staring into the darkness beside me. then i heard a man screaming as he ran. mr. president, you have got to get up. the white house is under attack.

we jumped up and i grab the rope and stuck my feet in my slippers but didn't stop to put on my contacts. we grab kitty with spot trailing behind. we started walking. george wanted to take the elevator but the agents didn't think it was safe. we had to descend flight after flight of stairs to the state floor, then the ground floor and below while i held george's hand because i couldn't see anything. my heart was pounding and all i could do was count stairwell landing is, trying to count off how many more floors we had to go. when we reached the kiosk i saw the outline of the military aid unfolding the ancient bed and putting on some sheets. another agent ran up to us and said mr. president, it is one of our own. the plane was one of ours. for months afterward we would hear the military jets

thundering overhead travelling so fast that the ground below quivered and shook. they would make one pass and five minute later make another low-flying loop. i fell asleep to the roar of the fighters in the sky hearing in my mind those words, one of our own. there was a quiet security in that, in knowing we slept the tween the watchful eyes of one of our own and just a little closing sentence, from the second book festival in 2002, moments from that day stay with day. but of particular note proposing remarks by david mccullough in which he described john adams's quest for knowledge. the greatest gift of all he was certain was the gift of an inquiring mind. he said, quote, have the liberty

to think to myself and david mccullough added we face a phone today who believes in and forced ignorance. we don't. [applause] thank you. >> we have time for questions. we have a few minutes for questions. i like that charlotte's web tee shirt. >> i am the grandniece of e.b. white who wrote charlotte's web. [applause] >> two years ago when you were signing your books we talked and you both signed my book and i knew e.b. white's presentation, i always bring your book can't talk on your page where you reference charlotte's webb and i thank you for that children's

book. it is wonderful but it is also a wonderful book and thank you for writing it. >> thank you so much. i really appreciate it. >> what was your feeling when you found out you were attacked by one of your own? >> we were covered by one of our own. they were protecting us. what we were talking about revelatory caps. debris united states military. we were protected by then. that gave me a great feeling of security. >> what was your favorite part about being host of the national book festival? >> i left seeing so many happy people who love to read. something that book lovers all share, no matter what our political views or differences might be, we all love reading.

there are so many tremendous american authors. for our own writers around the world. but especially children. we have a wonderful body of children's literature in the united states and children's library and i am really proud of that. one more i think? >> what are you reading now? >> cutting for stone, with one of his books, and the national book festival, a great book about twins but also ethiopia. one of the books given to me by

booksellers, a book about the civil war, by robin beara. george is reading a biography about bond hopper. i am usually reading the newest books by respectable lawyers. i will be at the texas book festival in late october. i hope any of you who have a chance can come to the festival. thank you all very much. i appreciate it very much. thank you all. [applause]

>> i see what you mean by readers in chief. wonderful to see you again in person. we thank mrs. bush for being here. signed copies are being offered. one more vote of thanks for the inventor. [applause]

>> prime minister tony blair received an award from the national t-shirts under. former president though clinton presented the award which he won in 2005. the ceremony in philadelphia is about an hour. >> welcome again. my name is david eisner. i am the president and chief executive officer of the national cause duchenne center. tony blair is the former british prime minister and recipient of the liberty medal that we're going to be aborting him with this evening. he released his memoir, "a journey: my political life" on september 1st. and since then, it has become the best-selling autobiography in the united kingdom and become a bestseller here in the united states as well. mr. blair explained that though

a memoir by its very nature is retrospect, his book is also an attempt to inform future and current thinking. in this behind the scenes account of his years in office and beyond, mr. blair describes his role in shaping our recent history, turning the ups and downs and addressing the issues and complexities of our global world. today we have an opportunity to listen as mr. blair engages in a conversation about these and many other issues with his friend and colleague, former president of the united states and chairman of the national constitution center, bill clinton. on behalf of the constitution center, it is an honor to present these to international leaders who have shared the world stage during key events in each of their political lives. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming tony blair

and bill clinton. [applause] [applause] >> now, i promise to keep any comments and questions brief because we have so many issues to cover the last hour, beginning with this. based on both of your experiences in northern ireland in the middle east, what are the essential elements to be an effect as peacemaker? [laughter] >> i want to tell you. i'm going to commit to treat here. i probably shouldn't do this, but what we are on the way in here the way in here i sit tony, i want you to go first because they want you to solve or books.

it's a very, very good to. he has thought about all this in an organized fashion more recently than i have. so i'd like our guest to go first and then i'll fill in the blanks. >> yeah, i thought you were going to say when we thought about the peace process and what is the most important thing, you look and said blind luck. [laughter] which is more or less in the way in northern ireland. i mean, when we went to do the good friday agreement, i had actually originally thought that we would be there for a day. we get the agreement signed. and actually i had to go to see the spanish prime minister the next day. so i literally planned my whole diary on the basis to get this signed. well i got there in four days

later i emerged. and it wasn't a sense of what really got into such a hothouse atmosphere that people began to feel it was more embarrassing to deal with it. you know, if i have to sort of lessons at his peacemaking as far as northern ireland is concerned its first you've got to create a basic framework on the principles of which they can all agree. after that, there will be a prolonged period of negotiation and implementation. but you've got to get this basic both agreed. in the case of northern ireland, which principles for the principal consent, in other words, northern ireland remains part of the u.k. as long as the majority people want it and then it returns two that come you call it the injustice between the unionist and nationalist

between protestants and catholics. so there is a basic framework of principles that we got people attract it to. the second thing frankly is never give up. you know, never give up how difficult it is, no matter how hard can it keep going. we used to have this phrase if you can't love it, manage it. do not solve it, manage it. one final thought, when i finally got to spain from the spanish prime minister eventually have my family and i'd be staying in for three days and i haven't been there. so i go in and finally get there and go into the room and there he is sitting at the breakfast table with my mother-in-law. [laughter] she says to me is becoming. no need for you to be here. i said what have you been talking about? just your brother. [laughter] as i remarked in her book i

thought she may have had as good of an answer as anyone else. anyway, let me just say one thing. throughout the whole northern ireland protest, there was someone who is sitting or standing by the phone throughout and it was president clinton. and i can tell you the way he picked up on what the internal politics were of that situation, thousands of miles away -- i think there must've been some of those late-night calls for it wasn't making a great deal of sense coming that he played an absolutely critical role. this is one of the few times i've had the chance to say this to you. without your intervention would've never achieved that. thank you. [applause] >> the only thing i would add to that is i think that both the people and the leaders who have

to live in the consequences of any peace agreement had to at least be open to an agreement before anything that any of the rest of us can do will work. and then i think it's a combination of doing what tony said, getting the principles right and getting the things that flow from that, once the both sides and the irish debate accepted the principle of consent of the majority rule and minority rights. they move rather quickly to share decision-making and shared economic benefits. and a special relationship for northern ireland with the irish republic even as it remains part of the u.k. and so, i think that's important. but i also think it really matters if there are outside forces that can have a positive

impact because the people negotiating meet them or trust them in unusual ways. so for example, obviously the british prime minister and the irish prime minister could have a big impact. and i could simply because of the size of the irish staff and the long-standing involvement of the irish in america with irish politics back home. but i still think you've got to give a lot of credit to people who are involved, the irish themselves. all of the party leaders at the northern ireland who wanted desperately to do this. and that the public was well ahead of the political leaders saying we are sick of all of this fighting. the other thing i think that is important for places like the u.k. in the united states to do, if we're trying to make this is to paint a picture of what it would look like after what was overseeing the strongest possible argument is in the

interest of the parties to make compromises and hold their nose into whatever has to be done to get there. and you do that by minimizing the risks and maximizing the benefits. this is something that tony is still working on with the quartet in the middle east. we've got to paint a picture of what this is like at the end of the road. and they have to know that someone will be there to maximize the benefits and minimize the risk. because believe me if they made an agreement the day after tomorrow, we'd have two or three years would be pretty rough sailing i think. >> yeah, i think one thing that the president was just saying that it's really important is the parties have wanted. because i obviously reflect a lot about this now, punitive middle east peace process. i was actually in jerusalem. and here's the thing i think is quite interesting about conflict resolution. and i know this may be a rather odd to say, but sometimes they

wanted it, but it's not very obvious that they do. and sometimes they believe that they wanted, but are absolutely certain that the other side doesn't. you know, one of the things that i do constantly know what i'm talking about yesterday with president at yahoo! from israel and the other day with president abbas is that sometimes, in fact many times you look at israelis that they look, we want peace, but we don't have a partner for palestinians say of course we want peace. how could we not? but the israelis aren't serious about it. and one of the functions about the people from outside -- because in the end the piece ultimately can be only made by those inside the process. one of the functions of those that come in from the outside is

in fact as i say to be persuaders of the good faith of the other, so that you're able to go in there and say look, i'm talking to these people. i know that they want peace. and so sometimes they wanted, but they aren't sure the other wants it. what you dare forget it is a crisis not so much of a process, but a crisis of credibility or consequence in the other sites could face. and sometimes people say to me about northern ireland and the middle east peace process, the difference is very obvious. one of the chief similarities is when we first see what that peace process, you know, every time the u.s.a. to us of course we want these and the republicans would say, you don't understand. we always wanted peace, but the other side don't. but the important thing i think is to create the framework within which the other side can

explore the good faith of the people they are dealing with. >> one more thing briefly. i want to compliment you and your pre-prime ministerial years. it also really helps if you're trying to broker a peace that is full of risk if there is generally a bipartisan statesmen like support for it. when john major and your predecessor was in office and make up that statement in december of 92 and some things have been there before you came in office, we struggled along better and finally got a start in 95. you could've canned that whole deal and he didn't. and i think that made a huge difference. and i think it made it harder to turn for the tories when you

became prime minister to undermine your position because he put the interest of the country and the interest of the irish ahead of any short-term political gain you could've made. i think that is profoundly important. >> just one final thing on this topic. i think the other thing is that sometimes there comes a moment when peace is possible because the circumstances that surround the conflict have changed. now i think in northern ireland, when the republic of ireland's economy started to become, you know, this go-ahead tiger economy and so on. and you know, i used to grow up and make the jokes about irish and all the less, but they were

considered by people in northern ireland not to look down on those in the south. and suddenly became this extraordinarily vibrant, dynamic economy, culture society. that changed. that just changed out the atmospheric south. the person in the republic of ireland with the european union. we started to think of these two sovereign countries. look, come on, let's try and talk this thing. we've got other things to think about in this relationship. i think today in the middle east there is actually similar, different but similar thing going on, which is i actually believe today a majority of the arab countries surrounding israel and palestine. today they actually know that they've got a fundamental strategic interest. and so, i think there is a conjunction of circumstances they are that can be an external pressure that i think works towards peace as well.

