we don't see a need for global government. so they have changed the formulation and it's now, global governance. the world federalist society no longer exists. i think it's now an organization called citizens for global solutions or some innocuous phrase like that. but the fundamental thrust remains that america's attachment to its constitution is seen as kind of an aknack kronism and the progress we want to make is toward institutions global governance. . caused by the pillar of the nation's state -- that failure of the nation's state. their answer to the problems as

they perceive them is to diminish national sovereignty, to pull their sovereignty through the european union and thereby eliminate other sources of conflict. they think they are having a great success in europe. there are serious political figures in europe who say that the disease -- the peak of communism and collapse of the soviet union -- defeat of communism and the collapse of the soviet union was in part because of the european union. they actually believe that. it seems to have lost the united states and nato in the shuffle. they're not cognizant that even today, their ability to integrate politically and economically and have a very low defense expenditures that they do is because of the raiing

united states still holds around the pre-world. i do not want to give the impression that they are selfish. -- still hold around the free world. they are determined to spread it to the rest of us. the work through the united nations and other international organizations to help, -- to help accomplish that. they have decided -- at least at the elite level -- they have decided that the loss of national sovereignty is a plus. they argue to us that the divisions of our national sovereignty would be positive for us as well. sovereignty is a term with a lot of definitions. for many people it is kind of abstract and hard to get worked up about it. it has been hard for many in europe to get worked up about

it. americans view sovereignty in a very different way. we see sovereignty not as an abstract concept, but as the essence of self-government. in the united states, we are the sovereign. 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 . . ortant 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

does something or says something because of political reality. . . 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. ration 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 countriesnkára)@h turkey, maybe others will get nuclear weapons, and the risk of proliferation will continue dramatically. the multilateral system of international organizations is powerless. facing with the hard men that run countries like iran and north korea. and these hard men who have outnegotiated the united states time and time again know that

in the current administration they don't have an equal partner. they've got something they think they can roll. 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 russia, the deals of which -- details of which are not public. we will probably agree to a

substantial reduction in our delivery systems and our weapons. that is something they have wanted for quite some time. moreover, prime minister putin did this a way -- gave this away, they still want us to limit our defense capabilities. the obama administration is doing a good on its own of 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 we are going to leave the remainder of this event. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] mrs. capito: zoorks hello, everybody. -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] . >> hello, everybody. i'm glad to see you have braved the weather to be here.

i have had a meeting with the republican and democratic congressional leaders. it went very well. in fact, i understand that mcconnell and reid are out there doing snow angels out there on the south lawn together. can you picture that, chuck? the meeting did go up and i appreciate them making the trek. we had a good and frank conversation and it's one that i hope we can continue on a more regular basis. we all understand that there are legitimate and genuine differences between the parties, but despite the political postering that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree. that's what the american people are demanding of us. i think they're tired of every day there being election day in washington and at this critical time in our country that americans expect a serious and purposeness that transcends

politics. we work to tackle the pressing challenges ahead. i am confident, for example, that when one of -- one in 10 of our fellow citizens can't work we should all come together and help businesses create more jobs. we ought to be able to agree on providing small businesses with additional tax credits and much-needed lines of credit. we ought to combre on investments in crumbling roads and brooges and we should agree on tax breaks for making homes more energy efficient, all of which will put americans at work. many of the job proposals that i have laid out have passed the house and are soon going to be debated in the senate. we spent a lot of time in this meeting discussing the jobs package and how we can move forward on that. and if there are additional ideas, i will consider them as well. what i won't consider is doing nothing in the face of a lot of hardship across the country. we also talked about restoring

fiscal responsibility. there are a few matters on which there is as much vigorous bipartisan agreement, at least in public, but unfortunately there is tea also a lot of partisan rangling behind closed doors. this is what we know for sure. for us to solve this extraordinary problem that is so many years in the making it's going to take a cooperation of both parties. it's not going to happen in any other way. i'm pleased that congress supported my request to restore the pay-as-you-go rule, which was instrumental in turning deficits into surpluses during the 1990's. i've also called for a bipartisan fiscal commission. unfortunately, this measure which originally had received the support of a bipartisan majority in the senate and was co-sponsored by senators conrad and gregg, democrats and republicans, was blocked there so i am going to be creating this commission by executive order. and during our meeting i asked the leadership of both parties to join in this serious effort

to address our long-term deficits. because when the politics is put aside the reality of our fiscal challenges is not subject to our interpretation. math is not partisan. there ought to be a debate about how to close our deficits. what we can't accept is business as usual and can't afford grandstanding at the expense of actually getting something done. during our meeting we also touched briefly on how we can move forward on health reform. i've already announced that in two weeks i'll be holding a meeting from people from both parties. and as i told the congressional leadership i'm looking forward to a constructive debate with plans that need to be measured against this test. does it bring down costs for all americans as well as for the federal government which spends a huge amount on health care? does it provide adequate protection against abuses by the insurance industry? does it make coverage affordable and available to the tens of millions of working

americans who don't have it right now? and does it help us get on a path of fiscal sustainability? we also talked about why this is so urgent. just this week there was a report that anthem blue cross which is the largest insurer in the largest state, california, is planning on raising premiums for many individual policyholders by as much as 39%. we don't act this is just a preview of coming attractions. premiums will continue to rise for folks with insurance, millions more will lose their coverage altogether. our deficits will continue to grow larger. and we have an obligation, both parties, to tackle this issue in a serious way. now, bipartisanship depends on a willingness among both democrats and republicans to put aside matters of party for the good of the country. i won't hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party, but i also won't hesitate to condemn what

i consider to be on city nancy that is rooted by -- in substantive agreements. we talked about this like in a confirmation process. i accept the senate to advise. but qualified noncontroversial nominees for critical positions in government, often positions related to our national security have been held up despite having overwhelming support. my nominee for one important job, the head of general services administration which helps run the government was denied a vote for nine months. when she finally got a vote on her nomination, she was confirmed 96-0. that's not advise and consent. that's delay and obstruct. one senator, as you all are aware, have put a hold on every single nominee that we have put forward. due to a dispute over a couple of earmarks in his state. in our meeting i asked the

congressional leadership to put a stop to these holds in which nominees for critical jobs are denied a vote for months. surely we can set aside partisanship and do what's traditionally been done to confirm these nominations. if the senate does not act, and i made this very clear, if the senate does not act to confirm these nominees i will consider making a couple of recess appointments during the upcoming recess because we can't afford politics to stand in the way of a well-functioning government. my hope is this will be the first of a series of meetings that i have with leadership of both parties in congress. we have to get past the tired debates that have left nothing but soaring debt and mounted challenges and extraordinary frustrations among the american people. those frustrations are what led me to run for president. and as long as i'm here in washington i tend to try to make this government work on

their behalf. so i am going to take a couple of questions. >> after pleating with you, john boehner came out and told us, the house can't pass the health care bill it once passed, the senate can't pass a health care bill it once passed. why would we talk about legislation that can't pass? as a part of that he said, you and your white house and the congressional democrats should start over entirely from scratch on health care reform. how do you respond, are you willing to do that? >> well, here's how i responded to john in the meeting and this is how i responded before. there are some core goals that has to be met. we have to control costs. both for families and businesses but also for our government. everybody out there that talks about deficits has to acknowledge that the single biggest driver of our deficits is health care spending. we cannot deal with our deficits and debt long term

unless we get a handle on that. so that has to be part of a package. number two, we got to deal with insurance abuses that affect millions of americans that got health insurance. and number three, we have to make health insurance more available to folks in the individual market, as i just mentioned in california, we're suddenly seeing their premiums up 39%. that applies to the majority of small businesses as well as sole proprietors. they are struggling. so i've got these goals. now, we have a package, as we work through the differences between the house and the senate, and we'll put enough on the website for all to see over a long period of time that meets those criteria, meets those goals. but when i was in baltimore talking to the house republicans, they indicated, we can accomplish some of these goals at no cost. and i said, great. let me see it. and i have no from in doing

something that's more expensive and harder to accomplish if somebody else has an easier way to do it. so i'm going to be starting from scratch in the sense that i will be open to any ideas that help promote these goals. what i will not do, what i don't think makes sense and i don't think the american people want to see would be another year of partisan rangling around these issues, another six months or eight months or nine months worth of hearings in every single committee in the house and the senate in which there's a lot of postering. let's get the relevant parties together, let's put the best ideas on the table. my hope is we can find enough overlap that we can say this is the right way to move forward, even if i don't get every single thing that i want. but here's the point that i made to john boehner and mitch mcconnell. bipartisan can't be --

bipartisanship can't be that i agree to all of the things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things i believe in and want and that's the price of bipartisanship. right? but that's sometimes the way it gets presented. mitch mcconnell said something very nice in the meeting of how he supports our goals on nuclear energy and clean coal technology and more drilling to increase oil production. well, of course he likes that. that's part of the republican agenda for energy. which i accept. and i'm willing to move off some of the preferences of my party in order to meet them halfway. but there's got to be some give from their side as well. that's true on health care. that's true on energy. that's true on financial reform. that's what i'm hoping gets accomplished at the summit. >> you say the bills can't pass -- >> what i agree with is the

public has soured on the process that they saw over last year. i think that actually contaminates how they view the substance of the bills. i think it's important for all of these issues to be erred so people have confidence if we're moving forward on such a significant part of the economy as health care that there's complete transparency and all these issues have been adequately vetted and adequately debated. and this gives an opportunity not just for democrats to say, here's what we think we should do, but it gives republicans a showcase before the entire country to say, here's our plan, here's why we think this will work, and one of the things that john boehner and mitch mcconnell both said is they didn't think that the status quo was acceptable. and that's right there promise -- promising. that indicates that if all sides agree that we can't continue with business as usual then maybe we can get something done. >> one of the reasons anthem

said -- anthem blue cross said that it's raising its premiums is so many people are dropping out of individual coverage because the economy is so bad. and that means people in the pool -- people in need of medical care driving up costs. one of the reasons why businesses are not expanding right now in addition to some of the issues you were talking about, according to business leaders, they said there is an uncertainty is what they need to plan for because the energy bill, because of health care, that's what they say. i'm not saying it's true or not. that's what they say. what do you say when you hear that? >> well, i think that the biggest uncertainty has been, we just went through the worse recession since the great depression and people weren't sure if the financial system was going to meltdown and whether we were going to tip into an endless recession. let's be clear about the sources of uncertainty in terms of business investment over the last several years. a huge contraction, trillions of dollars of losses in

people's 401-k's, people have a lot of debt coming out of the previous decade that they still haven't worked out, the housing market loses a bunch of value. so the good news is that where we were contracting by 6%, the economy's not growing by 6%. the c.e.o.'s i talked to are saying they are now making investments, and i anticipate they are going to start hiring at a more rapid quip. what i also heard them saying is we would like to feel that washington is working and able to get some things done. there are two days of interpreting the issue of uncertainty. one way would be to say, well, we will go back on the way before, let's say, the financial markets. we won't have the regulations that we need. we won't make any changes in terms of too big to fail. that will provide certainty until the next financial crisis. that's not the kind of certainty i think that the financial markets need.

