deeply for quite some time. one you saw today, national service. obviously, throughout the campaign, she spent a quiet time with military families -- she spent quite a bit of time with military families. that is her passion. she is a health-care professional. and as a mother, she has wellness, prevention, and things like childhood obesity in mind. i think she will continue to spend her time speaking out on issues that she is passionately interested in. >> [unintelligible] >> we have seen her talk about those topics. prevention, wellness, obesity

are all key aspects to what the president believes are the ultimate goal of health care reform. that is to create a healthier society. . >> the president has had meetings about this, talked with members of congress, his staff has talked with members of congress, all of them have talked to pentagon officials.

the administration believes that this requires a durable solution and is pursuing that in congress. >> buy it understand that for the long term solution. what do you take issue with signing an executive order before and in durable solution is reached through the slow legislative process? >> i think there could be different sensces on strategy. our belief is that the only and best way to do this is through a terrible, comprehensive, legislative process. >> there was a letter sent last week from 77 members of congress that went about having this interim solution slightly different, not doing an

executive order but asking the president to implement or asking the president to qualify end tell the department of defense to implement the policy slightly differently, which is to not investigate whether someone is the day when they are told on. this does not require an executive order. it is a change on how the department of defense does the regulations and whether or not they investigate these allegations. does that seem like something in its -- members of congress that were advocating for this suggested it as an interim step and congressional members could push through the legislation to full appeal. >> i have not seen or heard about that letter. let me find out who might have that and examine what is inside

of it in terms of -- i would have to look at the process before that day -- before i have a better sense of the effect of this on the interim staff. >> could you talk about [unintelligible] now that his appointment has been revealed? he has a wide, geographical responsibility. will this come into conflict with some of the other special on voice? -- other special envoys? >> obviously, dennis is a valued member of the president's team. he will have a portfolio as a special assistant to the president and be the senior director for the central region that largely extends and encompasses the middle east,

the gulf, pakistan, and south asia. there are a number of people that will work directly with dennis on different aspects of that wider region. dennis will report to deputy national security adviser tom dolan and national security adviser jim jones. i think if you look at all of the regions that are encompassed in that larger framework, you have different parts of the middle east, iran and iraq, the gulf, afghanistan, pakistan, you have got a number of very important places in our foreign policy and in our

national interest. i think what the president has done is to add to the very strong national security team with dennis. given the list of countries, they will be plenty busy. i don't think that anybody should believe that this will conflict or supersede the important work that special envoys are doing on the ground in many of these places even as somebody is here at the white house coordinating a series of people dealing with an important region in the world. >> a few questions. i want to go back to the paris speech. what was the anticipation from the white house and how it would affect -- >> i am not laughing at you, april.

ok, go ahead. [laughter] go ahead, i am sorry. [inaudible] [laughter] wanted dollars for charity, you can take your throws. >> going back to the cairo speech, what was the anticipation of this administration and how will it would affect election margins in iran. >> the speech wasn't either intended to -- the speech was a comprehensive look at our dealing and our relationship and the president's desire to better that relationship with the muslim world. it was not done or not timed for the benefit of one country's election. >> according to an

administration source, they said the margins were affected in some way, they just don't know by how much. even michael steele says the speech and powered so many in so many ways. when you went into the speech, you did think that -- may be the focus was not to do that? >> i think we hope td. i think we obviously hoped that the greater muslim world would see in the president and his approach a change in how we looked at that part of the world. how that impacted or affected different areas, i don't know. i don't know precisely in terms of -- and i am not sure how one

would measure the exact swings in vogue patterns, i do think -- in vote patterns. i do feel the mission -- the view of the united states in that part of the world seems to be improving. i think observers have talked about the notion that the president's speech has already begun to pay some dividends as it relates to that. >> michael steel wants to have a meeting with the president. he wants to talk to him about health care and a whole host of issues especially since this administration has had such a public our reach. what do you say about that? >> do you guys want to take a turn with him in the dunk tank,

too? [inaudible] [laughter] careful, careful. i think the president has republicans here at the white house today. i would be interested to know whether mr. steele believes we can make progress working together or if the tone of his rhetoric is something that might prevent him from working constructively with the president of the netted states. >> there was a resolution by john mccain coming out of the senate for the president to pardon jack johnson who was sent to prison nearly a century ago because of his romantic ties with a white woman. do you have any comments on that? they what the president to

pardon him. >> i can take a look at that. >> in the speeches about the $80 billion deal with pharmaceutical companies, i have not heard about in negotiating price. i wanted to know if that was one of the trade-offs that we are not going to pursue that now? >> the structure of part of that agreement was to use a portion of that $80 billion to pay up to 50% of the cost for a name-brand drug for a senior that falls between the point of which medicare part d stops providing help and when it catastrophic coverage, i think a little more than $6,500 level, kicks in.