>> that's the one thing in the middle east, along with the performance of the fatah government in the west bank that is much better than it was 10 years ago when we almost got an agreement. we have a lot of -- excuse me, arab leaders giving me those private out of police. but they were a little bit afraid that if they came out foursquare for the peace agreement that i offered, that the israeli government accepted under then prime minister barak. now i think they are far more worried about iran as a real adversary and they want a strategic military political and economic readership with israel. that's the first thing. and secondly, many of these countries have been genuinely embarked on their own modernization efforts.

and they realize they are sort of hardbound, just say no. it shows them a sustainable position. so i agree with that. i think that's the most hopeful thing really that the arabs desperately want this done and are really prepared finally at long last to give israel a password, which is not just some cold peace in the middle east, but a general long-term partnership. >> that's terrific. from a regional conflict to internal political conflict, each of you pioneered third way politics. how did that impact your time in office in which he think of the repercussions today? >> i think he pioneered. i followed it. i still think that the debate is over here.

but there's almost particularly the economic crisis. the big debate in europe is really in and around the state. and what people say is look, especially after the financial crisis, the state is back in fashion. and you know, my view has always been that in the late 20th century, early 21st century politics, if you provide people a big state and a minimalist state, i'm afraid they'll choose the minimalist state. that's not the only choice. and where we left when i came into government very closely, was that they are reinventing government's programs of president clinton and the idea that the purpose of the state is necessary, then it should be strategic and empowering. and that is a series of consequences that litchi to education reform, health care reform. it leads you to welfare as a hand up, not a handout.

it leads you to a sense of society about as responsibility. it leads you to a belief in society and community, not just in the mechanisms of the state for individual had been spent. and i think that is third way politics is sometimes wrongly thought of as splitting the difference between left and right. it was never about me. it was about facing progressive values and applying them to a new world. and i think the irony of it is that good is even more necessary today because of the way people live their life. you know, when i say to my colleagues in europe or in the u.k., you know, they say maybe you went too far with all the reforms. i see the issue is whether it went far enough frankly because of the way the world is changing. i look at my children and the life they lead and the choices

they make, the technology they use. you know, just when we got -- i got isaf around. i think you're quite good at technology. anyway, i got my ipod. i thought i might tell 10-year-old nsa is god this new thing called an ipod. yes of course. how many applications does it have been what they? [laughter] he's going to grow up in a world that is so different and the nature that because of technology and information is going to be -- this is where you have to choose your words carefully. it's not so individualistic in the society and community and sense of fellowship, but is more individualistic in what way, which is people would leave their lives, expect team to make choices, expect to them that

their with government for example is that if enough passive and not just sitting there and being prepared to accept whatever government gets you. if governments can perform a change and become more enabling and empowering a new partnership between government and the citizens, people say government stands in my way, so get it off my back. so my view was always does with the right wing came in. they said look, what these people basically want to do is keep things away from you and give it to this big thing called the state. and the state usually waste your money and makes you pay too much tax and all the rest. so the third way politics, that president clinton really pioneered was a great deliberation for aggressive politics in my view and i think it's absolutely relevant today. i think frankly there will be many more progressive partnerships in power today if they were following it. and you probably -- you may not

remember this, but just after elected you came in downing street and you came into the cabinet and it was just one of those moments because we were off humanness. as a fan of thought, i've never actually been in power before. we've been in power for 18 years. i never even been a junior minister. and that was true the cabinets. they were completely new to it. and comes president clinton knew by then wanted a second second term and so on. i think he spoke for about 10 or 10 minute and gave us a perfect start of strategic compass for what we should do as a government. they say we and our campaign slogan. i thought you can't really have read that. but it was one of those coming

in now, i still think third way politics is the right way forward actually. i really do. it's maybe not, you know, quite so fashionable over our way at the moment. but i think, you know, my final reflection is that progressive people always win when they are at the cutting edge of the future. and they always lose when they become a different form of conservative and can't handle the future. >> yeah, the first of all, that's about as good as i can do, what he just said. at that it was great. but if you want to see how tony was, how he came to this is an incredible moving, at least to me moving passage in the beginning of this book where he talks about his father and how his father came out of a hardscrabble poor background and became a member of the conservative party in the u.k. because he thought was to admit

it you have to be there because the purpose of the labor party essentially was building a big state to redistribute income. and what gave birth to their third rate in america was as much of anything, democrats kept getting beat because people size as the party of big government and their own political base very often was more concerned with means and ends. we basically said, what does it mean to be a progressive or a liberal or whatever you want to call it to build a middle class, you reduce poverty. you want to provide essentially the tools that are necessary to build a good life, like an education. and you list all those things. and then you say we've been fighting us that the only way to do it is the way that it was done in the industrial age, when the world was dominated by big top-down corporations and big top-down government. and we have to go from

entitlement to empowerment. that's essential. and if we don't and we have to have accountability and spending of money and responsibility for people who get opportunity that exists for the government. just simple things. it leads you to a whole different set of policy choices. i found that even today i read that i've been excoriated by people -- one of the television commentators on one of our local cable channels that i was the best republican president the country ever produced, which would come as quite a bit surprised who are the communists. [laughter] but what she meant by that was that it didn't necessarily follow the conventional wisdom means. i said what do you mean? the welfare reform reduced rose by 60% and we had a brief recession in 2001. people who move from welfare to

work for slightly less likely, not more likely to be let go in this recession. we had 100 times as many people move out of poverty in those figures in the previous 12 years because we have the earned income tax credit, not because we have another traditional antipoverty program hiring people. so i just think that on the other hand you can't say from that you don't need to stay. one of the things the financial crisis shows is that all systems tend to run to access when they're going full throttle. so the most successful societies, without exception, are always those who have a strong year, which is by definition continually modernizing for people karl rove. and then a government, which is not by definition continuously modernizing, so somebody has to keep running of the change. it doesn't mean you can forget

to listen to the tulip boom and 20th century holland. you've got to still have, you know, reasonable rules. and someone with tony. i still think this third way thing works. if you think about the lives we live now. he now has a project that i wanted to do and couldn't put my foundation, where he goes around in his foundation works to help government in poor african countries as they develop capacities. how are you going to tax system? how can you build a health care system? without health care systems and economic projects, but he goes in and works inside out with the government. why? because he knows we need a strong government, but also you don't need to waste any money. you need to be affect his. and it's no accident that rwanda has quadrupled the income of the last decade because they focus on private sector growth that

has an effective government. and i think -- i still think we're right about that. i think particularly -- i think the people on the right can see the government is the enemy as we don't and it are wrong particularly and economic time. i think people i must say the only way to deliver services or solve problems is that the bigger state are not always right and are more often wrong than right. >> yeah, so the left criticize you because you were last enough and the right criticizes you because you won the election. it's really unfamiliar of that. [laughter] you see, i think the reason -- i think reason third-rate politics -- the interesting thing about politics is i think the funny thing is that the

people are usually far ahead in an analysis the politicians. they don't see it like that and they don't analyze it like that. but actually, they were in the third way positioned before politics with. they were the third-rate position for very simple reasons. they could see that the excesses of the past and the capital assistant of strong social provision. but they also could see the 20th century drew to a close up their panic taxes, government was spending a lot of money and they wanted it accountable and efficient. they also thought i'm prepared to pay for people who are in need, but frankly i expect someone who's given something to have some responsibility to use what they're given. so i think the interesting thing about third-rate politics is i

think certainly that, in my country, in europe, the constituency often in the media is quite emitted. because they tend to fit into very traditional left right categories. but actually the constituency and the country is always bigger because they think -- they think like human beings. they think instinctively. and i always used to think that however difficult it was to try and get policies through and anybody who has made reforming change knows how difficult it is come you always actually had a constituency for reform and change amongst people because most people, sensible people, recognize he required the existence of the state there to help do the things only the state can do. but they also expect those are running the state to do the most affect dead, most responsible, most accountability and with the

best values of money. and actually if we cannot keep that in our minds as progressive politicians and start from the days of the people and build our policy up for not, were more likely to get the answer. >> mr. blair, your book includes a terrific almost nostalgic story about the last time you refuse to table at a restaurant. i think it was the day before he became oppositional leader. >> the battalion actually let me down. >> would you i'll talk about what the pressures of political life were like and how you deal with those pressures? >> well i have actually a section in my book that deals

rather and usually with alcohol and political leaders. and you know, i was kind of worried because you do when you get to my age. you've got to be careful with it. although, my description as i had a gin and tonic for dinner and a couple glasses of wine with a member of my cabinet who said the other day when asked about my drinking. the book when where i come from we give more than that to the canary. [laughter] but i was also a real stickler for the holidays. and i think the pressures of political life are enormous and particularly enormous now even the 24 hour day, seven day week media world. decisions are tough.

i mean, i was that they rested on her shoulders easier than mine. but you know, particularly not just with life-and-death situations in iraq and afghanistan, but just a day to day business of it. it's tough. and sometimes, you know, you're like everybody else that you want to get the job done and everything, but you're a human being. and i always think, you know, i was very lucky actually have been a young family growing up because my kids are teenagers really when i first came to downing street, which had its challenges, but also had its tremendous vintage of keeping my feet on the ground. and when i shut the flat door on downing street at the end of the day, and actually was a tremendous relief to go back to the family and talk about things

that were incredibly important within the family come up for really important outside of that. but i think it's a -- you know, sometimes, particularly today, when the political debate can get very harsh nowadays. i mean, i see some of the things over here today and your political discourse but it's really pretty tough language being kicked around. and back in my place as well, too, i think it is sometimes important to look to society for sympathy towards politicians is probably very limited small group of people. but when i'm trying to do in the book actually to say this is what it's like from a human perspective. and believe it or not we don't come from much. we're human beings. so that's what i try to do successfully or unsuccessfully. and i try to make it very much a human account of what it's like to be an ordinary human beings

dealing with extraordinary things. >> by thank you first of all, nearly everybody who gets one of these jobs, in my experience really does in america, whether it's a republicandemocrat, tori in the u.k. tries to do whatever they think is right. as to the politicians i've known of the last 45 years contrary to its been said about them in the current campaign are honest, hard-working people who are pretty smart. once in a while you meet a dishonest person. not often. once in a while you meet a dummy, not often. and yet, there are going to be called in some variation dishonest, lazy and as a post.

