get to a point of giving advice the president called iran -- president called iran as to what animal he is going to be trying to harness in the next year. what can expect from the united states? >> he is going to do a fantastic job over the year, so let's just out there. he is already outlined in his statement his complete identification of all the big challenges ahead of him. so we do not have to worry about the president. he is going to be a world leader over this next year, and i think we can bring together a great coalition. in the united states, again, president obama recommitted the united states to passing climate legislation this year. there is a coalition of republican members led by lindsey graham and susan collins, who are partnering with

john kerry and joe lieberman in the united states senate, working with the white house towards finding a comprehensive agreement. the intention then is for the house of representatives, henry waxman and i, nancy pelosi, to work with them in order to produce the legislation this year. i believe that that will happen. i believe that that bill will be on the president's desk, and the reason i believe it is that it is in our national security interests, our long-term economic interest. . f 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 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.

of the meeting. we will have special -- you are planning to build electric vehicles and you would be very welcome in mexico. there are markets in the region and the world where we are leading the process. we are very competitive. you can come to me with that problem. >>çó that is a good answer to te question asked. that gets us a long this is constructive. we are now at the promised time for questions from all of you. if you could raise your hand, please stand up and introduce yourself and ask your question. do not give an advertisement for institution. >> item from zimbabwe. don't you think -- who would to oß])dçyvo>>ñi 'a

ñichallenge is in isolation? we deal with climate change. we need to address these matters 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] . .

>>ñi >> in a fewñi moments, i lk at the congressional agenda

looking at theñi coming electio. çóin an hour, john bolton of the obama administration foreign- policy. after that, a hearing on the proposed budget for the but transportation department. later, health andçó human servis secretary kathleen some bilious on health care. but on washingtonñr journal,çó n stanton of rome call -- up for a call. we would hear from mark moyar about the war in afghanistan and richard norton smith discusses the updatedñr version of who is buried in grant's tomb. ñiñiñrthat is every dayxd at 7:. eastern. for educators, c-span offers the new program to make it useful

for teachersñi. çóyouñr can find theñi most watd video clipsñrçó to organized by subject and topics. ñithe latest in education news, plus the chance to connect with other teachers and it is all free. sign up the new c- spanclassroom.org. >> from washington journal, abo. >> "washington journal" continues. host: 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 vuilder " i thinkaabq' democratsñr in p)e trying to do is to figure out if they can doñrñi bill thatñiñiñiçóçó will5açwiçs jçóñiñi toñiñi hit that

races? >> absolutely. ñiñiçóñiñiçóçójoeba+hm this any. ñrñiñiñiñi vççóñi theyh would not be having this conversation from now until november. republicans want to talk about it. they want to talk about hitting the restart button. they want to start wiíhñ small items that they talk about like eliminating the consideration of pre-existing conditions. the love to talk about tort reform,ñr something that will ps very easily in the democrat- controlled congress. the democrats want to talk about jobs and that is what they will talk about. it actually surprised me that president obama went to the dnc

as today and said that we are not going to stop this fight yet supporters saying to bring this up again. çóthis is not something that is politically beneficial to democrats. >> we spoke with david axelrod. st: 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. . .

it's still at 9.7 or whatever it will be in november. it's going to be impossible for the unemployment rate to come down meaningfully down by november. >> we're talking about the congressional agenda and politics and policy. our guests are saying jobs, jobs, jobs. new york city. caller: good morning, everyone. i just wanted to bring up two issues and i really would like to hear the comments of both

the editors. i really enjoy your writing. first, really quick. mr. wilson, i don't understand how it's a problem for democrats. i understand not one job loss, it's not good. but you're talking about 20,000 jobs lost. but when obama first came in it was 700,000 jobs lost in the first month. so i really want to understand why this is bad for democrats. also, i want to mention that, please, i would like to hear you talk about this. i'm not trying to bring up -- i know it's the quote/unquote race card. but my problem is diversety in the parties. i enjoy being a democrat because i believe the democrats represent america. which is all races, all religions. but i think it's kind of fshfsh

if everybody -- if everybody opens their eyes -- the problem is the tea party people and the republicans other than michael stee steel, they're all white. that's the problem. forget about everything else. there's a problem when you have a party, the tea party people and the republicans and they're all white. i don't even -- i even personally agree with a lot of the thing that is the republicans say but there's no way i'm going all white. host: i think we got your points. ifrpbltsdz let's talk about the jobs 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: >> alright, i have questions and

comments with two major points. and earlier talking point that both you gentlemen were making concern voted for and voting against bills for in our congress after it what i never hear from any political pundit anywhere, is why people would not vote for a particular bill, even though on the service, it seems like the bill would do good things for the country. i.e. stimulus bill. it is loaded with so muchñiñi p.

why can't some of the people the press, the political ñi 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 two-point question here. the first is to the two gentlemen. while you two are covering the tea party gathering in nashville, did you run across any attendees of color? and the second point i want to make is that i will concede the point that i believe the obama administration probably does need to put out of its mind the

previous administration and all of its failures. and focus on what's ahead of us right now. and i believe that means president obama needs to plant his feet firmly and not be moved and not be fearful. because the truth of the matter is somebody is going to be displeased at some point. so i think that he needs to say to the republicans, look, we are going to move forward because we are the party in control and we are going to try and do things our way while trying to implement some of the ideas of yours that we think will be most helpful to what we are trying to do. host: i don't think either of you covered the tea party because you're here. but it does bring up the diversety question that a previous qualer brought up. do you want to address this? guest: diversety question is always interesting in looking at what drives voters. i would kind of step back from

the tea party convention, though, and look at things this way for some context. in 2006, particularly in 2006 in that election, you saw an incredible amount of intensity on the left among anti-war protesters and democratic voters who wanted to send republicans packing and were looking forward to 2008 when they could send president bush packing. this cycle, prausm's first mid-term cycle you're seeing the flip side. you're seeing 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 theú 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. caller: good morning. first, i had a few points so please don't cut me off. host: go ahead. caller: your program this morning is not balanced. how in the world are you going to have a fair dialogue if both of you guys are thinking the same way? and you're talking the same way also. my second point is the tea party does not look like 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 the forwardness is the multicultural, multithinking fair and balanceness in the country. my second point is the only reason why people are crying wolf about the health care is because of the greedy rich. they're still worried about the tax rollback that president obama said in his, when he was running for president he always stated that he planned to roll back the bush cuts tax cuts. they knew it was coming and they're crying wolf. everything that he does, so make this country move forward, goes back to him talking about rolling back the tax cuts. host: just to let you know, our guests this morning are two reporters. they're not here to give us opinions or differing opinions. they're not from two different sides. they're here to let us know

what is happening in the the house and the senate congressly, policy wise, as well as politics. and then also what's happening outside of the fway when it comes to policies and politics. guest: first, i'm insulted that i think just like reed does. clearly, i haven't performed the way i intended to. look, i understand the caller is upset and there's a lot of frustration in the country. but with all due respect to the points she made, there's simply not enough voters who are going to be affected by a roll back of the bush tax cuts 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 block of blue dog conservative 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 credit it won't matter. they will get the credit if they are still in charge. host: before we go, just real quickly. if jobs, jobs, jocks is the issue this week for congress who should our viewers be watching in the house and the senate guest: you always want to watch the house leadership. you want to watch nancy pelosi, steny hoyer the majority leader, you want to watch possibly ways and means chairman charlie rangel, george miller, california democrat is speaker pelosi's sort of number one lieutenant. in the the house. in the senate you want to watch harry reid the majority leader, you want to watch dick dur bin, the majority whip. and i should have called reed

the majority leader. and you want to watch buy ron dorgen and chuck shumer. look at these group of senators to see what they're saying and doing. and you might be able to read the tea leaves. host: and what should viewers be watching across the country where jobs is the big issue? guest: the states hurting the most. jobs are going to play a key role in whether or not he gets reelected in nevada. nevada has the second highest unemployment rate in the country. he faces some poll numbers that show him down double digits to republican candidates who nobody has even heard of. that's a terrible thing for him as he faces reelection this year. he's got a lot of money in the bank. but if jobs keep coming back to nevada, if tourists keep >> i appreciate you being here

to support this. i want to talk about the

situation we find ourselves and concerning our national security. let's look at it from the perspective that foreign policy issues do not take place in a vacuum. the are the result of decisions with specific -- they are the result that specific individuals may. i did not leave and determinism. it is important that we understand -- i do not believe in determinism. it is important to understand what is going on under the obama administration. we are about one-quarter through it he said optimistically. i think it's important to understand that many things the president believes are representative of large segments of the american population and representative of

what is probably the predominant view in europe, though not a popular view necessarily. it is widely shared around the world. >> i want to talk about the mindset that governs the administration's formulation of foreign policy and about sums up as examples of how it plays out and how it has played out during the first year and the next three years. we will try to explain why the performance today and likely performance coming has been so detrimental to our national security. first, i do not think the president really cares about foreign policy or national security.

