utility companies, to do right by americans. i think that is something most non-conservatives believe as well. >> there are pretty nasty polls that came up today, the abc washington poll. it showed that most americans would like to see a republican- controlled congress as opposed to a democratic-controlled congress. why should people vote for you? >> that is a pool of most americans, not most rhode island doors. the reason that are fed up with congress is it is to contingent upon the will of all the campaign contributors and corporate interests that have rammed through the bailout of banks and the lack of a public option as part of the insurance reform package. i have always stood in stark opposition to such corporate control of our elections. >> mr. cicilline, you have a record people can scrutinize a little more than others. you came in as mayor promising reform for a clock -- a corrupt

city hall. your administration had a share of blemishes. two police officers are charged in a drug ring. how can we trust you to be a reformer in washington, when many question whether you were able to do it right here in providence? >> i am proud of the work we have done in the city of providence to restore honesty and integrity. i am proud of the results in terms of new investment to the city, the lowest crime rate in three decades, creation of a high-quality national model of an after-school programs, improvements in our schools. providence continues to be a place where businesses are coming. it gives us a knowledge economy. i am proud of our work and of my team. i work for city government. with respect to how does that position before washington, what we need is someone who is going to stand up and fight for hard- working middle-class families, something i have done every day as mayor of this city, something

i have seen every day throughout my city. we stood up to banks. a proposed an ordinance to require banks to give people a mediation process before it forecloses on them. deutsche bank and wells fargo sydney. i won. we issue processes of contingency to keep people in their homes. i took on all the institutions and brought honor and integrity to government. i will fight in washington. >> i want to move on to immigration. lynch, mr. you support a pass to citizenship for illegal immigrants. what do you want to sit for this to happen? specifically, do you think as part of the pack to citizenship illegal immigrants should have to learn english and pay back taxes? >> absolutely. it is frustrating for me and others to see what is happening around the country because of the complete failure of the congress to deal with immigration comprehensively on a federal basis. that is what you see the problems we have in arizona.

that is where you see the problems in rhode island. they are all the same issue. they are a direct result of the congress's failure to act on a critical issue that has been before them for several years. back in 2004-2005, there was a bipartisan bill in congress that such a clear framework to resolve these issues, including securing our borders, using the national guard as appropriate, a press which is citizenship for the 12 million people we know are here, learning english, paying taxes, paying a fine, and not in favored treatment. the congress should have done that. they should be ashamed to work away from that issue. now they, like arizona, are suffering the consequences. we need to fix that nationally, and now, not when they feel like getting around for it. >> gemma, any bill that came on

abortion to e-1/2ver andify -- and a bill that came out of washington would like ely have an e-verify component. as a businessman, what do you think of that? >> until it is as reliable as it needs to be, i would not support it until we know it is accurate. >> many people entered the country legally and overstay a be so like a tourist visa. hearty chuckle the statistic if you do not -- how do you tackle this statistic if you do not crack down on the employers? >> whinney to hold them accountable for hiring them. here is a bigger problem. there is 11 million undocumented workers in the united states now. they have over 4 million children. these are now american citizens. the problem is bigger.

their status brings -- it would take $300 billion to deport them. the answer is looking down the borders. it does not make any sense. >> should they have to learn english and payback taxes? >> they should. they should have to pay a fine as well. the budget is about $66 billion over 10 years. >> for mr. cicilline, the proposed unaggressive withdrawal from afghanistan, earlier than the president has called for. some congressmen are voting against additional funding for the war. how serious are you about getting out of that country? >> i am very serious about getting out. i think we have to do it as quickly and responsibly as we can. i am arguing for a smaller

footprint, and more strategic presence. >> would you vote against funding? >> no. i believe so long as there are men and women in afghanistan which have an obligation to support them with the resources they need. a decision has to be made by the civilian leadership, not be the military leadership. i believe the time has come to bring our troops home, to reduce the size of that book front, to be more counterinsurgency and strategic. that will allow the afghanis to stand up with their own political institutions and military, which is the best way to stabilize that region. when need to do that in a responsible and expeditious way. we are responsible for giving the men and women there the resources they need. >> would be declaring victory in afghanistan donne's >> victory will be declared when there is a stable government in afghanistan and the evgeny people are supporting their own civil institutions.

there has to be a political solution, not a military solution. we are spending $4 billion and month of taxpayer money. studies conclude that 40% to 70% of that money is going to corrupt officials. taxpayer money is in the hands of corrupt officials. that is a disrespect to america. we need to do what we can to protect our long-term national security. that can be done by ensuring that afghan military and civilian institutions exist and we support that. that is not the presence we have. >> mr. segal, on defense spending, do you support scheme in but the guards if so, what do you say to people and district 1 who rely on defense spending for work? >> i would vote against the spending bill before the congress right now.

i believe we should support the troops that are there. i think we support them best by funding their stake -- their safe return home. i do not think there is a clear path to resolution. i would vote against spending. >> he would vote to return them home but not for their -- >> yes. exactly. the other question -- i believe that we should convert some of our spending away from military spending and toward other things that also serve a productive purpose. in rhode island we have lots of people who are working for raytheon. those companies do more than more for the military. we should do more than encourage them to skew their technology toward the domestic economy,

green technology. i think we could vastly improve public transit and infrastructure in rhode island. i think all those workers are smart engineers. those firms have an important role to play in an effort. >> are you saying stop making -- stop doing business for the military, and convert them to other types of work dark squawks not stop. we have the best military in the world. i think that is a good thing. we should be able to defend our borders. i think we can skew our government spending is commensurate with those mandates and federal priorities. weekends do that toward things that help build domestic infrastructure. >> president obama supported education commissioner deborah gives money teachers were laid off at the city's underperforming press cools. did you support the move to fire the teachers?

>> i believe there should have been a little more dialogue and a little more diplomacy. i believe deborah gibbs had to eventually fire them. i hoped it would not come down to that, but unfortunately it did. i believe as far as education is concerned we are not embracing some of the best and brightest in the country. under our plan, we will focus on a financial transparency and accountability. i see a citizen-driven government. i see schools driving educational excellence. there are great institutions throughout our country that we can emulate. we are not solving some of the best and brightest and bringing that information of best practice. >> what specifically can you do from washington to improve on that performance? >> under my plan, and would

create work groups for specific areas. one would be for education. when people are disengaged with their government in the state of rhode island and nationally, which would bring them into the work group to form policy. what has happened is a lot of people are disconnected. the best and brightest have this information. we can filter out and get to the best information possible. >> mr. segal, those who want federal money it must base hiring and firing on student performance. do you support merit pay for teachers? >> i do not. it has been demonstrated to be costly and ineffective. it undermines the from work. as it relates, i believe that every student in the state deserves a high-quality

education. that is what i support the firing of bad teachers. it sends a message to bad teachers that they should avoid central -- it's a message to good teachers that they should avoid central falls, because they can be fired even if they did nothing. i think evaluation systems should take student performance into account, but take into account professional development and less-quantifiable and outputs. i think there should be teacher evaluations, to use the test: does not do right by teachers and servants. >> i have a specific question for you. he pledged to address the providence public school system when he took office, cicilline mr.. but the worst performing schools

are in your city. >> about the central falls issue -- i am proud of what we are doing. it is a stark contrast with what happened in central falls. i believe it is the collective responsibility of the community. parents, teachers, and students have to work together to achieve success for our kids. in provenance we have led the nation with san francisco on extended learning opportunities, crediting after- school programs and a new school day from early in the morning to late at night. we have a districtwide curriculum. we are in the middle of a teacher evaluation that will be a national model. providence is one of only two districts in the state that signed on to "race to the top." that happened because of collaborative partnership. we are all working together. i believe what happened in central falls is bad for kids and bad for teachers, but we have to change the results.