and so, which you have to do is to learn how first -- you have to mentally challenge yourself to take this criticism in so that you can take it seriously, but not personally. if you take it personally, you get your feelings hurt and you will feel to hear it. so if it's legitimate, you won't adjust as you should. and if it's illegitimate you appeal to slough it off as you should. and i think part of that is not giving up on your family life and trying to be there for your kids about taking vacations with your family. but part of it for me at least is when i became president, there were only 50 sites on the world wide web and the average cell phone weighed five pounds in 1993. and so, we didn't have e-mail. so i gave 50 people that i had known mostly my life by zip code

and i have a special one do not. only 50 people had it. none of them are famous, none of them are wealthy. they were people i grew up with and they would tell me they look at an idiot and those people and there's kids did for eight years and just kept our relationship alive. that helped. it didn't be in with friends helps you but i will say this, most of the mistakes i've made in my life, you can't do this job well if you don't have a pretty furnishes work at the period for most of the major mistakes i've made in my life i've made what i was too tired to lift my arm above my shoulders. and a lot of people will tell you that. so the trick is i have to go back and totally reorder my whole when i realize one of the reasons we were going to do well in the congressional relations as i have lost the ability to really connect with the american

people and is goggle eyed tired all the time. but i had to use the time they get me to read because i was determined to go have dinner with hillary and chelsea every night. couldn't block out an hour or two every day just to rest or do whatever needed to be done. changed by whole life. i know it sounds funny, but little things like that can change your whole life. and i suspect it's not true just in politics. >> the one bit of pressure i'll never use of the prime minister's questions. tonight i watched him on television what do we. >> occasionally people in america say, you must've missed the prime minister's question time. i think what? you know, asking someone you investigated by the spanish inquisition at the bike to stretch is sort of like -- [laughter] it was the most terrible, terrible time. one person that could have done it, you could've done it.

there was a pain in the book actually because what you really need is you need to be very fast on your feet because that is an unforgiving place. when you watch the prime minister's questions, they can get a lot of the abuse. they are only a short distance away. just a few feet away. and when you're standing at the box, the other front bench the whole thing is keeping up with the answer. he looks awful today. what's wrong with them? and they say you know all that sort of stuff. you know, so you're trying to answer your questions that. but i remember when we were sitting i went to see -- i went to see the president in the oval office. and i was the leader of the opposition. and this was just before your

1996 reelection against bob dole. so i went to see you when the leader of the opposition, he's the president of the united states. so when you get into the, how did it all work out? and of course the british media world turning up hoping for something to go wrong. so anyway, i sat in those chairs that you do, trying to let generally statesmanlike sitting with the president. and i remember the british media are used to russian very clutch, but journalists will come in and they would show questions. one of the british media sade, do you think sitting next to you're sitting next to the next british prime minister? if he said no, i would have been gone. if you suggest he was interfering with the british election, right? so he said, i just hope he

sitting next to the next president of next president of the united states. [laughter] [applause] that is one way to get to the prime minister's question. >> that actually raises the next question. there's been a lot discussed and its increasing about the special relationship between great britain and the united states. how would each of you described out? >> well, here's the thing, there's a lot of talk now that certainly overweight, particularly in a sense during my time in office i've been close to mr. president bush and before that president clinton. and standing with america after september the 11th and the war in iraq and afghanistan and so on. and sometimes it's presented as

this. let me speak from the point of view of the british prime minister as if this is about you've got to keep him with america and so on. and of course, you know, america is important for all countries to relationship with the world superpower. but actually for me it was always about a bond of values and beliefs, shared way of life. and actually, you know, you can be sort of a bit prissy or dismisses of that, but if not there's end it means something. so the alliance between britain and the u.s. as a matter of strategic national interest. you know, sometimes they say thank you for what you did for america. and i say actually i did it for britain. and it's important because the relationship still matters. now, what is often said over my way today is yes of course the american relationship is

important, the power shifting east is giving up a relationship with china or india has always been new powers that are emerging on some cases. and my answer to that is for a country like britain is in those circumstances, we do have these emerging powers in a single thing i've noticed since leaving office is very emphatic and it will change the whole course of the 21st century. but in those circumstances, what i say it's even more important to have the relationship with america, bound as it is by not just a national interest, but the values and convictions. and also, century with the european union. the other thing people would say to me in britain during my time as office is you know, desperate find that the american

relationship, you know, british leg of french. why are they keen on the european union? my answer to that was perfectly simple. in the 21st century, there is big and small european states. in the 21st century, france, germany, u.k., italy were all small compared to those countries emerging in the world today. if we paint together with the european union, we can be stronger individually. and so, when you go to china or india and this is the reality and you say i'm the british prime minister, but i'm also a strong ally of the u.s. and a key player in the european union, they're going to listen a lot more than if you say i'm britain. dutcher member s.? you know, we used to have an empire. it's not the way the world works anymore. and it's very, very hard because i think -- i think we've

discussed this, but one of the things i think it's really difficult for countries to date as every country has got to decide what its place in the world is. what is its narrative about itself? where does that stand? its extraordinary shift in the geopolitical landscape. and to meet the u.k. u.s. relationship remains relevant. it's an important part of our interests. it's not sentiments, not something that's had its day or we talk about churchill and roosevelt and all those kinds. it matters. and it matter to me when i was prime minister in a very modern way. now, a lot is written about the relationship with written in america's standing shoulder to shoulder with america. but i remember the conflict in kosovo, when ethnic cleansing was going on from the doorstep of europe. and the truth is about america,

without president clinton coming in and supported the action, we couldn't have handled that. 85% of the assets for your efforts and i was an extraordinary and courageous decision actually because i think it's fair to say what of the great crowns pushing you to do this in the u.s., quite the opposite in fact. a lot of people in the u.s. would say come on, this is thousands of miles away. tell them to go fix it. so that relationship mattered at that point in time dramatically in the developed difference to people's lives. whenever the problems were today that it been for 100 years or more as a result of the strong transatlantic relationship. so my very, very strong passionate view is that this is not some special relationship in commerce or in area of sentiment connected with the past. it is something that is living and breathing now with the

relevance of today and relevance to tomorrow and we should keep it and we should preserve it and we should be proud of it and we shouldn't give it up. >> by 100% agree with you. one reason that i was so elated when tony one is that i thought both the u.s. and the united kingdom had some formidable changes -- challenges and we need to modernize arab countries if we were going to be strong enough for our relationship to matter to other people in the 21st century. i still believe that. i think basically, you know, i spend most of my time in places like haiti in poor places where they don't have any systems. countries like ours that have been around a long time, we have systems that resist change.

and i went to modernize it because i thought that on their record, ever since the war of 1812, we've been pretty close. and it's worked out pretty well for the world. i don't think you can cite the examples from the 20th century that one of them how that worked out well. people can argue about iraq and we all know one of these days. but on balance, it's been a good thing for the world because we are not imperialists anymore. and whatever we do, we do partly because we have the capacity in most other countries don't. or we have to have an alliance of economic and political in order for the military to make a of sense. otherwise it's just kind of a slowing isolated elements out there. i think it's really important. the thing i think is interesting

is how it has transcended the personalities. you know, hillary and i felt comfortable with sharia and tony. i loved the amount their kid whether they are rounder and a. it was a personal thing. and it was awkward when i became president and john major was there because there had been the big story that at the request of my predecessor's campaigned, she had had the intelligence service rifling through the fires of the british passport office to see if i'd ever tried to give up my american citizenship. i was one of the things i used to break the tablets about myself all the time. so the british press was mortified when i became president, that somehow this would destroy the special relationship. i didn't dare tell them the truth, which was that i was elated for them to be rooting around in my passport files because i knew they were wasting time and money in getting me closer to election day. and i could've cared less. i thought it was one of the most

colossal waste of time and resources. i realize that i had to be -- i had to be careful that there was five degrees difference in my division before tony became prime minister and go back to the passport controversy, which wasn't true. eventually had a good relationship with nature. and then we had a wonderful partner ship that involves kosovo, the aftermath of bosnia, the irish peace process, our ongoing efforts in the middle east, lots of other things. and then when president bush issued this for tv movie coming special relationship basically about tim and me that were factual inaccuracies, one of which i told him that i got mad at him when i said he was going out to get along with bush. that's factually untrue. i wanted him to get on with george bush because of its

importance for our countries. and they made a good relationship. you are free to agree or disagree with their policies, but the fact he held it together in an extremely contentious time is worth something. and you will see that as we go along. in the next five years, there will be some other example where david cameron and barack obama had nothing to do with all the stuff we were doing. they'll have to do something together that no one else can do. and as long as that the case and as long as at least nobody thinks are trying to move their countries are being periodically make a mistake, it's a mistake of the minds, not a heart. then people can even disagree with us and want the special relationship to survive. i think that is the key name. nobody is right all the time. no buddy. and these decisions are flying at you, in a highly contentious

atmosphere. we just need for people to know that we wish them well and when we bring our power to bear to get there, we do it because we think that the world in the next generation of children will be better off. i think as long as we do that, the special relationship will be relevant for at least 50 more years and for all i know beyond. >> i think this'll be the last question because were running out of time. when the wall speak to each other and look at the world, is there one trend or one single aspect of what is happening now across the world that you look at is the most important, either for good or for ill? >> i think there's probably two or three. and one of the things that the little shocking actually, i find this particularly out of the

middle east now is how much more understand about it and it did when i was in office as prime minister. and i think one major trend is this issue to do with extremism and how we handle it. because it's based on a of the peaceful operation of islam, but it's there and it's powerful and it's not i'm afraid going away. and i think it is not simply the action of the extremists that there is a narrative, that they have developed. it is in my view too broad. in this issue that i felt in office, that president obama is having to do with now i think is -- i'm afraid it's going to be with us for some time. i think what i understand now disturbers of it are very deep. there are genuine powerful religious and cultural powers.