the kind of certainty they need is for us to go ahead and agree on a bipartisan effort to put some rules of the road in place so that consumers are protected in a financial market so that we don't have banks that are too big to fail, that we have ways of winding them down and protecting the overall system without taxpayer bailouts. that requires legislation. the sooner we can get that done the better. the same would be true when it comes to health care. a lot of c.e.o.'s i hear from would say, boy, we'd like you to get health care settled one way or another. but they will acknowledge that when they open up their latest invoice for their premiums and find out that their premiums have gone up 20% or 25%, that's the kind of uncertainty that also tamps down business investment. so i guess my answer would be this -- the sooner the business community has a sense that we've got our act together here in washington and can move

forward on big serious issues in a substantive way without a lot of postering and partisan rangling i think the better off the entire country's going to be. i absolutely agree on that. what i think is important is not to buy into this notion that is perpetrated by some of the business interests that got a stake in this who are fighting financial reform, for example, to say, boy, we'd be doing fine if we just didn't try to regulate the banks. that i think would be a mistake. >> just to play devil's advocate on that. a small business, let's say, not somebody who is going to be affected by the regulatory reform, small business, you have proposed -- you would acknowledge a bold agenda and a small business might wonder, i don't know how the energy bill is going to affect me, i don't know how the health care reform bill is going to affect me. i better hold off on hiring. >> yeah. the small businesses i talked to, and i've been talking to a

lot of them as i've been traveling around the country over the last several months, their biggest problem right now is they can't get credit out of their banks so they're uncertain about that. and they're still uncertain about orders. do they gist have enough customers to justify them doing more? it's looking better at this point, but that's not the rational for people saying i'm not hiring. let me put it this way. most small businesses right now, they got enough customers to make a profit and they can get the bank loans required to boost their payroll, boost their inventory and sell to those customers they will do so, ok. let's see. let's get -- let's get a print guy here. david. >> you heard mcconnell talk about nuclear power, offshore drilling, that's a lot of republican stuff. would your party agree to that? >> you know, i think on energy, there should be a bipartisan

agreement that we have to take a both end approach rather than an either/or approach. what do i mean about that? i am very firm in my conviction that the country that leads the way in clean energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal, that country is going to win the race in the 21st century global economy. what is also try is that given our energy needs in order to continue economic growth, produce jobs, make sure our businesses are competitive around the world, that we're going to need some of the old traditional energy sources as we're developing these new ones and rampling them up. so we can't overnight convert to an all-solar or all-wind economy. that just can't happen. we need to have needs in these

traditional sources. so the question then is, are we going to be able to put together a package that includes safe secure nuclear power that includes new technologies so we can use coal, which we have abundance and is very cheap but often is adding to our greenhouse gases, can we find sequestration technologies to clean that up? you know, can we identify opportunities to increase our oil and natural gas production in a way that is environmental sustainable? and that should be part of a package with our development of clean energy. my hope is that my republican friends but also democrats say to themselves, let's be practical and let's do both. let's not just do one or the other or both.

i think over time the trend will be more and more clean energy and over time fossil fuels become less prominent in our overall energy fix. >> how confident are you there will be a consensus for that double-edge approach? >> i am just an eternal optimist. it's the right thing to do. all i can do is keep on making the argument of what's right for the country and assuming over time people, regardless of party, regardless of their particular political positions, are going to gravitate towards the truth. ok. i'm going to take two more. let's see. >> well, i wanted to make sure i was getting a balance here.

go ahead. >> ooh! >> why is everybody worried about time? >> he's too good. [laughter] >> iran, we've got the news today that they're doing more of these -- trying to enhance this uranium even more. seeing secretary gates in paris quoted saying the dialogue seems to be over. now the question is sanctions. where are we in sanctions? how close is this? i know you had an end of the year deadline when you stood up there with the secretary. how quickly is this moving along? >> it's moving fairly quickly. i think we have bent over backwards to say -- we are going to have a constructive

conversation about how they can do international rules -- the most obvious attempt was when we gave them an offer that said we are going to provide low enriched uranium they already had into the -- into the isotopes for their medical research and for hospitales that would serve up to a million iranian citizens. sympathy rejected it. -- they rejected it. although one of the difficulties in dealing with iran over the last several months is it's not clear who is speaking on behalf of the government and we got a lot of different mixed signals.

but what's clear is they have not said yes toon agreement that russia, china, germany, france, great britain and the united states all said was a good deal and that the director of the iaea said was the right thing to do and that iran should accept. that indicates to us that despite their postering that their nuclear power is only for civilian use that they in fact continue to pursue a course that will lead to weaponization. and that's not acceptable to the international community. not just to the united states. so what we've said from the start was we are moving on all tracks. if you want to accept the kinds of agreements with the international community that lead you down a path of being a

member of good standing, then we welcome you. >> deciding to do what they did -- >> and if not, then the next step is sanctions. they have made their choice so far, although the door is still open. and what we are going to be working on over the next several weeks is developing a significant regime of sanctions that will indicate to them how isolated they are from the international community as a whole. >> you mean -- >> meaning there will be a whole -- >> [inaudible] >> we are going to be looking at a variety of ways in which countries indicate to iran that their approach is unacceptable. it will -- the u.n. will be one aspect of that broader effort. >> china will be there? >> well, the -- we are confident right now that the international community is unified around iran's

misbehavior in this area. how china operates at the security council as we pursue sanctions is something we're going to have to see the one other thing i'm pleased to see is how forward leaning the russians have been on this issue. they clearly have seen that iran hasn't been serious about solving what is a solveable dispute between iran and the international community. all right. i'm going to make this last question and then i'll take somebody from the back. >> thanks for doing this. it's been a while. health care. republicans are asking if the february 25 session will include economists and public interest groups and people supporting your side or will it be the members of congress? and on anthem blue cross, do you have the authority to go in and tell a private company they can't charge it? how will you stop them?

>> well, i don't have the authority, as i understand it. i can't simply issue an executive order lowering everybody's rates. if i could i would have done that already and save me a lot of grief on capitol hill. that's why reform is so important. that's why the status quo is so unacceptable. there is no shortcut in dealing with this issue. you know, i know the american people get frustrated in debating something like health care because you get a whole bunch of different claims being made by different groups and different interests. it is a big complicated -- it is a big, complicated, tough issue. it's also true that without some action on the part of congress, it is very unlikely that we see any improvement

over the current trajectory. and the current trajectory is premiums keep going up 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%. the current trajectory is more and more people are losing health care. i don't know people know it because during the health care debate they were saying the president's trying to take over -- government takeover of health care. i don't know if anybody noticed that for the first time this year you saw more people getting health care from government than you did from the private sector. not because of anything we did. because more and more people are losing their health care from their employers. it's becoming unaffordable. that's what we're trying to prevent. we want people to get health care from their employers. but we also understand that you got to fix the system so that people are able to get it at affordable rates and small businesses can give their employees insurance at an affordable rate and that's not happening right now. to your question about the 25th. you know, my hope is that this

doesn't end up being political theater, as i think some of you have praised it. i want a substantive discussion. we haven't refined exactly how the agenda is going to go that day. we want to talk with both democratic and republican leaders to find out what they think would be most useful. i do want to make sure that there's some people like the congressional budget office, for example, that are considered nonpartisan, who can answer questions. i'm -- in this whole health care debate, i'm reminded of the story that was told about senator moynihan who was i guess in an argument with one of his colleagues and his colleague was losing the argument. so he got a little flustered and said to senator moynihan, well, i'm entitled to my own opinion. and senator moynihan said, you're entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

i think that's the key to a successful dialogue on the 25th around health care. let's establish some common facts. let's establish what the issues are, what the problem are and let's test out in front of the american people what ideas work and what doesn't. if we can establish factual accuracies for how approaches would work, i think we will make some progress. the things that come up is ones that make my party a little uncomfortable. if it's established that by working seriously on medical malpractice and tort reform that we can reduce some of those costs, i said from the beginning of this debate, i'd

be willing to work on that. on the other hand, if i'm told that that is only a fraction of the problem and that is not the biggest driver of health care costs, then i'm also going to insist, ok, let's look at that as one aspect of it. but what else are we willing to do? this gets back to the point i was trying to make earlier. bipartisanship can't mean simply that democrats give up everything they believe in, find the handful of things that republicans have been advocating for and we do those things and then we have bipartisanship. that's -- you know, that's not how it works, you know, in any other realm of life. that's certainly not how it works in my marriage with michelle, although i do usually give in most of the time.

there's got to be some give and take. and that's what i'm home can be accomplished. i'm confident that's what the american people are looking for. so, all right. ok. since it wasn't a jobs question, i'll make this one. >> the republicans were saying, the jobs package we've seen is not really ready yet. we're worried about the cost. are you satisfied that there's something that can be quickly moved through congress on jobs? >> first of all, the house has moved forward a jobs package that has some good elements in it. my understanding is that there is bipartisan talks taking place as we speak on the senate side about some elements of the package. i think there are some things that a lot of people agree on. just to give you an example, the idea of eliminating capital gains for small businesses. something we can all agree on. i talked about it at the state of the union address. my hope would be that we would all agree on a mechanism to get

community banks who are lending to small businesses more capital because that is something that i keep on hearing is one of the biggest problems that small businesses have out there. so i think that it's realistic for us to get a package moving quickly that may not include all the things i think need to be done and it may be that that first package build some trust and confidence that democrats and republicans on capitol hill can work together and then we move on to the next aspect of the package and so forth. you know, it may take a series of incremental steps but the one thing i'm absolutely clear about is that we've got an economy that's growing right now, a huge boost in produck tift, that's the good news. the bad news is that companies still haven't taken that final

step in actually putting people on their payroll full time. we are seeing an increase in temporary workers, but they haven't yet taken on that full-time worker. and so providing some additional impetus to them right as the economy is moving in a positive direction i think can end up yielding some good results. all right. thank you, guys. that was pretty good. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . .

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by

the guest chaplain, chaplain philip lee, marine forces reserve, new orleans, louisiana. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, supreme judge of the world, thank you for our military members for security they provided to our nation and the hope they bring to hurting places on distant shores. give each one clear ears, sharp eyes heal them when they are injured, sustain their families and friends as they too endure war's tragedies and tensions caused by wickedness in high places and the darkness of this world. today, help us to silence the roaring lions and charging bears who seek to rule the globe with terrorism. empower us by every righteous means to foster peace on earth and goo will to all. guide those here in this room today to be faithful and full

of faith while performing their duties on behalf of the american people. and as wearyness tugs at the soul, may each person mount up as on the wings of an eagle. we ask that you give particular comfort to the family of john murtha today, former marine and congressman for 14 terms who passed away yesterday. by your grace, anchor us now, reconciling us to your purposes and ways. remind us never to forget that we are americans promoting freedom, responsible for our actions and dedicated to the principles that make us free, free indeed. keep us trussing in you, god, and then the united states of america. we ask you all this, supreme and eternal commander in chief, because thine is the kingdom and the power and glory

forever. semper fi and amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from washington state, mr. larsen. mr. larsen: please join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. larsen: madam speaker, i send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 235, resolved that when the house adjourns on any legislative day from tuesday, february 9, 2010, through saturday, february 13, 2010, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader on his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, february 22, 2010, on until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which ever occurs first. and that when the senate recesses or adjourns on any day from wednesday, february 10, 2010, through sunday, february 14, 2010, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on monday, february 22,

2010, or such other time on that day as may be specified in the motion to recess or adjourn or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. section 2, the speaker of the house and the majority leader of the senate or their respective designees acting jointly after consultation with the minority leader of the house and the minority leader of the senate shall notify members of the house and the senate respectively to reassembly at such place and time as they may designate if in their opinion the public interest shall warrant it. the speaker pro tempore: the concurrent resolution is not debatable. the question is on the concurrent resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the concurrent resolution is adopted and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. larsen: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today on a motion offered pursuant to this order it adjourn to meet at 1:00 p.m. on friday, february 12, 2010, unless it sooner has received a message from the senate transmitting its concurrence in house concurrent resolution 235 in which case the house shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. larsen: madam speaker, pursuant to the order of the house of today, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until -- accordingly, pursuant to the previous order of the house today, the house stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. on friday, february 12,

2010, unless it sooner has received a message from the senate transmitting its adoption of house concurrent resolution 235 in which case the house shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution. >> the house will be back on friday, the 12th of february, pro forma session. they have agreed to postpone legislative work until february 22 with the washington area, the northeast in general, bracing for an additional up to 20 implets of snow. fox news reporting that the national guard will be called out to help out in storm preparations and aftermath here in the nation's capital. we'll take you back live now to the white house. robert gibbs started speaking with reporters about 10 minutes ago. >> the white house is now invited -- financial reform. stimulus. >> up until friday we are working together on a bipartisan

package for financial reform. >> it's critical they haven't been brought in for the process. and now they are being brought in now. they are going to be brought in on the 25th again. is this something in hindsight -- >> we are paving the road again to bipartisanship. then you got -- >> a more aggressive effort now to involve republicans. >> i don't think that's true. i will go back and try to figure out the number of times that the president talked to republican senators in trying to get the finance committee to come to an agreement. it was many, many times. we hosted meetings down here. the notion -- it's quite previsionist to think that somehow -- remember we were -- in the summerall these questions about when are you going to get through this whole finance committee thing and get to the

floor? we spent hours and hours and hours, many conversations trying to bring republicans in the finance committee along. senators know -- you know did join in that finance committee vote and she did work constructively. we worked constructively with her. >> also health care reform as well. >> that is health care reform. >> what i'm saying is -- the entire reforms that have been going on whether it's financial reforms, they feel that republicans have not been brought into this process. the white house seems to be more aggressive in doing that now. >> we have a fundamental disagreement about the premise of your question. chip. >> following up on that. just curious. >> maybe i would have won a lottery. >> curious. >> i don't think it was a mistake. if we thought it was a mistake we wouldn't be doing what we are doing. again, remember this.

the president -- remember the president went to capitol hill to talk to house republicans about supporting the recovery plan, right? before we could load the pool up and get in the motorcade, they put out a statement opposing the recovery plan. you can't -- this is exactly what the president said, chip. if bipartisanship means, i'm going to give up everything i believe and adopt everything that you believe, that's not bipartisanship. it's never been bipartisanship. if bipartisanship means we are going to take into account some of your tie december, you're going to take into account some of our ideas, nobody's likely to get 100% of what they want, we'll meet somewhere in the middle to make progress on the issue for the american people. that's what bipartisanship has been for several hundred years. that's what we hope each party is interested in doing now. >> i got the impression on the deficit, that there was a tone of bipartisanship in the room. he was talking about pushing this idea of a bipartisan commission. but immediately afterward both

boehner and mcconnell came out and boehner in particular said that the democrats and the president have been on a spending binge. they immediately went into full bart zahn mode. >> i hope you'll -- >> need to make the tough decisions. >> i hope you'll get your congressional reporter to ask why after a bipartisan meeting in discussing solutions -- chip, nobody in their right mind could blame everything that's happened on one party in spending, right? nobody could. whether they want to come out of the white house in a bipartisan meeting and somehow decide that history is far different than the way any normal human being would read it, that's up for them to decide. i would say -- the point is this. that leader boehner, co-sponsored a bill by frank wolf and jim cooper to set up a commission that didn't even have -- did not have an equal number of house democrats and republicans on the commission.

senator mcconnell in a number of different venues, including in november on cnn spoke quite passionately for the comrade gregg commission. the president weighed in and supported the conrad gregg commission, right, which is set up very similarly to the wolf-cooper proposal that leader boehner supported in the house. we put that up for a vote. now, if each party is serious in dealing with the deficit, we wouldn't normally think that you would need 60 votes in the senate where all you -- you could pass something based on a majority, you wouldn't think you would need 60 votes if each was serious about working on the deficit, right? but alas, that's what was asked for, 60 votes, right? let's rewind and talk about what happened in that vote. they got 53 votes. not all republicans supported it. not all democrats supported it. that's fine. we got 53 votes.

seven short of the necessary 60. those seven votes could have been gotten by the six co-sponsorsç of that bill in december that decided not to vote for it, and an active co-sponsor that also decided not to vote for it. there's the seven votes. but, look, chip, the president has laid out last year's $17 billion worth of spending cuts, we got 60% of those. the president's laid out $20 billion in spending cuts this year. we hope to get those. if congress wants to do better than that, the president is happy to look at it. the president talked about with paul ryan a line-item veto. they talked about rescissions in there and the president will certainly look at those. >> hasn't it been made very clear to the president from the republican leader that there is no compromise on both the bipartisan commission and health care reform. they want them to scrap the

bill. the president is pushing these things. isn't he engaging in this political theater by saying -- >> not at all. >> come to the table -- >> 53 senators supported a debt commission, right. the senator who was at the meeting representing the senate republicans just two months ago said he supported it. the leader of the house republicans -- >> political theater to keep harping on it. >> no, it's political theater to when something comes to a vote -- the president is very clear about this. he said, guys, it doesn't really work in this town if i said, yeah, i'm for that, and then you decide you had been for that and now you're not. i don't know what the definition of that is, chip. and i'm presuming you'll have a congressional correspondentant -- correspondent ask mitch mcconnell and john boehner why on earth each would support something and when it came to a vote they would not support it.

the president -- they have concerns about how -- what would be on the table. here's a good idea. there's a budget process that will go on on capitol hill. if you have an idea about how to structure a budget, we have no problem voting on that. i have no doubt that if the house republicans and senate republicans want to put forward a budget, that should be voted on. absolutely. i can't imagine anybody would stand in the way of having that budget voted upon. >> two questions. one is, the president just mentioned his proposal to make tarp funds available for small banks -- how important is it that be a part of the package the senate considers immediately? >> i need to talk with legislative affairs and see where that is in the process of what's being considered by the president. understand that to a person in this meeting everyone mentioned prior to the discussion on --

prior to the discussion on how it would be structured, to a person every one of the leaders, including the president, mentioned that getting capital to small businesses, allowing them to borrow money to meet payroll or expand is one of the most important things that we can do. some other differences were discussed in terms of how that is structured, but the -- each -- the leaders talk about how you're going to pay for this. we have authority to use money to help banks get the capital they need to lend. so this is -- as both the treasury secretary, dr. summers, and dr. roemer, all three of

them said unless we do something like this, lending is going to contract. we have this authority and that authority is the permissible authority under tarp is to get our financial system going through lending that this was an easy commonsense way to get that done. >> the president highlighted as did senator mcconnell at the stakeout the fact that the republicans like some of his energy ideas. plain coal, nuclear power, was there any discussion in the meeting of moving forward with a comprehensive energy bill that would include those elements as well as some of the democratic proposals? >> senator mcconnell brought up some ideas that the president had proposed in his state of the union that he thought many republicans would support. he mentioned, as you mentioned, clean coal technology, which the president has supported since running for office in illinois in 2003 and 2004.

mentioned increasing nuclear loans which is in our budget and talked about offshore oil drilling. something that the president supported at the end of the last campaign. i think as you heard the president say, he's certainly prepared to walk away from some in his party that think we can't do those things. now, in order to get some of this done, we need that give and take with the republicans. >> did you have any of that? >> that wasn't part of the -- that wasn't a long topic that was discussed. i think the president said to senator mcconnell that if that's what he supports, he'll be pleasantly surprised at what the administration supports. >> in the state of the union the president made a mention of the three trade deals. but he didn't say they should be

ratified. there's a lot of speculation on that. does he want them ratified this year? and if so, is there political damage there because 2010 and labor certainly would not be happy. >> again, this is a good example of what has to be give and take. look, i -- the president mentioned those three. we didn't lay out the specific deadline. but the president believes that in order to create jobs here we have to increase the amount of exports that are leaving this country. he has a very robust agenda on exports and they include those freedoms. >> should they be ratified this year? >> the president didn't lay out timelinesç in the state of the union and didn't dough so in this meeting. >> the president just said that the american public has soured on the process in response to health care reform. can you explain how a health

care summit two weeks from now will change that -- what are you hoping to get in terms of -- >> again, well, i think that the president hopes an offshoot of this meeting with democrats and republicans is to take everybody at their word, including senators mcconnell and leader boehner today in that the status quo is unacceptable. you heard the president outline what's happening in california with the individual insurance market. we understand what we are doing now isn't sustainable. it isn't sustainable when we are dealing with our deficit. it isn't sustainable 234 what we are doing with our small -- in what we are doing with our small businesses. having this discussion, having everyone been able to see this discussion and being able to discuss openly the idea that each party wants to bring to the table, the president believes can help move this process forward.