we all the kids in the state and our country access to the best quality of public education. we are not just competing with the next town and state. we are competing with india, china, and germany. to give them the opportunity to succeed, which have to raise student achievement. that means investing in facilities, like in providence. we are building a modern, safe building for education. it has the best technical academy in the northeast. we have school funding. we have fairness in funding public education. >> on the central falls issue, are you saying you are against the firing? >> what i am saying is the approach we used in providence, to work in partnership. we are the first district in the state where teachers are not hired based on seniority. we have merit-based tire. >> you are not giving me the answer to that question. >> i do not believe the

wholesale firing of teachers was good for the students, the community, or the teachers. there is a better way to do it. the way we did it was by real partnership. at the end of the day, we are accountable to our kids for the quality of their education. >> mr. lynch, should twitter's be held accountable? >> ahsha course they should be held accountable. it was never shown to me that the mass firing of all the teachers in central falls was a solution to the problem. it clearly was not. they have not been able to mediate their differences to move forward. i take issue with the mayor on a few things he says about problems. unlike every other town in rhode island, the mayor of providence controls the school system. the superintendent serves at the pleasure of the mayor. providence has had and still has, unfortunately, some of the lowest performing schools in

this area. and for the last seven years, prior to president obama and secretary duncan taking the lead in getting communities like providence involved in waste to the top, which i also support -- seven years of inaction with in the providence school system. those children are lost. something should have been done. i believe the mayor should have done it sooner. >> the work that has been done began the day i took office, both in terms of work on a cordial one, work and professional development, work to identify new superintendents, work on a new model of an after-school program, the extended morning, new investment in facilities, new teacher evaluation tools -- all that preceded race to the top. umag to complement the school board. this was all done when the state was reducing and $20 million in

its investment in education. the worst that was done was done in the context of making the right investment. >> we are running out of time. 30 seconds, if we could. this weekend, attorney general eric holder said he is concerned that the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks may not face the death penalty if he pleads guilty in a military court rather than being tried in the civilian proceeding where the death penalty applies. i am a jury is for you feel about it personally. should he be put to death? >> i am not in favor of the death penalty under any circumstance. i am not in favor of the death penalty. i am like every other american mortified at someone that sinister. i am not in favor of the death penalty. >> i oppose the death penalty, but i hope that his punishment is harsh and along.

i think you can argue that life imprisonment without any option of parole is a very severe penalty. >> i want to be very clear. i have consistently said i differ with some of the other people on the stage. any terrorist whose goal is to hurt innocent americans who is captured should be tried, convicted if appropriate, and the death penalty is appropriate. i do not believe -- i disagree with some people here and also with the president of the united states. i do not believe that terrorists, when captured, should be afforded all of the rights of citizens to civil trials. >> i believe in the use of our criminal courts. in hundreds of cases before september 11 and after september 11, terrorists were tried in criminal courts and published -- and punish. in military courts, only three

it were tried. in two cases, the sentence was less than a year. >> mr. gemma, if you could, president obama is in a legal battle to contain all -- to to continue the temporary ban on deepwater oil drilling. do you support the ban? >> i do. >> a cicilline mr.? >> yes. this is important as they try to ram things through our waters. i strongly support the president. >> i am a lng. about for months i have been outspoken. this is one of the worst proposals ever to come before the state of rhode island. with regard to the moratorium, there has been no enforcement or oversight of that industry. that has become clear. i will not support a long-term

plan debt moratorium for the simple reason that it will bankrupt multiple businesses in that area. i think it needs to be done expeditiously to be sure those wells are safe, but that businesses all over the country are not part in further trouble. >> i strongly support the moratorium. i can't support renewable energy in the state. i have worked on the wind turbines to see popping up in portsmouth and along highway, where more solar panels. i think congress should start showing for the oil companies and promote renewable energy in earnest. >> we will be back briefly. we are out of time for the first hour. >> we are talking about some very important issues facing all of rhode island. this is going to continue for another 30 minutes. right now, we want to give the candidates an opportunity to deliver their closing statements. we want to remind you that the debate is not over.

it will continue from 8:00 until 8:30, right after the candidates make some brief remarks. the order of statements was determined by a drawing. after that, the candidates will give the audience an opportunity to applaud. >> this election is about one thing -- who is on your side? but the corporations and special interests, we stand with you, working families of rhode island. i first ran for office eight years ago to be able is for people who did not have much. and every chores, i have made the people of our state first -- not the corporations, not the developers, not the lobbyists, but you. indeed a congressman who is not afraid to stand strong for our values not just when it is easy and popular, but every time in matters for working families. that is the kind of congressmen are one to be in washington.

>> thank you again for doing this debate. this is a time in our country when we need new thinking, new ideas, and a sense of commitment to share american values. we need to let people go to congress and fight for working families -- someone who has a record of delivering results, who understands what we need to do to fix our state. i have a record as mayor of the city of providence the last eight years. i know what works. i can deliver for our state. >> mr. gemma? >> i want to thank everyone for listening. i also want to remind you of our mission. i want to reinvigorate public service for the 21st century. it is about listening to our government. it is about listening to our people.

u.s. seen it yes or no questions. it is about listening. it is about me endangering ree re-engaging. >> a lynch mr. -- mr. lynch? >> tonight you have had a lot of talk about who can best stand up for you. if you are happy with the course the state is on in providence and you want to see more of the same, you have options to vote for other candidates. but if like me you are fed up with washington and looking for someone who will call it as it is, if you believe it is time for term limits in congress, i ask for your support and will advocate for you on a daily basis. >> thank you to the candidates. thank you for a wonderful audience. they have been waiting to applaud the candidates. here is your opportunity to

applaud the four candidates. [applause] we are not done yet. we have more coming up. but before we go off the air, i want to thank the providence performing arts center for hosting our debate tonight. we have tackled a lot of questions and issues so far. we have much more coming up on our website. we will be doing that from a clock until endicott 30. will have a complete wrapup coming up tonight falling the all-star game. once again, thanks for watching. we are still on w onpri.com -- a wpri.com.stillo on

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] clark's welcome back to the campaign 2010 debate, continuing live. let us head right to our viewer questions. what you think is most important to focus on right now? not a year from now, but right now? job creation or deficit reduction? >> job creation, definitely.

