decrease. we got the other 50 of the small business owners into a chamber of commerce. they contracted with the city and the downtown malls. the result was 35 groups from all over the world came to see the indianapolis miracle. it was the highest crime, disinvestment community. 78 million in public and private investment. it became the shining star of the west. all because of one conservative policy-makers understood free- market. same with alabama. i got a call from 15 leaders in alabama, who came into my office saying that they had 15 people that would be evicted because they did that have a working

septic system. they were going to go to jail. they did not come to me because i was conservative and i did not respond well the democrats. they were people in need and i thought i had an answer. the long and short as i recruited a group of business leaders. in five years week collected millions of dollars. we put in two industrial parks. the county's first real recreation center. yet the civil-rights people were marching every year. i spoke in a black church down there, telling them that they needed to stop marching from selma to montgomery because all you are doing is celebrating crucifixion. even jesus did not hang out at the cross. [laughter] .

. >> all we really need to do for conservatives in the future is giving people time to sober up and return to their natural conservative senses. the thinking goes that the

levels of power will return to our skillful hands by chasenned ant grateful electorate. this thinking he says i suggest is absolutely fay stall. that it is far more important to understand that culture is also image, story, myth, vision, picture. it is poetry as well as prose, fiction as well as nonfiction. motion picture as well as journal articles, culture, movie, imagination as much as the intellect. it speaks to the spirit and the heart as much as the mind. this is why we can't reach our kids! they don't care about the analysis of an issue. they just feel as if social justice is important. and we got to demonstrate to them that our principles make better people and improve communities. [applause] >> it is the evidence. when john the baptist's servants

came to jesus and said "are you the one? must we seek another?" jesus didn't pull out a powerpoint. [laughter] >> jesus healed in their presence. and said to them, "the blind can see. the lame can walk and the sick are healed. go back and tell your master what you saw." we have got to -- if we want to attract people to the principles that we stand for, we have to be witnesses to them that these principles produce better people and improve communities by reaching out. we got to have a ground strategy that reaches out to people. and encourages them to come to us because we offer a better -- not a better argument. because i believe that results

always trumps an argument. evidence always trumps an argument. [applause] and the paradigm that i use in my book -- folks, that's a commercial, folks. be very clear about. that in my book "the triumph of joseph" to understand what i just told you and what should the relationship be between the rich and the poor. in my book "the triumph of joseph" i think that's a beautiful paradigm to describe what the consecutive movement and what the steam boat institute should be about. in the book of genesis, joseph was one of 13 children who had the ability to interpret the future. but he was very arrogant. he was sold into slavery, languished for many years, falsely imprisoned. but he was faithful to his god. he never defined himself as a victim. and he went to prison. and pharoah had dreams he

couldn't answer. and his servants reminded him this now 21-year-old hebrew boy had the ability to interpret dreams. so when they came to joseph and said, "josephs, i understand you can interpret dreams." he said, "no, the last time i said that i got in trouble." [laughter] >> so he said, "no, i am merely the vessel. i am the vessel. god interprets the dreams but i am his instrument." so he had become broken and humble. god can't use big shots. none of the great leaders in the bibles are big shots. they're broken people. so joseph came to him and saidd there be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine. save up 20%. that's the first flat tax. [laughter] >> it's in the bible. right? it's in the bible. flat tax, 20%. and the bible says, "and egypt

prospered for 500 years until there arose a pharoah that knew not joseph." the public housing residence. we are currently in 47 schools in six cities, dramatically reducing youth violence in some of the worst schools ba we have recruited young adults who god has lifted up from drug addiction and from gang activity and transformed them and we put them back into that community so that they are a positive virus. and now they are transforming them. we're being helped by the bradley foundation. we're being helped. the josephs of this world can come together with the ifs. if and joseph came together not because joseph was a face-based program -- faith-based program. because if had to reach across racial and ethnic lines to select and empower an uneducated

hebrew shepherd. but joseph had a secular record of success. and that's the basis of their relationship social entrepreneur. you know and i know that what drives this economy are entrepreneurs. they are less than 3% of the population. but they account for 80% of the new jobs. and our free market economy, entrepreneurs tend to be c students, not a students. a students come back to universities and teach. c. students come back and endow. [laughter] [applause] >> right? because see if you're not very smart like me, you don't have to know all the answers in order to act. smart people have to have all the answers before they act. and by the time they act the opportunity is gone.

and so the people that i serve, we have about 2,000 leaders in 39 states. they're black, they're brown, they're white. who in those communities, they are the social entrepreneurs. and we serve of them as venture capitalists. two things that a venture capitalists bring to the table, they bring capital and managerial expertise. because entrepreneurs tend to be very poor bookkeepers. and they have to be honest and coachable. and when the venture capitalists help them grow along the continue up. steam boat needs to have -- kontinuum. steam boat needs to be the one think tank that has a ground strategy, that goes out into the communities and seeks the josephs and learn and listen to them so that they can grow alongside you and inform you as

to how you can change this world that we live in. and so it is with this that i end my remarks to tell you that i'm frankly excited about the future. because in every crisis there's an opportunity. [applause] >> because any entrepreneur wants to know what the deal is. smart people want to know what the 401 q plan is. entrepreneurs want to know what the deal is. [laughter] and so we really need to join with those people, the social entrepreneurs that i spoke of, and come together and see if we can't reshape this nation. and then we will reach our children. because just having secular

success didn't get it. i know a lot of secular successful people who are morally spent. the country is littered with people who are materialistically successful. may tyler moore, the hemmingways, the wal-marts, all lost children. i mean, mcgovern, all these people lost children to suicide. the secular success were the solution then you won't have wealthy people losing children to drug addiction or suicide. so whatever you do, it has to have a moral and spiritual dimension to it. and that's what our kids are excited about. they don't believe the conservatives know how to have fun. [laughter] >> god bless you. [applause] >> thank you. i'll take questions.

[applause] >> thank you. >> bob's agreed to take a few questions. and please don't yell them out. bob, you choose the people and i'll bring the microphone to them. >> this lady? hold on. >> you're right on. i'm a god-fearing christian. my question to you is the following: i say this to people. i'm not from colorado. i'm from wisconsin. but i've lived all over, including the dreaded california. but my question is the following, and probably an answer as well. it appears that america has lost -- or at least the american government has lost its first two loves, the love of god and thinking that they're above god and losing his covering hand,

and secondly and importantly they've forgotten the people. they've forgotten how to be a civil servant. and i'd like to hear your comments on that. >> one of the things -- you're right. we almost act like we have to apologize for saying we're god-fearing people. i believe in our founding principle, god is all over the place. why we're afraid to say it. and we can do that without preaching to people. you know, i think we can -- and so -- and this is what we do. anybody that goes into a gang neighborhood the way my people do and risk their life every day, they're either crazy or god-centered. [laughter] >> i mean, go in those communities. these kids have my cell phone number. and i have made a -- and my people i serve have made a lifetime commitment to them. the reason they can be transformed from predators and drug dealers and drug addicts and prostitutes is only through

god's grace. only through god's grace. and you've got to open yourself to allow god to use you. but you got to say it in such a way that you're not talking down to people, that you're not morally judging them. i tell people the fact that i'm a cardiac christian is my hang up. but when i speak this way towards young, urban and city kids -- because i can tell you right now, this is a point. the gangs in america are recruiting -- the aryan nation is recruiting white, middle class kids from orange county. the mexican cartel when black and hispanic g.i.'s go across the border to those bars they're recruiting them. the only ant dote to that is to

-- antidote to that is to offer an alternative to these young people. what we're doing at the center for neighborhood enterprise we're recruiting among that same population and recruiting them and bringing them to god and bringing them to responsibility. but what we're doing in terms of employment is giving them responsibility and paying them to be mentors to kids in that environment. when someone gets bitten by a snake, what is the antivenom? what is the venom? it comes from the snake itself, doesn't it? well, we use the same phenomenon. that the healthy -- the most constructive form of treatment of the human body is strengthen its own immune system. these josephs represent the ability -- these are the corpuscles inside that helps you

to restore. collectively the immune system. this is what's going to save this nation. not an employment program, but something that appeals to the spirit of people. yes, sir. >> thank you for appearing here today. and i applaud your efforts. but please tell me why in the black community it appears to most of us that the only spokespersons are the reverend jackson and the reverend sharpton. whenever there is an event pertaining to the black community, the media runs right to them to interview them. why hasn't the black community developed more articulate spokespeople like yourself to be heard on national media instead of these two guys? >> well, first of all, it is

american corporations and foundations that validate these clowns. [applause] >> and let me just tell you this: when republicans took over in '94, some of us who had worked closely with them, they turned their back on us instead, went to those same people, invited them in. walter williams said "one of the curses of the republicans when they get into office is they're too willing to sacrifice old friends to appease old enemies." ronald reagan was the only person when he got into office, he didn't change friends. he invited us. and i brought 25 black leaders to come to meet with him and his

cabinet at the white house. and we were on the front page of the "new york times." and it says "reagan refuses to meet with these other people." but reagan was the only one who refused to meet with them. when we really asked -- when the president bush got elected, asked the cabinet office would they come and speak at our ban get, all of a sudden -- banquet all of a sudden there were ethics issues. but when african liberal groups chaired by harry bell ton take asked them to -- belafonte asked them to come they were right there. so what message? in other words, the black community, everyone else said, well, if connedy rice and all these -- condy rice and all these cabinet officers republicans are on the forums of these liberal organizations it validates them.

and then you've got corporations paying, you know, these urban pirates called akorn. [applause] >> paying then ransome, the community says, well, the bank where i bank, city bank, is giving $2 million to jackson and akorn, they must be ok. because otherwise why would they fund them? so you have a responsibility to change all of that by advising people against validating pirates. >> next question. >> thanks for your remarks.

the issue of race has been brought into a new light recently. i wonder if you can share with us your observations on how this has been manipulated and also your prescription or your recommendations as to how to -- how to stand and face this challenge. >> i think it was newt gingrich, first of all, people would rather be called anything but racist. it's an insend quarter issue. and some of us -- insinned year issue. we are not where we were in the 60's -- insendiary issue. but there are some vesiges of racism that exist. as newt gingrich said, the

conservative movement will never be a popular movement as long as it's perceived to be against the interests of poor people and minorities, ok? but what i think should happen when there is an example like in a case in pennsylvania when these little black campers were expelled from this swimming pool. that was a clear example of racial discrimination. conservatives should have been the first to speak out against it. but they were silent. they were silent. but conservatives are too willing to speak out when there's a disgruntled white fireman but not when there is an actual example of racial discrimination. you need to do both. [applause] >> but it is not -- you don't do that. another example in pennsylvania

two municipal pal judges closed the public jail and contracted with a private prison and took 2.6 million in bribes and incarcerated 2,000 kids who should never have been imprisoned. and they're facing about 20 years in prison. talking about what is the conservative response to poor people. i didn't see any member from the federalist society coming together as a group and saying, we're going to go down and meet with the parents of these kids and try to get them -- clint bolick is the only one with the national institute of justice that is a public interest law firm in the conservative movement. so parents have to look to the aclu, the poverty law center, all the liberal groups. we really need to develop a

cadre of legal scholars who are prepared to intervene on behalf of low-income people and have a presence when these things occur. then and only then can people take the conservative movement seriously when it comes to that. just like in everywhere -- and jack kemp when he was hud secretary, when i told jack, "when you get off an airplane you don't go downtown to kiwanis. you go to public housing. and you invite the mayor to meet you there because the mayor has never been there." [laughter] >> and so when jack would come into public housing, the plane was met by residents. and jack would -- they'd have a big flag up, welcome mr. secretary. and jack would meet and greet with them. then jack would take about 10 of them home downtown with him and

have a front table and introduce them to their neighbors. this is what jack did in every city. so whenever jack kemp -- if you go look at hearings, whenever jack kemp appears on capitol hill, the first five rows are filled with black faces. because we bus people in three hours before the hearing and took up all of the seats. but that's the kind of following -- and jack kemp was never had any protests. and protestors in boston, akorn got off to picket him. when they got off the bus they were like 20 rough-looking guys standing there saying "you need to get on that bus and get right on back." [applause] >> but let me just end this by saying on the issue of race, going back to the bible, in the book of matthew whenever jesus was in the room with some people

and his dissign els said, "master, -- disciples said" ter your mother and sister and brother are at the door." he said, "who is my mother and sister and brother but those who do the work of my father." and he looked at the people in front of them and said, "behold, my sister, my mother and my brother." what jesus was saying is something that i say. you may be my color, but more important i want to know are you my kind. [applause] >> that's the basis of our relationship. i want to know, do you share my heart? and if you do, i don't care if you're rich, poor, white, black. if you share the heart for the people that god has given us to

serve, we can work together. and that's what's going to move us beyond where we are. [applause] >> bob woodson. [applause] >> what a wonderful way to start. >> today on c-span a healthcare town hall meeting with virginia democrat senator mark warner in fredricksburg, virginia. that's at 6:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> on tomorrow's "washington journal" a look at the congressional debate on healthcare with brian friel of national journal around david talkings of c.q. weekly. then amy dean talks about her new book. and later a discussion on the history of opposition to unions in america with author lawrence richard.

"washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. >> september 1st marked the 70th anniversary of the start of world war ii. tonight a come member racial >> here's justice ginsberg on what it's like working with the other judges. >> i will say you will be surprised by the high level of collegial here. this term i think we divided 5-4 in almost one-third of all the

cases. one might get a false impression from that degree of disagreement. justice scalia once commented that in his early years on this court there was no justice with whom he disagreed more often than justice brennan. and yet, justice scalia considered justice brennan his best friend on the court at that time. and he thought the feeling was reciprocated. the public wouldn't know that from reading an opinion by brennan, a dissent by scalia or the other way around. but these were two men who genuinely liked each other, enjoyed each other's company. >> hear from other justices during supreme court week as c-span looks at the home to america's highest court.

starting october 4th. >> a look now at the british healthcare system with the british ambassador for health and life sciences. he was a guest on today's "washington journal." >> dr. -- is the british ambassador for health and life sciences and is here to help us understand a little bit more about the british healthcare system. welcome to the program, sir. >> thank you. >> first, tell us what is the british healthcare system? and how does it work? >> well, it's a national health system. system. it was created back in 1948 by a very charismatic politician. we celebrated its 60th anniversary last year. the principles and values are the unique -- very much in our country as part of our social fabric. health care is provided at the

point of need, in respect of of your ability to pay and everyone in the u.k. and england has the right of free health care. it is universal coverage to every citizen in this country. host: so the people in great britain have a choice between private and public if they cannot afford private? then they go to the public? or is everyone under this public health care system? guest: firstly, the majority of health care provision in the u.k. is public. there is however a 10% market in private insurance. that has been a constant feature over the years. and has reduced of the last four or five years. i will explain in a minute. as far as choice is concerned you certainly do have the

choice act you wish to speak private insurance, but more importantly in our public system there is a legal right -- and this was part of the reform i took your parliament -- there is a legal right for every person seeking health care to have free choice of any provider in england. that is a very powerful lever for the patients. the whole reform agenda of the last decade is how do we empowered the patients and the public? the right to choice in the public sector is one of the most powerful levers we have in england. host: we have a little more from tonight's show with the author of the "killing of america, a

global quest for better, cheaper, and fairer health care." we will look at that and then have more conversation with our guest. >> we moved to london in 1998 and our kids and you're risking my life. my wife and i said we would make the transition as easy as possible. my 13-year-old goes over to a neighborhood, pretty dodgy one, and finds some stores selling for 10 pounds brass earrings. you have to have pierced ears. the guy goes ahead and pierce's her ears. two days later she wakes up with a swollen here. it is very painful. we have been in the country for four days and did not know where the doctor was or anything. we got into a taxicab. the driver says no problem, took this to st. mary's hospital next to paddington station.

this is solana. as you walk in the hospital and there's a gold plaque that says on october 28, 1928 sir alexander fleming discovered penicillin in this hospital. it looked like it had not been painted since 1920. british hospitals are gross and a bucket sketching leaking rain, not reassuring. but a woman comes -- she is the head of award. she takes my daughter into the room. 10 minutes later a doctor comes along. after a while she comes out and they have fixed the air, given her stern lecture on hygiene. she was cured and fine. you can imagine how i felt. i felt great. i walked over and pulled out my checkbook. the matrons is with great pride, no, you put away your checks. we do it differently here.

free, go home, no bill, paperwork. no co-pay or deductible. but turned to my wife -- and i said there are different ways to deliver health care. they haven't figured out. host: dr. ara darzi, british ambassador. is this a typical experience with the british health-care system? guest: before i begin to answer i have to declare an interest. some of your viewers may not do this, but and the surgeon, a surgical oncologist. in a fully active clinician. -- but i am a surgeon. i actually work at st. mary's hospital for your guests visited back in 1998. may i also suggest that, or at least clarify that yes,

alexander fleming did discover penicillin at st. mary's hospital. the answer to your question is, absolutely. that is what our health-care system is all about. you obviously had a very friendly driver. may i just make a plug for our taxi drivers who took the child and family to the right place. matrons are very powerful figures in our hospital and i'm glad to hear the doctor did the right thing. this is back in 1998. if the treatment was satisfactory then, a lot has changed since 1990. i was appointed in the hospital back in 1994. -- much has changed since 1998. the whole health service has been completely transformed. host: we appreciate your candor,

sir. we want to let listeners and viewers know how they can get involved. we have a special line for residents of the united kingdom. we will be simulcasting live on the bbc parliament channel. for those across the pond would like to get involved in the conversation, please do. you can also send us an e-mails or a message by twitter. let's take all look at some comparisons of united states and u.k. health-care systems.

