this legislation does not really deal with that. there are a few foods that are irradiated today, but this legislation is more focused on making sure that the processing plant and the folks that are growing the food are producing food that is as safe as possible. host: again, we are linking to the food safety report on line. eric olson is the food safety director for the future of a trust. thanks for being with us this morning. guest: was my pleasure. host: that will do it for "washington journal." the president has a busy day. updates on that and other news throughout the hill and elsewhere throughout the day on c-span. we will see tomorrow morning on "washington journal." . .

>> the prime minister will speak later this afternoon to the council on foreign relations. live coverage of the indian prime minister's visit to the u.s. will continue at 5:30 eastern. tonight, the next neutrality, the wireless spectrum, and improving broadband service in the u.s. federal communications chairman julius genachowski on "the communicators."

>> thanksgiving week on c-span, the look on politics in america from the bipartisan policy center. what is there in politics, the role of the media, and assessing the obama presidency. tuesday night, the first state dinner, as president obama welcomes indian prime minister manmohan singh. and american icons, three nights of c-span documentary's, beginning with "the supreme court" on thursday night. >> now to a conference held by the american council on renewable energy. speakers include jeff bingaman and carol browner. this is about an hour and 40 minutes. on renewable energy. it is 1 hour 10 minutes.

>> good morning. good morning, everyone. welcome to the ai8th , yes it is the eighth. we are at the eight global energy in america of national policy conference, the sixth time in this room. what an honor it is to hold this annual review and think about where we are going in renewable energy in america. thank you for coming and i hope you enjoyed this day.

believe it or not, that is a symbol of the danish embassy, the embassy of denmark, where we will have a reception this evening. it is a great place to go from here to think about where we are going next in copenhagen. all the other sponsors, lockheed martin is in our space. all of these companies helped produce this and we thank them. me remind us that the theory of this conference is called phase two. what does that mean? in 2004, we define this phase one/phase two idea.

we started someplace in the '70s and now we're commercializing. we realized that that is not the way that it is. there was actually an r&d phase and then a deployment phase. we defined phase one has a time frame between 1975. -- 1975-2000, we had a great fund are in the program. during that timeframe, $100 billion was invested. 50 billion in nuclear, 25 billion in fossil, 14 billion in renewable energy and $11 billion in efficiency. i will speak about the $25

billion and renewals, and this was a successful government program. look at the technologies it has come from this program. it has now swept the world and is being deployed everywhere. a rare, and declared success. sunday, they will declare it a success. phase two is putting these technologies and to use at scale and it is not going to happen in a year. it is one to happen in 25 years. that is the scale of. y'all know what an s curve looks like. this is the upscale of the es curve -- the s curve. this is the upscale. this is the tough part. this is the lift that we have to do. this is what we have to do in

this congress. to think about how we will do that. each year, we have had bigger and bolder ideas to see beyond this year's urgency and look ahead to what it will take to scale this up. so, today's topics, and i want to thank the cochairs of this conference, who, since august, have been meeting in conference calls to plan the topic of this year. we went through phases, thinking it was copenhagen. it must be the steppingstone to copenhagen, but then we thought no, it is a steppingstone to copenhagen, but renewable energy scale is still its own task.

bacto the issues of today, that will be discussed on this stage today, it is the framework of policy. we have different perspectives from technology, industry, labour, finance, all different perspectives to be brought to bear in setting up a framework for the policy's going forward. -- the policies going forward. we already saw this in denmark and germany and spain and now we have china coming. this is competition and we are up to full speed. this is full speed competition. is the west or to win this? -- is the u.s. going to win this? i have been asked, so many times, by the export import bank what we need to do to increase

exports of renewable energy from this country and my answer has been to build factories. that is what we need it. that is this part of phase two. next is how to finance the scale oup. they have estimated that it will take $30 -- $30 billion-$50 billion every year going forward to reach 20% by 2020. not a 3-5, 30-50. the task ahead is to double what we have ever done and do it every year. >> can the government do that alone? >> absolutely not. and wall street do that alone? >> absolutely not.

-- ken wall street that a long? absolutely not. -- ken wall street do that alone -- can wall street do that alone? absolutely not. investors with 18 trillion dollars, the second is the middle east funds and the third is china. we have to link u.s. institutional investors with their 18 trillion dollars to invest. and we need government policy to create that. there is a partnership. lastly, constructing a policy solution that is truly bipartisan. we must mobilize 30-$50 billion

and we cannot do that unless everyone agrees that this is where our country is going. that will be the closing session, today. lastly, i want to have a sense of purpose in this magnificent room that is so motivating to all of us, to remind ourselves of the greatness of the founding fathers that imagined the kind of place exemplified by this room, and compare that with the knowledge of our earth's sensitivity and our desire is seat -- our desire for a sustained society. and they need to work together towards the solutions. our goal today is to have good and gain changing ideas that will become the policies of the united states tomorrow. with that, thank you for being here. i hope you get a lot out of today. it is my pleasure to introduce

the first of two co-chairmen on renewable energy. he was the director of the california renewable energy commission and came back as commissioner as the california energy commission and was given credit for much of the policies for the state of california. [applause] i bring you greetings from the west coast. as historians look across the last several decades of our national energy policy, they are likely to find common pads, no matter which party is in power. had exceeded responsibilities, squandered opportunities,

willful avoidance of unpleasant realities. it recently, that has started to change. whether we recognize it or not, there is a race under way. most of the major economies of the world are striving to radically expand the size of their domestic renewable energy markets in order to gain competitive advantage in the great growth industry of the 21st century. the president made a solemn commitment. in sacramento, they would say that that is no gold bottomed early man gold -- no burly man -- and nogirly man goal. we should all be held so

accountable. the president set a very clear context by which to evaluate the various standards being proposed to we are all a nation of scorekeepers. as a country, we do not have a track record of sticking with our commitments. some of you will remember and be unnerving plea in which solar collectors were yelling of the white house roof -- against off the black house rules. -- yanked off the white house rosof. there is no question that energy-efficient c should be the priority of irrational energy

policy, but ever since the story in the old testament where abraham was asked to kill his son to show his spiritual devotion, something in the human @@@@@@@@p)yh@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should live separately and not be pitted against each other. the pragmatism necessary to get it renewable energy standard through the senate energy committee has been a disappointed. it demands to be corrected as the process moves forward. look at what we have accomplished this year. we have an awful lot of lenders who still active since they're on a bank holiday. -- act as if they're on a bank holiday. the rest of us are working hard. some of the movie buffs are wondering, where does this lead? inking, where does this lead?