if we get our people back to work it will help the economy. that will help the deficit on the other side. job creation without doubt. >> how as a congressman at do you get people back to work? >> i am the only candidate year that has created jobs in the business sector. i am probably the strongest suited to do that. i am going to look at it as a leg of a stall. one of those legs is aligning our government with what it is strong at. rhode island is most strong in education, and health care, in the construction sector. the other leg of the stool is having rhode island become the health and wellness capital of america. that is a multi dollar industry we can bring to our state. that would allow us to create jobs. it would not only create jobs

for consulting, it would create manufacturing jobs to make exercise bikes. it is an industry that if we commit tax credits we could stretch. that is my approach to getting people back to work. >> we will go down to the wind. it is job creation or deficit reduction. i am anticipating job creation to be your answer, but the part to is -- what about mr. gemma's charge? he is a businessman. is he the only one who can create jobs? >> i have done so in the city. this is something i can talk about. i recently talked to a young man who had been out of work for two years. he had been back to work. he said, "i could pay my first bill this week."

the most important thing is to create conditions for job creation. we have the fourth highest unemployment rate in the country. we have to invest in infrastructure, and develop a manufacturing prowess in -- manufacturing policy. we have to provide incentives to companies to make goods here. we have to spend in a responsible, targeted way. smart and effective. at the same time, we have to have a balanced budget and be responsible with taxpayer money. judge kristian is critical to rebuild our economy. -- job creation is critical to rebuild our economy. before we began at the court in providence, most people did not know we have $47 million allocated. now there are jobs. the point is there are effective

strategies to create jobs. >> mr. lynch, job creation or deficit reduction? >> we cannot fix anything in this country until we put people back to work. i have been involved and represented thousands of people over the years, small business people who i see on a regular basis, whose main complaint is they do not have access to capital. they can barely stay afloat. i would never have supported giving $800 billion to big banks and wall street and than $15 billion to be spread across the country for job creation. that is when i talk about priorities in washington being wrong. that is what i am talking about. we have to put pressure for making any stimulus money available to get that money into the lending community so people can get access, including here in rhode island. it is incomprehensible to me to hear the mayor talked about

responsible budgeting. providence has over a $50 million deficit this year, and more in unfunded pension liabilities. it is important that people look not just at what candidates say but look at their history and what they have done. >> i want mr. segal to jump in on this question. >> jobs are the comparative right now. in my capacity as a legislator, i have helped create jobs. one is the green jobs work i have done, legislation passed under my name three times in a row which says that the cure the proprietor of solar panels or wind turbines if you get paid for the electricity that you generate but do not use yourself. i think that is a great thank ting a great -- i think that is

a great thing. but also pushed for an ordinance that says that if you get money from the city of providence that you are supposed to hire local residents to do the work of your project. that push came to fruition for a lawsuit by helped organize against the executive office. now the ordinance is imports and higher rate than before, getting employment for people in hotels and other projects that were built for tax breaks by the city of providence. >> i cannot control the way that some candidates run their campaign. i understand why they think attacking me is one of the only ways they can win this race. i do not have control over the way they run their campaign. i control the way i run mind. i will continue to talk about the important issues -- high

unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, oil gushing into our oceans come up our military in afghanistan. i am very proud of the work we have done in providence. we have eight ridings from all of our rating agencies. -- we have a-ratings from all of our rating agencies. we worked very hard this year. we did not raise the car talks are the property tax. we worked closer with a lot of communities. in a recession, the last thing we should do is raise taxes. so we put together a budget that responsibly manages our services and manages our deficit. for seven years, we have had seven balanced budgets. for this year, we are retiring $70 million of debt in the next two years. we are actually reducing our debt. this is really about hard work

as a city. we protect residents from a tax increase. we would not have been able to do that except for very responsible fiscal policies for the last seven years. >> mr. segal made a reference to an ordinance passed 23 years before he took office. no one spoke about it. no one implemented it. when i took office, we implemented that for the first time in 23 years. i am happy to report hundreds of people have been fired. the suggestion -- she had a birthday party for the 20 year anniversary for his wife. while he was having cake, i was busy implementing. [applause] >> we have a birthday party to draw attention to the fact it was 20 years old and not yet implemented. but organized a lawsuit that went before judge fortunado.

he decide what the plaintiff that organized -- that argued the ordinance was not being sufficiently enforced. more people are at work today in providence because of those efforts. [applause] >> mr. lynch, we are going to start with you on this one. do you believe there should be term limits in congress? obviously, we know you shouldn't -- you figure they should be. what women do you think there should? >> i understand what the mayor would want to talk about national issues and not providence. i do not think that is the proper way to handle this campaign. i will continue talking about the real problems. on your question, i think i am the only one who has said i

believe in term limits. i am the only candidate who has said that we need term limits in congress. if we are going to clean up washington and stop depolluting power of money, special interests, and lobbyists, we have to do something significant, not a level around the edges. the only way we are going to change from washington works is to put term limits in place so people go down there for a set time to do public service and to do not become public politicians that surround themselves with corrupt influences. the answer to the last part of your question is a thing 12 years is ample time for someone to go to washington, do some public service, and go back to their state and do something else. i have said that even if it does not pass, which i believe it will -- 12 years is six years -- is to terms in the senate.

>> what does that say about senator ted kennedy, who served for a very long time in congress starts >> there are exceptions to every rule, but you cannot carve up individual exceptions if we are going to fix a terribly corrupt and polluted system. the answer is that those individuals, including jack reed, who i have supported and have had many opportunities to do great work in the senate and house -- we have come to a point where washington is so badly broken that if we do not do something significant it is never going to change. we are never going to fix it. i myself have said i would comply with this. the biggest and most important tool to clean up washington is to impose term limits on people who go there. >> i go back to claiborne pell.

the pell grant was done in his 12th year. as good a statement as hamper, under this proposal, -- as good as him, under this proposal, it would not be eligible for the election. i have created a measurement tool that would be on the website. the citizens would be able to see immediately how other elected official is operating. within two years, if i am not delivering and results, forget about six years. forget about four. i would not seek a second term. i am so certain that with transparency for citizens mccann deliver a result they can see and measure. >> it is mr. lynch right? >> reform is an issue of work

long and hard on. i founded the rhode island chapter of a group called fair vote. i sat before the u.s. house and senate on the issue of electoral reform. i believe we need to do things to open up our systems of governance. i believe in passing a pair elections law that removes the influence of corporate tax dollars from our system. that is the thing into undertake first. that will provide drastic change to the way people feel about their government and about who controls the government. if we implement such laws and people are still feeling as cynical as the bill today, and i understand why, i would be happy to reconsider a term limit. >> i have a different view of it. i believe we will not take washington -- we will not break what is broken in washington

until we break the connection between money and policy. we need to pass the third elections act, which will remove the influence of big money in campaigns. we need to enact a ban -- a lifetime ban that you can never become a lobbyist if you were a member of congress. we need to mitigate as much as we can the decision of the supreme court so corporations cannot influence elections. if we do not fix that, being limited to six years or 10 years, you would still operate in a broken system because of the power of money over campaigns and a special interests. by breaking the connection, you will amount brokers to make decisions based on chores, free from this disproportionate influence of special interests in washington. i believe if the voters have that opportunity there will make

the right decision. i think it is wonderful of chairman went to talk about 12 years. the reality is we are all asking voters to give us a two-year term. if we do not give good results, we will be out that first term. [applause] >> mr. cicilline has said it is one or the other on term-limit or fair elections. >> what we have to realize, if we are going to be truthful about how to fix washington, is that is not going to solve the problem. what that will do is simply put people in a position where they can maybe run for office if they are not independently wealthy. it is not going to fix the problem. the problem is that we have career politicians to go there.