the source for this is a "the guardian newspapers." everything seems to be relatively equal in these comparisons. your thoughts? guest: i agree. the comparisons you are now making are after 10 years of major reform. that is why we are very proud of the healthcare system.

the only difference as you have highlighted are the costs. there's a huge difference in the cost between $6,800 and $2,600 per person. if you took those very high indicators, they are equal, but there's a big difference in cost. host: how is the healthcare system paid for in the uk? guest: it is paid through taxpayers. it is through the taxes collected at the national level and the government makes the assignments are budget expenditure as in most other public services. our current expenditure in

healthcare is about 8.3% of gdp. the me give an example. back in 1998 for your previous speaker visited st. mary's hospital, our expenditure then was about $43 billion -- 43 billion pounds, which is about $90 billion. now spend 110 billion pounds which is nearly $200 billion. we have seen significant growth in the past decade. it has come with major reforms, improving access, improving the quality of health care. i had the privilege over the last two years of working with many clinicians and colleagues to design the next decade.

host: our first call for dr. ara darzi comes from california on the line for independents. caller: thank you, doctor, for taking time to address these issues. i personally am on social security in the u.s. and the simon covered basically on what is public health. -- and i am basically covered on public health. i have been on the other side where i have been denied services and have had to suffer many of the problems my fellow countrymen have over the years. there is an obvious disconnect in this country with the idea

that we can have the best of services. i would like to address this. maybe tell my country how this can work. guest: yes, well, thank you, sir for that. i support that. one of the challenges we have when we look at the debates in the u.s. is in the u.k. every person has a bright to access to health care. -- has a right to access. it is part of our social fabric. when we look at the u.s., and i

speak as a condition -- depending on the figure, up to 45 or 50 million people having no access, that is quite disturbing considering that we all look up to the u.s. in all aspects of life. on the other hand, it is quite important to make this point that in the u.s. you also have some of the best health care providers in the world globally. you should all be very proud of that. i have had the privilege of working with many organizations in the u.s., spend time in kettering in new york, no people in the cleveland clinic, at the mayo clinic, and these organizations have got it right. they have worked very hard to improve access locally. the differences unique in the

u.s. from the u.k. are different parts of the u.s. which have different local access and quality issues. that is why for me as a condition we're looking with great interest on what you're trying to do here in the u.s. it is the opportunity of a lifetime to sort out your health care system. you have the best on one hand, on the other you have issues of how to really provide universal access. could i also make a point about the universal access? i am not suggesting that our system could be transplanted. you need a u.s. solution to your problem of universal access. how you find that is a completely different debate which must be debated and the solution found within the u.s.

system itself. host: were the u.s. to try to go to universal system, how would the differences compare between a u.s. system and a u.k. system? what needs to be established here? guest: a universal health-care system as we have it is a single-payer been funded by taxation. universal health care system in the u.s. will certainly not be single-payer, or universal taxation because you have other vehicles and which you have provided coverage to many of your citizens. ultimately, if you look at the expenditure, who pays for it? either the individual as in the u.s., or the employer in the u.s., or the government in the u.s. there is no other source of

funding. if you look at those three, then you try to identify it away to provide universal health care by these three different mechanisms. that debate and the solution for it has to be the leadership of congress and senate to find the right solution. i do not believe, and neither do i think that the model we have which is 60 years old is the model for us, the model you employ in the u.s. the principle of having universal cover, whether by the individual or by the government, i believe strongly is the correct model. if you look at most industrial countries they have universal coverage of some sort. but the mechanics are very di >> we're talking with dr. ara darzi, the british ambassador

for health and life sciences about the british healthcare system. our next call comes from austin in manhattan, kansas on our line for republicans. >> hello. >> go ahead, austin. >> yes. it's always great to be able to speak on c-span. i watch this show on a daily basis. first of all, i'd like to thank the doctor for his kind compliments as far as our healthcare providers. i'm sure the u.k. provides the same courtesies to their patients. there's a couple of questions. on that universal, now, we showed a slide example of an individual that brought his daughter in for an ear infection. but my first question is, what about as far as a more extreme case, cancer or somebody with

more of a long-term medical condition? is that also all paid for through the taxation process? because it's all paid for by the government? the next question then is, what are the taxes per individuals in come? how does that compare to the u.s.? one of our major concerns is right now we're looking at robbing peter to pay paul. people in the u.s. are more concerned about their taxes being raised to provide for this care. eventually, i know we will have to raise taxes. host: thank you for your call,

austin. guest: as far as cancer -- my specialty is cancer surgery. i'm a surgeon working at st. mary's hospital. the answer is yes, it irrespective of your condition, cancer is very much -- every healthcare is universal and free at the point of need. many things have happened in cancer. if you look at two decades ago our cancer mortality rates were not as good. a significant amount of reform and funding has gone into cancer treatment. one area i should qualify is that every u.k. citizen is registered with the primary care physician.

if you have any symptoms you good to see that primary-care physician who then makes the referral to a hospital. say a patient has a high -- the general practitioner feels there is a suspicion the individual might have cancer, that patient is referred to my clinic. i have to see the patient within two weeks. once a i see the referral letter, the patient who might have the suspected cancer is through the whole cancer pathway to see me, it get the diagnostic tests done, the diagnosis established, the treatment which is surgical it that cancer needs it, and then referral to the oncologist if the patient needs further chemotherapy. the first part including the

surgery is done within 18 weeks. if the patient is receiving chemotherapy, then that one goes through treatment course for up to six months. all that is covered. as far as long-term conditions, and you're absolutely right to ask about that question -- one of the impact of technology and innovation of the last 50 years -- we have in away transformed something that is a legal into a long-term condition. in england we know that we have 17 million people with long-term conditions. the biggest or diabetes, heart failure, as my, depression, and others. the management of those are mostly done in primary care by your general practitioners who

are well-equipped to manage them. as the burden of long-term conditions is increasing we are investing more in primary-care. we are improving care to prevent readmission to hospital, the costly bit of long-term conditions. because if you look at some figures, not necessarily in the u.s. but in other parts of the world, long term conditions is one of the big challenges facing us in the next decade or two because it could be extremely costly if you treat long term conditions in hospital environments. it is best treated by prevention. how you prevent someone getting a relapse of asthma? someone getting a relapse from the chronic obstructive airwave disease? such as with emphysema?

the best, most effective and cost-effective way is through your primary care physicians. that is what we call the general practitioners. that is the rock of our health- care system. host: your next call comes from london. caller: good morning, we are in anglo-american family. my husband is 72 and a u.s. resident and u.k. residents. we would like to use his example and that of my 86-year-old mother to give the lie to the fear mongering spreading in the u.s. regard to -- were guarding the palace. my husband has had non-malignant carcinomas removed recently superbly. two cataract operations, success super.

he contributes as a u.s. citizen to american medicaid and is happy to do so because we believe is right for all citizens to pay towards the health care of all. regardless of whether he personally will ever benefit from that. my 86-year-old mother had a heart attack last year. her post-heart attack care has evolved ct scans, specialist, hematologist, cardiology, diabetes care, specialist nursing, and this for a 86-year- old lady. please, please, pass the message to all our friends in the u.s. -- do not believe in that panels. they do not exist here. thank you. host: dr. ara darzi? guest: i'm delighted to hear this, someone who works in this and has the experience.

it is the pride of what we do. that is what we hear from our patients. that is a fantastic example of someone with good experience. we may not do this with every patient. no health care system is able to do this with every patient. this is why over the last two years some reforms we have introduced -- and i have taken the bill through parliament. from now on every provider in england will publish on an annual basis something called a quality account. besides the financial accounts of the company, a hospital, they will provide the quality accounts. the patient experience -- we all love to hear the experience of patience as with one of your previous speakers -- will be published openly, a transparent, and patience will make choices based on these.

the concept of death panels -- yes, it has alarmed many of us when we heard some of these statements made. as one of your -- the person who just spoke to us, people are very proud of our health-care system. however, people always want to improve it. there is no health care system that should stay. we're always trying to improve it. how do put the investor sure to actually improve your health care system? host: we have a message from twitter. on top of that i will ask you, how are doctors in the u.k. actually paid? guest: it depends on the

specialties of the different doctors. that is no different than the u.s. the pay is very different in the u.s., but in the u.k. hospital doctors have a salary. it is a nationally-agreed salaried negotiated by the professional bodies and that has been seriously reformed over the last five years. . . >> that's the challenge you have in recruiting more people into general practice. that was reformed back in 2004. so some of your specialists in

the u.s. are paid like some surgeons or interventional card ol gists or others are paid significantly greater than us, but the overall average we are paid not -- the differential isn't that great between us and the u.s. the one difference is that your system has what we call fee for service for the individual surgeons where ours is salaried. and that has different behavioral impact on the actual clip eggs whether you're a doctor who -- clip eggs whether you're a doctor who is providing that healthcare. >> these doctors who are sal rid, are they considered government employees. >> they're not government employees. they're actually employed by the provider of the healthcare. and i think again there's sort of a misconception in the u.s. most of our providers now are called -- if i could explain this -- called foundation trust.

they're actually independent of government but they actually provide care for patients who are obviously through the single-payer system are funded through government. so they are employed by the organization that is employing them. however, the contractual arrangements we do have a national agreement what the salaries of such doctors would be. but there are also some local bonuses and incentives and others in every provider organization at a local level above that salary level. >> dr. ara darzi in addition to being the british am bats dor for health and life sciences is formerly a department. he's also as he mentioned a practicing national health service surgeon, a chairman of surgery at the impeer yol college in london, specializing in minimally invasive surgery and the use and development of

surgical robots and image-guided surgery. he also was knighted in 2002 for his service to medicine and surgery, and so is also considered lord darzi, also a former member of the house of lords. back to the phones, al my remarks ohio or elria, ohio. wally on our line for democrats. >> that's ok. it's oleary, ohio, west of cleveland. thanks to c-span all the great guests you have for both sides of the story. my question and comment for dr. darzi is this: i think most of us would agree that last year's economic collapse was predicated, caused by greed on the parts of many people, the people mainly making money hand over fist for many, many years. and would dr. darzi agree that if there isn't any fiscally

responsible healthcare reform passed through our government that that will be caused because of greed. does dr. darzi think that lobbyists that the huge insurance companies, wall street, would it be greed that would cause no reform to come to our government? >> dr. darzi. >> i mean, i will try to give my own views about this. and i think -- well, firstly the economic collapse is straining all countries globally. and that point is well-made. however, i agree with the question. one of the challenges facing any country at the moment is the escalating cost of healthcare. and certainly in the u.s., if you look at the international figures you are most challenged

with the cost of healthcare. it's about 16% of your g.d. p. and the growth of that, the uncontrollable growth of that above the economic growth, interestingly enough over the last 4 to 5 years, will have a huge impact on your economy as well. and so i do believe -- and i agree with you, something needs to be done about the cost of healthcare. as long as you do it without damaging what works. you live in ohio. you have the cleveland clinic there which is something you should be very proud of. and they have managed to sort the cost issue because in actual fact the treatment in the cleveland clinic believe it or not is cheaper than many, many other providers which i wouldn't know about. . this issue of cost very

seriously. i can give you a large number of reason why your cost is escalating. i believe there is an overhead issue that needs to be looked at, the administer of cost, not the doctors and nurses that the doctors and nurses that provide the ca e administration of the health care is much, much higher than anything else we have in the u.k. or europe. secondly, there is a lot of fragmentation of health care in the u.s. in other words it probably starts having a general practitioner in the u.k., and that personal is responsible for your health. he or she coordinates your health and makes sure you remain healthy, you are constantly screened for your blood pressure, for your sugar levels, for your cholesterol levels.

so the preventative system is strong where we are. and in the u.s. there is a lot of fragmentation. and if i can say this

reform and that needs to deal with the cost. i am not sure supporting the insurance companies. i think it's important from insurance -- what is happening in the u.s. is that the escalated cost from a provider level is shifted on the insurer and that shifted to the employer and it's the employer that is w5$suffering to this co shift to the system. so the insurance system needs to look at the way in which these costs ever -- costs are much more controlled at a provider level. if you don't look at this, the economic i -- viability will be an issue. they are adding $105 to care

for the insurers in that manufacturer. so that's taking the competitive edge away from you. you are right, we need to do something about the cost. and how you allow it in the system and put in the right incentives to ensure that cost is controlled. host: dr. darzi, recently mike enzy was talked in a health care discussion and claims that the health care system rations its treatment, this is what he had to say. >> this would prevent the government from quality adjusted life year, called qual in the united kingdom. they are measurements to see if

patients need treatment and this leads to the elderly and w disabled deny care. and this would deny care to elderly or disabled patients. and some of the uses it's been used for is repeatedly blocked breast cancer patients from receiving break-through drugs, and forced patients with multiple sclorrosis from getting the treatment they need and for patients with

osteoporosis and denied patients with brain tumors. i don't want that to happen in the united states. host: dr. darzi, your comments. guest: to be honest, these are the comments i have heard from the senators and others that made me come to these programs. because these are the most ludicrous things i have heard. the concept of rationing. what is rationing. and would you describe 48 million people who have no access to health care as rationing. i think there is a lot of misinformation in relation to appraisal of new drugs and

technologies. and that's fair, i will give the benefit of the doubt to the senate. we do have an organization caused the national institute of health and individual excellence. it's independent from government, with its main purpose to produce evidence based guidelines for doctors and nurses to practice and provide health care. that's their function, and also the appraisal of new drugs and technologies. and they do that appraisal to document the doctors, nurses and taxpayers what is the benefit of such drug. and what is the evidence to support that such a drug would have a major impact or a major break-through in a treatment of a condition. they do that independently. and it's about 11 years old.

it in itself was a innon innovative krzprocess, there ar lot new drugs and we wanted a way to appraise them independent of the companies. yes, in some drugs there were debates a few years ago, some in cancer drugs. and a lot has happened over the years in relation to these drugs. but they do not discriminate in age or even know the patients. it's independent and chaired by clinicians and scientists who are looking at the evidence-based to support that. we have a system, we can't be

spending taxpayers' money on completely new and unproven therapies to our citizens at a significant cost. but on the other hand, we are a varied team, and we have been, your first interviewer that came on, mentioned penicillin. we have a strong track record of being innovators in the sciences that we are proud of. i can tell you many discoveries including the m.r.i., and these major break-throughs and discoveries are very important to our health care system. on one hand we are constantly working with the pharmaceutical industry and devices industry. because we 7!zdo want innovatio

because this produces quality and reduces cost, it doesn't increase cost. your notebook computer in front of you is cheaper than the main frame sold to washington in the 60's. and we are looking at these technologies and need them to be effective. host: i didn't mean to cut you off, but want to get in a few more calls. we will go to west norwood in the united kingdom. west norwood, are you there? ok, to athens, new york. caller: yes, i was diagnosed 11 years ago u7/with tongue cancer and treated by a doctor in beth isreal, and it was the most

up-to-date surgery, and successful. and a treating physician was a doctor from england that had left and set up practice here. at the same time one of my neighbors had a brother from scotland come over that was diagnosed with cancer and on a six-month waiting list being treated. he subsequently died and blamed that he couldn't be treated in england at the time. i don't know if that was true but the thrust of the idea. host: dr. darzi, go ahead. guest: first sir, i offer my congratulations /to you, tong cancer is a serious condition and you should be proud to be well. and you should be proud of israel, as one of many good

facilities in the u.s. and scotland may be different, but in england where i work, if a patient has a suspected cancer through their general practitioner, they have to see a specialist in two weeks. otherwise that facility would be penalized. we found clinicians quite tough or four five years ago, because we felt that the system is telling us to do this. and to be honest, most of us accepted that, because it had a tremendous impact of improving the cancer care. so two weeks, it's an indicator that is measured. and i can give you the figures of how many patients who have cancer, and 98-99% are seen within two weeks. and i can tell you since last april, all patients with a

diagnose are treated within 18 weeks, that's three months. from the time you are inferred from a suspected cancer to the treatment for that cancer. so some stories and some experiences may reflect what the health care was in the 70's and 80's, and now we are in a much better shape. if you look at the parameters than we have been. and reemphasizing the point, any health care system, has to be constantly, constantly reforming, chan host: dr. ara darzi, thank you for being with us on the program. he spoke with us from london today. >> tomorrow, look at the congressional debate on health

care with two guests. then, amy dean talks about her book concerning the new deal. later, a discussion on history of opposition to unions in america with the author lawrence richards. >> today on c-span, a health care town hall meeting with bridging a democrat senator mark warner in fredericksburg. -- with the virginia democrat center mark wenner. >> tonight, highlights from senate committee meetings and analysis from a reporter from "the washington post. " >> western energy policy is

discussed by two elected officials. this is about 45 minutes. >> i apologize for the delay. in heading to the panel, i think it is quite a proposed that we broke a circuit breaker. we're clearly in need of some new energy. i think we have gotten not fixed. good morning. welcome to colorado. -- i think we have gotten that fixed. this is one of the most spectacular parts of our country. it is the proud home of the new and thriving energy economy. my name is rob katz and i am the chairman and chief officer of vail resource. we operate five, one in nevada,