one thing after he left office was because i genuinely believe that the 21st century is unlikely to be a century of fundamentalists political ideology, but could become a century of conflict of religious or cultural ideology. i think bringing together globalization, respecting difference is a vital part of today's world and that is one trend that i noticed i was very needed to be counted. the second of the capacities that every time i go to china or india i'm just amazed by what happening. i think for us in america or in europe, for centuries we've been the dominant powers. and to get in our own minds clear a sense of partnership that is now going to be necessary because we will note longer be dominant the same way is very, very important.

as i said a moment or two ago, strangely what it means to me is not that a relationship, america or europe is less important, but it's actually more important because in that emerging world we need to have the power to be able to shape it or at least be on equal terms with the countries that will far exceed ours in population. as they often say to people come you think about china today growing in population terms every year with the same amount of the u.k. you know, china will build more stations in the next 10 years in the second world war. you get a sense of the sheer scale of what's happening. so those are the two trends that i am identifying. and if i had any other thoughts, it would be about, you know, i write this in the book actually that one of the things that interest me as you know, some people in our country alyce talk about the younger generation into day care in the same way and so on and so forth.

they're not as idealistic as we were in the 60s and 70s. i have enormous faith in young people today. some of the young people at the work in africa are absolutely superb. i'd like to finish just by saying one other lesson that president went top need and actually was a important lesson of international diplomacy. whether you remember the summer we went to in a far-off country. one of the things that sometimes happens at these global summits is they like you to address the evening dinner in their traditional costumes, right? and we witness plays. i remember going to my room and i was kind of new. the prime minister was a sure how to handle it. anyway, we had to wear a shirt which was one of the traditional shirt of this particular place. and there were three shirt on the bed.

and the first one was absolutely hideous. and the next two were worse. last night was the third in the most hideous. great, so i choose the bad one, and but not as bad as the rest and i put it down. i go on for dinner and the first person i see is president clinton and he's got the third, he's got the worst on. so i go over nsa bill, that shirt is terrible. andy says yep. i said why divided on? he says let me tell you something. you see, when i'm wearing this shirt and my folks back on cbn television, they'll think there's that nice mr. president having to be good to all those strange foreign people. but when they see -- when your folks see you home, they just may think you chose it.

[applause] [laughter] >> well, i think the most important thing -- i agree with tony about the rise in the east and i agree with him about the generation that is the most amazing group of young people and there is the group of people thanks to the internet to share common interests and common knowledge in ways that would have been unthinkable. 10-year-old can now find out in the information they choose to spend two years in college to get ahold of. i think the most important thing today is the struggle unresolved between the positive and negative forces of our global interdependence. and the fact that no one had the monopoly on power and influence information they once had.

the chinese state is too strong to suit most of us and the russians sometimes suppress nongovernment organizations do things we don't like. nobody controls the dell. witness the election and who made us all feel that we did. but there is a story today in the paper this truly gripping and i wish every american would think about it, about the incredible role the united states is playing in helping him narcotraffickers and their violent gangs in mexico in their attempt to destroy the mexican state and take over whether mexico because we insisted, i believe wrongly, on repealing the assault weapons ban. and i'll all these ghostbusters there are so selling cutouts of 50 caliber weapons and missile weapons for the narcotraffickers are better armed than the

mexican army. and keep in mind those people are out there dying trying to keep out of the bodies of america's children. that also is interdependence. there are all these positive and negative forces and their constantly at war everywhere, hard to organize, hard to direct, almost impossible to control the and hard to calculate what the long-term pluses and minuses are, making the sacrifice today to try and manage or kick a can down the road, the kind of decision he had to make a few years ago. i think those are the great questions of the 21st century. there's too much inequality in the world, but they're more people moving out of poverty than ever before. vicious that the population is growing fastest in the poorest places of the world. there's too much instability, but there's also more opportunity than ever before. i think climate change is real,

yet i don't think we'll deal with it until everyone is convinced it's good economics to do so. so you have all these tangents going back-and-forth, back-and-forth, back-and-forth. i think if all of you are confused by some of the things you read in the paper every day, this is a little filter for you saying is this a manifestation of the positive or negative forces of our interdependence? that is, we can't get away from each other. what happens here taxpayer and vice versa. every citizen's duty is to try to build up the positive and reduce the negative forces. and when you're all said and done, the best you can ever hope for is have a positive record because everybody makes mistakes. i think when you read tony blair's book you will conclude that these had quite a good run and is still very high on the positive side. thank you. do not doubtless terrific. [applause]

..and

counsel, or was, to the exelon corporation recently retired. you have an advisory position with the corporation right now. it's an energy corporation, formerly, formerly utah and, and it produces, or the largest largest energy companies in america. and it produces electricity from a variety of plants our coal-fired plants, and many nuclear power plants. so they're interested in that space. also interested in transmission issues, and she came to the job

and comes to us with extensive experience in energy and environment policy here she was senior counsel for the committee on energy and natural resources from 1976-1988, worked with scoop jackson from the state of washington, and also j. bennett johnston who were chairs of the committee. she also was appointed by reagan to serve as a member on the federal energy regulatory commission, ferc. she was reappointed by george h. w. bush and bill clinton, and became chair of ferc. she also was deputy secretary of energy in the department of energy, worked for a law firm here is that specializes in energy, and also has been given a variety of awards for her

service. one that i will mention, i won't mention all of them who is a national energy distinguished service award, and she's been named by the hill, the publication, top corporate lobbyist in washington annually since 2003. but most importantly she is a graduate of american university. welcome, betsy. come on up. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, jim, for that kind introduction. i appreciate the invitation to speak. this is early in the morning, i understand that you guys need to go out and get coffee, i won't be offended. i don't think the tv guys well might he do. it's a pleasure to be here. i did recently retired but i graduate from au before most of you were born. but i haven't fossilized quite yet. and i have known of jim for

many, many years, more than, actually probably end you were before your borchardt i shouldn't say that but tit for tat on these things. my comments today will focus on epa climate initiative, but they will, just because of the way up and what i've done and so forth, be from the perspective of that utility executive. that's what i've done for the last almost 11 years. and the electric utility sector is one of the most impacted by what congress and/or epa are up to. and in order to understand the electricity and utilities perspective of just going to give you a little bit of electricity 101. it's not something that you grew up knowing about. many of you may pay bills to petco or pico. anybody from philly?

peco energy come is a savior of the company i used to work for. , and in chicago. it's a complicated industry so i will do the electricity 101. then i will briefly cover the congressional debate over climate legislation, try and make it not too boring. then finally i will try to talk about what epa is up to. and what it means from the industry's perspective and some of the politics that relate to that. first, electricity 101. by the way, i understand karen has distributed what i toiled over yesterday. i did do my homework though i guess i could say i've been doing my homework for about 30 years on this subject. anyway, it's a very important part of our economy. there are many, many actors and is just an organizational mess. it's a roughly 350 billion-dollar industry, employs 400,000 people. you have heard of the shovel-ready jobs. these are ready jobs.

and its roughly 3% of our gross domestic product. its capital needs are huge. they are just crazy. if you sit in the boardroom of an electric utility you talk a lot about money. there's roughly $350 billion on the books these days that's known as being an ratebase. that's what your rates are based on for the service that you get. but a recent study by an outfit called the brown group estimated that the industry will need over $500 billion to build new power plants in the next 20 years. and that's without any changes in carbon policy. roughly $300 million, or $8 billion, for transmission. that's to get the power from the power plant to philly. and another nearly $600 billion of distribution, so you generate

the power. it comes out of the power plant at a very, very high rate, if you will. big fat wires on the transmission wires, and then it is quote steps down. you have to get this so it's a lower source of power to be distributed around the city. so your generation, transmission and distribution. those are three distinct parts of the utility business. there are four principal types of actors in the industry. there are 210 investor utilities. that means stockholders on them. they're typically traded on the new york stock exchange, utilities are exchange traded entities. there are also, they range in size from exelon corporation which is slightly less than $30 billion in market cap. it's one of the big east, essentially the second largest in the country.

and him to a small iou, investment owned utility like a white electric i've always want to be the ceo of hawaii elected but i think it would be a nice job. but they never offered it to me. they're also about 2000 municipally owned utilities. the city of richmond, virginia, for example, just a little south, 100 miles south of here as the government of richmond owns the utility. and it snowed as the municipal utility. many in our jargon. they're mostly small to medium-sized players. and then that are about 880, 890, they come and go, they merged so the number change from time to time. cooperatively owned utilities. these are typically rural utilities. they're regulated by the department of agriculture. strange but true, because they are all part of, willing to get electricity out to the boonies

historically. there are a bunch of miscellaneous players. the federal government owns a couple utilities like bonneville power if anyone is to washington state our pacific northwest. they also transmission companies come and then there are a whole lot of independent companies that are power producers these days, and there are almost as many independent power producers as, that on power plants in the capacities amount of electricity those power plants produce is roughly equivalent to what all the ious own. so they are very important part of the sector. that's not always been true, that movement began in about 1978 when congress passed a thing called a public utility republican, that's not part of this discussion. i digress. utilities use a wide variety of fuel to generate power. you use wood chips. you use biomass these days.

