shared responsibility, standing up for what is right. these are the values that led us to fight and win two world wars, that were on display in the dark days after the september 11 attacks. we must embrace them again now. so how do we secure our homeland and stay true to our values? we do it with four levels of collective response. it starts with the american people, from there it extends to local law enforcement and from there, up to the federal government and then finally out beyond our shores. america's international allies can serve and do serve as partners in a collective fight against terrorism. .

the cyber network is now a target. this network climate forces us to rethink how best to protect our values and our security in the world were the tools of creating violence and chaos are as easy to find as the tools you find online or restocking inventories. you also live in a mobile world, complex networks of

people and information. we cannot forget that not 9/11 attackers conceived their plans in the alleppey -- and the philippines, trained in pakistan, afghanistan, and carried them out in the united states. that is why our homeland security network must be built to leverage foreswear requires. the full powers of the united states federal government, the vigilance of the police on the beat, and the untapped resources of millions of our own citizens. later today i will assess progress at ground zero, a special place for our country in a poignant one for the department of homeland security, which was created as a response to the 9/11 attacks. last friday i met with gov. tom kean, congressman lee hamilton,

former homeland security secretary tom ridge, to discuss the process -- the progress made since the 9/11 commission report. we know -- we rightly note our achievement, and it does not belong to one political party. much has also changed in just the past six months since i became just the third secretary of homeland security after my distinguished predecessors tom ridge and michael chertoff. let me give you a sense of how i see that threat environment that we are in, talk about what we wanted to counter that threat in the four areas i just identified. what does the world that we face a look like today? first, while the terrorist threat is ever changing, it is critical to reiterate that the threat remains. the consensus view of the

intelligence community, which dhs is a member, is that the threat is persistent and involving. in my daily briefings and as a member of the council, this is something that i discuss with the president and the rest of the security team on a regular basis. so we're constantly looking for ways that are -- to better share information up and down the ladder i'd just described. businesses and communities, local law enforcement, federal level, and the international level. the broader context is that we have invested considerably in our border and port security and have substantially reorganized the federal government's focus on the threat of terrorism. at the same time there have been continued attacks against our allies and our interests, and make no mistake, americans continue to be targeted in

terror attacks. just two weeks ago, american hotels were targeted in jakarta, which kill people. six americans were among the 164 people killed in the attacks in mumbai. three americans were among the 54 killed in the attack on the marriott hotel in islamabad in september 2008. if 9/11 happened in a web 1.o world, attacks now are happening in a web 2.0 world. many tools did not even exist in infancy in 2001. we need new hardware and new thinking. when we had a prominent former computer hacker to our ad buys three council as i just did, it

helps us understand our own weaknesses that could be exploited by our adversaries. the threats that we face are by their very nature asymmetrical. terrorism becomes privatized violence, not by links to an army or a sovereign state. we often hear that this is what are globalized era looks like. what is most silent is that it is also network. in a networked world, information pulses move everywhere all the time. in that world, everyone who is a part of the world, meaning all of us, can enjoy the tremendous benefits also must be ready and willing to learn about and help address the vulnerabilities that come with these benefits. the team we have put on the field needs to be bigger, better network, and better trained.

what are the implications for this networked world for the department of homeland security? it means that we must continue to take an all-hazard approach to preparedness. we prepare for natural disasters, and for terrorist attacks. we need to comprehend and anticipate and expanding range of threats. the threat of a nuclear or radiological device is of great concern, and reducing that threat is the key to administration priorities. we must be equally prepared for biological or chemical threats which al qaeda has sought for years. we have seen greater suicide bomber and terrorist attacks around the world. given our responsibilities for enforcing our in -- our immigration laws, we are also keenly aware that illegal immigration is not a matter of sovereignty could pose a natural

security threat as well. the reality that potential terrorism could be used -- terrorists could use a variety of ways to enter the country make this show. dhs monitors in shares information about the potential home grown threats as well. these can be individuals radicalized by had been subroc or lone wolf attacks. -- by events abroad were long will that tax. we are expending considerable attention on the cyberworld. under our new cyber plan, dhs maintains the lead role in protecting the government's civilian sites while working closely with the private sector as well. what this ranger threats shows is that while the shocking images of 9/11 stay with us, but terrorist threat is even more

decentralized, network, and adapted them on 9/11 during the terrorist in a fight made use of gps devices, satellite phones, mapping websites, and even television. we cannot hermetically seal off this country, the united states, up from the rest of the world. so for dhs to be the best in the world at what we do, we have to multiplied the effect of our forces and at the same time promote a global environment that is in hospitable to violent extremism. beginning at his inauguration and continuing most recently at his historic speech in cairo, president obama has begun a different kind of dialogue with the muslim and arab world's, recognizing that there is far more that unites us than divides us. our department, our office of civil rights and civil liberties is bringing -- is building

strong relations with arab and muslim americans as well as south asian communities across the country said that we can share information with community leaders in a timely manner, and also become more culturally attuned information and problems that these communities often face. what is the right response and what are we doing? as i mentioned earlier, there are four layers, and a place that we start is engaging the american people in our collective effort. i am often asked if complacency is a threat in the united states. i believe the short answer is yes. but i think a better question is this -- as the united states government done everything it can to educate and engage the american people? the answer there is no. for too long we have treated the

public as a liability to be protected rather than an asset in our nation's collective security. this approach unfortunately has allowed confusion and anxiety and fear telling her. let me stress this is no small matter. this is a first order issue for us. the consequences of living in a state of their private in a state of preparedness are enormous. we may be better prepared as a nation than we were on 9/11 but we're nowhere near as prepared as we need to be. there are of course aspects of countering that terrorist threat that are inherently governmental, but the smart government is the one that knows what it does best and which helps others do their best as well. this is how we are looking at this. first, with respect to individuals in the private sector, we're taking a much closer look at how we can support and perform our greatest accept, if the individual citizens, and with

them the private sector. you are the ones who know if something it is not right in your community, such as a suspicious package or unusual activity. three years ago it was it tested -- a store clerk and a tall man -- who told federal agents about people reproducing the bidets. this led to the arrest and fort dix. just last month, a passenger sought two employees exchange aback at philadelphia airport that had not been properly screened. that passengers vigilance ultimately stop a gun from getting on to the plane. there is no doubt that building a culture unpreparedness in our communities will require a long- term commitment from all aspects of our society. there are as i said simple ways

for you as individuals and community and business leaders to engage right now. through basic training everyone of us will become better first pretenders' as well as first responders. -- first preventers as well as first responders. you can contact america corp. councils. you can get retraining on basic disaster response by joining a local community you response team. second, we need to find new ways to work with the private sector to become more brazilians and disasters of all kinds. a key piece of this is securing our nation's critical infrastructure. this might sound just like a challenge for the government, but the fact of the matter is 85% of our critical infrastructure is owned by the private sector. these are critical -- commercial

facilities, chemical plants, emergency services, much of it owned, as i said, in private hands. we must therefore be more effective in finding our critical assets and providing our private sector and their leaders with the knowledge and technical assistance to help them security's assets. since the year 2003, dhs has issued more than $28 billion in grants to help secure critical infrastructure at the state and local level. but it has to be more than dollars. it has to be the active engaging other employers who work with us, who work with the federal government and dhs, to identify resources and planned for ways to secure them. i've recently appointed a task force to review our existing

color coded threat system. that was the system originally designed to inform the public and different economic sectors within the public about impending threats. that review is under way and i mentioned it only to say that it up better, more effected one can be found, that will be used instead of the current color- coded one. it will see how the federal government and dhs we are rethinking what it means to provide information to individuals, to businesses, and to employers. the second layer is local law enforcement. you go out one ring from individuals in the private sector, to have 780,000 law- enforcement officials across 18,000 state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. let me say those numbers again.

780,000, across 18,000 apartments. these men and women play absolutely critical roles because they are the ones with active information to see individuals in the communities. from there on observation or from the intelligence community itself. the ability of state and local officials throughout the private sector to prepare for threats and respond to a disaster is only as good as their ability to receive useful information, understand what it means, and act upon it effectively. as arizona governor, i took a lead role in creating our state's first in want -- first law enforcement fusion center. in a typical fusion center, an fbi agent might be sitting next to a state highway patrol officer, who might be sitting next to an immigration and customs enforcement agent, next to a dea agent or to a member of

the tribal police. they do not really share space. they shared databases and techniques. they share ideas and experiences. they break down barriers and build networks. this ensures that local law enforcement has better information necessary to protect our people, our neighbor hearst's -- our neighborhoods, and our country. that will be a critical part of our nation's homeland security capabilities. i intend to make them top priority for this department to support them, build them, improve them, and work with them. we have now moved three dozen intelligence analysts out into the field. in other words, as we build a pugin centers, we need to move analytic capacity into the country. -- as we build fusion centers, we need to move analytic

capability into the country. if all law enforcement agency reports drug activity, that is at that point. our range of agencies in a fusion center can analyze that trend to understand what it means, how what that particular neighborhoods, and whether airport -- foretell something even larger on the horizon. in addition to at 70 current center sites, we will be cooperating with the department of justice for others as well. you see how we're creating the network, individuals, private sector, and now that fusion centers and a law enforcement community. then we move on to the federal role. since 2001 the united states government has invested considerably and reorganizing

itself to counter the threat of terrorism. dhs obviously plays a critical role there because we were given the explicit mission to secure our country against attack. we therefore have an obligation to be clear about that mission. we are not the fbi and we are not the cia. but we need to work in close coordination with them and with all agencies who have a part of the counter-terrorism portfolio. the way that we are doing that is taking information shared amongst the beltway and improving the sharing of information up and down the ladder, state, local, tribal communities, to the private sector. the addition of the ability to share intel is the value that the department of homeland security provides. we also provide protection in our ports. cbp is handling security at 327

ports of entry. the coastguard controls 95,000 miles of american coastlines. their effectiveness all depends on the smooth flow of intelligence, from actual information. as we improve intelligence sharing among federal agencies, and with our own department components, we also improved intelligence sharing with state, local, and travel partners. next, our international partners. at the widest level, we had many players and partnerships that exist internationally, as well as more that need to be created. i mentioned earlier traveling 30,000 miles in the last few weeks, but here is bell at that is really about.