it started in what the president did in baltimore. and the president hopes it will continue on february 25 at the white house. >> representative cantor is already saying it's a dog-and-pony show and we have no interest in discussing the failed bills of the democrats that have already been rejected by the american public. he said it this morning. >> i can't imagine -- i can't imagine that a group that wanted to sit down and talk in a bipartisan way with the president about health care would now walk away from the process of sitting down in a bipartisan way and talking with the president on health care. i hear crazy stuff in this town all the time. to literally move one day from your talking points of we need a transparent process where the president sits down and looks at and takes seriously our ideas on health care and then the next day says, my gosh, what you want us to do in a transparent way

sit down and talk about our ideas on health care? we can't possibly do that. so, look, i'll -- representative cantor can decide whether he agrees with himself in yesterday's letter or whether he agrees with himself just a few weeks ago when he was making his argument. >> one of the conditions that the republican leadership is asking for prior to the meeting is that reconciliation be taken off the table. is the white house willing to go there? >> i think that republicans should come to the white house to discuss their ideas without any preconditions. the president' not going to eliminate anything based on preconditions. if that's one of their preconditions, the president doesn't agree to limiting the way we are going to discuss it. >> based on some of the reaching out that you just discussed with chip on health care with the republicans, does the president

see this february 25 summit then as the last chance the republicans to come to the table and agree on something? or else he's going to do it with democratic votes? >> no, i don't -- i think the president believes this is the next best chance to do it and the president's going to take republicans seriously that they want to come discuss these issues. you're laughing i haven't even finished my answer. >> how many more chances is he going to extend before he just says, they are not going to play, so we are going to go with democratic votes? >> bill, i -- well, i think if there was a way to have solved this prior to today, we wouldn't be -- >> does the white house -- you who closely does the white house monitor the tea party convention? >> i didn't watch it at all. >> do you see the tea party

movement as a real political force this year? >> look, i -- it seems to be a very successful private enterprise. i would say that there appear to be fewer speech makers unemployed in this economy than what might have been previously reported. i think whether you're part of an organized party, whether you are a part of a movement that has a convention, i think what we saw in 2008, what we saw in massachusetts, what we see across the country is a great deal of anxiety about what we have been through. we discussed this a little on friday when we talked about the jobs report. the reformulation of how many jobs have been lost in this recession, 8.4 million, exceeds

what had been lost in the recession of 1981, the recession of 1991, and the recession of 2001 combined. so for a long period of time this anxiety has built. whether you're, again, a democrat or republican, an independent, a member of the tea party movement, you want to see this town be able to sit down and talk about their differences, but also not just focus on their differences. i notice a lot of questions in here focus on what we disagree on what we agree on. i think the president wants to sit down in the bipartisan meeting and talk about the economy and jobs. sit down in a bipartisan meeting to talk about health care to find some agreement on what we are for. there are plenty of outlets for people to discuss what they are against. what the american people want us to do is come together and make some progress and move forward

in what we agree on to help their lives. to help them pay for a college education. to help give this economy restarted again. to help them get the credit they need to start or expand the small business. that's what the american people want to see this town work on. i think that's what the president wants to work on, too. thanks, gentlemen. >> the $780 billion economic stimulus bill was signed into law a year ago. so far $333.5 billion has been committed. $179 billion has been paid out. you can keep track of some of the projects an spending by going to our website c-span.org/stimulus. for educators, c-span offers the

new c-span classroom.cog. we have redesigned the website to make it more useful for teachers the most current and timely c-span videos for use in the classroom. you can find the most watched video clips. the latest in education news. plus the chance to connect with other c-span classroom teachers. it's all free. sign up at the new c-span classroom.org from the recent world economic forum in switzerland, a discussion on climate change with panelists including the mexican president and massachusetts representative edward markey. it's about an hour and 10 minutes. i am president of the united nations foundation and it is my privilege to help to moderate this important panel. the topic today is, let me read from the agenda.

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

the operative words were to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system. quito who came -- that came five years after the convention was ratified by 180 some odd countries. the u.s. was the sixth country to ratify the basic climate treaty. kyoto was the first implementation protocol to the treaty. that was 1997. it was at kyoto that the distinction was developed between specifically what the responsibilities of developed countries were going to be, the so-called annex 1 countries and what developing countries, everybody else, should do, the so-called non-indexn-annex one

countries. the initial purpose was to design a treaty in which nations could come together in agreement about what a global strategy should be, related to climate change. when you hear reference to c ops, it means conference of the parties. all the countries ratified the climate treaty. their members of the -- they are members of what occurred. the conference of the parties, mexico will be the host of the next c.o.p., so president caldron has an important function. what we're talking about today

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

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

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

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

minister for the india perspective on what happened, some interesting and different negotiations occurred. then a long time member of congress to respond from the perspective of the developed world. then we will turn it over to president calderon who has the responsibility for guiding us into the next year. we will ask two industry people, the vice president of deutschebank to talk about their perspective on next steps, as were some important since the private sector is planning a larger role and must be brought much more to the fore.

will have a discussion among ourselves back and forth and we will save the final 20 minutes for questions from the audience. with that, do you want to kick this off? >> thank you. i would like to begin by talking about what copenhagen was not. copenhagen did not deliver an agreement on a second target period under the kyoto protocol. copenhagen did not deliver an agreement under the nearly blinding instruments in the climate change convention. it did not deliver targets for individual and industrialized countries. it was not really supposed to do that. copenhagen is a step on a longer journey to come to that long term response. 15 conferences [unintelligible]

more importantly is what copenhagen did do. what it did deliver is an incredibly important political statement. after the chaos we saw there was because 120 heads of state and government came to copenhagen. 120 had some state and government express their concern -- expressed their concern. perry. . . . providing $100 billion a year to developing nations. specific pledges of $28 billion in short-term finance were made, but there was also in that political package an important

political agreement on a financial architecture, on a technology agenda moving forward. the agreement also indicates that we will make reforming by countries for frequent. that actions will be reported on, monitored, and verified especially if there is international financial support. so basically the architecture was put in place. what i see flowing from that architecture, our commitments at the national level. yesterday evening when i was in high hotel room on my blackberry came in the commitment of the united states and moving forward. china, india, brazil, mexico, south africa, core korea, a host of nations around the world are moving forward to address the issue of climate change, energy prices, energy security incould he herent, countries are moving forward at the national level, whatever they felt about the outcome in copenhagen. what we need to do in moving forward towards mexico is to

ensure we put an international architecture in place, a regulatory framework that allows countries to move forward on the basis of a level playing field both politically and economically. so in that sense copenhagen will not please the lawyers in the room but i think that copenhagen has given an important signal to the politicians and economists in the room. economists. >> in copenhagen of very important group came together. brazil, south africa, india, and china. shyam saran, would like to give us your perspective on what came out of that? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me clarify that, as far as the four major developing countries, they were very clear in their minds that they would like to see a comprehensive, balanced, and equitable outcome

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

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

it is not the multilateral -- even in multilateral conference, which have meetings and sideburns discussing various outstanding issues. what is very important is that we always bring that back to the multilateral group. that is one reason copenhagen did not deliver. i think we should be very careful that we do not trashed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @n copenhagen -- from the perspective of the >> i think what happened in copenhagen was there was a very significant step forward. not as far as we wanted to go, but has now put in place just pointed to the requirement that

all the major players have to make a commitment. and put it in writing, and the united states yesterday put in writing their commitment to a 17% reduction by 2020 of greenhouse gases. 42% by 2030. and 83% by 2050. that's a huge commitment. we had an election in massachusetts last week, the politics likely changed but the policy did not. president obama in his state of the union address on wednesday night made it very clear that he was fully committed to passing comprehensive energy and climate legislation this year. we have already completed that process in the house of representatives.

the senate is now considering it. but i think that if anyone had any doubts, the president removed it on wednesday night. yesterday the united states made their commitment to the world. and i think what happened in copenhagen with secretary clinton announcing the united states intention to lead the effort to produce $100 billion a year commitment to developing countries, to help the finance deforestation prevention efforts. and transfer of new energy technologies to developing countries should remove all doubts that the united states is prepared to be a leader partnering with other countries in the world. and partnering with other countries in the world. the planet has a fever, there are no emergency rooms for planets. we have to act together to put in place the preventive measures that will assure that

we do not see the most catastrophic consequences. the president call the wrong, it is over to you. people think there is direction in the right move -- >> president calderon, it is over to you. people think there is direction in the right move. >> a lot you will be very welcome in cancun at the end of the year. one thing we need to do is try to learn from our mistakes in copenhagen and the previous part of that. one thing we need to do is reestablished trust and confidence between the parties. in order to do so, i want to hear all the voices, we want to bring to the table each and every country.

we need to understand that there are very different perceptions of the problem, very different economic and political interests. there are legitimate interests. it is not the same -- the perception of all nations. they could lose their territory -- it is not the same vision for developing countries. it is not the same vision of developed countries in europe and the united states. the idea is to hear everyone. the prime minister and other members of the international community tried to establish a method in which we can work all

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

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

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

ordinary people in developing and developed countries. there are more than 2000 tourists in peru that are stuck by mud -- in europe, something is paralyzing the economic activity. a few years ago in france, thousands of people died because of high temperatures. we need to act now. mexico has a clear commitment in order to achieve these comprehensive, robust, and substantial agreements. >> mr. president, thank you. maybe the magic words are substantial agreement. we will come back and talk about how we did find that -- how we define that.

another point that you made was that we must start taking action to date. carlos ghosn, one of the key variables in climate change car emissions from transportations. you have been at the center of transformation of that industry. when you hear him say we have to start taking action today, what does that say to you? >> let me talk about the mexican commitment. mexico was the first developing country -- we were the first in developing countries to establish a unilateral, unconditional commitment to reduce 50 million tons a year starting in 2012. we are submitting our commitment in order to reduce 30% are emissions from business as usual by the year 2020 and 50% by the

year 2015. in mexico, we are working to prevent deforestation. we are being very aggressive in terms of re-forestation. we used to lose 300,000 acres per year. today, we are preventing deforestation and report stating -- read-for a single many -- re-foresting many acres per year. we're improving technology and trying to transform transportation and apply new mechanisms to massive waste of transportation in the cities. my point is that it is -- for the mexican economy, we suffered a recession almost 7%-

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

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

approach, you are pushing industry to have good representation. representation of the industry is a problem. we have been working towards one common position and we were not successful. recently, after three years of work, we came with one statement which will be official today, signed by four ceos of the car industry, because most of them did not want to sign. we represent a substantial part of the car industry. if we do not push for an integrated approach, the public and governments will have some difficulty to understand what the technology is. at the end of the day, most solutions will come from innovation and from technology. the government's need to have an objective image about what it will allow you to do. we can use batteries for cars,

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

we have talked about a large pools of capital that are necessary for mitigation an adaptation in the climate area, promises made from the developed world to develop -- to the developing world. a clearly cannot come from the public sector. give us your view. you thought long and hard about the vehicles that may be necessary and possible. >> &ah)a# @ sectors -- so to speak, the group of countries committed to action is expanded. the basic countries are very important element in that. we have that outline of what could be a future financing mechanism.

