>> he was very successful gas. prime minister, this is the end of our 16th sitting. it is probably the last one we will have in this parliament. it is something which never could have happened before. our clerk assures us that the only previous prime ministers to attend committees did so at the beginning of the last century and they did so not as prime minister, but in their dual role as leader of the house. may i thank you and your predecessor for both your roles in pioneering and establishing a new form of parliamentary accountability for prime ministers. thank you very much. >> thank you all very much. i am very grateful to you for the way you have conducted proceedings. thank you, chairman. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . .

>> john murtha in a few moments, n sebelius on the president's health-care plan. in 40 minutes, discussion of climate change from the world economic forum. after that, look at the

congressional agenda leading to the 2010 elections. later, former u.n. ambassador john bolton on the obama administration's foreign policy. >> c-span offers the classroom -- cspan classroom. you can watch the latest in education is in the chance to connect with other c-span classroom teachers. it is free. sign up at the website. >> but now kathleen sebelius on the president's plan for health care legislation. this is part of a conference for help panehealth policy analystsd researchers. this is 40 minutes.

>> i did think that there is a lot in common between working and planning for months and having a clear agenda and knowing what you will do and having 30 inches of snow interrupt that brilliant planning. it feels like the day after the massachusetts election. here we are. i am delighted to have a chance to visit with you. i was struck looking at the agenda about how much there is in common with the kind of topics you will talk about for the next couple days and what we deal with in the office each and every day. you have a terrific lineup of speakers and panelists.

i am pleased you're going to get to hear from dr. peggy memb ham. i get to hang out with brilliant scientists and policy advocates and you have assembled them today. issues like how to use the the -- the new technology to empower consumers and create incentives for providers to deliver better care, how to invest effectively in prevention. those are some of the challenges that we are dealing with within the department each and every day and the same exact questions that we are asking. i am sorry i cannot join you for the full presentation but anxious to -- david will share with me all the good strategies and ideas that you come up with. i want to start by giving you

the administration's view on health reform as it stands now and where we see things heading. let me tell you from the outset the president and the administration are as committed to delivering on comprehensive health reform out as they have ever been. the president is very determined that not only does this need to happen for the citizens of this country, but it is essential for the economy of this country. every day that goes by and every report that comes out reinforces his notion of how intimately what is going on in the health- care system is tied to our economic survival and our economic progress. this is not about a legislative victory or approving -- or proving a point as he said i

thought, very eloquently in the state of the union address. it is not about his political standing or you would have chosen something else to start with. he feels strongly, i feel strongly that this is one of the determining issues about the future of our country, about how prosperous will be in a global marketplace and how healthy are citizens will be in this competitive world in which we live. we know a lot about the human stories. the monsoor paying for hospital bills because of a pre-existing condition and they cannot get the insurance they need or a steel worker who every year sees his pay go down because more of that salary is diverted to trying to pay for health care plan for seniors going to the

hospital to get treatment for urinary tract infection only to end of dying from a staff infection they get from the hospital. one of 100,000 people who die in this country. the people who are worrying about whether or not the promise of medicare may now -- ever be there for their future. there are lots of individuals around this country who are worried about the system and do not know what the answers or solutions are. we had our interesting moment, a little bit about the glitch in the health-care market where i am the mother of two 20- something sons, when they graduated from college, neither

were in a health care situation where they provided health care. they had not a lot of trouble finding affordable insurance and we have resources to pay for that. i watched their friends, a number of kids to, one had a previous football injury and another had some treatment early on in high school for a series of challenges he was facing with drugs and alcohol, neither of whom could get insurance in the marketplace and had to spend some time struggling and figuring out what the options were in helping to not be in a situation where they ran into an accident or disease that they could not cope with, knowing that they face a lifetime of crushing bills. there are lots of people -- looking through the lens of the uninsured or the underinsured or even those who have insurance

understand that is a tenuous situation they're in. we know that the process over the last year has been confusing to a lot of folks. when you talk to people, when i have the chance to travel around the country and visit with people about what are the elements in the house and senate bills, there is overwhelming support. sometimes they're confused and disgusted with the process than they do not want anything to do with it. they are way too afraid that what ever is going on cannot possibly be good for them or their families. we know from beyond the personal stories what this is doing to our economy.

i deal a lot with people in the small-business market. my friend, karen mills, who is the small business administration tells me that conversation goes on all over the country. business owners who are in the crunch of the marketplace. either they drop coverage altogether, because they simply cannot afford the dramatic increases they're seeing, or they lose employees to people who could afford much better coverage. the cannot stay competitive in this marketplace and the are choosing between keeping employees and keeping health coverage. they cannot do both. we know that our entitlement programs of medicaid and medicare on track to be broke in medicaid budgets are crushing states all over the country. medicare is due to run out of

money in the next seven years. we're at a point in this country where we spend almost double what any nation on earth spins on health care. we are according to the report last week spending 17% of our gdp on health care. the largest one-year increase in the last 40 years is the jump in health-care costs. compared to what is going on with the rest of the economy. we live sicker and i agree that many countries on earth. danish ministers were coming to the u.s. to talk about the work we're starting on prevention. i was struck by the fact that in denmark, the their per capita health care costs are $3,300 a year and we're up over $7,200 a

year. their health measures in virtually any area you can choose our better than ours. some of that can be explained with the relatively homogeneous cultures and issues we may not have with diversity of health experiences. there is too large a gap and we are spending too much money and getting worse results. both congress, both houses of congress have worked on this for years. there are numerous good ideas and they have much in common. when the push for reform

started, a lot of people said we cannot do it now. we cannot take this much time. i think once again that it is so intimately tied to our opportunity for economic recovery that we have to do it and we have to do it in a way that not only are the bills paid for, and did not add to the deficit, which is different than most recent health reform that was passed by the previous administration the plan b drug benefit that was not paid for in part of our growing deficit. the president is committed to having this paid for but also, looking at ways that the system is transformed into a much more cost-effective, higher quality system in the long run. if we pay for what we're doing and continue to do it into the future and add 45 million to the

existing system, we have not made any progress. we have not change the trajectory which is now indicating that we will not be able to afford this system into the future. we have to have as part of the system of way of delivering medical care and change and not only payment practices but delivery systems and a way to tackle some of the underlying causes of our extraordinary costs. those are key elements in the reformed system the president has invited key members of congress to join him on the 25th of february. he is hopeful this is not one more conversation about various components of a plan but hopes the republicans are willing to come forth with their own plan.

not just criticisms, but a plan. had you planned to address -- how do you plan to address reduced costs in the system. and taking $1 trillion of the deficit as a significant step forward from where we are now. covering all americans, having a delivery system that begins to focus on wellness and prevention and not just wait until we deal with acute-care. come together and move forward. a lot of people have said is the starting over and the answer is absolutely not. there are comprehensive proposals on the table. he is ready and able to add to or at various elements that may

be missing. we have to -- the republican members have to greengage. i think it is not acceptable that half of the legislative body is pushed away from the table when the conversation began and say we do not want to participate in this process. discussion was we do not want to participate in anything that has a public option. we cannot talk about any kind of insurance strategy. as far as i can determine, the public option is no longer part of the plan. no one has come back to the table and said we will talk about how to move forward with the private market strategy. we're hoping that will happen in february. we will continue to work the house and senate leadership -- the house and senate leadership

are willing to discuss with each other what is the best pathway for. the president remains committed to the notion that we have to have a comprehensive approach. the pieces of the puzzle are too closely tied to one another. it is disingenuous to say we're for the insurance reform and yet do not support the notion that everyone would have to come into the marketplace. if you have a private market system without rules that allow them to cherry pick the system, and do not require those who are well to buy insurance, you have effectively destroyed the insurance market. he will have an adverse selected pool and you will only have six people in its and the costs will skyrocket. i do not think it is a genuine step forward to set want to provide coverage for all americans and yet, not recognize

that there are lots of working americans who cannot bear the four -- cannot bear the costs of providing coverage and they are not in a job situation where there is an employer contribution. without some subsidized assistance will have an offering of coverage which we do now but not the affordability of coverage. pieces of the puzzle are necessarily tied together if you have a comprehensive approach and cost containment has to be part of that comprehensive approach. i think both house and senate have made sure there are ideas on the table which we feel will not jeopardize benefits. but actually move us in a direction where [unintelligible]

for not following appropriate protocol. cause for reform in -- and the case for reform is still fundamentally before us. it is a conversation we have had in this country for 70 years. i also was not part of those original conversations although some days i feel like i was part of those original conversations. the message is pretty straightforward. we need to finish this job. we need to step up and finally deal with a comprehensive health reform in america because our economy cannot afford us to do anything less. our health system is fundamentally broken and needs transformative infusion of

assistance and i think there's no question that millions of americans are desperate for some sort of health security that they do not have now. reform itself, the comprehensive look at the health insurance system and changes in delivering prevention systems does not magically transform all the issues facing us in our health system. it would be a huge step forward and be the biggest step we have made in 40 years. our health system did not begin and end with health reform and was never going to stop when the bill passed. which is why for the last year, we have been working on some underlying features of the system and will continue to work in all kinds of strategies with proposals that are contained in the 2011 budget which fit as companion pieces to

comprehensive health reform bill moving forward. one of the first bills that the president signed into law last year was the expansion of the children's health insurance program which has been enormously popular and enormously successful. in insuring children across america. we put out a report last week which looks at the baseline numbers and in spite of this economic downturn which has been experienced by every state in the country, to a half million more children have insurance and a year ago. either enrolled in medicaid or in schip programs. states have work to expand their coverage options for kids. in spite of tough budget times and choices, they understand that that is a fundamental step forward if you want to have a prosperous state, if you want

our kids to do well in school, they need to be healthy at the outset. children's health insurance continues to be expanded. we have a challenge. we think there are approximately 5 million american children who car -- currently qualify who are not yet enrolled. for the first time with the passage of the legislation last year, congress appropriated some average money and we're working diligently with partners, not only across my cabinet colleagues and government looking at the various programs that people enroll in that we might make it more an auto enrollment in children's health insurance, we would alert parents at a minimum but conceivably and roll folks, but working with states, our faith- based partnerships, with average organizations, and i am asking all of you when you return to

your home areas, if there are ideas or strategies that you have about enrollment opportunities. what we know is that some parents still have no idea that they may be eligible. others have listened to the discussion, we have heard this a number of times about health reform. they have to wait until health reform is passed, they think, in order for their children to qualify. they do not understand that bill was passed and written into law. some have been enrolled and because they move door because they did not fill out the proper forms are not enrolled and we need to reach out to them. we are looking for great partnerships to make sure that at this tenuous time, when families need it more than ever, that we actually have an aggressive and non-traditional outreach effort to try and get the word out to folks that they are indeed available for

coverage. another huge investment in the public health infrastructure which i think is essential moving forward and continues to play a major role is the continued expansion and investment in community health centers. during the recovery act, there was a major new investments, not only updated centers that are currently in place, but a major new footprint in areas underserved by health centers. what we know after a member of years is that -- a number of years is that high quality low- cost break care delivered effectively in neighborhoods centers and health becomes a component of what is available and offered to families but often it is everything from child care services to job counseling, certainly mental health services become a component of it. in the president's budget for 2010 and again the proposals for