-- here is what that is really about. dhs is brokering of agreements with our allies in europe and around the world to share information on air travelers, to gather critical biometric information so we know who is in our country, to stand baggage and cargo at that the play, while still facilitating liberal trade and commerce. -- legal trade and commerce. our physical united states border should be our last line of defense, not our first. together with the department of justice, we have forged agreements to prevent and combat serious crime with 13 international partners. there is more to do on this front. i want to give you of window into how important these partnerships are. let me show you one example of our new approach and new

thinking. our growing relationship with mexico is of course part of a broader effort to and is designed to interdict not only the smuggling of narcotics, weapons, cold cash, and people at the united states/mexico border but also is designed to recognize our strong homeland interest in the united states and mexico and its relationship. bohol national interest we have in making sure that -- hold natural -- the whole national interest that we have in making sure that those international cartels are broken up. this is a new approach which we think is critical to dealing with things like cartel violence, and also helps ensure that that violence does not spill across our border were weak in mexico's ability to be a strong partner with the united states. we're going well beyond what we have done in the past.

for example, by inspecting southbound train cargo, cars, and trucks, and helping mexico create an effective customs operation on our common southwest border that previously did not exist. let me close by going back to something i said earlier about people, because in the in what we really do is about people. we are a nation of more than 300 million, and more than that, we are a nation of families, communities, organizations, cities, suburbs, tribes, all what their local governments and organizations. within these groupings lies an extraordinary pool of talent, and ingenuity, and strength. we face a network in the knee. we must meet it with a network response. the job is a large one and it may never be totally completed,

but we have a much larger chance at success if we strengthen our on networks by enlisting the talents and synergy among americans. countering the terrorist threat is not just the effort of one agency. it is one element of a society. nor is countering terrorism consequence of one tactic. rather, it requires a holistic, unrelenting approach at all levels, all tactics, and all elements of a society. we need to be the very best at what we do. that means engaging and in power in our citizens in a collective effort, an effort aimed at effective prevention and resilienct response. when i hear the phrase department only security, i think the bus as eight hub at the large wheel that involves every single person in our country.

thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you for comprehensive look at terrorism threat. you're reminded me that i have not sent in my check so i will do that right away. [laughter] our one and get the members as much of an opportunity tattoo but i cannot resist asking you a couple of -- as much of an opportunity, but i cannot resist asking you a couple of questions. i rethought franklin is one of many to note that every chain has got a week o oneak -- r --

franklin is one of many tin at that every chain has got a weaklink. >> i thought that she sang about respect. >> at bring about the less adept or less committed into the network said that we have got across the country the kind of powerful, involved citizenry and officials that you are talking about? >> one of the things that we need to do is communicate that. unfortunately the terrorist threat is not just focused on new york city or washington, d.c. or a few other urban areas. indeed, if you look at the last couple of weeks, arrests have been made in places like

minneapolis and north carolina. i think better education about a breath of the threat and how it can be carried out is important. but as we educate, we prepare. i can, a lot of this preparation that i am talking about, it has multiple uses. in terms of response particularly. if you know or have planned with your family what you would do if an attack were to occur, that plane obviously has its uses should you have a tornado or her name or natural disaster. education brought late, but connected with also preparation and tools. how do you respond, individual, family, and in working with communities. >> you also alluded to the undeniable fact that terrorism can emanate from all kinds of

places around the world. intelligence is very important for a number up threats being infinite. how you zero in on the most important ones? and yet the resistance of people -- let's say at the cia -- to share with the fbi and vice versa its legendary. how you get them to a share with you when they have a tough time sharing with each other? >> let's talk about that. there has been a legacy of non sharing in some respects, which is a luxury we can no longer afford. that is why we have a director of national intelligence. in fact, our group, i am one of the principles, which means the head of the fbi and cia and

myself, admiral bellaire, we will be meeting tomorrow and regularly have luncheons, it just ourselves, no staff, to make sure that we are effectively communicating the sharing of information. i think the fact that i as secretary of all let security, we see information not just from the department of homes and security -- homeland security but also a cia briefer, insuring that critical intelligence is being shared. in this administration we are very intent on exercising how we handle intel and how we respond. right now with the national level exercise under way, it will test some of this sharing capacity whether things are

being shared, and whether responses are being choleric leak calibrated -- correctly calibrated. personal interaction -- interaction on a daily basis, and then exercising, pose a the three major techniques to improve that intelligence sharing environment. >> one more quickly and then i will go to the members. any learnings from the swine flu situation? it turned out to be much less bad than people feared. >> first of all, wash your hands. called correctly. cough correctly. we anticipate it will be coming back this fall. it focuses on the younger population more than a seasonal

blip. will not have vaccine available before the school year starts. one of the things we're trying to prepare and network and are testing some of the ideas i just suggested about empowering individuals and communities, it really involves preparation for this fall and the return of the age 1 in one h -- h1n1, which could be more severe. it mutates when it travels. it could be stronger than the spring. that was perhaps a dress rehearsal. one important thing that i might add. the h1n1 -- during that outbreak, the president used an executive order that designates the best -- the secretary of common security as the federal official. this was an advance that crossed

many different departments. relief for the first time, using the department of homeland security, in a way that was originally intended, not to take the lead operational role -- but to make sure that things were properly coordinated and importantly communicated with the american people. >> i like to invite the audience to joining. remember couple of things. wait for the microphone. stan, identify yourself, one question, no speeches. the gentleman right here. wait for the microphone. >> it is right behind you. >> hi, paul. secretary, i was admiring of your comments. i heard you speak several times about what our citizens need to

and how we need to implicate our citizens and more efforts. are you suggesting we train our people from school days on to be more alert and watch more carefully their schoolmates, their workers, their families, and then say to some of party? >> there is an important role that we can play in educating even our very young about watching for and knowing what to do if you are in an airport and you see a package left with no one around. that's sort of thing. i also think that we could do a much better job at educating people about how to prepare and handle themselves so that they can protect themselves also get something untoward were about happened. have we actually worked at angle

of this? not yet. but i think you're getting at just what i am saying. we need a culture of collective responsibility, a culture where every individual understands his or her role, which goes along with my saying that the more we prepare not only the stronger we are, but the more preparation you have, a less fear that people possess. >> thank you. here comes. >> thank you for your remarks. i want drawdown on something you said about infrastructure. 85% at the structure is privately managed. the question has to do to what extent can you interact with the private sector when they lay off people, and those layoffs have direct implications on protecting the public? for example, a small example,

pay phones. in new york, they practically do not exist. 1 9/11, the only funds that worked were payphones. how would you broker that? only security needs them. >> in those types of situations, what you do is -- and we are doing and have been doing -- you say, all right. you don't want to continue that anymore. what is your plan for how people can be communicating with each other in these types of disasters that may occur? the point here again really points out how technology has changed and is changing rapidly. the more we work together to share ideas about using different types of technology in

a communications environment, where that avon may be obsolete, because i think we have to assume that paid funds are not only obsolete in new york but they're pretty much obsolete across the country, they're going the way of the record album and other things of our youth. [laughter] >> way back by the post. >> i of bill -- i am bill. madam secretary, given what you have learned on the job over the past six months about the nature and magnitude of the threat, and whatever abuses may have occurred in the previous administration, if you think all lost discover -- governing domestic surveillance need to be changed in any way? >> i think that to the extent tthat domestic surveillance is being carried out it is as much

an implication of operations as legal authority. it is more defacto. we have to be careful. and let me make an important point here because i am glad you asked that question. as i discuss a cultural awareness, individual awareness, the ability to identified specific activities, and the like, there's a careful balance to be struck between that and a feeling where we are trying to control brigitte -- trying to create a culture of spying on one another. that is a balance to be struck and it is important to discuss it. we want to provide for our collective safety. that is something that we all need to be cautious up. we are building into the things we are doing, not only consultation about

constitutional and civil liberties, aspects of what we're doing -- i think we have a department about that now. we also look protection of personal privacy and how those concepts and principles can also be incorporated even as we build a culture of collective awareness and preparation. >> man, back there. -- ma'am, back there. >> we're disappointed with the enforcement -- the expansion of enforcement mechanisms from bush a mission -- from bush. secure communities is doing anything but keeping people secure. racial profiling continues to be a big problem in this country. in your remarks about protecting against terrorism, we did not hear much about protections

against racial profiling or the restoration of the process and fairness into systems that actually protect individuals and citizens and other people live in the united states. we really like to hear your thinking about why you're expanding enforcement without fixing a broken immigration system. my name is malika. >> first of all, we are expanding enforcement. but i think it is the right way. we visited a whole issue of worksite enforcement to focus on employers, and the program you referenced we sure can get an 287g -- we shorthand it as 287g , which was created and the

decline administration. we did that because the previous level had no standards and accountability is or even terms built into them. rather than just continue with these moa's that did not allow us to prioritize 287g's, we decided to renegotiate them. that will give us some authority to really focus on two groups -- those who are already incarcerated said it we do not have a system where somebody breaks a criminal law, they are handled and the criminal system, and then released into the public and then immigration has to go out and find them, using an extraordinary amount of resources. and never to come are really looking for gangs and also --

and number two, really looking for gangs and people in the country illegally. we are focusing on those bricks. secure communities, that as a way of having an immigration data base right in prisons and the like entering a correction officers on how to use them properly. as people finish their sentences, the deportation process and the removal process can be done smoothly. i started this when i was the governor of arizona. it is a very effective way of an enforcing and making sure that those types of immigrants who have already broken our criminal laws, in addition to immigration laws, go into a removal -- into a removal process. you may disagree with that but i think it is a right way to target a strong enforcement strategy. on the overall immigration law,

i agree with you. i agree that we need to look at the whole package. that obviously i cannot do by myself. congress has to do it. i was with the president when he met with a 30 congressional leaders, both parties, both houses, and said he would like to move something through at the end of this year were the beginning of next year and i am heavily embossed in those efforts as is your senator from new york, senator schumer. we need to work together and to build stronger enforcement but we need many other things as well. i would very much respect your ideas in that regard. >> thank you. >> my name is a net. he began developing rules against terrorism and fighting terrorism and a consistent with values. any problems that you see what

developing a notion of citizens to have a collective responsibility to report on one another? where is the balance between individuals accepting people in your community and being private in general? >> that is the point i was making a bit earlier. that is where education can really come in. what is something that should be reported and what is not? there are materials in a variety of aspects that help with that kind of education. the first question said what we doing to educate young people about that? that is where it has to start. >> thank you. >> cannot. my question is on the civil issues -- civil liberties issues.