we have a lot of work to do to fill in that gap. the instruments that we rely on , tax incentives, budget appropriations, not a very appetizing mix when you think about scale ability we have a problem to the extent that we are successful going forward. this will cost more and more money in our federal budget. we need to start thinking about how to get some of them off budget of off of the taxpayer and onto the shoulders of the ratepayer, where roughly belongs. i do not think we are ready. i suspect we're too stubborn. i have to say, we should familiarize ourselves with the

stack of reports coming out of the european commission and now -- they come to one single compelling conclusion, and that is that the terrance instrument has created more renewable energy at lower costs than any other single policy initiative tried anywhere else in all world and we should go through the federal power act and take away those burdens and barriers that some utilities say that those who desire to go forward should be able to do so. our balkanized way of planting and permitting licensing of our transmission system is not suitable. they are met with the

predictable knee-jerk resistance from local authorities and we have a proud tradition of local control of land use decisions in our country. i would ask each of my former colleagues which one of you has been unfairly diminished by the decision made by congress several decades ago to create a national licensing system for our natural gas pipelines? as a result of that decision, our gas distribution system is the envy of the world. our economy is immeasurably more prosperous and our environment is infinitely cleaner. we should do the same thing with the electric transmission grid. it is a new day and a new approach is needed.

you are not want to get adams smith out of the car, but the hands on the wheel should be steering in the national interest. the european union, china, brazil, even india, they are always in the bar on what it takes to be a leading market in renewable energy. historically, quite often, the united states has been a little late to the party. but after we get there, we have a way of making everyone know that we have arrived. this is our time. we need to make the best use of it. thank you, very much. [applause] >> i think the words that i

asked for this morning were honest and bold. thank you, that was honest and bold. >> we will hear honest and bold thoughts from someone who has been on the firing line. please welcome dan walker. >> that was a spectacular opening. i really appreciated. welcome to the newest secretary for renewable energy. we look forward to your remarks. thank you to our sponsors. this is a wonderful event. let me move from pashtun to the paper and pomp of washington d.c. -- lebanon from passion to the paper and paul -- let me

move from pashtuion sion to ther and pulp washington dc. few took notice of these moments and we just pushed on. now that we are in the big leagues, are highs are higher and i am afraid our lows are lower. in this moment of an economic security, we're seeing this in full. the future is not what it used to be. the question is, what comes next? the best way to predict the future is to invent it. we have so many ideas and i think that this is what this conference is about, that is, how do we invent the future where we truly realize the

i had the opportunity to testify on the senate environment committee, and that is not where i got the black ani. my message was that the critical need to adjust the climate crisis provides us with an unprecedented and opportunity to rebuild our energy system -- unprecedented opportunity to rebuild our energy system. this is the key point, to adopt t policies and we can create new jobs. we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and we can protect ourselves from a global climate crisis. last year, at google, we outlined one potential path to clean energy futures. some reduces co2 emissions by

50%. there were a net savings of $800 billion. it will bulls, especially when the solar and geothermal. built on a base of inefficiency are the real winners. between 2007 and 2003, the world will need to invest 26.3 trillion dollars in energy infrastructure to meet currently projected demand. as one has said, calling technology could be the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century. the ability of the u.s. to seize this opportunity will be in actions taken by government to

put a significant price on carbon emissions. while this is necessary, it is not sufficient to address the climate problem. it will not put the u.s. in a position to seize the extraordinary opportunities that will come with rebuilding our global energy economy. a significant price will definitely send a strong signal, but it will not, by itself, insure that the technology that the technologies are invented and deployed here in the united states. i told the environment committee that there are four complementary energy policy mechanisms that will be critical for our nation to take advantage of these opportunities. we must increase public funding of research and development of advanced energy technologies. in 1980, 10% of the government are in the was an energy. today, it is only 2%.

there is a serious risk of falling off a finding cliff when these investments run out. we were encouraged when president obama called for investing $15 billion per year over the next decade in clean energy technologies and took note when energy secretary -- the energy secretary said we must move closer to levels in the high-tech industry which is generally around 10% of sales. in contrast, all five of the world's leading internet technologies are from the u.s. and the internet itself was the product of federal funding r&d in the 1970's. let me stress that the private

sector cannot completely fill -- beverly -- let me stress that the private sector cannot completely fill the serious gap in energy r&d funding. the high risk research funded by government that has brought us major breakthroughs in information technology and energy is not the province of venture capital investment for corporate research. second, we must increase the capital available to deploy these advanced technology is a commercial scale. moving from a nation that derives 7% of its -- it will require trillions of dollars in investment. the challenge is not easy. the problematics step of moving a technology from a small pilot project, often funded by venture capital investment to full commercial scale projects

financed by the banks is where many technologies died. we call a development that -- we call it bad that -- we call a development death. -- we call it development death. we will drive private investment. there would be an independent administration with a board directors. we must build a smarter and bigger electric britain to better harness' efficiency. a smarter grid will let us see our energy use, measure it, price it, and manage it we're looking to advance this on several fronts. engineers have developed a simple, secure in free software tool that gives consumers an easy means to see their home

electricity use on their computer or cellular phone. we're looking at how large numbers of vehicles could actually help stabilize the grid and provide massive storage capacity to support a vastly greater share of renewable generation. a specially bred where the air does not always blow and the sun is not always shine. citing new transmission capacity may be the most vexing peace of the renewable energy puzzle and one where new federal policy is critical if we're going to build thousands of miles of new transmission lines across multiple state borders. fourth and finally, we must set national standards to accelerate cleaner and more efficient technologies. congress should adopt a strong

energy standards. this has sparked new industries and created thousands of jobs. renewable energy and energy efficiency are highly complementary. that is why we may be facing increasing competition, but our best friends in the energy efficiency business stand ready to help was lower the effect of green electrons by pairing them with improvements. just think what it 3% son -- a 3 cent per kilowatt hour could do for our homes. let me give three examples of complementary energy policies. one is solar thermal power. proving the technology and where

state standards are driving demand and government-backed finance is helping get plants built. looking ahead, and hands geothermal systems present another opportunity for a strong finish a policy and the price of carbon could drive a new insá@ @ g@ @ @ @ @ dá >> when it comes to renewable energy, we can indeed predict the future by inventing it. this forum brings together professionals across an array of disciplines well positioned to do so. what are we waiting for? thanks very much. [applause] >> thank you, dan.