filling in that the doughnut hole, i think about up to 50% of the price for that name-brand drug would be paid for. i think that provides a hefty discount that will bear appreciable benefits for seniors all over the country. >> is there an agreement not to pursue -- >> i don't know the answer to that. >> senate bill 330. >> you are 330 bills ahead of me on that. ->> there are pretty establish guidelines on policy now. do you think they would deviate from those? do you think they would be stricter or less strict?

>> i think the public auction is one more addition of two -- i think the public option is one more addition of those. i think you saw the president used examples last night's, the mayo clinic, the example of safeway grocery stores that are places that are providing incentives not to -- to move away from each and every payment of test conducted but instead of pay for the health outcomes of patients. the president usually use the example of will we invest money to treat somebody said they don't get diabetes rather than paying a reimbursement for an

amputation of part of a leg that is normally the result of diabetes? that is the type of change and positive health outcomes that will benefit -- that will greatly benefit consumers of medical care and make the system cheaper for everybody. thanks, guys. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> earlier today, president obama made remarks on the energy bill scheduled for debate tomorrow in the house. it would cap greenhouse gas emissions emission credits. this is about five minutes. >>

>> good afternoon. right now, the house of representatives is moving towards a vote of historic proportions on a piece of legislation that will open the door to a new, clean energy economy. for more than three decades, we have talked about our dependence on foreign oil. we have seen that dependence grow. we have seen our reliance on fossil fuels jeopardize our national security. we have seen its pollute the air we breathe and in danger of our planet. most of all, we have seen that other countries realize a critical truth -- the nation that leads -- now is the time for the united states of america to realize this as well. now is the time for us to lead. the energy bill before the house will finally create a set of

incentives that will sparked a transformation of our economy. everything from wind, solar, to safe, nuclear energy and cleaner coal. it will spur new energy savings that reduce heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer. most importantly, it will make possible the creation of millions of new jobs. make no mistake, this is a jobs bill. california, 3000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create a thousand jobs. in michigan, investments in wind turbines and wind technology is expected to create over 2600 jobs. in florida, three new solar projects are expected to employ 1400 people.

this legislation will finally make a clean energy the profitable kind of energy, leading to the creation of new businesses and the entire new industries, leading to american jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. i have often talked about the need to build a new foundation for economic growth so we don't return to the and the cycle of bubble and bust. clean energy and the jobs it creates will be absolutely critical to that new foundation. this new legislation has also been written carefully to address the concerns that many expressed in the past. instead of increasing the deficit, it is paid for by the polluters that currently emit pollution. it gives rural communities and farmers the opportunity to participate in climate solutions and generate new income. above all, it will protect consumers from the costs of this

transition so that in a decade, the price to the average american will be about the same as a postage stamp per day. because this legislation is so balanced and sensible, it has already attracted a remarkable coalition of groups, labor and business leaders, democrats and republicans. i urge every member of congress, democrat and republican, to come together to support this legislation. i can't stress enough the importance of this vote. i know this will be a close one in part because of the misinformation out there that suggests that there is a contradiction between investing in clean energy and our economic growth. mike -- i call to those members of congress who are still on the fence as well as to the american people. we cannot be afraid of the future. we can't be prisoners of the past. we have been talking about this issue for decades.

now is the time to finally act. there is no disagreement over whether our dependence on foreign oil is endangering our security. we know it is. there is no longer a debate whether carbon pollution is putting our planet in jeopardy. it is happening and there is no longer a question about whether the jobs and industries in the 21st century will be centered around clean, renewable energy. the only question is, which country will create these jobs in these industries? i want that answer to be the united states of america. i believe the american people and the men and women they send to congress share that view. let's take this opportunity to come together and meet our obligations to our constituents, our children, to god's creation and for future generations. thank you very much.