i know it is hard. every pro ball at a press reports on terrorists -- every profile that the press reports on domestic terrorists suggest that they had their contacts in their mosques. it is in the mosques were there meet and plan and work. -- where they meet and plan at work. surveillance has to be based on what can be done in educating those societies and alerting those people to the risks that their communities and other space. is that responsibility one that resides in your department? is it shared? what can you say about that particular focus when we know that so much happens in such a restricted area? >> a couple of things. the direct answer to your

question is that sort of activity is primarily under the fbi. we have to be very careful about profiling a religious institution just as we have to be careful about profiling individuals. that is why how you develop intelligence that is actionable needs to be very carefully done and not restricted or done in that religious environment. where we can help in our approach is to work with leaders in a variety of faith based communities, not just on education but really to have good community outreach. so if they perceive that there is something going on that is aimed at violent extremism or extremist attacks, they feel comfortable working with law enforcement in advance of that

attack occurring. but i think we have to be very careful about interfering with the free exercise of religion or profiling in that sense. >> right there. yes. >> madam secretary, in the network response, you identified a key component which is greater international cooperation, and you also laid that out as being the framework of an effective response at the borders, since our borders are the last round of the fence. -- response. how closely do you work with the state department in terms of the projection of american soft power as compared to part power, being at a level of winning hearts and minds which does a

great distance in making sure that the inspector in karachi and not just public debt by a bilateral shared security treaty but genuinely feels that he's he needs to ferret out information and share it? i appreciate your thoughts on how closely you work with the state department in the projection of american soft power? >> we work very closely with the state department and the international environment. indeed, when i travel internationally, i immediately link-up with whatever embassy or consulate where i am going said that we attendant of the things together. when i met with the president of pakistan a couple of weeks ago, the ambassador was with me. why? because we want to show that we are linked together and have a common message.

we use that as an example in an area where we can assist in helping create a civilian law enforcement presence that would take the place of a military presence, particularly in certain parts of the country. a tour -- a more direct example would be mexico where congress actually appropriated money in an initiative to be used in conjunction with the federal government of mexico to buy equipment and a trained civilian law enforcement. i just want to pause a moment on this. our ability as a nation to work with other countries on having not just all law enforcement but justice assistance -- systems that are civilian in nature as opposed to military, i think, is

very important. that is one of the things that we have expertise and within the department of homeland security, particularly when you talk about how city -- about setting up port of entry. how do you run it? what does it look like? what type of technology should be included? what works and what does not work? what needs -- what kind of training needs did -- do you need have? what kind of supervision to you need have? how do you prevent corruption from occurring or from children trading the ranks? how did you complete -- had you build trust with people running reports -- ports, but they are not on the dole? that transition from military to civilian, i believe, is where our department can play a key role. >> we will have two more. steve.

>> secretary napolitano, thank you for coming here today and sharing such an important address with all of us. and also, thank you for doing washington's most challenging job. adding to that challenge, let me ask this. as with safety are making a home handicap a sizable, the best time to put in safety is at the design phase. the president is committed to building our and the structure and our health system and a whole host of imperative is in building our country. how are you able to be a part of those important endeavors and can we get right in the early phase instead of coming in and trying to pasted on afterwards? >> right. absolutely we can get it done right. let me give you an example of that.

in the stimulus money, that which is coming to the homeland security is being used to purchase technology in airports that we think will increase our overall security capacity, and while the space is being billed, if you had a job creation stimulus at the same time. another example which may not be as self evident is the money that went into the department of transportation. they got a lot money to build roads and bridges and other things, putting americans back to work. but there are ways or design features that can be incorporated that enhance safety and security at the geictgo rather than picking up

pieces at the end. there is a close intersection or interaction in the folks in our department who specialize in critical infrastructure like that and the department of transportation on what should be looked at in those construction projects as they move forward. >> madam secretary, on behalf of the council, i won a thank-you for a great council. -- i want to thank you for a great talk. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> on c-span tonight, u.s. special envoy richard holbrooke talks to reporters about his recent visit afghanistan and attack -- and pakistan. senator john kerry discusses international efforts to fight climate change. the senate banking committee also committee hearing on corporate governance. >> we are talking about health care tomorrow morning on "washington journal." our guests are david wh lightman, tom harkin, and nathan deal. plus congressman earl pomeroy. he is part of the blue dog coalition, a car but fiscally conservative democrats. "washington journal," live every

morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> george winn it signed a declaration of independence. he was also murdered. bruce l. chadwick on "i am murdered," and at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific hear on c- span. >> after his recent trip to afghanistan and pakistan, richard holbrooke answered reporters' questions about the political situation there. topics include efforts to train afghan security forces, afghanistan's upcoming elections, and pakistan's military offensive against the pack -- the taliban. from the state department, this is 40 minutes. >> we have special envoy in

richard holbrooke back from his visit and it was time to give you an update on the situation in both countries as we deal with the current situation in pakistan and also had toward the elections in afghanistan. richard, thank you for coming. >> thank you. i would be happy to take your questions. just identify yourself, please. >> "financial times." following the funding commitments that the u.s. and its partners receive for the expansion at the nato summit -- >> funding commitments? >> you had a couple of hundred million dollars from germany. delors new commitments? dollars to expand that forces. >> i did not go to europe to get more commitments. the expansion of our service and

police and afghanistan is hardly a secret. my trip -- my job was not to get new commitments. >> it is just a general question. how sustainable is the expansion that is envisioned in the strategy? where do you forsake the main funding to come from? >> i misunderstood. a but you were talking about something. it is absolutely essential that over time afghanistan assume responsibility for its own security and combat troops drawdown. economic assistance, training, advisory work will continue for quite a while. the current force levels of police and army are clearly going have to be increased. we are in the middle of an election campaign in

afghanistan. that election campaign has been going on basically in one form or another since this administration took office, and there was a constitutional crisis impending, questions of legitimacy, no certain see when that date would take place, opposition paupeople talking abt possible demonstrations, and we've focused on setting a date for the election. our military forces and those of our allies and picked up the ball and began working closely with the afghan government to assure the best possible elections under extremely difficult circumstances. as that progress, we put into place some of our programs and we continue to support extensive training of the army and the police. but it is apparent that the current level of the national security forces of afghanistan are not going to be sufficient in the long run. after the election this will be

a subject we will look at in conjunction with the new government. we will see what the needs are and then we will see how we can support them. forgive me if i am not too specific but i do wish to draw your attention to a couple of facts which i don't get enough public attention. first of all, japan has not been given sufficient credit for their extraordinary act of paying police salaries of the entire country during this present time face. the exact amount, my colleagues can get you if your interested. secondly, the european force is sitting in police to train. this is not an e.u. organization but a collection of six countries which is a tremendously positive element -- development. we're going to see to

consolidate police training which has been scattered in so many different places but it has lacked a certain coherence. in answer to your question, this is a very high priority, and once we're past the election, it will get even higher. >> let me ask a question about afghanistan. >> please identify yourself. >> i heard that you are interested in visiting swat and pakistan said they cannot arrange security for you. >> you heard it in today's "new york times." >> it does that tell you about something about the state of security there? >> i want to be very frank with you. i ask the cut is what -- i asked to cut a swath, knowing that i would not be able to go.

i wanted to establish the limits of what was possible here. as any of you who have traveled with me know, you go for it as far as you can. that is how you earn. the military preferred that we really did not do it now. so we did not. and then we picked another refugee camp which was a good one, and then we got weather out. so we never win. . >> isn't that nobody could go win.

they felt that if somebody high- profile went in, that the security, tons of journalists including some of my friends in this room, that would be a problem for them. i do not want to become a burden on people. >> can you talk about the schedule that led to your trip to india? >> there were no complications. there were three or four people in india. all but one of them were going to be out of the country. >> [unintelligible] >> i think we were in the air. >> it was basically when he was on route to pakistan. we're going to go back. >> i will go back in mid august. they're all looking forward to

my coming. >> first of all, do you see there is a rift between you and india because there were some reports in india -- >> i just answered that question. if there is a rift between me and india, it would be the first thrift since i was 7 years old. india was the first country of the world i was ever aware of. i have a very special feeling for it. i did not see any rift. i have talked to the indians on the phone. bob blake was there with the secretary of state. bob blake had some talks which were very helpful. there is no issue here. >> the main question was, as far

as your visit to pakistan, can you highlight how pakistan is doing as far as security is concerned? are you going to get osama bin law and who is the most wanted person on this earth? >> the trip to pakistan was very valuable. i talked to leadership, both civilians and in the military and private citizens. this is a country facing a staggering number of front-page story problems. the number one subject and afghanistan among the people is the energy crisis and electricity. while we were there, there were demonstrations of textile workers that were testing production of electricity.