again, the words are honest and old, and it continues. we will hear the same thing again as we hear senator jeff bingaman of new mexico, chairman of the senate and the energy committee, and here to share his view of where we are with renewable energy and where this is going. are and where this is all going. [applause] thank you very much for including me in your program. let me start by thanking danaher weicker for the leadership he is provided on this -- dan riker. i appreciate that. as all of you know, the senate is focused on health care reform

and i assume that is what you are here to talk about. i think that once we get past health care reform, and successfully, i believe, we will be in a position to consider what can be done on energy and climate change and that will be in the new year as far as the senate schedule is laid out. i think, at that time, we could make significant steps towards this transition. clearly, the market, as it currently operates, fails to properly factor in the cost of the environment. this is a danger to our economic

security and our environmental future as well. putting a price on carbon is essential and we are committed to doing that. even with the market, the scale of clean energy investments needed to set a course that is sustainable for the future is daunting. well there are immense -- while there is immense promise in the new energy technologies being developed, we clearly have to have, paired with that technology, policies to allow those technologies to achieve their potential and to help us deal with the challenges that we face. if we succeed in putting those policies into place, that i think that we can very

effectively address the energy challenges and create new jobs and deal with climate change challenges. in june, the energy committee referred to this. in june, the resource committee reported a comprehensive energy bill. it is the energy act of 2009. we forwarded that bill with a vote of 15-8. it contains a series of policies needed to unlocked our energy future and let me talk about three of these that debt also referred to first is the renewable electricity standard, to set a baseline for renewable energies. second his streamlined and more effective policies and

procedures for an electric transmission lines and third is the clean energy deployment administration to insure that investment materializes. starting with the renewable elektra's the standard, this is a policy that i have advocated we adopt at the national level -- starting with the national rouble electricity standard, this is a policy that i have advocated we adopt the national level. i think that everyone in this room probably agrees with that. there are state renewable electricity standards and there is inconsistency in coverage and application. i believe that the most effective policy would be to have this at a national level.

in this congress, we have the opportunity to go-ahead and establish a national were no electricity standard that will provide a more consistent savings to the market, this is also part of this bill that we have reported out of our sit here to committee. if enacted, it would accomplish two goals. first, it would enhance the diversity and second, it would position the united states to regain the world technology lead in these areas. these are both important goals for. -- both important goals. this makes sense to have the electricity sector that is diversified into important

dimensions. diversified between centralized and distributed generation and diversified among the various sources of electricity generation. in my view, a renewable electricity standard encourages both kinds of diversification. new technologies could be readily implemented. many of you could cite examples. a renewable electricity standard helps option is that more closely resemble enhanced geothermal systems and concentrated solar power. our current system of tax incentives does not provide the kind of certainty that is

needed intends to only provide incentives to those forms of renewable power that can be built quickly, in particular to wind power. i strongly support all forms of renewable energy, but i would like to see more incentives for a wider range of technologies. and national were noble electricity standard will also help the united states to regain leadership in the development and manufacturing of renewable technologies. the reason is simple. technologies tend to be located close to their principal markets and that is why germany, which does not have much in the way of sunlight, is a worldwide center for the manufacturers of solar panels. there is a vibrant market for solar technologies. the united states has had a

strong intellectual leadership in creating these new technologies, but time and again, we have seen how our work has resulted in the manufacturing occurring elsewhere. we need to try to head that off. >the second issue i want to talk about his transmission. it is closely connected to having an effective, reliable electricity standard. it ensures that we have a transmission system that can connect to renewal resources and that can handle the challenges of intermittent see that are associated with summer no electricity sources. we have seen a lot of revolution in electricity markets over the past few decades.

but our system of serving those markets and customers has not kept pace. we are now in a position where developers are substantially impede from making economic investments by a fractured system for identifying in meeting those transmission needs. the major focus of the bill has been to address the three most difficult transmissions. secondly, we cite a 44 the cost of new transmission. i believe that we have a successful starting point for a bipartisan debate on this issue. there may be additional improvements that are offered so

that we can adopt, but we have a solid basis for going forward with that debate. again, having a transparent and effective way of deciding where the new electric transmission points may be built, and ensuring that the cost of the lines are spread across all of the beneficiaries. despite the importance of electricity transmission policy , the politics surrounding this issue will be intense. when we do get to a full senate debate, i am sure that we will see some of the politics in this play. the third item i would talk

about is the need for support for clean energy technology deployment. new renewable energy technologies that counter major barriers when it comes to obtaining the kind of support in the private financial sector that helps them to make the transition for commercially proven products. i refer to the valley of death where good ideas whether for lack of sufficient capital. i was in silicon valley last week where cutting edge venture- capital firms are turning their attention to clean energy technologies, the kind of projects they are pursuing our

not surprisingly renewable energy technologies. others are technologies that are needed in order for renewable energy to be fully integrated into our systems. as attractive as these technologies are, we need to find ways to insure that the capital is there to develop and deploy them. the federal government can make a big difference by using its ability to make focused, patient investments to leverage and unlock private capital markets where there are many billions of dollars to bring these new technologies to where they can be deployed on the scale that will be necessary. the first title to our bill is

the clean energy deployment administration. it is designed to make the key investments to accelerate the technology that we need. this was a bipartisan achievement. we will move a wide range of technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace by combining the technological expertise of the department of energy with a new and independently overseen cabinet of business professionals to get through this valley of death. we will be empowered to aggregate smaller projects that might have trouble attracting capital investment because of their size. an example of this problem of balance. they need to be aggregated into

larger initiatives that can be more readily financed. i believe that the investments that we need cannot wait. most of the energy infrastructure that we build today will still be operating in the year 2015. @@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the longer we wait to address the clean energy challenges, the higher the hill will be that they have to climb a. i'm hopeful that our proposal will be seen as the kind of response that is needed to this serious problem. again, we will not make that happen without a strong push from experts who know the power and possibility of breakthrough

renewable energy technology best. many of you in this room are in that group. many of you in this room are in that group. congress will need encouragement. i hope that you will all advocate for that enactment of this provision. i have briefly outlined three of the key areas that are most important. strong grenoble energy standards, and a mechanism for providing strong financial support for these projects. all three areas have a strong set of bipartisan provisions that need and deserve the support of the private sector. i hope that all of you will continue to advocate for these necessary steps.

i look forward to working with you in this venture that we are all on to see this transition of our economy. again, thank you for including me in today's program. i wish you well. i hope it is a constructive session. >>[applause] >> it was suggested that someone might have a question. i will be glad to respond if anyone does. i am sure i have answered most of them. >> yes? >> [inaudible] >> i do not know.