2011, that footprint would continue to expand and be strengthening our primary care delivery. what i have seen in the creative strategies going on around the country is community health centers working in close partnership with community hospitals have developed some really strategic health plans, where the patients if they present through an emergency room are referred to our health center for primary care and family assistance. averages than to the family. it reduces the strain off and on hospital settings and cages a family with a home health -- engages a family with a home health provider and is cost-

effective and culturally sensitive. we have a major investment that started in the recovery act and has continued in the budget. we need more health care providers. we need more doctors and more nurses, mourners practitioners, more mental health professionals -- more nurse practitioners, more mental health professionals. we need an increased emphasis on non. -- non-traditional providers. men and women who will serve in underserved areas and providing a reach for spanish-speaking providers and multiple language providers. often the health barrier deals with cultural continents' and unless we make an enhanced

effort to have a diverse health work force, we will still have lots of barriers to health care delivery. the president has made it abundantly clear to members of his cabinet that he takes very seriously the stewardship of taxpayer dollars. one of the areas that we know has a great potential for recovering tax dollars is in the area of fraud and abuse. there are all sorts of estimates about what kinds of fraud made take place in the medicare -- may take place in the medicare system. i do not know who has accurate numbers. there are national groups to say that you can estimate that in any enterprise, 3% of business

is likely to be fraudulent. that is a huge number for a system like medicare. it could be as much as $60 billion if that were accurate. what we know is that there are billions of dollars. medicare is a system which pays over $1 billion of claims each and every day. a lot of money moves in and out and that makes it a huge target for fraudulent activities. what we have seen over the years is the activity used to be pretty unsophisticated. mom-and-pop operations. it now is a target for a much more serious, organized criminal activity. we need to actually really stepped up -- step oup our activities to prosecute and prevent fraud. thiwe have been asked to convena

multi agency operation, the task force we put together and part of the goal was to use data to analyze ever and billing practices. some of you have probably had situations where you will get a call from visa or american express saying did you make a charge i am but a cerus -- buenos aires? were you in boca raton in this date? they have analyzed what are the billing practices and want to get ahead of what may be fraudulent activity. we're doing a similar operation where we now have an opportunity to share real time data with

those at the justice department. we have analysts who are looking at various patterns to try and have boots on the ground to go and quickly check out what in the world is happening. the strategies are paying off. later today, you have a panel dealing with geographic variation in health care. let me give you an example of how we are using our current tools. miami-dade county is home to 2% of the medicare beneficiaries who are receiving home health benefits. in recent months, they have 90% of the home health patients receiving more than $100,000 of care every year. you do not need a ph.d. in statistics to see that something

is going on. in fact, we moved one of the strike forces into the miami area, one of the first places that we targeted within a short time, literally billions of dollars in home health billings dropped, just having the presence of people on the ground verifying. they have moved someplace else, unfortunately. this has to be, we now have seven strike forces throughout the country. we have asked in the new budget to have resources for up to 17 cities. more than that, i think the data sharing, the verification we started doing new pre-screening spoor providers coming in. we need to -- make sure that people are not just hanging out a shingle and making themselves out to be a medicare provider.

there is tha service being provided. making sure these activities are legitimate but it is something we're taking very seriously. no question in this country that we are behind a lot of the rest of the world in our use of technology in the health system. it is still fairly stunning to me that in the vast majority of hospital systems and doctors' offices, we are using paper records. i cannot imagine any small operation in the manufacturing sector that would be using a written list and hand mailing it to someone in hopes the delivery would take place. that is the kind of technology that is in most providers'

offices today. congress and the president made a significant investment in developing a national electronic health records platform in the recovery act. what we're hoping is that we can provide enough incentives to have the tipping point that the market will took over. this is not that the government will provide the technology, but what we know is that without a platform, without some assurance that these systems will be interoperable, without some incentives and assistance, particularly for smaller providers or community hospitals, we will stay in our papered world. the technology move is under way. we have already seen systems in

place in pockets of the country where very positive patient outcomes are achieved because of the use of technology and health systems. one health system was using electronic health records to identify older women not receiving osteoporosis screenings on a regular basis. the screenings went out and identified some folks with real problems. one-third of diabetes patients in another system were receiving regular eye and foot exams as is necessary in a diabetic. the tracking of patients, monitoring with electronic records and following up carefully in terms of who got exams doubled the amount so

that two out of three of the patients is now receiving the appropriate follow-up care. the recovery act investments, the ability to put extension systems on the ground to do outrage to particularly small providers in underserved areas, to be the kind of tech centered helper's led by dr. david blumenthal, who is not only a great leader in this area but comes to this perspective by a practicing physician who uses electronic records. when he deals with providers, he describes himself, i am not the technology gate. we have those folks in the system. i can tell you how as a doctor this informs my practice and made me a better health-care provider to the point that i would never go back to

practicing any other way. it is a way to virtually integrate a lot of health care practices. doctors and hospitals do not necessarily need to be in the same system. not even in the same city but the kind of opportunity for coordinated care and bundled care and follow-up and monitoring. we know it can have enormous successes and when used appropriately, the opportunity to lower medical costs and increase the high quality care delivery is extraordinary. that also is under way. we continue to understand looking at the data then again, we have a huge problem in this country with chronic disease and chronic disease driven by some very clearly identifiable

underlying causes. smoking, obesity are two where there is a huge opportunity to change your health care cost estimates into the future if we can deal with some of those underlying causes. i am pleased to be joining the first lady tomorrow in her kick off of her childhood obesity initiative which she sees as a multi-year effort to tackle what is the true health crisis in this country, where we now have one out of three american children are overweight or obese. that is double the number 40 years ago. it is getting no better. there is enough childhood type 2 diabetes that is no longer called adult onset diabetes, we just collotype to because -- call it type 2 because more

children are presenting with diabetes. we have the first generation of american children who will have shorter life spans than their parents. alive right now. it is a serious issue. we know that smoking dropped dramatically in the u.s. over the years but has unfortunately level off at 20% and it has not dropped in a number of years. not only is there a new era -- new aggressive effort at the fda which i am sure dr. hamburg will talk about. there is a host of strategies to see what it is that can influence people, smokers to stop and hopefully influence our

younger americans never to start in the first place. congress made a major investment in prevention and wellness as part of the recovery. -- recovery act. programs will be in place around the country, mainly aimed at tobacco cessation and be city and community grants will be announced later this month. we will have 37 communities, urban and rural, some tribal communities that will be looking at strategy's dealing with obesity and tobacco cessation. we will be able to figure out what works and drive it to scale. when 75 cents out of health dollar -- every health dollar is spent dealing with chronic diseases, the more that we can have early intervention and the more we can change that pattern into the future, the more we can

make sure that 50-year-old still not end up with diabetes but deal with it when they are 12 and 13. not only to lower our costs but to be healthier. those are important steps already under way to make us a healthy, more prosperous country. we're going to keep in our department working on this and a host of other strategies, dealing with health disparities, continuing to work at -- look at innovative medical countermeasures, trying to make sure that we are on the forefront of a number of initiatives, not only in the country, but around the world. there is no question that a comprehensive health reform is an important and integral part of this strategy moving forward. if we did all of those other initiatives and we did them very well, we still would have a huge gap in our health-care

system in this country and we would still be in many cases, just moving money around the system where those with insurance are paying and extra costs for those who do not have coverage, where we still have millions of americans who can access high-quality preventive care on a regular basis and do not seek care until they are often too ill to be treated appropriately, or dealt with adequately. we will still sees to be competitive in the global marketplace where virtually none of our comparecompetitors are dealing with the kind of major health gaps that we have here in the u.s. these pieces of the puzzle are tied together and we at dhs -- hhs take them seriously.

i am confident we will have a comprehensive health reform measure passed and signed into law this year and i am also confident that we have an opportunity with that piece as well as these initiatives in technology and prevention and wellness, a new way to look at health in america to make some really transformative changes that will yield a more prosperous, healthier nation over the next decade. now, another new course we have in the department is our effort to build a 21st century food and drug safety system. it is a charge that the president has given to us and we take very seriously, given the fact that our marketplace looks different than it did 25 years ago. we need a regulatory structure that looks different than it did

25 years ago and i am delighted that you are going to hear from another of our great new leaders at hhs, dr. peggy hamburg, who were wer were able to convince o be with us. thank you for braving the weather conditions. i understand we have another six to ten inches. we love having you here. we can use your expertise on a regular basis. we have lots of challenges to deal with. into the spring and summer. we're happy to have you join us here. thank you very much. [applause] >> representative john murtha of the democrats -- a democrat,

died today. speaker nancy pelosi released a statement saying "he is well recognized as this [unintelligible] and arlen specter said "i am deeply saddened to lose my friend and colleague. he was a public servant and his passing is a great loss. on saturday, he became the longest serving house member in pennsylvania history. he was 77. >> ed joins us to talk about john murtha's time in congress. what d>> the pennsylvanian delegation, the democrats would tend to gather in the back corner of the house facing the speaker's podium on the left side, as far back in the quarter

as you could get. murtha would take this seat and the rest of the delegation would gather around him, swapping stories and talking business. if anyone wanted to come up, someone who was looking for help for his or her district, they could find him. in the same place every day. he was the only member who was staying in the same place every day. >> congressman murtha was the first vietnam combat veteran to work in congress. how did that in for his work? >> i think it made him a fierce defender of the military's priorities and of funding, even sometimes when the military did not want them, mr. murtha was legendary for fighting to fund projects. sometimes he went against the

administration who wanted to cut funding. they are some generals who wanted to see some projects and funding. it informs his coming out against the iraq war. he was one of the first major figures in congress to speak out against the war. at the time, seeing how difficult that was an witnessing that firsthand. many before establishment figures said sen. >> some called him the king of pork barrel. how did he defend himself? >> he was unapologetic. he said, i saw him speaking to a

group of people in pennsylvania about some project that he had brought and he said, i am down in washington and that is what i am therefore. i am there to help my district and i do not care what people say, criticizing your marks. that is what i was sent there to do. in the 12th district, they loved it. he got reelected every single time. basically because he was such a force economically for his district. he had no problem doing that. >> several brushes with scandal over the years from abscam to more recent criminal probes. was he charged or damaged politically? >> i think abscam damage him politically. he was never charged and was sort of seen by many advocates as being an example of someone

who barely skirts the law. he was never successfully pinned down to any of that kind of thing. he had a hint of scandal about him for many years. nothing was ever proven and it certainly did not hurt him. >> thanks for being with us. >> thank you. >> in a few moments, a discussion of climate change. a look at the congressional agenda leading to the 2010 elections. then john bolton on the obama administration's foreign policy. and then we heard the comments of kathleen sebelius on the health care plan. >> on "washington journal", john

stanton take your questions. we will hear from mark moyar about the war in afghanistan. then richard gordon smith discusses the book" who' "who's buried in grant's tomb." a couple of live events to tell you about. the job creation apanel. a hearing on the economy before the senate budget committee. the events we are planning to cover today may be affected by the weather. >> it is the only collection of

american presidential portraits painted by one artists. now on display at purdue university in west lafayette, indiana through february 21. the exhibit looks at the lives of the 43 men who held the office through paintings, photographs, prints, and audio recordings. if it cannot get to west lafayette, see the entire collection on-line at c-span's website. >> a discussion of climate change from switzerland. panelists include felipe calderon and massachusetts representative edward markey. this is a little more than an hour. >> thank you for coming. i am president of the united nations foundation and it is my privilege to help to moderate this important panel.