they surround themselves with special interest money and everything we know is bad in washington. that results in what we see today. we are not going to fix that problem by saying we are going to have fair elections on its own. it is not going to work. >> this e-mail comes from a recent college graduate from 2009 who is struggling to make the student loan payments. she wonders if it was worth it. what would you propose a federal legislature to help out the millions of students in the same situation to give more leeway to pay off loans? >> there have been some recent positive reforms that have removed the middle man from federal loans for higher education. i think that is a step in the right direction, to reduce costs by reducing the percentage of the moment goes toward private profit. i believe that in general we

need further investment from the federal and state government. i pushed against private education on the state level. i do equivalent work in washington right now . >> it is the middle class in rhode island that is suffering from the cost of higher education. i hear about it every day. there have been some good things the democratic party have done under president obama by cutting out the middleman. the bottom line is that we need to have families who can afford to send their children to college. right now i am convinced one of the reasons we have such a high dropout rate is because people are so frustrated at the fact that are not going to be able to afford higher education that it becomes a case where they give up. it is incumbent upon the congress and the federal

government to make college more affordable. one way to do that is to make sure there are adequate loan programs in place for everybody, not just those that have no money at the very bottom of the spectrum. clearly those at the top do not need the assistance. the people getting squeezed out are in the middle. >> i think i am the only one to have a specific plan on this issue. when i watch my campaign, and went to a university to talk about the proposal to amend the higher education act to provide college loans for college and a career technical academies interest free to middle-class families. we currently are not $23 billion in interest a year from the mound. some of the loans are at 7% or 8%. on average, a college graduate earns twice as much as a non- college graduate. if you look at the income that

is generated, it is in our best interest as a government to have as many people have access to college as possible. we will make it up on the other end in texas. there will have lifetime earnings. it is good for our country. interest free is a smart investment. it will allow the children of many more families to have access to college. [applause] >> we are also in the process of putting together a plan with specific but not. i think i am the only one who has a plan to get citizens back involved with their government. we are working for a plan that allows a 13th year of school to be paid for it for free so we can continue the education from high school into college so we can help further the education. there is a disconnect between what is happening at the state and federal level as far as

education is concerned. our state has 300,000 jobs available. we do not have an educated work force to take those jobs. fidelity has 150 jobs. we do not have the work force to go into this jobs. there is a disconnect from future plans and what has happened. that is unfortunate. [applause] >> we will move on to foreign policy issues. the israeli prime minister was in washington d.c.. should we look the other way if israel and bombs and tehran to take up a nuclear plant? >> i would say no. israel is an ally of the u.s.. we should use all forms of diplomacy to make sure that does not happen. they are an ally. we need to protect our relationship with them. >> i do not think we should ever look the other way. that is obviously an important region of this world.

we need to remain deeply engaged. we also have to recognize that israel like every sovereign nation has an absolute right to defend itself. >> . israel is our most important partner in that area of the world. they need to be able to defend themselves. looking away i think is not appropriate. i would hope and expect the united states would monitor the situation. but it it got to the point where israel was convinced there was an accurate intelligence that iran was moving forward with regard to nuclear weapons, i think israel has to be able to defend itself. i do not think the united states can tell them not to. >> should we look the other way if they bomb and nuclear energy facility? >> i am talking about a nuclear weapon. >> absolutely not. i think we need to look more generally toward a diplomatic resolution of international

crises. i did not hear the question in full. >> let us move on to another of your question. the housing and construction boom that led up to the economic crisis has left providence which toured with half finished developments, empty lots, and foreclosed homes. how can you prevent these kinds of outcomes in the future? >> i have worked in the general assembly on a bill a pushed forward this year that would have required the developers who wanted to tear down historic buildings in downtown providence, which is in my current district, to put forward greater assurances there were going to move forward with the project that they had promised us. that is what allowed them to be

permitted to tear down buildings. i hope that work continues at the local level. i am sure there is some federal plan. more broadly, i think we need to keep the economy moving, get it on its feet to the stimulus measures we talked about earlier, so some of these projects come to completion. >> what can a congressman do to help beat foreclosed home crisis? >> i do not think any one person here has the answer. that is one reason i am proposing an executive report for the state of rhode island. that would get congressional delegations together at the same table as our state delegations. there would be at the same table. collectively, they need to work. if you fail to plan, plans fail.

in this situation, we have failed to plan and therefore are failing. >> i think there is no question that the most important thing is really good financial regulatory reform so banks are not allowed to do what they did in this case which led to these foreclosures and predatory loan practices. in addition, we want to do everything we can to keep people in their homes. there is a range of things to be done in this city, new programs that provide low-interest rounds -- loans, first-time home buyer assistance. one of the other challenges we face across the state more congressional action could help is in many of these properties more banks are out of state and for clothes, they abandon them but still have the title to them. you have a cdc or another organization that can take them over and bring a family into them. but there is a problem because

of the title. i think some legislation that could clear title in those situations nationally is one issue. another is to require a foreclosed property -- a requirement that people who are in those homes, paying rent, would be able to stay in those homes. that is a way to stabilize neighborhoods. >> i have had an issue that i have raised before that the mayor has been in the neighborhood of $500,000 per year being driven around providence but police officers. >> i will tell you exactly how. that total is millions of dollars of providence taxpayer money that could have been used to save taxes that would otherwise go into foreclosure. that is for you do it. to answer a question, nationally, we have to continue to be vigilant and move forward to stop predatory lending practices that led to this.

i would not have supported and $800 billion bailout of wall street and big banks unless they also came to the table and agreed to unnecessary financial reforms that would have stopped these foreclosures. >> look forward. you would not have signed the tarp bill. >> the same theory holds true that lending has to be made available. it also funds to be increased oversight of these big banks who have engaged in this practice that have effectively ruined the housing market across the country. >> i somehow missed the foreclosure piece of that question. i heard the abandoned lots. i agree with a lot of what the others appear have said. we need a strong banking reform bill. there is one moving forward that has passed the house and is before the senate. the couple of senators are trying to break up the banks so we do not see a crisis like the

one that precipitated the crash of our economy. too big to fail could be something we need not worry about in the future. at the state level, i have worked on for closure measures. i give the city of providence credit for the measures they have undertaken. >> you are big on pointing out your efforts to bring green energy to rhode island. i am sure everyone on the stage things green energy is a good idea. but at what cost? do you support an increase in gas taxes to fund green energy? >> that depends on the magnitude. the cost that we pay at the pump does not include the full cost of the production -- of the extraction of those fossil fuels or the remediation of bad health effects and environmental effects that follow.