that is the honest answer. i hope so. but i do not know. >> all lot of the policy development is affected by regional differences. could you address that and how we deal with that? how can we do better in that area? >> in the time that i have been on the energy committee, i have noticed that many of the issues that we deal with divide along regional lines rather than partisan lines. that causes difficulties. it also breaks down partisan divide. i think that it allows us to develop alliances across the political aisle with signatures

from our region of the country. i do not know that it is a bad thing. the truth is, all of these issues have a dynamic of their own. your allies on one issue are going to be your sworn opponents on the next issue and that is the nature of the congress and the legislative process. i think that is clearly true in the case of energy. >> my question is, what have you thought about implementing that would fund it on a short-term basis? >> i think we are in a time where there is a shortage of

lyndon for well demonstrated renewable energy projects and we clearly need to find ways to assist that. myself, i would not want to see them try to solve the problem. that is a short-term problem. i see them solving the longer term problem of how to use the help technologies become commercialized? i would see the bill in the first two-four of a particular plant that we would need, but i would not see the building hundreds. i would think that the private markets have to be dependent upon been to do that. i think they have demonstrated that they are willing to. >> it is the honor to have you. thank you, very much.

-- it is an honor to have you. thank you, very much. >> thank you. [applause] thank you centre. it is now my great pleasure to introduce carol browner. she has a distinguished record in the community. she was the administrator of the environmental protection agency under president clinton and went on to have a distinguished role in the policy world. it is my great pleasure to introduce carol browner. [applause] >> thank you for that introduction. it is a pleasure to be here with all of you and to follow chairman bingaman. i have the pleasure of working for a president who believes and is working hard to change the energy future of our country and

the world. with the support of many of you here, today, one of the first things he was able to do was sign the recovery act and as many of you know, dan was an instrumental part of creating that recovery act. $80 billion in clean energy investments, sometimes called the recovery act, the largest energy bill to ever pass the united states congress and i think we would all agree. we are proud of what is happening with the recovery act. many of you were part of making it a success. the money is rolling out the door. we are seeing mothballed plants reopening and there is a factory in pennsylvania and because of a tax credit, it has been retired people to make energy-efficient windows so families can take advantage of other tax credits. the state weather is asian

programs are expanding. just a couple of weeks ago, the vice president laid out plans for a national retro said of the programs in this country. the list goes on and on. one of the greatest pieces of news that we have had is the number of larger programs that are over prescribed. there are more people prepared to put private dollars on the table with a tax credit or a match or a grant from the federal government that we had money to honor. that is an example of what is happening in this industry. we are starting to rebuild the clean energy industry in this country and we believe that this is laying the groundwork for making sure but it -- that we have all that we need in order to lead the global demand in clean energy technologies. we have taken seriously, from

day one, our existing authorities. for example, early on, we saw something happen between the secretary and administrator jackson that had never happened before. they came -- the came together -- they came together and said that what we want are more efficient cars. the company said that they could not have to different regulatory regimes. the could not have to different regulatory shoot -- regulation enforcement policies. congress had said to detroit and to the auto manufacturers that you're going to have to make cars that are 35 miles a gallon by 200020. by 2016, the standard will be

35.5. we were able to achieve more than even congress thought was possible. i want to recognize all of kathy's leadership. there was a backlog in she has been moving through. she has been putting in place the standards that will give consumers choices so that they can not only get the appliances that they want, but the savings. we are excited about all of that. we have also been doing work at our other agencies. the list of existing authorities that we are putting to use, authorities that have been on the books for a long time, but no one has taken advantage of. the president believes in that

if we use these authorities, we are demonstrating important domestic leadership on how to create a new energy future. our work has not simply been domestic. it does not stop at our borders. we achieved an agreement at the g-20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. we were able to achieve an agreement around black carbon. earlier this week, you may have seen the news that the agreement was reached in china, it is an important agreement. you have both countries speaking to all the component parts of the ballhi roadmap. they commit to make significant efforts to mitigation. they do so in a transparent and open manner. we think this is a very good lead into copenhagen, coming

very soon. i am sure many of you will find your way there. . . >> the prompt start accord that countries will undertaken committed to enforceable domestic actions, that there will be a real demonstration of what each individual company is willing to do tha, that it wille verifiable and transparent grid we will spend the next six to 12 months funding a binding international agreement. obviously, everyone hoped that would be possible in december crude everybody worked very hard -- that would be possible in december. everybody worked very hard. i think rasmussen and his

speech in december said that there were other opportunities and we could take a significant step forward. g about what i spend a lot of my time on, which is the domestic legislation. while health care is clearly dominating the news these days, you can hardly turn on the tv or picking up a newspaper without seeing something about the issue of health care. that doesn't mean there is not a lot going on around ex first, we need to break our dependence on foreign oil. we need to put in place the production capacity. we need to look at alternatives like natural gas to fuel our fleets. but we need to begin our work on breaking our depend enls on foreign oil. secondly, we need the policies that will create a new generation of clean energy jobs. we are seeing this is possible in the recovery act.

it should give all of us hope. it is something you all have known but should give others who have not followed this sector as close hope that there is an opportunity, that we can have a new generation of clean energy jobs. senator bingaman talked about how a renewable electricity standard will help stimulate the creation of jobs. some of the things in the recovery act are helping to demonstrate that. but we need to make sure that comprehensive energy legislation takes us further down that path and skewers us as a global leader in the clean energy technology world. finally, we need to put a cap on the dangerous pollutants that contribute to global warming and climate change. the house was amazing. chairman waxman, representative marky, and speaker pelosi, that bill was historic. it is a very good outline of

what the component parts should be. we now have had two committees act in the senator. senator bingaman's committee, a bipartisan@@@@@ @ rn @ @ @ @ @ j i think no word the in building on all of that leadership is the recent op-ed by senator john kerry and senator lindsey graham. he called me -- under gramm called me and said, "i will not be with your administration on a lot of things, but i will be on this." and he said, "what i say this, i mean cap-and-trade. we are beginning to see the outlines of what a bipartisan bill will look like. .

the reason we are optimistic that we can pass this legislation is this is a jobs bill. this is about creating jobs, and that is what america wants today. this is about giving you in the country the kind of certainty and predictability you need. you need to know what is expected of you. you need to know if you make those investments in alternatives that there is going to be a demand, a market. finally, there is this deep belief that this is the moral and ethical thing to do. i had the privilege of running the e.p.a. for eight years and worked with the world's leading environmental engineers. they are great and have solved so many problems for our country. but the truth of the matter is there isn't one among them who can reverse sea level rise once it starts to occur. we have to start to take the steps today so we can give

future generations the same kind of opportunities and hope that prior generations have had, and i think we will do it. it will not be easy. it will not happen without all of your help in whatever form that takes. we have a lot of people to educate. we have people to educate not just in congress, but in towns and cities across the country. but change is coming, and important change, and it is a real honor to be a part of an real honor to be a part of an administration that wants to work with organizations like acore, that wants 0 work with the companies that you represent to create a different future. thank you again for the thank you again for the oppo -- for the opportunity and i'm happy to answer any questions. [applause] bities.

