.

comments from democratic leaders after their caucus early this afternoon. a reminder, that draft is on the website, c-span.org. in terms of retirement, diane watson from california becomes the 12th democrat that will announce she will not retire and run again in 2010.

that word again from "congressional quarterly." vern ehlers, a republican of michigan, announced he would retire. a list of planned retirements on 2010 we listed that on our website, c-span.org. >> tune in c-span 2's book tv for a three-day president's day weekend beginning saturday. it includes henry paulson talking to warren buffett on the 2008 economic clappings. onñi "afterwards," gary wills o how the atomic bomb changed the presidency and the role of the u.s. and the world. "afterwards" retears. and all day sunday books on presidents. f.d.r., obama and ronald reagan. for the complete schedule go to booktv.org. >> his film, "hillary the

movie" was the focus of a recent supreme court hearing on campaign finance. head of citizens united david bossie sunday night on c-span's mr. cuellar:. >> british foreign secretary david milliband spoke yesterday about the release of u.s. intelligence information concerning the alleged torture of a british resident alien. the british government asked them to publish the details of benjamin mohammed who was captured in 2002 in pakistan as a terror suspect and later held at guantanamo bay. he was released with all charges against him dropped last year. this runs about 45 minutes. >> with your permission, mr. speaker, i'd like to make the case on mr. binyam mohammed following. mr. speaker, the court of appeals ruland that in the light of disclosures by united

states court in december of 2009, which i shall describe below, the paragraph redacted from the divisional court in this country of the 21st of august, 2008, should be published. the seven paragraphs contains summaries of u.s. intelligence related to mr. mohamed's case held in u.k. files. i accept the court's ruling which includes a complex and unique case and has made available this morning. mr. speaker, the judgment is significant, not just in respect of the seven paragraphs, but also for important principles which were the very heart of both our national security and democracy. the facts are as follows, mr. speaker. mr. mohamed, an ethiopian national, former resident in the u.k., was detained in pakistan in 2002. in 2004 he was transferred to guantanamo bay. in august of 2007, then home

secretary and i wrote to the u.s. secretary of state to seek mr. mohamed's release from guantanamo bay and his return to the united king depom along with four other u.k. residents. mr. mohamed was released from guantanamo a year and a half later in february of last year. mr. speaker, in may, 2008, mr. mohamed brought proceedings against the british government in an effort to secure disclosure to his legal counsel of any material held by the british government that might assist in the defense of his case before a u.s. military commission. the question in our appeal in the judgment against the divisional court was not this disclosure which we supported and secured. it was instead when the intelligence provided on a confidential basis from one state to another in absolute trust that it would be secured in the interest of open justice or whether instead the breach of trust would be so grave as to endangers intelligence sharing relationships and therefore affect national

security. as i said in this house on a number of occasions in this case it was u.s. intelligence and the english court. but it could have just as easily been a british intelligence in a foreign court. as i said often, an issue in this case was not the content of the seven paragraphs but the disclosure against u.s. wishes. mr. speaker, i'm grateful for the consideration the court of appeal gave to the control principle. this principle which states that intelligence belonging to another country should not be released without its other agreement underpins the flows of intelligence between the u.s. and u.k. this unique intelligence sharing relationship is vital to national security in both our countries. crucially, mr. speaker, the court has upheld the control principle today. the judgment describes that principle as integral to intelligence sharing. it specifically vindicates the careful assessment that releasing the seven paragraphs without the -- and specifically

makes clear, this and i quote, it has endorsed the publication of confidential over secret information. this is important for the future of intelligence sharing with the u.s. and with others. however, on the 17th of december, last year, we received notice of a u.s. court ruling in the case of another guantanamo detainee, far he ben sighied mohammed and his allegations of mistreatment. that did not set out the content of the seven paragraphs, per se, but it did include references of mr. mohamed covered in the seven paragraphs. we brought this to the appeal and mr. mohamed's counsel. in its view that contents were put in publication by the u.s. district court. it's clear that the court of appeal would have upheld our appeal and overturned the fifth judgment of the quigsal court.

the court of appeals were clear that the judiciary should only overturn the view of the executive on matters of national security in the most exceptional circumstances. it states, and i quote, that it is integral to intelligence sharing that intelligence material provided from country to another will never be disclosed directly or indirectly by the receiving country without the permission of the provider of the information. this understanding is rigidly applied to the relationship between the u.k. and the u.s.a., unquote. mr. speaker, i spoke last night to secretary clinton about this case. it is being followed carefully at the highest levels within the u.s. system with a great deal of concern. recent events has shown the importance of the u.s.-u.k. relationship and the fight against terrorism. equally, the authorities to protect their intelligence has been absolute throughout this case. we will work carefully with the u.k. in the weeks ahead to cuss -- u.s. in the weeks ahead to

discuss our shared goals and commitments. mr. speaker, mistreatment of prisoners and torture violates the most principles of this country, never mind our national and international legal obligations. there is a fundamental commitment on the part of myself, responsible for the security and intelligence service, and my friend, the secretary of homeland security, and the heads and staffs of these agencies to uphold the highest standards of conduct, not just for ourselves but the countries with home we cooperate. a wide range of allegations have been made during the course of this case. today, some of the facts can be publicized in some cases for the first time. first, the paragraphs released toof describe information received by our intelligence agencies concerning the conditions of mr. mohamed's detention by the united states in pakistan in april, 2002. they note specifically that he was subject to sleep deprivation, that he was subject to threat and inducements and held shackled and that the treatment, were it conducted by the united

kingdom, would be contrary to the underfakings first given to this house in the 1972. to repeat, it was not conducted by the u.k. second, now that they are in the public domain it will be evident that the paragraphs do not contain information of mr. mohamed's most serious claims of mistreatment. notably in respect to apledged genital mutilation until his release from guantanamo last year. we, the united kingdom, doesn't have any evidence to proclaim those allegations. that will be addressed in court. third, during the course of these proceedings, allegations of criminal wrong doings will be made. the secretary reviewed these -- referred them to the attorney general for her consideration and they are now the subject of a police investigation. mr. speaker, the most basic values of this country are at issue. our position is clear. the u.k. firmly opposes torture and cruel and human and

degrading treatment or punishment. this is not just about legal obligations. it is also about our values as a nation and about what we do, not just what we say. we have taken a leading role to eradicate torture internationally through the united nations and by assisting other countries. where possible wrongdoing is found, it is fully investigated. mr. speaker, i also want to place on record that we are lucky to have the best intelligence agencies in the world. their staffs are second to none in their commitment and public service. they are rocky mountained across the world and the work they do to deep britain safe deserves all our admiration and gratitude. but there is a further and fundamental myth that needs to be addressed. it is that the security services operate without independent oversight. mr. speaker, ministers and agency heads have the first responsibility for the conduct of their organization. the intelligence and scrutiny committee -- security committee provides scrutiny.

independent judicial oversight is provided by the commissioners who by law must be given access to whatever documents and information they need. both report annually to the prime minister and to parliament. then, there are the courts whose role is to protect the rights of individuals and provide recourse to justice when they think they have been infringed. this they have done and continue to do in this case. this judgment today is not evidence that the system is broken. rather, it is the evidence that the system is working and that the full force of the law is available when citizens believe they have just cause. the six judgments in this case show a closed judgment, show a seriousness of purpose in our pleel system that is a vital system of accountability. mr. speaker, we are for this case and brought the appeal to send a principle that we believe is fundamental to our national security. the intelligence shared with us will be pro tarrant county, texased by us -- protected by us. no one likes to lose a case but

the force of this judgment is that it firmly recognizes that principle and that in doing so the court is protecting this country and upholding the law. >> we have held that the united states cooperation between the united states and united kingdom is immense value to both countries and that its disruption would have serious consequences for our national security. and i echo the tribute paid by the foreign secretary in his statement. at the same time we have consistently argued for full investigation of all credible allegations of u.k. complicitity and torture and for the government to find a way in this particular case to balance the needs of national security with the need for justice and accountability in our democratic society. and we therefore welcome today's judgment which uphold the principle of control and the need for openness in this

particular case. the alleged treatment of binyam mohamed released by the foreign office is unacceptable and the alleged treatment in the u.s. court so unacceptable that if true will harm our efforts to combat terrorists, play into their propaganda and weaken instead of strengthen our national security. we've always believed on this side of the house that the principle of control could be upheld while seeking an exception in this case from the united states. i put into the house a year ago this week that the government could have positively asked the united states for permission to publish these paragraphs. if they had done so and if the united states had agreed, we would have arrived at the same outcome as today's court's

judgment without a further year of legal proceedings, more combickly and more smoothly and in a -- more quickly and more smoothly. and doesn't the fact that the relevant information has been published anyway in the united states strengthen our case that this would have been the right course of action a year ago? in other respects, we agree with the statement made by the foreign secretary, particularly on maintaining the principle of control of intelligence which indeed the court ruling reaffirms and in which we support. the foreign secretary has long argued that the intelligence sharing relationship would be damaged by the release of these paragraphs. is it still his view that that relationship will be damaged now that the information has been published? can he say whether there are any other cases pending regarding allegations of torture which he mxuq(uj the principle to be challenged? and in the light of the failedñ

deployed bomb attack and the serious threat at the moment of both countries from terrorism can he assure the house that the sharing of information at this critical time has not been affected in any way? has any countries which we share intelligence warned they will reconsider that sharing on -- reconsider the basis which they share information in the light of today's development? and my final set of questions, mr. speaker, comes to draw a line in this episode and restore the u.k.'s moral ú authority in the matter of allegations of complicitity of torture. as the court ruling states, the rejection of torture las a constitutional resonance to the british people which cannot be overestimated. many of us have criticized the use of extraordinary ren dention and the -- rendition and the possibilityñr that it c lead to torture in other the court of united states states unequivocally that it's

a matter of fact binyam mohamed was tore turd over a period of two years. is this a statement that the government now accepts? the foreign secretary has concern that the police are currently investigating possible misconducts in the case of mohamed? will there be other investigations into other parallel cases and how many cases the attorney general is reviewing? mr. speaker, this case has come to epitomize the challenge of international terrorism in the way that we deal with it. and however difficult this challenge is we must declare that winning the battle against the perpetrators of terrorism and their ideas requires moral as well as military strength. the government must be able to assure the country and the world that a line has been drawn, that we are far more confident that allegations of complicitity and torture cannot be made against the united kingdom in the future and that all the necessary lessons of this episode have now been learned.