you use water, hydroelectric. but the principle sources of fuel for the electric sector our goal, which is like 45% of the power in the country. natural gas which is a less than 25%. these precise numbers are in and out. 20% roughly that is nuclear. uranium, if you will, 6.8% hydro and then the other miscellaneo miscellaneous, solar, biomass, wind, hopefully one of these days ocean waves. i think that's very cool, the idea you can produce electricity from the ocean. that's sort of miscellaneous renewables is a really small chunk, but it's growing. but it's not the same across the country, and the reason that matters from you guys, for you guys is that if you are a cold

heavy part of the country, if your utility and use coal a lot, like the southern company in atlanta, georgia, and they serve a lot of the southeast, or aep in the middle of the country, columbus, ohio, you are going to be really, really worried about what epa is going to do to regulate coal. on the other hand, if you are from new england, which is mostly natural gas which is much less carbon intensive like a third less carbon intensive than coal, or nuclear, or if you're from the pacific northwest or california, which has a lot of hydro, epa regulating carbon, i.e., coal and natural gas, is going to make your assets if you are in seattle electric power company, or tacoma, this is going to make those assets more valuable. so, you know, the key in all

this discussion really come and is always true in politics is you need to follow the money. i have some numbers in the presentation that are boring, yes, but they really do impact politics. because if you're a cool guy he will worry about epa. if you're a nuclear utility and an excellent is about 96% nuclear, there are more nuclear power plants that excellent owns and they don't emit any carbon emissions, then you see regulated coal as a good thing. so that means your power plants are going to be worth more and you can have better opportunity in the market. so think of the southeast and a lot of the midwest that's heavy coal. think of new england. specific northwest dashing pacific northwest, gas, electric, natural gas, nuclear to some extent and hydro. i think of texas and oklahoma and that part of the country as natural gas.

and you have the picture of the politics. now i think as you get more and more into this issue you will begin to see those sources in the way the people react to the politics of climate change played out because of where they sit and how much it'll cost them is epa or congress is successful in regulating climate. that electric sector is also a major source of pollution. i once went to a lecture at the brookings institution down on massachusetts avenue where they introduced the ceo of aep. that power company behemoth in the middle of ohio, and the person introducing said this guy is the world's largest polluter. and, you know, i thought, i don't think i would like to be introduced that would. that's not exactly kind, but he took with agreement of site and said we are big.

we are getting cleaner. unit, that's just where you live is how you see things. the industry is a major source of pollution, and i use that word i think appropriately. the best source of members on this, an annual report that is put out by michael j. bradley, called benchmarking. it came out most really i think in june, and they have the emissions by each utility in the country. and emissions are declining? , and they are declining very slowly in the carbon world. but the sector does count for 66% of esoteric emissions, 19% and 70% of mercury's which is carcinogens, not good for people over your health.

and 39%, roughly 49% of co2 emissions in the country. more than any other sector in a country. that's what the reasons the fact that it's just a sitting duck for carbon regulation and the sources are easily identifiable. it's why epa is focused and the congress is focused on the industry. and now surprise lake the so-called dirty utilities are less likely to support carbon regulation because it will cost them a ton of money. and the clean utilities, the ones that don't have carbon emissions, pseg in new jersey, constellation in baltimore, exelon, just to be called florida power, now it's nextera energy in florida. pg and e. in california, these don't have as many carbons, emissions and so they're much

more likely to be in favor of regulating carbon. actually they have a little group, the trade organization called the clean energy group, and there's a lot of good data on their website. i'm not going to get into this but the industry is regulated heavily, regulated by the feds, for, epa, sec, by the states, the local utility commission, each state has a local utility commission that regulates the local distribution of power, the dams are regulated by ferc on a regular by the department of agriculture. regulation varies by state by state and so as i said it's really a mess, are a wonderful thing if you're a scholar of this sort of thing and interest from a regulatory perspective. so now you are expert in the electricity sector. big deal, expensive, polluting. where you sit inside look at

carbon legislation on what epa is up to your let me talk about politics. i'm sure most of you are graduate students, i'm told, and you've been through all these classes at this wonderful institution. and i'm sure you at some point heard that two years is a lifetime in politics. that's a congressional term. that's the long range planning horizon of a typical congressman. then it's all the way up to six years, and, of course, for years the president. so let's just think more than two years ago, and the evolution of climate change legislation, the prospects are regulation of the prospects therefore our religious proof positive that two years is a lifetime in politics. rollback two-and-a-half years ago, barack obama and and john mccain were running for president. they both actively supported enactment of comprehensive economy wide cap-and-trade legislation.

the nation was on its way to electing a very popular african-american from illinois your my company is from illinois so we considered him our senator. and his popularity was very, very high by any of the traditional means of measuring these things. there was hope and excitement about passing landmark legislation. the democrats had just elected a filibuster proof 60 majority in the united states senate. in november of 2008, congressman henry waxman of california, remember that clean state out there? had toppled john dingell from michigan, a dirty state, as chairman of house energy and commerce committee. and he did so, in one of the reasons they change their leadership, it was not just because dingle had been there forever and no longer was popular with the young turks,

but it was his attitude about regulating carbon particularly from the auto industry and that was not popular with the majority of the house. the 111th congress seemed poised to pass legislation to address climate. as a matter of fact, the first hearing that waxman had as chairman of the committee come and been chairman of the committee is like being a god in the house. it has most far-reaching jurisdiction of the house committee with the exception of the provisions committee, and they can medal in anything. so it's a big deal, very first year he had as chairman was on carbon legislation. he invited all the ceos of the members of u.s. cap, united states partnership which was a group that had been formed a couple years earlier. he invited all the ceos to come and testify on carbon legislation. they had one of these really long tables for the ceos to

sit, and they all stood up and raise their hands. they had on author expensively tailored suits, i can assure you. there were no women i might add. as the ceos. and they came and dutifully said they are in favor of mandatory economy wide cap-and-trade legislation, provided that it had ways to protect consumers from crazy economic impact of doing this. and the recession hadn't quite hit as badly as it was beginning to be awful, but they were very mindful of what the politics were from an economic point of view. by the way, one of the ceos had to leave. the second group had a bunch of women by the way, i just want to assure you there are women in the industry, although i'd think there only to women ceos unfortunately.

anyway, the waxman-markey who were viewed with distrust, shall i say, by the electric sector weren't very, very good about listening to the sectors concerned. they work and they very aggressively with congressman rick boucher from southern, southeastern, southwestern heart of virginia to craft a bill that the industry could support. it passed out of committee. it became sort of a super bowl of politics as it went to the floor. waxman and markey stepped up and make lots and lots of political deals. i know you're shocked that that might happen during a major piece of legislation, but it certainly didn't. the administration was very aggressive in its support of the bill. valerie jarrett who is one of the two senior advisers to the president said in a meeting i

attended with her that the president had made more calls on the cap-and-trade legislation than he had anything previously in the congress at the time. i suspect that record, it might've been eclipsed recently by the health care debate or anything that they did in lame duck. but it was a big deal here my then boss from exelon called in on defense democrat from illinois, whose name is bill foster, and foster said look, john, the president has called me. the vice president has called me. rahm emanuel the rahm emanuel the chief of staff called me. al gore has called me. carol browner has called me. unit, the white house climate garden. lisa jackson ahead of epa has called me. so what you can you tell me? so i tell the story only because it was a very big deal. by the way he was not persuaded that he voted no. he should have known better.

he actually eventually was defeated, but not because of that particular vote. but they did pass a major climate bill in the house. it passed by 219-212. are only eight republicans who voted yes while 44 voted no. one other republicans who voted yes was a congressman taken from illinois, congressman kirk. he said i voted yes, but now i would vote no. it was one of those and that was when he was running for the senate. he is now a senator. the lobbying effort was huge. the edison electric institute did support it because it had enough of those consumer protection provisions in it, and enough of provisions to guarantee that the price, and i can go into obnoxious detail about this if you are desperate, but they had a lot of consumer protection provisions in there. and edi did support it. so did the u.s. cap.

most unions supported the bill while the u.s. chamber of commerce u.s. chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers, the american petroleum institute and a whole bunch of conservative organizations, and this is setting up were you guys are going with this class, i get that, opposed it. and interestingly there was a newly formed evangelical group in favor, you usually think of the evangelical group has a very conservative group, particularly on social policy but they have a newly energized group. i met with in a number of times and this was sort of unfolding that has convinced that society is hurting the earth, and it's their duty as evangelicals to do what they can to overcome that. said they were actively engaged in the subject. and the administration was very actively involved. the bill was a kitchen sink kind of bill. it had carbon legislation in it. it had a requirement, utility

procurer 20% of the energy they use by 2020 from renewables. but it did have a comprehensive cap-and-trade provision that by 2050 would reduce the nation's overall carbon footprint, require a deficit of 80%. as an aggressive goal, but i think should have been manageable. then the politics began to get ugly. they pass it. i remember the first time i heard about tea party. i'm a democrat, proud of it. i understand not everybody is. and i respect that. it's the nature of our system, but i was sitting in my office and i heard that this guy, tom perriello, he is from, i see somebody not a. they know who years. really bright guy, he'll trained -- yale trained lawyer, who had

formed a number of faith based organizations. democrat, conservative guy, great profile, really, really smart. was going home for august, you know when they do all these town hall things, and a bunch of people were coming to his town hall meetings. they were packing his town hall meetings. of all the strange things, and opposition to the cap-and-trade but it was the tea party. i thought what in the world is the tea party? i didn't get at the time. i've got it now. they're also talking about health care legislation, but cap-and-trade became a very important anti-cap-and-trade became a very important part of the tea party movement. and it went from bad to worse. in the senate the very liberal environment public works committee took up the bill. it was pretty half-baked, even its authors would tell you that

they had a lot of placeholder provisions in it. barbara boxer, california again, was very much in favor of climate legislation. and it was approved by the committee on november 1 by voting 11-one. there are more people than that on that committee. all other republicans boycotted because they were so unhappy. and the one was just somebody there for procedural reasons, didn't support it so that he did it what you need to do procedurally if they ever need to reconsider this thing. but it was obviously was given the 11-1 vote and given the fact that the republicans al all the posts. didn't show up. were angry enough at barbara boxer not to even come to the committee markup. jim inhofe from oklahoma, very conservative, doesn't believe climate change is real. doesn't believe that science, is very skeptical about the whole

thing. just refused to show up, and lots of others on the committee felt the same thing. so it was obvious we need to do something new. senators kerry, graham and lieberman wrote an editorial, kerry graham i guess was wrote an editorial in the near times, talk about a comprehensive climate and energy bill. they were very busy writing one. it was a big deal, and then they are trying to get a bill ready for the floor. and then the majority leader of the senate, mr. reid, announced that he was going to take up immigration legislation first instead of climate regulation. graham, conservative republican, was also the key guy on immigration. he was furious. i heard some blue words come out of his mouth that i don't ordinarily here are from members

not on the record. but he was very unhappy. they were poised to have a press conference on monday announcing their bill with a whole bunch of ceos standing up. grandma walked out and said not doing it. reed pulled the rug out. kerry and lieberman soldiers on. they came up with a bill in may, but without a key republican. and grant has managed in his tenure in the senate to become a key republican on a lot of really interesting issues. the bill went nowhere. his defection that resulting from reid's decision to do immigration for us, which was usually imported from a nevada -- nevada perspective that he was worried, shockingly, about his reelection. there was won by the name of intellect laid who was running against him, a tea party or we

might recall. decide who's going to do what he could on immigration instead of climate. he was afraid to take up climate. .. >> who'd been in the house 28 years, had been a key guy, he really understands the electric sector, he'd been a key guy in negotiating with waxman-markey, was defeated. pair yellow was defeated. the 48-page pledge to america that republicans unveiled in advance of the election

uncolluded -- included their commitment to oppose, attempts to impose a national cap and be trade energy tax. well, it wasn't a tax, but they called it a national cap and trade energy tax. no truth in labeling here. and my favorite, my favorite in this a very perverse sense was the commercial i caught one night with then-west virginia governor manchin, anybody from west virginia? well, they missed this, maybe, or maybe you saw it. had a rifle, and can he shot at a giant target labeled cap and trade. i thought, oh, my. i was quite surprised. he won, the climate legislation lost, needless to say. the 112th congress looks hopeless for any sort of comprehensive cap and trade legislation. it ain't happening. i know that, it's one of the reasons i felt no guilt whatsoever at having quit my job and on to a new life.