thank you for coming this morning. >> thank you. >> two or three questions we might have? >> i am deeply concerned by the future generations because if $-- $20 billion is a lot of money, but it is also a lot of debt. i am concerned about the reality that we may have a society without equal opportunity -- not a speech, sir. a question? >> the question is this. how can we guarantee that new technologies, promoting two new technologies can actually get the financing they deserve? the hard work and innovation can be paid off? >> how can we get the financing to scale this thing up? we talked earlier about the $30 billion to $50 billion we need every year in this sector. your thoughts on that? >> i think the recovery act is a good start. where congress decides to go in

terms of continuing funding for those programs in the recovery act, which have been hugely self and many of the clean energy ones that are at the forefront remains to be seen. the administration recognizes that we need to give the industry a certainty and predictability so you know if you make that whatever, that there is going to be a market demand. we think an important part of doing that is to put a cap on carbon as a renewable electricity standard, and if we can get those in place. you will get a lot of what you need. i heard chairman bingaman talk about a financing mechanism and others out there. we think those could be an important part of energy reform, and we need to see where that goes. we do understand that in addition to the regulatory certainty, there needs to be 134 funding, and so we will have to work with congress to see what makes sense. >> you are working with the

partnership that is chaired by jeff right here. >> we met yesterday. >> we want to work, the financial community, with the government in ways that haven't did not -- been done before. >> next question right here. >> i would like to know what you are going to do about the decentralized power. what about utilities able to hookup five megawatt or 10 megawatt generation. the egg level is kind of the level where we are. >> you want to know how the small generators are going to hook into the utilities? >> yes. we are having a problem making that leap with the utilities. >> one of the things we have done, and i don't know if this is precisely the answer you are looking for, but we have made a

significant investment in making the grid bigger, better and smarter, giving them the tools they need to better manage incoming and outgoing. one of the things we deal with in this country is the 50 state regulatory agencies, and they function under different laws, in most instances to good effect. i don't know if the chairman is here, but i know that fverageeveragerveragecrverage -- ferc and others have been dealing with how about we can deal with 50 organizations and how certain problems get solved. >> we are here today with legislation that with the clean energy act, that they may break it down in industry segments. can you tell us how the

administration feels about that? >> we belief that we need exrenlsive energy reform, and that means we need an economy-wide program. we think that you will get the most common sense, cost effective solutions if you have an economy-wide program. it is a what the president has said from the beginning. it is what we put in the first budget to congress. it is what the house has effectively done, and that is what we are going to be working for to the best of our ability in the senate. thank you all very much for the opportunity. [applause] >> thank you, carol. we will now take literally a two-minute break as we take a transition. it is not a full break, but do stand up. we will be))&d b

>> nancy brecker talks about -- nancy brinker talks about new breast screening guidelines that is2 on is -- that is on c-span2. and life at " 10:00 p.m., the indian prime minister, manmohan singh, will speak later this afternoon to the council on foreign relations. live coverage of his visit to the u.s. will continue at 5:30 p.m. eastern. tonight, and that neutrality, the wireless spectrum, and improving broadband service in the u.s.. the sec chairman julius genacho

wski maps out his plans on c- span2. beginning thursday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the supreme court, home to america's highest court, reveals the building in its with the detail through the supreme court justices eyes. and be on the road -- the velvet ropes of public tours, public places as well as rarely seen spaces. and saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the capital, the history and art and architecture of one of america's most symbolic structures. american icons, three memorable nights, thursday, friday, and saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. get your own copy of american icons, a 3 diss dvt said for $24.95 plus shipping and

handling. this morning, "washington journal" talked with "washington post" reporter walter pincus about how u.s. handles intelligence and how particular agencies share information. this is about 30 minutes. for "the washington post." welcome. you wrote last week about the developing turf war between the director of intelligence and the cia. you said the tension that had arisen between the two had to be settled by national security adviser james jones through some solomon-like measures. what were some of those festering issues? guest: the director of central intelligence previously through legislation had been running

everything, at least in name. the new director of national intelligence is kind of finding its way as to what he runs and what remains with the agency. these issues had been around for a while. one of them developed over who would be the director of national intelligence representative in capitals around the world. traditionally it has been the cia. although dennis blair did not have any one particular to name his carving out his territory. the issue arose over whether the cia would remain as the top intelligence group. that bounced back and forth. it began before blair came in and was finally settled by jones at the cia would remain, this station chief, would remain there. two other issues came up at the

same time. one was who would represent the intelligence community at the national security conference meetings at the white house. and at different levels. that was decided by the director of national intelligence. the toughest one was the question of covert action. it is a presidentially-directed covert action not to be disclosed. has to be done by law, the president has to signed a finding. it directs the cia to carry it out. the director of national intelligence wanted to be in that mix. because it is a direct connection to the agency, it was a tussle over that and decided the direct line between the president and cia would remain. in those areas where they wanted

their to be some oversight, when the white house, the nfc, , the president directed it to be done and said the national director could step in. host: backtrack a little bit for us. how did this director of intelligence, that office serve? guest: in the wake of congress believing, and to some degree the general public -- that something had to be done because of the intelligence failures that people said it mounted up. the cia did not predict or stop or disrupt the 9/11 attack. then the over-staging of saddam hussein's wmd's. so, what they did in effect was to put someone on top of the cia and the other 15 agencies.

host: intelligence agencies? guest: a coordination job. people believe that the cia is the central agency and it is in analysis and spine overseas. but there are 15 other agencies, most of them inside the pentagon. the pentagon is the 800 lb intelligence gorilla. they have all the money -- 80% spent on intelligence goes through the pentagon. host: you been out of the entire host: you been out of the entire intelligence budget, 80% host: you mean of the whole intelligence budget, 80 percent, goes to the pentagon and 20% goes to the cia? guest: no, you have other ranges -- agencies, too. the department of energy has got

one. the cia budget has substantially increased, but it is probably 15%, maybe. but you needed in the old days, and you still do, you needed that the director of central intelligence now and again and now the director of national intelligence have to get along with the secretary of defense. we are in a lucky position for intelligence right now because bob gates as a secretary of defense was at one point the director of central intelligence, so there is a meeting of the mines. host: has adding the level of property in the intelligence committee, has improved u.s. oversight of intelligence? guest: oversight really relies primarily on the agencies themselves, and on congress, and what is being sorted out is sort of, who has the authority and where.