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

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

acquisitions -- it can push the second prong forward which would reinforce and lead back into the first prong, which is the u.n. process. i would not -- there is evidence, even within the u.s., that of national entities -- that sub-national entities could come together and formed these small coalitions to move on certain agenda items. the third prong is leadership from the private sector to identify this as a major opportunity, not a burden. opportunities for future growth and innovation, led with big projects. we are involved in many of these. we have big ambition of bringing 15% of the electorate did -- electricity requirements of europe from solar power.

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

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

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

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

>> if this does not happen legislatively, the president has many authorities administratively, correct? but if i may, yes. we had a very important -- >> if i may, yes. we had a very important supreme court decision. we have the executive level authority to regulate a greenhouse gases and co2. it is no longer a question of whether the legislation passes or not. it does not, the president has the authority to regulate, even without legislation. if we pass legislation, it allows us to moderate the impact on industries, consumers, and put in different trade protections. even in the absence of that, although it will be a less refined process, the environmental protection agency

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

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

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

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

have at least five rounds of talks amongst the groups that have been set up, because we believe that if this is as urgent and compelling as a problem that we need to try to resolve that problem. that is one important thing. the second thing i would like to mention is that the basic countries, despite the fact that they are developing countries, have also agreed to work together to help other developing countries in the spirit of cooperation. we want them to meet the challenge of adaptation and mitigation. this is the spirit in which we will approach these negotiations. but if i'm president calderon -- >> if i am president calderon's staff, i am taking note. smaller like-minded sectors like the automobile industry are coming together. we've got a $100 billion package that is arriving and

different kinds of financial models from the finance sector. the u.s.'s commitment to act, basic countries agreed to act, came together in new delhi and agreed -- agreed to act. sounds like a piece of cake. why is this so hard? >> i think the president -- i think president calderon made it so hard, it's so hard because different countries have different interests in this process and because different industries have very different interests in this process. like any other process, there will be winners and there will be losers and the losers are very vocal in this process. as president calderon pointed out, what we need to do is find a balanced way forward. what we need to do is make the cake bigger and make sure we are offering solutions for different countries and different sectors of the economy. that's why it's so important that we're not only talking

about reducing emission bus we're also talking about adapting to the impact of climate change and the issue of deforestation and mobilizing technology and we're also talking about mobilizing financial support for developing countries to try to create a scenario in which there will be, maybe not something in it for everyone, but hopefully something in it for as many companies and countries as possible and in that context, i want to say, if i may, tim, something about finance, because there's 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 are going to subsidize our way out of climate change and that we need to subsidize our way out of climate change. our way of climate change. let me give you three reasons. the ipcc, the scientific community has been telling us for 15 years that we can reduce

global emissions by 30% by taking action that will pay at all back to lower -- with lower electricity bills in three to dilute five years. i do not believe that it is physically possible to continue to grow the chinese economy at 8% or 9% a year using the current economic model. it cannot be done. thirdly, i believe that europe's target of a 20% to 30% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is not an environmental target, but an economic target, energy security target. there is an economic agenda at the heart of this. it takes me to a very important point made by carlos. it is buying an important that park -- that we have targets. it is more important that we get to those partnerships that will design a solution -- the

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

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

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

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

raise your hand and a microphone will come in your direction. stand up, introduce yourself, and as your question. -- and ask your question. >> i am from zimbabwe. >> who do you direct your question to? >> president of mexico. one of our challenges is a mentality where we address the global challenges in isolation and deal with climate change and have another agenda on poverty, development, hiv, aids. we need to address these matters in a political manner. because some nations are more concerned about developing an hiv aids, -- and hiv/aids. as you pursue the agenda and are not as vociferous on the issues

affecting other communities, you're ineffective. >> we're moving away from the question. the key part of the question is there. mr. >> how do we unlock the interconnectedness between the challenges so that we can make a holistic and sustainable solution? and a terrific question. mr. president. what makes this so hard? >> let me try to answer in this way. the first time i listened about global warming was in the '70s -- the 1970's. my father was quoting special research. it was famous research about our common future. there were talking about as now

and global warming -0- snow and global warming. there are two gaps that are threatening the future of human beings. they are the gap between the environment and the rich and the port. it is true. the only way to overcome these challenges is to connect the solutions of both problems. the way to do so is to establish an economic system in which we can fix the environmental challenges and provide economic opportunities for the poorest people in the world. is it possible? yes, that is possible. one thing we need to see will

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

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

in their commitment to preserve the rain forests. they're getting jobs, coming out of poverty, and we are preserving the air and water we need. >> excellent question. all the way on the end to the left. >> thank you very much. i'm from south africa. a comment first before my question. the targets taken by the developing countries must be understood in depth. it is common but differentiated. we have committed in india and south africa. we're moving away from business

issues. 42% in 2025 on condition that new technologies are made available. we do not have the finances or the technology. it does not mean that individual countries we have no programs. there are programs. there are opportunities in our country. we a programs to deal with the effects of climate change. -- we have programs to deal with the attacks of climate change. it is directed to yvo. would it be possible for you to speed up the process? really, we are all eager to see cancun succeed. we need to meet under the auspices of your agency.

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

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

tomorrow, the consumers of tomorrow, the workers of tomorrow. to convince the to convince the steel industry, the aluminum industry, that they should move forward, what we're saying is we're going to give them a long transition period, but if there are countries that try to ex-ploid this incredible commitment we're going to be willing to make to our environmental side, that we are going to ensure that that kind of cooperation is not exploited in erm to -- in terms of the loss of jobs in the united states. that said, i think at the end of the day, we'll never have any protectionism because i think the kinds of agreements that are going to be reached in mexico and subsequently are going to ensure there is transparency that there is verification and that there is cooperation amongst the nations

of the world so there never will be the implementation of protectionist measures by the united states or any other developed country in the world. >> excellent question. let me come over here. i thought i saw a hand here. maybe we want to come back over here, on the second row. here we are. >> i'm from brazil, one of the concerns 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] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> you're watching c-span, created by the nation's cable

companies, offered as a public service. here's what's ahead. next, a discussion on the middle east peace process. then, president obama makes a surprise visit to the white house briefing room to talk with reporters. and later, first lady michelle obama talks about childhood obesity. a live picture here of the capitol grounds. this is in front of the senate terrace fountain, you can see the small reflecting pool has been converted into a dumping ground for accumulated snow. an additional 10 to 20 inches has been forecast for the mid atlantic region, causing the federal government to shut down. fox news is reporting that the national guard will be called out to help with storm preparations and cleanup. meanwhile, congressional quarterly writing that senate majority leader harry reid

intends to push for a vote by this weekend on job creation legislation though that storm appears to be making the senate schedule increasingly tenuous. the associated press reports a draft bill includes a $10 billion plan to exempt companies from paying the employer's share of social security income taxes for new hires if they are unemployed and hired this year. >> tune in to c-span2's "book tv" for a three-day president's day week. authors including henry paulson talking with warren buffett on the 2008 economic collapse. on "afterwords," gary wills on how the atomic bomb changed the presidency and the role of the u.s. and the world. "afterwords" reairs sunday night. all daymond, books on american presidents.

craig shirley on ronald reagan. for the complete schedule go to book tv.org. >> it's the only collection of american presidential portraits painted by one artist. american presidents life portraits now on display at purdue university in west lafayette, indiana, through february 21. the exhibit looks at the thrivets 43 men who held the office through paintings, photographs, prints and audio recordings. sponsored by c-span and the white house historical association. if you can't get to west lafayette, see the entire collection on line at americanpresidents.org. >> last week, palestinian and israeli journalists gathered for the first time in jerusalem to discuss the israeli-palestinian conflict with the knesset. speakers include the israel

deputy foreign minister and the speaker of the knesset. following their remark, they took questions from the audience. this about an hour and 20 minutes. >> yettings and welcome. it is wonderful to have each and every one of you here despite how difficult it was this morning getting into the knesset. i'm proud to open this session of the middle east peace club. -- press club. please turn off your cell phones and ipt to take a moment to acknowledge the board member here's todaymark are sick. as you can hear from my voice, unfortunately, -- can you

please stand up? cashman, audiocassetteman hamid, these are some of the distinguished board members that are on the board of the mid east press club. the mid east press club brings local israeli and other members of the press club. we encourage other press members to observe. i'd like to reck nise connie, and i want to address our distinguished guests who will be addressing us, and offer them my thank, and the impressive group of editors and bureau chiefs that are here. thank you for being here.