and four in california. you might wonder why we have all this in our company. the reason why we are in all these businesses is we sell the outdoors. when people buy anything from us or come to one of our resource they're looking to enjoy the outdoors. it is for that reason that i am honored to ask to moderate this session. a coast guard of the underpinnings of strategies and values of our company. our company is trying to stake out a leadership position. we are trying to be a leader in sustainability, but we are also a public company traded on the new york stock exchange. it is critical to remember our

responsibilities to shareholders. one of our core beliefs is that true success comes from taking a path that does not choose between the environment and profitability. that you can achieve both. thinking that there is some kind of a choice between making the right decisions to protect the planet and to protect shareholders can both be viewed with one lens. in much the same way the new energy economy offers the opportunity to tackle so many challenges at the same time. we can protect the environment by reducing the emissions from fossil fuels. we can create new jobs and improve the overall economy through innovation and new products. we can strengthen national security by reducing dependence on foreign oil. with so many benefits coming from those efforts it should be

clear to everyone how important the new in in the economy is to the country. i could not be more proud of the leadership our state in the entire western region is taking on the issue. it is my pleasure to introduce the panel today. three leaders who know and understand the unique opportunities arising in the west to drive the new energy economy, and in a way that truly honors the western heritage as well. let me introduce senator jeff bingaman who grow up in silver city, mexico after earning a law degree in stanford, he returned there to practice law and start a family. he began the first states attorney general and was first elected to the u.s. senate in 1982. he is currently serving his fifth term in the senate and is the chairman of the energy and natural resources committee where he has led efforts to

shift to a low carbon economy. he also serves on the health subcommittees that are leading the reform effort. you probably know that he recently sponsored historic legislation that successfully put millions of acres of land into wilderness protection for generations. welcome to colorado, senator. next, in honor to recognize our colorado governor. after earning his law degree from university of colorado in 1981, he and his wife operated a fist -- a food distribution center in zambia, africa. he served as vendors district attorney from 1993 until 2005. in 2006 he was elected colorado's 14th governor. in just two and half years he has established a colorado as a national leader in what is referred to as the new energy

economy. recently governor ritter was named the greenest governor in the nation. i want to thank him personally. our company has a major presence in the state and his trip fickle leadership has really begun to turn around our thinking. next it is my pleasure men to introduce raul who was born in tucson, ariz. education, employee rights, and lieberman have been among his top policy concerns. he has been appointed chairman of the national parks, forests, and public land subcommittee. as chairman of the subcommittee he has undertaken a broad set of issues and plays a major role in addressing funding necessary to maintain public lands. he has championed efforts to it bans ecological restoration and

protect endangered species. his commitment to an improved environment is seen through the leadership in several key congressional caucuses including co check-of the national landscape conservation system and the environment task force caucus which he chaired from 2003 until 2006. he is well respected for his expertise and knowledge of land use issues in the west. we're delighted to have you. with that, i will turn it over to you senator bingaman. >> thanks. it is great to be here with this distinguished panel. talking about the new energy economy obviously brings to mind that to a significant extent in the west, particularly in mexico, we have in the last

50 years been concern with the energy coming. i will go into that with more precision. we focus on energy for job creation. we have always depended on it and will in the future. the nature of the energy we're talking about is changing as we speak, but there are also significant things with federal policy trying to drive this transition. drive it from high carbon production too low carbon production, and clearly that benefits us in the west. in my home state of new mexico, the permian basin, the san juan this and provided tremendous amounts of oil and gas of the last half century. there's no question it continues

to do. it is a major part of our economy today. we also have coal production in the state. we did have substantial amounts of uranium production at one point. while these forms, traditional forms of energy have been a great boon to our stake in created many jobs, we have also seen more concentration on energy research and development. we have laboratories in mexico just like you do here in colorado. there is a tremendous amount of focus their on what can be done to meet our environmental problems, to meet our need to reduce dependence on foreign sources. green energy is a term that has come to encompass all of that.

green energy has become a significant part of new mexico's economy. i'm sure that governor ritter and chairman of about particular activities going on in their states. in new mexico we do have solar manufacturers, and others looking at the state. that is positive. we have biofuel projects funded and several are under development. recently the first utility scale solar-generating project was announced. we have several geothermal and biomass projects also under consideration. renewable energy has become a significant factor as the route the rocky mountain west. congress began to recognize its

importance with the passage of legislation in 2005. the energy bill passed that year was criticized in several respects, but had in it some substantial provisions in the nature of tax incentives primarily to encourage alternative energy production, also more efficient use of it. let me just say that my own view is that green energy, the green energy economy, probably needs to have as much emphasis on increased efficiency as new ways to produce more. there is a tremendous opportunity for us to do a better job. it is hard to continue to give that the attention that in my

view it deserves. we passed significant legislation in 2005 and in 2007. in 2007 congress increased the fuel efficiency requirements for the first time in many years. we have seen progress by this administration since the first of the year. we have established a program to guarantee loans for energy projects. secretary stephen shoot is moving aggressively to implement that legislation. -- stephen chu. through loan guarantees, tax incentives, the federal government has tried to weigh in. the energy and natural resources

committee produced a bill that moves us even further. the highlights for the first time, if enacted, would give us our noble electricity standard for the country. colorado has had one for several years, so has mexico. but we are proposing and likely able to pass through congress is not as ambitious as what some states here in the west have. but it would be a substantial step forward and would stimulate demand for efficiency, stimulate demand for renewable energy products. in that legislation we have the establishment of a clean energy deployment administration, a follow-on to the loan guarantee program from 2005. we have a much more robust set of federal policies for the setting of new, critical

electricity lines. that is essential. we need the ability to get the power from where is produced, particularly from renewable sources, to where it is needed. we have a great deal on energy efficiency, in building construction, appliances, in various consumer devices. initiatives to reduce demand for electricity by consumers. there is a lot there. in addition, robert referred to the fact that we have legislation that has been enacted to preserve substantial areas. that has been referred to by several today. congress is working hard to maintain a balance between

developing our energy, the new sources of energy, but also maintain proper protection for the public lands. there's a lot in that legislation we were able to pass that the president signed. there are over 160 public lands bills, many establishing wilderness areas. i will stop with that, but just to say i think this so-called the energy economy, new energy economy, is here to stay. this is not a flash in the pan. we see a genuine transition to new ways to produce and store, use energy. more efficient ways. in my view it is not a sprint, but a marathon. it will take decades.

we need to move aggressively. >> thank you very much, senator. i like to note that senator gary hart has joined us in the ovens. he is a real pioneer. -- has joined us in the audience. [applause] if i could maybe follow up with one question, senator bingaman, what do see as the biggest obstacle in this transition from the historic energy to a new platform? is it technology, funding, political will, infrastructure? >> i think the biggest obstacle is the volatility of the price of traditional fuels. in the past we have had great

enthusiasm for moving to new sources whenever the price of oil would go up. when the price of oil and natural gas dropped again the economic incentives are not adequate to maintain focus. the biggest challenge we have is to persist in pursuing these technologies and developing these alternative ways to produce, store, and save energy, regardless of what the price of traditional fields turns out to be on world markets. >> thank you. gov. richard? >> it is an honor to join the chairman and be here with some of the most powerful voices -- gov. ritter.

colorado like many places in the west has an important lesson and we need to keep promoting. ask the rest of the country to look at us and see what lessons they can them. we began to talk about it in terms of a new energy coming. we think we were the first to use that term. we did not copyrighted. there are many who talk about it that way now. we're not getting paid for it. it was our sense that in this state you could develop a new energy economy. we put aside the energy economy of deal. there are many things about it necessary as a foundation we need to look at the extract to the industry' -- extractive

industries. it moved us to rely more heavily on solar, wind, or do therma, to rely more heavily on efficiency measures to bring down the usage -- or geothermal. natural gas may be the most significant of all sources when asking how to do this in a way to promote energy security as a country, where you do address goals we have set in the state and others to reduce emissions over time, and create jobs. it was also about economic development. we have great stories of what we

have been able to do in the past two years. there has been public policy to support this transition. some of the good news pieces -- is a great story in public, colorado. it was known as a steel town since the 1880's. one of the biggest steel companies produced steel rails. the town's economy was built around up production. but as prices became volatile and there were export issues, and the economy turned off, this company went through a bankruptcy in the 1990's. it devastated the economy of pueblo. last year we got to get a pueblo and announce that one of the largest when it turbine makers was coming and would build the

largest wind tower manufacturing plant there. they would get several hundred new jobs. there is a way to transition from the old to the new. vestas has made a commitment in colorado for 2500 new jobs, four new plants, over $700 billion investment. we have been trying to develop and if a system in colorado with the new energy economy. let me talk about that. we did to build this eco-system. in america one of our old standards is the ability to innovate. we have acolaboratory that we have developed with universities

and the national research laboratory. there are others that are both public and private. river research corridor one of the best in the world in turning out quality research -- we have one of the best in this research corridor. then we can take it and explore it and more commercial way. we have one company that takes this thin film process hatched from the colorado state laboratory. a $15 million loan from the department of energy helped to improve the concert. a venture-capital spent $150 million with 250 new jobs. pull the idea from academics and commercialize it. ultimately we have seen venture capital money come into the state around clean energy technology to help us create

jobs. this is even in a downturn. these companies are all involved in charting a path forward. some are involved in exploring the myths of energy efficiency, and we're doing what we set out to. we are addressing energy security, looking at how we can do this more cleanly, and look at job creation. there have been both direct and indirect jobs. we have public policy that supports it. in 2007 of almost a first bill i signed as governor -- our renewable standard. probably easier for me than other governors because voters had already determined in 2004

at the ballot box to impose a renewable standard on the state -- 10%. when we return to include the rea's and investor-owned utilities to go to 20%, we were able to pass it quickly. that was significant. that was significant for a company like vestas who considered many different states. we also understand that transmission is a very big issue. we need to figure out how to pull from the sun and wind and get it to other places. we looked at how to incentivize

building out transmission from those areas. we have passed legislation for that. we have allowed people to have their meters roll backwards and load on to the grid. by now there are nearly 40 pieces of legislation passed in three sessions that are about clean energy and the new energy economy. as a result we have siemens, the german company, building their international test center in colorado. we have conocophillips coming here to locate their research center for alternative fuels here, that global research center. that is thousands of jobs. two days ago went to a manufacturing company that is proposing a system for fully electric car. they're getting $45 million with

the loan guarantee from the department of energy as part of the recovery act dollars. their projection for the demand, if correct, could mean thousands of jobs to colorado. so, it is about this corridor of research and development as a starting place, then finding a way to commercialize. at the end of the day fine wait for the venture capital money to come to assist. then addressing the economy, environment, and energy issues concerning security. that is it. that is the way we have been promoting it for years. it is important to note the public policy absolutely plays a role. certainly at the federal level we're very happy for the intent on the administration's part and in the senate and congress to address these issues nationally. one that would be tied to a club

policy, taking us to look at greenhouse emissions, and charting a different, clean future. clean coal is one of those things that i think is debatable, but we hope as a coal-producing state that we can invest in research and development. the we could strip of carbon and sequester its. -- it. i appreciate being part of this discussion and thank you gentlemen for the work you are putting into this in washington, d.c. figgie for letting states partner with you. [applause] -- thank you for letting states partner with you. >> one follow-up question -- giving you have had such great

success here in colorado, would you see as a crystallized lessen the federal government could look to that he have taken from the last few years? >> i do think it is important to look at the renewable energy standard. a debate with people. because it operates as a mandate people say the market will eventually take care of that. i do not think so. at the end of the day if we have greenhouse gas emissions goals with energy policy tied to that, then perhaps it could get there without a standard imposed. but as a country we have the ability to lay down a template for other places in the world. considering a standard, the ability to double that is a signal we mean business. it really was helpful in our

ability to build and attract business here. much of the job creation we have done had to do with that standard as a starting point. >> congressman? >> thank you. thank you for the petition and opportunity to meet and interface with people, learn, i am very appreciative. the new energy economy -- the senator also said in his introduction that this is not a fad. it is the reality for the new west. as we begin this very important transition in the nation and west, the other point made about honoring our natural and

cultural resources as we develop energy -- that is the balance question that for many of us will be a defining point. the me limit my role to what role the public lands play in this. they are part and parcel of the legacy of the west. and part and parcel of the acreage and land mass. i would suggest it is significant. not only in the extraction of resources, but also in the balance question. in the house committee bill, and i hope it stays there -- one of the pieces of legislation i have incorporated entirely was that adaptation strategy for public plan. how began to deal with the

fundamental question of global warming and climate change and what role the public lands can play in the transition. one of the town just in the west is indeed the climate change. the effect on metro watershed, on population, and on the economy -- on our water should. we, why we're meeting these goals, not only for independents but to deal with climate change, we need to integrate the role of public lands in the adaptation and ability to control and manage that for the future. public land has a huge role. the energy corridors, the 2005 act concerns me deeply.

the designations were done basically in vice-president dick cheney's office. that begs the question, are they good? [laughter] the point i'm making is that if we are to connect to the grid, alternative and renewable energy that becomes more dispensed to the american people and west, then i think a re-examination of that corridor and its sightings is important. one, they're done without consideration of environmental and tax. there were done concerning how to maintain the grid that has been serving fossil fuel energy. if we're going in a different direction, i suggest that is a challenge we need to examine.

public lands offer wonderful opportunities to be part of the solution. let me raise the issue about extraction of energy from public lands. i believe there are some energies that should be -- some areas that should be hands off. i will use the examine of uranium mining around the grand canyon. the availability for extortion lies all over. there should also be the bill before the federal government to -- and i'm appreciative of secretary salazar for additional study, but there should be some hands off areas that speak to the natural, cultural legacy we

want to maintain. the committee that chairs a lot of fun, but with that is a challenge that we need to be ahead and not just react. the issue of forest management -- the need to be strong and provide resources. the issue of the development of alternative renewable energy and public lands must be an important partner. the protection, conservation of our natural resources needs to be part of that mission. for eight years as we staggered through it has always been either or. i think this project in the west has indicated that it is not an either or proposition, the mutually exclusive contract.

so, we are off that debate. much of what we're trying to recapture right now in congress, and the center can also speak to that, is trying to get back to the balance question. either you go ahead and use the public lands for whatever extraction is available, or you do not -- that is not the question. part of the strategy for the future is to define that balance, get a specific, and understand the role public lands will play in the development now. and in the now with that i am done. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, congressman. i will relate a small story about our company.

we decided to commit to renewable energy by buying credits for wind power. a question that came to me was, why don't you do something with the ski resort stacks a number of people ask why we would not consider putting windmill's on top of the resorts. one of the issues to explain is that they're not like dutch windmills, but real energy- generating units. what do you see as the biggest obstacle as people bring of concerns about preserving natural heritage, view corridors? >> there is a tension there.

and justifiably so, based on eight years of track record, that this is just a hole so giveaway of the lands. the obstacle is to reestablish the transparency, and it is really a functional process. a think the environmentalists and the conservation community would be more comfortable knowing their federal, state, local governments are being transparent, providing oversight, doing the necessary regulatory work so people feel assured once a decision is made that it is based on science, fact. not just on the political consideration.

if our culture were signs-base, many of the problems would be minimized. >> thank you. we have time for a couple more questions. senator bingaman, maybe you could just chat a little about what you see as the biggest benefits coming out of the american recovery and reinvestment act for the new energy economy? >> what a theact allowed us to do -- the act allowed us to have a substantial infusion of funds into alternative energy development, new energy projects that it frankly would have taken us several years to find time and commitment and

resources to do that without the recovery act. the priority the congress putt on moving in this direction was reflected in the amount of funds in the bill committed. that was very good. it gives us something to build on. it happened at the right time when secretary chu was taking his position as secretary of energy. he has a very enlightened approach and has brought in very good people to work with him there. that effort at the federal level complement's the things governor richatter was talking about. >> thank you.

governor, maybe you could talk a little about what is next for colorado? how to rebuild on it? what is the next plateau we will strive for? >> a few different things. if you understand the emissions issue, that is much of what drives our thinking. there is a great deal that can be done with our utility companies and the rural electric companies. duke energy just announced it is building a wind farm on the eastern plains in conjunction with tri-state. this is really good. we quadrupled the amount of wind. part of it is giving everyone involved. the second part is with the major utilities that currently use coal-burning to have the

discussions about conversion to either renewable or natural gas, or both. asked what the things at the state or federal level we can do to incentivize the ending of of not-clean-coal? there is a lot of this tribute -- distributive generation. how do we make it possible for people from all levels to participate on the financial level? it does not matter your income, if you want to install solar, or are building a new house and went to make solar part of it, how can we make financing makes sense for you? it is those major things to

ensure we're doing all we can to incentivize for the transition to clean energy, it and how we help those of middle or lower income to participate. >> great. congressmen grijalva, how has the conversation gone for you? are you able to make progress or come to common ground in terms of pushing forward? >> short of an exorcism -- t [laughter] i'm having a little difficulty. i think the reality that renewable energy is moving in that direction -- it becomes an economic question. if you cannot talk about the philosophical or values, you need to talk about the money involved. $1.9 billion to the state of

arizona, and growing. tourism, recreational use which is essential to the state of arizona. whether the issue, whether there is a philosophical difference or not, the corresponding line will be the bottom line at some point. that is when the conversation will become more productive, especially when you see the economies of some states -- the foreclosures -- that bottom line will have to be taken seriously. this is an opportunity to increase it. that is the way i presented it. i was going to piggyback a second on something the governor said. as we move into this new energy economy, what a great opportunity in the west to make this a unifying and integrative

process. flu we are as peoples in the west is celebrated as part of it. -- who we are. raking sure we don't have to divide iraq us in the advanced communications. what a west, what a wonderful example that we can do it here and have that history. it is another great opportunity. >> we as part of this thinking -- and the chairmen is exactly right -- we looked at the work force and what the demands would be down the line. we formed a jobs cabinet to study this. the research universities do a good job turning now employable

graduates. but what about the blue collar work force that will need to be retrained? we're set upon job training for this new energy economy. also for 21st century industries. we're using community colleges as a part of that. we have a great structure of community colleges here in colorado who are very helpful in thinking about this. it is to ensure that everyone can participate. it is not just a small group of people who can take advantage of it. >> this was terrific. it is such a critical issue. the new energy economy hits on so many opportunities and deals was so many of the staunchest. i want to thank each of you. it has been a great ballad. -- it deals with some many of

the charges. -- it has been a great dialogue. . .