the one positive thing that has been gained is a new sense of working together, which you did not have before. it is what they called stovepipes. the cia did the cia thing and the defense intelligence agency did their thing and, to some degree, special forces did their thing. there is much more collaboration now and in that sense, i think, putting in the new director of national intelligence was good. is another layer, another layer of approval -- putting in the director was good. host: you read an article about the fbi watchlist. 1600 are suggested daily. you wrote in march that the u.s. intelligence committee suggested on a daily basis that 6 in hundred people qualified for the list because they presented a reasonable suspicion.

this article was written before the shootings at. fort at why would somebody like hussan not have made it on this list? guest: we are still in the process of finding that out. this is a collaborative effort. you have people feeding data at an enormous rate. how you sort through it -- what list that you get put on is amazing. when i first read about these lists, three years ago there were something like 150,000 names. now there are 450,000. there are multiple names, particularly terrorists themselves have multiple names. again, this is one of these

complicated things. the tsa people at the department of transportation sort through when you get on planes to have one last, another list of people who cannot fly. then there is the fbi with a major list. then the national counter- terrorism center has the master list. host: one of the challenges is issues with personnel? what do they have enough personnel to oversee this? guest: you have a language problem, for one. much of the material is in arabic. you have trouble recruiting people to do translation. once you start talking about people's names and you have different people supplying the names it becomes a real mess. host: let's hear from the viewers.

corona, calif., good morning, gloria, on the democrats' line. caller: on a show someone mentioned in detention camps in the united states so i went to the library and find out the joint chiefs of staff -- buildings throughout the states, some are old military bases. they claim there is a red, blue, yellow list with different names on them. do you know of anything like that? some are like concentration camps. host: are you talking about detainee camps like guantanamo detainees -- where they would go? caller: no, these are throughout every state, armed and ready for something, some influx of a large quantity. host: do you know anything about that?

guest: no, and i do not -- i hate the idea when people get nervous and scared. stories develop like this. people who have access to media push them. it scares people. it is nothing i have ever heard of. i doubt it. host: good morning, on the independent line. caller: one of the last two journalists, walter, and i am glad to speak to you this morning. intelligence agencies were not fitting the white house the information they wanted to hear so they develop their own out of the defense department. i have a little information because one of my cousins work for it, and extremely intelligent man, capable of doing anything he was told to do. which probably included feeding some false information to mr. cheny's office to get to the

president to influence his decisions at that particular time. pretty much cooking the books as far as i'm concerned. it put a pretty big riff in my family because of our particular beliefs in politics. that is why i'm pretty much an independent because i want to stay out of it. it does not matter what kind of information is coming out if you cherry pick what you want. unless the intelligence is turre across the board, our leaders can do what they want. guest: i think you are right. that was one of the issues during the bush. bush how people just chose to believe what they wanted to. -- during the bush administration. that is where it led us. one of the interesting things

going on today is that president obama is sorting through the intelligence. there is a real disagreement right now. both internally and a externally -- as to the threat from the afghan taliban, the pakistani taliban, and from groups in afghanistan who are just plain gangsters and drug dealers. it is a very complex issue. you have to sort through it to decide what your policy will be. i think that is going on now. host: the me ask you about iran. over the weekend it staged war games and sits on the nuclear offer from the west. guest: what you are seeing is iran acting in a nationalistic way, not to our best interests,

but to theirs. we have been threatening a iran for a decade now. in their effort to get their nuclear power and potential for a nuclear weapon we have been through the bush administration when we wanted with policy to overturn their government. they are being threatened militarily by the israelis to blow up these sites. they are going through what they see for themselves. i think that we have to watch it. but i think we have to watch what we say and do. one of the ironies today in iran is that the opposition to the government in the election turns out to be the people who were objecting to this deal that

amandhmadinejad made. there is an objection to the policy of america to stop them from doing what they think they ought to be able to do. whether or not it will build a nuclear weapon. they want the ability. host: how to reconcile differences between the estimate that came out a couple of years ago that said they were not interested in building a weapon, and a more recent news that they might be on that course? guest: the course, they are on is the potential to build a nuclear weapon. there are at least two elements involved. first is to get the nuclear material. the material that is enriched

uranium. the tricky part is that at a lower level it is what you use in nuclear power plant. the second element, are they working to design a warhead? that is where the intelligence said they had stopped. that is very hard to discover whether they are going back and doing it. there are probably disagreements among intelligence agencies. certainly the israelis feel they are going ahead with a warhead. we do not have conclusive evidence of that. host: next up is in new orleans and 20 on the caller: democrat'' line good morning. mr. walter pincus, pre-9/11, i would like to know your opinion if you think this is really

bizarre. the intelligence in charge before 9/11, through its come up to and through the iraq war, is anyone in any agencies losing their job? it they were given medals. i'm starting to think that maybe it is the lsd that i ate in the 1960's that is causing me not to see the logic in this. maybe you can explain? guest: i think what you're talking about is president bush giving the medal of freedom to george tenet, the director of central intelligence, both 9/11 and in the iraq period. that is much more a political thing for george bush because if you remember he also gave a medal to the general who sort

of did the invasion of iraq which turned out not to have been totally prepared for what happened afterward. at that period of time, the interest in the bush white house was to make things look good. at a time when there were not looking good. host: here is a caller on the independent line. caller: good morning. you have a nursing a lot of operations, mr. walter pincus. my favorites authors run the gamut. i want to throw out a few things and you can respond to whatever it interest you. the 1993 world trade center bombing was supervised by an fbi mull who was surprised -- fdr knew about pearl harbor but we needed it to get. into the get

muhammed's nephew was in the 9/11 world trade bombing which is current to what we are dealing with today. guest: that covers a lot of ground and conspiracy theories. in some cases, i hate to meant going back to the second world war, i think president roosevelt did the right thing by helping the british before we got into the war. the other ones, that fbi i doubt was involved in 9/11. i don't even want to talk about the u2. host: a couple of sundays she rode about the potential nuclear treaty with russia. u.s. officials optimistic about a new nuclear treaty with russia.