that follow from the use of fossils that are not accounted for in the price we pay now, but that we end up paying poured down the line to increased health costs and clean up in the gulf. i think it is reasonable to pay more for energy me know is safe, is clean, that keeps jobs in rhode island. >> in what areas do we pay more for energy? are you talking about an increase in electric rate? >> i voted to support the wind farm project because i think it will position rhode island to be the hub of renewable energy that it should be through the northeast. if we are the first in the water, i think it will send clear signals to the rest of the country and the rest of the world that rhode island is serious about renewable energy. we have a geographic advantage because of the abundance of wind and water cure. i think that is worth spending a

small premium. >> we cannot afford, and our businesses cannot afford, higher taxes. we also, unfortunately, cannot afford to keep sending billions of dollars overseas to countries that want to hurt us because we need their oil. we have to, in a reasonable, realistic path, move forward to green energy. i am happy we are starting to do that in rhode island. the important issue that cannot be lost if we have to do it in a way that makes financial sense. penalizing businesses in rhode island with higher energy costs at a time when we cannot afford to lose a single additional job here is of great concern to me, and should be to everybody. >> i think this is an example where we have done this work and not just talk about it. we developed a plan which is underway right now to support

sustainable energy and the development of sustainable energy in our city. we absolutely have to invest in renewable energy -- solar, wind, etc.. >> at what cost? are we looking at higher gas tax >> we have to do it. it is one of the most important ways we can retain our position as an economic world leader. there was recently a chinese company that came to rhode island. everybody was celebrating because there were manufacturing wind turbines. this is technologically -- this is technology we developed. our universities developed it. it is something we should be manufacturing. this is a key strategy for this country and our state, to rebuild our economy, to create jobs that ultimately will ensure the long-term health. >> the original question is -- >> you have to do it in a way

that is balanced and that targets the right level of investment. there will be an upfront cost, but the benefit in the long term is greater. >> did you like what you heard there? >> if you fail to plan, plan to fail. the renewable energy that is available, there are other alternatives that allow us to lower the costs so that are not passed back to the taxpayers. we need to embrace green jobs. we talked about lessening our dependence on foreign oil forever. there are ways to do it. we need to do it now. >> if you would push back on an increase in gas tax or a higher electric rates to fund green energy? >> i would. >> thank you gentlemen. we are out of time. i will give it back to my colleague. [applause]

>> thanks, tim. thanks gentleman. that is going to wrap things up on this debate. we are going to have complete analysis coming up at a time clock following the game and at 11:00. we want to thank the providence performing arts center, the audience here, and the audience at home. you can see this debate began on our website. have a great night. [applause] this has been rated as slightly democratic. tomorrow, on news makers, senator john corn and chairs

the national republican senatorial committee and speaks about winning more senate seats in the 2010 campaign. the committee is likely to provide $4 million for republican candidates. our interview is tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> members of the house and senate western caucuses held a hearing on the impact of the obama administration's economic policy in the western u.s.. unemployment and the impact of energy policy were also discussed. this is one hour 45 minutes. afternoon. this is a joint

good afternoon, we are focused on the ongoing war. this is pursued by this administration. administration. i am john grasso, senator from wyoming, chairman of the senate western caucus and i want to thank congressman bishop, chairman of the western caucus on the house side. he's been an incredibly strong leader on western issues for a long time even before i arrived in the senate. we have two excellent panels of witnesses today. i'm delighted to welcome senator herbert of utah -- governor herbert of utah on our first panel on panel to. we have congressman nunez of california as well as chris werner of competitive enterprise institute and bill kovach of the u.s. chamber of commerce. we will also hear from county commissioner small business owners and ranchers from the west by way of video clips. we call this hearing the war on western jobs and we do that because this is what our constituents back home feel is

happening to them from policies coming out of this administration. here are the facts. according to the bureau of labor statistics western united states reported the highest regional jobless rate in may, 10.9%. nevada reported the highest unemployment rate among all 50 states, 14 percent in may. this administration promised a stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8%. the stimulus package expanded the size of government, but failed to deliver the promised jobs. families and businesses throughout the western struggling to make ends meet. of this administration's anti business anti multiple use agenda threatens western communities. is killing jobs and is undermining states and local budgets. washington is two either help or get out of the way. i'm delighted to have the different members of the panel here to testify as well as to

ask questions and the summer you are in a tight timeline so i'd like to turn this over right now if i could to congressman bishop. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity being here as well as guests on the panels will talk to us. as we are talking about jobs. in the west we have a situation in which our and primaries are higher, joblessness rates are higher than any other section in the nation and even though in different states it fluctuates within their, over all in the west we are about 11%, and we don't seem to be doing that. we have been leading the nation for the last 12 months in jobs so what we would like to do in this one is talk about some of the things that are unique to the west that may have an impact on that consequence that we have. just, for example, we passed the western edge allies to quantify

some of the impacts that government decisions have made and in their results they simply said that 74 percent of the respondents said their companies have downsized their capital investments and the rocky mountain region. the $1.1 million in capital investment has been downsized or shifted from the west to other regions. that they would have added additional $2.8 billion in just infrastructure additions to the rockies. 72 percent of the respondents said they had shifted investment from federal to private lands within the west with over $700 million we directed in the year 2010 alone. 72% of respondents said that the senate -- satisfaction with the permitting process is driving investment out of our region and i% response say their companies will continue to divert investment from western areas until there seems to be changed and part of the regulatory process. with that i appreciate the fact we will have two panels who will

discuss some of the issues facing the west and i think i would like to the every other statements until after the first panel is over and interest of time so we can talk with a different kind of areas in which these are taking place. i appreciate that i am joined by one of my colleagues on the house representing mccarthy from california and we will have others joining us in addition to the three senators. >> mr. chairman, one of the disadvantages of living in the electronic age as my electronic tether just got cold and i'm going to have to leave so let me just give my proxy to senator hatch. >> would you like to say a word before you go? >> i welcome the governor here. in i can come to a hearing like this with a rousing 77 leases -- everybody knows what that means and i apologize that i do have to leave. but i salute to end the chairman for the work you are doing here,

thank you. >> sank the -- thank you. maybe it before i go to senator hatch, do you want to wait? let me go to senator hatch if i could to introduce, first of all, a video that we have prepared as well as our first panel guests, the governor from the state of utah. >> thank you mr. chairman, i appreciate our colleagues in the house being here and senator bennett. i want to thank senator and representative rob bishop, the chairman of the house western caucus for organizing this joint hearing today. and i applaud them for their hard work and for -- i pledge my continued support for the effort to keep america strong and keep abreast strong as well. the west helps maintain america's cultural and economic strength and we're here to ensure that the west end is supporting role to the nation continues. i would like to give the warmest of wellcome's to my very long term trend governor carey

herbert of utah. is an honor to have him with us here today. the his presence here reflects the higher per day in places on jobs in the west and specifically in our home state of utah. was to become a senator or governor is not hard to find someone willing to call you a friend with the governor and i got back to before either of us was in public office, i am pleased to call him a friend and am also pleased to state he's one of the best governors the state of utah has ever had. we certainly look for to remarks, governor. to set the tone for are hearing today we will set up governor herbert's remarks by hearing a quick recording from a man who knows firsthand the impact of federal policies are having on real jobs in the west. his name is mike mccain he's a county commissioner in utah. he knows by name their world utah people who have lost their jobs directly as new policies and regulations coming from the

current administration so let's remember that we're not talking in the abstract here. real people are losing the real jobs and later in this hearing we will see more clips from the westerners on this subject. can we rolled the tape? >> in utah over 50 percent of the jobs that we have here are directly tied to the oil and gas industry. also over 60 percent of our economy is directly tied to the extractive industry. in the early days of the obama administration 77 oil and gas leases were canceled and that has a direct impact on our economy losing over 3,000 jobs. this is been a huge concern to us. mayor also concern that recently the department of interior has announced new leasing regulations on oil and gas and we believe it will further erode our economy here. we're concerned with what's happening in the gulf of mexico. the huge environmental issues with that, and it seems a strong

onshore oil and gas program would make a lot of sense. we're calling on the administration and congress to seriously look at the policy and regulations and reverse these policies that are eroding our economy, causing our economy to stall and to look in opportunities to create jobs. we do support them in and create jobs and that's why -- let's work together and make that happen. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner mckee. there you have just one example and one small area of the west for a new government policy costs about 3,000 real jobs. on that note, governor, again we thank you for being here. we are impressed you would come and testify and we would love to hear your statement now. it is alright with a chair.