that missing are remarkable statement, but i think his history demonstrates that it has never been a major part of his career, even though lee has lived overseas as a child. -- even though he had lived overseas as a child. his record in politics, which is the only record the past, has been focused exclusively on domestic policy. i think it is clear from the first year that he would rather spend time restructuring health care and financial systems, our energy and environmental regulations. you get a point. -- you get the point. that is what he wants to do. while he will deal with foreign policy when he asked to, it is more of a distraction than a priority. it is a remarkable development for an american president. closely related to that is that he does not believe we live in a

threatening world. he has bought wholesale the notion that the end of the cold war means that there is no current existential threat to the united states, nor is it likely that one will develop. he does not see the threat that many others do from terrorism, proliferation, from other countries in the world that do not necessarily have our best interest at heart. he does not see them as threatening and is not concerned about the decline of american power in the world. some people think that he thinks our power is ill-cotton and that we do not deserve it. -- ill-gotten and that we do not deserve it, that we took advantage of the circumstances of the past century. if we come down a peg or two, no big deal. you can see this combination of a president who does not care much about politics -- foreign policy and does not begin to think the world is terribly threatening -- it is going to

be focused on issues that amount to threats to our country. that is actually, when you think about that, a formula for isolationism. unlike the classic american -- isolationist, he gives new meaning to the phrase, " multilateralism." that ties and as well with the view that he holds, and he is unique in that regard, too. i call them our first post- american president. i use that term very advisedly. i do not say un-american or anti-american. want to be very clear about that.

he is post-american. he is above all that patriotism stuff. that respect, he is similar to the european of the tests that -- a leak tests -- elitists. he takes pride in saying that he views himself as a citizen of the world. that is not just a throwaway praise for him. it reflects a deep belief. when you put all that together, i think you can see why so many of the president's policies overall and those particularly we will see coming in the next three years constitute a clear decision on his part to participate -- and to have the united states participate in the process of global

now there was a time when people talked about world federalism, some people actually talked about world government. khre l:ht$mxçw you know, we're actually satisfied /éqs lo go they have changed the formulation and it is now global rn

the people are the sovereign. that is the whole point of the constitution structure that we is the -- that we established. when somebody says, the solution of global problems requires that you share sovereignty or give up a little sovereignty, that is like saying, you have too much

control over your government and you need to give little bit of it away to somebody else. i do not think we have nearly enough control over our government. [applause] and the notion that we will give up some piece of what little we have -- i find that fundamentally bizarre. that is what the argument is. really, the idea in that sense is that the united states is much different than any other country in the world. if we give up a little sovereignty to this international organization or the other, we're not really losing all that much. my favorite articulation of that you -- of that view is this. my opponent sees the united states as another well be a

nation out there on the roll call of united nations, somewhere between albania and zimbabwe. dukakis got defeated, and obama got elected. that is the direction he wants to go in and minds at -- mindset on which policy is formulated. he is not politically free to do exactly what he wants. there are any number of cases which we have already seen in the first year where he has declined to articulate that doebele -- that view over the. he must have been joking hard to get some of the words out. -- choking hard to get some of the words out. it is important for us to understand what he actually believes in versus what he says about our national security that he feels constrained to do because of the political

realities that he exists in. these things he does because he has to, not because he wants to. i do not think you need to apply the president when his back is up against the wall and he does or says something that he was he born not doing, but he does only because -- that he was not doing, only because of the political reality he lives in. let's take the fight against terrorism. one of the central arguments that the president makes is that we need to show the rest of the world, both are bettors in europe and those in the islamic world who are tempted to a life of terrorism -- we need to show

that in the united states, we are prepared to appear to the rule of law and that we will be true to that in our policies. the implication being that everybody who came before january 20, 2009, did not believe in the rule of law and was not being true to where our -- to our basic national traditions. this is a very important point to address head-on. the fact is that, agree or disagree with the substance of the blessed ministration policy post 9/11 -- the bush administration policy post 9/11, it was in the rule of law consciousness. the difference is how you approach the overall struggle against terrorism. the obama administration has manifestly returned to the pre-

9/11 law enforcement paradigm. it sees international terrorism as a problem. the way to deal with them is more fbi agents, more prosecutors, until facilities in thompson, illinois. -- thomson, illinois. the obviously correct paradigm is that we are in the war. saying that you believe in the war paradigm does not mean that you are rejecting the rules law. -- the rule of law. it is a different kind of law and a different approach. we believe, as americans, that our military could -- should adhere to the military code of justice. we have training about how the forces are supposed to be hit.

when a black -- violate their doctrine -- when they violate their doctrine, wheat violate -- we prosecute those people. [applause] this is an extremely important point we should not be defensive of. i do not believe anybody in the bush administration knowingly condone the quarter. -- condoned torture. there were lawyers who undertook a difficult task of trying to define a poorly understood term that told us what the line was and that the tactics approved under the label of the enhanced interrogation were not deemed to be torture. when people say they are against torture i agree. americans are against torture,

but they understand they are entitled to do what is permissible within that boundary to defend themselves. the same thing about wanton and obey -- guantanamo bay. it was not an illegitimate facility. it was very hard to deal with very undesirable people. it was -- ask the obama administration why they have not been able to close it. they are coming to terms with political reality. the whole concept of gitmo was to keep us within a rule of law framework. the arguments being made now about how to treat these terrorists arguments based on the wrong paradigm. it is critical that we have a full-scale national debate

about whether you think terrorism is akin to bank robbery or whether you think it is akin to an attack on our country. i think we would win that debate hands down. i am happy to have it every day of the year. it is critical in the broader struggle internationally, particularly when you consider the threat of weapons of mass destruction. what the bush administration did in overthrowing saddam hussein was to take preemptive, military action against the threat to international peace and security. i could give you the long version of why i think we had international legal authority to do that. i can give you the short version -- we were entitled to defend ourselves. yesterday, a commission appointed by the government of the netherlands issued a 551- page report that said the war against saddam hussein was illegitimate because there was

no foundation in international law. all i can say is, if that is the answer they were asking the wrong question. this is another point i think it is critical and understanding -- in understanding the obama administration. john kerry said they had to pass the global test of legitimacy, meaning approval by the u.n. security council. if that is what we have to go through, we will be incredibly constrained, to say the least. that is the way the obama administration's approach is the issues. we can already see that playing out, not just in terrorism, but in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. we have seen, ever since the inauguration, the administration jason i ran -- chasing iran and

north korea. he is waving at them and pleading with them. why do you not sit down with me? the only thing surprising to me is that they have not agreed to it. in that field of proliferation, negotiation typically benefits proliferators. it gives them a critical asset to advance their objectives -- time it gives them the opportunity as they have demonstrated over the last eight years, to improve both their nuclear programs and their ballistic missile programs. this is a fundamental lesson about a role of negotiation in international affairs and the role of negotiation in a multilateral system, as the

obama administration envisions it. it would like people to believe that they have replaced a group of unilateral cowboys who did not believe in negotiation, who did not only not want to negotiate with adversaries, but did not want to negotiate with friends. that is factually inaccurate for a lot of reasons, but it also misstates the terms of the debate. the real debate is between those who see negotiation in a nationally -- internationally as a solution to most of the world's problems. that is the view i take. the other side of the debate sees negotiation as a solution to a 100% of the world process problems. that is the course the obama administration is pursuing. that is why countries like iran and north korea do not see an incentive to comply -- to come

to the table, even after i hear of desperate efforts to get and there -- even after one year of desperate efforts to get them there. i think this is an indicator that will have a very widespread implications. the world understands that if the united states cannot roll back the north korean nuclear capability and cannot stop a run from getting nuclear weapons, then nobody can stop preparation -- preparation. our european friends may talk about the importance of the iaea, but nobody is deceit. at the u.s. cannot stop this, nobody can. if north korea keeps its program, other countries in east asia will get a nuclear weapons. if iran gets nuclear weapons, other countries in the region, saudi arabia, egypt, turkey, maybe others will get nuclear- weapons.