at all of you can see the enormous danger this poses. i talked a lot about that. i would draw your attention to the fact that the president of the united states -- economic experts state to go on ahead. we coordinated closely. the other subjects were the internal refugees. and the military offensive, in addition to the situation in afghanistan. separate from my trip, the ambassador and the general mccrystal have been traveling to pakistan fairly regularly, sometimes public, sometimes not. they just consult with the government and the pakistani

army. as the offensive picks up steam, the pakistanis need to be ready for it. they know where the military operations are happening, and they can prepare for any offensive. second, we talked to them about if there military operations push people the other way in afghanistan. the military to military discussions are helping to harmonize this explosively dangerous area. it is hard to imagine a more dangerous area of the face of the earth today that an area that contains al qaeda, pakistan taliban, afghan taliban, refugees. it is extraordinary how difficult it is. with every trip, we deepen the

relationships. we also announced that $165 million worth of american aid -- i want to caution you here, because some of the generals got confused. we didn't announce $165 million of new aid. we announced the disbursement and release of existing aid that we had already announced. it was very important, because it was held up. >> osama bin lawtoden. >> we did not see him there. [laughter] i do not know when -- i do not know what your question is. if i knew when we were going to capture him, i would not help. -- would not tell. >> expand on the first answer

you gave, the need for an afghan national army. as you know, there has been a lot of pressure on congress and among the top military brass in the u.s. for the need for more nasf. i want to know what you think the total number should be and what the u.s. is capable of supporting. and also comment on whether there should be more u.s. forces sent to afghanistan as well as a supplement. the >> i can't give you an exact figure for several reasons. there are various numbers being thrown around. the afghan government has to be a central part of these discussions and there are elections coming up in a few weeks. we have to talk to them. on the second part of your question, you will have to address that to the pentagon. >> i was wondering if you could

talk a little more about the drug trade in your efforts to shift to an alternative livelihood. as you said on your latest trip, it seems that the taliban is getting more money from the drug trade than the outside funding around the world. the uc support by the afghan people for this new effort? -- do you see support by the afghan people for this new effort? >> i said the reverse, they are getting more from outside. that is what i have said many times. one of the more interesting things i said on the trip was the first tangible evidence of one of the most important policy shifts of the united states since january 20 if. -- since january 20. it is beginning to show results. it has been announced several times and got picked up the

fourth or fifth time we said it. we have -- we are phasing out -- the united states and the isf forces are not going to go round assisting or participating in the destruction of poppy fields. we have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars doing this. the cost has been estimated at $44,000 a hector to destroy a poppyseed. -- poppyseeds. i mention this, and he left. -- he laughted. i said, governor, this is up to you. all we did was alienate poppy farmers who were poor farmers

who were growing the best cash crop they could grow at a market where they could get -- in a market where they could not get other things to market. it is a drug enforcement doctrine. why was it wrong? because other countries, mexico, colombia, that was the purpose of our policy. hear, the policy is to strengthen the government and helped defeat the taliban. we were not doing it. the amount of money we were denying that caliban -- the taliban was 0. we had an internal debate in the u.s. government because a lot of people were addictive, if you'll pardon the pun, to that concept.

we started out and said, no more crop eradication. we will face that out and increase our efforts and agriculture. on this trip, we saw the first indications that it might work. those indications came from british and american forces. they targeted interdiction. they made interdiction a goal. using modern technologies, they located marketplaces that sold the drug paraphernalia, laboratory equipment, poppyseeds, and a vast amount of opium -- the vast amounts of opium to buy and sell. cnn wrote a piece and it was shown all over the world repeatedly.

our no. 3 ambassador out there who all of you know was in the middle of this area. it is hard to figure out what the equivalent was, but it was probably several years of useless crop eradication. in fact, counterproductive. to me, and all the trips i made out there, this was the most gratifying thing. it is nice to have theories and policies, but you have to see how they work on the ground. interdiction seems to be working, they have some other targets ahead of them. agriculture. the most well received a change in american policy has been our dramatic upgrade of agriculture. i would simply note that both senators obama and clinton

proposed things like this last year when they were campaigning. it was a pleasure to take something proposed during the campaign and to see it converted into reality on the ground. everywhere i went, the realization was beginning that we were going to put hundreds of millions of dollars in agriculture from the agricultural development teams into the national guard's of states like texas. they're doing all these terrific projects. there were former agricultural efforts that we had which were combined, integrated into the agriculture team. that is just beginning to get rolling, but it was remarkable how every candidate we called on, every afghan in the province, everyone had heard about it. 40 of the long answer, but i see

at all interconnected. -- forgive the long answer, but i see at all interconnected. and finally, it is an agricultural country. 80% of the people are agricultural. it is a great export nation, the export pomegranates, over half of the world's raisins, pistachios. afghans are great farmers. they help. the secretary of agriculture vilsack will go out there in october and lead a group. i consider some of you to go with him. it will be quite a trip. >> i am from the associated press of pakistan.

during your visit to brussels, you said your countries and other powers should help pakistan to deal with the issue of idp's. >> you mean what i said yesterday in brussels? >> de you find european powers -- do you find european powers [unintelligible] >> there are 41 nations, most of them european participating in our efforts and afghanistan. europeans are quite quick to it meant that they have not paid enough attention to pakistan in the -- and are quite quick to admit that they have not paid enough attention to pakistan in the past. there have been closed meetings and in public -- there were

meetings with nato, the european commission, and i always raise this issue. when you go to people and say, you have to do more, they can't say yes. they have parliaments, just like we do. i just want to get the ball rolling on discussion for two reasons. pakistan is critically important for the rest of the world, and it has very serious challenges right now, starting with the energy sector and the refugees, the insurgency, the overall economy. and secondly, what happens in pakistan has a direct effect on afghanistan. >> bob burns from 80. about the search -- from ap. i asked that having heard tony

of csis this morning, in his view, it has been insufficient. he does not see it -- a critical mass for it least another year. is the time line stretching out? >> is he volunteering to go out there? we could use somebody with his talents. >> do not have enough people to do those things? >> we have a very sustained plan. this is not like taking an existing military unit out of fort bragg, even the military takes some time. i just don't agree with him. we have a separate, dedicated personnel staff. we have hundreds of people in the pipeline.

i sought a mission that was showing much more energy than i have ever seen before from previous trips in three or four years. most importantly, you can't have civilians go out unless they are secured. we're out of places to put people. your initial question was, was i satisfied? quite honestly, i am never satisfied in this job because the pressures are so great. you understand what my job is. my job is to try to make the system work faster and better. the way you describe this criticism, and i have not talked to him. it sounds like it has -- it is based on taking an issue out of perspective.

i'll tell you what, come down to our offices and talk to our personnel people. get every detail you need. that joanne out here -- get joann out here. >> how is the united states working with afghanistan's iec to ensure the most fair elections possible? >> first of all, secretary clinton has sent an ambassador out there with a special election unit. tim is a very experienced election official. he reported to the national security council staff. i was there for that meeting. that group is our primary interface with the election committee. there are two other commissions. there is a complaints commission

and the media commission. one of the most dramatic things i did on this trip was to go out tuesday iec, -- to go out to the iec, and there were 200 or 300 young afghans in a blue jeans and t-shirts sitting behind computer terminals registering voters. they're a little behind with only 20 days to go, 22 days, and they are rushing to register three or 4 million additional people. -- and 3 million or 4 million additional people. there are about 70 million names on the chart. we don't know how many are still alive or still in the country. we will not have an exact

number. in other words, one of the figures that you will last, the percentage electorate voting is probably not going to be attainable. we know how many people voted last time. we're working very closely with these three conditions. everybody is complaining about the elections, it happens in our country , too. my view is that the election -- it is an extraordinary thing to hold an election in the middle of a war. so while i saw many -- i heard complaints from many sides, but i was not duly upset by those. the head of it and i had two different meetings. i did not know what else i can say about it, but it is our main

focus right now. >> to questions. how well as the pakistani government doing? our correspondent reported this morning that pakistani authorities have found that these taliban have abducted teenage boys to train them to be suicide bombers. it didn't know anything further? -- do you know anything further? >> on the first question, i do not know because i was not able to get there. we do not know exactly to what extent the pakistani army dispersed or destroy the enemy. when the refugees return, can they go home?

are they safe? we will have to wait and see. i want to stress something here. the pakistanis have moved a tremendously large amount of people from their eastern border to their western border. that is a historical significant redeployment. on your second question, i am not aware of the details of the story. i will check. we have heard these stories many times in the past. i would like to know more about it and look at the story. yes, sir? >> to what extent do you think the dispute between india and pakistan will help you in achieving your three goals? >> the issue is outside my area

-- my ability to discuss. >> and the last two weeks, they give a public statement about india's involvement. [unintelligible] have they given you any evidence of india's involvement? >> i would be misleading if i said it did not come up. the answer to your question is no. >> [unintelligible] pakistani forces have been fighting, and for example, have you talked with pakistani leaders about catching

militant leaders? >> is a constant subject, but they did arrest -- it is a constant subject, but they did arrest sufi muhammed. he is the guy that negotiated the truce that turned out to be a surrender disguised as a truce that led to the crisis. the pakistani armies are anxious to bring these people to justice. we hope that will happen. >> you mentioned you feel under pressure a lot of time in this job. do you feel like a british support seems to be dwindling for stays in afghanistan? it would appear that u.s. support -- you lose more of your own forces, the you feel that your own clock is ticking on this? if you have a limited amount of time to get what you need done

before the public turned against you? >> i do not want to comment on the british side of it. i was not able to hear the press conference with secretary clinton. on the timeframe issue, i think we want to show visible, tangible progress. we do not have a timetable, but we want to show progress to the world and the american public by next year. people should not interpret that as some kind of deadline or arbitrary time table. >> to more questions -- two more questions. >> on the narcotics issue, what you think the u.s. followed a strategy that was ineffectual for so long? for example, with u.s. marines

claiming provinces, if they come across a field being cultivated for opium production, what do they do? do they just leave it? you have been talking about this flow of money from sympathizers to talivaban groups. can you be more specific about where the money is coming from? >> for the first part of your three part question, you will have to ask the people that did this. none of them are in the room right now. you will have to ask the people why they thought was the right way to spend american taxpayer dollars. on the second part of your question, i will not relate tactical operational orders, but their mission is not to support or assist crop eradication. general petreaus is on that.

i am not accusing the government's. -- the governments. there were accusations made by government officials of the previous administration. i am not doing that. there is very strong evidence that money flows from that area unregulated, very hard to regulate. that is why i visited every measure -- every member of the gcc. i plan to go back as often as possible. members from our interagency staff are from the treasury department. the important issue involves so many elements that is

extraordinary. we know how tough this is. if money flowing from that area contributes to the use of force which result in casualties to our forces, we owe it to the troops to do something about it. >> you would include countries -- >> i did not say that. it is not fair to them. last question. >> depending on who wins the election in afghanistan, will the u.s. policy towards the country be redefined? >> depending on who wins, with the u.s. policy -- >> be redefined? >> i did not want to speculate on what happens after the election. i just want to be clear on what we expect for the election. we wanted accepted as legitimate by the people in the afghan

world that reflects the desires of those who vote. not everyone is going to vote. there will be areas where the polling places will not be open because of security. everyone understands that. a perfect election is not possible. there have been occasional problems in our alexians you might notice. just a few -- in our elections, you might notice. just a few weeks ago, we found out to the center of minnesota was. the president has said repeatedly, our commitment to afghanistan stands, not only because it is in our own national interest to do so, but because it is important for the entire region that stretches from the mediterranean all the way east to the subcontinent. i was actually going to call on you, so i will give you the last question.