>> well, mr. speaker, i concur with the gentleman that this case has come to symbolize or epitomize some of the most difficult issues were it raised by the terrorist campaign over the last nine years since september 11 and has also come to symbolize some of the key judgments that needs for made about how to ensure that our values and our security work together. it's absolutely the case that the shared commitment across the house against torture and in favor of meeting all of our commitments in respect to cruel of inhuman treatment are a vital part in making this country safe, far from being undermining of it, they go to the heart of it and theys are go to the heart of what we are seeking to defend. he queried the decision not to, what i called last year, launch

a campaign for the release of the documents in the united states.ñi we were absolutely clear they must be released to the defense counsel of mr. mohamed. he said he thought the same outcome would have been achieved if we had launched a campaign and it had succeeded. that's not entirely the case because the commitments that the courts made today about the control principle would not have been made in those circumstances and the commitments and comments the courts have made are valuable and important in that respect. i also said to him last year and i stick by it today that the united states administration under president obama have shown absolutely clearly their commitment in respect of anything that resembles torture or inhumane treatment, that they are reviewing all of the cases and they have clearly decided so far not to release the documents, the paragraphs released today are summaries of the american intelligence that we hold not the actual

documents. and so i don't think it would have been right for us to launch such a campaign. apart from anything it would have suggested a degree of uncertainty about the commitment that the u.s. administration has made which i don't think would have been merited. the gentleman asked a very important question about the chilling effect this case play have had on intelligence sharing or have in the future. and that is obviously something that is of grave concern to me and to the government and to the whole country. i said in my statement that we would be working with the u.s. administration, not just in the state department but across all aspects of the government to analyze this judgment, to understand its implications, to draw attention to the commitment that the court makes with respect to the control principle and also to discuss with the united states how we continue to defend that principle in the future. i am absolutely clear that it's an important job for me and for my colleagues to minimize any potential effect on the

intelligence sharing relationship, not least given the event of how important it is. but it's too early to come to this house and say there will be no such effect. we need to work to ensure that is the case. the fact that the court of appeals have so clearly said that it was the disclosures in a u.s. court that ledñi them to make their decision today that the seven paragraphs shall be published is obvious a very material aspect in the discussion of whether or not the country principle has been breached. let meñi also -- he also asked about the judgment of facts that the district court plead in the united states. we await the u.s. government's view on whether they are indeed matters of facts. they have not yet corroborated that or committed to that. but we obvious recognize that as far as the court is concerned they have been established as a matter of fact and it will be for us not to query. let me conclude on the following position, mr. speaker. one key aspect of any lessons

that will be drawn or any conclusiones that i will rise or conis he quebses that will arise in this case is the following allegations that have no truth at all. one allegation is there is no oversight of the security in this country. that is wrong. the second allegation is that it is our policy not to torture or to commit acts of inhumane treatment ourselves but to be compliss complicit in them? that is not true. and where the wrongdoing occurs it is covered up. this case shows clearly both in the work of the attorney general and the courts that this country is committed to uphold all of its commitments and it does so for very good reason. >> i echo his support for our excellent security services and for the importance of our close relationship with our american allies. but, mr. speaker, when one of the most senior judges in the land criticizes the foreign secretary for accusing other judges of being irresponsible and then -- his appeal, he

would be more contrite when he comes to the house to make a statement today. can i say immediately that we respect the control principle for the way foreign intelligence is handled. but unlike him and like the gentleman from richmond, we believe it was a duty of the government to ask the american authority at the highest level if he would relieve -- they would release in inches. given the gravity of the accusations and the information that is now being published, one would have thought that was exactly the right thing to do, mr. speaker. but can i bring the content of the seven paragraphs thatess he's been forced to publish today. did the united kings domino that the united states was using torture against binyam mohamed? will he say what was taken -- will the foreign secretary now tell the house what steps the british government took to ensure that britain was not complicit with that torture at the time? will the foreign secretary guarantee today that at no stage in this case was britain

in breach of either domestic or international allegations of torture? mr. speaker, anyone that has followed this case closely, including evidence given to the court that it was almost certainly passed onto the highest government? will he announce if the ministers were told that u.s. were torturing binyam mohamed and when? and will he say all such evidence give to police related to the mohamed case? i want to say, will the foreign secretary take another step given this and other allegations of british complicitty and torture to have an inquiry? >> the foreign secretary. >> mr. speaker, while i'm glad that the honorable gentleman )ays that he welcomes the work

that is doneñr by the security forces and intelligence services and salutes their work, i honestly believe that he doesn't know justice by first asking questions which he knows for reasons of legal circumstance i cannot answer. nor for repeating the questions, allegations which he knows the answer too. let me go through them. he asked about the case that involves the so called witness b. he knows that i cannot talk about that case because it is currently being in front of the court. and i think that it is not right to seek answers to questions that would prejudice or could prejudice the -- an ongoing police investigation. equally, he asked whether or not the police have been given access to all the relevant papers and he knows that all of the relevant papers were given over to the police. that's the basis which the attorney general asked for a police investigation.

now, he also asked what will be the effects, i think was the word that he used of this case and how will it be seen through. i think on that, mr. speaker, it depends on how the debate is carried forward. but he will know that from the successive reports from the security andñiñr intelligence committee that significant changes have been made in the nature of the guidance which is -- to our security and intelligence personnel. significant changes has been made in which it is promulgated. and the cases as well as the generic issue has been investigated and sent out by the intelligence committee and their recommendation have beenç followed and the -- re is one outstanding issue of the rmpled guidance in the light of the -- in the light of the binyam

mohamed case that is sitting with the intelligence and security committee as he promised before the house before publication.ñi >> is it true that many peopleñ listening to this debate in afternoon be surprised -- describe this court ruling as a vindication where it is forced to reveal information that has struggled for a very long time not to do even when the information was legally available in the united states? and is the foreign secretary aware that to describe the information released today as completely clearly the government of any involvement past or present in rendition and thus complicitty and torture cannot be right. you must be aware whatever is

happening right now under the new american administration there are questions to be answered about past british involvements and extraordinary -- and extraordinary renditionx with regard to torture. >> the court makes clear that in the absence of the american judgment of december, 2009, it would have found in favor of the government and that is very important appointment. in extraordinary rendition, and i don't recognize her description of u.k. complicitty of extraordinary rendition. well, questions have been asked about extraordinaryxd rendition in respect to gassi. the honorable friend knows that emerged from american studies of their file that they were immediately publicized to this

house in the appropriate way and there have been subsequent questions but also subsequent answers to each and every one of those questions in -- with respect to garcia. and we don't allow the impression to go abroad. that there are outstanding issues in that respect when they are not. >> thank you. >> can i thank the foreign secretary for making this statement today? i think it's very good that he's doing that. just before he stood up earlier, the guardian published on its website a copy of a letter from jonathan, his lawyer, and raising the matter that the government is still seeking a redax, it would appear, fromñi the -- redaction it would appear. i'd like for you to receive any more public attention. there will be rid of statements by the court that the security service does not in fact operate a culture that respects

human rights, that officials of the service deliberately misled the intelligence committee on this point, that this reflects a culture of the dealings in this committee which penetrates undermine the u.k. government assurances based on the information. and in the interest of suppressing information which is shared by the foreign committee, which he is responsible, coud he comment on those? >> mr. speaker, i will comment on it. it is very, very important that the facts are on the record, not the allegations. i hope you allow me to go through this. it is notñ;correct to say that the government or actually more specifically the counsel for the government sought redactions of the judgment. it is that we want to see deleted but which we accepted is true. what our counsel did was to provide -- once he was provided with a copy of the judgment in

draft as is normal practice there was real concern that one paragraph set out conclusions that went beyond the evidence presented and raised -- as well as raising prejudice with respect to theñi ongoing case with respect to witness b. our counsel took the view that that should be brought to the attention of the case and they decided to amend the paragraph so it took the final form that it did. the court concluded that the concern was well-founded. and so it revised this paragraph in the light of that. now, i think it is very, very important that the -- that we also remember that in open court today the counsel for mr. mohamed has apologized unreservedly for releasing this private legal document which is a normal part of legal practice. that should take place. i also think it's very important that there is no

suggestion anywhere to impugn the integrity of the judiciary in making their own judgments. what the judiciary say in a draft judgment or in a final judgment is their business and their independence is at the heart of their final -- their final words. and the words that appear today in public are the words of the justices in the case and it's their decision to put them out on that basis. >> it's my right my honorable is aware that i do not question his integrity. the heart of this issue is simply this -- did security officials, british security officials know that torture was being applied against this mohamed by the u.s.? and if in fact no action was taken by us and no information given to ministers, i consider that to be a state on the reputation of our country. it should never happen again. it is not simply good enough, mr. speaker, to say that

british is a country that tortures if we know that torture is being taken out by our closest ally, we have the responsibility to act. i am in the case of this mohamed we didn't do so. >> mr. speaker, my friend is right that we don't just have responsibilities for conduct for our own officials, we have responsibility to come to know that torture or cruel and inhumane treatment is taken by others which we work and we have the responsibility to act when we have that information and we should do so. in is a criminal case being under -- studied if he moment to see whether or not the actions were taken in accord with the principles that he and i and the whole house shares. and that is the way in which the system should work and that's the way in which the system is working. i could also say that for all the talk of lessons which is right there have been significant changes since 2002

in the way in which guidance is raufered to all offices in the way which they are trained and the way in which the system is patrolled and policed. and that is absolutely right. in with respect to what happened at the time, it is in front of our police at the moment and will if they proceed to charges go in front of the courts to find out exactly what did happen in this particular case. >> dr. julian lewis. >> thank you, mr. speaker. according to the great theorist of counterinsurgency, sir robert thompson, over 40 years ago, prisoner abuse is not only morally wrong, it's lethal to any counterinsurgency campaign. i appreciate that the foreign secretary cannot or doesn't wish to comment on the particular case that's currently before the court. but in response to the honorable gentleman kingston, can he address the question of what representations the government made to our american allies more generally when it

became known that waterboarding, for example, is being used? >> mr. speaker, i'm very happy to say very clearly that the government as detailed in the successive intelligence and security committee report did follow up both in terms of our own system, the way in which the practices were taken forward. it's also in ways which i set out on the -- what happened. we documented what didn't happen and what should have happened, not in respect to an individual case but in terms of training and guidance for officials. that new orleans we are in a much stronger position today than we were in 2001, 2002. and and we keep it under review and i think the publication of the current guidance which is currently in front of the i.s.c. will be an important occasion for not the whole house but for the whole country to see. >> can i join with him and

others in congratulating the security services on their professionalism? can i take him back to the police investigation? i wrote on behalf of the slekt committee a year ago -- select committee a year ago to the attorney general. she referred to the police. is it right that this has been ongoing for a whole year? if it is ongoing for a whole year can we expect an update from the police as to when these investigations will be drawn to a conclusion? >> no, mr. speaker. i'm afraid the very short answer to that is it is not for the police to tell about their decisions. i understand when the case was in front of the attorney general, my honorable friend made representations to speed up her work, she did conclude that work and is in front of the police. i cannot tell you about the commentary the police may provide. >> mr. hawk. >> mr. secretary, it makes it plain that in 2002 and whilist

in united states custody, mr. mohamed was tortured. can he tell us when the government learned of those facts? at what level of government were those facts known? what steps were taken to make urgent representations to the united states government that this must stop? what steps was taken to prevent extraordinary rendition being practiced which we were a party? and was not the concealment of this document very damaging to mr. mohamed's claim to civil damages something >> i recognize the rhetorical technique. i counted six questions to which one question is suffice. >> mr. speaker, i think the best way i can answer the legitimate answers that the honorable gentleman has is detail for him what has been reported through the i.s.c. on

what action was taken. i will answer one of the questions. that it was the actions of the government as recorded in the divisional court that got to mr. mohamed's legal counsel. that's why the constant confusion of the quote-unquote suppression of evidence for -- as regarded to mr. mohamed and the publication of the evidence is so damaging. it was at the heart of the government's case that we had the responsibility to ensure that plomede was able to defend him -- mr. mohamed was able to defend himself. that's why the divisional court congratulated the government on ascheefing that. that is not the same -- as achieving that. that is not the same. one concerns the individual. the other concern the public interest in open debate. but i will give him detailed explanation of the other questions that he asked. >> gary taylor. >> mr. speaker, in citing the statement to the house and to making it clear to everybody

once again that torture or complicity with torture is totally unacceptable. can i add to that? thank you for the statement he made about the work that the intelligence and security committee on which i sit. i believe it scrutinizes the security agency's forcefully and purposefully. can i also now ask him the question, because it's crucial for all of us, is there going to be a watch in grief in the way of intelligence sharing between the u.s. and the u.k. is going to continue? i ask that question because it's important for all of us to acknowledge that that relationship is crucial to great britain's future security. >> mr. speaker, my honorable friend is right. there will be a taking stock, as i set out in my statement. we will seek to ensure the full intelligence sharing is so vital to both of our country continues. but there is no point in denying there will be a taking stock as a result of the

judgment. >> secretary says that our most basic values as a nation are at sfake here. i agree. it's only by getting to the truth about all this that we can bring closure to the whole episode that is now extraordinary rendition in which the u.k. appears to have allowed itself to become complicit in kidnapping, torture. indeed a judge in another case said we had facilitated a rendition. so the issue of principle is no longer in doubt. given all that, will the foreign secretary now finally discuss with the prime minister the need for a judge setting inquiry which is led by lord carlisle, which is supported by the leader of the opposition and by the liberal party as well as many others? >> well, mr. speaker, i'm interested in hearing that the leader of the opposition is recommitting himself to a

judicial inquiry. i'll pursue inquiries to see if that's the case. mr. speaker, inside government we have discussed whether or not a judicial inquiry would be right and we've concluded it would not be right. it would not be right because the judicial system in this country is performing a function in this government which belocks. there is a dangerous confusion emerging between rendition -- extraordinary rendition and torture. those are not the same things. although both of them are reprehensible. both of them are reprehensible in regard to the laws of this country. it's important we don't confuse the two. in mr. mohamed's case there are allegations he was subject to both. they're both wrong and they both need to be addressed fully. however, with respect to the main point, i do not think that the conclusion to be drawn -- that a traditional inquiry is necessary.