the risk of proliferation will continue dramatically. the multilateral system of international order reason -- organization is powerless when faced with the dealing with countries like iran and north korea. >> they know that in the current administration they do not have an equal partner. they have somebody they think they can roll. they are acting on that basis and are going to continue to act on that basis. when you look at these critical areas that we have talked about , the administration is projecting weakness in a very substantial way. it is important that we look at otherñi issues that will develop over the next several years, because of the danger is even broader than in the field of

terrorism and proliferation. at some time this year, probably sooner rather than later, the administration will announce an arms control agreement with @@@@@@@ @- limiting our ballistic missile defense capabilities. it should not pass our attention that just a few days ago, china announced a successful test of its ballistic missile defense program. i know that arms control

discussions caused people's eyes to glaze over -- causeñi peopl's eyesñrñi toñrñi glazeñi over. my editors threw out a lot about arms control. when it comes to crippxe9ìlk@&c+ ñiprotectant -- crippling the projection of american power, the reduction of our nuclear capabilities and delivery systems puts us in a decidedly disadvantageous position. it will be seen as a signal of weakness, not just by the rogue states, but i russia, china, and others. we will have an epic battle over arms control, and not just in the bilateral context with russia, but over the efforts to put us into a web of

multilateral arms control treaties that would prevent us developing new sources of fissile material, not new jersey -- not engaging in legitimate defense activities in outer space and a whole series of other stuff. our colleagues in the senate are well aware of this. those in the constitution wrote a 2/3 requirement in for the ratification of treaties. make no mistake, this will be a huge source of controversy. even though the announcement of some of these agreements, whether or not they are ratified, will be seen as real evidence for u.s. weakness. the president and a substantial majority of both houses of congress and make unilateral reductions in the u.s. military capabilities without any need for a treaty. the administration has told us

that climate change is a national security threat. [laughter] let's deal with it an. even though copenhagen turned into a debacle, that issue is not going away. the issue of climate change is something that more the proponents of global governance have seized upon as the most likely avenue to advance their broader agenda. the level of rhetoric about climate change has gotten to the point where, if you disagree with the conclusions of those who recommended the measures being considered at copenhagen, you are read out of civilization. they see the level of fear and

western countries in particular as a vehicle to advance the global governance agenda. i do not consider myself able to discuss the science of global warming or the extent to which it has -- the extent to which it is caused by human activity. whatever the tax on global warming -- the facts on global warming and the human factor, that does not dictate the outcome in terms of policy. it will be extremely important, as congress looks at cap and trade and a possible climate change treaty, to reject the kind of international regulatory attack mechanisms the administration and european friends have been talking about. the administration sees climate change as sole important that it has announced -- as so important that it has announced that

satellite is normally used for security and intelligence will be used to help monitor global warming. we're advised this will not hamper our intelligence gathering activities. why not? in all my years in government, i never knew that our satellite capabilities ever had any spare time. you are always competing for priorities. when you see this shift of capabilities to ward climate change monitoring -- toward climate change monitoring, you can see how important this is to our administration. it ties in with the threats to american sovereignty and the question of global governance. these things make up a mindset the administration has.

they have not all been manifest to the extent they would like, because they are not making the progress they hoped to make on changing the health care system. there is no doubt in my mind that they will turn to these things at their earliest opportunity. we either deal with these issues on a broad philosophical level as well as on the level of specific issues, or we will find ourselves continually at a disadvantage. i think it is very important to address the larger issues, because fundamentally, the american people share our view to a very considerable extent, that we actually liked our independence, our constitution, self-government in the united states. these alternatives so beloved of our friends in the obama administration are decidedly not

the way the country wants to go. thank you very much. [applause] thank you. i think we have time for a few questions before the next panel. people should come up to the microphone or just speak loudly and i will try to repeat your question. >> where does israel fit into what you are describing? will they have to fight a run by itself? will it be able to fight -- will it have to fight iran by itself? will it be able to fight the obama administration? >> after seven years of attempts to and negotiate with iran, it

is clear they are not going to be talked out of all weapons capability. it has had one consequence. they are now seven years closer to a deliverable nuclear weapon. the time for diplomacy has long since bailed -- failed. there is no chance of economic stations diverting them from its now 20-year long effort to get nuclear weapons. our metric should not be can sanctions caused them some economic pain. for the sake of argument, come up with new sanctions that could do that. is there any conceivable set of sanctions adopted by any conceivable set of nations that wilson -- that will dissuade them? the answer is no. the most likely outcome is that

they get nuclear-weapons. once that happens you will have further proliferation in the region and be in a situation in a few years or half a dozen countries in the middle east have nuclear weapons. if you did not like the bipolar standoff of the cold war, imagine a three dimensional test -- chess of a multi-nuclear standoff in the middle east. the only remaining possibility of preventing them from getting nuclear weapons is to preempt -- is the printed use of force. it goes without saying that the obama administration is not going to do that. that means is real -- israel. the issue of the use of force for self-defense, before an actual act of aggression occurs --it is important -- it is

important. faced with that kind of threat, it is important to justify eliminating it. it is a justifiable use of force. i do not know what the obama administration's reaction would be to an israeli use of force. it is a major complicating factor in their decision. i want to emphasize that the choice is not between the world as it is today, compared to the world after the israeli strike -- that is not a choice. the choice is the world after an israeli strike, compared to a world where iran has nuclear- weapons. that is why difficult, -- as risky and unattractive at the use of force is, it is a decision israel will have to make in the very near future.

[applause] >> could you say a few words about the possibility of the iranian opposition overcoming the current regime? what might they do with nuclear weapons? what can we do to reach out to the opposition regime? will they be tarred by the brush of being pro american? >> the regime in tehran is extremely unpopular -- in iran is extremely unpopular. there is enormous dissatisfaction with the state of the economy. the young people there, who amount to 2/3 of the population under 30, they know they could have a different life. they are educated and sophisticated. there is enormous ethnic dissatisfaction. only 50% of the population is person. these factors do not necessarily

overlap. --only 50 % of the population is a person -- only 50% of the population is persian. the united states had done very little to assist the opposition. if we had done more, the spontaneous outpouring that we saw after the fraudulent june 12 presidential election might have been a moment of opportunity to throw over the regime. but we had not prepared the groundwork for it. there was nothing we could do in that aftermath. in fact, the situation was worse -- is worse today than it was five years ago. overall, power has flowed away from the ayatollahs award revolutionary guard and the people with the guns. it is a very unequal contest. that said, i would support the

opposition. you are right to say we have to be careful in how we do it so that we did not taint those who we are trying to help. you cannot turn regime-changed on and off like a light switch. -- regime-change on and off like a light switch. the race is not on stopping them from getting nuclear weapons, because i feared that there is at least the possibility that, if they get nuclear-weapons, and is then overflown, even of representative government might decide to keep nuclear weapons. i hope not. i hope the fall of the south african example. -- i hope they follow the south african example. you do not have anything to worry about from a nuclear iran

-- i do not think that is a convincing argument. the critical importance of stopping iran from the nuclear- weapons argues in favor of taking the necessary steps, even if that put popular opinion back toward supporting the regime. i do not relish the process. the overwhelming objective has to be to keep them from getting nuclear-weapons in the first place. >> you recently wrote about intelligence. we talked a little bit about military roles in afghanistan. the cia and has been very active in fighting al qaeda in afghanistan and have lost several lives including the recent bombing. danny discuss the -- can you discuss the iraqitization?

>> i think we have the most sophisticated technical means of gathering intelligence of any country in the world are none -- bar none. where we lack in intelligence is in human intelligence. i would take a very substantial chunk of the budgetary authority that is now spent on analysis in the intelligence community and move it into operations. we need to get facts to decision makers, not essays on the state of the world in 50 years. the bureaucratization of intelligence has been accompanied by -- politicization.

pop it were -- i did not see that at all. i have never seen an intelligence analyst who is not prepared to defend his or her work. i would have more competition within the intelligence community. i would let policymakers make a judgment on the basis of the evidence that stands up to scrutiny. in addition to having a greater human intelligence capability, we need greater clandestine operation appeared ability. one reason the military has taken on the role it has is because the cia had lost that ability. we had spent close to four decades since the commission's eviscerated our intelligence capabilities.

it is time for change. we rely far more now on what we euphemistically call liaison services. it is not safe for the country, get our national security adviser has said we're going to have even greater reliance on the liaison services. that is the wrong way to go. we're spending $800 billion on a stimulus package. i would have spent more on recruiting at the cia and less onerous shovel-ready projects -- on shovel-ready projects. >> i would love your take as a lawyer about exposing be as long as agenda -- the islamist agenda. i would love your take on this -- the problems of incitement

nurses and free speech -- insight into -- incitement versus free speech. >> the ideas of hate crimes have a historical context that we not have in this country. i believe in the free marketplace of ideas. [applause] i understand why the europeans have those kinds of -- because of the history. i think it is wrong for them and wrong for us. the argument that is now being advocated, that we need to be sensitive to religion in protections for people -- and need protections for people -- there used to be lost all blasphemy laws in europe -- to

be blasphemy laws in europe. it should be rejected. i hope we do not see that kind of political correctness spreading into our legal system because it is poisonous. [applause] >> thank you. >> in order to keep on schedule, that will be the last question. thank you for coming today. good luck to you. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> we have is our guest cabinet secretary ray lahood from the department of transportation. welcome, mr. secretary. welcome to the subcommittee.

we're very happy to have you back again. i want to thank you for coming before us to explain the president's 2011 budget request for the department of transportation. your entire leadership is in place. during this time, the department has taken a number of steps to transform and modernize the transportation system, and in particular, the recovery act provided you with an opportunity to rebuild infrastructure and transformative initiatives and new jobs. however this transformation has been hindered by complications that we traced last year, aviation authorizations, and the

continued insolvency of the highway trust fund. with a purse step in developing the reauthorization in their proposals. given the national and long term impact in changes to the authorization, the administration must exert great leadership in this area. and i will look forward to seeing the products of your store. -- tour. we are producing our national debt and sustain economic growth that produces good jobs for the american people. our challenge is to produce a bill that is fiscally responsible and yet does not stifle the momentum created from the critically important infrastructure investment that was made last year and will be continued to be made this year.