the topic today is, let me read from the agenda. the u.n. climate conference change did not lead to a definitive solution. what immediate steps should governments and civil society take towards a long-term climate path that is environmentally effective and economically efficient? this session is part of an ongoing effort by the world economic forum to help improve international cooperation by servicing the best ideas and triggering new practices in the governance of most important challenges. davos should serve as a thread for feedback on proposals that counsels are working under the framework of redesign. as we talked about climate change, let me deferred for a minute for those of you who may not watch this all in great detail and give you a little bit

of definition so that some of the words or terms that may be unfamiliar we can all share. the operative words were to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system. quito who came -- that came five years after the convention was ratified by 180 some odd countries. the u.s. was the sixth country to ratify the basic climate treaty. kyoto was the first implementation protocol to the treaty. that was 1997. it was at kyoto that the distinction was developed between specifically what the responsibilities of developed countries were going to be, the so-called annex 1 countries and what developing countries,

everybody else, should do, the so-called non-indexn-annex one countries. the initial purpose was to design a treaty in which nations could come together in agreement about what a global strategy should be, related to climate change. when you hear reference to c ops, it means conference of the parties. all the countries ratified the climate treaty. their members of the -- they are members of what occurred. the conference of the parties, mexico will be the host of the next c.o.p., so president

caldron has an important function. what we're talking about today is the time between the conferences. c.o.p. 16 welker in mexico. then the panel on climate change, that is the scientific group that came together in the late 1980's sponsored by the un's world meteorological association and the united nations environment program, more than two dozen scientists from all over the world who have developed the consensus science upon which all the clemons negotiations have occurred. that is the ipcc. we are talking about the way forward. that will be led by president calderone. we will spend a few minutes on where we have been. what happened in copenhagen? if we did a cloud analysis of

discussions, copenhagen would appear in very large bold letters. while some have very strong views, most are trying to figure out what did happen in copenhagen and where we go from here. our topic this morning. this is by no means clear and there is by no means a consensus. those were a positive interpretation of copenhagen -- with a positive interpretation of copenhagen will cite that leaders had to learn their brief, nations developed a consensus on the seriousness of this issue. it was the first international meeting based upon international consensus science, despite efforts of the climate daughters and deniers to undermine the science and despite some unhappy and sloppy science and science writing, the evidence is

on -- is incontrovertible that baqouba is warning and -- the globe is warming and man is responsible. [unintelligible] by 2050 and the developed and developing worlds both made commitments, a brick through away from the start line that existed between annexed one and non-annexed one countries. that line is beginning to merge and change in interesting ways. add of copenhagen, the developed countries agreed to wait $10 billion package of assistance moving to a $100 billion package by the year 2015. -- 202.

-- 202. there was total chaos in the negotiations and that has reflected the lack of capacity of the un to undertake such negotiations. there are divisions between north and south and the urgency is greater than the negotiations would suggest and we have to now find a new venue and a new approach. there is a broad split in many -- and many shades of difference in between. we have asked the executive secretary of the convention on climate change to set the scene as to what does he, from the perspective of the parties and the un believe what was the

result of copenhagen. we then asked the former foreign secretary of india and now the special envoy of the prime minister for the india perspective on what happened, some interesting and different negotiations occurred. then a long time member of congress to respond from the perspective of the developed world. then we will turn it over to president calderon who has the responsibility for guiding us into the next year. we will ask two industry people, the vice president of deutschebank to talk about their perspective on next steps, as

were some important since the private sector is planning a larger role and must be brought much more to the fore. will have a discussion among ourselves back and forth and we will save the final 20 minutes for questions from the audience. with that, do you want to kick this off? >> thank you. i would like to begin by talking about what copenhagen was not. copenhagen did not deliver an agreement on a second target period under the kyoto protocol. copenhagen did not deliver an agreement under the nearly blinding instruments in the climate change convention. it did not deliver targets for individual and industrialized countries. it was not really supposed to do that. copenhagen is a step on a longer

journey to come to that long term response. 15 conferences [unintelligible] more importantly is what copenhagen did do. what it did deliver is an incredibly important political statement. after the chaos we saw there was because 120 heads of state and government came to copenhagen. 120 had some state and government express their concern -- expressed their concern. perry. . . .

>> actions will be reported on and monitor and verify. basically, the architecturexd ws put in place. what i see flowing from that architecture our commitments at the national level. yesterday evening in my hotel room on my blackberry, i received a commitment of the united states about moving forward. china, india, brazil, mexico, south africa, korea -- a host of nations around the world are moving forward to address the issue of climate change, energy crises, security and in

coherence -- moving in coherence with each other. what we need to do in moving forward toward mexico is to ensure that we put an international architecture in place, a regulatory framework that allows countries to move forward on the basis of a level playing field. in that sense, copenhagen will not have pleased the lawyers in the room. i think it has given an important signal to the politicians and economists. >> in copenhagen of very important group came together. brazil, south africa, india, and china. shyam saran, would like to give us your perspective on what came out of that? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me clarify that, as far as the four major developing countries, they were very clear

in their minds that they would like to see a comprehensive, balanced, and equitable outcome on copenhagen. that outcome was not achieved. i believe one reason copenhagen did not live up to expectations of the international community was precisely because climate change has become enmeshed with issues of economic interest and even political interests. it is extremely difficult to really focus attention on what all of us agree is one of the greatest global challenges humanity bases, but when we start working toward meeting that challenge, we get bogged down in a lot of issues of level playing field or competitiveness, issues which then make it very difficult for us to deliver the kind of collaborative response we need to climate change.

>> i think what that developing countries were saying was that, in this case, we need collaboration. that is the spirit of collaboration which was missing. as far as we're concerned, what was good about copenhagen was that the major developed countries and the major in developing countries did come together and reach a broad consensus. it was an important development in our journey toward a goal will -- global agreement. the fact that we reached some consensus leads us to believe that this could in fact become a very valuable input into the post-copenhagen negotiation process which will lead up to mexico city. this is where the countries have lost this is what the

countries have stated. i disagree with the notion that the un system failed. it is not the multilateral -- even in multilateral conference, which have meetings and sideburns discussing various outstanding issues. what is very important is that we always bring that back to the multilateral group. that is one reason copenhagen did not deliver. i think we should be very careful that we do not trashed the multilateral cultural when we take this forward. >> congressman markey. >> i think what happened in copenhagen -- from the perspective of the united states -- was that was a very

significant step forward, not as far as we wanted to go, but it has put in place the requirement that all of the major players have to make a commitment and put it in writing. the united states yesterday put in writing their commitment to a 17% reduction by 2020 in greenhouse gases. 80 -- 83% by 2015. that is a huge commitment. we had an election in massachusetts last week. the politics in the united states changed slightly, but the problems did not. president obama, in his state of the union address on wednesday night, made it very clear that he was fully committed to

passing a comprehensive energy and climate legislation this year. we already completed that process in the house of representatives and the senate is now considering it. i think that if anyone had any doubts, the president removed those on wednesday night. yesterday, the united states made their commitment to the world. i think what happened in copenhagen with secretary clinton announcing the united states intention to lead the effort to bring her -- to produce $100 billion a year to developing countries to help advance prevention efforts an adaptation efforts and transfer new energy technologies should remove all doubt that the united states is geared to be a leader and partnering with other countries in the world. the planet has a fever, there

are no emergency rooms for planets. we have to act together to put in place the preventive measures that will assure that we do not see the most catastrophic consequences. the president call the wrong, it is over to you. people think there is direction in the right move -- >> president calderon, it is over to you. people think there is direction in the right move. >> a lot you will be very welcome in cancun at the end of the year. one thing we need to do is try to learn from our mistakes in copenhagen and the previous part of that. one thing we need to do is reestablished trust and confidence between the parties. in order to do so, i want to

hear all the voices, we want to bring to the table each and every country. we need to understand that there are very different perceptions of the problem, very different economic and political interests. there are legitimate interests. it is not the same -- the perception of all nations. they could lose their territory -- it is not the same vision for developing countries. it is not the same vision of developed countries in europe and the united states. the idea is to hear everyone. the prime minister and other

members of the international community tried to establish a method in which we can work all year together. of course we will be very close to doing that in the united nations. we're in close contact with specialized groups who are working today in the different issues in health care protocol, and in issues that are established. in return, i insist on good faith negotiations. i want to avoid wasting time and going home after cancun with empty hands. in order to do so, we need to be very careful about the process. won we need to start with is -- one thing we need to start with is what are the goals.

copenhagen was a good start in relation to the green fund. there are very important things. my perception is that the lack of consensus is related with the economic problems in each nation. there are -- they are economic- costs associated. if we can find economic mechanisms with the right incentives, in order to stimulate and enhance the actions of developing countries, we will be on track to find what we want to find and cancun. of robust, comprehensive, substantial agreement. it is not going to be easy.

there are a lot of troubles with negotiation by consensus, but we need to try it. before copenhagen, we started to organize some mutual meetings between some members of the community. each week, wednesday, several members -- many others, we have meetings through the internet. maybe we can try to do the same. we can try to get informal gatherings through the internet periodically in order to speak about the problem and try to understand the main concerns. we will do our best, but let me be clear. i realize how important it is for the world to get success in cancun. it is important to start taking actions today. it is clear the scientific

evidence is overwhelming. the effect of global warming are already erecting -- affecting ordinary people in developing and developed countries. there are more than 2000 tourists in peru that are stuck by mud -- in europe, something is paralyzing the economic activity. a few years ago in france, thousands of people died because of high temperatures. we need to act now. mexico has a clear commitment in order to achieve these comprehensive, robust, and substantial agreements. >> mr. president, thank you. maybe the magic words are

substantial agreement. we will come back and talk about how we did find that -- how we define that. another point that you made was that we must start taking action to date. carlos ghosn, one of the key variables in climate change car emissions from transportations. you have been at the center of transformation of that industry. when you hear him say we have to start taking action today, what does that say to you? >> let me talk about the mexican commitment. mexico was the first developing country -- we were the first in developing countries to establish a unilateral, unconditional commitment to reduce 50 million tons a year starting in 2012.