the judiciary is performing their function extremely vigilant. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i take the secretary back to mr. mohamed and what happened to him in 2002 in pakistan? when did the british government know about it? what protests have beenñi made? and are they satisfied that the result of continuation of this practice either in pakistan or in other places where the u.s. takes prisoners ultimately to some other destination, does he not think that guantanamo bay should have been closed many years ago and that we should have done much more to close it? >> it was a core value there. yes, the government has stood out against guantanamo bay for a very lorning time. it is a fact that the united states is committed to closing guantanamo bay and is closing it as fast as possible.

i didn't hear what he said. in respect of whether or not those practices are continuing, i think it is absolutely clear from the executive orders that president obama has issued amongst other things that those practices have been completely banned and that puts it in line to our opposition. >> the secretary states that mr. mohamed is a former resident of the u.k. what is his current immigration status? and why is he allowed back in the u.k. since he was going to seek legal aid to challenge our courts? >> the government -- our interests in securing the closure of guantanamo bay was so strong that it was right that british residents as well as british citizens be given a chance to come back to the u.k.

we did that in the case of nine british citizens and five british residents. one british resident is continuing to reside in guantanamo bay and we continue to press the case for his release. so the basis in which we took the position was that the closure of guantanamo bay was right. we have to play our part in it. but it was also right that mr. mohamed, along with four others, was a resident of the u.k. at the time of his extraordinary rendition. not rendition from this country but rendition from within south asia. >> this dreadful conduct is ailing to our history and our principles and will certainly increase the risk of terrorism to this country. will you look at the possibility of returning to a fully independent british foreign policy that served usçó so well in the vietnam war?

>> well, mr. speaker, i'm happy to include with my honorable friend, we pursue our foreign policy with our allies and we also have to pursue our policy with people who aren't our allies to pursue our goals. so we are absolutely committed to doing what's right for the united kingdom. that involves a very close relationship to the united states. but that does not mean that we always agree with the united states. i'm pleased to say we agree with the current administration more than some other administrations. but that doesn't meanñi we agre on everything. i think that's the right way in which to proceed. >> will this case speed up the release and return of mr. sheik which the foreign secretary refers which he is part of my constituency? is there any allegation of torture of mr.ñi armor? could this be the reason of why the u.s. is reluctant to return him to our country? >> mr. speaker, i don't believe that this case has any baring

on theñr chaka armor case. we continue to press the case for the release of mr. armor and continue to do so with all due effort. i know he supports us very strongly in that effort. [captioning performed by natonal captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the senate is live 2:350er7b on c-span 2. they may be talking about a proposed jobs bill which democrats have been developing draft legislation of that bill is out. you can take a look at it at c-span.org. again, senate live on c-span 2. here on c-span we will cover a senate hearing, a budget hearing that's coming up this afternoon looking at -- look at long-term fiscal sustainability in the united states. live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern. on the issue of jobs, the president at the white house says he will sign an economic report that says the u.s. is likely to average 95,000 more jobs per month. the president also meeting

today with secretary geithner and secretary of state clinton, and we'll have the white house briefing for you live on c-span at 12:45 eastern. other news from capitol hill -- the day after the blizzard yesterday, a couple of retirements. representative lynn can diaz-balart of florida is announcing his retirement. not running in 2010. and also this morning diane watson of california announcing that she won't -- she won't run in 2010. full list of the latest on our website linked from "congressional quarterly" at c-span.org. coming up at about 11:30, we hope to take you to a live conference with senator chuck shumer and chris van hollen. me will talk about legislation they plan to introduce in response to the citizens united case. they expect to brief reporters at about 11:30 eastern. we will show you that as we are available at about that time. until then discussion on jobs creation and more with a couple

of house members from this morning's "washington journal." >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from stereos -- -- syracuse, new york, now washington, d.c., representative maffei. if you could tell us a little bit about your district economically? guest: my district has been challenged economically really over the past 20 or 25 years. we were a heavily industrial district. my grandfather and his brothers worked in the auto plants here. the auto plants were closed somewhere over the last 10 or 15 years. carrier, which made a lot of air conditioners here, big manufacturing facility -- they still have a research facility but all the manufacturing jobs have left. the region has been lately grown

up over high-tech kind of businesses, particularly green technologies, detection technologies, the world capital in terms of radar and sonar and magnetic resonance. all sorts of things we do for military and civilian staff. there is a new economy but not quite the transition from post- world war ii economy. one of the main things for me is to help make the transition run smoothly. host: what exactly can you do as a member of congress to assist your district? guest: i really think we need to encourage these kinds of new jobs. we are not going to see a very large business move into central new york suddenly or peoria, for that matter, or any. in the country but we could grow organically our own small businesses. you recently had a jump in the call in from i think the seattle, washington, area. those kinds of start-ups. we do have a lot here.

i have been supporting both in terms of getting federal money -- also in terms of other kinds of support, green business incubators. those are the kinds of things we can do. green universities, from the campus of syracuse. we have the state school of environmental science and forestry, the best in the world. we have all sorts of educational institutions. even our community colleges. the spinoffs from the students and faculties are really creating the kind of business that will take us into the future. what i tried to do is help make sure the policies are going to encourage that kind of environment. i really don't believe the government itself necessarily can do things to directly create jobs. what we can do is provide the kind of environment that is going to help private industry, working with other kinds of organizations, to create jobs. host: representative aaron

schatz joins us from peoria, illinois. same question -- it was a snapshot of peoria economically. guest: good morning, peter. . is home to one of the largest employers in america, fortune 50 company, caterpillar tractor co.. headquartered here in peoria and employs a large number of my constituents. i have a 20-county district. i parts of decatur, eleanor, of course home to archer-daniels midland, one of the largest food processors -- decatur, illinois. but the largest employer, despite all of that, is actually agriculture. so, both agriculture and large manufacturers like caterpillar, john deere just outside my district, rely on a growing economy, not over here in our country but around the world. i was specifically interested in the president's mention of free trade agreement in his state of

the union if you weeks ago. he said but for us moving in that direction, we are going to lose out with expanded opportunities for companies and industries in our own country to grow. i know that to be true in my district. but caterpillar, who sells 70% of the tractors the build and our country to other people in other countries, and the large ag industry in our district that relies on people buying our crops and foods. we only have 5% of the world's population in our country, and if we want to be serious about growing industry -- whether manufacturing, small or large, or the ag industry, it will be through trade around the world. host: as a member of congress and small business committee, what do you and what can you do? guest: i was pleased to hear representatives maffei, a good friend, mention that he did not think government could create jobs. i agree with him. the important part is that the

obama administration this year has spent a lot of money, a lot of political capital, spending a lot of future generations money trying to create jobs. the reality is it is not going to the government spending that creates jobs but creating an environment for entrepreneurs, risk-taking, an investment is the water. unfortunately this past year we spent the year talk about $1 trillion stimulus bill which did not stop unemployment from going up, then we talked about a cap- and-trade bill and then health care, all which had a whole host of taxes and fees in them. it created a lot of uncertainty within both the public market as well as the private small- business entrepreneur who says, wait a minute, i don't know if i'm going to go out and expand my business, i don't know if i'm going to go out and meet the capital investment because i don't know what the rules of engagement were going to be. cost of the employees, health care costs, i don't know what my

cost of energy and production of goods is going to be vis a vis cap-and-trade. will we have done is create a lot of uncertainty in the small business sector. we need to instead talk about pro-growth initiatives. maybe there is something we can do what the research and development tax incentives. i sponsored a bill with a democrat from idaho called the relief act which would create payroll tax holiday, which many of the business group suggested would create millions of jobs if we allow more of those employers to keep the money to reinvest in their business. so, capital is important. i have to have access to capital. the president is talking about that now. that is a good step in the right direction. but we also have to create a level of comfort that, if an entrepreneur here in our country is going to stick their neck out, invest their life savings as one of the earlier callers mentioned, into a business, that

the federal government is not going to step in and change the rules in the middle of the game either by raising the cost of producing those goods with an energy tax, raising their cost of health care or some kind of payroll tax as been discussed this year. creating a level of uncertainty -- putting in pro-growth tax policies that incentivize the risk-taking we are looking for. host: congressman maffei in syracuse, anything there you would disagree with? guest: very little, i think he has good points. he is a very good friend of mine. i think it does show there is some bipartisan agreement that can be had. i would stay things a little differently. the government can even -- create jobs, even directly like wpa. but that is not what is needed now. but the government can do is help facilitate the private sector. that is what aaron is talking about. i may go about things a little differently.