>> it's about democracy and no group is more important to democracy than the press. being here today inside of israel's knesset is testimony to its democracy. actually, i don't think we could have accidentally made 500 phone calls and sent the hundreds of emails it took to pull this all together. but if democracy is in any part judged by press freedom that freedom demands access and today the palestinian participants of the mid east press club are willing granted the access to necessary to fulfill their nournlistic roles and so necessary to israel's own sense of the democratic process. for this, i thank and applaud speaker rivlin, who i think

will -- who i hope will join us today, and all of our parties pants who cleared their calendars to be here today because they do indeed realize how important today's event is. when we created the middle east press club in 2005, we were concerned that interaction and cooperation were casual fis of -- casualties of the intifada. the result was journalistcally intolerable. reporters on both sides were denied access by the other and without access, complete stories could not be told. the mideast press club began to rebuild communication by introducing israeli reporters to their palestinian colleagues. we held events and chartered bustos bring colleagues together in tel aviv and other polices. today, with the minister of minorities, deputy foreign

minister, deputy speaker, and member of knesset who is the chairman of the foreign affairs and defense committee, we're taking a giant step forward as palestinian participants are here of the -- as invited guests, free to interface with a cross section of israeli political thoughts. this is a key point today. our palestinian members are being welcomed not by a single israeli lawmaker but by the speaker who carries with imthe imprimatur of the state and representatives of the major parties. ladies and gentlemen, you can't be more official than this. yet some will no doubt see a glass that's half empty and assign blame for the fact that palestinian journalists have not been regular participants among press covering events here. but this historic needs a push and we're delighted to do a pushing. as an american organization,

the medialine is once again proud to offer its us a pisses in support of democracy. that's the theme of today's session, symbols of democracy, speaking for the record. we're meet in the most visible manifestation of israeli democracy, the knesset. we're joined by the most visible figure of israeli democracy. this will accompany the palestinian people into statehood. we want to welcome speaker rivlin, thank you for being with us. in all honesty, the first sessions of the mideast press club were marked by ap rep hention and caution as attendees from both sides openly questioned what would be gained by their participation. it was only after several

sessions after exchanging business cards and cell phone numbers that we all realized how productive it is to have someone in place to run down sources to meet a deadline. i'm sure we all relate to that. the mideast is an amazing laboratory for the study of democracy. even the most cursory evaluation can be quickly accomplished by looking at a nation's press freedom and the degree to which its infrastructure creates a system of checks and balances on its leadership. at this time, i want to call on knesset member amebi and i want to thank minister for being here, i know you're not going to be able to stay, so we're going to take a moment for you to say a few words. >> mr. speaker, my

distinguished colleagues, deputy minister and the one and only one, mr. tibi, when i used to visit at the european, i know i had protection because i went together with mr. tibi. i apologize because in five minutes, the director general of the oecd and the finance minister are gathering in the cabinet in a meeting which i didn't know until yesterday i have to participate in. i will just say israeli democracy is a vibrant democracy. yes, we have to fight for democracy every day the way the speaker is fighting, the way we all are and i'll say one piece about the israeli arabs. i feel that while the eal arabs, 20% of the population,

are voting as israeli jews, palestine and the neighboring countries this government, which i hope, my intention and the prime minister told me by the end of this month, we shall say also in the immediating of the oecb, we committed ourselves for a meeting with decisions of the government to change essentially the location for the israeli arabs, to a large extent it's because government did not give the sam allocation of resources to arabs and jews and so i believe if you are from what we call the jabotonski order, people from the liberal right, or if you are from the left of center, this is something that

should be done, it's not only just, it's not only noble, it proves we practice what we preach but it's good for the jews and good for the economy because the growth of israel in the future will be based not only on the democratic system but based on two populations, the ultra orthodox that have to be -- but the arab population of 20% is eager to participate fully in the labor force in all its power and all my intention and i believe many, all of the members here, believe in that and i do all in my power that indeed, as the prime minister promised, we'll judge this government. when the meeting will come because it's insufficient. my last point, we gather the prime minister and myself and

leading israeli businessmen two days before the president went to the area and all of the leaders, jews and arabs, say we have to commit ourselves in israel to a new deal concerning the israeli-arab population. the largest corporation admits it didn't do what it should have done and 2010 is a critical year. i told the prime minister he can be their greatest leader but has to follow the path of -- we offer the partnership of israeli arabs not only in voting but in other resources. i apologize and if you continue

i'll come to answer questions after the meeting with the finance minister and secretary general. thank you. >> thank you, minister. he's a professor as well. he was the president of the university of the negev and minister of minorities. at this time, i want to call upon member of knesset -- he helped do what he could to make this happen. let's just share a few words about him. member of knesset has served in the knesset for more than 20 years during which time he's held numerous senior positions in governments including several ministerial portfolios. he currently chairs the

important foreign affairs and defense committee. he holds degrees in administration and law. thank you very, very much. >> i would like to welcome, the chairman, the speaker, who made a special effort to be here today. i want to welcome my colleagues and of course all the journalists who are here today. we have hosts and we have guests and we have muslims an christians and jewish people, we have parliamentarians from both the coalition and the opposition but put aside the

distinctions and differences, you will find that all of us here share a common vision. we are all really united. we are united because we have a common commitment to preserve and enhance the palestinian-israeli dialogue. this is what unites us all. we're not presummits you to take the role of the negotiator. we don't have the authority nor the skills for that. but our decision to initiate this unprecedented event today marks our recognition that israeli and palestinian media can have huge importance and influence on the peace process and on the future of the people. millions of israelis and palestinians do not personally sit in the negotiation rooms

and they don't sit at the negotiation table but they read the newspapers and think listen to the radio and they watch th net so if israeli and palestinian journalists will get to know each other better, their consumers will gain a better understanding of our two societies. once an israeli reporter and a palestinian one can communicate in an open matter, they'll be able to describe the fears and frustrations and hopes of both peoples in a most genuine spirit. the way to peace and reconciliation passes through fair and objective media. an honest heeduator affects ideas and emotion. this is why the work of the mideast club and the media line

is so crucial. this is why i accepted the challenge and agreed to host today's meeting and this is why i encourage you all to proceed relentlessly with your vital activities, eventually they'll bear historic fruit. i wish us all a very fruitful and successful deliberation. thank you all. [applause] >> thank you. >> you're beating me to it. i actually have a gift for you. >> thank you so very much. >> mr. speaker, allow me. ok. .

when israeli and palestinian journalists had no opportunity to chase down a lead, conduct an interview or even pull the

men and women on the opposite street because of the bridaled violence. mr. speaker, although barriers to complete reporting are not as grave as they once were, obstacles do continue, along with tensions and apprehensions, they stadly remain. your unhesitating willingness to host this historic meeting complete with the presence of the leading palan journalists alongside their israeli counterparts pays tribute to this body and its speaker. realizing the fin exrable link between democracy and a free and dynamic press. you have today take an significant step towards the enhancement of media coverage of this region and a better global understanding of its complicated issues by virtue of the resulting enhancements of the journalism practiced here. in appreciation of your efforts and for your commitment to a democratic process, on this, the 19th day of january, 2010, we thank you.

>> thank you very much. chairman of the defense and foreign affair committee, deputy minister, deputy speaker of the knesset, i welcome you to the slinal of israel democracy, the israeli parliament, the knesset. and i must say that most of the compliments that were addressed to me through this letter belongs to someone else. i adopted his initiative and i think it is very important one. israel is the jewish democratic state and by this very definition we have a conflict. conflict that we stand behind. the conflict between the idea of a jewish state, with the right of return to a jewish state, only to jews, while we

have here among us people who were born in the historic land that jews believe that there is the homeland and we have to find a way in order to breach between the idea of israel as a jewish state and as israel as a democratic state. sometimes tsdz almost unbreachble -- sometimes it's almost unbreachble and we have a debate. we have a debate between jews and arabs, between jews and muslims. we have debate between jews and jews because the definition of a jewish state, what does it mean? jewish state according to the bible, according to the judicial ideas of the orthodox people on the jewish side, and

the same idea, how come we can say that it is a jewish democratic state but, no one of the members can change this definition to define israel as a jewish state and on the same time to say that no one can change the nature of israel as a democratic one. and that we got to a lot of confrontations, a lot of debates, a lot of differences of opinion. nevertheless we -- every one of us, also those who were brought not as socialists because i have no ability to patronize anyone, because i was -- [inaudible] and that caused me a lot of problems because i consider everyone as a human being and although i believe in the right of the jews to create their

homeland, their own state and to return back to the homeland, we have a lot of thoughts because of that conflict, because this is a conflict between two people, both of them are absolutely believe that they are on the right side. and i would like to say one thing. here in my family -- have come to israel 100 years ago only because my an set ofers believed that they should not pray to jerusalem three times a day, but they should go and live in jerusalem and they have left -- [inaudible] . they have come to jerusalem only because they say, why should we pray every day three times, return us back, dear god, to jerusalem? we have returned back and we have found all our friends, all our neighbors, we came out very good neighbors and very good friends here in jerusalem,

although during the years we had some ups and downs. and we learned to understand that we are not doomed to live together, not in the middle east, not in israel. we are to live together and we have to find a way to live together, sometimes we have differences of opinion about the way. i have a very good relationship with all the palestinian, israelis with who are serving in the knesset, but in the same time, our ideas almost unbreachble. nevertheless we know very well that there is no way to deport us, that there is no way for us but to learn how to live with the conflict or to find a way -- [inaudible] i welcome you once again. unfortunately this is a date that we have an annual meeting with the high court judges in israel and i apologize that i

will have to leave this forum, although it would be -- i would be delighted to hear what you have to say, but welcome once again to the knesset shrine of israel democracy. thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, speaker ruben rive lynn and thank you for your time and the very important thoughts that he shared. departmentsy foreign minister was elected to the knesset for a term as israel's ambassador to the united states. but before that he advised prime ministers in the area of foreign policy. deputy minister returned to a political career, took up leadership as chairman of an organization organization and is well known in his current position. please share a few words.

thank you. >> thank you, good morning. the honorable, the chairman of the defense and foreign affairs committee of the knesset, the honorable tv member of knesset and deputy speaker of the house , felice and michael, media line, i want to also to congratulate four this great, great initiative and for all your work that you are doing every day. i also welcome the board of media line and a member of the press, israeli press, arab, palestinian press and international press. i think that such events are the most significant in really achieving what we all try to achieve here which is peaceful reconciliation which is really co-existence, dignity among everybody, justice among everybody, and many do it.