we are submitting our commitment in order to reduce 30% are emissions from business as usual by the year 2020 and 50% by the year 2015. in mexico, we are working to prevent deforestation. we are being very aggressive in terms of re-forestation. we used to lose 300,000 acres per year. today, we are preventing deforestation and report stating -- read-for a single many -- re-foresting many acres per year. we're improving technology and trying to transform transportation and apply new mechanisms to massive waste of

transportation in the cities. my point is that it is -- for the mexican economy, we suffered a recession almost 7%- last year. we are keeping our commitment. -- we suffered a recession almost 7% negative last year. the money will be there. it was a good step in copenhagen to talk about our goals for 2020. how are we going to use that money? one principle must be this -- the result-based principle. we need to measure and be conspiring about our actions. carlos boehner, -- >> carlos ghosn. >> what do we need is the first

question. we did the best we could in copenhagen. what we need for target. we need to move on. as a private sector, we need to know what the levels are we need to reach, where, and we need real targets. when we're talking about targets, is that 60%, 70%, 80%? after this, we need some encouragement on process is like the president mentioned about an integrated approach prepare you cannot go to the car industry and say you do this, and go to another industry and said, you do this. in order to reduce emissions for cars, the best solution comes from cooperation through the industry's. -- industries. i ask for encouragement for an integrated approach.

we want to target the best solutions that make the most sense and require the least resources. when you push for an integrated approach, you are pushing industry to have good representation. representation of the industry is a problem. we have been working towards one common position and we were not successful. recently, after three years of work, we came with one statement which will be official today, signed by four ceos of the car industry, because most of them did not want to sign. we represent a substantial part of the car industry. if we do not push for an integrated approach, the public and governments will have some difficulty to understand what the technology is. at the end of the day, most solutions will come from innovation and from technology.

the government's need to have an objective image about what it will allow you to do. we can use batteries for cars, five years ago it was not possible. what can we do in the next five years? we cannot expect the same things. somebody has to objectively explain what is possible and what is not. the final thing i would like to mention is encouragement for private-public collaboration. i'm glad to see there is a specific example taking place in the united states and in europe or japan. the government and private sectors are coming together. the government and private sector cannot do it alone we have to -- cannot do it alone. we have to do it together. we have to be very efficient. >> thank you. that leads us into file processor -- caoi koch-weser.

-- caio koch-weser. we have talked about a large pools of capital that are necessary for mitigation an adaptation in the climate area, promises made from the developed world to develop -- to the developing world. a clearly cannot come from the public sector. give us your view. you thought long and hard about the vehicles that may be necessary and possible. >> from a private sector perspective, i would call the result of copenhagen the glass half full. we did not have high expectations before. on the positive side, all sectors -- so to speak, the group of countries committed to action is expanded. the basic countries are very

important element in that. we have that outline of what could be a future financing mechanism. the hundred billion dollars of which comes out of budgets which will be required for mitigation an adaptation action is in there, the details will be worked out. the private sector will have to finance a lot of that. an anti-to add to the list is that we have uncertainty -- an immediate negative to add to the list is that we have some doubt and uncertainty about how to go forward. where do we go from here? we need to create momentum with a three-pronged approach for strategy, one being the u.n.

strategy. i hope there will be progress. it will be tough, but important. it will have to be run very differently. there are a lot of lessons to learn. the second prong of the strategy becomes very interesting. it would be to have a smaller groups of like-minded countries come together a ground certain sectors and issues and push the agenda forward. there are good examples of how some countries to the lead with money on the table. there is transparency. i could see this happen in other sectors from a business point of view. perhaps in a tradeable sector. international shipping, transport, steel. power. again, put serious money on the table. ab credible performance.

-- have credible performance. such architecture, small acquisitions -- it can push the second prong forward which would reinforce and lead back into the first prong, which is the u.n. process. i would not -- there is evidence, even within the u.s., that of national entities -- that sub-national entities could come together and formed these small coalitions to move on certain agenda items. the third prong is leadership from the private sector to identify this as a major opportunity, not a burden. opportunities for future growth and innovation, led with big projects. we are involved in many of these. we have big ambition of

bringing 15% of the electorate did -- electricity requirements of europe from solar power. these are transformational projects. the technology exists. financing will be difficult, but it is doable. then comes the government and private sector are rounded these new innovative projects to create the framework conditions. here comes the public-private partnership. it works in a way that can lead to success which would scale up and leverage up limited amounts of public money. for example, taking equity positions on certain projects that then leverage is in the private. the $100 billion will have to come from cap and trade. it will come from scenes like

this of leveraging up public- private monies and guarantees. there could be a role for others. fiscal koppers will have to provide some as well. -- coffers will have to provide some as well. that would be my strategy. >> great. thank you. ed markey, we're beginning to get to the point of giving ideas to president calderon. what can he expect from the united states of america? but he is going to do a fantastic job over the next year. -- >> he is going to do a fantastic job over the next year. he has identified the big challenges. we really do not have to worry about president calderon -- he is going to be a world leader

over this next year. we can bring together a great coalition. in the united states, again, president obama as we committed the united states -- has re- committed the united states to passing legislation this year. there are coalitions who are partnering with john kerry and joe lieberman and united states senate, working with the white house towards defining a comprehensive agreement. the house of representatives, henry waxman and i, nancy pelosi, we want to work with them in order to produce legislation this year. i believe that will happen. i believe that bill will be on the president's desk. the reason i believe it is because it is in our national security interests and our long- term economic interests. at of our trade different -- that as it is from importing --

half of our trade deficit is from importing oil. those imperatives are driving us towards resolving this issue in united states. i think since -- since mexico is our closest neighbor, working with them to help produce understandings can help them to create a model for the rest of the world. there is no question that we will be successful. we do not have an option in the united states. legislatively, republicans and democrats both understand that the world looks at us and they say that most of that co2 is red white and blue. stop preaching temperance from a bar stool. do not tell us what you to it -- tell us what to do unless you have put a gloss on the books. we intend to do that. -- put laws on the books.

we intend to do that and go to mexico as a leader partnering with president calderon. >> if this does not happen legislatively, the president has many authorities administratively, correct? but if i may, yes. we had a very important -- >> if i may, yes. we had a very important supreme court decision. we have the executive level authority to regulate a greenhouse gases and co2. it is no longer a question of whether the legislation passes or not. it does not, the president has the authority to regulate, even without legislation. if we pass legislation, it allows us to moderate the impact on industries, consumers, and put in different trade

protections. even in the absence of that, although it will be a less refined process, the environmental protection agency of the united states can regulate greenhouse gases and the president and the epa have put in motion the process to make that possible and do so in the course of this year, unless we legislate. >> shyam saran, president calderon laid out a very impressive list of mexico. they are an non-annex one country. they do not have the same obligations of developed countries. he has, as a rapidly developing country, put together this very impressive list of commitments. the other basic countries coming in -- what will they be able to offer to the goal of reaching a substantial agreement in mexico? will you be matching the kinds

of -- will they match with mexico has been making? >> mr. chairman, let me compliment the president of mexico for the very strongly he has given in this global effort to reach a successful outcome. let me assure him on behalf of india -- i am sure this sentiment is shared by his colleagues in the basic countries -- that we would look forward to working very closely to ensure we have success. let me say that, just as mexico has shown that it is on the way in taking on commitments which it does not legally need to do, frankly speaking, most of the developing countries -- a major developing countries are ahead of the curve. if you're looking for leadership, which at to what is required, renewable sources of

energy, clean sources of energy, these countries are way ahead. look at india. we have only recently adopted, but have the most ambitious solar energy development plan in the world. we're looking like -- looking at something significant by 2020. we're looking at an increase in our energy efficiency by 2020 by 50%. we want to increase this to something like 33%. it is a huge difference. this has given us the confidence to commit monetarily that by the year 2020 we will be able to reduce emission of intensity by something like 20% to 25% with 2005 as a base year.

if you look at amendments made by china, south africa, brazil -- you will see these countries are already, despite the fact that we do not have a legal requirement, have taken the lead. there should be no doubt that these countries are going to work together with mexico and other countries. we will make certain that behind a collaborative response -- that the collaborative response comes about. berry recently, we met in new delhi and agreed that it will work together, not only as a group themselves, but also with the g7 and our partners in the developed world to try ensure -- try to ensure that the

process in mexico succeeds. we have made suggestions that we should from now until mexico have at least five rounds of talks amongst the groups that have been set up, because we believe that if this is as urgent and compelling as a problem that we need to try to resolve that problem. that is one important thing. the second thing i would like to mention is that the basic countries, despite the fact that they are developing countries, have also agreed to work together to help other developing countries in the spirit of cooperation. we want them to meet the challenge of adaptation and mitigation. this is the spirit in which we will approach these negotiations. but if i'm president calderon -- >> if i am president calderon's staff, i am taking note.

smaller like-minded countries are coming together. sectors like the automobile industry are coming together. with a $100 billion package that is arriving. with models of the finance sector, the u.s. commitment act, basic countries have agreed to act and came together in new delhi and agreed to act. it sounds let a piece of cake. [laughter] why is this so hard? >> i think that president calderon has made it very clear why it is so hard. different countries have very different processes. different industries have very different interests in the process. like any other process, there will be winners and losers. the losers are very vocal in this process. as president calderon pointed out, what we need is to try in a balanced way -- tried to find a

balanced way forward. we need to make sure that we are offering solutions board different countries and different sectors of the -- offering solutions for different countries and different sectors of the world. we need to talk about addressing the issue of deforestation. we're talking about mobilizing technology and mobilizing financial support for developing countries. we need to try and create a scenario in which there will be, maybe not something in it for everyone, but something in it for as many companies and countries as possible. in that context, i want to say something about finance. peres and a lot of talk about hundreds of billions -- there has been a lot of talk about hundreds of billions. i would like to be the last person in this room to create the impression that we're going to subsidize our way out of climate change and that we need to subsidize our way of climate

change. let me give you three reasons. the ipcc, the scientific community has been telling us for 15 years that we can reduce global emissions by 30% by taking action that will pay at all back to lower -- with lower electricity bills in three to dilute five years. i do not believe that it is physically possible to continue to grow the chinese economy at 8% or 9% a year using the current economic model. it cannot be done. thirdly, i believe that europe's target of a 20% to 30% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is not an environmental target, but an economic target, energy security target. there is an economic agenda at the heart of this. it takes me to a very important point made by carlos. it is buying an important that park -- that we have targets.