i think some government spending is in order, particularly advanced lending to small businesses and other kinds of developers and things like that who, if they could just get a loan or even close to reasonable interest, would be investing right now in america and creating jobs. but i think he is also right. tax cuts are a big part of that. i would like to see an investment tax credit. that has worked in the past. and my guest may agree with this -- maybe you want to ask him -- maybe major corporate tax reform bill where we can get rid of the loopholes that are encouraging investment overseas in manufacturing, but then dramatically lower the corporate tax rate to make it competitiver

me global market. what i laird from multinationals in my state, motorola is in my state, boeing that does a lot of international business. president obama had originally talked this year about taxing multinationals' profits overseas and that would have been extremelyñi detrimental to businesses that are growing around the world for them to keep their headquarters here in our country. and obviously a company like caterpillar, which does 70% of their business outside our country, we don't want to incentivize them to be headquartered outside of our country. we want to be careful that we're not incentivizing bad behavior but we're incentivizing what we want more of. and more importantly, we are remaining competitive in the global market. and i know dan agrees with me on that. and, you know, when we talk about tax policy, we have one

of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. and yet we scratch our heads and say, well, gee, why are companies moving to china, why are companies moving to india and russia? while we are the greatest power, the greatest country in the world, in order to remain on top we have to remain competitive. >> well, for those of you watching, this is your chance to talk to two members of congress about jobs and the economy and what you think the congress can do about that. 202 is the area code. democrats democrats representative aaron schock is joining us from peoria. he's a member of the small business and oversight and government reform committees. and congressman dan behalfa is joining us from syracuse -- maffei is joining us from syracuse and worked for a long time on the -- at the house ways and means committee as a

staffer. so go ahead. guest: i am a member of the financial services committee although i did work easily in the industry. host: yes, that's what i meant. he's a member of the financial services committee as well as the judiciary committee but worked as a staffer for the house ways and means committee. he is serving in your first term, correct? guest: yes. though aaron sometimes makes me feel like i'm old and senior because he's the youngest member. host: well, gentlemen, you've both been talking about what good friends you are. is there a spirit of bipartisanship that perhaps the media and other folks outside are missing up on capitol hill? guest: well, peter, i mean, i think that certainly on a lot of the -- you know, the media's going to not cover all the trains that arrive safely on time, they'll cover the train wrecks. so the issues that create the

most controversy will create the most coverage. i'll give you one example. when the auto companies started to receive bailout funds and they declared bankruptcy, both chrysler and g.m. at the same time, the dealer agreements all across the country suddenly were thrown out. . agreements are thrown out. trying to restore seo#@@@@@@@ :z

guest: guest you get to know someone as a person when you experience those kinds of things together. host: congressman shock, same question. guest: peter, i would agree. dan is a great guy. we have a fantastic group of freshman, 50 of us both democrats and republicans have events nearly every month. we get together to socialize because we know part and parcel of getting anything done, you want to know what issues make them tick and work together on areas of agreement. unfortunately, though, i think this year has been extremely partisan because i think with all due respect, the majority who hold the gavel has to be the one that wants to come to the table and engage the other side. despite all the talk wanting

people on both sides to come together, wanting ideas from both sides, reality is on issues like the stimulus bill, there was no time for republican input. the president came to my hometown to stump for the stimulus bill the day before the vote and he asked for my vote as well as the republican votes, but didn't have the time to get our input in terms of bringing it more to the center where the american people were, so there were no republican votes on the stimulus. same thing with cap and trade and health care. it was my way or the highway mentality. speaker pelosi has not done a good job in bringing leader boehner and leader cantor and saying i understand we aren't going to get 50-50 or maybe 70-30 or 60-40. now you see after the elections in virginia and new jersey after the scott brown election in massachusetts, things have kind

of changed in washington. the senate health care bill for all intents and purposes i -- is dead now. the president has talked about including republicans. he came to our retreat and engaged us for the first time in nearly a year. that's a good sign. so we are starting to see good signs of truly bipartisanship from the standpoint that we are talking andñi starting to hear r ideas and that we aren't the party of no, but all year long we have been throwing out proposals and ideas to him. but it takes the majority and that person with the gavel to want to engage the other side to incorporate ideas to get bipartisanship. but on the lower levels, the new guys and gals like dan and i, we work very well together. it's in our best interest, quite frankly, to work well together. our constituents want us to get things done. once the election is over, they expect us to work together.

and i think a vast majority really want to work on commonsense bipartisan solutions that are in the middle of the road. guest: i have two questions. should governmentsçó set up si teem yick risk insurance policies by collecting premiums instead of merely picking winners andñi losers with taxpayer collars and with regards to healthcare, if democrats are going to get more leverage in the debate. are democrats ready to implement some of the

strategies providing safe guards to protect the doctor -- patient relationship. host: let's start with the congressman. guest: we did include a fund that would help unwind. it would help unwind in a fairway some would say there is some a couldn't row versey about who should pay into the fund making sure the companies really do have systematic risks

and really should be paying it out of insurance as opposed to other kinds of financial issuance i don't want to charge for those financial services just because they are financial services. that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. we want that backstop. i think it is a pretty moderate model. in terms of the healthcare debate. the president met with republican leaders on healthcare specifically he said, yes, the democrats are willing to consider many republican ideas.ñi some of them have already been incorporated across state lines for a comprimise he also made

it clear that it can't simply be the couple of republican bills that there are and you don't incorporateçó any democratic ideas either. it has to be añr true comprimis i think the democrats we are the majority party right now. the democrats need to and want to work with republicans if they will meet us half way. if theyñr won't, there's nothin we can do. host: we have a tweet from craig. has congressman shock received any stimulus money and is willing to return the money since it has not worked in other states? guest: first, let's back up and

address what the stimulus was supposed to do. when the president introduced the bill, its issuance was supposed to keep unemployment from going past 8%. argueablely, it haint worked for its purported goal, which is to stop unemployment from increasing past 8%. the sweeter is suggesting that because i did notñi supt port t stimulusñi bill that the 18th congressional district in illinois should not get its fair share of federal spending. this is the same argument that people get that the reality is

we need to have a serious debate on bonal sides about responsibly federal spending. even the president said, we need to get our financial house in order. regardless of how voters vote on the spendingñi a large part that went to the state of illinois. it was handed out by our governor. there's been very little money for members of conditioning res to go in and fight.

there were no earmarks. i'm not sure it was spent that much more as a result. certainlyly, i'm not going to advocate for our taxpayers, when they are going to be on the hook to pay that money back. >> hairy son, eark. you are on the line. guest: thank you. i was amused at the comment earlier that the government should not be involved in business. i would remind it's standards. in this country, we have standards that are mandated. if you don't like the standard,

you change it.çó a communist country, call that trade and bring it back. now it is a question of which government do you want to support as i see it, the free traders are freely supporting the communist system. >> give you a chance to answer that question guest: i couldn't thank the caller more for the question. the idea that trade with countries like china or india or russia means that the goods are manufactured there and not

here is not true i represent one of the largest mafferers in our country, caterpillar. 70% of the tractors built are sent to another country.ñi china is one of the biggest customers. to suggest that we don't want to trade with other countries is to stick our head in the sand. we only haveçó 5% of the population in the world. we have the latestñiñi greatest technologies and we have the latest greatest technologies. we have the best minds in the world and to our companies and employees, their employees' best interest to market, sell and compete with the other 95% of the world's population. he mentioned the importance of

these trade agreements or rather that we sell in other countries, the colombia, the panama and the south korea trade agreements that the president mentioned that are on the table right now for consideration would be a huge boon to the employees in my district, the large ag economy which sell their grains around the world, large manufacturers that sell their goods around the world. the country of colombia, 80% of their wheat in colombia is provided to them by u.s. farmers, 80% of the wheat in the country of colombia is provided by u.s. farmers. colombia just signed this year a free trade agreement with the country of canada. if we don't pass a free trade agreement with colombia so there aren't taxes on our wheat going into their country, they are going to buy their wheat from canada. the president has talked about it as well and we are going to

be put at a competitive disadvantage. right now, we buy colombia's flowers and coffee tariff-free. it's to our advantage to eliminate those tariffs and allow those goods go tariff-free. it has to be free trade. our country doesn't want to be put at a competitive disadvantage. but we need these trade agreements, expanded markets for them to grow and employ more people. host: congressman maffei. guest: i see this issue differently than aaron. we have to have the right kind of trade agreements and all of those that follow on this nafta model aren't working not because it's trade but because it's not on a level playing field. it's like two teams coming on

the field and playing by different rules. it is a particular problem with china, china won't float its own currency, so it makes it difficult to trade because when we have drk normally when you have a trade deficit, your currency would change and become better for china to buy more goods, but that's not happening. they don't protect intellectual property rights and don't have the labor and environmental protections and don't have -- and we don't know what we're getting, whether it's pet food or building supplies. we already had issues with china in not getting what we think we're getting. i think these things are important and i think we have been erring on the side that trade is good and if we do enough trade, everybody will be happy. as for people in my district out of work, needlessly so because these jobs move abroad and the

products aren't as good and will move to somewhere else. it has undermined our industrial base. we have to have a strong manufacturing base. aaron is right we have to have a strong agricultural base and i have a lot of agriculture in my district as well and that depends on exports. we can't be naive and put up with other countries breaking these rules or bending the rules and having a different set of rules while we continue to do things with the utmost quality things with the utmost quality as we can. on the >> how can we take you seriously if you are not going to crack down on those who hire illegals.

what are you going to do about that? my follow up question is explain to people that have lost their job and ended up homeless because you failed to protect american workers and make employment varification mandatory for our jobs. host: we'll start in syracuse. >> guest: i think she is right. we have to crack down on employers that do hire illegal workers.

currently, there aren't those folks. a lot that could not, cannot find enough americans for these jobs. they do depend on seasonal workers right now. while we have to crack down on any employer who hires undocumented workersçó. we hope that will be dealt with this year.

>> that simple. the guest: it's that simple. the caller is right. we have a broken immigration system. we need to fix it. there's a large complex part of that. obviously, we need better border security. we need to be able to control who is coming in and out of our country and can't punish those. it's a matter of national security as well as employment security. we also need to reform immigration process. right now it takes eight years on the average for people to become an american citizen. i don't think my grandparents or other folks whose relatives came here who are second and third generation americans would have

waited for eight years. we need a more agile and 21st century immigration policy that actually works. but to the caller's point, we need to ensure that the same e-verify system that the federal government mandates for itself is also used and required and enforced on private employers as well to make sure the people they are employing and paying wages are paying taxes and are legal workers. host: earlier in the program, we were talking with our viewers about whether or not the obama administration is perceived as anti-business and whether that is a fair perception or not. given the president's interview with bloomberg "newsweek" that he did, let's see if that is a fair perception and then congressman maffei, you can

answer. guest: it's more than a perception. anyone would have to argue that it's reality. first of all, let's step back. whose view really matters? go talk to the business guy. if you come back to your district which we do every weekend, you walk into the small business guy, he'll tell you that the obama administration, the federal government, especially has been anti-business this past year. when you talk about cap and trade and you talk about health care and those are your major initiatives this year, both of those contain hundreds of taxes and fees oh, yes, those business people, small business people that are trying to create jobs. seven out of the 10 new jobs created last year were done by small businesses and the two major pieces of legislation that president obama has spent much of this year talking about which are cap and trade, which is a huge energy tax and health care, which is a huge tax paid for on

earnings or payroll taxes, there were different versions in the house and senate, it's anti-business. he has continued to talk about corporations as if they are evil organizations that are sucking the lifeblood out of local communities. the reality is we need employees in this country because they create jobs and employ people and we need to talk about pro-growth strategies, whether it's trade, whether it's healthy lending so there is freed up capital for the entrepreneurs to go out and invest and pro-growth tax policies like incentivizing, investing, entrepreneurialism like the r&d tax credit. we could make it permanent. i'm working on that with glenn nye, who we serve as the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee. we are trying to get the r&d tax credit made permanent.