>> darren samuelsohn is with us on the phone. what is the latest on whether house democrats are ready to pass a climate change bill on friday? >> they are not saying yet when that debate will begin on friday morning. they are still trying to wrap up those last couple of boats. well nancy pelosi gamble of the 2, 3, 4, 5, the dozen votes that she will need or try to win them on the floor? will they have secured them? we are waiting, watching. there has been a lot of lobbying off of the floor, on the floor in the last couple of days. president obama's top energy

adviser, rahm emanuel has been working with them in person. president obama making a public plea today at the rose garden. there is definitely a push right now. >> tell us about house speaker nancy pelosi and why she is getting so directly involved in talking to lawmakers to vote in favor of the bill. >> this has been one of her "flagship issues." this is one of her biggest issues. she is pushing -- -- she is pushing henry waxman all along from the get go. she is probably responsible for spot. that was a decision made right after the election last november that pretty much kept started this entire process to try to move this bill through. she is someone from san francisco who has been a big environmentalist all of her career.

they rarely faced opposition. this is poised to be the first vote on cap and trade legislation. for nancy pelosi, this is one of her biggest issues. >> the climate change bill itself, cap and trade, and what else of the key aspects of this bill? >> cap and trade is probably the biggest piece. it allows companies to buy and sell permits that allow them to pollute more than they are required to and other companies that are cleaning up market to sell to other companies. the major position -- another major provision will push the united states to try to get as much clean energy from solar and wind over the next 15 or 20 years.

there is some wiggle room that allows some states to do more and other states to do less. there has been a whole bunch of other added mandates over the last couple of weeks and months, including some green building incentives and some promotion to get greener jobs and those that have lost their jobs to transition into a green economy. >> we have heard from a number of republicans against the cap and trade parts of this bill. who else is opposed to the bill? other democrats opposed to the bill or the cap and trade aspect? >> the republicans will be largely unified. you might see five or six that will jump over and vote with the democrats. in the industrial world, you have a split. the national mining association is working hard against this bill.

you are seeing the american farm bureau come out yesterday against the bill could the american petroleum institute is against the bill could some trade groups are fighting the bill. it a lot of conservative groups have a lot of skeptics on the global warming issue. they are trying to stop the bill from moving forward. >> [unintelligible] >> he is on board. he signed up a few days ago that really jolted this debate. we started this week not knowing if the bill was going to reach the floor this week. last weekend, the staff was working hours and hours into the weekend. they came back on monday and tuesday and wrapped up an agreement on a number of key issues. probably the biggest two or three was dealing with the free allowances that will be given out to electrical utility industry.

they ended up getting 0.5% that was distributed. another thing that was wanted -- the department of agriculture will be in charge of the offset. that is important for collin peterson because he thinks the fda is more in tune with the farmers of america. the program will pay farmers and landowners to do environmentally friendly agriculture practices. collin peterson thinks the usda has a better understanding. >> darren samuelsohn, thank you for the update. >> happy to do it. >> the house is in recess until 9:00 p.m. eastern time. earlier, they passed a defense programs and policy bill.

when members return tonight cannot debate on $32 billion in spending next budget year for the interior department and environment agencies and programs. it no votes are expected tonight. tomorrow, we will get votes on the interior spending bill as well as climate change legislation. live coverage when the house returns on c-span. more on that climate energy bill from today's "washington journal." "washington journal" continues. host: we want to recommend -- we want to welcome representative rick boucher. the issue of captain trade is in the news, but briefly explain what that is about -- the issue of cat and trade is in the news, but be fully explain what that

is about . guest: they would receive emission allowances, they could trade those on the market. they could purchase offsets for entities where the emissions could be reduced at perhaps a lower price and it relies on the market to achieve maximum flexibility. host: will this result in higher taxes? guest: no. it is not a tax. it is purely a regulatory program, and the market will be relied upon to drive investment to the place where the emission reduction can be taken the most economically. host: so who pays for it? guest: well, inevitably, a control program, if it is effective, will carry some increase in energy prices. the goal that we have had in drafting this program has been to make that price must end to

make the program economically digestible. our goal was not to dislocate any economic sector. i think the negotiations that we have conducted at the extensive discussions and consultations we have had with stakeholders and other interested parties over the course of almost three years, that we have achieved the goal of economic digest ability -- of economic digestaility, and there will be a modest increase of energy prices. i note in a poll released this morning that 3/4 of the public fully supports a control on greenhouse gas emissions. this control will come with what is a truly modest cost. as a matter of fact, the estimate we received this week from the environmental protection agency is that the typical american home would have an increase in costs associated

with this program, and these are all cost somewhere between $77.100 $11 on an annual basis. -- between $77 and $111 on an annual basis. i think we realize the goal announced in the poll where 3/4 of americans say they support a control program, and we do so anyway that -- in a way that the cost is truly -- host: the editorial it is called "the cap and texas fiction. house speaker nancy pelosi has put cap and trade legislation on a forced march through the house, in the bill may get a v