it is more important that we get to those partnerships that will design a solution -- the solutions that make sense from a business point of view, rather than throwing billions of dollars at it. >> thank you. before we get to the promised questions, president calderon, but give us a summary of what you have heard and what has been helpful and what are the biggest problems you face in trying to lead us all in cancun. >> let me express my gratitude to the representative of the indian government. we have strong collaboration in several fields. one thing we need to do is talk a lot about it, between all parties, especially developing

-- the largest developing countries. we need to build a bridge between the poorest countries and we can do so. we talked in our group the g five, brazil, china, south africa, india, and mexico -- we want to build on the efforts and work together. one important point is that -- it is important. there are several proposals, technical and financial proposals like the cap and trade proposal of mr. markey. you can change talking about not only cap and trade. a lot a project could be made in mexico. -- projects could be made in

mexico. solar energies could be provided to the united states. it could be very good business for mexico and the way to match the commitment of the united states. there are huge possibilities for the success of the proposal if the congress approves it. third, there is a commitment in terms of finance which is important. we need to start to work together. fourth, i realize that there are very low expectations about cancun. i prefer low expectations. the worst enemy of any politician is to have very high expectations. i am prepared to work this way. we have an instrument which is the action plan and the kyoto

protocol. we of the working groups and the copenhagen in agreement -- copenhagen agreement. it is a very important mechanism. we will be in contact in order to organize these meetings during the years. i will take suggestions about milestones. it is important for the success of the meeting. we will have special invitations. if you're planning to build electric vehicles, you are very welcome in mexico. what ever you need to establish your plan. there is a huge market and vision in the world. we are leading and are very competitive. contact me with that program. bamut mr. president, thank you. that is a good -- >> mr. president, thank you. that is a good answer. we have a lot of very

constructive stuff. we're now at the promised time for questions from all of you. raise your hand and a microphone will come in your direction. stand up, introduce yourself, and as your question. -- and ask your question. >> i am from zimbabwe. >> who do you direct your question to? >> president of mexico. one of our challenges is a mentality where we address the global challenges in isolation and deal with climate change and have another agenda on poverty, development, hiv, aids. we need to address these matters in a political manner. because some nations are more concerned about developing an hiv aids, -- and hiv/aids.

as you pursue the agenda and are not as vociferous on the issues affecting other communities, you're ineffective. >> we're moving away from the question. the key part of the question is there. mr. >> how do we unlock the interconnectedness between the challenges so that we can make a holistic and sustainable solution? and a terrific question. mr. president. what makes this so hard? >> let me try to answer in this way. the first time i listened about global warming was in the '70s -- the 1970's. my father was quoting special research. it was famous research about our

common future. there were talking about as now and global warming -0- snow and global warming. there are two gaps that are threatening the future of human beings. they are the gap between the environment and the rich and the port. it is true. the only way to overcome these challenges is to connect the solutions of both problems. the way to do so is to establish an economic system in which we can fix the environmental challenges and provide economic opportunities for the poorest people in the world.

is it possible? yes, that is possible. one thing we need to see will require new kinds of development. the low-carbon plan must be a new model of development in which we can provide new opportunities of jobs and growth and investment. it is true. new industries will arise. new opportunities will come to the poorest countries and people. we can create jobs associated with renewable energy and preventing deforestation. yesterday, i was talking about the situation in haiti. a lot of countries are collaborating with the rescue operation. what will happen after that with haiti?

one project could be to reforest haiti. we can pay for the effort. it is the most deforested in the region. we can have more jobs. low-carbon does not mean to disappear the others. it means to have electric vehicles that are more efficient with no or low emissions. we need to find a way to fix poverty and climate change at the same time. it is possible. one way to do so is payment of environmental services. a program for -- and this is communities -- indigenous communities on the rain forests.

they have no means to survive and no income. we are providing to them and paying them monthly to help them in their commitment to preserve the rain forests. they're getting jobs, coming out of poverty, and we are preserving the air and water we need. >> excellent question. all the way on the end to the left. >> thank you very much. i'm from south africa. a comment first before my question. the targets taken by the developing countries must be understood in depth. it is common but differentiated. we have committed in india and

south africa. we're moving away from business issues. 42% in 2025 on condition that new technologies are made available. we do not have the finances or the technology. it does not mean that individual countries we have no programs. there are programs. there are opportunities in our country. we a programs to deal with the effects of climate change. -- we have programs to deal with the attacks of climate change. it is directed to yvo. would it be possible for you to speed up the process? really, we are all eager to see

cancun succeed. we need to meet under the auspices of your agency. the question is related to mr. markey, relating to what is now called [unintelligible] there is a perception that this bill is promoting protectionism. i would like your comment on that. >> south africa will be hosting the top 17 after mexico. it has shown real leadership in this. >> thank you. thank you for that question. we do need to invigorate the process and speeded up. we need additional meetings in the course of this year on the road to cancun. additional meeting time is not enough. the president talked about

having modest expectations for cancun. one thing the community needs is to get clear on what those expectations are. what are we working towards and how will we use the time? we need more time and we also need a clear target and going up -- and game plan. >> ed markey, protectionism? >> in this legislation which i am the author of, there are tens of billions of dollars for technology transfer from the united states and other developed nations to developing nations in the world. we understand that we have that responsibility, in the same way that tens of billions of dollars will be transferred to developing nations for the protection of their rain forests. at the same time, we are trying to convince all of our industries that there is the

pathway from today, the jobs and industries of today and consumers of today in the united states, to the industries of tomorrow, the consumers of tomorrow, the workers of tomorrow. to convince the steel, cement, aluminum industries that they should move forward, we are saying to them that we're going to give them along transition time. but there are countries in the world that try to exploit this incredible commitment we are willing to make to our environmental side, we're going to insure -- ensure that it is not it exploited in terms of a loss of jobs in the united states. that being said, i think at the end of the day, we will never have protectionism, because the kinds of agreements that will be reached in mexico and

subsequently are going to ensure that there is transparency and verification and cooperation amongst the nations of the world so that there will not be the exploitation or implementation of protectionism by any developed country in the world. >> excellent question. let's go over here. i saw a hand over in this direction. i am not seeing very well. come over here. second row. here it comes. there we go. >> i am from brazil. one concern we have about the outcomes of copenhagen was the loss of momentum. were expectations too high? we had a lot of people trying to do things and get things done before copenhagen.

there is a feeling of a hangover that we're not engaged in these discussions. one issue i would like to pose to all of you is, what kinds of things could be done to restore the drive? caio made a very distinct suggestion of the small meetings. maybe president calderon could take the lead of st. let's get one achievement -- saying let's get one achievement. let's go for low hanging fruit. maybe we can get that done at six months in advance before the meeting in cancun. let's change that pattern. maybe it would generate momentum. the question is what are your

thoughts on how to generate momentum? >> yvo. the question is about hanover. what do you do about the issue of expectations? have you keep those that are -- keep those at a reasonable perspective? >> if i were physicians, the best thing to cure a hanover is to have another drink -- if i were facetious, which i'm not, the best thing to cure a hangover is to have another drink. we need to focus on the issues. trying to address issues before cancun is interesting, although everything is related to everything else. nonetheless, you can prepare a number of decisions. what is really important and president calderon pointed out at the beginning is transparency and inclusiveness. even though you may be meeting in small settings and that is

important, always take the advance back to the larger constituency and makes a there is inclusiveness. >> a quick comment on expectations. >> lend momentum by expanding quickly in the leadership. the reduction in emissions and deforestation remark. beyond that, it is a model you could do and others. pick another sector where you have like-minded coalitions. bring money and transparency together. seek the private-public partnership. they could immediately get to work, not only an globalize money from the school -- from fiscal coffers. in the and, it will be a carbon price. give us the incentives.

that is what happened trade and carbon markets are so important. the very important message that my panel would send is that, if the reform is to succeed, and the complicated -- the contemplated execution -- there are vast billions expected from this. even the u.s. -- the u.s. bill. scale up and reform the stadium -- the cdm. otherwise, you have fragmentation and the regulation -- deregulation. let's have harmonization. >> as we come to a close, we're reminded that, as the president

is trying to pull together these very complicated political threats, there will be a number of extremely promising working groups. they will be working on automobiles, finance, energy efficient, renewables,. they will be coming together largely built around private sector initiatives, trying to understand what rules have to be changed to allow progress. what is this juncture between political people changing roles and the private sector bringing together expertise, and stimulating technology that has to be there? there will be a series of these during 2010 which may be the single most important contributors to the success of what happens in mexico and cancun toward the end of 2010. with a couple of minutes. i leave this to you, mr.

president for a final word. >> thank you. my first point is that we need energy and momentum again. in order to do so, we need the support of society. we need the ngo's efforts again for cancun. i share your feelings about copenhagen. it was very disappointing. after the state dinner with the queen, at 11:00, we went to these meetings in a very small room. we were working until 4:00 in the morning and then again at 8:00, until 2:00 in the morning the day after. most of that time. we need to be prepared with very large anticipations, we need the pressure and opinions and

energy of civil society. i'd thank you for the suggestion. the american industry. finally, it will be very difficult. there are a lot of problems. there are different concerns. mainly, the economic effect of any progress. we need to work really hard. we have more time to work on this. i do not want to see -- i know there are times without results. mexico will do our best and i hope there will be new mechanisms for the future of humanity after our meetings. >> thank you, mr. president. u.s. set a record here. this panel on this technical

issue -- you have set a record here. the panel is closing on time and on budget. let me remind everybody here -- and ask you to remain seated for the next presentation from the world economic forum. please join me in thanking our panelists and wishing president calderon good luck and good will as we move through 2010. thank you prepare. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

. .