>> i wanted to raise the issue of detainees in the process of detainee's that are -- of the detainees -- how much progress are you seeing on the detainee issue, and how important is it to deal with the issues of detainees? >> we now have to review its recommendations and move to a threat -- its implementation. the legal adviser to the secretary of state, who i'm sure many of you know because he was the assistant secretary for human rights in the clinton the administration. -- in the clinton administration. i would prefer, and the fairness to the process, i would prefer to direct your questions to him

when he gets back on the detainee issue. it is a very important issue, and we're looking at it. thank you very much. host[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> the house energy and commerce committee continues its markup of health care legislation tomorrow. you can watch the proceedings in their entirety on c-span 3 and also on our website, c-span.org. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> this week, as expected, the senate judiciary committee voted to recommend the confirmation of sonia sotomayor as supreme court justice.

see the vote this saturday on c- span at 7:00 eastern. her confirmation moves to the senate floor on c-span 2. coming in october on c-span, tore the home to america's highest court -- tour the home of america's highest court, the supreme court. >> republican presidential nominee richard nixon and evangelist billy graham, saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span radio. >> and now john kerry, was at the national press club to talk about climate change, the recently concluded u.s.-china talks, and the upcoming summit in copenhagen. this last one hour. >> the afternoon. welcome to the national press club. i am president of the national press club.

we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists, and we are committed to a future of journalism by providing informative programming into journalism education as well as fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, visit our web site at 222.press.org. -- www.press.org. i would like to welcome our speaker and our guests in the audience today. i would also like to welcome all of you that our walking -- that are watching on c-span. we will try to answer as many questions as time permits. please hold your applause during the speech so we have time for as many questions as possible. i would like to tell our broadcast audience, if you hear applause, it may be the general public and not necessarily from the working press. i would now like to introduce our head table guests and ask

them to stand briefly when their names are called. the independent writer for the letter of washington, on -- co lumn. an independent freelance novelist -- columnist. eleanor clift, a contributing editor for "newsweek." the ceo of an energy company based in framingham, massachusetts. skipping over the podium, and gillette from bloomberg -- angela from bloomberg news. cathy, communications consortium media center executive director. thank you very much, cathy. we have the co-director of the

government relations -- and also a guest of our speaker. a reporter for congressional quarterly where she covers energy and environment. myron belkynd, the secretary on the board of governors. he is also a former correspondent for the associated press. [applause] 1971. lt. john kerry, the first vietnam war veteran to testify before the senate foreign relations committee withstands a 2 hour grilling from -- about ending that war. fast forward 38 years. senator john kerry has now -- now has oversight power of words in iraq -- of wars in iraq

and afghanistan. senator kerrey enlisted in the naval reserve just after graduation from yale. on active duty, he received three purple hearts, a combat start, and a silver star. he survived swift boats, a bout with cancer, and the 2004 presidential campaign as the democratic nominee. his senate career now spans five terms. he still is the junior senator from massachusetts. his colleague, senator ted kennedy outranks him. senator kerry has passed major legislation on international drug trafficking, global aids, humanitarian aid, small business concerns, education, and a host of veteran's benefits. environmental issues are near and dear to his heart, literally. he met his wife when her

husband and carry's best friend -- and kerry's best friend -- earlier this year, senator kerry returned from a visit to china, more convinced than ever for a need -- of 84 international cooperation -- and of a need for international cooperation. please join me in welcoming it to the national press club, senator john kerry. [applause] >> donna, thank you for a wonderful, generous introduction. i want to assure everyone here that she did not have to dispel any of this of the notion that if anybody is applauding about

anything i say, it will not be the working press. i did not say that as a negative about them, they just don't do that in washington. it would be a first. i want to cut straight to the chase here. this is one of america's great forums, and it is a privilege to speak again at the national press club. let me also say that time is of the essence here. i have learned this very strictly adhered to protocol in regard to these events. we have a small amount of time in which to compact a lot of ideas and a lot of thinking. i will go straight to the heart of the substance here and look forward very much any questions that any of you may have with respect to this enormously challenging issue that we all

face. when richard nixon first visited china back in 1972, that journey seemed far longer than the 7,000 miles that actually separate washington from beijing. he was bridging an enormous gap between the two worlds that separated our countries for a generation. president nixon understood that such a moment demanded a need to drive home a new diplomatic reality. to do that, he chose a simple gesture, one that was laden with a very significant meeting. -- with very significant meaning. he had refused to shake his hand in 1954. when nixon walked out to the mat -- walked out in beijing, his

hand was unmistakably outstretched. the message was clear, and it was powerful. it marked a watershed in u.s.- china relations. we find ourselves in a moment for that kind of a watershed. our two nations met with the strategic economic dialogue. the most important forum in the bilateral relationship. it is not just our geopolitics that are changing, but the earth itself. global climate change poses a real and present danger. environmental destruction and human this location is on a scale that we have never seen. -- and human dislocation is on a scale that we have never seen. retired generals testified as to what they see as a national

security threat global climate change is a threat multiplier. it will prevent -- it will present major challenges. we seek to change the world again. once again, we need to send a strong signal. a handshake alone is not going to get the job done. nothing less than a complete and collaborative transformation of the global energy economy is going to be enough to tackle this crisis. this week, tried out's leaders traveled to washington, eager to meet with familiar colleagues -- china's leaders travel to washington, eager to meet with familiar colleagues. between our peoples, especially on the subject of climate change, there is still a mistrust and misunderstanding.

we think that china will not lift a finger to help climate change or that china will hurt us economically if we do. people in china fear that the united states is merely attempting to smother china's economic rise. too many in the world believe that neither country will take credible or necessary action. i believe that all of the doubters are wrong. we have to draft a policy that proves them wrong. what is needed are simple gestures backed by strong actions and concrete decisions to move forward in a new direction. senator lugar and die -- and i had a very frank discussion about what was accomplished at this week's strategic economic

dialogue, and where we stand that. both countries recognize that imbalances have said the global economic crisis. -- have fed the global economic crisis. for china, that means adjusting the savings rate to allow for more consumption driven economy. for america, it means pushing our consumers to save more. china also deserves credit and people are not aware of this. they deserve enormous credit for taking dramatic steps to ensure a more open market for u.s. goods and services, and for trading investment enterprises equally. these are, frankly, major steps forward. they are a signal of china's

good faith. politically, we made a cautious but important moves to coordinate our foreign policies. on north korea, china and america are working closer than ever before. on pakistan, iran, we have a greater partnership going forward. secretary clinton and others did not shy away from important topics like ethnic minorities and those of tibet. overall, secretaries clinton and geithner have helped shore up the relationship and to develop strong ties with their chinese counterparts. that is the good news. so what is the bad news? on climate change, perhaps the single greatest challenge we face, with the most tangible impacts, we face more

challenges, and i believe more could have been done and more should have been achieved. we did sign a confidential memorandum of understanding including language on climate change, but i have to tell you, as somebody following this extremely closely and having been involved in it now for 20 years, the dates, the time lines, the road map, the specific steps that need to be taken for an agreement in copenhagen, the fully defined anmutuality it was not clearly articulated and did not materialize. this was nothing different from what i said to the state council of this morning at the meetings or to their environment secretary who was sitting to my left. it is critical for us to

understand that the momentum necessary to make december's copenhagen-international climate negotiations a success, we need to formalize concrete agreements that convey our seriousness of purpose. i believe there are great opportunities to do this, particularly in september and november as we lead in hte 6-20 -- in the g-20 summit. unless we act dramatically and fast, science tells us that our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy. i am not going to dwell on that science, but review the basis. atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen from 280 to 380 parts per million.

science has moved backwards from 550 where it was a few years ago to 450. they have become more cautious, and there are some scientists arguing that it ought to be 350. 450 represents, to their best certainty, a warming of 2 degrees celsius. anything beyond that presents an unacceptable risk. as you know, the g-8 meeting in italy embraces the 2 degrees centigrade as a target. unless we take action now, we are heading to 1000 parts per million by the end of the century. today, over 40% of those emissions belong to two countries. the united states and china.

those are the facts. the reality is, we are simply not doing enough to address them. i will t nobody is. mit and the fletcher school recently developed a state of the art model to analyze the impact of fully implementing all 17 national climate change policies that have been proposed by countries to date. ours included. even if we met the 17 different climate proposals, including president obama's target by 2050, even if we had that, we are still projected to hit 600 or 700 parts per million. it is disastrous. the bottom line is, none of the current proposals get the job done. that is why the challenges growing more and more urgent.

that is why copenhagen is so critical. we need to come together globally and agree to start. by starting, we embrace a set of technological and other kinds of efficiency changes that will compound on themselves and ultimately make it easier and possible to meet the larger goal. undeniably, all of us must do more to meet that goal. ladies and gentleman, china and america, the world's largest emitter today, china, and history's largest accumulative the matter, the united states, have a special responsibility. nations will gather to hammer out a new global climate treaty. two have the capacity to set the

tone and identify what is possible. can america and china forge a partnership capable of preventing catastrophe? the answer to that has to be yes. the good news is, we have a strong foundation on which to build. we have developed close collaborations with china on energy and environment, even on climate change itself. one example of the kind of the success that we need to replicate is the lawrence berkeley national lab that created tools for steel plants. the project has gone so effectively that beijing got excited about it, took notice of it, and they have expanded the project into a nationwide program covering china's top 1000 energy consuming enterprises.

these companies account for 1/3 of all of china's consumption. the government mandated reductions will be roughly 16 times the total of electricity consumed by new york city. that is significant. we need to take note of it. we helped convince the chinese leaders to embrace a 10-year framework for cooperation last year as well as the agreement that was signed just last week by commerce secretary' locke to build a research centers. in may, i visited china and met with political and military leaders, scientists, students, environmentalists, and i gauged china's seriousness. what i found was a country that had undergone a change.