it will create incentives for the next 20 years on whether they make the decision. the original question, is this perception a reality? absolutely. you talk to the man on the street, the small business owner, he will tell you that the policies that are promoted under the first year of the administration and rhetoric coming out of washington is anything but pro-business, and it's anti-business and has created uncertainty in the market and that's why there is capital sitting off the street and a lot of folks not making the kind of investment we need to get our economy back on track. host: dan maffei. guest: the debate over this label, of course the president isn't anti-business. it may be a fair criticism to say there hasn't been enough done for small businesses, though there was a lot of stuff in the stimulus bill that wasçó

helpful. there was additional stuff passed for hope for homeowners and cash for clunkers that helped small businesses, real estate businesses, autos. i agree with a lot of aaron's points. i'm a co-sponsor of the bill to make the r&d credit permanent. and a lot of what the president laid out in the state of the union address, one caller said, you areçó being taxed on the extremes on both sides. i think the president is neither anti-business, but he is not going to give away the stores to the big businesses either. we are going to try to encourage small businesses, family businesses, those are the kinds of businesses that don't export jobs because they can't because

they are in our communities like syracuse, and many other areas and that's what we're going to focus on. i think we should move forward and do everything we can right now to stimulate small business growth, particularly in my district, that means getting capital, access to capital and access to reasonable interest loans. caller: this is for representative shock, i live right outside your district. have you paid attention to the wind farms coming up in illinois that are destroying the landscape and really not paying for themselves? guest: thank you for your call. look, i support wind energy. i think it's a responsible move for our country. i understand that not everybody thinks that they are pretty to look at or they want one popping

up next to them. much of what was in the president's energy plan was to promote more solar and renewable energy. we can get there by incentivizing it without taxing the industries. we create more wind energy in this country over the past decade. after the wind energy tax credit was put in effect by congress, the next year, wind energy production went up 40% in one year. we are the fastest growing energy producers right now. so i'm aware of them. there is a ton of them going up in my congressional district. i know in central illinois along with the right wind channels you have to have the right wind. they have been successful and most of the farmers are happy to lease or sell the small piece of

ground required for the windmills to actually sit on. but it's important that we make sure that they are a productive contributing member of the energy platform, if you will. and one of the downfalls to wind energy is that it's not as reliable or consistent depending on where the wind is. your question about whether or not they are actually paying for themselves will be a matter of time. obviously, their life cycle tends to be around the 20-year period that they need to be replaced and spruced up, if you will. but i have seen the financial models, people would not be investing in them if they didn't believe they were a wise investment. over the next 20 years, a windmill should not only pay for itself but adequately replenish the energy supply system for what it took to build it. host: marie, democrat, from

california. caller: i wanted to say to the american people beware of globalists. i believe they are unpatriotic. i believe they need to repeal nafta because it has not worked for the american people. and i believe both party lines, democrats and republicans and i also had a question, i don't think that most american people would construe someone making $1 million as a small business. so if you can give me a definition of how many people or what the amount of revenues a company takes in what would be construed as small business. host: how would you identify a small business? guest: it is a complicated question because if it's an s corporation, a kind of business

that's closely held, the person who owns the business may technically be making over $1 million but it's business income the way the tax code is set up. there are various things that people talked about, number of employees is the way to do it, annual income, there are a variety of ways and i don't want to cast it in stone, it's something we have to talk about. small and medium-sized businesses are creating most of the new jobs. and that's not to say big businesses don't create jobs. we need to have a good policy that encourages the private sector to make sure there are basic ground rules set, make sure we don't have the kind of excesses that we have had in financial companies, you know, with all the fifth and sixth-level derivatives that can't be valued. and i do agree with the caller

also on nafta. we need different kind of trade policies as i said earlier. don't impugn anyone's patriotism. i really think most americans, even most politicians are trying to do the right thing by their districts, their jobs and the american people. we have different points of views. but name calling doesn't necessarily help. host: congressman shock, you are a member of the small business committee, how do you define small business? guest: well, it's kind of ironic because i have hundreds of small businesses in my district and i represent one of the big businesses, which i mentioned, catter pillar, in my hometown. look, from a truly definition standpoint, you tend to say a small business is somewhere between 50 and 200 employees. but your caller asked what is the revenue threshold? she and many americans who want

to try and create a revenue threshold are walking down a dangerous path. what may be $1 million in revenue, may be a lot to one business, could be very insignificant to another business and it depends on what kind of business they're in. dan talked about the work we did together on a bipartisan basis this summer trying to save the local car dealerships in our countries that are extremely important to our local communities. those small businesses, those car dealerships, they sell millions of dollars of cars but work on 1% or 2% profit margin. they make very little money off the sale of new cars but their revenue looks like they generated 15 million in revenue from sale of cars but their profit is small. we need to have pro-growth strategies and reward people who take risk and then who make a profit.

at the end of the day, the question the caller needs to be asking what happens to that profit. well, they're going to re-invest it either in the stock market or small business and hire more people or buy new capital and all of those actions with that profit create jobs. and at the end of the day, i believe the small business owner, the entrepreneur, the american taxpayer is a lot more responsible with his and her money than the federal government ever will be to increase taxes. host: beverly from phoenix. you are on. caller: i changed my registration and now an independent. host: what were you before? caller: a democrat. host: why did you change your registration? caller: i was a proud democrat and now i changed to proud

american. are you kidding me? if you've got the majority in congress and the house and can't get a health bill passed, then you don't deserve to be there. i'm 75 and i've never seen such garbage in my whole life and don't ask that representative shock a question because he filibusters. host: were you in favor of the house or senate-passed bill. caller: i was in favor of every one of them. every time they revised it, i said ok, get something passed. i was 75 yesterday and i've got my health insurance. so i don't need it. my grand kids need it. and you know, what aggravates me more than anything is that our federal government is the largest employer in the united

states and my tax dollars, my grand kids tax dollars pays for every single benefit that these two men get sitting up there. every tax dollar is paid for and their cost of living is paid for by my tax dollars that they get ought matically. they don't even have to ask for it, they just get it. what business in the united states gets automatic cost of living raises to their employees? the only one are these politicians that give it to themselves. host: there is a lot to work with there. good to hear from you. gentlemen, you heard, no fig bustering in honor of her 75th birthday. guest: i co-responsed a bill that we did pass the house to get rid of those automatic pay

increases. i agree with the caller. at a time when americans are sacrificing, so should members of congress.çó it's hard to argue with her about the gridlock andñr after year a health care bill hasn't been passed. if you listen to the president's state of the union address, you could piece together, there are many pieces of legislation that have passed the house. speaking of fig bustering -- the senate is beingñr controlled by democrats. i'm trying to say the obvious, we need to be able to have a senate that can function and pass legislation and able to compromise with the president and the house enough to at least change punk youation marks. and if we have that process, we can come to real agreements on

health care, which it is very important for future generations. this health care bill isn't about us, it's about future generations of americans who can't afford to pay skyrocketing health costs and getting less for it. we can't give up on health care and we have to make sure that it no longer takes all the oxygen and we are focusing on the economy as well. it's hard to disagree with the caller. it's frustrating for us, too and it's part of being in a democracy but there have been many times in history that we have gotten through these logjams. host: congressman maffei, did you support the house bill? guest: i did support it. like the caller, i didn't love every aspect of it, but i did think it was so very important that we move forward and make progress. i do not support the senate bill

in its current form. i do think that you can go too far. and the senate bill -- i personally feel burns theville age in order to save it. and i don't see how you can change the system and try to provide health care for those who are not insured but diminishing someone else's health care. we have to invest in electronic medical records and better systems of incentives to make sure doctors are treating patients. and a lot of that stuff is in these bills, but it kills the whole thing if you're going to tax one person's health insurance to provide someone else's health insurance. you are robbing peter to pay paul. there are limits, but there are a lot of good things in the senate bill also and if we could have a real negotiation, we could get there. host: congressman shock. guest: peter, i gee much of what

dan said. the caller is right. many americans are frustrated with the stale mate in washington. even in my home state of illinois, many people are shaking their heads what happened to the talk about bipartisan and bringing people together. your great station c-span was supposed to be included in much of the discussion, which it was not, despite all of the discussions when president obama was talking about what he was going to promote. there have been a lot of broken promises and disappointed americans about the past year. but as dan mentioned, let's talk about the future and focus on this next year and how we're going to improve things. the president has talked about you know the republican party and our inability to work with them on issues. again as the caller mentioned, the majority controls everything and democrats control the white house, the house, the senate and

with a huge majority, 81-seat majority in the house. 60-seat majority, which meant no republican could filibuster and still could not create a health care bill that even their own democratic party could agree on. hopefully now that the president seems to be serious about working with us on the other side of the aisle and sitting down and talking with us, hopefully that bill will become more of a mainstream american bill. most importantly, the american people, i think that's what many people fail to recognize is the fact that the people that stopped this health care bill from passing were not republicans or even democrat members, but the american people. they were the folks who showed that they did not support the house or senate version and the members who came back home and

listened to their districts, went back to d.c. and said, i can't support this bill and can't vote for it and that's why the bills didn't pass despite the super majorities in both chambers and the white house being one party. she talked about our benefits and look -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we take you to senator chuck schumer and representative chris van hollen on political campaign spending. >> it was touch and go whether he could be here today whether his street in maryland was plowed, but it was. so we're together and i want to thank chris for his partnership and his hard work and invaluable contributions to this legislation. as you know last month, the supreme court shattered nearly a century of u.s. law designed to curb the influence of

corporations in our election process. today, we are beginning to pick up the pieces. truth be told, chris and i along with many court watchers have been bracing for an unfavorable decision ever since the court decided to hear the citizens united case earlier this fall. but the court's ruling surpassed our worst fears. with the stroke of the pen, the court decided to overrule a decade-old ban and override millions of americans who want their voices heard in a democracy at a time when americans are so worried about special interests having much too much influence in washington. the court opened up the flood gates to much greater special interest influence than we have ever seen before. the decision was cor owes i have to our democracy, hard to understand and frankly, if you

love the way this country has been built up as a democratic nation, it was an infuriating decision. in my view, it was one of the most wrong-headed decision in court history and political decision since bush v. gore and not a proud moment for the court. the american people apparently agree according to a poll released this monday, americans oppose this ruling by a 2-1 margin. 64% disagree compared to 27%. rare that a court decision has so many people taking a stand so soon. i think the american people's view that special interests should not be encouraged as the court decision did, prevail. by the way, in the poll, the majority of republican voters

rejected the court's ruling, 51% of them thought it was improper. and to say the least, the high court in the land is at odds with public opinion. it's also at odds with the constitution, which labors strenuously to keep all citizens equal. but we aren't going to let this decision go unchallenged. so today, congressman van hollen and i are announcing the framework for comprehensive legislation we intend to introduce in our respective chambers the week after recess. unlike most bills, this one has a deadline for action. if we don't act quickly, the court's ruling will have an immediate and disastrous impact on the 2010 elections. our goal is to advance the legislation quickly. otherwise the supreme court will have pre-determined the winners of next november's elections. it won't be republicans, it won't be democrats, it will be

corporate america. leader reid and speaker pelosi have encouraged us to assemble this legislation quickly. the need to act quickly is in part what motivated our decision not to go the route of a constitutional amendment. others in the house and senate are preparing plans to pursue that path, but we believe we have to press ahead immediately. so in the week since the 5-4 decision came down, chris and i, together with many of our colleagues and with the white house, have finalized a legislative approach we think represents congress's best remedy to this act of political overreach by the court. our bill takes five steps. we ban foreign corporations from influencing our elections. foreign leaders like chavez and regimes like the chinese should have no back-door ability to undercut our democracy. second, we stop bailout

recipients and government contractors from spending unlimited amounts because taxpayer money should not be used to promote a company's political interest. third, we impose new disclosure requirements and fourth, we impose new disclaimers on tv ads. and boá+ of them as you see will drill down deep so that the real person who put forward the money is disclosed and has to disclaim. and finally, require candidates that reasonable access to tv air time if corporations are going to make them the target of political expenditures. i'm going to discuss the last three. chris will discuss the first two in some detail and then we'll answer your questions. let me talk about disclaimer -- disclosure. our bill will follow the money. our legislation imposes a series

of new disclosure requirements that will create an unprecedented paper trail to track the activities not only of corporations, but all types of organizations that have previously operated in the shadoostloost. under our bill for the first time all corporations, labor unions and 501 c 3 organizations would be required to register accounts designated for political broadcast advertising with the federal election commission. if you are going to put these ads on tv, there is going to be a separate track for the money that you're required to disclose. every dollar that goes into that account and the name and organization of the person who put it there must be reported. every dollar that gets spent out of the account and the nature of the activity it's paying for must also get reported. furthermore, this is really important, any transfer of dollars from these accounts to other accounts would also need

to be documented and reported to the f.e.c. we will drill down, so the ultimate funder of the pecks pen difficult tur is disclosed. we will not let anyone hide behind any dummy groups like citizens for a better america -- i didn't mean that one in particular. this way, any funneling of resources by a particular company to the chamber of commerce or any other professional organization cannot escape detection. these requirements won't ban political activity, but the level of transparency will at the very least make corporations realize everything they do in the nature of political advocacy will be public. that willñ(gññi make them think before spending unlimited sums to influenceñr elections. and the deterrent effect should not be underestimated. our bill would require

corporations to disclose expenditures on their web sites within 24 hours, to their shareholders on a quarterly basis and in their filings with the f.e.c. second, we impose new, tough disclaimer requirements for political ads. everyone's familiar with the rules that have politicians appear on camera at the end of their ads declaring i'm so and so and i approve this message. for any corporation that decides to buy air time in order to influence an election, we are going to impose the same requirement on that company's c.e.o. even if the company funnels money through a shell group, our bill would still require for them to be identified in any ad they put on the air. again, we will drill down so the ultimate funder of the expenditure is disclosed.