>> she is a daughter of the west, originally from hobbes, mexico. her career has included service as preston of the new mexico state senate and she was the first woman elected lieutenant governor in the state of new mexico. as she prepares her campaign for governor of her own state of new mexico, she is working to preserve the values and heritage of not only mexico but all of the last. after we hear from her, she will introduce another great pioneer of american ingenuity in the 21st -- in a 20th-century, t. boone pickens. then we will come back to you for questions. he thank you. -- thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. it is great to be back and i am honored to have the opportunity

to introduce mr. pickens. a few years back, i think most of you would agree, if you could list all the people you might expect to come to a summit like the project summit, t been pickets made not have been on your list. -- t. boone pickens may not have been on your list. but the fact that he is here says we have discovered this common ground that is important and it shows how serious the challenges we face are in the west and in the country and in the world trade it shows there is a way to reach consensus on how to face these challenges. or at least touch consensus there really should be on how to face these challenges. we all know that the transfer of american wealth to anti-american oil producing countries is killing our economy and it

threatens our national security. there are a lot of things that he boone pickens could be doing with his money right now. -- t. boone pickens could be doing with his money right now. the fact that he is using it to assemble a coalition of 1.6 million strong to move america into the 21st century economy is a pretty good way to spend money if you have it. it really is a movement that matters. we in mexico, and many of you here in the west, have the biggest stakes in how all this really turns out. i grew up in a place called the permian basin in mexico. it is the sixth largest oil stay producing 684,000 barrels a day with the first -- the fourth largest oil reserves. we are also a natural gas giant, producing 1.6 trillion cubic

feet every year. in fact, 70% of all of next go homes are heated by natural gas -- all of new mexico homes are heated by natural gas. we have 25,000 miles of pipeline and almost that many jobs in the industry. we know too well that the status quo is not going to remain the same. we are ready for what is coming. we are building the new mexico wind energy center. in open for business in 2003 and continues to expand. it is the seventh largest wind generation power plant in the u.s. with 136 wind turbines producing two hundred megawatts of power or enough electricity to power 94,000 new mexico homes. we are making a lot of investments in solar. in fact, we have a strong and

growing solar energy hard at work in most segments of new mexico, creating jobs and building those new -- the new energy future right now as we speak. but that is just the beginning for all of us out here in the west. as we build this new energy economy, and we move as fast as we possibly can to renewable, and we know they are a ways off. they are not going to happen tomorrow. we know there is plenty of natural gas in mexico and throughout the west. we are glad that even dickens is here and we are -- we are glad that t been pickens is here and is in support of the new -- we are glad that t. boone pickens is here in support of the new energy. when i asked if there was anything special he wanted me to say, he did not give me that.

i call him mr. pickens. he said to have to introduce me as boone and proceeded to tell me the story -- he said there is a mayor in los angeles and i count pronounced his name and he could not pronounce my name because he said out there is t- bone pickens. somebody else called him t. and i'm sure he will learn to pronounce villaraigosa, but he just wants to be known as boone. please help me welcome t been pickens. -- t. boone pickens. [applause] >> thank you. the governor has introduced me a couple of times, one time in albuquerque and at one time here today. if you don't mind, i'm going to

sit on this tool and i will explain why i work out every morning and. this morning, my butt is sore. [laughter] today it was legs and this is a true story -- i'm 81 years old and part of the legs exercise is squats. i do it with a 65 pound best. i go down on the ball and don't softball. but it is sort. let me tell you -- it is sore. show me by hands if you ever heard of the pickens plan? i'm sure some of the are signed up in my army. we have a million six and i know the governor just said that. 1,600,000 people. i'm in touch with probably 20 million people on the website

and that's a lot of people. what i have found out, my frustration had extended over a number of years. frustration is we are importing more and more oil from countries that are not friendly to us and some of them even hate us. i'm convinced we're paying for both sides of a war and as this unfolds, early in the summer of last year, i said somebody has to get this thing elevated into the presidential debate. you could see more and more was going to happen was that it was going to be me. in the middle of the night, told my wife, this is got to be done. she said that i'm sure you're going to do it, but let's go back to sleep and do it tomorrow. [laughter] next day i started putting together a team of people to

tell the story. with the polling we did, there were not many surprises. i read the public pretty well. number one, they thought washington was lying about energy. washington was not lying about energy. they did not understand energy. if you went back to the nixon era in 1970, he said we'd would not be importing any oil from any country by the end of the decade, meaning the '70s. when he said that, we were importing 24%. at the end of the decade, we were importing 28%. from that time forward, democrat or republican, it was picked up in their campaign rhetoric that he elect me and we will be energy independent. nobody ever held them to it carried the press, the media, never said after a year or two, how are you coming on naked as energy independent. it was forgotten.

-- how are you making us energy independent. i said nobody ever asks them and when you get into something like that, you have rabbit ears. you are wanting to hear something all the time and if you hear it, you want to be sure it is accurate. i said i am going to take the mission and go out there and tell the story. i signed on for a $58 million budget. i didn't try to raise any money. at that time, i was rich and a lot of things happened since then. if it was today, i would not do it. i'm glad it came at the time it did. i think i did tell the story and i think the american people have a better understanding of energy. it is the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind for us to continue. in fact, we release our numbers

every month on how much for a while we have bought. today, they released $24 billion is what we spent last month on foreign oil. it was a good month for it. usually it's higher than that. i am coming from the security issued. security for this country is my number one goal, to get it fixed. we have resources that will fix it. it is interesting because when i opened up on this, last july, we had a press conference in washington and said what the plan was and what we were going to do, it fits the climate people as well because i want to use renewable, wind and solar, we have to have the grit, the west is so important, where you are is right in the middle of the activity that is going to take place.

the wind corridor from sweetwater texas to the canadian border. we have so much opportunity. we have the best land in the world. if you take a solar, it goes west from west texas to -- where's the water. i've got it. the solar goes from west texas to california. across the desert southwest. the opportunities are vast for all of us to capitalize on our own natural resources. that is the key to it. the second resource that is so important to us is natural gas.

we have an abundance of natural gas in this country. the governor and i were talking a few minutes ago and this thing as being better understood all the time. you will be inconvenienced a little bit, not suggesting you make your car pay natural gas car, but over time, that will happen. what i want to go after is 18 wheeler's. it is so easy to see what you can do when you are really focused on something. hope this with me just a second on 18 wheeler's in this country which are 6.5 million. those vehicles, but i propose, and this is then hr 1835 and a senate bill which is very compatible and i think this could happen quickly -- some

want to tell you a quick story about senator harry reid. it was mentioned that would be unlikely in this group of democrats -- you didn't laugh and i was back there and laughed dryly laughed louder than anybody out here. but i am unusual to the crowd. i made call the republican senators and somebody said could you get in to see them. and i said them right, i can't get in to see anyone of those guys. i have been paying the money since god knows how long. [laughter] they had me in and are very respectful but nothing ever happened. that is the sad part of my story. in frustration, i said that i met senator harry reid and he seemed like he would be a person who would listen to me. he may even pay attention and

have an interest in what i have to say. i went to see him for a 15 minute meeting that went for an hour-and-a-half. in that meeting, i said that somehow i think had a mission to tell the story and get us off for a while and we do have resources that would certainly allow us to do it. he listens to me and we talked and i said i am not in this presidential race. this is a non-partisan issue and it's more important than anything i can imagine on going to do the rest of my life. when we got through, we stood up and shook hands and he said i think you got -- you are on the right track. security is the number-one issue and he said you are out of politics and it is a non- partisan issue and we can work together. we should cans and have been working together ever since. he can get me on the telephone in five minutes and i can get him on the telephone unless he

is at the white house. we have worked together and we are on a plan and the plan -- 1835 in the house and 1405 in the senate, if left alone, will allow us to get natural gas into the transportation field business in a big way because we will go after 18 wheeler's. let's say you turn me loose and say we will get it fixed and how fast can you fix it? we could get -- i want to retrofit any equipment. that's too much room for slippage and gaming the system. if you have an 18 wheeler and you run out as long as you want to, but when you buy a new one, you buy an 18 wheeler that uses natural gas, domestic fuel, not for oil.

know this -- battery, and my for? you bet. anything that is america -- american, i'm for it. but a battery will not move an 18 wheeler. when i met with then senator obama last august, he said what i want to do is get to the battery as quick as i can. i said what is a perfect case. and he said everything is on a battery and everything is renewable. i said it's not unlikely we can do that in my lifetime, but you know the battery will not move an 18 wheeler. he said it will? and i said it won't. at -- he said what does? i said natural gas -- it's cheaper, cleaner, abundant, and it is ours. he listened very attentively. let's say we took all 6.5000018 wheeler's as they are retired and you buy natural-gas 18 wheeler.

-- what say we took all 6.5 million 18 wheeler's. we import 4.5 billion barrels from opec. there are countries in opec that not like us. venezuela is in that group. the nigerians, we struggle with all the time. iran is in the group. when you look through it, we get 4.5 million bear -- million barrels a day from opec. we could cut out over half of that with just 6.5000018 wheeler's. that would be big. but the big part -- we could cut out 6.5 billion 18 wheeler's out of that. when they set the table for discussion, we do not have a place at the table because we are consumer. 85 million barrels of oil is produced every day in the world.

we use 21 million of that. we import 13 million to the united states. we are using 25% of all the oil produced every day with 4% of the population. not good. if we tell them we're going to go on our resources year and help ourselves, we will have a place at the table. then we can negotiate for the price of oil to. but when you are sitting away from the table, just a absorbing what's getting ready to happen to you and you have nothing to say about what's going to take place, you don't have a strong position. that is where we have been. we have no energy plan in america for four dears. we have been without a negotiating position for 20 years. he would immediately have a negotiating position if you announce this is what you are going to do and they believe you

are going to carry out. we would not announce it if we did not expect to fill what we said. that is where i am. i don't know what susan has got for me but i will get her out here and a second of let her ask questions. >> i'm going to stand here and ask the questions. i know that you just came from las vegas and you attended a large national clean energy summit with a lot of national leaders. i'm wondering what to take away is from that and you see going forward? >> let's go back before las vegas. we started in july 2008 and had six months during the campaign and then we had and the president. we have been me now 7 rate months into his presidency. -- seven or eight months into this presidency. we have just been working a

little over year. what have we accomplished? that meeting was the third summit in meeting. the first was an las vegas and the second was a washington and now we've had the second one in las vegas, the third meeting. we have the same players every time. he built clinton is there, al gore is there, harry reid is there, energy secretary chu is there and the labor secretary is there. every time we have been able to move the ball. in this one, we made more progress than ever before. we announce things that will happen and things that are going to happen and how we're going to accomplish it. with those house and senate bills in place now, if that can go through in october, it is going to be great for us. there are other energy-related

bills moving around on the hill and i don't know which ones are going to pass. i'm very focused on the ones i just told about. those are identified as the natural gas act. when you see natural gas act, you know it is 1835 and 1408. >> the pickens plant recently celebrated its first anniversary. what have been your recent successes? >> again, i will be repetitious for a second, but it was the last las vegas meetings. everything came together. we have everything in place. it's interesting -- the media, i think they would rather see a failure than a success. i don't know whether you have noticed that are not. [laughter] they say you have been at this for over year and you haven't got anything done.

having that anything done? why did you approach it this way -- what has been done and is there any part of your plan that has been lost? has there been anything eliminated? nothing. we have ennobles are in -- we have renewals in the climate bill. we've got a national -- natural gas in place as well. i can't imagine what else we could have done that we haven't done. >> i work on a lot of social action campaigns as do a lot of people here today. it has been remarkable progress in one year to have assembled an army of 1.3 million -- 1.6 million, i apologize. that is very fast for a big advocacy campaign. i think there has been a lot of progress. the next question is, are there areas in the west that are better for energy production and others and what new technologies are you most hopeful about?

>> i did not hear the first part. >> are there energy -- are other places in the west that a debtor for energy and others? >> are there areas in the west are better than others? >> for energy production. which new technologies are you most helpful for? >> let's go second part first. the new technologies are going to come very fast. i don't think there is any question that there's not -- that this a mayor -- that this administration is committed to rules. the american people want renewable. if you get in touch with 20 million people and you get 1.6 million people signed up with you, you've got a good cross cut of what people think in this country. i am in good communication. the people want renewals. want to get off of foreign oil.

they can see the security issue and what it means. they can also see generations to come. i always tell people that i can make it to the finish line at 81 with probably note change in my standard of living. but when you go forward, if we do not get this fixed, if you look at 40 years with no energy plan, and you are close to having an energy plan, and i think that is going to happen for the country, but, let's say it doesn't happen and we go forward 10 years from now. no energy plan. we have done exactly what we have done for the last 40 years. where do you think we will be in 10 years? this is where we will be free kick we will be importing 75% of our oil. more oil will be it imported from the ones we are not sure how they feel about us. you'll be paying $300 a barrel for oil.

that's 2 trillion dollars a year. that's not even realistic. is not sustainable. we cannot do it. if you cannot do it and that's what's going to happen if you don't do something, you better get it fixed is where it is. but let me give you a number that is shocking. five years ago, opec's revenues were $250 billion. that is from all of their oil sales and not just us, but other countries. that was five years ago. last year, 2008, it was the one trillion dollars. if you don't think you're going to go to $300 a barrel in 10 years, you're kidding yourself. it has to be fixed. we're talking about some areas better than others. there is no question the key to

wind and solar is the transmission. you can have a great solar prospect and no transmission and so your great prospect is not worth anything. it's the same way with wind. you have to be where you can get into the grid. ted turner and i were on cnn together. we were talking and i said, the grit has got to happen. we have got to have a 21st century grit in this country and has to be some way congress sets up so the site of those high- voltage lines can be made quickly and we can get on with it. but if you make a comparison to natural gas lines that have been built in the last 10 years, you have built 10,000 miles in 10 years. in 10 years, on high-voltage

lines, used built bus than 1,000 miles. why? because you have to go from state to state and work together and there are all kinds of legal problems. why were gas pipelines built? because ferc did it. they had the authority to make the route of those transmission lines. we have to do the same thing and i think congress does too. i am confident all this is going to happen. it's going to happen because it has to happen. ted turner, i said you are the biggest landowner in the united states. you own 2 million acres. what is a site high-voltage across one or two or three of your ranches. he said i will say this and i mean it -- if it is good for america, it is good for ted turner. he said now, how about your

ranch? and i said i have a little bit iran's compared to yours. -- i have a little bitty ranch compared to yours [laughter] al gore and i have had a lot of discussions. one of mental lot to me was that everything i relate the politics of much because my life has been a political life. he said that there is a tipping point on sunday things in america. he said that if you go back to different times in history, it is when the country got ready for it that it tip and happened pretty quick. he said i think we are there on climate and i think we're there on security for oil and we have to get that fixed. as you go through things, they are interrelated. he said i think we're at that

point. i do too. i said i was in touch with a lot of people and i do escalade of questions. i find the american people -- it doesn't have anything to do with politics is what i am talking about. we are in sync with what we think should happen for our country. i think we're ready to go. >> the next question is how will wind compete with gas-fired plants when natural gas is four dollars a btu. >> i don't know why i can't hear you. it won't is the answer. when this price of the margin and natural-gas is a margin. -- wind is at price of the margin and natural-gas is a margin. we will work our way through

that. when that will work with $7 gas is what it is. natural gas is four dollars. so it will reach. -- so we will reach. in this -- it won't reach. you are going to get some financing for these wind projects and for the solar projects. you mentioned something about technology and i did not answer the question -- the technology is going to advance to very rapidly. once we get into this, and i think issue be approached, we will get on our own resources is what will happen. we're going to get away from what we have done in light of past and not do it in the future. when we do that, we will be

task, all of us, to think about our country and our resources and not our country and some the office resources. when that happens, the american people are very resourceful as you well know. adair -- there will be ideas that will show up we have never heard of. i was in vancouver the other day, talking to a guy. he said we are pretty advanced on a new technology for wind. i said what do you have? he said we think will be able to come up with a turbine pretty quick that does not have the blades as we see them today. we have a vertical turbine that can be quite high. he said we have started to generate power at 5.7 miles an hour wind. that's like this -- that's 5 miles an hour. if that is right, and i don't

know whether he is right or not, but they're thinking and people are doing things. once they see howard ministrations for this, they will support this -- once they see how our administration is for this, they will support it and we will get results. >> [inaudible] oklahoma state is ranked no. 7. what did he say? >> we were talking about a shift from natural gas to renewable and the shift to money and jobs. what does that mean politically? the oil states are so powerful. what does this mean for the political landscape in the west? >> when you think will stay,

think natural gas state. -- when you think oil state, think natural gas state. i recognize the power of that group because i was in that group for 55 years. there is no question that major will companies have had a great influence in the united states. it big part of that is they do have a lot of jobs and that's important for all of us to see these people employed. but kovach to al gore and the tipping point. we do produce 5 billion barrels of oil a day. we peaked in 1970 at 10 billion barrels. we have been in decline since 1970. we will never be able to turn around, i don't think. i don't think -- we don't have the opportunity. we have found the big oil fields and an average oil well in the

united states is 5 barrels a day. an average oil well in saudi arabia's 5000 merrill today. we are a marginal producing country. -- saudi at raf's 5,000 barrels a day. i don't get anybody that stands up and says i think that's a bad idea that you have. i always respond if somebody does say that is okay, tell me what your plan is? if you have a better plan than i have, i will throw in with you because what we're talking about is america, not something for me. it's for the united states.