their investment in renewable capacity is second in the world only to germany. they are investing $12.5 million an hour. they have tripled their wind capacity in just the last two years. in the last three years, they have improved their energy efficiency by 10%. they have publicly announced that it is intending to become the world's #1 producers of electric cars. leaders who were not willing to entertain the is and who ago are now equally and unequivocably committed to moving forward. only this time, they're arguing that china grasp the urgency and is ready to be a positive and constructive player. that is an impressive turnaround. i wish, by itself, it were enough. it isn't.

why? aspirational statements cannot stand in for legal commitments on the international stage. that's why i went, to communicate that america understands that we have an obligation to meet. we have a democratic house and a democratic administration. people understand that we need to take the lead. china needs to understand that we will not enter into a global treaty, as we learned in kyoto, without a meaningful commitments from china to be part of the solution. if we want to arrive where all of us know we need to go, we need to be practical about how to get there. this will happen in stages. the debate we ought to be having now is, what schedule and what scale will try and act on? will it be enough? we need to persuade china that quick and decisive action is

actually in china's on interest -- own interest. here is why. to get china to act, we need to understand how china sees the issue. not something that we always do the best. their narrative of how our two nations reached this point of time is very different than ours. where we see an economic powerhouse, they see many of their countrymen at living on less than $2 a day. where we see a rising power, they see a proud nation that is emerging from 200 years of attacks and exploitation. where we see the future, china sees itself as a country that has admitted less than its share historically and far yes -- and far less than the united states of america.

when we ask them to capita emissions, those who want to pass the blame or minimize the threat have a pretty ready made story. the reality that i saw in china is deeply at odds with the way that china is depicted in our domestic policy debate over climate change. it is essentially a country unwilling to recognize the threat of climate change and alter its energy use. it is not true. the image of china conjured up by politicians and pundits is a country that i did not recognize from my trips there. our challenge has been to change these narratives. we need to replace them with a successful collaboration on both sides by addressing the reality. power politics alone is not going to get this done. we needed joint leadership on global issues. step-by-step, we will shift our

focus from compromise to the inescapable reality of clean energy futures. that is why the partnership that was negotiated by secretary locke is so important. we need china to except that while our energy futures may be linked, and need not and must not emulate our energy past. before nixon's visit, the chinese found that the telegram was impractical for their system of writing. they leapfrogged technologies and went straight for another new american invention. the telephone. today, china needs to forgo the carbon intensive industrial processes that fueled the west and the nineteenth and twentieth centuries but up and apply political and policy. clean-air technique for the twenty first century. we should use the strategic and economic dialogue in other

venues to convince china to take concrete and tangible steps forward. wishfully support new research and development efforts -- that we should fully support new research and development efforts. especially carbon capture in a storage for coal-fired power plants. had -- carbon capture storage for coal-fired power plants. they can help move us to a new energy economy and get the low hanging fruit. let me tell you about the low hanging fruit. according to the study of carbon production, 40% of americans oppose the potential reductions in emissions actually pay for themselves -- of america's potential reductions in emissions actually pay for themselves. it is free if you do what a lot of companies are doing.

the gentleman sitting right here knows exactly what i am talking about. maybe in the q&a, i can describe it to you. a $70 billion investment in energy saving emissions would pay for itself. how clean energy solutions will require new expertise, builders, engineers, contractors, an entirely new professions from energy auditors to advance energy efficiency. transforming our energy use can not just happen in washington and beijing. it has to be implemented locally by people in cities and villages all across both nations. that is going to create jobs. it is going to move us out of this recession and into the economies of the future. working from the bottom up is not an alternative to a global deal. it is a prerequisite to getting

a deal done. it helps make a long-term decision about emission reduction commitments that we all know both china and the less-developed world will ultimately have to accept. while we work with china, we also need to begin talking intensively about africa, asia, latin america. . we need to build a climate partnership with india, too,

working from the same principles and respecting the massive differences. if india took full advantage of this opportunity, experts say it could substantially reduce construction of new power plants. some suggest we would not even have to build a new power plant for decades if we to get advantage of this. that is why labs are already working in mumbai and will expand their collaboration to of the state in india china -- with china focused on coal technology. india's geography suggest that we focus even more on thermal technology would ride -- could provide 10% of india's electricity as soon as 10-years from now. for diplomacy bill through date depends on building the

framework to accommodate individual countries want and need. it is firm enough to bring us all onboard. that is the challenge we face. it will be made easier as people everywhere begin to will lead -- to realize that the challenge of developing clean energy resources should not depend on growth. this is good news. the global economy needs that kind of an engine right now. that is why alongside entrepreneurs, china is racing to embrace technologies. they have expanded a capacity for bolts from us to 2 gigawatt. 20 gigawatts is more than triple the amount of solar power installed in the entire world during 2008. china produces 1/5 of all the solar capacity in the world.

this to say they will act in its own economic interest have a point, but they fail to see that when they build wind farms, they are acting in solar interest. we have seen how aggressive clean energy standards in china and germany have led to a burgeoning industry to attend the thousands of jobs. the top 30 companies in the world of factories are ones we have a bill to the united states. they are now based in america. thomas friedman takes the argument that climb legislation will cost american jobs -- he follows that argument on its head. that is where it ought to be. he makes a convincing that unless we wrap up our efforts, china is a clean energy industry will allow " clean our clock ."

china and america can grow green together. no matter what any other country does by acting to address climate change, we can secure america's place and american jobs in the energy economy of the future. we will be measured by what we achieved together. 60 years ago when china went into the direction we did not understand, at a single question past -- cast a shadow over the debate for years, who lost china? we were neither eat enough to believe that we could still handily control -- we were denied even death -- we were denienaive enough to believe the we could single-handedly control the economy. we understand china is not ours to lose. all of us will lose out of we do not act to protect the health of our climate and security of our

people. 20 years from now i do not want to be debating who lost earth. when we look back on these years, i want to be able to tell a different story, one in which america's climate partnership is the beginning of a new era, where americans embrace new energy. where billions of indians are lifted out of poverty and seek clean energy as an opportunity for development and where diplomacy warms up but the planet does not. the world's two largest emitters came together to take responsibility and develop change. this could be our world. it is not want to happen by accident . time passes 10,000 years, sees the day, sees the our. we have made -- seize the day,

seize the hour. we have made progress. but we want to create a partnership, -- it was to create a partnership, we have to seize the day, the hour, and we have to act. i hope we will. thank you. [applause] >> we are doing great on the time. we have a lot of questions. this is a little bit of a height difference. are you suggesting that we cannot get china to take significant action that the u.s. will not act either? >> no, what i am saying is that if china does not act, it will be very hard to translate whatever happens a copenhagen, if it even happens, into lsaw

here. -- into law here. the amendment passed 95-0. it was a reaction to the fact that out of kioto came this agreement or other of the country's -- where other countries or one to reduce emissions of the lesser developed world were out of the deal. local politics began to overpower whatever rationale there was a from taking action, because people said they would not take action and put a burden on the businesses to reduce the emissions while the others were just giving the whole. -- were just filling the hole. there is no america just acting alone can solve this problem. we have to have china and india and less developed countries.

we all recognize and respect that they have to grow their economies. they have to grow jobs they do they have to take care of their people. all we are asking is that they do so in ways that do not replicate the mistakes that the industrial made last for the last -- made for the last 150 years. we have a responsibility to help some of those who cannot afford technology, the poorest countries of the world, to be able to afford to get access to those technologies and technical assistance so they can have power in the local village that is not a diesel engine spewing fuemes into the atmosphere. and have water pumps for water

has never been cleaned. those are the opportunities. what we are seeing is that it is critical -- i believe the united states needs to pass our climate change legislation, which is essentially a jobs legislation. we are going to pass a bill, i hope, that is the foundation of economic transformation. it is a clean energy jobs bill. it reduces pollution and help america be energy independence. in in doing so, we are going to wind up taking a boat -- taking care of climate issues. we will put that before congress hopefully in the fall. hopefully, copenhagen will be lead by example. i cannot tell you if we will get it squeezed in. as long as we are on track when we go to copenhagen and the chinese and less developed world to not have to do the same thing that we are doing, but they have

to show their good faith in major reductions where we all join up in the near-term future. that is the key to success in copenhagen. that is what we hope to achieve. >> in the past, economic growth arguments, why is this different now? >> it is different for a number of reasons. people know a lot more about this issue. the science is far more compelling than ever before. the evidence is coming back in a dramatic and frightening ways. i hear our top scientist of our country when they are asked about the state of the art of science describing themselves to me more alarming terms with greater urgency than they sometimes do in the public because they are worried about how to translate it.

the truth is, for example, the siberian ice shelf study recently came back and showed there are columns of methane haze covering. bubbling under the ocean. -- called the methane gas are bubbling under the ocean. it would ignite were they pop up. that gas is 20 times more damaging than co2. that is happening because of the melting of the permafrost. we are moving villages in alaska because of the melting permafrost. we have the governor of colorado speak today. he was describing the loss of a million acres in colorado, a forest, to a beetled used to die off because of the cold enough in the fall that the cycle was truncated. they have not had that kind of freeze now for six or seven years.