congressman fred upton who's the new chairman of the energy and commerce committee instead of henry waxman campaigned for the chairmanship in part by assuring his colleagues that he would not support cap and trade legislation. they were worried about whether he was too liberal or not. he appointed congressman john shimkus from illinois chairman of the environment and economy subcommittee. i've known john shimkus a long time, he's a great person. i love him to death. i disagree with him on this subject, though, however. he doesn't believe -- he opposes climate change legislation on religious grounds, on moral grounds because he believes man cannot destroy the planet, that only god can, that it's this bible. he says it very sincerely that's his position, he's not going to promote climate change legislation in his subcommittee, i assure you. that is quite a contrast in

politics from ed markey of massachusetts to john shimkus. and this guy has the jurisdiction over the epa. congressman darrell issa is the next chairman of the house oversight committee. of he's promised two oversight committee hearings a week. he's going to be a very busy man, and he's very excited to have lisa jackson, the administrator of the epa, come before him regularly. senator james inhofe from oklahoma doesn't believe in the climate science, is going to hector barbara boxer every day of her life, and he'll be delighted to do it. so there is just no hope for a pill. mean -- bill. meanwhile, though, so mow you've got electricity 101, you've got cap and trade 101 -- i hope, the notes might help if this is going too fast. so now we've got to look at epa. what are they up to during all this? mostly, they're hiding under their desks because they're really quite worried about this new congress.

i say that in jest, they're not. they are doing what they've been told to do by the united states supreme court in massachusetts v. epa, to regulate carbon. they do not have authority under the clean air act to do a cap and trade program. they have, they have issued a ruling that carbon is a pollutant, consistent with the supreme court's mandate. and they haved thed to work -- they have decided to work on, they've cut a deal with the auto companies as far as tailpipe emissions are concerned, and they have decided to go after regulating stationary sources -- refineries and power plants. those are big carbon belchers, if you will. at least the ones that use coal in particular. and they're going to -- the gist of what they are doing is they have issued a determination that wherever you make a major modification to your existing power plant, you have to get a permit from the epa, or you have

to get a permit to do that modification from your local state authority which acts under authority of the clean air act. under the clean air act, epa can delegate stuff to state mini epas, if you will. works they way for mercury, nox, not mercury so much, but sox and nox. that's the gist of it. the feds issue the rules, the states implement them unless they decide they don't want to implement them in which -- or that they're implementing them in a way that epa doesn't think is equally valid under the law, and then they take over the program. there's a tit for tat going on in the state of texas. epa doesn't think they're properly administering the program, so they're harassing texas. so they're going ahead, they've issued this tailoring rule, a proposal for who is to be regulated. their initial rule was much more expansive in scope than these

large stationary sources. they got a lot of grief in their record and politically for being so expansive, so they sort of pulled back a little bit, and they're going after these large stationary sources. and they're going about their business. now, they're very worried about being overturned by the congress. it could happen in a variety of ways, but so they have been very, very careful in the way they're approaching the rulemaking. gina mccarthy who runs the air program, knows the industry backward and forward, she used to regulate air in massachusetts. i've talked to her, there's a power plant in boston that she participated in a deal to get it to reduce its sox and nox, and then it was supposed to close out. never closed down. she learned a lesson. so she's, she's smart, she's savvy.

lisa jackson is as smart as they come, she was an epa staffer. she has a son who has asthma, she'll tell you that as part of her shtick as a speaker, and she is going to go about regulating not only carbon, but they're also aggressively pursuing other hazardous air pollutants, haps in the jargon. mercury is a very major source of what they're up to. so the, unlike last time where the, where epa -- excuse me, eei, it's the trade association for the investor-owned utilities -- supported what the congress and waxman and markey were up to, this time the industry is just absolutely split wide open on whether they support or not what epa is up to. the heavy coal utilities -- progress energy, southern company, aep -- are the vast majority of the carbon polluters, if you will. and the numbers are in my

presentation and be in that document that i mentioned. and they are opposed to epa doing anything. the clean utilities, that group i mentioned to you -- national grid, pseg, constellation, exelon, you know, florida/california -- are very much in favor of this. so there's a split in the sector. the comments that have been submitted in the apa rulemaking, i can just imagine what their secretary's office looks like. i ran a regulatory commission for a number of years. the comment that you get in a major rulemaking are, i mean, there are just stacks and stacks and stacks and stacks. they have who's who in the whole electric -- actually, the whole nam chamber, american petroleum institute opposing what they're doing, and the clean guys sporting what their -- supporting what they're doing. and one of the reasons the coal guys are really worried about this, you remember i talked

about that $500 billion in new investment that they need to put in generation? that doesn't even include carbon regulation. so it is a very expensive proposition. now, the clean guys think, aha, we're already clean. we have nuke la power plants or natural gas plants. they see this as a benefit to them. so as we talked earlier, it's, like, follow the money and what's going on here. the greenhouse gas requirements would be imposed on both existing and new utilities, so they have to involve of, have to apply the best available control technology, bact. it's an epa/clean air act jar gone. they haven't defined precisely what that means. mostly they're letting the states figure it out, or at least that's epa's rubric now. what it really means is you have

to make your power plants more efficient, and you are going to have to adopt programs to make your utility much more efficient in order to get a permit. you're going to have to apply scrubbers for coal if you haven't already. mostly, they're already scrubbed. and in many cases the cost of this regime is going to make a lot of the existing small, crummy, old, inefficient coal-fired power plants uneconomic. they're just not going to be able to compete in the marketplace, so they're going to have to close them down. exelon's announced, for example, they're intending to close down a couple of power plants in pennsylvania. thai not making any -- they're not making any money. some people's world this raises reliability concerns because if you don't have enough power plants, it's hard to keep the lights on. but the industry has a record of getting these power plants built. it's pretty easy to build and permit, to permit and build a

new natural gas fire-powered plant. it's not a long process. you have to have a site, a gas pipeline, stuff like that, but it's not hard. there's a recent study by my friend, sue tierney, of the analysis group that looked at -- she talked about the wharton economy, economic -- sorry, can't say it. at wharton in philadelphia a couple months ago about the reliability concerns associated with new epa regs. and the north american electric reliability council which is nerc, it's an industry-formed council with oversight by ferc, and they have concluded there are not major reliability concerns provided the utilities get the new plants built. and so they're very busy planning for the new plants and the new transmission. i mean, be -- if your existing

power plant's here and you're going to build a new one here, you pretty much have to get the transmission line from this one to go to this one, so that involves permitting new transmission lines. that's not fun, it's not easy, it's expensive. but that's what the industry does. it's what they've been doing since electricity was invented by thomas edison in the pearl street station in new york city, he built it as the first one, trivia that's just in my mind, i apologize. it's actually kind of a cool plant. it's a national historic site too. but that's what they do. that's what the industry does. and i'm absolutely convinced that if they are, if the regulatory certainty is there and if epa succeeds, that the industry will get it done. so the question is whether that republican-controlled house will get the votes to pass something like rockefeller and say, no, epa, can't do anything for a couple of years.

or yesterday i actually picked up a rag yesterday where the new chairman of the house energy and commerce committee said, hmm, he doesn't think that's the way they're going to go. this was not in your scenario because it happened yesterday. he wrote an op-ed in the "wall street journal" yesterday. he says he just thinks they should revoke epa's authority to do this because two years is not enough. so fred upton has thrown a little curveball in the middle of your scenario. you can check out the journal. i did it yesterday. this is just to make jim's job more difficult. and to throw a ringer into your plans. you're going to have to figure out whether that helps or hurts the override, and then the senate is another question. i think there are going to be five, six, seven votes in play in getting to 60. and then they'll try, i'm sure they'll try and attach a rockefeller-like piece of legislation to a must-do vehicle. appropriations bill, debt

ceiling, the defense authorization, there are just always these things, these must-have things. and then the question will be if they are successful in doing that and they get cloture, what will the president do? well, he has a very good track record on carbon. the epa has been very good about working with the white house and with carol browner in particular. she used to run epa in the clinton administration. she knows this stuff backward, forward and inside out. the rumor is she's going to be deputy chief of staff in the new, in the new crowd. but will the president sign something like this, or if it's on a must-pass bill, or will he veto it, and will they get to 67 votes? it's, this will all be wrapped up in senate politics, it'll all be wrapped up in presidential politics. after all, two years until the presidential election. there's a whole lot at stake, and that, in my mind, is what

makes it interesting. thanks. >> thank you very much. [applause] we have time for lots of questions. >> yes, sir. >> sam from pennsylvania. >> picot customer? >> [inaudible] >> okay. >> it might be semantics, but was the decision directing the epa to regulate or just to give them the authority to if they chose to? >> i think -- i used to have a copy of that decision on my desk. i had it on my desk for about three years. i loved that decision. but i haven't read it recently. they directed them to look at it. and the mandate is that they have to look at carbon and determine whether it is a pollutant and if they make that determination, then it will be

summit to the clean air -- subject to the clean air act. epa in the tailoring rule, as it's known -- and there's just a ton of information on all this -- determine that it is a pollutant. they did a very lengthy job at making this determination and, therefore, it should be regulated under the clean air act. so there was some discretion there, but i can assure you that this epa was not interested in not regulating it. that's my interpretation. now, i will reread the decision, and if i'm wrong, i'll let you know, sam, but that's what i think. yes, sir. >> the scenario we've been given, the rockefeller bill, and be i want to -- >> rockefeller-rahal. [laughter] >> okay. >> there's that pesky house. >> if it's a two-year period, in your efforts when will your lobbying efforts to extend that

happen? will it begin once it passes right away? >> oh. they're ongoing. they don't stop. i mean, the, those who are in favor of what epa is doing and those who are opposed to what epa is doing are very, very busy putting stuff in the apa rulemaking record, they're very busy going to talk to the new members of the house and the senate, and they -- about either in favor of or posed to the rockefeller-rahal program, so it just goes on and on. >> since it has been signed in law -- >> right. >> i assume the industry doesn't want regulation at all. >> no, it's split. industry's split. some like it and some don't. >> but the people that don't want the regulation -- >> okay. >> -- their efforts will continue even after -- >> absolutely.