but, if they say, they say i just don't like your plan. i say, you get a plan, but if you don't have a plan, it's clear what your plan is. your plan is for an oil. you will have to get a plan and we will have to have a planned. if we just sit here, it will be foreign oil. that is what we have had for 40 years and that's what we will have going forward if you do not have a plan. it really doesn't sober people lot -- it really does sober people of. ben thewe go down to black and e and this is black and this is white and this is all you have. it will always take our resources instead of foreign oil. >> i think that is a good summary. thank you for being here today. [applause]

>> today on c-span, a health- care town hall meeting with virginia democratic senator mark warner in fredericksburg virginia. that's it 6:30 eastern, here on c-span. >> >> september 1 mark the 60th anniversary of the beginning of world war two. it includes the german chancellor and a polish president and the russian prime

minister. >> a group of conservative talk up the obama administration's house budget and health care policies. this was a lesson by steamboat institute and is about one hour and 10 minutes. we have tony blankley here will who -- who will be the panel moderator. many of you have seen him on fox news. [applause] he is the executive vice president for global public affairs with edelman, a leading independent global pr firm. for more than 25 years, he has been at the intersection of

national politics, media, and public policy. he served as press secretary -- press secretary for nuking rich. remember the contract for america? he was one of the key communicators for the contract of america. he served as a speechwriter and senior paul analyst for president reagan. -- senior policy analyst for president reagan. he appears on fox news, and this nbc, sorry, tony. [laughter] as well as co hosting "left, right, and the center." let's start with this year fell at the cato institute. he is a top expert in tax reform and supply-side tax policy. he is a strong policy advocate of the flat tax and international tax competition.

prior to joining cato institute, he is a senior fellow at the heritage foundation and economist for senator bob packwood in the senate finance committee. he served on the 88 bush-quayle transition team and was on the citizens for a sound economy. his articles can be found in the "wall street journal" and others. he is a frequent guest on radio and tv and you have probably seen him on various fox news and the programs. he holds a bachelor's and master's degree in economics from the university of georgia and a ph.d. in economics from george mason university. i am disappointed you did not wear your georgia bulldogs tied. -- george bulldogs tie. next we have a venture capital from abroad, arkansas. he is the founder and ceo of dell the trust and banking corp.

which is a private banking company he founded in little rock. over the past 25 years, he has had a rich career in public and private sectors. he served as an adviser to my custody and president george bush and served as -- an adviser to mike huckabee. he was special assistant to george h. w. bush and was a contributor to fox news, cnn, npr, on political and economic policy matters. he has been a leader in his community and as a past president of the rotary club of little rock, the eighth largest in the world. also an honorary director of the boy scouts of america and many other organizations. he is a magna cum laude graduate in economics from vanderbilt. grace murray turner is the president of the galen

institute, a public policy organization she founded in 1995. it is to promote informed debate over free market ideas for health reform. what a concept. she has been instrumental in developing and promoting ideas for reform that transfer power over health care decisions to doctors and patients. she speaks extensively, including the london school of economics, oxford, and a gregorian university at the vatican in rome. she testifies regularly before congress and advisor is -- advises many on health policy. she has been published in major newspapers, including the "and wall street journal." -- the " the wall street journal."

our all-star fiscal and economic policy panel. [applause] >> welcome. i appreciate having this opportunity to be the moderator that the inaugural conference of steamboat. i have had the good fortune to be somewhere near the beginning of some pretty good operations. i became an active member in the conservative movement in 1962. i was the first organizing southern california operation for barry goldwater. i spoke at all of ronald reagan's campaigns. what the steamboat institute is offering now more than ever, we need. it's in their reassertion -- a bipartisan proposition. i would love to see a day when the democrats and republicans

compete to see who could come up with more effective conservative programs. we are not there yet. [applause] 42 long in our past, we had to parties competing for another set of ideas. -- for too long in our past, we had to parties competing with another set of ideas. as a democrat before i was a conservative as a kid and was convinced by conservative ideas. today, we need to convince a lot of people who are not conservatives of the wisdom of our policies and values. when that happens, we will let the party politics take care of itself if our principles and values are appreciated. that is why we are here for. we invited the blue dog democrats and they did not come this time. a few of them may be out of office next time. [laughter] there is no better moment than

now to have this panel on the economy, finance, budget -- for all of the events that have happened in the last 10 months, the world can go another -- a number of different ways right now. when you have a real economic events that shocked the nation as this one has, very often it has big consequences. the panic of '89 the three and a depression that followed it ended up being of laissez-faire capitalism and the beginning of another era. people were shocked by that and moved the nation to the left for a while. the same thing happened in 1929. we got 30 years or 40 years of a much more left of center set of values. the reverse happened in the late '70s where the failure of liberal principles came in and

we had reaganism and a thatcherism. we may be at such and again. americans have lost assets and a staggering level and unemployment is likely to be at a consistent level for many years. the wealth of the nation has been reduced and will take a lot of hard slogging to get back. the public is taking a reassessment. we are fortunate in that the current administration has come for with a various -- a very vigorous set of non conservative -- [unintelligible] we are not home free yet. we are better off than i can mention being, given what the world look like 10 months ago. nonetheless, we will be in a competition for the public's judgment of which way back to prosperity and freedom.

obama has got off to a weak start, but i worked in the reagan white house for many years, competed with the clinton white house for many years, and there is a lot of ups and downs in a presidency. very often, they got off to a hard start and then they get their sea legs. bill clinton had a terrible first couple of years and managed to figure out how to get himself reelected and left office, i think he embraced a lot of our ideas like a balanced budget and signed our version of welfare reform. but the point is, i'm glad we live in hope today that the values of freedom we believe in have a chance. but we only live in hope and that's why we're here, to start a movement to win that battle. it is fascinating -- that was listening to a gentleman from heritage when he said we don't want to set our grandchildren on

our knees and tell them of freedom was like. i don't have any grand kids yet, but i could tell them about that right now. we have lost a striking level of freedom we enjoy it 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago. part of the practical conservative movement is about not just winning the argument for liberty, limited government, freedom, but starting the process of rolling back so that we can feel as free as i did and some of you did when you are young and we did not have the nanny state intrusions we currently have already. we have lost a fair amount of ground even as we have dominated the conservative values since reagan came in and was making bridge. we still have to not just told the status but we also have to roll the process back. i'm delighted to be here and i think we have a fabulous panel. this is the right topic to be discussing teleost a discussion

trade -- to lead off this discussion. we have been the auto industries, a trillion dollars called the stimulus package where we have tarp, or have a set of programs in place that one year ago i know i cannot imagine would be a lot of the land. where you have the president of the united states firing the ceo of general motors before they even nationalize the country, just on some sort of vague undisclosed bakery and that shocked me and a lot of people. ucb bondholders have substituted for there -- you see bondholders that have substituted their credit for the union and they have been given their share and interest in the countries and it

has all been done -- this moving around of property from one to the other. these are things that i think conservatives are not only shocked of today, but i find it almost unimaginable that happened. i would like to focus on some of the things on a technical level have seen. each of the panelists will make a few opening remarks and then we will chat for a while and open it up. i think we want to look at the significance of the deficit, this extraordinary increase in debt which is on precedent. talk about grandchildren, we have already been committed to by the current government, literally our grandchildren will be paying a back. is taking money at the private sector and increasing the debt payments.

these commitments that have already been made, trillion dollars of unfunded obligations. we're watching the interest rates on t-bills -- malay states and reasonable level or will they go up? what happens if we cannot afford to borrow on a practical level? how we become productive when 40% of the federal budget will be borrowed? these are some of the questions we have to face and we will talk about them this afternoon. let me start now with french and have him start on a few opening remarks. >> i was struck with the references to the past and the lessons learned from the past. in made me reflect on the last 30 years to talk about [inaudible] the lessons of the last 30 years

-- when ronald reagan, in his 1981 inaugural speech, coming out of the carter era and the winter of discontent in the u.k. that elected margaret thatcher in 1980, reagan looked at the present crisis and said government was not the solution, but the cause. there was reference made to bill clinton's ross stark in the 1990's, but he learned his lessons -- clinton's ross stark in the 1990's, but he learned his lesson. contrast that with president obama's inaugural speech this past january which i want to quote specifically and said of paraphrasing. the question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works. whether it helps families find jobs at decent wages, care they

can afford, and retirement that is dignified. it presumes that is the role of government. i thought my goodness, how far have we come in 30 years? that is why i think tony's point that we are at the balance point -- a really key area of where our country can go forward with returning to the core principles as the palace -- as espoused by the steamboat institute or we can progress forward what i call the road to serfdom which mr. obama in my judgment has headed us down. as tony noted, there has been all these pullbacks across our two hundred year history. jefferson, just as the country got started, a favorite quote of

an old friend -- a wise and frugal government would restrain men from injuring one another, shelley them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread they have earned. this is the sum of good government. thomas jefferson, at his inaugural. but lincoln, 60 years later, had to remind the country again that you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. you cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. to me, this gets us back to what the core of the decision congress and the administration have to make. as we talk about these economic issues, i like to focus on what is american exceptional some? to me, american exceptional islam is in the phrase the pursuit of hat -- american exceptionalism is in that

phrase the pursuit of happiness. it is not the government's role to guarantee every citizen happiness. [applause] it is to protect their life -- to protect their rights under our constitution to pursue happiness. when we pursue happiness in our family life, our business life, our church life and government life, that is what build character. it is a lifetime construction project. to set expectations for young people that somehow every deal we have in our society is going to be addressed by a government program is nets. that -- is nuts. the core of the steamboat institute is to return to the point of view. i reflected coming into steamboat yesterday on the airplane, a beautiful flight in, beautiful blue skies and puffy white clouds.

i thought [unintelligible] as she made her first airborne blending in colorado. i came here not to desert but to rally the troops to go forward and leave our country in the direction it should be let in. thank you. [applause] >> the constitution went into exile in the rocky mountains and economic freedoms are in exile him [unintelligible] before we go long, an example of how this is an educatedable moment -- a teachable moment is the other way to say it -- at this moment, if you are a worker employed by co., the thing and make sure happiness is that your company makes a profit. everyone who works for a company making a profit is comfortable because they know they will not

get laid off. until these last few months, profit has been a bad name among millions of americans. they complain their company makes to much money or their bosses. now we are learning the value of profit. profit makes possible our employment. it makes possible your ability to support your family because you have been employed by somebody makes enough money to hire you and buy the equipment to make you efficient and be competitive with people all over the world. there are two lessons trying to be taught right now. those in the status will sese this terrible thing that is happening in the state to take responsibility for real-life. the other lesson we might be able to teach is that you see what happens when the state sucks so much money and imposes some inefficient policies that companies can make a profit. would you rather be working for a profitable company like you used to work for where you can make pay raises and our advanced

as the company expands because free-market principles, or do you want to be another beneficiary of the taxpayers? although times are hard, unemployment will go higher, the lessons of profitability is now to be instructed on is that i don't think it has in a generation. a gentleman i have admired and we have worked together from time to time and this applies to congress and conservatives on economic principles has been invaluable for as long as i can remember. if you make your opening comments, please. >> thank you, tony. usually i talk to people about taxes. i love being a boring economist and talking about marginal tax rates and capital formation. but i want to talk about spending for a minute or two. if government spending continues to skyrocket, we are never going to have good tax policy. if we have the kind of government our founding fathers set up with the federal

government of less than 5% of gdp, it's impossible to have a bad tax system. if we allow the federal government to get a 40% of gdp, it's impossible to have a good tax system. before we start focusing on how to make the tax code better, and i've spent 25 years doing that, we better figure out what to do about government spending. let me give you some frightening numbers. when bill clinton left office, the federal government was down to 18.5% gdp. a lot higher than a lot of us would want, but very low compared to most other industrialized economies in the world. .

i am not a math genius of but from 1.8 to 3.5 is almost a doubling in eight years. in other words, this is not a democratic problem. it is a washington problem and a problem of the big government. most of the spending was for the

no bureaucrat left behind, transportation bills, medicare expansion, the federal government bailing out corrupt politicians in louisiana from hurricane katrina. these are mistakes that republicans made when republicans were in charge because they forgot the lessons of the contract before america, the lessons of ronald reagan. the king to washington thinking it was a cesspool and figured out it was a hot tub instead. [applause] that is the optimistic part of my opening remarks. let me tell you where we're headed. obama comes in and gives us $800 billion work on top of the mess we had in the last eight years. now he wants the people who ran up the post office to start doing our health care. that is bad but it is not the

biggest problem. if you look at the long-term forecast made by the congressional budget office of what is going to happen between now and 200082. they do these 75 year forecasts. -- 2082. we are now 25% g.d.p., we're going to go from 25% cut in the optimistic scenario, it is going to go to 45%. the pessimistic scenario will go to 67% of gdp. add in the minimum for state and local governments and then we will have the bigger -- the biggest government even bigger than france and sweden. we're going to be a european welfare state. i guarantee when that happens we're going to have european

style economic conditions. perpetual long-term unemployment and you cannot get away from it. it is inevitable and it is built into our current policy. because of demographic changes and even if every initiative failed, we still have it break into the cake, a giant welfare state in america. that is what we need to worry about credit you mentioned deficits. this implies enormous deficits. i do not think that is the problem sweden had a bird -- had a budget surplus. would i trade places with sweden? nope. government is bigger in sweden. i do not care if the tax this much and spend this much. i would rather spend this much if it means we have a small deficit. because government and -- because government is expanding, which taxes are going

to go up, but it is a jock -- a dog chasing its tail. that will not work. they say we need to raise taxes again and get into a downward spiral that we had in the 1960's and in 1970's. what is the fundamental moral? i will shut up with this. the politicians in washington say it is their job to take care of us. there are a couple of million people in america who are being taken care of the by the government, they're hot. the housing, health care, their food. who are these people? they are called prisoners. that is what a welfare state is. it is a prison for the human soul. it makes pets out of all of us they want to control our lives. it is not just that government is going to get big in our long- term growth rate will go to 1% like it is in france.

yes, that is bad news, but what this really means and why all of us really need to fight is because if government does that big and the american people wind up adopting this european mindset that it is ok to sit on your brains every day and let someone else take care of you, that will destroy what america made it what made america great. i hope this conference is the start. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, dan. i agree with milton friedman that he would rather have a smaller public sector with the deficit. what we have now is a huge public sector and a huge deficit added on to that. the deficit is another example of how we can make and teach conservative principles to both parties because, this is

fascinating. the deficit and the debt traditionally was something that only conservative republicans cared about. republicans would talk to their base and they would care about abrade the rest of the country did not care. then ross perot came wrong -- came along. they started recognizing the problem of a large government with a huge debt on top of it. newt gingrich borrowed from ross perot and reinforced this issue. when this became an issue was during the george w. bush era. the decided to attack bush, justifiably, for his deficit spending and in the process spent the last eight years telling the democratic party that deficits and big debts or a bad thing. they have come to believe that. this is why we are in a conservative of that.

and now moderate and somewhat liberal democrats who are now as concerned about extensive debt and deficit as republicans used to be. this is the opportunity that i think now presents itself to be championed by both parties. the next topic, which is health care, as you can see in the debate, the fight is on the democratic side. if our conservative principles about health care, deficit, then we can defeat this terrible plan if the democrats listen to us. this is a matter of principles applying to the public. we want to get as many people in both parties to be a champion of those. you cannot today talk about economic principles without also talking about health care.

health care not only has a set of and on economic issues that are vital, the right to choose your own doctor, to participate in those decisions, the right for the doctor to give the right professional advice. because it is one sixth of the economy and growing, it is a huge factor of the proposal to add what is called "universal coverage" is going to cost between $1 $1.50 trillion. it would bring down the cost of health care. this was belied by the congressional budget office. not only in the next 10 years, but in the out years, they're not going to be bending this down but bending up the costs. this brings both huge economic and personal values issues.