the 2011 budget proposal before us request a total of $78 billion, roughly. i hope that is the largest difference that we have. i think your testimony suggested $79 billion, but we will not quibble about $1 billion. it includes a modest increase of $2 billion, a 2.5% increase from fiscal year 2010. the department of transportation budget request a significant new initiative. i am very pleased to see the inclusion of $527 million for the livable communities initiatives, as you and secretary donovan testified last year that transportation and housing are inexorably linked but for too long have been treated in separate spheres.

i look forward to hearing more about the department boss plans to improve coordination with other government agencies. additionally, i am a jew to hear more details about the infrastructure finance fund, which appears -- i am interested to hear more details about the infrastructure finance fund. the demand is emphasized for moving passengers and freight among multiple transportation modes. within aviation, i am pleased that the budget request continues the administration's commitment to the air transportation system. this is vital to our efforts to

accommodate growth in air traffic and reduce delays by increasing efficiency of the management of our airspace. the department must remain vigilant when it comes to the safety mission. the last time i was fatalities dropped below 40,000 was in 1992, which was the last time we face serious economic crisis. however, as the country's economy started to recover, americans saw significant growth in vehicle miles traveled, and we also saw steady growth in the number of highway fatalities. the latest figures show that i would fatalities in 2008 were slightly above 37,000, the lowest level since 1961. americans are driving less because of our current economic downturn. when people travel more, the dot

will remain focused on continued safety and improvement across the network. and in particular, the recent transit tragedy's in washington and other parts of the country certainly underscore the need for federal oversight for minimum safety standards. mr. secretary, we all know that you are entering a tough budget year. the infrastructure needs are great. many airports require basic maintenance. many communities are in need of additional highway capacity, and we must continue to seek alternative solutions such as high-speed rail that have the potential to transform the transportation network. i express my sincere hope that under your leadership, we could focus on comprehensive approaches that reduce congestion and improve mobility

a safe next atrek protection system. in the last year, you've taken significant steps in that direction and i look forward to working with you in maintaining that progress for fiscal 2011. now before you had your chance, i will turn this over to my ranking member. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i look forward to the hearings this year. we have a lot of work to do. mr. secretary, welcome on this very snowy day. always a pleasure to see you here at the subcommittee. i am going to keep my remarks to a minimum because we have nearly two hours to cover the $79 billion you have requested for fiscal year 2011 and inquire about plans for the almost $76 billion that you received just a few weeks ago. fiscal year 2010 provide some of

our tight -- some oversight, plus about $48 billion received under the stimulus bill. that's $270 billion, or 2.2 $5 billion per minute. so i guess we ought to speak fast to do some oversight. last year we were facing bankruptcy in the high what -- highway trust fund, the lack of authorizations for the service and aviation programs, and a bleak economic employment sigil -- situation across the country. we have a disturbing level of national debt, which we are all concerned about. i think we are all hoping some of the issues were going to be resolved last year. our states do not need another short-term repaving "stimulus"

bill, and these bills will allow states to do the planning and the need for real highway construction and maintenance. i think we need a real bill that would be helpful to get the ball rolling@@@@@@@@h@ @ @ @ @ d&

get a commitment from you that we have the appropriate person from the department as witnesses as we look is these different proposals that are out there so that we can do our homework, and if we get that commitment from you, that is important. >> you have it. >> to do the type of oversight that we need. thank you very much, my good friend, secretary lahood. i yield back. >> mr. secretary, the floor is yours. user -- your complete written statement will go into the record but the floor's yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and am delighted to be joined by the assistant secretary for the budget, chris, who has worked very hard with: the input in our budget together. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2011 budget request.

i've traveled to more than 30 states, 65 cities last year, and i have seen firsthand how much our citizens depend on a reliable transportation system to access jobs, health care, and other essential services. the president's request total $79 billion, 8 $2 billion increase over fiscal year 2010. the resources will support the top transportation priorities for safety on the road in in the air, making the community level and sustainable, and modernizing our infrastructure. safety is our number one priority it be it. distracted driving kills thousands of americans every year, and it is critical we continue to lead the charge. we're seeking $50 million for the national highway traffic safety administration to develop incentive-based grant programs to encourage more

states to pass laws prohibiting the unsafe use of phone and texting while driving through the president also asked for 66 additional personnel assigned to highway and vehicle safety issues in the area of transit safety. we're seeking $30 million to establish a new transit safety oversight program within the federal transit administration. this program will carry out a comprehensive safety oversight strategy by establishing common safety standards nationwide as envisioned in the administration's transit safety bill. this is an important step for for rail transit and industry which has suffered recent accidents in washington, d.c., boston, and san francisco. this is unacceptable and we must put strong remedies in place as soon as possible. i am urging congress to pass this legislation this year. transportation must not only opposite -- be safe but

contributed little and sustainable communities. thank you for your leadership on this committee, and its focus on livable communities over the years. the president promises to -- we're seeking $527 million which will help the spirit together we're helping states and local governments make smarter investments in their transportation, energy, and housing infrastructure with better outcome for our citizens. our investment in high-speed rail has generated tremendous excitement around the country. it will go a long way to enhance mobility in many community. we seek $1 billion to continue the $5 billion, five-year pledge that congress made in this budget. i want to thank you, mr. chairman, and the committee for your leadership on high-speed rail so far.

$2.5 billion you provided the department for high-speed rail finance, combined with the $8 million we announced last year, brings us close to ushering in a new era of passenger rail service in this country. we must find new ways to fund infrastructure. we will establish a new finance fund. these first-year funds would be used to invest in multi-modal transportation projects that are crosscutting, based on funding, which will get away from the siloam mentality that has long hindered our ability to spot respond to local and regional needs. the president proposes to continue current spending with $42.1 billion for highways. this request includes $150 million to enable washington, metropolitan areas of faucets,

to develop much-needed improvements. it includes $1 billion for nextgen, to modernize our traffic control system. that is a 32% increase over 2010 levels. these bonds are essential for transitioning from a ground- based radar surveillance system to more accurate satellite-based systems. this is already in use in the gulf of mexico. we look forward to our success in this area. we're seeking $30 million to make more long-term investment improvements in the u.s. merchant marine academy spirit this has been a goal of mine from the very beginning. i want to make the merchant marine academy and the others, we have wonderful students there, over 900. they work very hard. we want to make sure that the facilities are there for them to

accomplish their academic goals. and we just completed a blue- ribbon report which will -- which we will be happy to give the committee which outlines the great details of the needs at the merchant academy, and the reason for the $34 million. a look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we will follow the procedure of each of us and turned adding five minutes in a round of questioning. we now have one hour and 40 minutes to be able to do it least a couple of bryant -- round's write down the line. with that, mr. secretary, your budget request includes, as i and you have mentioned, $527 million for the livable communities program. it increases transportation choice to integrate housing and

land usage to transportation decisions. i am pleased to see that you were working closely with hud and with epa, and others, i understand. maybe you can say more about that in this effort. but i am curious, how actually -- what is your concept of how the $527 million that you are asking for here, which is a new item, important item -- how that is to be deployed over the period of the fiscal year for which we are working? >> we had a working group within the three agencies, the staff that his work together to gather to develop plans for the use of this money. we've also traveled around the country and look at places --

look at places were governors and mayors have put together plans for not only livable communities but livable neighborhoods. when i was in one congressman's area and saw that the kind of transportation system that goes through neighborhoods, from downtown los angeles, to connect people to grocery stores and drugstores and good housing -- i mean, that is the kind of approach that we're really looking at in terms of where people want to live. some people may want to like to work. when i was in portland, ore., i saw over 100 people biking to work that day. there are all forms of transportation that americans are looking for. we know that people are going to have cars. they're going to want to use their automobiles. but we also know that people want to get out of congestion. they want different forms of transportation, whether it is bus, light rail, walking, biking

paths, and other opportunities. we're working with hud to make sure that the kind of housing a availability -- i would say that when we were in dubuque, and saw what they were doing in the millworks area, where they decided to come in with 1500 new employees, the takeover and old downtown department store and relocate these 1500 employees, and so what the mayor and the community leaders decided to do is to take this old mill work area and completely redevelop it. they are going to need transit and forms of transportation, so that people can walk to work. these are the kind of innovative approaches combining our resources with hud in epa to create the kind of neighborhoods and communities where people can attract business, attract jobs, and create the kind of housing

style and transportation forms that people really want. >> will this be a joint request from the three departments who have a role in this initiative? >> i think we will get to is looking at things that have worked around the country, and then making opportunities available for communities to want to attract new jobs, attract new business, and really create different forms of transportation. >> i have to comment, mr. secretary, the bicyclist that you saw, there were probably 2000 in the portland area. you go to copenhagen, some here may have been in copenhagen very recently, i very carefully checked into how they were dealing with their complex

transportation system, and that roughly 2 million metropolitan area, they have about half a million coming in by bicycles than half a million by cars, and half a million by bus and subway. the bus and light rail system. there are ways that their systems were very well. >> let me just say, when i was in detroit on this trip, what congresswoman kilpatrick, we had a meeting with stakeholders. they wanted this idea of creating more options with transit and bus. we're going to work -- they just elected a new mayor there. again, what -- our livable community would fit in with these kinds of things that they are talking about there.

>> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. one issue that has come before us -- the situation with toyota. i am curious as to what -- if you could tell us what the department is doing, are they equipped to investigate and find out what happened? is there a computer problem or do we know exactly? >> as a result of our investigation, we know that toyota has determined to fix for the pedal problem that has cost acceleration. we also had complaints about the electronics. we will be investigating the electronic components that are in these cars to make sure that they are safe, and if they are not, to have toyota began taking

a look at that. we are in discussions with tokyo that -- toyota every day about the safety issues with their automobiles. the reason that they are where they are at today is because of our investigations and at our meeting with them, and one in minister ever went to japan and met with the toyota officials and told them in no uncertain terms, you need to get onto this. we've got a problem. you need to fix it, find the fix. as a result of that meeting, that began to take seriously the fact that they had some serious problems. .

@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

>> we need to fix the problem so people will not have to worry about disengaging the engine or slamming the brakes on and putting it in neutral. that is really our goal. my advice is, if anybody owns one of these vehicles, stop driving it, take it to the toyota dealer, because they believe they have the fix for it. >> i appreciate it, and we will follow-up with you on that. it is obviously a tremendous safety issue for a lot of folks. getting back to the reauthorization, the current service program expires about 10 legislative days from now. is there a plan for the administration for an extension? >> we continue to ask congress to pass an 18-month -- we continue to try to find the

money for that. we believe that gives us time to work with congress. the $48 million that we had starting a year ago has been well spent. it has put a lot of people to work, thousands of people. resurfacing roads and bridges. the president encouraged passing a jobs bill. it is not that the president does not want a robust, comprehensive jobs bill. it is trying to find money to pay for it. it is not that the president does not want a comprehensive, robust build. it is trying to find money to pay for it. the 18 months gives us time to do that, and as we finish out this portion of our economic recovery and if the congress passes and other jobs bill, we have an opportunity to continue to make progress on these projects around the country.

>> i mentioned in my opening statement about, is the administration going to put a bill forward to discuss that? i know last year there were discussions going on just about every day at the white house, this is on the people's agenda. there is a real urgency. obviously we are not there yet. >> we are working on some principles, and we will continue to work with the committee on these principles. we are not in much disagreement with what the chairman has written. >> apparently my time is up. thank you. >> we will proceed in the order that people, members of the subcommittee came into the hearing room.

ñi>> let me add my words of welcome. we are all scrutinizing the budget, and a couple of things caught my attention right away. the department's continued commitment to level committees and high-speed rail development. i appreciate your leadership in prioritizing these items, given the strange physical environment in which we are operating. as you well know, the high speed rail request builds on the finding that the congress provided in the recovery act. i was pleased to welcome our epa administrator, lisa jackson, to during, north carolina last week to announce a major recovery act awarded to north carolina for further work on the raleigh to charlotte lead of the high-speed rail corridor. we have been laying the groundwork for this for about 20 years, but it has been slow

progress. there has not been a substantial federal revenue stream, and we have now changed that. we feel like our own investments, our efforts in building up this route have been rewarded. we are well positioned now to make use of the federal funds to finish the job, to get the raleigh to charlotte corridor where it needs to be. 90 mile an hour speeds, something over just two hours of travel time between those two points. we look forward to making this a reality. let me turn to another item, and that is the new starts program. this is another area where you have a broad vision and perspective to the department. i was happy to see the announcement last week that the department would alter criteria

the previous administration had applied to this program. they will broaden the criteria used to it in by late new starts and transit projects. rather than emphasizing only the projects that would need a minimum requirement for decreased vehicle miles traveled, the department will instead put greater emphasis on other criteria. as one who argue that the prior policy was penny wise and pound foolish, i applaud you for taking this step. we are all aware that this new flexibility will still apply to a finite resource, and the competition will be quite intense, maybe even more intense. it is still very important for states and cities to understand these criteria and how they can address them.

another is an effort within omb to measure and quantify benefits such as environmental benefits. we need to make sure these measurements are as straightforward as possible and are related in the real world to the kind of development we want to incentivize and reward, and that we can undertake. i wonder if you could provide any further clarification this morning regarding these new criteria, the new measurements, and any other insight about the features you will be looking for and the projects that would fare best under these new criteria? what is the timeline for rulemaking on the new criteria? >> thank you for that. you have said about as well as i could see it. the common complaint i heard during the time was being considered by the senate was, like did take 12 years to get a

new start? back and forth on the economic aspect of it, without looking at other criteria. we made a decision that we need to look at the whole comprehensive set of issues, and there will be good competition for this. what will get is a lot of good, creative opportunities, and it will allow communities all over the country to compete for dollars for good projects, whether it is light rail or busts or inner city passenger rail, or whatever. and do it in a way that reflects the values of the community in terms of move ability, internal opportunities. -- environmental opportunities. we believe it will get a lot of cars off the road and get people out of their automobiles and create opportunities in communities.

you restated what we are going to be looking at. we are looking at a lot of different criteria. we think this enhances a lot of opportunities around the country and in a much shorter period time. it will not take 12 years. >> can you give some indication of how you are going to firm these up so the community's know what they are dealing with, and also the explicit rule making that he will undertake. what is the time line on that? >> we are getting started with it right now. we want to implement this very quickly so that when our budget is approved by congress, we can begin as quickly as we possibly can. you have outlined what the criteria are, the changes we have made, and it is all very accurate. it is just a matter of implementing it as quickly as possible.

>> you are doing a great job. just a couple of housekeeping matters. >> the statutory requirement that was in the bill is set february 17. it will probably be a day or two before that. >> i wanted thank you on behalf of the state of ohio for the money for the rail project. in 2008, i was one of the authors of the rail safety improvement act. in that act, it mandates positive train control, of which i am a big advocate. it also indicates there is a baseline for routes and mileage. it will be effective as of

projecting out through december 31, 2015. despite being cognizant, there are using the 2008 map. it may lead to over 8,000 miles on which there is no passenger traffic, being subject to positive train control. my question is why? >> i will have to get back to you on that. i will ask our fra administrator to visit with you about this. i do not know. >> i would appreciate your looking into it. you indicated there would be $42

billion for surface transportation and $10 billion for transit. the highway trust fund does not generate $52 billion, so i believe the budget proposal calls for borrowing are taking $20 billion from the general fund to fill the shortfall. further, it is my understanding that by taking that money it will also reduce the contract authority to $9.5 billion, which i know has to be disconcerting to mr. obey. just by editorial comment, the problem with the stimulus bill was that it had some great stuff, but over half the jobs which the administration is taking credit for creating came from 8% of the funding, the stuff under your control. the other 92% of the funding created the other half of the jobs. the jobs bill that is being

considered by the senate, in my opinion, repeats the same mistake. has 25% funding for things that will actually create jobs. 30% of the people are out of work, not 10%. with no disrespect to the leadership in california, there are all kinds of things that have nothing to do with job creation. when mr. oberstar was working last year feverishly to figure out a way to get this done, and despite a horrendous whipping effort by my leadership against the three month extension, they got 85 republicans to vote for the extension and 84 against. on the belief that we need 86- year plan, i have to tell you, even though i have the greatest respect for you and the president, keeking this can down

the road to march 2011 is irresponsible. this has to be worked out. it is not like suddenly some light bulb is going to go on after listening for 18 months. we will bring republicans to the table. i get that the democrats are scared because of some of the election results. they do not want to have a tax increase on top of the other things going on, but the fact is, it is time for leadership on this issue. it is irresponsible, in my opinion, to not deal with this. early in your tenure, you made some observations about vehicle miles traveled, and i got the feeling you were summoned down to the white house and stopped talking about that, but it has got to be done. if we did this in a bipartisan >> the administration is for an

18-month extension. we're going to work with congress on that. we believe that's the best path forward. i can, you know, i can show you many places around the country where our economic recovery "money line" put a lot of people to work and a year ago, a lot of those people were on unemployment, didn't have jobs and throughout the summer and fall and even into the winter they are continuing won on these projects. >> i respectfully disagree and when you look at the jobs that were created in the construction center, they were make work. people worked for a few weeks and then they were out again. we need a six-year bill. we don't need an 18-month bill and i thank you.