the c.e.o. would be the one who has put in the most money, not some shell group. in instances where more than one company pours money into a shell group, we require the top five corporate funders to be identified by company name on the screen and the corporation that gives the most would have its c.e.o. appear on camera to give the standby or ad disclaimer. this is how the state of washington handled these ads. we have had had a blueprint and it is effective. if one company has given an equal amount, a coin determines which c.e.o. appears on camera. our bill will require the lowest rate requirment. if a corporation buys air time to support or attack a political candidate, that candidate and political party is given a fair chance to respond. we have found this to be very,

very effective in terms of the so-called millionaire's amendment and we are applying the same type of rules here. and that is constitutional. overall, the supreme court's decision opened up -- overall, the supreme court's decision opened the floodgates to a torrent of corporate money. that's the bad news. the good news is there are solutions that can help repatch the dam. congressman van hollen and i will be working dill gently -- diligently and quickly to patch those holes as quickly as possible. chris. >> thank you, senator schumer. and i want to thank my friend, chuck, for all his leadership on this issue and for moving together so quickly to respond to what was a radical supreme court decision that does open the floodgates to big corporate

special interest money being pumped directly into elections in an unrestricted manner. and we need to move quickly to act on what that decision will have on our society. i thank the speaker of the house and senator reid for putting together a task force. i thank the members of the task force and others who have participated, because we have taken the ideas of the task force, in addition to ideas from many bills that you have probably seen have been introduced in the house and been corporated many of them within this framework. i want to talk briefly about the two provisions dealing with preventing foreign interests from dumping millions of dollars into u.s. elections. as senator schumer pointed out, you have many u.s. corporations that are based here in the

united states that are controlled by foreign interests, whether it's hugo chavez, the chinese government, many others, those are just some examples. and i would hope that every american would agree that we don't want foreign interests spending money to influence the outcome of american elections. understandably those foreign interests put those foreign interests first, not america's interests first and not the interests of american citizens. so we prevent those entities that are controlled by foreign interests from spending that corporate money in these elections. our test is three-fold. if the foreign ownership is 20% or more, that constitutes a corporation controlled by a foreign interest or if a majority of their board of dis is made up of foreign principals, that, also,

constitutes a foreign-controlled interest. and there is an objective test in those cases where you have foreign ownership below 20%, but where it's clear that the effective decision making with respect to political activities in the expenditure of funds for political activities is made by foreign interests. so those are the components that will be considered in this legislation for determining where the ban will apply. secondly with respect to what we call pay to play transactions, i think every american would agree that we don't federal contractors that are getting taxpayer dollars to be able to then turn around and essentially use those taxpayer dollars to fund campaigns to support or opposeñi candidates. and federal contractors had been treated differently in other parts of the campaign finance

law. and we believe it's important to extend that treatment with respect to the expenditures that we're talking about here. so we would say if you are a federal contractor and by definition you are therefore receiving taxpayer dollars, you can't turn around and spend money to try to elect or defeat candidates directly through your corporate funds. and secondly, if you've received tarp funds. if you are a.i.g. or a big wall street firm or other firms that have received tarp monies, until you pay back those tarp monies to the taxpayer, you cannot be using your corporate funds to try and defeat or elect a candidate. again, we don't want a big firm like a.i.g. to be able to take a lot of taxpayer dollars and then turn around and try to use those dollars to defeat candidates who support regulating wall street or other big financial

interests. that's just wrong and we want to make sure that that doesn't happen. finally, let me just say a word about the disclosure provisions because following the money provisions that senator schumer talked about are extremely important. we should agree that the american people should know who is paying for this political advertising. people shouldn't be able to hide behind dummy corporations or shell entities that they set up. the voter has a right to know about that disclosure and when it comes to corporate spending, we're talking about share holders who also have a right to know and they are required to make disclosures to their shareholders. we are going toxd be looking at the possibility of a component that requires some form of share holder approval. in the house, barney frank, mike capuano and others have been looking at that and that's a

possibility down the road to be added to this if they can devries a meaningful structure to accomplish that purpose. that will be included if we can work something out if that makes sense going forward. again, i want to thank the members of the task force. thank senator schumer. it's important that we move expeditiously. the supreme court decision will begin to open those floodgates of special corporate money and it's not in the interest of the american people and we need to act quickly. >> what provisions would apply to unions as well -- >> every provision will apply to unions. every single one. and to 501c3's and we don't want corporations to hide behind

them. >> can you talk about the option of approval. >> that's one of the difficult issues and because in both our bodies, the banking committee has jurisdiction over the hair sholder issues. we're working with our colleagues there to see what we can come up with. yes? [inaudible question] >> we believe we will get republican support here because it's hard for me to see why american people would allow foreign corporations to flines or even domestic corporations to try and use this new supreme court decision to get government contracts and money. we tried to limit this. we could have gone broader, but we are trying to limit it to the areas where there is broad consensus and we are hopeful we

can get republican colleagues to be supportive. we spent most of our time drafting this legislation. we wanted to leave you the broad outlines, the specific outlines really, today, so we can get reaction from people over the next week while we are on recess. >> we are going to reach -- we will continue to reach out in the house to try and obtain support from every member regardless of party because as the senator said, this should not be a partisan issue and if you look at the surveys, it's very clear, republicans, democrats, ivends alike believe this was -- independents alike believe this was a bad decision and does lead to special interest money. the day that the supreme court decision came down, senator mccain said quote, he was disappointed in the supreme court's decision. he then said he wasn't sure

whether or not we would be able to do anything about it or not. we provided a very targeted option for doing something about it. so we hope our republican colleagues will join us. >> the real-time disclosure forms, does this require corporations to disclose to the f.e.c.? >> when they make an expenditure, whether it's to a separate group or to the ad itself, it has to be posted 24 hours. [inaudible question] >> the white house has been very much involved. i think our staffs have had several meetings with the white house folks. they have been generally supportive of these provisions. and when we actually introduce

legislative language, we are seeing if people have suggestions. it is very complicated. hopefully by the time we are ready to come back here, i expect we will get white house support for it. [inaudible question] >> that has to be decided and we want to move it quickly. and senatorçó reid asked us and speaker pelosi did also, to put in a proposal quickly. thank you everybody. . .

they don't need to hire an accountant andñr apply for next year's taxes. if you talk to small business people in particular, that's what deterred them from previous times. >> [inaudible] >> i'm not going to talk about that. >> is the job still going to be laid down today -- >> congressman van hollen and schumerñr addressing the suprem court decision.

you can check that out on c-span.org under america ançó t courts. the president of sit zepps united is our guest sunday evening on "q&a." at the white house today, president obamaçó has a couple meetings with cabinet secretaries, treasury secretary geithner and 4il8ry clinton. also the white house briefing coming up atxdxdçó 12:45, we'll live coverage of that. açó white house report predicts jobs are likely to average about 95,000 more per month this year, high as credit tightens.gs remaj it also says the stimulus package hasñr savedñiçó or creao million job the president signing that report early this afternoon. on the issue of the economic stimulus, it was signed by the president about a yearñr ago. just over $333 billion has been

committed with $179 billion paid out so far. if you'd like to track some of the spending and learn about the projects being funded, go to our website, c-span.org. the house and senate are dealing with the snow, the house is dealing with it by being in recess and also because of the president's day holiday, until february 22. the senate won't have legislative work but they are in for general speeches this afternoon, morning business, 2:30 eastern live on c-span2. also the house and senate democrats are meeting for their caucus meetings. democrats are talking about proposed jobs legislation. we hope to have something from harry reidçó around 2:00 this afternoon. there's a draft of a jobs bill available,ñrñi we've linked to n our website, c-span.org. last week, the chinese foreign minister spoke about maintaining national security and unity inñ

china. he also touched on the copenhagen climate change conference and china's relationship with the european union. this this is -- this is about 45 minutes, we'll show you as much as we can until today's white house briefing. >> thank you for being here. i regard you as a highly successful ambassador and now a highly successful chairperson of this conference. i feel at home here with so many friends and so many new friends and new acquaintances. i've come here to learn and to exchange views with you for the purpose of working together to

build a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous world. looking back, at the first decade of the 21st century, i'm convinced that the enormous and profound changes the word has experienced will leave indelible implints in the longages of human history. china is without doubt an important part of the changing landscape. when i read newspaper ors watch television these days, i see stories about china almost every day. many people ask, how will china, a country ever growing and developing, interact with the rest of the world, and what role will china play on the international stage? let me therefore begin my speech

about china. we celebrated the 60th anniversary of the founding of the people's republic of china a few months ago. the -- these year, we have found a new development for long and hard exploration. the past 30 years in particular have witnessed tremendous achievements in china, thanks to the policy of reform and opening up. china ease g.d.p. has been growing at an average rate of about 10%. 235 million people have been lifted out of poverty. china has achieved three historic transitions from the highly centralized, planned economy to dynamic socialist market economy from a closed or semiclosed society to a fully open one, and from a state of mutual estrangement with the rest of the world, to one of

close interaction. on the other hand, china still faces many difficulties and we in china are most keenly aware of our weaknesses and challenges. china's per capita g.d.p. has just exceeded $3,000 u.s. dollars, ranking 104th in the world. uneven development remains a permanent problem in many rural and remote areas are still very poor. 135 million people are living on less than $1 a day and 10 million people have no access to electricity. china is a developing country and it would take the strenuous efforts of several and even a dozen generations before china can truly achieve modernization. to enable 1.3 billion people to live a comfortable life, we must

focus all our time and energy on development. we will seek a peaceful international environment to develop ourselves and at the same time contribute to the cause of world peace through our own development. this is a strategy of choice that china has made. it is a choice rooted in china's own interest as well as the long-term interest of the whole world. a more developed china is an opportunity rather than a threat to the world, i must stress. harmony without sameness has been a much-cherished value of the chinese people since ancient times. the argument that a strong nation is bound to seek hegemony finds no supporting case in china's history an goes against the will of the chinese people. china today is committed to a path of peaceful development. we pursue a defense policy that