>> thank you, tony. the issue of health care, i really believe, has become a lightning rod for the issues that we have been talking about here. the expansion of government, the terrible fear that american people see that has been happening over the last several months, even the last decade, the want to put a stop to this. i had a chance to attend a number of town hall meetings. people say, who are the people there? are all these people organized and part of some astroturf, nancy pelosi, angry mobs? when on earth did we have the leaders in this country calling people names because they want to stand up for their country,

are concerned about their country, concerned about the spending that is going to affect the economy today and in the future, and they want to be heard. the legislation that currently is being considered in congress has passed four of five committees. the speaker has said in the last couple of days that they're going to have a vote in the house when they come back. the senate believes that with senator kennedy's death it might provide impetus to pass in the senate. that is the reason that people are coming out in droves to tell other legislators what they think about this bill. interestingly, only about one- third members of congress are holding town hall meetings. some are holding telephone town hall meetings or close the town hall meetings. four out of five americans

thinks this is going to increase health care costs, reduce their choices, increase bureaucracy, and no wonder people are frightened. yet, the white house and the leadership in congress are saying that the region -- the reason this is failing is because they do not have the message right. what really is in this 1000 page bill? if you look at one page in this bill, it will frighten you in seeing the expanse of government that is in any of these bills. the president has said that everyone is using scare tactics -- tactics. excuse me, mr. president. we tell people they should take a hill rather than having surgery or the government tells you whether to pick the blue

hill or the red hill -- blue pill or red pill. he is the one, i think, that is scaring the american people. there is credence in the concerns that american people have. some of that has been exaggerated, but absolutely they have every reason to be frightened. i think the reason that this bill is failing is because it cannot stand up to the facts. as tony said, the president has said he just will not sign a bill unless it reduces health care costs over the long term. well, excuse me, but the head of the congressional budget office who, by the way, was appointed by speaker pelosi has said that not only will it not reduce costs but it could significantly increase them over the long term. the president says this bill absolutely -- he will have universal health care coverage by the end of his first term.

well, the congressional budget office says that despite the fact that this bill spends $1 trillion or more, at least 70 million people would be without health care insurance and probably many more. he has gone around the country talking about the mayo clinic and other integrated health systems and how we want those to be a model for health-care delivery. the problem is that the mayo clinic and the number of other top quality health care systems sent a letter to members of congress and said that not only will we not be able to continue if this bill passes, we will not be able to continue to offer the care that you are saying that you want the rest of the country to emulate. we will have to close our doors. on the issue of cost, quality,

and access, which really are the three prongs of health care reform, this bill fails. i do not see how this is going to come back and pass. there has been a lot of conservative democrats who have been standing up and saying that they are very concerned about this bill. i think they are on the front lines because how they vote after they come back from hearing from their constituents around the country is really going to be determined -- determinate and whether or not this passes. just to conclude with a " from paul starr who won a pulitzer prize in 1982. he said, "politicians have used the promise of health insurance as a means of turning benevolence into political power." i think that is what really is

going on here. that is why the public plan is so important. we've seen this on youtube, video after video, with proponents saying they know this is a track toward a single payer system. if we lose our freedom to make the most basic decisions about life and death, our health, and we turn this over to the government for this false promise of security, we will have lost our freedom. this battle could not be more important. as john said, it is crucially important that the american people continue to show up in town hall meetings, have your voice is heard. there is absolutely a strength in numbers. i believe our values are right and on track. they understand what is happening. they do not want to see the government takeover 1/6 of our economy presented did

represented by the health-care sector. thank you. [applause] ba>> last fall, the standard bearer of the republican party said that the reason because everything was going haywire was because of greed. the standard bearer of the democratic party was saying it was because of greed. out of that assessment, a narrative started that the reason we are in such trouble is because with corporations allowed to do anything they want, things are going wrong. if that is the lesson, things have failed and free-market principles have failed. that is the wrong lesson, i believe, to be learned.

yet, that was the initial story that justified the starting of reregulation and new innovations because look what happens when greedy people act on their own interests. reed has been a constant factor since we have become humans. that does not go up and down. some people have read in their hearts and some down not. -- some people have greed in their hearts. what will government policy have with fannie mae and freddie mac? was this result just of the greed amongst humans or were the policies that exacerbated or maybe even more contributed to the economic crisis? french, can we start with you? >> housing policy in the united

states since back in the day when bob woodson were in the vineyards in the 1980's, housing policy has always had a bias towards more people owning houses in the federal government. that started out with having an interest deductible. that has expanded to where really the federal government controls well over 95% of every home loan in the country. people react to those incentives. we have tried to make it easier and easier for people to own houses at all income levels. maybe that was a reasonable policy, but people react to incentives. in my judgment, it was a government policy that drove the concentration of investment assets into residential mortgages, the packaging of them, tax policy, regulatory policy. it was government policy that made an exception to a 75-year-

old rule which was the capital standards for broker-dealers and exempted the top five from the normal leveraging ratios read that as an example of government policy and how it skews outcomes. so, to blame this 100% on the private sector that they operate independently of the incentives placed on there by the government, it is wrong. it is wrong to lay the blame at their feet. >> let me ask you another question. some experts believe that the fed policy with liquidity contributed to the problem. the fed, while technically owned by other banks, is substantially a government activity. how you see the fed activity leading up to the years as

contributing to the problem? >> monitoring policy through the fed post 9/11 has been too lax. my friend at the hoover institute has the taylor rule which he tries to model with the level of interest rates to be. universally, it was too accommodating. it was too easy. that led to an over investment in housing from 2005-2007. to me, that is a part of the crisis, but the underlying crisis was this effort to make everyone in america regardless of capability a homeowner in the terms of a mortgage, the fannie mae and freddie mac, that makes no sense on the surface. you combine that with the fuel accommodating policy and you have -- and we have reaped what

we sewed over that decade. >> do you have some thoughts? >> i think we have raised a key issue. economics is one thing. it is the narrative that is important. what lesson did we learn? for decades, and even still today, we suffer from a gross misinterpretation of what happened in the 1930's. under hoover and roosevelt we have higher tax rates, more government spending, more intervention, and we suffered 12 years of an economic downturn. it was a big government including that federal reserve policy that caused the problems. what you all the history books say? it was the fault of capitalism. -- what do all of the history books say? people agree for the economic problems that we had last year into this year, we are going to suffer the same way that we

suffered for 40 years after the great depression read the other side is effectively -- great depression. the other side is effectively blaming the other side. every single airplane crashes caused by gravity. ok. that is true. does that actually tell us anything about why the plane actually fell to the ground? when you next greed a central bank reading too much liquidity, so you have all this extra money in the economy, and then fannie and freddie creates a bubble. what happens with bubbles? they burst. governments created the problem and then what happens? as always the case, they bail out the companies that tried to ride the bubble too far and too long. now we have committed this

problem in our financial system with companies that were too big to fail. what happens when you fix that with other people's money? you take a bigger chances. everyone in the room, give me all of your money and i will go to las vegas. every time i win the bet, i keep the money. every time you lose -- every time i lose, you lose. would that make sense? only in washington d.c. i am terrified that the history books 30 years from now are going to say this was the fault of a free markets. >> let me now apply this question to health care. obviously, we do not have a perfect mechanism, or series of mechanisms, for delivering health care. it is good enough to provide the greatest health care system of the world for 81% of the public to say they are satisfied. people in canada, england, germany are coming here when they need critical, state of the our health care.

-- state of the arts health care. we already have, i would argue, too much. how is government policy adversely affecting the ability of americans to get good health care? >> really, in two ways. the employee based health-care system started in world war ii because of wage and price controls. can we provide this without affecting price controls. that led to health care coverage not being visible and led to the creation of the employee base system which worked fine in an industrial age economy. it is not working in an information age economy. four and the 10 workers change jobs every year. we are guaranteeing that people

are born to be an insured because we tie it into the workplace. -- we are guaranteeing that those people are going to be an insured. -- uninsured. this initially said that we would pay the bills that doctors send us. frankly, that is what people think will happen with the public plan. what has happened over time is that doctors and hospitals are paid less and less to the point that now doctors and hospitals are paid less. who makes up the difference? people with private health insurance. that pushes up their premiums. everyone is saying that we tried the free market and it has never worked. how many of you really have a choice in purchasing the kind of health insurance that you want with -- one for your family? what we need is a true market. everyone says that the conservatives just to not have an idea about health care.

we should just pass the obama plan because it is the only one. wrong. what we're talking about is saying the " -- but say ever won this the same deal. more options. including across state lines and a stronger safety net at the state level, not the federal level. this aid does not cost $1 trillion and this is not rocket science. we can solve the problems but it needs the private sector solving the problem not turning it over to the government. [applause] >> i get all of my knowledge from p.j. o'rourke. my favorite quote is, "if you think health care is expensive

now, wait until it is free." the lack of innovation, paul ryan is doing a great job. his bill is sitting collecting dust. 2520, i think? to think that the government things we buy our own property, casualty, home policies, and we're too dumb to figure out health-care staggers the imagination. that is why i think the president cannot sell this plan, in my view. >> let me pick up on both of those to take it somewhere else. it has frustrated me ever since i have been in politics that liberals say they have a comprehensive solution to the problem while you conservatives do not. we have a comprehensive and

some -- answer, which is free market. we do not have a comprehensive status plan. it strikes me that we're getting an opportunity with the health- care debate and town hall meetings for the public to see what it comprehensive solution begins to look like. -- to see what a comprehensive solution looks like. for the people are hit -- participating in that solution, we may want to start taking those concepts and applying it to other areas. let me ask another government intervention question. the government passed a stimulus bill of about $800 billion. so far, about 120 billion has been spent. -- so far about $120 billion has been spent. should there be an effort to repeal the remainder of the

stimulus? [applause] how do we start on the debate of the repeal of these funds? we would reduce our deficit and our national debt by that amount, which would be good. the of u.s. interest payable the next 30 years. in the existing economy, there are deep consequences. >> first of all, that presumes the bill that passed was a stimulus bill. it was just a doubling of the energy department and the energy -- energy and education department budget. they do not even know how to spend the money. therefore, it would be a great thing to call for the repeal of the unallocated, unabridged money and see if you could not get every member -- how many members you could get to sign a

co-sponsor ship of the repeal. there be a caveat that our economy, while still sluggish, is showing signs of recovery. has the stimulus package -- stimulus package affected that? nope. a number of things probably have contributed modestly to where we are in the recovery. this bill coming in my judgment, should have never been past and therefore to vote for a repeal would be an easy vote. >> i am all in favor for some of our erstwhile friends in washington talking about repealing it. obama would veto anything. that would have no chance. the debate itself would be valuable. what is the so-called " stimulus?" did not work for hoover and roosevelt. it did not work for japan in the 1990's.

let's do a different class participation. let's divide the room in half and are all the money from the people on this half of the room and give it to the people on this half of the room. [applause] here's a quiz. it will determine whether or not you understand the so-called stimulus. who thinks there is now more money in the room? raise your hand. [laughter] he flaunts mouth way back in high school. -- he flunked math. this is simply barring money from your right pocket and putting it in your left pocket. it has never worked anywhere in the world. this is nothing but a payoff to the interest groups that got him elected. [applause] >> dan, you know that a government that robs peter to pay paul always has the support

of paul. >> in this instance it wa paul paying off goldman sachs. >> you make the point of having the debate. conservatism is not in government, neither congress or the white house. >> and not in the last eight years either. >> this is an opportunity for people like us to start having the debate. let the government in power justifiey their policy and we wl assert. a majority of the company a majority of the country no longer believe it was a good thing. the have an opportunity for the public to question them. you put that into a public debate. we do not have enough conservatives in power, but we have enough conservatives and

americans to raise the issue and let the people in power flail as they discuss it. let me start taking questions from the audience. we have about 15 minutes left. you? >> you started talking about a lot of things that have been happening about the rule of law and how important it is for our economy to have a rule of law. i love your " great we seem to be reliving "atlas shrugged." it is the power of pull that is driving policy. if the panel might discuss the idea of the importance of the rule of law, a holding contracts, and basically how the political play verses market principles is being distorted right now. >> that is a wonderful question.

let me start this out because i have an opinion about this. [laughter] there are some functions of government. it will a lot is one of them. maintaining the peacefulness of the land, securing us from foreign enemies. i will give you one example of when the rule of law doesn't work how hard it is to get economics up and running. in the reagan white house, we had the success of grenada in got our young students out of there and the regime overturned. we were hoping that grenada would be an economic success. i was assigned to look into it if there was something we could do to help grenada had a better economic success. i went down to take a look at. the first problem was, we wanted to get the airline and hotel people down there, local people, prosperity. there was no rule of law.

the hotel people said there were not one to put down millions of dollars to not know the had a title on the land. the airline because of the with up to participate but they did not know who did deal with to build terminals. nobody owns the land. the lack of the rule of law in grenada at that time lost the ability to have economic activity. i do not know what has happened since then great at that time, we failed because reagan was a popular man, we had different people in the private sector that wanted to help. we cannot go down there until they have their role of law. you're absolutely look bright -- you are absolutely right. if you know that the property is yours under the rule of law, people just cannot take it from you. if you do not have that, i wonder how many people have ever wanted to buy more bonds were the rights of the bondholder put a lot on not being honored.

[applause] >> let me add a similar story. earlier this year, i was invited to go down the third wife -- down to paraguay. i'm delighted to go to talk to anyone who wants to do that. one thing i told them is you can repeal your income tax, but it is not going to get you anywhere as long as you look at the economic freedom, the index of the freedom, what you find in those indexes? they all show that the rule of law and private rights are about 40% of what determines the nation's prosperity. without a foundation. if you're foundation is quicksand, it is not going to help you. unfortunately, what worries me about what is happening in washington is that it is. it is like "atlas shrugged" all

over again. the people with political pull of the people who gets the deals. -- political pool are the people who get the deals. that is the difference. we have rules to follow. no matter how might you are coming your still bound by a lot. now, you turn them upside down and the law is an instrument of partisan politics. that worries me even more than higher taxes. [applause] >> can i make one quick point? i had a chance to talk to margaret thatcher about my work in health reform. she took me by the shoulders and she said, "you must remember the rule of law. there is nothing more important." >> next question. right here? hold on.

>> i am concerned about the future and inflation. what can we do to protect ourselves? give us some advice please. >> i think that is a very worthy concern. particularly, were the in light of policy. in my judgment, as i think about the next three-five years, it would be at the top of my list. if we get into that situation and that causes wage pressure, at every priority does, on every point we have talked about today, it raises the costs of labor, production. that combined with this explosion of modernization of the debt by the fed is frightening.

it might make the late 1970's and early 1980's look better. it is concerning british concern to me. as a banker, it is a question i get frequently. -- this is a concern to me. the fed is a good job raising rates, but this is an oversize world -- this is an impercise world. therefore, you're going to have to err on the side of the negative. income producing real estate, commodity exposure, and come, common stocks, things that can adjust price, things that have the ability to hedge the dollar, like a commodity or a

multinational corporation. as they said last week in the new york times" of the fate of the dollar rests with the congress. my 12-year-old sent me a text message that said, "omg." [laughter] every american should be concerned about possibility, i would argue, the probability of that in the next three-five years. >> let me add my input. one of the things you would now to be is a long-term credit for. you do not want to long long when you do not know how high inflation is or how low the value of the dollar. that undermines the country inns -- the country's ability. in a strategic capital stands, the decisions people are having to make in the moment undermines the ability to be productive in the future.

along with the chaos that inflation causes, it undermines the ability to be productive. >> let me add one quick point. the australian dollar, the swiss franc, federal currencies that a think -- that i think are much more safe, ronald reagan took a lot of political pain to the right thing by weaning inflation out of the system in the early 1980's. a lot of republicans lost their jobs in 1982 because he was determined to do the right thing for the country. i do not have a lot of faith that the politicians we have just got rid of and the politicians we are now dealing with have that kind of moral integrity to do the right thing by the dollar, to go through the pain of drawing that excess liquidity out of the system. oh, higher interest rates are the worst thing in the world. it is critical to get the excess money out of the system.

inflation is like going to happy hour parade you have had seven drinks and our feeling great. the next morning, you will not feel so great. do you think drinking 10 were drinks the next day is the way to put yourself way -- for yourself back on the wagon? nope. inflation is a narcotic. you get in trouble. the more you go down that path, the more it hurts to clean yourself up. we do not want to become argentina. we did not want to become zimbabwe. i do not think there's a realistic fear we're going to become that bad, but we on the path -- we are on the path to go back to how we were in the 1970's. >> you talk about the moral integrity of politicians which is always amusing. [laughter] there are no worse than the rest of us, unfortunately. -- they are no worse. the best cure for morally weak politicians is an informed

public. [applause] it is their judgment that they can bamboozle and ignorant public and a demagogue and issue that gives them the horseshoe -- that gives in the issue of acting without knowing better. one of the functions of this institute and all of us here is to be educating the public and, once again, because as the public understands the issues, they will be intolerance -- they will be intoleranct of the opposition. with an option to help them find their integrity. >> people, all the time and asked me what they can do. you show up at town hall meetings and that is really important. there are a lot of petitions on line. go to donoharmpetition.org.