why does this have to be done? guest: the current start treaty runs out december 5. it is important to keep, particularly the verification issue going. i think they may or may not reach some kind of agreement. what they will reach is in agreement on straddling the of period of time between finalizing a treaty which is very complicated and reaching the agreement to keep the current agreements in effect. this treaty was put together in 1991 at a time when we and the soviet union are facing -- thousands of warheads on alert. in the intervening time the russian systems have gradually been less-well taken care of, so

the threat is not there. but we have to keep the treaty in place because not everyone else is looking at us. if we and the russians can agree, then you will have a better movemt@@@@@ host: you write that a more contentious issue has been reducing the number of nuclear capable bombers on land and submarine based missiles with the president cutting for deeper cuts on the u.s. side. why is the u.s. reluctant to give and why is russia pressing for more on that particular issue? part guest: it is a numbers issue. part of it is that our system, some of them delivered nuclear

weapons, strategic nuclear weapons from the united states into a target 2000 or 3,000 miles away. we can now target much better with precision strikes. they do not need a nuclear weapon to carry out the mission. host: as with these predators drones? guest: no, these are icbm's. missiles with conventional warhead -- can do great damage to what has now been a new thing, to bury your facilities underground. host: san diego, on the republican line. caller: ok, good morning. i'm calling because i have been a victim of terrorism for the last two years gangs.

this has something to do with me feeling like i have been exposed to weapons. this has been going on for thousands of americans across the u.s. i have contacted officials and on forssmann and there has been no response. host: what kind? caller: gang-stalker terrorism. host: do you know anything about that? guest: no. host: middletown, conn. caller: the journalist had in the recently nuclear north korea -- that close call, can you explain, help an american

overseas look to some form of safety through whom? the embassies? the nato alliance is? host: what specifically are you asking about korea? caller: i'm really concerned about the issue of the safety of american people abroad. is there when they travel or are on the job in another country. what things are being done? host: the state department raises concerns on countries. has that increased lately? guest: no, i think what the caller is talking about are the two american journalists who wandered over the border of north korea.

in that case -- you have another case in iran, people who take chances like that have to be careful. in the case of the two americans who wandered into north korea as journalists, they eventually did get out. it becomes a political issue, but certainly the state department of the government works quite hard to bring them back to safety. host: on iran, why is it america's job to make sure they're not some thread? no one seems to answer that question. on china there is a store this morning in the ap that beijing has criticized the report that chinese sties are aggressively stealing american secrets. a report said that american officials believe that chinese

spying is growing in scale, intensity, and sophistication and urges congress to review the bully to meet the rising challenge of such beijing has been knowledge. guest: the terrible thing of covering these issues -- all these years i can remember at the end of the cold war one of the big issues was that we had to develop defenses against economic espionage because the chinese, french and everybody else were stealing our economic secrets. this is a group that is devoted to watching this kind of thing. i think you are finding that the economic espionage between companies and now between governments supporting companies has been going on for years. every once in awhile it gets raised. this is an economic group whose

job is to raise this kind of issue. host: has cyber-spying become a greater challenge in the last few years? guest: that very thing is also hacking, which people do just for fun. as far as i can tell there is no permanent way to protect what you put out there on the internet. in the and there's no way to protect telephones and telephone lines. people in america, one of the issues is, who's going to control cyber defense? who is going to get all of our companies this way of talking to one another? who will protect it? host: here is don, charleston.

caller: i have read a good deal about the buildup to iraq and just wanted to ask your opinion. there was a lot of influence from the israeli lobby, and many jewish journalists who were influential in pushing this country into war. i see the same thing now i thing nowran been demonized. false reports that they are a threat. dow you see that happening agai? what is the effect of the israeli lobby parting us into war? guest: i am jewish and i read about the danger of going into war. i don't think it is a universal aim.

so you can take that one off the table. i think that israel, however, does have a strong interest and fear of a riran. it is made none. there is an israeli lobby which has a big effect in this country. we also agree o write about its. it is part of democracy. there are lobbies for all sorts of things, some of more powerful than others. it is up to us to try to inform the public. and expect our government to deal not with what lobbies say, but with the facts. host: you have also written about this proposed shield legislation set to come before the synod. attorney general holder was

asked about it last week in the justice committee -- set to come before the senate, this shield of legislation that is proposed. what is it? guest: this is a law that we give journalists protection from subpoenas by the federal government as they now have protection under state law. it is one of these things in which the industry itself feels it needs protection. my view of this is personal. i have a law degree. in law school i read about privileges, attorney-client privilege, doctor-patient, and so on. they were all given by the court. i think that it is unseemly for

journalists to go to congress to lobby for a bill protecting us. the same people we argue should not be lobbied by other people. it is that contradiction. it also does not really change things. in most cases in which i have been involved involve national security. that status would not change under this law. but that is not why i have my doubts about it. host: savannah, ga., on the republican line. just make sure that you've mute your tv or radio. caller: on this thing about the vice-president under george bush bringing in false information -- what he inferred, for george

bush to begin the war in iraq -- before george bush became president there was information on iraq coming from england and other foreign countries. and from the previous administration of clinton and hillary clinton herself all agreed this was going on in iraq. i want to know why you try to blame it on the vice-president? guest: i think it is one thing to have information that saddam hussein may be trying to build things. it is another to use it to justify invading the country. there are other things that could have been done. and that were being done with saddam hussein to keep him lockblocked in. he was a terrible leader. the country is prole better for the fact that he was not there.

it caused diversion from afghanistan and the loss of 4000 americans. and and told people being permanently disabled. there is quite a price to pay for whatever results we are getting. host: you spoke earlier about the technology challenges facing us -- though tsa and cia watchless. there is a lead story this morning on tracking sex crime offenders. it gets trickier. . .

it brings the ability for people to do bad things. used to have to rob a bank with a gun. now, if you are a particularly clever with hacking, you could probably robbed a bank and nobody would know about it. host: you think the foreign intelligence officers are relying on data more than street reporting? guest: i think they are no different than we are. we develop sources and try to find up what is going on and technology has become an important part of what we do. host: one more call for you. tucson, good morning, steve, on the democrats' line. thank you for taking my call. it seems pretty clear that

congress and the american people have been misled going into iraq. the more i've researched it, the more it gets clearer. if you look at the article of impeachment, and all of the evidence that is out there -- why was nothing done? if bill clinton 10 be impeached for lead about having an affair is it that absolutely nothing seems to have been done? thankç guest: i think the way it was done is the way that we do it in general, that is, we vote against people that we think it's the wrong thing. >> washington talk this morning with the afl-cio president.

they discussed a unemployment and underemployment. this is about 30 minutes. , joining us to talk about jobs and unemployment rates. the most recent one, 10.2%. how many are union members? guest: probably 20%. we have a lot in some areas where the unemployment rate is higher tree in@@@@ we haven't a rate nationwide of about 10.2%. if you take those the aren't working, or those that would like to work more, the numbers are much higher. in the way host: of those numbers, the afl-cio has developed a five. plan. tell us what is in your proposal.