>> okay. >> and the way they will continue, the authority of the congress to say no will be challenged. they will try and challenge the law on whatever grounds the smart be lawyers think up. the, the -- i know you've got a speaker from the chamber, i think, next week, so i'm picking on him. he's not here to defend himself, i won't be here to defend myself when he speaks. they'll be very aggressively trying to help rockefeller-rahal, they'll be very aggressive in trying to help the president decide to sign it. and then if clean energy crowd successfully gets to court, i guarantee you that the chamber and can api and nam will be in court on the other side.

they'll move to intervene and the proceeding, i'm sure they'll have standing, and it'll be a off to the courts. so i think that having issued the decision in epa -- massachusetts v. epa -- the courts changed. and there's a very interesting, for the people who sort of watch the ins and outs of who's who in the court, they're likely to look and see whether the roberts court will come to a different conclusion on this and whether they have to regulate in the way epa did or not. so there's just lots of work forever and ever on this subject. it's a wonderful thing for the federal energy bar association. and there is such a thing. [laughter] yes, sir. >> johan from vermont. when identify heard, like -- i've heard, like, a contrast between cap and trade and, say, the clean air act, my understanding has always been

the clean air act was in some ways easier to pass than cap and trade because it was particularly focused on a limited number of coal plants primarily. but you seem to be giving, giving us the sense that in cap and trade it's also focused largely on these same coal plants as well. so in this your understanding what would be the difference between the fight to get the clean air act enacted and the fight for cap and trade? >> that's a really interesting question. i hadn't thought about that. the, one of the interesting con travises in my -- contrasts in this my mind, and it's kind of rueful on my part s that the 1990 clean air act amendments which were really a directive to epa to do what they've done on so2 and nox, they were conceived of and promoted by a republican

crowd, and that same crowd has now disavowed the whole idea of cap and trade as they, as a vehicle or as a way of regulating. it used to be that the republicans were against, quote, command and control meaning, you know, the big, bad epa doing specific regulations that says this power plant has to use, you know, this kind of technology, the best available control technology. and they much -- and they were very much in favor of market-oriented policy like cap and trade. so it's very confusing to me these days about why that, why that orthodoxy has changed and why it is difficult, why so many of the, those who previously had supported market-oriented mechanisms like cap and trade

and be its allowances to, you know, limit the economic impact of a particular regulatory regime, why that's all changed. i really, frankly, haven't figured out why it has except for politics. and i think one of the reasons that cap and trade, the orthodoxy against cap and trade has become so strong is because the democrats have now embraced this market mechanism of cap and trade, and the republicans really pretty much had nowhere else to go. so it's, i'm -- it's confusing to me. i mean, they're not following the playbook that most of us would have, would have written. we thought that, that the more conservative folks would have liked a market-oriented kind of mechanism. so these things come and go. you see a very different thing playing out with epa's efforts to regulate the hazardous air

pollutants, the haps, where they are being very specific about the kind of technology they have to have in contrast to what they're doing on carbon where, thus far, they're leaving it up to the states to figure out. so some of the sort of traditional views about who would think what about what, i think, are just definitely impacted by politics. that's probably not a very satisfactory answer because i'm confused, and i know that, and it's hard to figure out. >> may i follow up and say that elections matter, and the tea group people got mccain to flip, they got all kinds of other people, upton to flip, and change their minds. upton wanted to be chair, and he campaigned for it, as you said. changing his mind on this point, right? >> fair point. totally. they do have consequences, that's right. just like you had upon the changing his mind -- upton

changing his mind, you had congressman kirk saying i voted for it, but now i wouldn't. >> it's a representative democracy. >> yes, sir. >> matt from delaware. in this instance you have the clean utilities kind of going against the dirty you facilities -- utilities. is it conceivable that the clean utilities ever consider kind of teaming up with the dirty utilities because of a fear that, like, once the coal plant's gotten cleaned up they might come after them? call 'em clean, but it's not like they're 900% clean -- 100% clean, so do you feel the everything pa might set their sights on them next, or is it they just want to make the coal companies go through what they kind of go through now? >> for purposes of this discussion and this presentation today, i purposefully oversimplified some of the details. and clean and dirty, there are

those who are sort of in the middle who might object to my characterization. i know they would. but, and you did have the unholy alliance, if you will, between the clean guys and the dirty guys as we went through the last congress with the edison electric institute which historically has been very conservative in its view of epa, of the scope of the authority epa used to have. there was an unholy alliance that was worked out, actually, by the ceos of the largest members of eei in a series of meetings that took about two years. ceos don't usually do the down, dirty work. they leave it to the likes of me and my staff to do that. but they met in, you know, posh surroundings, weekends about two years and came up with this unholy alliance, the compromise where eei agreed to both the clean and the dirty ones agreed to support comprehensive,

economy-wide cap and trade legislation provided ha they had enough -- that they had enough allowances to sort of make it relative of ofly -- relatively benign from an economic perspective for the first few years. so there was a long-term planning horizon they thought they could live with. so you have had alliances in the past between the clean guys and the dirty guys, my phrase. right now that does not appear to be the case, at least based on the epa, the comments in the epa rule makings, those stacks and stacks of papers i talked about. eei, the ceos meet first week in january, maybe it's in scottsdale, of course, nice golf. i don't golf, but i've been to that hotel. it's a nice meeting. and they will go out there and talk. i expect that what they're

likely to do this time rather than say, well, you know, we still support comprehensive cap and trade legislation because they know they're not going to get that, i think they're likely to say that we support energy efficiency legislation, and we support tax breaks for those of us who have to clean up our power plant, and we support sort of the new orthodoxy is supporting smaller, less comprehensive pieces of legislation. i do not believe, and i think there will be general agreement in the sector in support of those kinds of things. i do not believe that they will, however, take a position on whether epa should be stopped in it tracks a la rockefeller-rahal because the split will continue on that. but they'll be united in things that give them the tools to begin to make the transition,

that help them economically to make the prition that epa is going to require of them, but i don't think they'll come to an agreement on rahal-rockefeller type stuff or upton type stuff. because of the split. yes, sir. oh, i'm sorry. no, wait, you've asked. i'm sorry. kelsey. >> i'm kelsey from ohio. you mentioned in the new initiations in the cap and trade they discuss ways to address price concerns. with the epa regulation, is it possible they may not have the authority to address that and so the costs of updating facilities and things like that could be passed on to consumers? >> epa does -- the beauty, if you will, about a cap and trade system is you put a cap on the carbon, the amount, number of tons that are allowed, and you give a period of time to comply,

and the cap, you know, comes down over time from, you know, down to that 80%. and you get allowances that are allocated to according to how our congress decides what to do. but they would have given 40% of the allowances to the electric utilities initially so that they would with -- be able to -- and they also would have been willing to sell additional allowances. epa would have sold additional allowances, and there would be a cap on what they could sell them for because there'd be a floor and a ceiling. and so they had the ability to, they had sort of economic mechanisms that would sort of make the transition a much more tolerable transition from a customer and from a utility perspective. with what epa can do under the existing clean air act, they don't have a cap, they don't

have allowances. all they have are command and control kinds of mechanisms. so i think what they're likely to do is instead of saying each and every power plant in -- you're from ohio -- aep's fleet or from southern ohio, okay. each and every power plant in aep's or synergy's fleet -- duke, i guess, now -- has to have this kind of control technology. they're going to say, well, as long as duke or aep sort of cleans up its fleet on a system average basis, they have some ability to say to, quote, bubble where they deal with several power plants at once. so you can close down a bunch, you can close down one entirely, and you get the advantage of those tons spread across several power plants. they're going to do sort of tick

key little things like that where they're going to try and build in regulatory flexibility. and try and be make it less onerous from a customer perspective, and they're going to give them time though there are time limits in the statute for how long it can take, three years, basically, plus the president can give them another year under the authority of the statute. once you apply for a permit, you can't give them 20 years to clean up their act. there's time limits in the statute. so i think they'll do what they can within the scope of their authority under the existing law to limit the economic impact. long-winded answer, but it's complicated. >> liz from philadelphia. and picot, so thank you. >> as long as your parents pay your bill. >> they pay it. so, you know, yesterday we talked about possibility of even though there is the bill going through different avenues such as congressional review of the regulation or through appropriations to block funding, and going through the freshman

members last night, it's becoming clear how hot button an issue this is and saying two years wasn't enough and this needs to be a comprehensive action, what -- how realistic would it be for us to really pursue those other avenues instead of trying to pass the bill, but going through congressional review appropriations? >> well, i think what you have is people like rockefeller, and there is a, there's a, an ugly partisan war right now where inhofe is blaming rockefeller, rockefeller is blaming inhofe for the failure to stop epa in its tracks in the lame duck because rock fell beer didn't agree -- rockefeller didn't agree with the inhofe approach and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. but i think what's likely to happen is someone like rockefeller talking to his