we also have some of the stickers out saying, "he's not my doctor." verve voices heard. make sure people know you are informed and talking about. -- have your voice is heard. >> next question. lovely lady in the orange. >> wonderful to have you here. it is great to have a vanderbilt grad on the panel. we have talked about all these different things. this to me is a huge issue, coming from a medical background and so forth. i would like to hear you speak to this and the fact that, i think it was yesterday, howard dean finally admitted one of the reasons with the problem with health care is a tort reform. i wanted to hear what you had to say. >> it in this 1000 page bill,

it's just not -- it's just not have room for malpractice. in town hall meeting after town hall meeting, that is a huge lightning rod issue. people love that medical malpractice is one of the major drivers of a cost -- of cost. we had evidence of how you begin to solve the problem. texas reformed their malpractice roles in 2003-2005 which are fully in effect now. the heavy backlog of 7000 physicians who want to move to texas because it is a friendlier environment. this gets back to an earlier question about government having a huge impact on the economy and -- in the incentives it sets up. it is not going to happen in

this bill or this congress. the american people have spoken on that as well in town hall meetings. >> the history of beating reform started in the 1930's as a cong a conscious doctrine of liberals that because you have poor people being harmed, let's just say people who have deep pockets and corporations, whether you are negligent or not, you're going to be held legally responsible. they will never notice a difference in their pockets. it was a conscious policy decision trying to push the burden of responsibility. over the years, was of bankrupting companies, but driving doctors out of their businesses because they could not afford the insurance. it is another example of when and mantras at the marketplace with a brilliant, a liberal idea.

there is a series of decisions that rational people make and then you end up with a catastrophe where we do not have all kinds of doctors available because of decisions were you have otherwise profitable companies hiring people going out of work because they are signed on for responsibilities. tort before and was the product of another liberal idea that went askew. do we have time? one more very quick question. >> dan, they regularly throw you into the pit with some very hard and liberals on the cnbc and you stand up for the ideals of our institute and i think you for that. i do have a question. larry says that europe is reforming their taxes. some countries are going with a flat task -- tax or reducing

business taxes. we're going in the other direction. is it true, in the first place, that they're reforming their taxes and isn't that going to make us even less competitive if that imbalance goes that way? >> i was talking to mr. do about this before the panel. we live in a competitive global economy whether you like it or not. >-- i was talking to mr. jude. you look at every socialist, european welfare state and what you find? all of them, even france, have a lower corporate tax rates than america. obama's international tax proposal is to expand the double taxation of american multinationals that are trying to earn shares abroad. i guarantee you one thing. may be rich people are bad and evil like the left says. rich people are not stupid. maybe big companies are evil,

like the left says. maybe they are. you know what? they are not stupid. if we become inhospitable because of high taxes and a bloated burden of government, companies are going to look around the world come investors at on trimeris are going to look to the world, this is where the issue of tax competition. it is better to create jobs in places like switzerland, hong kong, and france over the united states. you look at the tax competition fuelling lower tax rates across the world. i was in sweden a few weeks ago. it has eliminated its debt tax break we're supposed to be the cradle of free-market capitalism. i read that in austria they have eliminated theydeath tax and have cut their corporate tax rate hit 25%. we are at 39%.

we're shooting ourselves in the foot globally. i have some youtube ideas out there. go to youtube and tight and -- type in "tax competition." i just issued one on government spending. this is my new little project to reach out to new people get informative 6-7 minutes on new topics. you can learn on how we are undermining our own competitiveness. with all this thing where great increase the burden of government, raise tax rates, all of these that policies are going to accumulate and the investment and jobs are going to be in india and china agreed what happens then, the politicians say it is the fault of the free market that we have to raise taxes even further. that is what i am afraid of. >> regretfully, we do not have 80 days to go around the world and assess the other nations

competing with us. this is the end of this conversation. we have about 12 minutes to get up and come back for a really fascinating conversation on the voting attitudes. take a very quick break. 12. five minutes and come back. [applause] >> the supreme court has a rare special session on wednesday. during oral arguments on the campaign finance case. it marks the first appearance on the bench for justice sotomayor . day before, her ceremony takes place on tuesday afternoon trade here is that when justice on what it is like working with the other justices. >> you'll be surprised by the high level of the collegiality here.

this term, i think we've divided five-four in almost one-third of all of the cases. one might get a false impression from that degree of disagreement. . scalia added that in his early years that heat -- that there was no justice that he disagreed with more often than justice brennan. and yet, he considered justice brennan his best friend on the court at that time. he got the feeling was reciprocated. the public would not know that from reading an opinion or dissent. these were two men who genuinely like each other and enjoy each other's company.

>> hear from other justices during supreme court week. we look at the home to america's highest court. that is starting october 4th. >> van jones, the adviser for green jobs, resigned yesterday. one issue was at his admission last week to shining a petition calling for congressional official is let the 9/11 attack to occur. this lasts about one hour. we are very proud and excited to

be here this morning. we have a combination of mr. ackerman's classes. i would like to call once did it up to introduce our special guest. -- one student up to introduce our guest. >> welcome. it is my honor to welcome van jones to our history class. he is the visionary, a civil rights activist, and is the current special advisor for green jobs, enterprise, and innovation. mr. jones was born in west tennessee and attended jackson central mary high school and yale law school. he moved to california to

establish many programs to improve communities such as "books without bars." he wants to reform the juvenile justice system. he is the founder for normalization -- he is the founder for an organization to create a green collar jobss. u.s. to solve today's economic problem to provide jobs to lift millions out of poverty. a few months ago, mr. jones published a book titled, "the green collar economy." the main idea of his vision is that the grain economy should not be about reclaiming thrown away stuff. it should be about reclaiming for in communities. i would like to interview steer -- i would like to introduce to

you mr. van jones. [applause] >> thank you pre good morning. how is everyone doing? i am glad to be here. i am the white house advisor for green jobs. i get to work with the administration on trying to picture " in the community have jobs that are good for their pocketbook and are good for their health and community. it is time now for jobs we get $1 in your pocket from the employer but then have to take it out to give it to the doctor because you have asthma, cancer, or anything else. we're trying to now have a new economy that is good for people and the planet, too. that is my agenda. i did not start out with that agenda. i started out in a public high school, much like this one. i grew up on the edge of a small town in the world west tennessee. -- in rural west tennessee.

i wound up making some decisions that have paid off for me over the long term. i decided to take a bunch of advanced placement courses. we had a few a.p. glasses. escorted a five -- i do not know what the scores are now, but i scored five. that changed my life. when i go to college, i went to a public university, the university of tennessee. i was able to skip a freshman english -- skipped freshman english. i wanted to be a journalist. i got a chance to go straight from high school right into of the journalism class is for a completely open up a whole different world for me. it was very important. but the time, i was not trying to save the world.

at the time, i was trying to impress my girlfriend. that was my big goal in life. her dad was a professor, her mama worked at the university, and they were underwhelmed with her choice of a boyfriend. i wanted to make sure that i did well in school. i thought to myself that maybe i could get a job working at a newspaper by the end of my freshman year. i did. i did a great job and pressing my girlfriend at the time. that also meant that i got exposed to a lot of stuff that i had never seen before. i was raised very sheltered read both of my parents are public school teachers. -- i was raised very sheltered. both my parents are public- school teachers. i was a bigger.

-- i was big nerd. if i was upset, i would rate -- write a very angry essay. [laughter] thank you. that was my idea of rebellion. now i'm going to play classical music even louder. this is ridiculous. [laughter] . .

>> that is when i decided that instead of writing about it -- i decided that was not enough. i wanted to do more. i did not just want to write about the news. i wanted to shape and change the news. that became my passion. i became more of an activist type of journalist, more of a much greater, even as a young person. -- muckraker, even as a young person. i then decided to become an attorney. does that sound great? easily impressed. my girlfriend thought so, too. i had not ever met an attorney. i did not know what attorneys did. i had to go and talk to my counselor. i encourage you that no matter

where you are, always have someone that is ahead of you in line, someone in your peer group that may be a year or two older than actually going somewhere, make that person your best friend. that person is a few steps ahead of you in line. they have already navigated what you are trying to navigate. you may have someone in your life that is a senior going to a good college. talk to that person. how did they get the parents involved? what paperwork debate bill out? what did they do? you have the advantage of learning from them. there may be someone in college that you can talk to and ask for advice. that person will of the top of their head say things to you that will give you. vantage of someone who does not know anybody in college today. college today is not college 10 years ago. -- that will give you the advantage of someone who does not know anybody in college

today. callers today is not college 10 years ago. i did a lot more work to make sure that the teacher was on my side. i had a teacher told me if i wanted to go to law school, i should try to go to the best. he said he did not mean vanderbilt. i asked of him at the university of tennessee at knoxville. he said that he met harvard, yale, one of the best schools. -- that he meant harvard, yale, one of the best schools. i am so glad did not know the impact of what he was saying or would have been intimidated. he handed me a book. i flipped through. there was harvard and there was real. in harvard, they did not have. the first year. that was the one i wanted to go to. they could not find me out. if you do not have grades, you get a chance to say. we do you get a chance to stay.

so i decided to go to yale. it was a new world to me. i had to study hard for my ls ats. it is the law school aptitude test. it is written by satan. it is designed to making measurable in and secure -- is designed to make you miserable and insecure. [laughter] when i first took my practice test for that course to take the test, it turned out that to get into yale, you had to be about 95% percentile. that means he did better than 95% of the people that took the test. i thought it was no problem because i made 95 on tests of time. i took the practice test and i made a 62. [laughter]

i was like, of the " satan." -- i was like, "7." by this time, i was in trouble. i had article my girlfriend and family that i was going to deal, to the great disbelief of her father. i had already told my peers that i was going. they laughed in my face because they knew that no one from our group went to yale. i was kind of headed for public conciliation. my life turned into an academic open ""rocky" movie. instead of lifting weights, i was lifting the pen hard. i was working. the library opened at 6:30 a.m. i would get there is 6:00. it would still be dark.

i would walk into the library and the lights were coming on. i went down to the basement and i would work my jewels. i would come down at lunchtime and the library would be full of people. i did not know how they got their because i was really trying to improve my score. i took my next practice test and made a 78. it was like a week before the test. i started getting intimidated. that is going to happen to you. i started feeling like maybe i cannot do this. maybe i was not as smart as i thought i was. maybe i should have tried to go to another school and not exposed myself. but i kept working on it all the way up to the night before. long story short, when i went to take the test, halfway through, i was so upset and feelings of frustrated that i almost did not finish it. at the break, and went to the restroom. i was in there just crying really.

i was hearing other people who had met lawyers before. they're like, but " i feel great." -- they're like, "i feel great." i thought it would not be for me. and let everyone else go back inside. i was not going to finish it. i washed my face. i thought about all the people i had seen being victims of injustice. i thought about what they were going through. i told myself that i would finish the test. maybe i will get a chance to go to yale or harvard, but if i can just finish the test and get in to any law school, i would use my law degree to do the best i could for other people. i made that deal with god. took the test. i went home and then started

talking down. i started saying that i might go to law school but i might stay in journalism. i might go abroad. i was hoping no one would remember i had said that. after about six weeks, my scores came. i opened up my mailbox at the dorm and there were my scores. i knew that based on the way those scores went, my life is going to go one way or the other. i promised that i would do something for the community with it matter what it was. i opened it up. i pulled it out. 95% percentile. [applause] that put me -- i got accepted to yale, harvard, all that stuff. i tried to live up to my promises. i hope that you'll also find something to motivate you besides just trying to impress people, and girlfriends,

boyfriends, peers. find something that will motivate you to get through the tough part so that when you achieve all the things i know you will achieve, it is not only for yourself. it is for people who maybe it did not have the opportunity. they might not been able to study because they had a child to take care of or a parent who was sick. as you continue in these ap classes and get better and better, remember those people who did not get a break. thank you. [applause] we are supposed to have questions. [laughter] >> it said the first went to california. you were helping with the juvenile block system and everything like that. what made you change from doing

those kinds of things to help the community to going to the green jobs and such things like that. >> i got to yale in 1990. probably the year that you guys were born. i graduated in 1993. in the meantime, i had gotten a chance to work in the bay area. i worked with police reform, some criminal justice things. when i came back, that is really what i was focused on. you start working on some of these issues. they are tough issues. they demand a lot of you. it is not like you go to work and go home and it is water off your back. people might the prison forever. it will seem like forever for them. what i had seen at yale -- remember that i am totally sheltered, christian, southern

kid. i got to yale and i was calling my grandmother within two days telling her that the people up here smoked marijuana cigarettes. she told me to just pray, stay away from them. [laughter] i told her that i was trying to, but they were everywhere. she said to talk to my professors. i said that they were doing it, too. i was shocked by the stuff that i was seeing. i was so sheltered. you have the people doing these serio-- doing different levels f

drugs. you had kids on campus and kids in the projects. if the kids on campus were caught, they were sent to rehabilitation to try to make them better. the kids in the community would go straight to prison. that just blew my mind. i could not believe that. in america, within just a few blocks, you could see yale and see the kids doing drugs. i thought that this strikes me as unfair. i started to work to try to fix that stuff. i'm still anti-drugs. i am not pro-drugs at all. but we know will make kids better and will make kids worse. we should treat all the kids the same. we should help all the kids. that was my point. i got burned out. i was working 18 hours a day.

i was going to a lot of funerals. i was going to a lot of court hearings but worked out badly. i was not taking good care of myself. you can get so caught up in causes that you do not take care of yourself. i was not eating or sleeping right. i burned out. i had to try to get my health back. in trying to get my health back, i discovered all of these positive things that were not open. there were happening in other neighborhoods where people were doing yoga and had solar panels on their houses. hybrid cars blew my mind. there was no pollution. i was like, a book can you bring these cars over to west oakland?

i wanted to make sure that everybody had access to this. it is just like education. i wanted to find a way to make it positive for everybody. that is how i got involved. all the sudden, people were like, "this is amazing. you are an african american environmentalist." i did not come into it from the green part of it. i came into it for positive work, economic development, up more opportunities, better health for the community that i cared about. it turned out to the best way to do that was to bring in the green jobs. people putting up solar panels and doing community gardens, that is healthy for their wallets and for their spirits. i went from kind of a breakdown to a breakthrough. >> i watched the episode of "the colbert report"when you are on

there. someone said something about unicorn-herding. what did you think about that? >> has anyone seen "the colbert report"? he is like a reporter, but he is crazy. you never know what he's going to say to you. off-camera, he is very normal. he is almost shy. you think he is a sweetheart. [laughter] you sit down and he is saying crazy stuff. you are on live tv. he said that my ideas amounted to herding unicorns, completely

preposterous. i was so nervous, i did not really hear him say it. i was not laughing because i thought it was funny. i was laughing because i was scared. he was not the only one. penman of people thought when i first part of talking about the stuff that -- all what people thought one of the start talking about -- of what people thought it was ridiculous when i first started talking about. this was just a few years ago. to go through the process of getting people to understand that there are more jobs to make the environment better than make it worse. putting up solar panels, manufacturing wind turbines, doing all those things, there are jobs there. we just need to make sure that everybody gets them. >> in reading about you, what

struck me is that he said clean energy job bills. did the speaker of the house ever push that through? >> yes. she was asking a question about the first time i had the chance to meet with nancy this is another situation you might find yourself -- she is asking a question about a first, had achieve time i have the chance t nancy pelosi. i had met some people that worked with her. they were impressed with what i was saying. the thought was interesting. they invited me to be in a meeting with all of these well- known people. i was there. they said that when the speaker comes in, everybody stands up. then we sit down. then we will introduce

ourselves. they said to briefly introduce yourselves. it was in captital letters -- "brief." i said that my name was van jones and we work to get kids out of jail and into jobs. boom. i went first. it does not get any briefer than that. i did a good job. the next one introduced himself. he talked for like three minutes. he introduced himself and said, "madam speaker." i had forgotten that part. that was smart. [laughter]

i was trying to be brief. he said, "i want to thank you for championing --" i thought he was not right in his mind. they said to be brief. he talked for three minutes. the next person talked for five minutes. the next person talk even longer. by the time we get all the way around a table for the introductions, the meeting was over. i realized all the things i came to say, i did not even say. then i told myself that i did a great job and i was just too hard on myself. i was sitting right beside the speaker. she had a piece of paper with everyone's name in the meeting on it. she had copious notes aside

everyone's name but mind. it was blank. i did not do a good job all. i felt terrible. here was my big chance to talk to the third most powerful person in the country, second in line for president. i did not understand that the introductions were the meeting. i blew it. she stood up and thanked everybody. she was about to walk out. she's having to join her in the press conference with any questions. she meant questions about how to get to the press conference. but you know me. i was like this. [laughter] she kind of look like me should -- she kind of looked at me. it was not friendly. it was kind of like, who let this guy in? but i said to myself that i only had one shot.

i could sit there and feel sorry for myself that i did not do a good job and go home and cry in my milkshake or i could take a chance. i knew that i had to take a chance. i could not go back across the bridge to oakland and looked at all those people without having done my best. i decided to break a rule. i said i did have a question. i said that i wanted her to know -- i said that i wanted her to wantedfousay four words. she smiled and asked which ones. i told her that she said these,

the democrats would stay in power and it would be a way to help people. by this time, everyone in the meeting was leaning away from me. they were like, this guy is crazy. i do not know how he got in here. please do not blame us for his crazy self. these are the four words that i am asking you to say. "clean energy jobs bill." i said that we have kids going to funerals every other weekend. people always tell kids what they should not do, what they should stop doing. do not do drugs. do not be violent. do not get pregnant. nobody has told these kids what they can do, what they should do. if you are trying to retrofit the entire country, will you come to the neighborhood and

tell these kids that you need their help? will you help them to become a wind turbine engineers? do you want to empower them to be part of the solution? it will not as the cooling the earth down. it will be cooling the block down. it will have a double effect. i asked her to do that. the room got totally silent. i thought maybe i had gone too far. this was the speaker of the house. the meeting was over. she was supposed to be walking out. here i was saying provocative things right then. my heart was pounding. then there word young people there like yourselves to were the intern's, pages, workers. they had been standing all around the edges of the walt the whole time. when i got finished talking,

they started clapping. they started clapping. the big shots saw them clapping. they started clapping a little bit. the speaker kind of looked around a room. she kind of laughed and started clapping. she said a key but we have to go. i realized that at least i would be on her list. i would not be a blank name. we got to the press conference. she stopped her speech. she said she did not come out here to make any special announcement. she said she was in a meeting where one thing was said that nobody disagreed with. she said, "where is van jones?" she told me to come up there. i walked up and stood beside the speaker of the house. there were tv cameras all over the place.