on the people level it's much more significant, it's longer lasting, hopefully everlasting, than just protocols or agreements between rulers or governments. as the speaker of the house said here, we are destined to live here together and i think that the living here together will be much better for all of us in terms of sharing resources, in terms of building a future together, in terms of in a way burying the past without forgetting it, but burying it would be much better if we all believed that this is not a zero sum game and unfortunately at this point i'm not sure that all of us, and i'm not blaming any one side here because this is not the idea here, but i'm not sure that people understand that

this is not, not a zero sum game. i think that by reconciliations, by working together everybody will stand to gain. now, let me tell you one thing which may be a little bit provocative but it's not. when i hear that the goal, everybody says the goal now is a two-state solution. i'm sorry to say this does not really speak to me. it does not really speak to me because it is so narrowly defined. it is so narrowly defined because a two-state solution could be anywhere and everywhere and if you don't put the real content to it, this is meaningless. i say that the real definition of our objective should be peace. should be historic reconciliations between

palestinians and israelis, between arabs and jews. throughout the middle east. this should be the real goal, the goal should be peaceful co-existence, dignity, justice and security to all. which will bring prosperity to all. now, if, if the way to this goal of real peace is through a two-state solution, let it be two-state solution which is fine. but don't put this as the panacea to all the problems. because the panacea to all the problems is once we respect each other, and i do understand that at this point because emotions may be are too high -- maybe are too high, we can't really discuss effectively the past. palestinians have their narrative, they have the right

for their own narrative, just as jews and israelis have the righter to to their own narrative -- right for their own narrative. do i say to many of my palestinian friends, at this point there is no really point to argue about the past. we will never agree. let's build a future together. and we can build a future together and if you look at what this government did from day one, april 1 of last year, it's been now nine months, we went a long way. first by realizing the two-state solution is the way to achieve the peace that we all want. prime minister netanyahu started with this historic speech, i may say, because it comes from a likud prime minister about a two-state solution at a university. then it went on by reiterating this and by trying to move

forward in terms of bringing the palestinian into a table and sit and discuss everything but everything together all the tough issues, off refugee, off jerusalem, off territories, off everything else without any preconditions, with open minds and open heart. let me tell you here that the leadership role, the leadership role today is to really breach the gap between the national dreams and visions of their people and reality. these -- this goes for palestinian leaders as it goes for israeli leaders. i will not speak for palestinian leaders and i'll be happy to later discuss it, but of course i'm not authorized to speak about palestinian leaders. so let me just tell you about israeli leadership in the last 16 years. the last 16 years of the peace

process that started, also the process that started in 1993. if you recall, it started with a joint declaration of recognition between the p.l.o. signed by arafat and by then the israeli government signed by the then late prime minister , it was a mutual recognition, was also a commitment by all sides to sew all the -- solve all the differences in a peaceful way. in a dignified way. no more terrorism, no more violence. this was the initial recognition of each other and this was the cornerstone for the entire political process which was to ensue later on. now, if you look at the israeli position from day one, 16 years ago until now, there was an evolution -- an evolution almost on a daily basis because it is quite customary, it is

natural, it is understandable that when two sides sit together there are very, very tough opening positions. this goes for business, this goes for politics, this goes for diplomacy, almost every thing in life. you want to buy an apartment, the seller wants to put the highest price, the buyer wants to put the minimum price and then somehow they bridge together and they meet half way. if you look at these the israeli position from 1993 on, when there was a consensus in 1993 and if you took polls in 1993 about a palestinian state, i would submit to you that probably 75% of israelis would deny or -- the possibility or would very much object a palestinian state. this was back in 1993. if you fast forward to where we

are today, i would say that 75%, maybe even more, if the security and the right terms are achieved, 75% and more of israelis believe and accept a palestinian state. this is an enormous, enormous change that did not happen just by chance. it happened because successive israeli governments from the right or from the left educated the people, worked at a solution which again would be a real reconciliation, a historic peace between arabs and jews here in this really very small piece of land for all of us. so -- and we did some real steps and i take some pain in

elaborating it because i think there is a chance here to explain to our palestinian friends here in the house, to see how it is from our perspective the more we share this, your perspective and our perspective, without filters of noise from all kinds -- i think this is the better. so if you look from 1993, as i said, to now, israel first signed on the internment before 1994, 1995, creating the palestinian authority, the palestinian authority gained control over more than 50% of president land, certainly all the populated areas, the six major towns in jew daya and sue maria or the west bank, with almost full authority. later on we signed more agreements, have broad agreement which is we also

carried out and there were talks about agreements, two-state solution, evacuation of settlements. is it time to go? oh, i just started now. >> we agree about evacuation of settlements. >> ok. this is a start. >> you heard it here. >> yes. i would also like to agree about other things. israel is trying to do a lot of things, including settlements evacuation in gaza, including talking about sharing the land, including now a settlement freeze, maybe it's not perfect as you like, it but i always say, as they say in washington, that the enemy of the good is the perfect. let's settle for the good here. and as we say now, we're moving to discuss everything. i wish, i wish also that we would see the same kind of a

preparation of the public in terms of less incitement and acceptance of the other side's ability, legitimacy, rights, inherent rights to be here, and i think this is the key. if we agree on that, and if we agree that this is not a zero sum game, then the sky's the limit. thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you, deputy foreign minister. ahmed tibi. he was born in tie about a and studied medicine at the hebrew university in jerusalem. dr. tibi is one of the knesset's most recognizable figures as the leading roadways among arab intellectuals. he has participated in international negotiations and has suggested defining israels a a multicultured -- israel as a multicultured country. and member of the knesset and

deputy speaker. please. >> thank you, felice. i will try to thank you a lot about this unique gathering ff israelis and palestinians. israeli journalists and palestinians here in the knesset. all israeli journalists were able to arrive, not all palestinian journalists were able to arrive. i think no one from gaza is here. no one from gaza was permitted. part of those from the west bank were also preeventualitied from arriving here. the one represented was allowed , an english edition of mahn. i hope he will be -- american.

and he is arrested in the airport. still more more than -- four days or more than that. five days. i hope he will be released in order to call in a loud voice to soon release him and to allow his free access to wherever he wants as a journalist. py can't start this gathering this meeting without to say that i feel ewe for ibbling sitting -- ewe foric sitting much more higher than you than ayalon with your desk and my podium but i think you can feel how it is to sit any lower than others. >> [inaudible] >> not here yet.

and it is very unique to be up. in israel it is much more unique and tough experience to be an arab in theky netity. it's -- in the knesset. it's a very interesting place. but it is a daily struggle. it's a daily struggle in order to try to bridge the gap. it is a daily struggle in order to be equal. it is almost impossible. especially in this 18th knesset, 18th session of theky net he is -- i can necessary et, where a lot of -- of the knesset, where a lot of motions were proposed, which is mainly focusing in an unequal right for arab citizens and trying to push us as legislaters to be

cornered. and this is the way that i can tackle the speech of mr. livrin and mr. ayaalon, deputy foreign minister, which is demanding from us, trying to inform, to enforce arab m.k.'s to declare reality to jewish and zionist state, demanding from arab members of the knesset to be loyal to zionism. you know, it is almost black and white. it is obvious and total contradiction. because there are two narratives which are almost as speaker rivlin said, knt be breached.

the zionist narrative and the palestinian narrative. you know what happened in 1948, the palestinian narrative and there is the zionist narrative. palestinians at 1948 and from then to now victims of the zionist ideology. no one can inform the victim to be loyal to those who acted against them. i am talking about deportation, destruction of the whole nation, but we do believe that dual arabs are citizens in the same state of israel should be equal. before 10 or 15 years there were no motions, no laws, mainly talking about discrimination between jews and arabs. this barrier was broken.

now there are those mainly especially under the title of israel and definition as a jewish state. israel defining itself as a jewish and democratic state, look jewish before democratic. it is not just like that. we do believe that there is a contradiction betweenñr the two values. being defined as a democratic, you should lead mainly equal rights for all citizens,ñi but you cannot deal in equal -- [inaudible] between ahmed and danny if you're defining israel as a

jewish state because according to thisñi definition, danny wil be superior to ahmed just because he is jewish and because i am arab. i conduct at any case we will not accept any kind of this discrimination based on ethic background. to be a democratic state it is to be -- to deal in equal way. last week, last week i issued a motion in the knesset, i proposed the equal value in a location of land between all citizens. i asked for modification of the law to say that israel will locate lands to all ex-citizens in equal terms.

at the ministerial special committee for legislation no one minister supporting my motion, no one. minister, as aky net he is -- i can necessary et, there was a vast majority who voted -- as -- at the knesset there was a vast majority who voted against my motion and again it was not supported by the knesset. i would like to tell you that in the basic laws of the knesset, of israel, there is no one basic law talking about equality as a value. and if i will ask to have a motion talking about equal rights, basic law, demanding equal rights for all citizens, not jews and arabs -- arabs, for all, men and women deprks

secular and religious and arabs and jews, it will not pass, it will not pass. we tried it. i demand equal rights with dan ayalona. i am being intimidated by the time. >> so was i. >> i guess i -- i guess you have something in common. >> i would like to at the end, minister talked about his meeting with the director. it is time to say that according to the oecd rules israel should deal with equal rights with all citizens, jews and arabs, israel is not. there is -- there are -- there is no one level, as expect on the life of israels that there

is equal right dealing between jews and arabs. budgetings, allocation of land, education, housing, if islamic properties, infrastructure, that's why i do appeal here from here to secretary general of the oecd not to approve the membership of israel unless there are equal rights and equal budgets for arab citizens exactly like jew citizens in israel. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, member of knesset, ahmad tibby. that brings us full circle, no pun intended. we want to call pound, the journalists, to ask the questions. i just ask that we don't make statements, that we are able to address who we are, what outlet that we are speaking for and to

whom you are going to address the question. i'm going to bring in the translator and our lovely translator is going to come and join us so that any questions that are asked in arabic are going to be translated immediately into english for this audience. so if we can please by raise of hands begin from the circle who is interested. please go up to the mike. >> i'd like to ask dr.ity by exactly what loyalty -- dr. tibi exactly what loyalty oath he's willing to take and ask my palestinian colleagues, what have you received out of this meeting? was it worth coming?