colleagues, and it'll include the kerrys, and it'll include the liebermans, and it'll include, you know, the whole spectrum. it'll include the senators from maine, for example, those who are just all the time on the bubble. and those are the people you'll ultimately concentrate on. it's going to have to figure out what the sweet spot is. and i think that you would have a rockefeller piece of legislation -- not just the disapproval under the, like murkowski -- i think you'll have a rockefeller-like piece of legislation that'll get tacked on as an amendment to something else. i don't think he will, it's likely that he'll get passage of his bill on a stand-alone basis. congress hasn't even started yet. you don't even know who the committee members are going to be for those new guys yet, so it's really hard to predict. you don't know, you know, what other sort of zigs and zags in

the road are likely to emerge. but i would speculate now that it would be a rockefeller amendment unless the ugliness between the parties on his approach gets too bad. or maybe it'll be rockefeller-murkowski. or maybe it'll be rockefeller, you know, whomever. rockefeller-manchin? ooh. [laughter] will get tacked on to an appropriations bill or, you know, the debt ceiling or what have you. and that gets really interesting if you're a student of the senate. i worked there a long time. what reid's going to do, for example, and if on the debt ceiling he could fill out all the ability to offer amendments called filling the tree and preclude and then if they get cloture on the debt ceiling -- and i just use that as an example -- then a rockefeller amendment in the form of his bill would not be germane. and so he couldn't offer it to something like that, so he'd

have to have the votes to overcome determination he wasn't germane anyway. so the procedural stuff is, is a big deal in all of this. believe me, i've been in meetings where people just talk about this endlessly. it's because it's what they do, it's what they're paid to do, and most people who get involved in these discussions love it. that's why they're doing what they do anyway. >> can i follow up on that? >> yes, sir. >> the freshman and others are going to try to change the filibuster rule. you mentioned getting cloture in the middle of this. do they have a chance? >> right. jim, i don't really know. i haven't, i haven't seen a vote count on it. i haven't -- i've read the articles, and, you know, the rags that i read. >> yesterday there was an op-ed on it in the post -- >> i didn't read the post this morning. you get the early bird award. [laughter] >> because i, personally -- >> that's what he does, you knowsome. >> personally, i don't think they have a chance.

>> i doubt, i doubt that they do. >> right. >> but i haven't seen a vote count. >> because that -- >> that would be a big deal, yeah. >> on the whole procedure. >> and i think those are on the margin each of these times. the collins and the snowes and i don't know who else you want to use, would be afraid of that. because it's the whole thing about the majority tromping on the minority. that's a big deal in the senate. house it wouldn't bother in the least. you agree? >> yeah, i agree. other questions, please. i didn't mean to interrupt. >> my name's sam from be minnesota. obviously, the current administration is very supportive of climate change legislation and moving the epa forward in this direction. i guess i'm wondering what the regulatory stability might look like administration to administration and whether these are some things that could be,

like, a moving target going forward and whether there's concern in the industry about that? >> there is always concern in the industry about what the next leader of any agency is likely to be like, is going to be like. i was at that epa, at that scottsdale eei meeting that i mentioned happens every january -- weather is nice in scottsdale in january -- when lisa jackson, you know, newly announced as the administrator of epa in december as part of the obama cabinet walked in to eei and gave her maiden presentation to eei. some of these meetings the guys go golfing. not just ceos, but they go golfing. every single person registered at that meeting was in the

meeting room at 8 a.m. in scottsdale. everybody was curious about lisa jackson. and she gave what i would say was a wonderful performance be. she walked in, she said who i am, you know? the son of, or daughter of a mailman, kid with asthma, worked at epa, worked in new jersey, i'm a grown-up, i know what i'm doing. i want to listen to you, i will hear your input. we're going to, you know, work this out together kind of discussion. and actually got a standing ovation. i don't think they'd give her a standing ovation now because they're now more afraid of her than they used to be. but who might be the next rees saw jackson -- lisa jackson? who might be the next chairperson of ferc? who might be the next climate czar? there's always concern in any industry. it's not limited to the electric sector, i can assure you, about

who is going to be their regulator. and as jim said earlier, you know, elections do have consequences. so i don't think that she is, has any interest at all in leaving in the middle of the first term of the obama administration. i don't believe gina mccarthy has any interest at all in leaving in the middle of the first term of the o obama administration. i think they are consummate professionals who have backgrounds, both of them. it's not like they chose some, you know, college professor from minneapolis to do these jobs. i'm sure there are some very competent college professors in minneapolis, i might add -- i just got myself in trouble. [laughter] but they chose pros. and to, to lead this. and i don't think they're going to leave before at least the next two years, and maybe there'll be four years after that. so there is concern, but you also just have to, you know, you just have to take the hand

you're dealt. some, some leaders of -- i'll choose ferc, some are very popular with the industry, and some they just hate. but they come and go. have i worn you out? yes, sir. >> does exelon use anti-lobbying firms, do you engage in coalitions and use, like, legislative specialists? and how does the corporation interact with all those? many specifically, how do you decide -- if you're using an outside firm and they say, you know, maybe we should form a coalition, how does the corporation decide whether they're going to do that or not? >> um, exelon is, um, different than a lot of companies in the sense that they have, well, they had me for ten years, you know? [laughter]

and having someone lead a washington office of a major corporation who has, you know, 30 years regulatory and congressional experience is sort of not typical. so, but exelon makes a lot of it policy decisions using its own in-house expertise. it's a big company, they've got people who understand the clean air act. they do this stuff every day, they're used to permitting power plants, and they know all about, you know, the intricacies of their plants. even having said that, though, exelon is big joiner of coalitions. eei is a coalition, trade association. u.s. cap is a coalition, clean energy group is a coalition. exelon was a part of the u.s. chamber.

we got so angry at the u.s. chamber hitting us like that with their, with their opposition to cap and trade that we quit. the chamber mostly decided we'd save the money, that the chairmanship members the bill came -- honest to goodness, it's a good story. the bill came, and the ceo cose chief of staff said, hey, boss, do you really want to continue to pay these guys who are beating up on us? he said, no. and so we quit. and it became a big story. it was very fun. but they use outside lobbyists, they use, there's a, they have a person under contract that is a contract lobbyist who used to be the regional administrator for the epa. her name's mary, she's great. she knows what she's doing. they have a firm under contract that was -- and these are all public filings anyway because, you know, if you do this, you have to be, file lobby being

reports. they have a former head of the council of economic advisers, republican, who's a contract lobbyist. and, but the ultimate corporate decisions on what the position is, will be are not made by the outside lobbyists. they're made by the in-house people. i don't make them anymore, i'm a has been, but my successor does working with the other senior officers in the corporation. and that is a very typical model where you hire a lot of outside guys. southern company has a huge lobbying phalanx of people. i just use them because they're tit for tat in the industry. they have, they spend about five times what exelon does on federal lobbying. they have huge offices, and they do it very, very well. so whether you're clean or dirty, you know, white or red utility, they typically have outside -- some utilities just

have itty bitty washington offices. i have a friend who used to be on the energy committee staff who is the washington office for washington state utility. they just don't spend that much. >> betsy, thank you. >> sure. thank you very much. [applause] >> [inaudible] thank you very much. we're going to take a 15-minute break. we'll come back at 11:00 sharp. thanks. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]on c-s.

>> and that's significant, and he cannot really influence that unless he pushes for some legislation to counteract existing law with respect to campaign-finance and recent supreme court cases like citizens united versus the sec. has he changed his tone in

washington in terms of lobbying, do you think? have you thought about it. this is a major campaign promise. yes? >> i think you made lobbyists look more negative, leads to the general public. >> the general public generally doesn't think lobbyists are very good, unless it's their lobbyists and he reinforced that by attacking lobbyists in the process of the major legislation going through. extenders package, health care package, cap-and-trade, a right of others saying these people really manipulating financial reform, manipulating the way washington works and a nontransparent white and it's bad. so he's rhetorically try to change things. hasn't changed things -- has it changed things? you don't know, you don't care.

yes? >> in some ways he really wants to change the lobbyists that he is against and lobbyists are supporting his agenda are the ones he's kind of like still talking at their meetings and still supporting whatever lobbying they are doing. >> you have to listen to the rhetoric and language carefully. he said when asked you i guess these lobbyists. what about the federal registry lobbyists that are coming and talking to you. he said they are stakeholders and they are okay. truman said years ago that he attacked lobbyists also, and when some lobbyists were supporting him, he called them good american citizens. so we framing is important, and there is a certain amount of anger actually am an lobbyists for the way his attack them but also when he likes them, he said there could stakeholders supporting him. when he doesn't like them he attacks them. i want to talk about how we got to the stage with the president

attacking lobbyists, and how we got to the stage of passing reforms on the hill. in 2007 comment and how he has passed several executive orders. the first executive order that he passed action after coming into office was related to lobbying. if you look at the handouts, i have a brief discussion of a very complex and heated time where there were scandals related to lobbying. we all know about jack abramoff, from 2004-2006 there were investigations of his activity. eventually he pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. and he was given five years and 10 months sentence for that activity, but there were other things going on at the same time. representative duke cunningham

from san diego ended up taking money, bribes, for earmarks. he was on the appropriations committee in the house of representatives, the chair of subcommittee on defense appropriations. he was also part of the group that passes the black budget, meaning money for the intelligence community. and so within the discussion, and there are few people, it's not open to the entire committee, the discussion of the black budget he earmarked money for contractors in san diego that didn't have even a track record of digitizing top secret material for the army. the army didn't even want it. and they gave him a rolls-royce, used a rolls-royce. he had to get it repaired. they bought his house in san diego for above market value by 700,000. they gave him all kinds of antiques. and in the end, he was sent to prison. he was guilty. there were 26 staff members, and

members of congress mainly the house of representatives during his 2004-2006 period that were investigated related to jack abramoff, but other people god-given gifts. abramoff and others had given travel, free travel to scotland, to england, and in to scotland to go golfing. and the issue, therefore, a free travel, remember, as well as gives came up. there were also issues, spouses lobbying and children of members lobbying for particular people. and i came up as a controversy. if you look at other causes of reform, sort of more general generic ones, americans in polls, but also reformers who are very concerned about the bundling of money in the lobbying activity --