>> representative john murtha died today at the age of 77 after complications from gallbladder surgery. the president released a statement that said that john murtha's passion for service was born at during his career in the marine corps. he went on to be the first of vietnam war combat veteran elected to congress. the president said that his tough as nails reputation carried over to congress where he became a respected voice on issues of national security. he was elected to congress in

1974 and spent nearly two decades on that -- is the ranking democrat that oversees defense spending. in a few moments, a look at the congressional agenda leading to the 2010 elections. in an hour, former un ambassador john bolton on the administration's foreign policy. health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius on the president's health care plans. later, the head of the food and drug administration, margaret hambrug. urg. prime minister's questions from london is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on cspan-2. also on wednesday, live coverage

of our hearing on toyota vehicle recalls. witnesses include the head of toyota in north america and transportation secretary ray lahood. >> for educators, c-span offers cspanclassroom.org. we have redesigned it the website. you can find the most watched the video clips, organized by subjects and topics. the latest education news, plus the chance to connect with other teachers. it is all free. >> now look ahead to the congressional agenda leading to the 2010 elections. from "washington journal", this is about an hour. we're joined this morning by our two guests. and what is on tap for the congressional agenda next week? guest: jobs first, just second,

jobs third, health care, i don't know. what they are trying to do in the senate is that the jobs bill gets passed before they head out of town on recess. i am curious if the weather will put a crimp in those plants simply because members of congress have to get back into town to get to work so they can get things done it is unclear given that d.c. does not function that great when they are digging out of a record snowfall. what democrats in congress want to get done and show the american people is that they are attuned to the unemployment rate. they want to have jobs created. host: what do the legislative proposals look like for jobs? guest: we don't really know. there is a lot of behind-the- scenes arguing among democratic leaders with what should be in a jobs package.

in the state of the union, the spresident ask for targeted tx cuts. democrats would like to get some of those things in there. you also have concerns about the overall cost of a jobs bill. basically, it is part of an economic bill by another name. is it easier to pass several smaller jobs bills? there is one bill for a payroll tax holiday which is sponsored by charles schumer and orrin hatch. if you do something that is small and targe(m", you might get more support on both sides. then you have a lot of people that say we need to -- we need to do something large that shows people we need -- we understand the depth of the problem. we need to have a lot of government funding in there for infrastructure and public sector jobs and things like that.

they are trying to figure out how to proceed. several smaller bills or fewer larger bills. host: reid wilson, are republicans feeling the pressure to agree to something on jobs? guest: i have not seen any evidence that they feel any pressure to do anything but hammer democrats. they really have no reason to agree. they have no reason to make a compromise or make an effort and give a bunch of their priorities in order to vote for a package. host: if democrats put forward tax cuts for business says, a payroll tax cut, things that sound or have been proposed by republicans in the past and republicans do not support the sort of thing, to the risk paying the price in 2010? guest: that is the benefit of the approach that if they do put

up a tax bill, they will get a lot of bipartisan support. if the democrats put up a tax bill on one hand and a spending package on the other, republicans will vote for 1 against the other. we have seen a few republicans voting for some of these bills but the number is very small. hopefully, we will seek some kind of solution. host: you are watching the races that are happening outside of washington and listening to these candidates who are running against incumbents and what they are saying. are they saying not to agree with democrats when it comes to jobs? guest: we are seeing republican candidates or rail against public spending. even people who supported the spending bill, they are very

much against any more government spending. the tea party folks who are really angry and vocal now are angry and vocal about spending. that will be the crux of the republican argument. host: health care is also an issue that sarah palin brought up yesterday in her speech to the tea party convention. president barack obama at the democratic national committee yesterday said he is pushing forward with it. if not this week, then when might they tackle health care again? guest: if the democrats are going to do it, it will happen sometime over the next four-six weeks at the most part of they do not want to head deep into the spring with health-care hanging out there as an issue, whether it is an issue that passes or will not pass. they either want to pass it or sudley admitted it is dead. look for action in the next few weeks and if you see no action, i would assume it is gone.

right now, they are trying to have it both ways. you have democrats in congress who are working behind the scenes to try and figure out a way forward given the new math where republicans have 41 seats and can sustain a filibuster the fact that nancy pelosi is not honest that she does not have 218 votes for the senate bill that passed in december. you also have a president who says he wants it and this is continuing to push for it but is not offering a specific path for that he would like democratic leaders on the hill to pursue. he is not saying what he wants and how he wants it done host: what options do they have? guest: they can clear the senate bill back in december and send it to the president. house democrats simply don't like the bill. if you told the democrats in the senate have voted for the bill, they will tell you that they still support the bill they voted for.

they would love to see the senate bill passed but it will manhattan because house democrats do not like the bill. they can also pursue reconciliation strategy by trying to avoid a filibuster which requires 60 votes to pass something with 51 votes. you have to have the house passed the senate bill, passed a sidecar package of things the house would like to see added to the senate bill, and then that package would head to the senate where you ran up 51 democratic votes. the problem with that, it sounds like ikea offer you a strategy that has a problem, but legitimately, there is a scenario where republicans find a way to raise points of order with a sidecar package that house democrats would require an getting around those points of order would require 60 votes. you could end up like groundhog day where you think you have a way to get around the reconciliation and you end up

needing to overcome a filibuster to oppose a 51-boat builder and they are trying to figure out if they can do a 51- voter bill. host: sarah palin said last night that washington needs to hit the reset button on health care. is that a similar sentiment you are finding in congressional races? guest: absolutely, republicans want that. democrats don't want to talk about this. democrats are done with this bill and if they had their choice, we would not be having this conversation. health care only hurts democrats politically. republicans want to talk about the want to talk about hitting the reset button. they want to talk about eliminating the pre-existing conditions and allowing insurance to be sold across state lines. the love to talk about tort

reform, something that will not pass easily in a democrat- controlled congress. democrats are done with this bill and i want to talk above jobs, jobs, jobs. it surprised me a lot that the president went to the dnc and talk about health care a lot and said we will not stop this fight. his political wing sent out an e-mail to all their supporters and said to bring this up again this is not something that is politically beneficial to democrats. host: we spoke to president barack obama's senior advisor which will air at 10:00 this morning. here is what he had to say on the issue of jobs and a provision for payroll tax. guest: center schumer and senator hatch have proposed a payroll tax holiday which will put some dollars in people's pockets right away.

guest: we have discussed a similar ideas. the notion is that we are on the cost of hiring going -- growing in this country. you have seen productivity at record highs and people are hiring large numbers of temporary workers and that is generally a privilege to hiring. if you give people added incentive maybe this will encourage them to do this now. we are receptive to that. . . host: how to think of holiday on a payroll tax is going to play out with americans in canada is to are running for office or talking about jobs for themselves? guest: the unemployment rate stays up, and the unemployment

rate of members of congress -- democrats will go up very quickly. a payroll tax is going to get some businesses hiring new people. the problem is, that does not bring the unemployment rate down. the unemployment rate is a metric that everyone is falling. jobs are a lagging indicator. when the unemployment rate goes down, more people start looking for jobs which forces it right back up. we have seen an unexpected drop this month, from 10% to 9.7%. that means more people stopped looking for jobs. the economy still lost 20,000 jobs last month. this is a problem for democrats. this is the easiest thing for any voter to understand. i voted for these guys. they came into office, the unemployment rate shot up above 10%. it is going to be almost impossible for the unemployment rate to come out meaningfully

down by november. democrats are going to have to find a way to run this. host: we are talking about the congressional agenda. our guest this morning are saying jobs, jobs, jobs. the democratic line. what do you think? e editors. i reall@@@@@@ caller: mr. wilson, i do not understand how it is a problem for democrats? i understand that one job lost is not good. you are talking about 20,000 jobs lost, but when obama first came in it was 700,000 jobs lost in the first month. i want to understand why this is bad for democrats? also, i want to mention that, please, i would like to hear you

guys talk about this. i know is the race card, but my problem is that is the diversity in the park -- diversity in the party. i enjoy being a democrat because i believe democrats represent america, which is all races and religions. i am sure it is all religions. if everybody opens their eyes. i will tell you the problem. the tea party people and the republicans, other than michael steele, they are all white. that is a problem. forget about everything else. there is a problem when you have a party, the tea party people, and the republicans and they are all white. i even personally agree with a lot of the things the republicans say, but there is no way i am going to all white. point. she's absolutely right. the first month president obama was in office, americans lost 700,000 jobs. you can't blame president obama

for that. that was the previous administration's economic policies. most voters agree that president bush did get us into the economic mess that we're into today. however, it's now president obama's problem to solve and he has not solved that problem. congressional democrats have not solved that problem. that's why democrats are facing big problems here on the economic pro-front. host: before we get to that second point, we had representative chris van hollen on this show a couple weeks ago, he is the assistant to the speaker. he heads up the effort on the the house side to reelect democrats to the house. and he was saying, when squd if president obama should bring up president bush in the state of the union, he said, well, yes, because we have to remember that republicans were in control and do we really want to go back to before 2006 when republicans were in control and president bush was in the

administration. and so it soundsed like that was going to be a talking point for democrats running. that they're going to say look back to before we took over guest: with all due respect to chris van hollen, who i think is one of the smartest members of congress, it's a losing strategy and it will not work. democrats crom everything in washington and americans understand that. and when the majority party blames the minority party, people think to themselves, why are you guys in charge if 41 republican senators can stymie a what 59 democratic starts want. or if 178 house republicans can stop 257 or 258 democrats from working their will. why bother with you guys? the other problem looking back creates is that americans really don't care who was in charge before. nobody likes president bush. still.

they believe that he got the country into many of the challenges that it now faces. but that's why they voted for barack obama and more democrats. so what they're thinking to themselves is, i know the other guy was lousy. that's why i voted for you. and now you're telling me that you can't get anything done and eeths the other guy's fault who has now been gone for over a year. it's a losing strategy. >> when you say things like americans, they, are you talking about democrats and republicans or independents? guest: it's across the board. we've seen republicans riled up now because of president obama and the democrats control washington. we've seen independent voters swing away from democrats in elections from new jersey to virginia to the massachusetts special election. even in large part to special elections around the country. republicans to their credit have done quite well in places where democrats do well.

they elected two still council members in alexandria, virginia. that seems small beans but that's a liberal town to be electing republicans. and democrat voters are depressed. they don't like what they've seen because a lot of priorities have not advanced. we're still talking about repealing don't ask, don't tell. >> it can decrease intensity. democrats are going to think to themselves, i control the house, i control the senate, i control the white house. but what did get for it? their expectations may be unreasonable. but that's what the voters think. >> sarle last night for the tea -- sara palin last night had a little fun on president obama's hope and change theme. >> remember our administration promised that it would be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.