>> welcome, mr. secretary. >> good morning. >> you mentioned earlier your visit to los angeles. i want to thank you for being there and touring the metro goldline light rail which began revenue operations one month earlier than scheduled which adds to the very positive record that it has of being completed, on time and on budget without the loss of any time injury even though the construction team amassed a safety record of more than three million work hours. as you know we are very proud of that project and we look forward to continuing to work in strong partnership with you as los angeles continues to look to expand its rail network. is a great example.

i know you all worked hard on it, and it is a magnificent project for the people. >> we worked very hard to make sure that the community was involved in that project. the results were very positive. >> everywhere i go, i talk about that project, how you really put a lot of different neighborhoods together with affordable housing and stores. it is a magnificent project. >> in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill, it includes funding for the human intervention in motivation study, which is a comprehensive education and training program for alcohol and drug abuse prevention in the airline industry. as you know, it was originally a substance abuse prevention program only for pilots. however, in 2010, i was very pleased that at my request,

congress increased the funding for this very critical health and safety program to include a program directly for flight attendants. can you give us an update on the status of implementing these two programs? >> i expect to be releasing this very soon. it is being reviewed by my office and we are about ready to release it. >> do you have the idea, will it be this month? >> it will be soon. >> hopefully this month. last week the national transportation safety board held a hearing on the september 2008 metro link collision near los angeles in which 25 people were killed. at that hearing, the board adopted recommendations that asked the federal railroad administration to require the installation of cameras inside all controlling locomotive cabs

in order to verify that train crews are operating in compliance with safety rules and operating procedures. in responseñiçóñi to the recommendation, what are the it plans to promulgate these new u%i ;ors inside locomotives? ñiwhat resources do you expect they will need inñi order toñi y out these recommendations, and how will you ensure the safety and protect employees' privacy? >> we are looking at the ntsb ñirecommendations, and this goes to our number one goal at the department that safety is uppermost in our minds in all forms of transportation. we will take very seriously the recommendations. i hope congress will take very seriously the idea that we are pushing a transit safety billçó ñith@v wexdñi think is criticalr our agency. the law prohibits us from

getting involved in these kinds of safety activities with transit programs. we think we need that kind of çó-/ainvolvement. we are going to review the recommendations. that is the answer to the question. this will be a priority, and we will look for waysñi to make the systems safe. >> as you are well aware, hundreds of transportation agencies are facing an enormous deficit at this time. the shortfalls are often an operating funds, which leads to layoffs in transit agencies at the exact time we are trying to stem the loss of good paying jobs in america. in los angeles county, the metropolitan transportation authority is facing a shortfall of at least 200 victim million

dollars in operating funds at the end of 2011. --ñi $250 million in operating funds. what are your views on giving some flexibility to the use of federal funds, at least during this time of crisis, for operating costs for a transit agencies? is there something that you and the administration are willing to consider? >> when you all passed the omnibus, you included a provision that allows for up to 10% of the transit funds to be used for operating. i believe it is incumbent upon us to try and be helpful in these transit systems. one of the ways we can be helpful is to allow some of the funds to be used for operation.

it is silly to provide funds to buy buses and then we do not have the people to driveq them r to operate the system. it is a good use for some of the money to be used for operations. >> mr. carter. >> recently in my office, i have had a parade of people come in on projects that were part of the stimulus, were supposed to be shoveled ready and ready to go, and they bump up against in purnell studies. -- against environmental studies. half a dozen projects have come in and said they are ready to go, but they cannot get the

environmental studies done. they have a deadline have to meet, but in reality, txdot holds back, knowing they are overwhelmed. once you come out with an environmental study, the environmentalists take you to court. by the time you get to that process, you have to have another environmental study. is a circular process that is delaying the construction of highways in my part of the world, and from what i enter stan, around the country. if we could go to binding arbitration, rather than going to the courthouse to resolve these issues once the internal studies have been done -- once the environmental studies have been done -- instead of bumping

up constantly what some would call radical environmentalists. >> if you want to do that, you will have to do it legislative ly. one of the things we have to abide by, under the economic recovery, part of the legislation said we have to follow the regular guidelines for constructing roads or resurfacing. part of that is environmental impact statements, which many of the states had completed all of these projects, and obviously some did not. if you want to seek that kind of remedy, i suggestion is it will have to be done legislatively.

>> i understand that. i ask for your comment on binding arbitration, if we could get a statute written. i would like your comment on whether you think that is a good idea. >> i have not got enough about it, but i will think about it and give you my opinion on it. off the top of my head, i would rather not say something that later on i might not know enough about. let me think about it, and i will get back to you. >> i would like to have some other folks join me in sponsoring that type of legislation. most of the high-speed rail is at the 110 miles an hour maximum. >> if you look at some of the regions, we allocated money to

13 regions around the country. in some of those regions, and in some parts of california and other regions, the trains will go faster than 110. is a matter of using some of the resources to fix up freight rail lines and amtrak lines. in some of these corridors, trains will be going faster than 110. >> but most of them you envision going on existing tracks? >> it is a collaboration between the freight rail and amtrak. some will build some new infrastructure, but the lion's share will use existing track. either through the phrase or through amtrak. >> is their money available for studies to be done? >> we will be announcing some study money very soon. that was not part of the $8

billion, but we do have some money that we will be making available very soon for studies. >> recent study by a french real company says -- we are excited of trying to get that project going. ñi>>ñr we will be making thoseñy allocations very soon. >> i appreciate your comments. çóçóçó>> thank you for being he. secretary. çóçóñrthis may be public inform, but we have heard a lot lately

about the commuterñiñr airlinesd their safety records and lack of ñiñimaintenance, violations of s and regulations and that sort of thing. ñiñiiçó would beñr surprised ife not paid attention toçkiñi that. >> airline safetyñi isñi a very we pay a lot of attention to it every day. our faa administrator traveled the country and held safety summons talking about the training of pilots on commuter airlines, fatigue issues, pay issues. we made some very strong recommendations to the airlines on this, even before the ntsb report came out yesterday. we also are right in the middle of a rulemaking that will require airlines to do certain things in terms of training, in terms of pay, in terms of

schedules, and those kinds of things. that is our job to pay attention to these things. we are on this. we know that there is a great concern. i met with families on two different occasions, so i know the heartache they are going through. this was a very tragic accident, but since that time, we have taken a number of steps voluntarily to get on top of this. we will have a rule making very soon on this. >> thank you for coming to michigan several times. michigan is the epicenter of much of the economic stress we find ourselves in.

a year ago you said at that table and talked about rebuilding communities and all of that. in michigan, we have been very happy with the support we have that you asked us to do. so thank you for that. the chairman mentioned the tiger grants earlier. i know they are out. i know you're getting closer to making a decision. what is the status? >> the statutory requirement is that we make the decisions on or before february 17. we'll be right close to that date and we're working with the white house on the rollout of those. but let me just say that your leadership in detroit, particularly at the meetings that we had and since then has been extraordinary and i want you to know that we're going to continue to work with you, your

staff, the stake holders. ñrírññiñcóñoc9ñiourçó @9m%qñin detroit in the next few days meeting with theñi mayor and meeting with theñi mayor and others to figureñie1ñiiáá= u$eçó kind of things that you all want to do their. there will be some good activity and some good planning that will continue as a result of the meetings that we had when we revers last year. on or before the 17th, you will be hearing the news about the tiger grants. >> on christmas, a young fellow came with a bomb on a flight that was about to land in detroit. s. aviation manager, how close are we? that gentleman was not on any watch list. any update on that? >> those kind of activities are

done more for a homeland security. our job at the faa is to work with airports and airlines. tsa is under the jurisdiction of homeland security. flying is safe. i can tell you right now, there are thousands of people in the air all over this country and all over the world. flying is safe. are there things we do? there are things we need to do. we will look at the ntsb regulations, but we will also continue to stay on top of these things, because as we know safety is most important. thousands of people aboard airplanes every day and get to their destinations safely. that is something i want people to know. çóit is thanks to the fact that there are people looking out to their safety, whether it is

through the airlines themselves. >> we appreciate hearing you say that. the other part is a high-speed rail corridor. the $8 billion just recently, and nowçó)i6 the 1i!illion in e bill. how does that fair today as we the apple? >> now that we have announced the $8 billion, thanks to your committee, we have $2.5 billion in our appropriation bill. we hope to continue to work throughout the next several months to get that money out the door, particularly for those

communities who felt that they were disadvantage because they did not get as much as they wantedçó;ñi. in believe we will be announcing some study money that some states need to do b.g.e. immediately we will be announcing some study money. america is getting into the high-speed passenger rail business, and we take seriously the fact that this committee added $2.5 billion in the appropriations bill. the president is requesting $1 billion in his budget, so we are on our way. high-speed rail is coming to america. i have had two conversations with the governor of michigan, and we will work with them on this. >> you are way better in that chair at this year than last year.

what a difference a year makes. ii commend you on your knowledge of transportation. >> thank you. >> mr. rodriquez. >> let me thank you for coming to san antonio and for reaching out throughout the country. we understand what the situation is in terms of transportation and the lack of it, and the fact that we look at other forms of transportation. i know you heard about port santonio and the importance of freight coming into santonio. -- into san antonio. ñiyou got a chance to hear from

our mayor as we planned for the future. i gather that is the same situation throughout the country. we know we do not have sufficient resources out there. i am hoping there is an attempt by yourself and the administration as we look at -- if it happens or not on a new stimulus package, trying to put these resources and transportation and infrastructure, and i would ask you to comment on that, if possible. i also want you to comment on the importance of safety on rail. i have a lot of small communities where those trains are going through, and were used to have one train a week, now we have one or two today, and how critical it is to put the resources there, not only in

rail safety and improvementsñi. >> safety is our number one priority in all modes of transportation. we have paid a lotúo] attention to what happened in california with the train wreck. some people were killed on the metro system. that is the reason we put forth this transit safety bill that we are asking all of you to pass, so we can really get into the oversight opportunity on these transit systems around america, which we have been prohibited from doing by law. someone needs to provide the oversight. that is the reason we put forth this bill. we really encourage you -- that steps up and shows that safety is a priority on the rail and the positive train control rule that we have out is another example of how safety is a priority.