is defensive in nature and a nuclear strategy solely for self-defense. we adhere to the policy of no first use of nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances and we make the unegive cabble -- unequivocal commitment we will unconditionalally not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear weapons state and a nuclear-free zone. china's military development has a clear purpose to maintain national security and unity and ensure smooth economic and social development. a more developed china will continue to treat others as equal and would never impose its will on others. china has always maintained that all countries, big or small, stron or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the

international community and must respect one another and treat one another with equality. china's diplomacy is guided by this principle, the equality we call for is not just equality in form, but more importantly, equality in substance. all of us should embrace a diverse world with an open mind. we must respect values and independent choice of the development path of other countries, respect each other's core concerns and refrain from interfering in their internal affairs. in the same vein, china, like any country in the world, will stick to principles on issues affecting its core interest and the major concerns and defend its hard-won equal rights and legitimate interests. a more developed china will undertake more international

responsibilitied and will never pursue self-interest at the expense of the interest of others. we know full well that in this interdependent world china's future is closely linked to that of the world. our own interest and those -- interests and those of others are best served when we work together to expand common interests, chair responsibilities and seek win-win outcomes. that is why, while focusing on its own development, china is undertaking more and more international responsibility commensurate with its strength and status. we have taken an active part in international cooperation of the financial crisis and promoted establishment of an asian reserve withñr $120 billion u.s dollars and other countries

totaling $650 billion u.s. dollars. we have canceled the debt of 29 heavily indebted poor countries and provided $200 billion r&d and assistance to other developing countries. china has been actively involved in international peacekeeping operations as the largest peacekeeper of the u.n. security council. we have sent over 10,000 peacekeeping personnel to 20 u.n. peacekeeping missions, including 2,100 currently performing peacekeeping duties. some chinese peace keepers even gave their lives to the cause of world peace and security. eight of our peacekeeping personnel lost their lives in the recent massive earthquakes in haiti.

china has shown with con vote action it is a positive force for world peace and common development. mr. chairman, ladies and gentlemen, concomitant with the historic changes in china are the new development and changes in the whole world. how shall we read the changes our world has gone through in the past decade? the way i see it is this -- at multipo lairity in the globalization gather momentum, the call for peace, development, and cooperation which represents the trend of the times has become stronger than ever. the destiny of all countries have never been so closely linked as they are today. and multilateralism and democracy and international relations have won ever greater popular support. there's also the other side of

the coin, the impact of the financial crisis is continuing and the prospect of the world's economic recovery are unclear. climate change, food security, energy security, public health security and other global issues have become more acute. nontraditional security threats, including terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and transnation crimes persist. when some long standing localçó conflict and hard-fought issues remaybe unresolved or pose grave threats and challenges to world peace and development. living in a changing world we must see things in the light of their development and seek solutions with the cooperative spirit. we should foster a cooperation outlook based on mutual respect and equal consultation and

safeguard the rights of developing countries to equal we should fosterçó an outlook o interest which emphasizes mutual benefits and common development in vast economic globalization -- and advanced economic globalization in the direction of shared benefits. we should foster a security outlook featuring mutual trust,3 mutual benefits, equality and coordination. respect each other's security interests, and pursue security for all.çó we should foster an outlook on civilization that ken urges mutual learning and seeks common groundñr while reservingñi differences and facilitates exchanges among civilizations and development models for common progress and we should foster an outlook on the

environment that champions mutual support and coordinated progress and makes joint efforts to preserve planet earth, ourç common home. to promote worldñi peace and development, it isñr particular important thatñi weñiñi properl manage the hard fought issues and global challenges. the room is a little bit too warm for me. maybexd china]iññi does not havi energy to have such well-heated rooms. [applause] iñi thank the warm hospitality my german friends. first, the nuclear issue on the rrent peninsula,ñi tensions surroundioe this issue has recently eased to a certain extent and there is now a new opportunity to restart the

six-party talks and push forward process. the korean nuclear issue is a complex and sensitive oneñr andt different parties. we must find a peaceful solution to this issue through dialogue and consultation and by political and diplomatic means. this is the only right choice, a choice which serves the common interest of all parties. we must all work together to keep the dollar going, demonstrate flexibility in the conditions for the resumption of theçó six-party talks. china will work tirelessly with other parties concernedñi and t international community as a whole for the denuclearization of the peninsula, the normalization of relations between relevant countries and the achievementçó of enduring peace and stability in northeast asia.

second, afghanistan. afghanistan has made headway in peace and reconstruction endeavor but still faces daunting challenges, including the resurgence of terrorism, rampant drug trafficking and slow progress in reconstruction. to bring full stability to afghanistan requires the arduous efforts of people of all sectors in that country and the entire international community. we fully support the afghan government's efforts for peaceful reconstruction and for national reconciliation and for building a nor prosperous afghanistan. as a friendly neighbor, china has to see a peaceful, stable, and independent afghanistan that enjoys development and good neighborliness. we will continue to take an active part in afghanistan's reconstruction process to work

with the rest of the international community for the early real sigse of stability and development there. third, the iranian nuclear issue. this issue has entered a crucial stage, the parties concerned should, with the overall and long-term interest in mind, step up diplomatic efforts, stay patient, and adopt a more flexible, pragmatic and proactive policy. the purpose is to speak a -- is to seek a comprehensive long-term solution and uphold the international nuclear nonproliferation regime and peace and stability in the middle east. china will make concerted efforts with the international community to play a constructive part in this issue. fourth, climate change. climate change is a major challenge facing the world

today. a review of the history of industrialization shows that over the past 200 years and more, only developed countries with a combined population of less than 1 billion achieved modernization and their modernization came as a -- at a huge cost of global resources and the environment. it represented an unsustainable model. we must enhance international cooperation. the copenhagen conference produced a positive outcome which was by no means the end of our endeavor. it only signifies a new beginning. all parties should stake to the basic framework of the united nations framework convention on climate change and the kyoto protocol. the common but differentiated

responsibilities built on the cooperation of the copenhagen accord and meet their commitment but credible evidence. the chi -- through credible action. the chinese government takes climate change very seriously and adopted a series of major steps in this regard. china's carbon dioxide emissions were cut by 46% between 1990 and 2005. building on that, we have committed to lower co-2 intensity by 40% to 45% by 2020 from the 2005 level. to reduce co-2 emissions on such a large scale and over such an extended period of time we require tremendous efforts on our part. the chinese government will honor its word and -- with real action and do its best to achieve even -- to achieve the

target and even exceed the target. mr. chairman, ladies and gentlemen, this year marks the 35th anniversary of diplomatic relations between china and the e.u., thank it is joint efforts of the two sides, china and the e.u. have established a comprehensive strategy partnership that is wide-ranging and multityred. the major development transformation and adjustment of the world have brought china and e.u. relations to a new historical starting point. china and the e.u. are among the most important economic and trade partners of each other. we share broad consensus on promoting multilateralism and seeking peaceful solutions to intercommarble distribute -- disputes andy need closer cooperation in addressing climate change and the global challenges. our common interests are

expanding. our shared responsibilities in international affairs increasing the foundation of our cooperation is getting stronner and exchanges in coordination have stopped growing. all these will lend a powerful boost to china-e.u. relations. the chinese government attaches great importance to europe and relations with europe. it's always been high on the diplomatic agenda. with the lisbon treaty coming into effect, e.u. integration process is entering a new stage. we hope to see a europe that plays a bigger and more active role in international affairs and we look forward to working with europe for a brighter future of china-e.u. relations. to achieve such a brighter future we must manage our relation from a strategic and long-term perspective, cherish and build on the progress that

we have worked so hard to achieve, and see to it that the relations are not obstructed by any individual incident at any particular time. we must respect each other, treat each other as equals, and accommodate each other's core interests and major concerns. it is our hope that europe will see china in a more objective and sensible light and recognize that china's development is not a challenge but an opportunity. we do not expect china and europe to see eye to eye on each and every issue and we need not be afraid of our -- of our differences. as long as we both embrace an open and inclusive spirit, we will have more consensus than differences, more mutual benefits than friction, and cooperation will be the defining theme of the china-e.u. relations. germany is an important country with considerable influence in

europe and relations with germany are part and parcel of china's overall relations with europe. in recent years, china and germany have intensified communication and consultation at varets levels and stepped up practical and mutually beneficial cooperation in response to the international financial crisis. china-germany bilateral ties have maintained dynamic growth today in the face of the complex international situation and very great challenges. china and germany must bear in mind the larger and long-term interest and further enhanced mutual trust and cooperation. china is ready to join germany in common effort to elevate our partnership of global responsibility to a higher level. mr. chairman, ladies and gentlemen, the german literary giant once said, whatever man

lays hold of and deals with the individual is not enough. society remains the highest needs of any honest man. as we enter the second deck kate of the 2 -- decade of the 21st century, we are holding the dawn of a new era, full of hope and challenges, united actions and win-win cooperation represent the call of the day and offer think only viable way to benefit all. china will work with others to advance security and build a splendid future of prosperity and progress. thank you very much. [applause] thank you >> as i was able to say before the minister's speech, the

foreign minister has agreed to take a couple of questions. now is the time to ask them. francois, maybe we can start with francois. from paris. here's the microphone. >> thank you, minister, for a broad-ranging and extremely thoughtful speech. the question i would want to ask you is about an issue you hardly touched upon, that is american-chinese relations, relating to taiwan. china has taken pronounced measures after the united states has announced the conclusion of an arms sale to taiwan. those measures, in my understanding, go further than similar measures which have been taken by beijing when previous arms sales were made by the united states to taiwan.

the fact that you're going further than you did in the past , is this the consequence of china feeling stronger? or is this the consequence of the arms sales to taiwan being considered as bigger and worse than the previous american arms sales to taiwan, since there's a long history of american arms sales to taiwan? >> does china feel stronger? yes. china is going from strength to strength. china feels weak in terms of social and economic development in china, yes. i perspired a little bit, not because i was nervous, because i have been through this thing god knows how many times, but the central heating here is very

good. in china, many of my countrymen still have a child suffering from cold, we still have chill blains because the government was not supposed to support a central heating system south of the yang see river. -- the yantgze river. now people in china may have central heating or air-conditioning of one kind or another. but actually, still many people are suffering from cold. most of europe, i would say most, not all, most of europe if they were in china, the government would not be supposed to provide with central heating. so i would not be so outrageous as saying, if you would like to

talk climate change with me, you should shut off all your central heating, then we are on equal footing. but literally, hundreds of millions of people in china in wintertime are having a quite difficult time. i hope there can be more mutual understanding. about the u.s. arms sale to taiwan, let me say that back in the early 1980's, there was issued the joint communique between china and the united states that roughly goes like this, the united states will gradually reduce its arm sales to taiwan and will not exceed in qualitative terms the level of recent year, that meaning the carter years. you look at what is happening, the $6.4 billion u.s. dollars of sales, specifically weaponry to a part of china, and whom the

ugs calls a partner. this is obviously a violation of the code of conduct of a nation and this is a violation of the joint communiques issued between china and the united states. i think the chinese people and government have every reason to appear indignant about this. we approached the u.s. and made the representation very seriously on many occasions, yet the united states still went ahead with the sale. ing of the chinese government and people would have to react. it is using its sovereign right to do what is necessary. i think what is the question, the central question here, is