remember? remember vice president biden. he was put in charge of a tough, unprecedented oversight effort. that was how it was introduced. you know why? because nobody messes with joe. [applause] now, this was all part of that hope and change and transparency. and now a year later, identify got to ask those supporters, how does that hopey changey stuff working out for you? host: do you perceive that that may be in 2010 that candidates are running against president obama? guest: they will run against president obama's policies. republicans are very conscious that americans still like president obama. his approval rating may be falling by his favorable rating is very high. and by the way, every time anybody runs against president

obama, they're accused of playing the race card. so in order to avoid the race card stigma, in order to avoid attacking people, they'll take on his polls yiss. and that's harry reid and nancy pelosi. they're going to become the number one targets that republicans face, republicans are talking about. because nobody wants to atit can the guy that everybody likes. so they'll attack the san francisco liberal who is the speaker of the house and liberal hairy reed. >> the searchlight liberal. his lynn rals in may be ableef debatable. but he is shepherding the agenda through the senate. it also helps that he himself is on the ballot and is facing very bad poll numbers. host: let's go back to the phone lines. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a question, and i'll

take my answer off the air, if you will. thank you very much for talking to me. i'm a retired business man, and i am quite knowledgeable in economics. all of these intellectual politicians, all these intellectual politicians in washington have college degrees and then some. why don't thai know basic economics? 101. the problem with jobs is demand. there is no demand out there because people do not have the money to spend. so why put the money into businesses when the money should be going into the pockets of the people? flt people have the money and they will spend, businesses will delive. and businesses thrive, they will hire more people to

produce product. host: anything in job legislation in either the house or the senate that is for somebody out there who is unemployed like our caller was talking about? caller: i haven't seen yet every it ration of the jobs packages that are floating. i would say in response to the caller's comments that when it comes to economic philosophy among the two parties in washington, republicans tend to look at the economy as something that needs to stimulate the demand of a buyer. and that usually in their view takes the form of an across the board tax cut both for businesses and for individuals. and the democratic party usually looks at that as something that ends up funneling a lot of tax dollars to the wealthy, so called, and what they like to do is create bills that are targeted for a special purpose.

and so i don't think we're likely to see the kind of bill that would make this caller happy simply because it goes against democratic philosophy. and when they're talking politically about what they're trying to do, you basically hear the talking points of tax cuts for the wealthy in that we tried that for eight years. we had across the board tax cuts. all of this money went to the wealthy. what we want to do is redirect the money for the middle class which they have defined as anybody who is making $200,000 a year or less or families making $250,000 a year or less. and any tax cuts forward are going to be targeted. and take a look at the president's state of the union address. he talked about tax cuts for the employer if you hire. as opposed to a broad section of the population in order to try to stimulate demand. i'm not passing judgment on what the president wants to see happen with the tax cuts. but philosophically what he

wants to see i don't think you'll get out of a democratic congressman or president. caller: host: ron, on the democrat's line. go ahead. caller: all right. i have a question, comments, two of them. two major points. an earlier talking point concerned voting for and voting against bills. in our congress. what i never hear from any political pundit anywhere is why people would not vote for a particular bill even though on the surface it seemed like the bill would do good thing force the country. ie, the stimulus bill. even if the stimulus bill had

good points in it that could have done something for the country, it was loaded with so much pork such as crossings in flay, airport expansion for three planes a day. why can't some of the people in the press, the political pundits, instead of just saying, oh, they're obstructing this move, why can't they point out perhaps there was a no vote. that's the first point. the second point is the economy. the government does not produce anything. therefore, they cannot create jobs. the only thing that they can do is to present an environment for people who do produce. and that environment demands that the people who produce have to know the rules and have reasonable expectation of what that rules are going to be in

the future. so if our wonderful elected politicians could figure out this very simple, very simple economic rule, they could create an environment simply by guaranteing that the e.p.a. isn't going to cost them $10 million to bring in a new product. the federal government isn't going to tax them so much that they scant -- can't afford to produce a new product and hire new people. guest: i think the bill you're likely to see coming out of congress, david will be the expert, is going to include a number of projects that the government funds that will create jobs. things like airport expansions, things like sky harbor international airport in phoenix was one of the huge beneficiaries of the stimulus

bill. arizona has lost a number of jobs but those sort of infrastructure projects are the things that do create jobs. as to why we can't talk about reason for voting, i think we do. i think we get to hear on the sunday shows every day on shows like this why republican members of congress oppose the stimulus bill, why they oppose the health care bill, why democrats oppose various initiatives from republicans. so i think there are plenty of reasons and there are plenty of reasons to be for and against any of these things. the fralk projects that we're going to see is another point of contension that i'm sure republicans will have plenty of tuvente to explain why they're against. host: go ahead. caller: good morning. my first, i want to make a my first, i want to make a two-point question here. caller: i want to make a two- point question.

while you two are covering the tea party gathering in nashville, did you run across any attendees of color? i will can see the point that i believe the obama administration does need to put out of its mind at the previous administration and all of its failures. -- and focus on what is on, ahead of us right now. president obama needs to not be moved or be fearful, because somebody is going to be displeased at some point. he needs to say to republicans, look, we are going to move forward, because we are in the party -- the party in control. we are going to try to do things our way while trying to implement some of the ideas of doors that will be most -- ideas

of yours that will be most helpful. host: i do not think you covered the tea party. it does bring up the diversity question. guest: it is always interesting when looking at the electric and what drives the voters. -- in the electorate. i would step back and look at things? wait for the context. you saw an incredible amount of intensity among anti-war protesters and democratic voters who wanted to send republicans packing and were looking forward to 20,000 -- 2008. an incredible amount of intensity on the right from republicans and independents lean to the right who want to send a message to the democratic congress and to the president. and i think you can look at the 2006 protests that we saw and a

majority of the protestors were white. you can look at the tea party convention and a majority if not all of them are white. but the race of the protester of the tea partier is less important than where their politics are when i'm looking at how an election is going to be affected. the other point is the president should push forward and move forward undauntted and i would tell her that is what he is doing and i would say that's what right now is causing his part cri a problem. what we learned, we didn't know right away, but the american people were very unhappy with the republican congress and they liked the democrats in 2006. they were very unhappy with president bush, they elected president obama in 2008. but it still remains fundamentally a center right country. and i think the president's policies which you can't criticize the motivation of

what he wants to do, i think are very well meaning policies, are just not the kind of policies that most people who vote support. and while i think a low unemployment rate would ameliorate some of the intensity against him, for the most part if you ask american voters by and large do they support greater government involvement in health care, just on the face of it they're going to say no. if you ask them should the government be regulating carbon emissions, for the most part if you get out of the discussions about global warming and climate change, they're probably going to say no. and so it's a challenge for the president to move a country slightly to the left when its natural ink nation remains to move slightly to the right. host: one point i would bring up real quick. having president obama stand strong is something that a number of democrats on capitol hill really want him to do. you mentioned chris van hollen

earlier. chris van hollen and more of the party strategist types on capitol hill want president obama to stand strong, to really lay out their vision and make this election a contrast tweens what the democrats wants and what the republicans want and making something a contrast election is very difficult to do. it usually becomes a referendum on the parry that's in power or the party that holds the white house. but we've seen democrats be very quick to reevaluate their own priorities after a special election in massachusetts, after the rerepublican wins in new jersey and virginia. they are scared right now. and there are some democrats on the hill saying we shouldn't be scared. host: house speaker nancy plose ie earlier this year said we will sustain our majority. she didn't say by how much but she said we will sustain our majority in 2010. are they backing away from

using that kind of language? guest: i don't think so. i think most democrats are still pretty confident that as you look at the national scene, it's very difficult for their party but on a district by district level, republicans are doing well. they're not doing that well. republicans need 40 seats to pick up control of congress. could be 39 afts the results of the special election in a couple of months. but still, 39 or 40, that's a lot of seats. host: in what state? guest: in hawaii. the honolulu district, he is going to resign to run for governor and there's a pretty cone ten shs special election with some pretty impressive candidates. but the democrats are going to lose seats. i think that's everybody agrees on that. how many is the question. and if you look, district by district, candidate by candidate, matchup by matchup, republicans don't have enough

good candidates with enough support to take back those seats. host: you want to jump in. guest: i think the question is will the democrats emerge with a governing majority. the republicans could win 25, 30 seats net, pa seats net and the democrats would still own the majority, run the committees but i don't know that it would be a governing majority. and particularly in the senate where even the most back bench minority senator can wield power. if they can pick up another four or fife senate seats, it makes it much harder to push through their agenda. we've seen how difficult it was with 60 seats. host: billy, go ahead. caller: i'd like to comment on this jobs. i'm a construction worker and i work all over the united states. and i think immigration is one of the big problems that has put american workers out of jobs.

i was in framingham, massachusetts, in 2007 and they were having to cut out or was talking about cutting out sports in their schools because they had to designate 70 teachers that were bilingual to teach all these students. you know, is taking money from our children's education is taking american jobs. they have problems on the texas and arizona, mexico border with guns and drugs and all that. isn't that the job of the national guard to protect the homefront? host: either of you? guest: i would just point out, in this whole health care debate, in the whole second stimulus debate, the real casualty has been immigration reform. president obama talked about

wanting to bring forward a new package, congressional democrats talked about it quietly. ever over the last year. something that they were going to bring up, but in 2009. in an election year in 2010, we're not going to see an immigration reform bill. guest: reed is right. you won't necessarily see it come up in 2011 or 2012. host: we have a tweet here. can you talk about that and their reference to where there's no breaks? guest: not quite sure what the tweeter means by no breaks. but i will say this. the fill buster rule is as old as the republic. it has over the last 20 years been used more and more by both parties. and what i find interesting is it's always the party in power that doesn't like the fill buttser. the party out of power loves

the phil buster. when they had the seats, they had activists all over talking about the nuclear action. because they were phil bustering the elections. now, 59 seats with scott brown's election, now the democrat have a healthy majority in the senate. democrats all over the country, we have to get rid of it. this is an abomination. the republicans are misusing it. and i think whether are you love or hate it, it's always been a part of the u.s. senate. it is used more often than maybe it used to be. but i also think that's because the u.s. congress is a little bit different than it used to be. for much of the 20th century, you had healthy democratic majorities and i only bring it up because it was just one party. it could have been a republican majority. but that majority was broken up

within itself by regional factions. and so you had a bloc of really large conservative democrats that would band together to fight blocs of liberal democrats that would band together. and they would then work with the minority party where you would have conservative democrats and republicans would get together. so you had a lot more division within the parties and things were less partisan. in terms of partisan party wise. and so there was less i think i don't want to say less of a need for it, but you had legislation that ended up being filibustered less because things were handled internally first. i dovente really need to make a value judgment whether you should remove it or not. but it's not new. i only think if you eliminate it, then you're going to have the next party screaming we nead to bring it back. >> the scharmeharken of the health care committee has a bill to tweak with it.

but he himself has said it's probably not going to go anywhere. guest: it's not going anywhere. host: detroit on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. a couple things i would like to say. first off, there is no jobs in america because we quit buying american products. you don't buy the cars. it's all the way to computer people losing jobs. now we're seeing other people lose their jobs. secondly, c-span, how come we haven't talked about the premier of health in canada running to america with heart trouble. what did he run there for? the best care there is that money can buy, of course. but this is america. and yet, unfortunately, only the strong do survive. those that get out everybody day and fight for their living. host: the caller brought up buy america. that's a provision that typically comes up when you're talking about jobs and the economy. it's not something that has

been brought up in the discussion right now by democrats. is that something candidates are talking about or? guest: guest: we haven't heard a lot of candidates talking about it. but he's from detroit and michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. when you're talking about a national recession, we've been in a national recession for a couple years. the state of michigan has been in a recession, a one-state recession for a lot longer than that. and it's because of the auto makers that have lost so many thousands of jobs. democrats are going to find -- democrats had a great year in 2008 in the, i hate to say rust belt, but the rust belt states. ohio, pennsylvania, michigan, illinois. they picked up house seats, governors, senate seats in all three of those states over the last couple of years. now this year, they're going to have a very difficult time in those states. they've got the governor in michigan is term limited.