she looked up at me and said, " let's say it together. clean energy jobs bill. tell them about it." their ibm in front of the whole world. i spoke from my heart about what i hoped would happen. the congresswoman took the idea from nancy pelosi. she worked with mike tierney from massachusetts. hillary clinton got involved. all the sudden, they got a bill passed. it was within one year. there had never been anything like it, for a bill to go through that fast. he came out of me being willing to speak up. -- it came out of me being willing to speak up. i was trying to appeal to her. you will be in situations where you can either be quiet or you

can raise your hand. if you speak from your heart and speak to the pain of the community and what people need, you will be surprised how many people want to help. they just need ideas. you know what the right ideas are. you know what will make a difference for the kids who are not doing as well as you are. you know what you need as well. take those opportunities to speak from your heart when you have those moments. trust me, you have allies that you do not even know that you have. >> i just wanted to know what kind of programs you have in place for the youth before they get the green jobs. are there any steps they have to take before? >> there's not one national

green jobs program. there are lots of local ones. different ones do it different ways. there are some where young people can get involved hands on. some people like me are kind of nerdy and like to be in books. other people are more hands on. they do not want to read about how to fix the car. they want to fix the car. they do not want to read about how to build a house. they want to build the house. there are youth bills that are very good at giving people experience and then set them up to join trades and unions. green jobs are not only the hands on jobs. everything from the ph.d.s to the geds have a part to play in

making it stronger. someone has to market it. somebody has got to put them up. somebody has got to maintain them. what ever is that you are about, there is a way to do it that will help the country and the earth. you can be an art student. you could do art that promotes green solutions, that makes it look cool for people to do the positive stuff. it makes it look cool for people to eat organic food, drive hybrid cars, ride a bicycle, or take a bus as opposed to making it look corny. there are any number of ways that you can be a part of this matter what your talent is. i will let you pick the people. you have the microphone.

you can sit down. it is ok. [laughter] >> the clean energy jobs bill provided a lot of training. i saw in an article that a lot of people came out of the training without jobs to go to. how do you fix that? >> one way to fix it is with president obama. a lot of what i was doing was going against gravity. we were going against gravity because the president and congress were not really on the side of the new technology. now we have a president that is on the side of the new technology. our president wants for america to have a diverse energy portfolio. we're always going to be using some oil and coal. want to use that in a clean and smart way. he wants to use the old technologies in the safest way

possible but also have new technologies. that is why the recovery package that the president passed is not just of money in it for job training. the bill became the clean jobs act. we were hoping to get a few million dollars. president obama put half a billion dollars into it. he really believes in what we're talking about. if people get a green certificate and no job, that is not positive. the president has also put $20 billion on the table to help create support for renewable energy companies. there should now be a better alignment between training people for jobs and job creation. the other thing the president has put on the table is $5 billion for weatherization and

energy efficiency. adding insulation, changing windows and doors, putting in more fuel efficient items. when your parents are being utility bill, they are paying too much. suppose they're paying a hundred dollars a month. they should probably be paying $70 a month and giving you that extra $30. the reason they are paying too much is because our homes often do not have the right insulation. the windows and doors do not fit right. they can bring in a caulking gun and sealed up the cracks. you may hear the windows rattle when the wind blows. that is because our homes are not energy efficient enough. we're literally leaking out money through the windows and doors. you can give people jobs fixing that. you can give somebody the

training to fix that. those are good jobs, but they have a lot of benefits. it not only touch your energy bill, it puts money in their pockets. your home is not heated or cooled by a magical fairy, but by a coal-fired plant that puts out pollution. if you reduce everybody's energy bill by 30%, that means you're reducing the energy they use by 30%. that means you are reducing the amount of pollution by 30%. having more efficient houses means that we will have cleaner air, was global warming, less asthma. the president is very smart. the things he does is very smart. if he put the dollar in someone's hands to do that, that

is the hardest working dollar. it cut an energy bill, cut pollution, made jobs, and it made a home more valuable because an energy efficient home will sell for more. instead of talking about recycling cans, if you have a president talking about recycling dollars. that will make it possible for people to get the jobs. > >> you mentioned that part of the benefit of green jobs is the health benefits. i was wondering how much emphasis be put on the become much emphasis you put on that when you are trying to promote

it -- i was wondering how much emphasis you put on that when you're trying to promote it. >> an economy that uses less pollution, uses updated technologies that a softer on the earth and better for human health, that is going to give us more wealth and better health than our present economy. they're not many more jobs for people in this classroom in the coal mines or on the oil rigs. we want to make sure that the people that worked in those industries are protected and respected. in terms of where the real growth will come from in the energy sector, the real growth will come from solar, wind, hydro, smart biofuels, geothermal, all of the new

technology. if you think about it from that point of view, those things have in common that it takes a lot of workers to put of the solar panels and make all the stuff. if you want to get a job, that is a good job to get. what if you want to be the employer? what if you want to be the business owner? those fields are now a lot more wide open. if you are an entrepreneur, that is also a good place to look. work, wealth, health. we are concerned about public health. the cleaner the environment, the healthier our children are. the less disease we have. all of these different autoimmune diseases and cancers are getting worse because the environment is getting more toxic. if you can make the environment less toxic, you should be able

to bring down disease. work, wealth, and help are all selling points for the grain economy. we also talk about green jobs, but it is much bigger than that. >> i kind of have two questions. i have heard you talk a lot about energy and air pollution. do you also want to work on water pollution and deforestation? have you thought about expanding this type of program overseas? it would be good if the u.s. stopped their pollution. but china is putting out the same amount of emissions and it is not helping as much. >> green jobs are not just clean energy jobs. i focus on clean energy because

that is the primary focus of the president. we focus a lot on clean energy, it is bigger than that. it is water, food, materials. at some point, everybody should have a green jobs. everything we do should help the earth instead of hurting it. with regard to the global situation, i think the united states has an obligation to lead by example. we cannot lead by lecturing. we cannot lead where we have not gone. it is hard for us to lead the world because we have not gone there as a country. our primary responsibility is to do that. we also have to remember that our sisters and brothers in asia -- they are polluting making the products, but where do they send to the products? over here. is that there pollution or our pollution? we would like to blame them, but

they would not be making all that stuff if we were not over here buying it. america has a big responsibility. we're responsible for others as well. we have to make sure that we're leading by example. [laughter] i want to make sure that other people get in. >> i wondered how you're going to make going green more affordable for the average person. >> that is a good point that she raises. it is expensive. people feel like it they're going to go green, they have to spend too much cream. you may be -- they have to spend too much green to green. you may not remember this. not too long ago, if you had a cell phone, you were a millionaire. there were only two different ways to have a cell phone. you were either a banker or a drug dealer. nobody else had them.

if you saw somebody with a cell phone, your eyes get big. they looked like g.i. joe backpacks. they were big old things. now, you probably have several itself bones in your backpack. once things get deployed outcome of the price tends to come way down. we have not gotten the renewal ble energy over the hump. the president is going to put a cap on the dirty pollution. at a certain point, the price of solar panels will start to come down. you also see the price of a lot of things we're talking about come down. the whole information technology boom we have seen with the internet, that was not always in

place. how did it get in place? you cannot even have a conversation about talking about twitter and hulu. but 10 years ago, none of that stuff existed. 10 years ago, so phones were rare. what happened is that the government did tw things righto. it got a public investments right. the government put money into making the internet possible. companies jumped on top of that and made other things possible. that was public investment. then there was the telecommunications act that got things going. that is what president obama is trying to do for energy. he wants to get the public' investment right so that we have that money on the table to create a smart. with different people jumping in to compete. it to make the energy side just as interesting and vital as the energy side -- as the technology

side. in america, when something stops making money, it stops. he wants to make sure that doing things the dirty way is no longer profitable. keep supporting the president and watch the prices go down and see everybody gets them. -- get some very quick you talk about how the prices will come down and the green jobs will eventually become profitable. do you think with the current economic situation there will be reluctance to create these jobs or take a lot of action on this? >> that is a very good question. i think this is the ideal time for the government and the private sector to be working together to come up with these new jobs, industries, and sectors. for those of you who like economics, one of the challenges we have is not just

with one party or politician. for a long time, they had some strange ideas about the economics of america. they seemed to think it would remain the no. 1 economic power in the world by being the no. 1 consumer and producer of products. you do not have to be in an ap class to figure out that if you are consuming more than you are producing, at some point, that will not work out too well. we used to be the no. 1 producer in the world selling to everybody else. then we became the no. 1 consumer. the whole world economy was relying on you and your parents credit cards to keep buying things. we started hocking our houses to buy flat screen tvs to cover up

the holes in our lives. the politicians thought it was a great idea until it stopped working last year. president obama has the view that we have to get back to basics. he does not want people making money pushing papers around. he wants people actually making and building stuff. one of the things that we can build in this country to get the economy going again, one thing we can produce here is clean energy. we have a wealth of solar power, wind power, all of these clean energy resources we have on tap. to tap them, we have to set up new factories and companies. that is how to get the economy going. this is the right time we cannot keep drilling down in the same hole. we've got to come up with something more solid. i think it is the right time to do with the president is talking about. -- i think it is the right time to do what the president is

talking about. >> earlier, you talked about how the green energy will still need fossil fuels. will there be a point where the whole world is powered by green energies and nothing else? >> yes. you raise a good point. at this point, the president says he wants a mix of legacy fuels but done better and smarter. the president also wants the new energy. the one thing we know about the old energy is that at some point, we will run the world economy without them because it's some point you will run out. it is as simple as that. there is not an infinite amount of wiloil and coal left in the

world. at some point, you will not have those things to rely on. you will then have to use the things that are truly renewable. you have to run the world economy off of solar, wind, and things that do not run out. the tides do not run out. hopefully, the rivers do not run out. the sun does not run out. the president is very smart by saying to start now. since we have to do it anyway, we might as well do it while we still have the cushion of the old stuff. you can do that in the smarter way. then we can invest in the new way. someday, we will have a world of only clean energy because there will be no other option. >> you spoke a lot about communities in poverty. what about families that survive off of government assistance? how do you promote it to them?

how do you recruit those individuals? >> this will be our last question. there are a lot of folks in our communities that are almost stuck in a cycle that it is hard for them to get out of. it is hard to get a job if nobody in your family you see going to work. you may say the missed the bus, but nobody else missed the bus. a lot of things that you might take for granted can sometimes not the standard for folks. we talk about pre- apprenticeship programs to give people the chance to learn those skills and self-esteem and helping yourself that will make people employable. that has to be a big part of the

president's agenda. that is wide mhy ms solis has ba strong advocate of using green jobs to pull people out of poverty. get some of these skills, get some of these trades, learn how to use these tools, then there will be a job out there. she is passed and a -- passionate about that. that is where her heart is. her heart is with the poor folks and giving them a chance. that is why president obama has her as the secretary of labor. i want to thank you for your time. somebody said something to me in college that stuck with me. i had a great professor who was my mentor. he is my mentor to this day. i always find somebody like that. i had another professor that i

never talked to but would say certain things in class. i want to close with something he told me. the class was astrophysics. i told you that i was like erckle. it was advanced astronomy. i did not learn anything in the class because it was way over my head. i remember this one thing he said. he said when you look up in the night sky, a little tiny thing almost the size of the green sand, a little piece of space dust will hit the atmosphere and you will see a streak. it takes just a split second. it might inspire you for a few seconds. sometimes, something about the size of a marble will come in from outer space, yet the atmosphere, burn up, and it will flash. everyone will see it for a

second. people will talk about it for weeks. sometimes, something about the size of a basketball or even bigger will hit the atmosphere. it will burn all the way through, light up the sky, and bury itself in the ground. maybe 100 years later or a thousand years later, someone will be plowing and hit this strange rock. they will keep it because it is interesting. but sometimes, something will come along. it happens very rarely. it is so big, so massive that it does not just last the second in the sky that we just notice for a moment. it does not just light up the sky in be talked about for a week. it does not get buried into the earth for people to find later. sometimes something so big and powerful hits the earth that

rocks the earth in the orbit. it stirs up the dirt and sand and wipes out the sun in changes the history of the planet forever. sometimes that kind of force is possible. be that kind of force. go for that kind of change. that is what barack obama is. he is not just trying to be a moment for a headline. he is going for big changes. changes that will be lasting and make the world different for ever. he is one person five years ago, he was an unknown state senator. he is now pursuing his dream. he is only 47 years old. when he gets out of office, he will still be a young man. maybe he will be the president of the earth. if he can do that and make the cut of change and aspire to that, what could all of you guys do? just you.

do not worry about everybody out in the hallway. what could you do if you decided to help each other, support each other, share information, and get yourself ready? that is the kind of change we will need. he cannot come from just one person. but it can come from just one generation. i hope your generation will be the earth-changing generation that barack obama is looking for. thank you very much. [applause] >> this is my classroom. these are my students. thank you so much for coming. this is a tiny token. i know there is a lot of basketball played at the white house. >> that is good. thank you very much. [applause]

>> everybody look at me and smile. one more. ok, a couple of more and we are done. thank you. >> i appreciate you guys. all the best. >> coming up next, wayn clough talks about the future of the smithsonian. then senator mark warner and a town hall meeting on health care. later, t.r. reid talks about his book "the healing of america."

>> the house returns on tuesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern from its august break. the members planned to begin the week with a number of bills dealing with federal land and historic sites. later next week, a measure of continuing programs to restore the chesapeake bay. the senate is also back next two-state at 2:00 eastern. they will begin with general speeches. later in the day, they will turn to legislation to promote tourism to people in foreign countries. the bill would create a non- profit tourism corporation. the senate is live on c-span2. >> joining us this sunday is the secretary of the smithsonian institution. we also have stacey palmer and

brett from the associated press. about 65% of funding for the smithsonian comes from the federal government. the stock market continues to struggle. are you looking for other sources of funding down the road? where? >> we are. we want to become more self- reliant. even before the economic recession, many museums were struggling. we think we have come through the recession well. we have had an increase in attendance. we are a wonderful bargain for the public because we are free. we have had some increase and turned things around by tightening our belts. we now need to deal with the long-term economic conditions. their grants, contracts, philanthropies. we think we will be more

aggressive in raising private funding. there is training where we could earn revenue that would fit with our mission. >> would you ever charge for admission? >> that is not part of our plan or thinking right now. the smithsonian is america's museum. when i see the smiles on people's faces, that is a great thing for the american people. if we can keep free admission at all costs, we should try to do it. >> you have been on the job for more than a year now. can you take us back to when you're thinking about taking the job? the institution had faced a big scandal. congress was mad. the public was mad. it was a tough job. then you have the financial challenges. what made you want to do this? >> those things that you just recited represented opportunities for me. here was a chance for us to do

something good about an institution that is fundamentally sound and that people really love. we needed to correct some things. we wanted to do something about that. the idea was to get around that and to get people thinking about the future instead of looking at the past. we have worked on that. it has been a fun experience. i will never take a job unless i think i am learning something. this was a great opportunity for me. i am a scientist or engineer. it was a chance for me to indulge mother loves better art, history, and culture. it is an opportunity to learn about those things. in addition, it was an opportunity to serve the american people. we are the nation's museum. i had a wonderful experience in higher education. but it is focused on one small segment of the population. we are an education institution. we have people young and small

coming with the young at heart. we are educating the entire spectrum. it is a much bigger demographic that otherwise. >> could you talk about how you have moved this institution over the past year? >> the smithsonian is an institution with a lot of moving parts. it is a science-based institution. we study climate change and rain forests around the world. that is in addition to work region arts, history, and culture. thinking about this as a system, how it adds up, how to take the parts and put them together to make surprising things happen. that engineering background has helped me and the curiosity that i have about things. >> you have been a long time university president and a professor before that. how does that translate into the new course that you're setting for the smithsonian of the next

10 years? >> the smithsonian is fundamentally an educational institution. it is about education. it is about thidiscovery and research. we can transfer that knowledge to a broader audience. being a university president is about education. having come from a public university was particularly helpful. public universities deal with a lot of constituencies and a broader set of issues than you might see in a private university. that experience was useful for me in understanding how connected we are to this mission of our nation. i think you get a little better because of that kind of expense. i love young abobeing around yog people. we have about a thousand people here who are in turns. we want to do more of that. >> dealer expect to make science a bigger priority than it has

been in recent years? -- do you expect to make science a bigger priority than it has been in recent years? >> the natural history museum and the air and space most of the science kind of moved off of the mall. the secretary at the time was interested in saving buffaloes. he was breeding them on the mall. someone said it was messy and to get them out of there. that is where the national zoo came from. in virginia, we study of endangered species and reintroduce them all over the world. there are wonderful things that the smithsonian does in science that need to be available to the public. we will use the internet as a device to connect that to the american people. >> can we talk more about that? what is your vision of technology and how museums have to change? there are a lot of young