>> ok. yes, you can answer from your mikes. they're open. >> i don't like it because i am equal to danny ayalon. >> well, i'm not going to really say what's going on here. we'll start measuring tables and chairs in a minute. >> not only arab members of the knesset are not ready to declare loyalty to israel as a zionist and jew state, it religious members of the knesset are with us in this position, i respect laws but not all the laws which were passed here are holy. that's why i am trying to change some of these laws but i will not declare any loyalty to

any idea or ideology which is totally against my beliefs and my narrative. we did in every beginning of any knesset session before one year, we did declare loyalty to the laws of the state, ok? even that, i am trying to change some of these laws because they are not sacred. >> ok. sullivan is the bureau chief for the medialine. they're going to be taking the mikes around to see who else would like to ask a question. i think it will make it a little bit easier. by raise of hand. >> [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language] >> you can please try to translate or at least concise it? >> ok. the reporter's name is yousef from al ayam newspaper. he's insisting on speaking in arabic. i present the question to mr. ayalon who presents it -- what the government has been doing long ago, concerning the peace and speech that netanyahu gave but it's contradictory to what is going on on the ground, as far as that settlements and the failure in negotiations, there is grave change happened since 15 years ago, that is true, but my question is, how can we re-instate and go back to peace

talks and negotiations if in fact netanyahu is canning or is demanding or -- asking or demanding or insisting a state without any clear borders, no control over the borders, he's not talking about jerusalem or the return of refugees, thank you, we are talking about no country, i didn't learn anything like this in the political science that a country can be established without having security, without having control over security without having a capital which we consider as its capital. >> thank you. indeed what we see here is something which is unique for political science because we're talking here about -- of

creation, of a new state, has not existed before, and you will see that the irony of history is that the palestinian state will be created by the jewish state and by the jews. however let me tell you that all the parameter that you mentioned -- parameter that you mentioned should not be -- parameters that you mentioned should not be considered because this is what we're trying to do behind closed doors. if you really want to take and make effective negotiations, you stated quite eloquently the demants from the palestinian side. we have our own demands and we should meet halfway in between. however, let me draw attention to everybody here that on two cases in the past eight, 10 years, there was a very, very comprehensive offer by israeli governments that put on the table once by former prime minister barack in 2000 in camp

david, the second by former prime minister olmert just a year and a half ago, one was to arafat, one was to mahmud abbas , with very exact parameters, as you discussed, including borders and, unfortunately they were rejected. this is not helpful for coming into reconciliations. but let me tell you also something that my good friend, ahmad tibi said, ahmad or danny, let me tell you, as an da -- danny, i tried to get into american school, which i couldn't. mr. ahmad did get into american school. he's a doctor in israel. a very respected doctor in israel. so when you talk about democracy, it's also equal rights and i believe we do have your equal rights and equal -- however, however we've -- yeah, i went also to an economic school, i didn't go to a medicine school, prestigious one, as mr. ahmad tibi did, and rightly so because he is more

competent than me so he should get it and the fact that he's not a jew, his name is ahmad, did not prevent him to become a very successful gynecologist, maybe the best in israel. when he talks about equal rights, let me say, equal rights also prescribes equal obligations and when we talk about a jewish state, a jewish state is not -- judaism is not just a religion, it's also a nationality, it's a way of life, it's a rich civilization that exist for 5,000 year years -- years or 4,000 years. now, just as jews, we know, we were in minorities for 2,000 years. as jewish minorities in arab and muslim countries, we played allegiance to islamic countries and we didn't say -- we didn't take it as an offense that as jews, but as members, as citizens of -- whether it was turkey or the ottoman empire or egypt or any other country, we were loyal to the king, we were

loyal to the country, we were loyal to whatever this country was defineded, whether it was christian or muslim. so let me emphasize here that we do not ask anything which is out of the order throughout history. and it is a double standard that arab-israelis would not accept israel as a jewish state even as a minority and especially as they do have a choice, as they do have a choice and i'm proud to say that israel -- when we talk about a solution of the two-state solutions, we do not preclude the chance that arab-israelis who do not wish to stay under israeli sovereignty and regime would go, would go, without going physically, but would change and transfer their citizenship to a palestinian citizenship. you know, there are 250,000 or 300,000 israeli-arabs who live smack dab across the green

line. when we talk about swaps of land, that the palestinians request, why not do a swap or an equal footing? if we are to incorporate a populated area that block -- blocks into israel, why not have very nice israeli villages, arabs, who will join the palestinian state? join their brothers, join their fathers. then they will not have this problem of loyalty to a state which they don't want to be in. thank you. >> thank you. and we have to be loyal to time and try to get some more questions in. thank you very much. i do want to set the record straight, mr. tibi, and let you know that there were journalists that did get permits from gaza but they had to get permission from hamas and they did not get their permission. so sometimes it's important to know for record that what you see isn't always the way it happens. anyhow, can we move on to the next -- >> you understand what she said?

-- [inaudible] >> thank you. any questions? >> i should react to mr. ayalon, especially about his remark that i was accepted to the medical school in israel and this is a sign of equal rights. i would like to say that i was accepted bazz -- because i succeeded in my exams and all what is good in me is because of me, all what is bad in me is because of discrimination against me as an arab. first of all. second, second, about the idea of moving arabs or revoking the

arab citizenship of arab citizens of the state of israel, that's why we are seeing that we cannot accept and we totally denounce -- [inaudible] of deputy minister ayalon proposing dealing with us as guests. you can move from here to there, we will not -- we were not brought here by airplanes to this homeland, we are indigenous. we were born here. we don't want to deport anyone from israel, but if anyone should move, usually those who arrive at the end lately are supposed to leave first. we were not arrived lately to this homeland. >> thank you, mr. tibby. we're going to move on. -- mr. tibi. we're going to move on. next question, please.

>> [speaking arabic] >> my question is for my colleagues, my journalists and my media colleagues. >> excuse me, could you please state her name and hamidia outlet she's with? >> my name is judy. i am from the israel broadcasting. >> thank you. >> and state it again. my question is to my colleagues , to what extent do you find that you are -- that your affect on the general society on -- to what extent do you

have an influence on the people and the population, in your community? and on your leadership as media members? >> [speaking arabic] [speaking arabic]

[speaking arabic] >> my name is ahmad hammad. i'm a freelance journalist. i also a member of the media line. i would like to answer.

we have a large extent as journalists if we are, i think, an israeli or palestinian, we are able to bring our voice forward to the leadership as well. i think this important meeting for palestinian and israeli journalist is very extremely important for their corporation on both sides. i think the leadership and the people who carry a position -- important positions, do watch the media, do follow up on what happens in -- on the media and it has great extent of influence, very positive influence on different issues because leadership members also do watch the media and what is stated on it. >> thank you very much. thank you, ahmad. any questions, please? >> [speaking arabic]

[speaking arabic] >> welcome, everyone. i work for the israeli tv in

arabic. i listen and i follow up the palestinian and the arab stations on different occasions and particularly the palestinian. what i see and what i nlingts is that the coverage -- notice is that the coverage of the palestinian or the arab stations is one-sided. usually we hear different criticism to the israeli stand and i never hear any criticism towards the palestinian authority or to the palestinian word. >> we are asking questions today. give someone else a chance first. anyone else want to ask a question? either the israeli or the foreign press? >> i'm david from the jerusalem post d. i just think, first of all, i think it's terrific that we have an opportunity to meet again, israeli and palestinian journalists, and i did make the visit to ramallah a couple of

years ago which was very useful. i think and i'm speaking to the palestinian journalists and i don't know who wants to answer this, danny ayalon set out quilet a good consensual summary that israelis i think would like to resolve the contradiction of trying to be a jewish and democratic state by reaching an accommodation with the palestinians, some kind of territorial compromise that so that the israel who is left is overwhelming jewish and maintains its democracy. what i'd like to know what would be useful i think for us to hear from some of our palestinians colleagues is what is the palestinian sort of public attitude? we heard in your question, youssef, what about the right of return? what about a capital in jerusalem? i would like some sense from you, maybe not your personal opinion, but some sense of whether the palestinian public is ready for a territorial accommodation, build the -- whether the palestinian public is prepared for palestine to absorb palestinian refugees in

the way that israel absorbed jewish refugees from the middle east and north africa? in order, whether there is really any hope of a negotiator to accommodation? because the feeling in israel is that the last government tried, couldn't make a deal and therefore there's a lot of depondencey in israel for the prose expects of finding a mid -- prospects of finding a middle ground. thank you. >> first of all, i want to address this question, any of the palestinian journalists that are here would like to respond? >> [speaking arabic]

[speaking arabic] >> please translate briefly. >> thank you for the question. the palestinian publics' attitude is very well known and clear which is towards a two-state solution and apparently that is the scene

from the elections and from the electing mahmud abbas who presented an agenda which was clear of the two-state solution and he had a higher number of votes in the election. as for the refugees, no one who is forced to leave his land, especially from the first or the second nation, will see this as an easy solution. but everybody in the palestinian -- or the palestinians feel and see the point of view of coming to co-existence and understanding that there are natural rights which are for both sides and they accept that. >> ok. question for any of the members of knesset?

>> [speaking arabic] >> i'm from east voice from

ramallah. i would like to give a reflection on what my colleague, my israeli colleague has presented that when he watches the palestinian channels, he never hears any criticism towards the palestinian government or authority, to an extent that is true because this did not come through thin air. it is something based on the ground on what happens on the ground. we are suffering as people. we demand a palestinian state, we demand the return to the borders of 1976. we demand the abolishment of settlements. we demand to have a capital of juice limb. all these demands and all these criticisms are presented toward the israeli government and to the israeli state and indeed we are demanding these and we are presenting these through our media. >> one last question.

>> if i may two, questions. first of all, to m.k. and then to danny ayalon. dr. tibi, i'm sorry. >> you can please state who you work -- >> avi. from haaretz newspaper. what can kadima party offer to the peace process that netanyahu government doesn't offer? let me ask it in another way, does kadima party have another plan? plan b? different than the one that yeten yahoo's government offers -- netanyahu's government offers? and the second question to mr. danny ayalon. do they really think that it can achieve peace or a right-wing government can achieve peace without giving eastus lem to the palestinian -- east jerusalem to the palestinians and without almost

100% of the 1976 territories? >> thank you, avi. i think the kadima party's maybe the only party in the knesset that cannot be -- there's no question mark concerning its commitment to promote the peace process. we had two prime ministers, sharon and olmert, sharon initiated the unilateral withdrawal of the gaza. proofing to go forward with painful and unprecedented concessions. and he was replaced by olmert who, as was mentioned before, gave if the suggestion to the palestinians that was unfortunately never answered and not even by

counterpositions. i guess that at the time they didn't feel comfortable to give -- [inaudible] olmert say its in the primarieship are numbers and it was not logicaler to him -- logical for him to make concessions to a prime minister that might not be relevant within days or weeks or months. so this is something that can be understood. still we are not in power now and we are not in a situation where we can negotiate. what we do support the government's efforts, if they will be genuine and real, and sincere to go forward and renew the peace process. we doubt it. but we still give the prime minister a chance and we call upon the palestinians to give

the prime minister a chance. otherwise we will be stuck for years until kadima will get back to power which might take years. so we don't want to deal with the media about the refugee issue or about the nature of possible solution in jerusalem. there is no way that it can be effective if it's going to be discussion in the media. it has to be enclosed or in the table with the palestinians and hopefully we'll have a chance to be a part of that negotiation very soon. >> well, thank you. first of all, as you heard, my good friend, a member of knesset, former minister, you know, called for kadima to join. i do not see much difference. actually i think we could have

created a broad coalition, certainly we need the leadership of any government in the future. but about your question, avi, it seemed traumatic to put the owners on israel because it could be just as relevant to us to ask the palestinian leadership, do they believe they can reach an agreement with israel with full control over the sacred places of the temple mound, with what is called the right of return and with 100% of their demands territorialy? so i would say that these things should be discussed honestly in a negotiation which would be direct negotiations without preconditions and things can be done over there. i don't want to say now anything which is presumption white house or anything which would be