whether a country is feeling stronger or not. all countries, big or small, strong or weak, reach -- should be equal. you have to put yourself in the shoes of other people and before you make any decisions, would you like this to be done to yourself? of course not. so i hope that our friends and people in europe can understand that what china has done is very reasonable, it is -- as any dig fied people would do -- as any dignified people would do. i hope people will honor their commitment and i hope that the united states will change itsñi behavior onñi arms sales and wi abide by theñi august 17 communique and will stop arms sales to taiwan, which is

actually having more progress, together with us, in theñi peaceful development relations. the united states support this is peaceful development of relationsçó, so we urge the u.s to do things which will contribute to the good development, not the other way around. thank you. >> thank, minister. i know there'sñr been a number questions, i think we canñi onl take one or two more. the next one on my list was john rose from the east-west institute in new york. john. >> minister, could we talk for a moment about cyberspace. i know it's seen as a confrontational issue but a lot of governments and businesses

are seen about the common threats we all face to the digital economy, coming from increased cybercrime and other areas. i wonder if you could give us perspectives on cybersecurity. >> to be quite honest, i don't want to offend the media here but let me say one thing very clear. these days, actually, i listen to chinese radio and tv news to some western media. i'm the foreign minister of china. every morning i have to have solid news before i go to my office and so i have to use every minute i spend on news very, very carefully. i find that i have more solid news from china's radio and tv programs and when i go to the office, i feel quite confident

that i have most of the news, if not all, in the world. this is not saying that i am not watching western media, i do, i continue to do that. what i want to tell you is that the average man or woman in china, they're entitledçó to th same extensive, i think more extensive coverage of news in the world in every corner of the world than i'm afraid the western media. this is a fact. they have all the major information at their fingertips, like the foreign minister and every year, 15 million chinese go abroad for business, for travel, forçó tourism, so on an so forth. every year,ñi 15 million foreigners come to china. so i hope everybody knows that the chinese people are well

informed and the french foreign minister is not here, my good friend, bernard kushner, actually at the bottomçóñi of t eiffel tower. freedom of speech is important. they see the things around them and see theñi things abroad wit the thingsñr atñi home. we still have a lot of learn from other countries, including from other countries, including on the other hand theyñ  feel quite proud achieve. they have lifted 30 year, lifted almost the total population of the united states out of poverty. that's what china has done and we have given lots of aid tow3 r

friends abroad. i think for the developing countries, the most important thing is to build up the social structure, the basic infrastructure. that'sñi what has helped sustai development in china. china will do its best to help, we hope the developed countries will do. i don't know how come this has popped up. yes, we are supporting free exchange of information, yes, we are supporting freedom of speech on the other hand, every company which comes to china or goes to another country, there are countries of different social systems in the world. people have to respect a country's historical background, culture, tradition and the chinese government, as any other government, has to do regulatory work according to law and

according to what is in the best interest of china. that's what we have been doing and i hope that foreign countries, when they try to expand their business or do business in china, will continue to respect the public interest in china and the cultural traditions of china. yes, we are totally against hacking attacks. china is a victim of this kind of attacks. china will cooperate with the international community. so that's, i want to say, on the -- this google thing and in conclusion, i would say that we welcome international companies coming into china. this has been our consistent policy for the past 30 years or so and the people who come into china basically they don't regret and those companies who choose a wise path will never

regret. thank you. >> we'll take one more question. jim hogueland. make it brief, jim. >> minister, thank you for your remarks. i want to follow up on francois' question that you partially answered where you said china feels stronger. it's not only arms sales to taiwan that has affected china. china is resisting sanctions on iran. there's also the mat ore the copenhagen summit, where china

is putting together a four-couldn'tly bloc that obama had to deal with. whenñi talk to politician, they see a new, stronger china, but when you add in the currency control issue, don't you fear it will produce more problems than harmony. >> that's more than one question, but since somebody raised the question, i'm obliged to answer them. let me talk about the copenhagen conference. china made its position known and india, brazil and south africa all made their position known beforehand taking into consideration the necessity of maintaining sustainable development in their own countries while contributing to the efforts against the climate change. yes, there is this basic

couldn'try mechanism, on the other hand, chinañr has solicit the opinion of many other country, developed and developing ones. there's also the seven plus one structure. it's not just the basic countries who are more or less on the same wavelength. for many other countries who have complimented china's efforts.ñiñi that's why we need to make concerted efforts to make the next conference, the mexico conference, a bigger success. on the other hand, the conference has achieved something because it has reaffirmed unfcc and the kyoto protocol as the mainñr framewor for dealing with climate change

because it has recognized we have to continue to work on a two-track way, according to the road map. this is because in terms of long-term goalsñi and technical and capital support to developing countries, the voluntary actions that controlling greenhouse gas emissions from the developing countries, they are all thesexd achievements of the copenhagen conference. i think we have toñi continueñi along this track to make sure that the mexico conference will achieve even more and china is ready to continue to make its contribution. let me say that on the question of relations with the united states, we will continue to

exchange views with the u.s. side because we do believe that a stable and healthy and developing relationship between china and the united states is in the best interest of our two countries and in the best interest of the world. anything i'm missing? any other questions? oh, iran. iran, actually, was not part of my agenda when i started this talk about 10 days ago. it has emerged in many of my discussions. so let me say again that china is fully supportive of

maintaining the nonproliferation -- the international nuclear nonproliferation regime.ñi on the other hand, we believee1 that iran on a bay kiss of -- basis of the i.a.e.a. has the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy and we believe this issue should best be solved through diplomatic means in order to maintain peace and stability in the gulf region and in the middle east. we believe thatñr iran has not totally shut the door on theñi iaea proposal on nuclear fuel supply to the research area and we believe it is very important to have another round of p-5 plus one dialogue.

we hope on the basis of the proposal put forward by p-5 plus one and the package deal proposed by the iranian side somehowñi a mutually acceptable formula can emerge. there are chances -- challenges for us to explore. china's view is very clear. in order not to complicate the situation, it's better for us now to concentrate on consultation and dialogue. so as to achieve a satisfactory solution. let me say that many, many countries see china as a force for peace and stability and development. we have 1/5 of mankind, we're not saying that only 1/5 of

mankind should be -- their views should be taken good care of but at least we deserve a chance to express ourñr views on how thin should be run in the world. what we are trying to do, like other countries, is to improve on the international mechanism, on the ways to make sure that both the developed and developing countries will benefit from our cooperation in the future. so we are offering our views, but we have the modesty to listen to others. that's always been the tradition of china. but i think we also deserve a hearing of one kind or another. i say this in a very humble way. if we are talking about

equality, freedom of speech, we are not only talking about such attributes to decent society on individual basis, but also on the basis of countries. demockeryityization of --ñiñr democratization. three or four countries cannot decide the future of the world. china is not talking about blocs. china is talking about common interest. that's the language we should all speak in the future. >> thank you, minister. i'm sorry it was so hot for you. [applause]

>> live now to the white house press briefing room, waiting for robert gibbs. news conference was scheduled for 12:45, it's been bumped back about 15 minutes. us get to your calls. the obama administration perceived as anti business. jerry from columbus, ohio. independent line. caller: thank you for the picture of the sunrise -- reminds me of king richard the third, now is the winter of our discontent -- remember what adam smith said, steve, supposedly the first capitalist. when the economy ties itself to financial capitalism it is on its way to ruin. thanks a lot, steve, for taking my call and have a wonderful day.

keep shining that sun. host: kingston, and illinois, sue on our republican line. caller: hi, i'm sue. i am a republican and i'm very upset with other republicans because i think the president is perceived -- it is because the culture. i have to tell my six-year-old son that we cannot be proud of the founding fathers because they are slave owners and land steelers but he said, but mom, isn't that wrong, can we be proud of the founding fathers? i said, nope. i have been indoctrinated -- i have to tell them it is wrong to be proud american. i'm sorry. host: freeport, illinois honored democrats landed it is it fair

to perceive the obama administration as anti business? caller: i appreciate the opportunity to call in its morning. what essentially has happened is over the years the big business has created a big ghetto in america. whether it is greed or whatever it is, businesses have recently taken the money out of the country from the people and left us with such a huge bad neighborhood that barack obama wants to fix, but i don't think it is possible. like the old adage -- one dumb person can get us into more trouble than 10 smart guys think it as out of. host: the president on the white house lawn -- the white house blog. they gave the president's full answers to questions asked by

business week. what did the president actually say during the interview? that was the complete answer he gave when it came to the question on bonuses. iowa, larry on independent line. caller: hi, peter, aka, steve, rob as pedro and fred as susan did you have the patience of job. it is rough. i would like to see our money come back to us instead of going to these bonuses. i think the american people have

been ripped off so far this century. host: how easy the money coming back to you and what you mean by you? caller: any taxpayer in america. i had seen so much government waste, fraud, and abuse over the last 10 years -- getting paid for services that were not delivered. i thought 30% was loan shark money and now it is credit card percentage. it is all out of whack and i think it is time we get back some people up there in government that are for the people, by the people. i don't think corporations having money to spend on lambasting the other guy in

commercials when it comes to election time. we get blasted by these commercials come election time anyway, and these negative ads are just sickening. it turns off the american public. host: of on the republican line. obama administration perceive that anti business -- true or not true? caller: true. well, i have been and small business all my life, steve, and i think we are talking about businesses today. we separate business from small business. i ran my company most of my life. i'm 75 years old and never had it so good because i look at what i have. i don't think you will become president -- and even with the

stupid bonuses they are handing out, if he had done anything, he should have said there is no bonuses. let us cut them out. host: you think the president should do that? caller: i think he should have to cut the bonuses out. that should have been the number one thing. even these people losing businesses, i feel god awful sorry -- i 8 ran a small business and i think he separate business from small business. while the men were picking up tools friday night when we finish the job, i took my book in and collected my money. i paid as i go. no loans that i had. and i paid my man out of that and when there was -- if there was some left, i paid need.

-- me. i don't understand education. i went to work one month before i turn 14. host: what kind of business to you run? caller: service work. i install equipment and service equipment. my son does the same thing that i have done for 40 years. i'm from paul quit -- paul creak, wisconsin, i came from south dakota by way of montana. now i service feed mills. host: thank you for calling in. i just want to show you some of the headlines from article abou the "business week" and "bloomberg" interview. here is how "the washington post" played it.

obama says he is a fierce advocate for the free market. and in the "the financial times" this morning -- "bonuses are part of the u.s. free-market." in "the new york daily news" -- the next call comes from croft and, maryland, nick on the democrats' line. the think it is fair the president's administration is

perceived as anti business in some quarters? caller: no, i don't. president obama is not anti anything. not anti-american for sure. i have a question for you. hello? host: i'd listening. caller: ever since 2006 when democrats took over the house and the senate and they were in charge, you would think that they had lost the election. now we have a republican, democrat, an independent line and i would say the majority of the calls come in on independent line. i would like to you to ask of independence to call in, did you vote in the last election and if so, did you both for. if they don't the answer, then like you do so many people, just cut them off because they are --

president obama has been trying to heal the country ever since the day he got in there and all he has gotten, as you know -- you guys are supposed to be in charge of the house and senate and report to the american people. host: we are not in charge of anything. we simply listen and we divide our lines by political affiliation. i would say 95% of the people who call lynn are playing by the rules. i agree with you, nick, that 5% don't play by the rules. on independent line, raymond from pittsburgh. the obama administration perceived as anti business? caller: most definitely because he has never run one, he is never owned one. he has no experience. he does not know what he is doing. surrounded by a bunch of air had to give him advice, and that is how he operates. host: what you did in pittsburgh? caller: i am retired. host: policeman.

-- caller: i'm a policeman. host: the white house giving full answers on their blog.