>> thank you, i'm honored to be here, thank you for the warm welcome senator hatch. is good to see my good friend who has been here leading the charge for many years and they do senator and not for if you're welcome. and almost promotion from governor to center. and congressman bishop it's great to be with you and the rest of the committee here today so i hope my remarks will fill in that this bears so what you're trying to assemble today and to get to know a little better if some of the challenges i would call the na challenges that we as a public land state face when it comes to economic growth and development and job creation. the and those you can see the map in the back, those east of the colorado. i think sometimes have not a real very good appreciation or understanding of the challenges we face in the west. with so much public land in our backyard. so with fattah let me if i can

just give my prepared remarks here. i'm happy to be with you today to talk about two topics that are critical to my home state of utah. economic development in energy. i'm honored to be blessed by an abundance of natural resources and our states while being blessed with amazing duty and natural wonder that we must preserve for future generations. make no mistake, these are not mutually exclusive blessings. energy development and environmental protection can exist in harmony. being good source of the earth does allow for the appropriate energy and natural resource development. to do so however i believe requires that we were together in the. of collaboration and from a starting point of mutual respect. as i have said many times before it's high time that we laid down the arms of a set aside the rhetoric and actually embrace our common goals and set of focusing on our differences.

willingness to find common ground is keith. utah's long enjoyed tradition of working with the blm to issue multiple use on public lands and as governor of utah plan to make sure that or continues. i appreciate the department of interior assistance to help us maintain multiple use of public land and i think them effort -- and thank them for the partnership on this front. as in on a new governor and been in office basically for a. we have tried to have a good opportunity and working with secretary salazar. as governor and dedicated to building strong governmental relationship with the federal barron's particularly secretary ken salazar of the department of interior of the secretary tom vilsak of the primitive agriculture, and secretary steven chu of the department of energy. in fact, i meant to us earlier with secretary salazar today two

further these goals. this is a follow-up meeting have had with secretary salazar since we last hosted him in utah this past april. the secretary attended a meeting of my balance resource council which i believe is innovative partnership building efforts that is bringing people together on all sides of the issues to address the many difficult and the challenges we face in our state. i also visited the department of energy to provide dr. to a staff with a copy of a strategic energy plan i recently and bill for the state of utah. this energy plan focuses on developing the utahs traditional renewable energy resources to the benefit of all americans while providing significant economic opportunities and jobs for the people of utah. again these efforts will not succeed. without the federal government and the table as an honest

broker. and i was heartened to hear secretary salazar say that we in utah he believes are setting a national standard that ought to be emulated throughout the nation i believe i utahs approaches one i should be and can be followed. of course, we're here today to talk about jobs and at the heart of the national recession job protection and job creation are the two most critical elements of economic recovery. down while i am pleased with a good working relationship that utah has forged with the department of interior i must say that at the same time i am fearful that any blm review process on all oil and gas per missile damage utahs economic viability. the potential impact already approved permits is troubling and i will work to ensure that those existing permits are respected in utah. this newly instituted policy is simply another level of government red tape that is both

unnecessary and counterproductive. the the new level of regulation does nothing but create analysis paralysis on the u.s. ability to address aren't energy crisis. at a time that offshore drilling has been stymied by the end run until disaster of the gulf coast is warm for and then never that our federal government allows us to safely access onshore resources reserves. in fact, i believe the blm resource management plan process itself must be reviewed and revised and must be done so with three goals in mind, one of consistency, one of clarity and one of predictability. the current system is inconsistent and on clear and is anything but predictable. and obstructs economic development on public stance that drives capital to states with more private land and forecloses on imports and economic opportunities for our state and citizens. ..

has worked with my balanced resource counsel to achieve solid results. first, the corporation exploration production company with the help of state leaders recently reached an agreement that allows the company to drill in potential wilderness land as long as the company minimizes the number of sites and uses

haslet and internals that cause less land disruption. secondarily, sue has provisionally agreed to come to the table to solve the world claims with the new macrothere will be tried in iron county utah. these claims -- road claims have been a bone of contention that have tilt the legal system for far too long. by working together, we have found a way to find some resolution on this issue. but there is still work to be done both in working with stakeholders in utah and here in washington, d.c.. i was, for the simple, disappointed to hear a few days ago the center recently filed an amendment to a previous lawsuit on the three most important resource management plans. we are concerned this action could potentially shut down permitand could threaten the utah jobs. utah will uphold this effort and work proactively with environmental groups and others to resolve the issue.

we are interested in finding solutions for discussion and negotiations leading the course as a last result. i'm proud of the work we've done in utah and i believe the congress would be well served to look at utah as a model for further economic development, energy independence and environmental protection throughout the nation. i believe it can happen hitting utah we are creating the road map of how it can be done. thank you for your time and i would certainly entertain any questions. >> thank you very much, governor, for your very significant insight and with that i would like to turn to senator hatch if he has specific questions in terms of taking this off. >> let me just ask a couple of questions to the governor. we heard the commissioner talk about the 77 energy. these releases were already studied and auctioned off. they've gone through years of studies and preparation and the other things that go along with

it. already to the commissioner that is simple action killed about 3,000 jobs. so here we have a government estimate this for the livelihood of 3,000 workers who can no longer care for their spouses and their children. that's the individual impact doesn't every energy job on federal land generate a large stream of revenue to our state and also federal budgets? >> the answer is yes, senator. clearly of in the days and in particular where the commissioner presides, you know, as you mentioned 50% of all the economics out there comes from what we are doing with energy development. when they got and drill a national gas well it is about 1 million to 1,000,000.5. it employs a lot of people and the aaa effect that happens on the dais and throughout the

state is significant. so the loss of 77 oil and gas drilling permits is significant. it would be in the millions of dollars as far as loss of economic opportunity. that being the case i know talking with members of the industry the is you for most of us is not just confined to the loss of the 77 allele and gas leasing permits the process itself i've had a discussion with secretary salazar and said, you know, the thing i would like to focus on this fixing the fi rmp process, recently become resource management process. out on this case on the base and it took nearly eight years, eight years of getting public input from all stakeholders seeing this area should be set aside for no drilling, no development. this site should be set aside or

modified for some, and this is okay. and going through that long delivery process with input from people on all sides of the issue. and then in the and making a decision we thought and then having it jerked out from underneath the from the after eight years of effort. when i talk to that if we don't get the rmp process fixed capital to other states, and that has a significant impact on our loss of economic opportunity when capital industry says, you know, i can't go through a six or eight year process, spend millions of dollars and then end up having no opportunity in fact having a permit that's been taken away from us. so, the loss is a significant but the focus that we are trying to take is not necessarily the 77 oil and gasp leases but fixing the process that has no predictability, no certainty, and the fact that it allows people to get permits and then have them taken away after eight

years of effort. >> i think you described it very well. in the recent survey the industry in the rocky mountains, 73% of the industry respondents reported they have shifted investments from federal to private plans with over $708 million redirected in 2010. by moving the private land sometimes outside of the rockies, as you have well pointed out, that takes away from the state and county revenue that would normally have come from energy on the land and naturally you and i both expressed the same concerns about that. but i appreciate your testimony and he been here and my colleagues for allowing me to go. i have to leave as well but we are grateful to you, governor for the great leadership you're providing in utah. it's making a difference in setting a good example for everybody else as well. nobody understands state and local and county government any better than you do and i want to thank you for your leadership.