the work we have done with our faa administrator stepping up, with the recommendations he made immediately after the helicopter hit the small plane over the hudson. the two arab traffic controllers were dismissed. -- the to air-traffic controllers were dismissed. ñiwe are notñiçó going to sit ad on our hands waiting for someone else to do these things. when we see violations, we will step up and take action. we need your help on this transit safety bill. >> let me ask you to follow up. >> we still have to complete the work that was started with the first stimulus money. we are just about ready to

allocate all that money. we were pleased that the president asked congress to pass another jobs bill that would provide us a substantial dollars so we can continue the progress we are making in putting people to work. >> as we talk about port san antonio for air and rail, we have a good number of 18 winners coming through there from mexico, coming and going. the importance of making sure the safety requirements and the resources being put in that area -- can you elaborate on that? >> every drug that comes across is subject to very tough safety standards. our people are they are checking the trucks and making sure the drivers have the proper licenses and that the vehicles are safe, even though the mexican truck

program was suspended. we still are doing our work and checking these trucks that come across the border. but as it becomes important that we continue to do that. >> first of all, i want to thank you for the excellent job you are doing and thank you for the hospitality you have always extended to me. as you know, the 20 miles of light rail we constructed has been in operation for one year. it has been a success. writer ship has succeeded all expectations -- ridership has exceeded all expectations. today we are in preparation to

extend the line east from the downtown area in phoenix and south. we think the south expansion and the west expansion will get to the people who will need the transportation because of their socio-economic level. we continue to work with the f t eight who is a great partner with us, and we thank you for the cooperation. hopefully february 70 that will have a chance to call you and thank you for the people mover. that is high on our list for the tiger brands, and hopefully we can get that accomplished. people are working, and with the additional grant, we will add

more employment. i wanted to talk to you about the livable communities that two or three years ago the chairman started this initiative. it is one we all support. every community is different. in the phoenix metro area, will have 20 malls and even within the 20 miles, there are differences. -- 20 miles. i would ask that you provide money for the planning in studies -- there are areas that have been studied and looked at, but in order to make them livable, we need to provide incentive grants to communities so that the actual -- whether it

be the small business that will create jobs along with affordable housing, it becomes a reality. that type of bread, give it -- that type of grant given to the various authorities might be able to make this a reality. i know you will create the office, but hopefully as this is being created, and even within 1 light rail line, there are different economic situations and opportunities, so that there is flexibility. i will give you example. this occurred in phoenix. there was a large apartment complex, privately owned, that went belly up. working with hud, we were able

to have the city of thinks they get up -- is city of phoenix take it up. that particular import -- a portenapartment unit is less th1 mile from light rail. it is projects like that that we have an interest in that we are looking for, that flexibility so that we can maximize the investment, expressly when you have light rail existing that will create the jobs and create the businesses and also make livable communities, so i make that request. >> first of all, your comment about your a light rail. if you build it, they will come. that is a great example of it. i was there when that system got started, and i know it is exceeding the ridership that

everyone thought. they are comfortable and affordable and deliver people where they want to go. on the livable community issue, we will certainly work with your folks to try and do things that will make sense for the neighborhood or the community. >> can i also echo what the congresswoman said because of the economic status situation, arizona, the metro areas, phoenix and other cities, the use of federal money to continue to be used for the -- >> yeah, the operating. >> if you can continue that, we would really appreciate it. >> yeah, i think congress will continue it. it is important now when ridership is down and it is hard to operate these transit systems. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you're up.

i will take you at this point. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> or wait for just a couple of people to catch your breath. juan way or the other. chairman. i apologize that i could not be here earlier. i thoroughly enjoy the time we spent together last year in new york. for you to take that trouble in your first year to go up there was really commendable. you were very supportive of the long-term infrastructure improvements, and the administration was supportive of those programs. you know that the st. lawrence seaway is important not just to the region but to the maritime ports of the great lakes that

depend on international commerce, including home town of toledo, ohio. in the 10 year asset renewal program, i note is not funded at a level necessary to ensure completion of the projects along the seaway. the budget included an estimate for 2011 of 18.4 million to complete the renewal projects. the submission received earlier this week only includes $15.7 million for 20 projects. there appears to be a gap there, and i have three questions. why did the administration reduced this the way asset renewal program budget by almost $2.8 million, or 15%?

3will the reduction require additional years to be added to the program, and finally, what reassurance is there that similar reductions will not be made to the program? >> my general comment is, when we were together, you know that we have a commitment with the st. lawrence seaway that is very important. i will let my budget assistant secretary answer the specifics, but i want you to know we are committed to the st. lawrence seaway. it is very important. >> the request is $15.6 million, which would complete the three- year structural rehabilitation of the bridge that goes over to canada as well as upgrading locks, which is what they tell

us they need, and that can be accomplished in fiscal year 2011. we continue assessing what they can actually spend, as their construction season is constrained up there because of the weather. mì(lc@&c+ is enough for their needs in 2011. >> the 2010 budgetñr included an estimate of $18.4 million for 25 projects. ñryour but jack -- your budget s only covering 20 projects. you are saying that the seaway authority has said that they do not need that additional funds in 2011? >> they told us that is the funding levels they need for the

projects they can undertake in 2011. >> when the department of transportation submitted its budget to omb, that is what the seaway administration asked for, or did omb cut it? >> i would have to review it. i do not recollect right now what the seaway authority asked for. >> i would be interested in any detail at your office could provide of which projects were anticipated in the prior budget and what has happened with your 2011 budget request. >> we will do that. >> again,ñliñr i am sure you mut have asked about high-speed rail in your questioning. the first projects that have been identified by the administration will really not go into the northern corridor of ohio.

did you cover that, steve, in your questions? >> i did not. >> where we really need the administration's help is in the higher speed corridor that would be pittsburg, cleveland, chicago, that has to go through indiana. for some reason, the state of indiana was not able to provide a match for planning in the northern part of indiana, and that has put on hold our ability to move that high-speed rail corridor. they claim they did not have the match. perhaps the secretary could get to the bottom of this. as above got, i want to work with the hoosiers -- as a

buckeye. the more traveled corridor will be the pittsburg, cleveland, toledo, a chicago court or, and we cannot do it without indiana coming to the table. >> i would say that indiana is interested in this project. we will be making some planning grant awards here very soon. we will be working with indiana on this. part of the dilemma in some of these states is the legislature was not able to pass the batch money. that was true in about three or four states around the country. it is not for a lack of leadership on the part of governor daniels, but maybe the timing was not right. we are on top of this. we know is important. i will also tell you that the reason ther three c's was funded

was because of the strong support from the governor and the ohio delegation. >> we will start the second round and continue in the same vein. mr. secretary, you had proposed here one of your big initiatives is the national infrastructure innovation and finance fund. this appears to be combining the proposal for last year's in destructor funds beat the infrastructure funds that was proposed at that time for $5 billion. we moved some of that money around to do a bunch of other

things including the money for tiger that went into the 2010 bill and such. the high demand for the tiger program has clearly been established by the response to that set of funding opportunities. it certainly demonstrates the great need for investment in the infrastructure, especially projects moving passengers and freight, including ports and rail and transit air and highways. last year, we never got legislation for an infrastructure bank, and is not an authorized item. it is a major item. do you have a sense of when we will get a proposal for the

infrastructure bank, as you have proposed it this year? >> i am not going to refer to it as the knife, but i will offer to it as the infrastructure fund. we will be proposing authorization language very soon, and we envision this. when you see the authorization language, it is an opportunity to find all of projects including rail, ports, and maritime. >> does it plan to incorporate lessons you learn from the process of going through the

tiger grant process? the lessons learned in that process, or they already being included? >> we have received a lot of very creative proposals from all rahm country. we have seen there is a lot of creative thinking, a lot of creative juices flowing. we think that what we would propose in an authorization bill is a multi modal, taken from some of the creative things we have seen come in from around the country under tighter. -- under tigher. >> when people respond to a notice of funding availability,

it depends -- the responses you get depend on the capacity on the part of the folks who are making those applications. some have very great needs and not very great capacity. others have a great deal of capacity to put forward and maybe have even stronger needs if they have that capacity. the heavy thought about how one takes into account that there are places that have great need but not so much in the way of capacity to accomplish that, to help them? >> we have travelled around the country and we have relationships with enough of these stakeholders to know who these people are and what their capacity as, and how they can really utilize the money. our people work with

stakeholders day in and day out. we have developed a lot of relationships as a result of tighter, and the proposals we have received -- our people are pretty good at making judgments about these. >> are we alsoñi being good at helping them with technical çóassistanceçó? >> absolutely. itçóñr is one of the waysñi weñe broken down the silos. we have transit people working with real people and working with highway people. these proposals we have receivedñi really have allowed s to get all our people working ñrtogether, reviewing these and talkingñr about then and tryingo get some good technical assistance to people. . .