their lieutenant governor had to drop his bid because he was getting so little support. and democrats still don't have a candidate, here we are eight months before election date. host: and you wrote a piece about the top u.s. senate seats and on that list is illinois, pennsylvania as well as north dakota, delaware, arkansas, nevada, kentucky, colorado, new hampshire, and ohio. guest: and these are seats especially illinois and in pennsylvania, we've got two democratic senate seats, senator bury riss is retiring. ufere got congressman mark kirk, a republican from illinois who is very well respected, a centrist by any measure, somebody who voted for the cap and trade bill although he has backed off that. he has a moderate record running statewide in a state that gets sick of its incumbent politicians frequently. in pennsylvania you've got democratic senator articlen specter who has run for years

as a republican. he just won the endorsement of the pennsylvania democratic party. both congressman joe sess tack who is a democrat challenging him from the left and former congressman pat tomby are casting him as the status quo. and this year, the worst thing you can be come november is the status quo. so he is taking fire from both sides. i think you could very well see republicans pick up both those seats. or if -- well, if by some miracle joe sestak wins the primary, i think there's a chance that arlen specter won't be back next year. host: good morning. host: good morning. caller: goo host: pat is joining us from houston, texas, on that it independent line. caller: i have a couple of points that set me off.

your panelists are not balanced this morning. how we'll have a dialogue if both are thinking the same way and talking the same way? my second point is the tea party is not america. america is a melting pot. it is never going to go back to what it used to be. it is always going to move forward. and that is a multi-cultural , fair and balanced in the country. the only reason why people are crying wolf about health care is because of the greedy rich. they are still worried about the tax rollbacks that president obama -- when he was running for president, he always stated that he planned to roll back the bush tax cuts. they knew it was coming.

they are crying wolf. everything that he does, to make this country moving forward goes back to him talking about rolling back the tax cuts. host: our guest this morning are two reporters. they are not here to give us a differing opinions. they're not from two different sides. they are here to let us know what is happening in the house and senate congratulate, as well as politics. as well as what is happening outside of the beltway. guest: i am insulted that she things that i think just like he does. clearly, i have not performed the way i want to do. the caller is upset and there is frustration in the country. . . to cause health care to become derailed. the reason health care has such a problem is because the democrats in order to gain such a large majority won a lot of republican leaning states and house districts and those

members who won cognizant of their constituents had certain problems with much of the president's agenda. now, while they voted for much of it, the reason the democrats had so much trouble with heir health care bill is because of democrats all centrists from republican leaning states. and i could say the same about the house where you had a large the house where you had a large block of onservative democrats who are now sitting in seats that were for years held by republicans,. and the other thing i would just point out is that i think the country is upsit because for much of last year while unemployment was growing until it finally settled at around 10%, i think the country, if you took a cross section of people who are likely to vote and that's always how i think

reed looks at things and i look at things, i'm interested in voters because they're going to affect who sits in the building behind us. looking back, most voters will tell you health care reform is needed. we think it's a good idea generally. but why didn't you focus on jobs first? now, maybe congress did focus on jobs just as much as health care but people don't think they did. and so people are upset. host: here's a tweet. guest: i want to talk about the tea party. the convention has been beset by problems from the beginning. the organizer originally wanted to hold it for profit. that caused two very popular republican congressmen from sort of who represent the tea party movement, michelle balkman and marsha black burn to pull out. it has been criticized by

former sponsors. and i think the lesson that we learned here is that the tea party is a movement that's moving in a hundred different directions. there is no one tea party group. any time anybody tries to organize all these tea party groups into one organization, somebody is going to get upset and say that's not my priority, this is my priority. the tea party folks, the leaders of the more local movement dislike republicans maybe not as much as they dislike democrats but they do not trust incumbents of either party. this is an anti-washington movement. not necessarily simply an anti republican or democrat movement. host: and one of those is deric joining us in jaffle, florida. caller: gerning. i appreciate this. i'm one of the independents that i guess you would call the younger group, college, who went out and voted for the change, didn't see much going

on with the democrats right now. i think they're too into trying to get that one or two votes that they need from the republican side or trying to -- they never really had the 60 seats. the republicans seem to be just like everyone says, obstructionists and everything. but even more so, the tea party movement seems like a bunch of misinformed almost gullible people. because some of the things i've reader, e -- read. me and my friends i guess are the political nerds that you would see at school and a lot of us get these talking point memos from all the groups. and i just wanted to get everyone's opinion that you guys have there on, a, when are the democrats going to wake up and say forget the republicans. we need to do everything with the 50 or so votes we have.

host: david. guest: well, i think that the democrats have been trying to do things with the votes that they have. again, i will bring up a point i just mentioned. the reason they haven't been able to get as much done as they've wanted to is because their majority is ideologically broad. when you have conservative democrat ben nelson from nebraska butting heads with a liberal senator, let's say shared brown from ohio, a democrat, it creates friction within the party. democrats do not all think alike on capitol hill. they have a governing majority but they're not an majority in idea logical lock step. so they have to figure out how to bring enough votes together for a piece of legislation. i think in retro spect what we might be able to learn from 2009 and from the bush plrks, president bush tried immigration reform urks it failed. that you want to do things that

are smaller and targeted. the democrats tried climate change reform, health care reform so far has failed. do thick that is are smaller. the prescription drug benefit bill was something smaller and targeted. it cost a lot but it was smaller and targeted and everybody could understand it. it wasn't loaded down with a lot of deals that people thought were special and potentially unseemly if not illegal. and i think that's one of the messages. and i think what the caller sees is a lot of dysfunction in washington. nobody can get everything done and everybody blames everybody else. but you tend not to see compromise in washington unless there's a political will to compromise. and as long as you have one party domination, there's no political will for the majority to do what the minority wants because they look at themselves in the mirror and they say we have enough votes to do what we want. the minority looks at themselves and they say why should i help the majority pass the agenda? they will look good and people will reelect them.

and if you want to see compromise and legislative movement on a more regular basis you need a divided government where one party controls the white house and the other party controls at least one house of congress. host: prick on the republican line you're next. -- rick on the republican line. you're next. caller: one of the guests could just comment on them. with the i guess reed i'm sorry i didn't catch his last name. host: reed wlsen. caller: he commented on some of the programs with the infrastructure programs, the airports. i paint parking lots for a living, and a little bit of road painting and awork for a lot of road contractors. and they've got some stimulus money and they got very busy for the reason seasons and then the roads were paved and ten winter came and those guys are laid off until there's more stimulus money. however, with those roads being waived were great. created some quick jobs.

but the average consumer had no where to go on the roads because they had no money to go shopping and vay cases and trips. so those help but i don't think it helped but more on a broad-based tax cuts and things like that would help the consumer to have some money to go out and spend. host: reed. guest: i think it's interesting to note that these infrastructure jobs and the money doesn't always last. this is a doctors 787 billion bill that was passed in early february. i think it was february 10. is that the right? somewhere around there. but there were a couple problems with it. first, that's a lot of money. and you can't get it out to the states quickly. a very large portion of that $787 billion has yet to be spent. it's still very trickling out very slowly to shovel ready projects. there weren't enough shovel

ready projects to spend that money. so the caller said that the folks were laid off until more stimulus money came in. yeah, that's the problem. it's trickling down. it wasn't just one check that somebody wrote. host: so democratic candidates across the country running on the stimulus? guest: they dopet want to talk about the stimulus very much. they want to talk about the jobs bill. guest: the biggest problem with the stimulus bill was not the jobs it didn't create. it was the president promised the unemployment rate wouldn't go up that much. if the president had simply said this is going to help get the country back to work and stabilize the economy, it would not have been as much of a problem. but it gave the republicans and everyday voters a way to measure it and a way to measure that it failed. guest: what i think it really did is it gave the perception that that voters are very willing to accept of democrat

spending too much, democrats come in and make government bigger and spend way too much money. that's the stereo type of democrats that they've tried to avoid for years and years. with one stroke of president obama's pen, he -- dwsh >> reclaim an issue that they had lost. >> reinvented that stereo type. one thing they are going to find very troubling and that republicans are going to pounce on it every single point, that when you have $787 billion being spebt, there is going to be wasteful spent. there will be something. and the republicans will put out press release after press release, and they will be right. host: one last phone call. pittsburgh, pat on the democrat line. caller: i'm glad they brought up the stimulus. when george bush was in office, we lost over 700,000, in fact at the end of his term 700,000

every month was the norm. we are down to 300,000 because the stimulus worked. and yes it moved slowly because people have to make plans to spend that money and have to get equipment together and what not. but what hurts our nation is the fact that we have 91% of the media in this country bombing obama from every angel. these two guys on your show are no different. we can't run anything without republican votes. and i understand that and everyone understands that. but when the democrats are in power, the republicans do nothing but use their talking points. you can hear them. i watch all the media. i'm retired. and it's damming the what's going on in this country. and george bush even said this. if you repeat something over and over again, people will

believe it. and he was silly enough to admit that on air. guest: i'll just say i want to make the point if we're down to losing 20,000 jobs a month, which is of course much better than the 700,000 than were lost a year ago. the problem is not that the stimulus is working, it's that it's not working up to the level that president obama promised. he said that the unemplimt rate wouldn't go above i think 8.5%. here we are at 9.7% after having a good month in which unemployment slanchinge. so the political problem that democrats face that voters rrned the country are concerned about is that they haven't seen the progress that was promised. and you're going to see over the next couple years democrats really learning from that and not promising the met rirks that can then be measured that they can't necessarily meet. host: dave. guest: and i think that any president of any party always

gets much more credit than they deserve when things are going well and much more blame when things are going poorly. and the way voters look at it, it's something i said before. we understand that president bush wasn't a good president. in their view. but that's why we elected you. so now go fix it. that's what we want from you. and when things turn around, if they turn around on president obama's watch, whether or not he actually deserves any credit, whether or not democrats actually deserve any democrats actually deserve any credit it won't m host: before we go, real quickly. if jobs is the issue this week for congress, who should our viewers be watching in the house and senate? guest: watched the house leadership. watch nancy pelosi, steny hoyer, the majority leader. watch the ways and means watch the ways and means chairman charles rangel, ge