guest: 1 to emphasize this, one, this is a short-term job creation. in the long term, there were many other things. this is to get jobs created right now. we think that this 5 step plan can create 2 million jobs in the next year or so. the first thing we have to do is to extend unemployment benefits through assistance and health care assistance. the program is set to expire on december 31 of this year. if we do not extend it, a lot of people -- the unemployment rates will shoot up. the second thing we need to do is invest in our infrastructure. putting people back to work to create in the infrastructure that we need to be sufficient. we have a $3 trillion infrastructureb deficit in this nation right now. to put people to work in construction, that is pressuring, development,

engineering. host: wasn't that's supposed to be done in the stimulus spending? guest: it was, and we need more. we need to have a 10-year or 15- year commitment to rebuild infrastructure. host: part of the plans has put funds to work for main street. guest: when the money directly to small and midsize banks. it was supposed to go to the big banks so the big banks would start lending. the big banks are not the landing. small businesses are having a tough time getting credit. we believe if we put money in their hands, they will be able to create jobs. host: we are breaking up our phone lines and little differently for this segment.

president obama is going to convene a jobs summit. will the afl-cio be part of it? guest: yes, i have been indicted so we can talk through this. -- i have been invited. we need to do aid to state our local governments. they have almost a two hundred billion dollar deficit. they began to retract, we will not only lose jobs immediately, but we will also lose vital services like fire and police protection. the last item is targeted job creation in a number of communities. to target communities that have a high level and two straight job creation, not jobs substitution.

host: on your web site, you have a chart about the gap in the labour market. i want you to explain this chart. the jobs needed to keep up with a population growth on the straight line. this is where we are as of october 2009. the employment drop offical dramatically. the red line is how much needs to increase to get to october 11. why is that an important date? guest: we have about a $10 million of deficit. we have lost eight million jobs since 2007. we need about 140 ,000 jobs each month to keep up with a population. over this time, we now have 10 million jobs that need to be filled. we have six people applying for

every job that is created in this country renown. people are hurting. we need to get people back to work. more than 5 million people in america have been unemployed for six points or longer. host: is the bottom line for the afl-cio the creation of jobs, or the creation of union jobs? guest: the creation of jobs. we have to create jobs for the country. the 10 million jobs that this is not union jobs a deficit. as american jobs deficits. of course, in the future, we would like to unionize many of those so we can improve their wages and improve their benefits. host: let's hear from some union folks and others. tampa, fla.

caller: i want to bring up the scenario regarding jobs creation. we need to create these jobs. my problem is how can they be serious when the keeper of the external work to do jobs? i understand the right to work states and all that stuff. when you talk about creating jobs in america, and then you have other people come in and put more in the pot to take those jobs away. the way the legislation is going on now. guest: i'm not quite sure exactly what he means by people coming in and taking those jobs.

if you're talking about immigration, we have -- that is an issue that we have to deal with, of course, over the long- term and short-term. if you're looking at job creation during this period of time, we do have a problem. long term, we have to look at things like the tax code, trade laws in this country. the program we are talking about now focus is on short-term job growth. this line stops in october because the figures are not in for november. host: "the wall street journal" has a headline -- "the white house is lukewarm

about proposals by congressional democrats." what are you pressing congress for? guest: let's start with this notion. doing nothing is not an option. if we do not do something, jobs -- the unemployment rate will continue to rise. there will be a greater deficit, not a lesser deficits. we have to do something in the short run to get jobs created. our program -- we think it will create two million jobs quickly. we pay for reauthorization of the transportation act. we favor reauthorization of the clearwaten water act. people are hurting right now. host: st. petersburg, fla.

good morning, dave. caller: good morning. i think the president should have underlying veto powers because congress is about ready to pass on the bill for health care. i am sure there will be a lot added on that is not necessary. i also believe that nonprofit organizations, the ceo's should be capped. that includes our government and congress. host: on his issue on health care, on the so-called on cadillac tax, what is the afl- cio's position? guest: first, let's define that. there's a misconception. you can have a normal, moderate plan and have been old days were the beneficiaries are older in

age where there have been a couple of catastrophes, so the premiums are higher. you could be in an area of the country where those premiums are naturally higher because the insurance company has a monopoly or near monopoly in those areas. to simply the findingdefine thi cadillac plan is a misnomer. for the plants at the top, you can take a look at those. tax the middle class workers benefits is not a good way to finance his plan. host: do you know where it stands now? host: at the senate level, it is $23,000 per year. anything over $23,000 per year premiums, you end up with that party% excise tax. -- 40% excise tax.

$1,000 per member is paid right now for the uninsured. the plan has $1,000 tacked onto it because of uninsured people. to tax them again is a double hit at the same people. will not result in lower cost. will result in the people getting less health care and still have been the costs go up. for instance, if i get a heart bypass, the cost of the bypass will not go down. the only thing that will happen is that my plan will pay less and i will have to pay more. we do not think that is the way to do it. that is rationing everything in the country but health care. host: next up for richard trumka, alexandria, ky. caller: do you think it is feasible to keep giving unemployment after so long a

time -- to keep individuals for not looking for work? what about immigration? guest: i do think we need to expand unemployment benefits. they're about to expire. if they do, millions of people -- probably 5 million people or more will stop getting any income. that will result in more unemployment, which will result in a deeper recession, which will result -- we favor extending those benefits for one year so we can get through this crisis and get people back to work. the food assistance part of the program probably spurs the economy more than any other thing. for every $1 you put into food

assistance for the unemployed, it increases economic activity by $1.74. there's nothing out there that does it more effectively. we think that is important for us to continue. of course, health care is the third component. host: the associated press story in "the washington times" talks about pushed back in small businesses. small-business owners who are playing increasingly higher unemployment insurance. guest: if the government is adding to that, it will not hit them. it will extend that out some. their payments continue on a regular basis, anyway. we are trying to use tarp funds and give them to small business

and medium-sized business so they can do a job creation. we know that credit is not getting to them. we know they are having a hard time. we know they can create jobs in the short term. that is why we are saying use these tarp funds. these tarp funds. host: philadelphia is next host: philadelphia is next. caller: the 5 step plan that you brought up, i did not listen in detail, so i'm not sure i'm indifferent to it, but i'm wondering where the money would come from. would this be the initial deficit, or from other programs that you guys recommend? secondly, i have a comment about -- you know, i'm a younger person in my 20's. ve