the beatles did not die, so now they have invested measles -- the beetle did not die, so now they have invested millions of acres. in the arctic, they were predicting the melted of the arctic ice by the year 2013. now it is by 2013. -- by the year 2030. now it is by 2013. what happens is that the arctic ice melts. it is not change the placement of the ocean. the sea level rises. it exposes huge amount of the ocean, which is dark, it exposes it to a more rapid cycle of warming. it used to be that when it was frozen the son might bounce off of it, reflected on the ice and snow. it does not happen anymore. as the warming cycle accelerate,

we do not know the consequences with respect to the cie sheet -- to the ice sheet in greenland. you can stand there and see a river of water pouring into the oceans. sometimes there is fear that it may act as a slide. i cannot tell you if it will or will not. we have a responsibility to think about things assigned to a study might happen. you need to factor those things into the precautionary printable. -- principle. there are many other indicators. yet party scene dislocation of people in various parts of africa. -- you have already seen dislocation of people in various parts of africa. some tried to use to be able to live in certain places can no longer live there so they move. this is the threat multiplier

that the generals and admirals are talking about. we need to be very thoughtful about where we are with respect to science and respond to signs appropriately. . -- respond to science appropriately. >> if an energy bill is not passed, what will the u.s. have to do it to be taken seriously? >> it cannot contemplate that we will pass an energy bill. at the very least, we will pass an energy bill. i hope we will pass a more comprehensive bill. if we are acting in good faith, the president is pushing, the house has already passed legislation, and the senate committee has passed it out, we just do not have time to take it up because of the pressure of

healthcare. i believe, i met yesterday with the british minister, i am convinced he is the person responsible for leading this -- i believe that folks in copenhagen are going to be able to act and we will be able to get action there. if we were to get action here and feel, that will have a dramatic negative impact. -- and failed, that will have a dramatic negative impact. that will not happen. we will pass it. >> analyze the public likes -- analyze the politics for me on cap and trade. >> i tried to analyze them every day. it has a bad name because people have played games with the. we already have a system of trading permissions in the

united states. we have one right now. we have been doing it since 1990. there have been no scandals in that marketplace. it has worked extremely efficiently. we have reduced the sulfur dioxide that we put up into the atmosphere as a consequence. i helped design that when i was in the government in the 1980's. we were dealing with a task force to deal with acid rain. we came up with this concept of being able to trade emissions and reduce emissions accordingly. when i became a senator and we are able to put that in there it was 1990. i remember the argument. it was the same arguments we hear today. people automatically oppose this. those arguments were about not doing this too was because it will cost too much, you will

bankrupt us. it will put us out of business. you will make noncompetitive. they said it would cost $8 billion and take about eight years to achieve. that was the industry. the empowerment communities' said no, if they are all wrong -- the environment committee said no, and they are wrong. it'll take four years. to the credit the president george bush and to the credit of his chief of staff, they agreed to do it. we signed this into law. guess what? it cost about $1 million and it was achieved in about two years. why? because nobody has the ability

to predict what happens when you set a global or national goal and your economy and your sciences, your honor to bring yours, all move toward that goal and private capital begins to move toward that goal and innovation and ingenuity moves toward that goal. suddenly, we are compounding our capacity to do things faster and cheaper, because the technology moves in ways that nobody can predict. i predict this. we will see if we set this goal, and remarkable transformation. i already here at major companies talking about how they are waiting to invest in the new grid in america. if we can get a new grid that allows clean energy produced in nevada to actually get to new england, you have an unbelievable return on investment.

the internet market that field the creation of the 1990's in america is a $1 trillion market. it serves about 1 billion people. the energy market is a six trillion -- $6 trillion market, serving about 4.5 billion. this is the mother of all market. if we commit with a certainty to move in that direction, you are going to see more products come on line, we will do it faster. that is why i am confident in going to copenhagen even though we will set a target that some say we cannot do, because i believe in ingenuity and i am confident that all of us together are going to move in ways that are going to reduce the costs and get this job done. it is easier than people think. we have been trading for all

these years. the unit of seoul for our way less than people predicted then they would be. -- of sulfur are weigh less than people predicted them to be. i by offsets for some of the things that produce carbon. that is one of the ways in which you can reduce carbon. we need to begin to set the price. major corporate chiefs of america are saying to do this now. jim rogers of the duke energy, adored no one -- george nolan --they want this done. the ceo of the dupont company came to talk to our caucus the other day john, when the major investors at one of the most

successful firms in america that did google microsoft and others use today. we talk too smart people who understand the economy. john chambers as cisco. they all say that we need to do this now. americans need to leave. they see that future marketplace. they see a certainty in the marketplace that they can do planned and pricing and have a sense of where we are heading. >> senator luger has been an ally in a number of obama and dishes. he said last week when asked by the press if he would have voted for waxman, my answer is no. can you have any hope for republicans supported? >> hope springs eternal.

the answer is yes. i have hopes that he will ultimately come on this legislation. we are working with him very closely. the fact is that indiana is one of those states where you can show precisely how jobs could be created and how minimal the impact is. the cbo and the epa have both done an estimate of the bill that was passed in the house which shows the cost to the lowest income earners is actually positive. it is 40 cents -- $40 to every person in that percentile. in the middle income area, the cost is somewhere about $75-$175 per year. that is without taking into account energy efficiency gains

and new technologies. none of the studies to date tell the american taxpayer what is going to cost them if we do not do this. let me tell you. that will dwarf all the other things. if you do not move now, we are going to lose jobs. we will lose opportunities. we will see more impact on negatives and crops and water loss. ultimately, all the experts tell us it costs much more to come to this later and try to get more out of the atmosphere at a later time. nicholas stern, the lead economist for tony blair, did a critical study that showed what the cost are globally in terms of our gdp. it is less than an entire percentage point. the cost of not doing it is up

in the double digit. i think we will be able to give the republicans a lot of facts about how other states will be helped. please, go see the steady. they spend millions of dollars on analysis. it is called the carvin cost data curve. it takes every possibility of what people can do to reduce emissions. it factors in the cost. it shows that over the first 25- 30 years, the 25% of these reductions pay for themselves. this man has built a business. he says that he can reduce a company's cost of energy. guess what? i can not only do, i will pay for it. it does not cost you anything.

if i do not do any savings, -- if i do the savings, this is what you get. that is how sure a bet it is. i will not reveal his wealth, but this man is very successful. [laughter] doing the right thing. doing the right thing. this is such a winning proposition. it is kind of catching on. major companies, texas instruments, was going to move from dallas. the worker said do not do this. this is our jobs. the management said, you have to show is how you can make it competitive with china. what did they do? they got the rocky mountain institute to come down and look of their plans for the new plant. the redesigned it. they made it lower. they made a blunder.

-they used new materials. they create a climate control. they are net saving millions of dollars a year that more than paiy for them staying here. wake up, americans, is the message. others are saying this is a winning proposition for american business. i believed the bill we have designed make it a winning proposition for america. are you concernewhat are you cop and trade will change the credit market? >> there will be no derivatives. there will be no credits was. it'll be a transparent market.

i will not go into the details. they are not out. there will be a tighter regulatory control so it will be impossible to play those games. >> after the indian environmental at mr. told secretary clinton that india would not agree to cut emissions, what are the prospects for negotiating a climate treaty with india in a copenhagen? >> i met with the prime minister. we are going to keep working at this. i did not read that as a new statement at all. the indians and chinese have continually said that we are not signing up for the same deal that you are. that is what we all agreed on in bali and poland. it is true. the framework which was created back in berlin was that the less

developed countries are over here in a group in the major companies are over here in a group. things have changed since then. china is now the numbers 1 imager in the world. clearly, we have to find some of the mid-statiosn for china. -- mid-stations for china. they still have a hundred million people. that is an enormous challenge. you are going to see some of the richest and growing enterprises in the world. there is a dichotomy there. we still need to work together in a joint effort to make this feasible. i believe india was researching

the notion that it is not part of the nx-1. \ i do not think they are not going to embrace new technologies for new energy efficiencies or other things. here is the standard that applies. everybody agreed that we would all except common but differentiated responsibilities. that is the language. we have agreed that there will be measurable, reportable, and verifiable mreductions. china and india do not have to sign up for the exact percentage that we are going to. i believe they do have to set out what their plan is and what their reductions will be. they have to be measurable, reportable, and verifiable. that is the key to copenhagen and success. that will still work within the framework of the language.

>> we really are almost out of time. before we ask the last question, i have a couple of matters to take care of. let me remind about future speakers. on august 24, nick jonas will discuss the fight against juvenile diabetes. on september 28, ken burns will be here. on the timber 12, the national press club will host the 12th fiv5k run. i would like to give our guest the coveted press club mug. [applause] you have three minutes to enter this last question. can you do it? in order to get china to reduce,

if you plan on supporting -- do you plan to support technological assistance to china? >> i am just contemplating this. it is an interesting transition. the answer is -- it is complicated. the answer is, yes, we will do technology transfer. that is critical. i think direct expenditure would be very difficult to explain to the american people at a time when we have a $2 trillion currency surplus in china and we are baring as much money as we can from them. it is pretty hard to understand how we barrault -- borrow from them and then give to them.

that is a hard sale. i think it is very important to the united states to help some of the less-developed nations and smaller nations to be able to embrace what they would like to embrace. we talked about the types of money that may be necessary along with the major economies in the world, not just the united states. i'm not one to go into those figures now. they would be inappropriate. there has to be a funds made available that helps certain countries make transitions. in the case of china, we have to negotiate a very special kind of definition. we do need new technology. i think we could find some

credit and mechanisms for which we can deal with some of the other issues between us. we need to act in good faith, not to be driven by ideology and to recognize that the world is looking to all of us for leadership. we need to seize this moment. i am absolutely convinced beyond any doubt -- al gore and i held the first hearings together in 1988 -- i listened to the nasa scientists tell us then that climate change is happening. that was 1980. in 1992 for discussion on climate change. we came to the voluntary framework. here 17 years later and voluntary has not worked.

the issue is the more compelling and urgent. the evidence is greater. we need to do this. it is a matter of human responsibility for planet earth and the common sense aspects of our politics and economies. what we are wrong? what about al gore and everybody is wrong? what is the worst that can happen? the worst that can happen to have a lot of green jobs. you have a lot new technologies. you have cleaner air and let children going to the hospital during the summer with asthma attacks. you have energy dependence. your security is greater. he may have reduced poverty in certain parts of the world and elevated standard of living. that is the worst that can happen what is the worst that happens and they are wrong?

what if we delay we cannot give back? ask yourself that question. thank you. [applause] >> i like to thank you all for coming today. i would also like to think press club staff members for organizing today's lunch. thank you to the library for its research. the video archive of today's luncheon is provided by the national press club barack's center. our events are available for free download on itunes, as well as on their website. non-members may purchase transcripts and videotapes calling 202-662-7598. for more information about the national press club, please go to our website at

www.press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> 1c spend tonight, president obama talks about healthcare at a town hall meeting. the senate banking committee holds a hearing on corporate governance. homeland security secretary janet nipple a ton of discusses the role of local -- jan in

napoltiano discusses the role of counteracting terrorism. we are talking about healthcare tomorrow morning on "washington journal of " our guests are david lightman, senator tom harkin, and nathan deal. a group of fiscally conservative democrats, the blue dogs. "washington journal"live every morning on c-span. >> join the conversation on civil-rights and race relations with npr and fox and news analyst juan williams. that is an noon eastern sunday. >> how was c-span funded? >> publicly funded. >> donations?