>> thank you. >> governor, let me kind of take you back on where the senator took you to begin with and then your answer as well. by the way i want to let you know that you were when called the senator that wasn't in nearly a promotion. [laughter] congressmen that would have been the ultimate promotion, that's true. let me -- i think you are right in talking about the program the idea of 77 leases which it utah and as well as the ripple effect through the economy. utah is not unique with that. other states, wyoming is one, have the same concept. can i ask to reemphasize one more time the significance of resource management plan perhaps we talk about in the weeds but this is a significant with the process means from the business approach and the three principles he said especially the predictability is important for the business and why if that doesn't take place -- just put

it in the parameter. the idea has given the report of the 77 leases and they have declared that there wasn't going to be the use of the process it was on the right way. and obviously when you jerk that out and say start over it hasn't had on the business. could i have to reemphasize that point? >> thank you, congressman. i will try that. i know for the people of utah and those involved in the resource management plan, when the accusations of some kind of rush to judgment was put forward and when it came to the 77 oil and gas leases and the resource management plans themselves where they come from, it was almost humorous because they think after eight years in one instance if you were down in carbon county down the 9-mile canyon area six years for that resource management plan that doesn't it seem to be a rush to judgment. it does appear to be a very

methodical and thoughtful process where everybody with a point of view has been able to be heard and listened to, and that input has been considered in developing the plan. and i know that the blm and the director of the time and her people have gone through a very methodical process to evaluate the plan and determine what areas under the law and under the plan work in fact getting permits to. so i don't think the accusation rush to judgment probably fairly describes what took place at least in these instances. secondarily, as you can see as basic economics, if you feel like you have a chance to have a reward, you are willing to take the risk and investing capital. but if you have a risk that is so great that you have no chance to return on your investment, if you go through the work and sweat and tears that go through having a lot of bureaucratic red tape over the years and years of time, only to be shunned at the

end and say well, your efforts were futile, then those who got the capitol are going to invest and say i'm going to go someplace else where there is more certainty to the system. there is more predictability. we have to go through maybe a system but with private land is a lot simpler and more sure of an outcome where i get a permit and then i can truly hill and try to get gas or oil and the coal interest. so that certainty, that predictability is very important and that is less certain. it's less predictable on the public land and that ought to stop because it doesn't we are a very significant disadvantage if it comes to people looking to invest on energy development and in the public land we have some of our best opportunities for energy resource development but capital will go to a place where we can get a return on the investment it may not even be as good a return but it's predictable and they know that they will get something as

opposed to in our case, you know, they could spend years and get nothing. >> many of these parcels are found in rural utah. thus the area of the united states have a different it more difficult process of developing their economies than in urban areas and is it much more vital than trying to produce jobs in the rural area of any given state? >> absolutely. rural utah is impacted more significantly in a utah because utah has a lot of public land that you can't do much with. even the family farm is being impacted because of the loss and the burdens and the regulations and particularly the characteristics put on by an attempt to visit the area of wilderness and with the wilderness characteristics even though the legislature isn't as it needed this house wilderness. i was in a county in southern utah called garfield county speaking to a group of high

school students and i asked them how many of you were going to go on to higher education? post high school education? it was a group of about 30 and every one of them had raised their hand. the following question is how many of you are going to come back to garfield county and find a job and come here to settle after you get out of high school? and only one hand remained up. the other 29 went down and we asked why? there's no jobs, there's no opportunity, in the rural part of utah. this critical county has about 95% of the county as public land. there is just no opportunity for them to in fact develop commerce and find any kind of economic prosperity. so, one of the opportunities we do have an oral utah is in fact natural resource development on public land of mining, oil interest, natural gas interests, and if those are taken away from us we are going to have a very

difficult time creating economic opportunity in the world utah. and in fact right now over the last decade virtually all the population is focused on what we call the fund. we have 2.8 million people on the fastest-growing states in america if not the fastest right now. we have a sycophant internal birthrate, highest in the nation, young workforce population, 28.6. but we will concentrate on the lost age fund, which is for counties, 75% of the population now lives along that populated area because that is where the jobs are being created, and nothing is being created in world utah or the public land or half. since becoming a demographic shift for us. and it's causing a lot of congestive along the front we're probably along the i15 corridor in utah probably the seventh or eighth most congested population in america. and that is something we would think of in a state like utah. that's because of the loss of

opportunity and rural utah now they're all concentrated to the urban areas. >> let me ask you one more question and then i will let you go when i have a shot at you here. and i do appreciate you talking about how those rmps are important and that indeed the government cannot create jobs but the government can create an environment that does not create jobs, and i think that is one of the -- especially because the lack of predictability of some of these plans and process. let me get one other area that is the donner, you are aware, and also the county elected official added that deals with plt, payment in lieu of taxes. plt parents have been a long struggle with congress. there were some questions about whether they would actually be paid on time. fortunately they were at this particular year but it was another struggle that can there. can you give a concert to just

what plt means for public land state? >> well, it is an ongoing issue particularly local governments, county officials, which i was one at one time. payments in lieu of taxes are designed specifically to reimburse local governments for the cost associated with maintenance of public land whether involved with search and rescue, you know, those kind of issues that naturally fall to the local government to take care of, and so plt is designed to help offset the costs and also offset the fact that these lands were taken out of the private domain which means we cannot apply property-tax to them. i can tell you as a county official i would much rather have them privately and working and assess a private property tax to them and have predictability that comes in on a regular time frame and i have some control and adjustment as it need be as we manage your budget. with plt, it's not. it's a little bit uncertain.

we sometimes have authorization of a certain amount of plt payment, but then the congress doesn't appropriate the money, and we did get 100% of the authorization that seems to be part of a quid pro quo if you will support us for the t.a.r.p. and those funds come than you in the west we will give you 100% financing appropriation for the p.i.l.t. money. in excess wonder when hundred when we go forward will we get 100 prison or deal with what we have in the past? and so p.i.l.t. is a concern, and it's like for us getting 10 cents on the dollar. again, as you look at the map, and you look at the people on the east, they don't have that problem. it had a property tax on all that land, and they have the ability to generate commerce much more productively than you and you're inhibited by the public land area. so, there is clearly a stymie effect.