and june 4 of this year will go below $4 billion. you have to go on the cash management plan at that point. by august 20, we go in the negative. i assume there will need to be another infusion of general funds into the trust fund to keep that operational. i like -- just how much will you need? i know last year, the testimony,

what was going to be asked for was going to be offset. that was the assurance we were given. it didn't happen. how much will we need to make up the difference in the trust fund and how do we -- what do we tell our states when they can't plan more than six months down the road? that's a problem. there is no long-term planning because there is no certainty out there for the states today. >> you want to give him the figures, chris? i'm going to have chris give you the figures. >> the highway trust fund will need $9 billion to stay solvent through this year. that's an estimate. we provide the congress estimates. closer to the summer we'll have a more precise estimate of what that figure is. >> our highway people are in

communication with the states all the time. you know, in terms of, you know, what their plans are and you know, it is not as if we're not providing technical assistance and not as if they don't know at some point congress is going to pass an authorization bill, a transportation bill. an t and we're working with them and some of the stimulus money has been used to fund things that they would have maybe ordinarily done under an authorization. >> i think the problem is they don't know -- they probably believe that we'll keep the commitment we have at the current baseline levels, but the fact of the matter is, if we're talking about a $4 million or $5 million to increase, they cannot plan for

it today. the money is not authorized. there is no plan. i have the table of how we are going to go into the negative and $8 billion for highways, another billion for mass transit coming out of the general funds which we're going to have to borrow to do that. we have all the requests here from everybody for more and more of these projects. i mean, we're at a point where there has to be some certainty out there and i think you would be able to -- it's not just the states. local communities would be able to plan if in fact we had the certainty. i don't see any effort really to do that. i mean we're kicking a ball down the field again. i don't know if there is a question in that, ray. >> it doesn't sound like it. but it's very, very frustrating to the people that come into my office every day and want to know what's going on.

i haven't seen anything moving. last year when i started talking about that and mentioned that i didn't see any reauthorization done for last fiscal year or this fiscal year or going into next year and if you heard the thud, that was jim oberstar falling down outside. how can we move the ball? tell us. i don't see the administration coming forward with,(lan. >> the president has asked congress for an 18-month extension in order to -- >> starting when? >> starting with when we requested it, i don't know, maybe six months ago. it was probably, i don't know, i can get you the date, but it was probably six months ago, whenever we asked for it. we're not going to try and start the clock today. we're going to start it from when we made the request.

>> and my concern is you're going to start a new congress in march of 2011, that will be a new congress and lord knows what's going to happen. that really kicks it probably another year down the road. that's the problem. and the states are just pulling their hair out. the local communities, there is no certainty, it's just very frustrating to a lot of us who would like to see, who have the great demands for these projects and to be able to plan long-term and you simply can't do it. >> well, having been in the seat that you're all in, if you can figure out $400 billion to $500 billion how to pay for it, we'll work with you on that, but where are we going to find $400 billion to $500 billion? >> that's why we're looking for your suggestions, also. it's got to come from both sides. >> i think the administration

actually should have some proposals also. >> i think the point is made. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> mr. rodriguez. >> thank you very much and once again, mr. secretary, thank you. i have also a great -- probably have one of the biggest rural districts in the nation in west texas and we have a good number of small airport relievers that provide resources and we're trying to enhance it in that area. i would ask in terms of some comments and in terms of the importance of those reliever airports throughout the community and including in for example, in san antonio, we have a small one that provides 150,000 in terms of the resources that are allocated in that area for you to comment on them. >> sure. those airports are very important and we have a program

that can be helpful to some of the smaller airports and that program will continue. they're an important part of it and we know with the downturn in the economy, the use of those airports like every airport around the country has been diminished somewhat. but we will continue to work with the smaller airports and do what we can to be helpful. >> we have asked -- well, we have been looking at moves towards the new technology on airports. where are we at on that? >> well, we have a significant request in our budget that the president sent up for next -generation technology. we just implemented a next-jen system in the gulf of mexico. i'll be happy to have someone come up from the f.a.a. and brief you on our plan for next-generation technology.

we want it implemented. we're working with the airlines. it's going to be very costly for the airlines -- you can put it in the airports, but then the airplanes have to have it, too. we're trying to really mesh the two of these together and so we have had lots of discussions with airlines about this and how they're going to pay for it and so forth. but we think we have an opportunity to really get the next-generation technology sooner than most people think. >> i also wanted to follow up on -- i know there has been a great deal of dialogue and collaboration, and i want to congratulate ouren that, regarding the livable and sustainable community initiatives. would you elaborate on the mechanics of how this initiative will work and how communities will be able to get access to these resources? >> if our budget is approved, we have shared resources between h.u.d. and e.p.a. and

the department of transportation in a program called livable communities. we have a working group between the agencies that have been working over the last year to really begin once the budget is approved, to really begin to work with communities. we know there are neighborhoods around the country, communities around the country that want to do more with light rail, with transit, with street cars, with walking paths, with biking paths and all of these fit into the definition of livable communities. so once our budget is approved, we would be off to the races with these communities and neighborhoods in trying to help them implement the kind of dreams that they have for other ways to get around the communities and neighborhoods other than automobiles. >> i gather then there will be noticed out later on in the near future how to go about -- >> this is a part of our budget. once our budget is approved, we have relationships, again, with these folks around the country that we have been out and

visiting. they have heard about this program. we have talked about it for a year and once everything is signed, sealed, and delivered as far as the money, then we'll start making -- accepting proposals. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr.çóçó chairman. mrniçó secretary, i want toñi commendñi you for the fundñr formerly known as knifed and come up with a cautionary. i think it's agreat idea in the future. we have proposed, it was $17.5 for projects of regional and national significance and the footprint and requirement was that each project had to be half a billion dollars or more. we knew we might not get one. there are 30 or 35 projects around the country that were going to be built and real projects. in ohio, the interbelt in

cleveland, the bridge that connects ohio to kentucky, all of those are $1 billion projects. a funny thing happened on the way to the regional project fund. it went over to the other body and they pirated it, they took $200 billion here and there, $50 billion here and there. just to take the one that i'm interested in, the interbelt, it's a $1 billion project. i would hope that and i know that given your integrity that you will protect the integrity of this fund and make sure that it really builds america and doesn't satisfy a bunch of parochial needs. i am interested in the budget submission and the reason behind the proposed termination of the fund of $161 million. i'll tell you what concerns me. it's a dirty word around here, it's an earmark, but that fund

is congressionally-directed spending. so i consider it to be a direct slap at the united states congress and the appropriations committee and it will leave one bunch in town that is able to direct spending to specific areas and that's the administration. i wish it would reconsider that. if you have a comment about that -- >> do you know about that? >> go ahead and explain that, yeah. >> i'll let chris give you the bad news on this. >> those are the congressionally-directed projects in the appropriations bill and we don't terminate them. we're not rescinding them. we don't propose any new funding for that in 2011. >> so you continue the program but no money? i got it. we'll deal with that during the appropriations part. i don't want to be a one-note johnny, mr. secretary, but

again, the figures 30% unemployment among civil engineers, the sand and gravel guys, the asphalt people, the concrete people, the laborer, the operating engineer and according to g.a.o., almost half of the stimulus funds that went through your department that did in fact create jobs went for repaving projects as i mentioned earlier. in ohio, the paper reported that the stimulus bill created or saved 13,000 jobs. of those 13,000 jobs, 11,000 were teachers. i like teachers. i think it's great, but that's not stimulating the economy. in ohio, it's pretty well publicized that over $1 million was spent on signs, not saying slow down construction zones saying that this project was paid for by the recovery act. so the signmakers are fully employed in ohio, but the people that build the highways are not. and it was further a requirement that the sign hadçó to be up before you could begin to put a shovel in the ground

which seemed a little odd to me as well. we have a problem with unemployment, a job solved that. the president talks a lot about health care. a job can solve that for a family. retirement security, a job can solve that. foreclosure problems, people losing their houses, a job can save that. i just have to tell you that i heard what you said and there are proposals, mr. oberstar has a proposal. we can find the money to fully fund, but it's going to take some tough choices. i'll be a bipartisan barber. this started with president bush. when he said we only had $256 billion over six years, that was crazy. because he wouldn't recognize and his bean counters wouldn't recognize that we had to enhance the revenue to the highway trust fund. it would have taken a nickel then. now it takes a dime. i get people don't want to vote for a tax increase or use the bonding authority of the united states, but if this administration continues to

pump out stimulus bills that fund things like treatment for sexually-transmitted diseases rather than dispute putting the operating engineers to work, shame on you. if the congress can't get a bill that gets the bill down, shame on us. i really hope, i went to mr. emmanuel after the state of the union address and said i'm ready to kick this can down the road until 2011 as a political decision, it's not an infrastructure decision that will rebuild america. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're going to stick closely to let the secretary get finished here and we're going to hold to the five minutes now quite closely ok. >> thank you, mr. chairman.