>> government? >> federal funding? >> i do not know. >> how c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span for the public. no government mandate, no government money. >> as part of president obama's quest for health care legislation, he visited a town to talk about his proposal. the second stop was at a kroger supermarket in bristol, va. as he made his remarks, committee members started formal negotiations on health-care legislation. this is just under an hour. >> thank you so much. please, have a seat.

i want to stinky all -- i want himto thank all the employees fr being such great hosts. this is the first time i've been in the persian store in a while. [laughter] they do not let me do my own shopping. i may pick up some food on the way out. i just wanted you to know. there are a few other people i wanted knowledge. [unintelligible] [applause] a few people that i want to

acknowledge, mayor jim reddker is here. give him a big round of applause. it is good to see you. if you folks who could not be here. your outstanding double-murder tim kaigovernor, tim kaine. i want to give a shout out to my friend in your congressman. he could not be here today. rick cannot be here today. he is working hard in washington. he was an early supporter of my campaign. he is a leader that says clean coal technology is part of our future that will help create jobs across the country. i just want you all to no that i

love him. give him a big round of applause. [applause] this is a town hall meeting. i do not want to spend all my time talking up from. i want to listen to you and answer your questions. i want to give some brief remarks. it is wonderful to be back in bristol, va. this is the first town but i visited in the general elections after i had won the nomination for them in my mind -- nomination. in my mind, this is where change began. i want to talk about how we are going to deliver on that promise of change. i do not want to talk too long. i do have to take some questions from you, and michele's probably the milling about grabbing some food on the way home.

-- emailing me about grabbing some food on the way home. the latest cover of "news we close " said "the recession is over." -- of newsweek" newsweek"the recession is over." i am sure you found this confusing. the market is up. the financial system is no longer on the verge of collapse. we got news yesterday for the first time in three years housing prices have actually gone up. when i took office, we were losing jobs at nearly double the rate that we are losing them now. we may be seeing the beginnings of the end of the recession, but that is little comfort to

the folks who lost their jobs and have not found another one. virginia is weathering this recession a little bit better than many the other states. i would like to think that some of that has to do with the great leadership here in virginia. unemployment even in virginia is now over 7%. too many virginia families are being crushed by health care premiums. we know that tough times are not over. we also know that without the steps that we took early on, six months ago, are troubled economy would be much worse. but the run 3 fax. when we came into office, we were facing the worst economy in our lifetime. we were losing an average of

700,000 jobs a month. it was nearly impossible to take out home loans or student loans or loans for small businesses. economists across the spectrum all thought it was possible we might dip to another great depression. there were some that thought that doing nothing was an option. i disagreed. i thought we had to act boldly and firmly. we took steps to avert the collapse of our financial system. we enacted the most sweetened it recovery package in history. we did not do it without -- we did without any the earmarks that usually accompany these bills. there is a lot of misinformation about the recovery package. i want to get the record straight.

roughly a quarter of the funding -- over 3000 parts of been approved. thousands have been posted online as part of our effort to be accountable when it comes to recover -- recovery. it is made of the many parts. the first part is all about tax cuts for you. for americans struggling to pay rising bills, we kept a promise i made during the campaign. we put in middle-class tax cut in the pockets of 95% of working americans. 95% of working americans are getting a tax cut. it started about three months ago. you may not have noticed it, because it is coming in your paycheck each time you get one. it is spread out over the course of a year. small businesses also received

tax cuts. about 1/3 of the stimulus package was actual tax cuts to help folks pay their bills, whether it shopping here at kroger or paying their electricity bill for being able to pay off the credit card bill. all helps stimulate the economy. that was about 1/3 of it. another 1/3 of the package was thto help people and states to a fallen on hard times -- who had fallen on hard times. we expanded unemployment benefits. that measure has already made a difference in the lives of 12 million americans. 180,000 people in the virginia have extended unemployment. we are making health insurance 65% cheaper for families who are

relying on cobra while they are looking for a job. does everybody know khobar is? has anyone ever been on cobra before? this is a program that allows you to keep your healthcare premiums, pay them, if you use -- if you lose your job. a lot of time did you lose your job you cannot keep your premiums. we pick up 65% of those premiums so people could still keep their health care. we provided assistance to the states who were facing historic budget shortfalls. that meant he did not have to lead off -- lay off teachers are firefighters. -- teachers or firefighters. more than 300 sheriffs are still

keeping your community state. -- communities safe. that is 2/3 of the economy. -- of the recovery. that is what this recovery package is about. the last 1/3 of the recovery was making a vital investments and putting people back to work and creating a stronger economy for the future. we are already seeing the results. there are upgrades to community health centers throughout western virginia, allowing people to serve more patients. all across virginia, we are rebuilding roads, highways, bridges, as part of a large new investment of infrastructure

since eisenhower build the interstate highway system in the 1950's. and a lot of this will take a lot of time to complete. it is not solving our problems at once. we are stabilizing its economy and moving it forward in part because of the actions that we are taking. i am not going to rest until everybody who wants to find a job can find a job. there is little debate that the steps we've taken have helped stop the freefall. this has all cost some money to do it. when i hear some critics talking about out of control spending, i cannot help but remember those same critics who contributed to $1.30 trillion deficit that i inherited when i walked in.

we have to keep this in perspective. what is true is because of the debt that we inherited, a lot of people are saying that we cannot go any further. we cannot do health care special. binder stand why people feel -- i enter stand what people feel like they have to cut back -- i understand why people feel like they have to cut back. part of the reason we are doing this town hall at kroger is because kroger provide health- insurance to its associates. as many as it can. that is significantly different than a lot of companies out there who are not providing health insurance for their employees. in some cases is it not because they do not want to, it is because they cannot afford to.

health care is going up so fast that i hear from small and large businesses that say it is unsustainable. our costs are going a 20% or 20 -- or 30% a year. over time, either employers are either pushing more costs on to their employees in the form of higher premiums and deductibles for they to stop providing health insurance altogether. that is why even if you have health insurance, you need to make sure we can turn the system around. premiums are going up 1/3 faster. we spend $6,000 more per person on health care in this country than any other nation on earth. we are not getting a good deal

for the amount of money that the year spending. -- that we are spending. if you were children spinning 6000 lots more on your card in your neighbor, -- you were spending $6,000 more on your car and then your neighbor, you would say you want a better deal. that is why we have to reform. let me just talk a little bit about what exactly we are trying to do and what it will mean for you. no one is talking about a government takeover. folks were all riled up. they are listening to certain radio programs and watching certain cable shows. somehow they think we are going to take over healthcare. i tried to say this over and over again. if you are happy with their health care, we will not force

you to change it. kroeber's is providing health care to its employees. -- kroger is is providing health care to its employees. we will not change. we will try to work with and they and others to see if we can control the cost so they can keep on providing health care at an affordable cost for all of you. we are not going to be changing your system if you are happy with what you got. under the reform, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. if you are one of 46 million americans who do not have health care, you will be able to get quality, affordable coverage. what they have not focused on is the fact that for people who have health insurance, often they are not getting a good deal. the reforms we are proposing will help make dealing with insurance companies a little bit

easier for the american people. right now we have a system that works well for the insurance industry but does not always work for the customers. what we need and will have our health insurance consumer protections to make sure that those that have insurance are being treated fairly. we will stop insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. i will never forget watching my mother on her hospital bed dealing with cancer, trying to argue with companies even though she was paying her premiums, saying that she had a pre- existing conditions even though it was ninth diagnosed when she got her insurance. -- was not diagnosed when she got your interest. that was not right. i am sure many of you are in the

same situation. insurance companies will have to abide by a rule that says they cannot drop you because of a pre-existing condition. if you lose your job or change your job or decide to start your own business, you are not prevented from getting health insurance. that will give you security in a tough economic situation. they will have to abide by a yearly check on how much they charge on out-of-pocket expenses. no one to go broke because they are sick. -- should go broke because they are sick. we can prevent illnesses and instead of just paying for it when they are going to the emergency room because they get really sick. no longer will insurance companies be allowed to drop coverage for somebody who becomes too seriously ill. it is not right. it is not fair.

they will not be a toothless are richard caps on coverage -- not to be able to put caps on arbitrary coverage. those reforms become more urgent each year. in washington there has been a lot of talk about the politics of health care. they have been saying obama has to get this done for his political life. first of all, i hardly have health care. i am only six months into a four year term. i'm not thinking about the policies. i'm thinking about the fact that if we do nothing and i can guarantee the premiums will double, more people will lose coverage, business profits will be strained which means they will be able to hire fewer people, and our federal budget is going to blow up because most

of the growth in our federal budget is not on of pork projects. most of the growth in federal funding is medicare and medicaid spending. it is not even close. if we cannot control the rate of inflation on health care, then it does not matter. i could eliminate every single non-defense program out there. you would still have a huge deficit. the only way we can get control of this is if we can control health care costs. that is why it is so important. i'm confident we will get it done. we will get it done because of you. even though the american people are suspicious of what goes on washington, they have to recognize that when we meet a challenge we do not start over. this is a major talent. -- challenge. this will fix our schools and

will be energy independence for the future and we will fix our health care system so that our families are secure in their economy is stronger. i hope i can count on your help. i appreciate you hosting today. i will start taking questions. thank you very much. [applause] i am just going to call on people as they raise their hands. i will go girl boy, girl boy. and no one people to think i am biased. -- i do not want people to think i am biased. we have one lady here and gentlemen here who have microphones. introduce yourself. if you can stand up so everybody can see you in here you, i will try to answer your questions.

>you can let it go. >> [inaudible] >> you are exactly right. we have medicare the covers people 65 years and older. seniors are very happy with medicare. rightfully so. this week is the 44th anniversary of medicare being put in place. you should know that the same arguments you are hearing now about health care reform you are hearing back then about medicare.