the other aspect i would like to probably point out as p.i.l.t. is designed to offset the lack of a property tax and how to pay for the cost associated with having it in your backyard that benefit and the privilege it costs us money. so we get p.i.l.t. payments. but what is really troublesome is we also get when we have the ability to develop the public land we have lease money that comes off the natural resource development. why? because it is a resource that is not renewable, and so we are giving money to the local government and the local state and community because those were not going to be replaced. once they're gone they are always on. but now we have this strange thing where we have in offset. you are going to get this much money because we gave you p.i.l.t. we will subtract that from the lease money and you get less than you are entitled to. and yet they are two different kinds of money serving two different purposes. they ought not to be joined together. to the detriment of the local government and the states in getting this money. so, i'm concerned about the

application of the p.i.l.t.. it's something that at least helps take away some of this thing, but it's not nearly as good as if we decide private land or to assess the property-tax to it. and if i had the choice when the to land to make it private. >> the donner, just one final question. i appreciate you being here and sharing your thoughts and your insight. you just returned from the national governors' association meeting in boston. so there were governors that were of both parties, certainly the entire area of the western united states. a number of things you talk about when you say that applies over of the rocky mountain west and to the western part of this country and that this concern we have the war on the western jobs is something that is felt by the governors of both parties representing this greater part of the united states? >> it's true, and your governor made a couple of important points during the national governors' association as i heard him do on other occasions

about the challenge we face as a publicly and state. again, he's a good democrat and i think i am a good republican. so there are certain issues that we as governors are very much similar on. when i talk abut collaboration i'm serious. i believe it as a need to get together for getting political labels and start dealing with principles. how we manage the public land appropriately is a principle i think we can all understand and engage in whether you are in volume and, montana, utah and other gear mountain states that have this challenge of being able to coexist with sometimes the onerous rule and regulation that makes it difficult to utilize the public land. but the governors are anchored together on the fact we ought to have more balanced budgets. we ought to have more common sense application as the rule of law, rules and regulations on public land so we can act as our

natural resources particular energy. i think there is a growing understanding that federalism ought to be a part of a hour discussion and the federal government has a very important and significant role which you understand and appreciate but so it to the states. and it really is kind of a balanced approach we ought to be taking each one of the respective responsibilities. i think the governors have a growing awareness about least those three areas we can collaborate on and help you with your responsibilities in the congress and the samet. sprick governor, we are grateful for you to be here with us today. we know you have a plan to catch and we're grateful you have come and share your expertise and knowledge. congressman bishop, thank you for helping a range to be has a part of the western caucus. >> thank you. i'm honored to come to read it a privilege for me to speak to this body and anything we can do to help again this is a very important de date and we have

the opportunity to move together in areas and sometimes we are going to disagree, i expect, but when i talk about us and maybe the current of ministration, but i believe it is imperative that the federal government come to the table as an honest broker that we have no hidden agenda that we come with the spirit of cooperation and understanding for the good of the whole of the american public. and that means developing and a multiple use facet of our public land, and that means again, taking advantage of what the good lord has given in the public land particularly when it comes to energy. we have great opportunity there if we will take it and good technology that allows us to do it and a reasonable, rational way to be good stewards of the earth and have the proverbial win win. >> thank you so much for being here. >> thank you. >> congressman bishop, i know that congress and mccarthy has been here patiently and has an

opening statement and senator in sin does as well, so as we are preparing for our next panel of this is a convenient time for you, kevin, we sure appreciate hearing from you now. >> thank you. i want to thank you and congressman bishop. the title is right. the war on western jobs. i come from california, and in california unemployment is 12.4%. but in my largest counties kern county is 16.7. moncoutie is unique listening to the governor's top because it is a energy and agricultural community. we actually produce more than 72% of all of the oil, 10% the entire nation. we are one of the largest wind turbines of more than 3300. and we're the greatest potential, what greatest potentials for solar. the issue i want to talk about today's -- and we are going to hear from the next panel, especially with congressman nunes -- is the endangered species act. the ability to streamline and

bring from common sense that would end a lot of this uncertainty. i mean, i have 23 different solar projects waiting. more than billions of dollars and thousands of jobs but the uncertainty of being able to go through just on the habitat conservation plan we are losing a lot of that investment especially in times of critical. in part going forward and that costs jobs. when you look at the off-road camping and hiking where people can go and enjoy the public land, you look at what they're proposing a with the mojave desert act in california for recognition of renewable energy, it brings the on the certainty. we are losing the ability for investment again. then you look at how the even want to expand the majority party here. the government regulatory authority under the clean water act. when you think about how far that can go to every body of water from the wetlands and the areas of the united states it can even go to the pools of water. that was not a tremendous amount of not only job development, but when we talk about being energy

independent, talk about keeping the money in the united states, the new technology and even of the governor was saying about the new way of sterling we all have blackberrys and when you think for one moment the technology in the blackberry is greater than the technology they have on the apollo that landed on the moon, we have the of the body to eckert and become energy independent in all forms of energy. at the same time while protecting our environment. we need to be about to bring the streamline and others. and in the fundamental problem with the endangered species act of what it is doing to the central valley and live in the southern end. you were going to you from congressman nunes. he's been one of the leaders trying to hold the lack of water. it's not that we don't have water. it is the government creation of the drought. as you go up through the valley you will find places of 40% unemployment. and it's protecting and picking fish that originally don't come from there or from people. and we've always said food grows

where water flows but i think we have announced jobs will grow where water can flow, and we can make this happen. we can do better but the idea that when you look at the rest of the united states the war is going on in the west doesn't have to be a jobs can be created. we have the resources, we have the ability we just have to bring the streamlining and the common sense to take away the uncertainty. that is why this hearing is important yet i want to thank you both for holding it today. >> senator fincen. >> i want to thank my fellow westerners for holding this hearing today. i think it's very important, and i think a lot of great points that have been made to the governor of utah and others on the panel apply very much to my state when you look at my state i guess it is a red state based on that map. it's the highest of any state as far as public land is concerned

over 85% controlled by the federal government. nevada leads the nation and on and plymouth now 14%. and i believe that addressing unemployment should be the top priority for the congress, the white house, for everybody back here in washington, but contrary to much of the rhetoric that we hear from the president, the actions and policies being promoted and implemented and increase or counterproductive to fixing the on the planet situation nationwide which currently stands at 9.5%. i would like to take this time to highlight a few of the extent was where the obama administration job creation rhetoric doesn't match their actions. some of you may not know as i mentioned before how much land in my state over 85% is controlled by the federal government, and much of this area has been vital to the defense and the advancement of the nation over the years and absolutely vital to the livelihood of so many from nevada. to be an entrepreneur on public

land in nevada whether on the large or the small scale, you need approval from some federal agency or another, and usually more than one, which is already a fairly burdensome process. you must continue with regulations pertaining to the national environmental policy act known as nepa and the endangered species act just to name a few each one is accompanied by a string of regulations, requiring began a lengthy and complex as the tax code. for instance, there are numerous companies ready to hire hundreds of workers with well paying jobs if they could just get approval from the federal government. i know that rochester has had extensive trouble navigating the bureaucracy and getting approval for expanding the mining operations in my state. one mining operation alone, the rochester in the county would have at least 200 well paying jobs to an economically depressed county. these companies like many others

continue to find themselves in a cyclical backwash with federal agencies charged with reviewing every step they make. and this became even more problematic when the secretary of interior mandated all land use decisions must take into account climate impact. how broad and as objective could that be? many renewable energy companies are looking to locate in nevada, however even as the projects are identified, due diligence is completed, companies have invested significant up-front costs, the energy still less to be transmitted from one site to the consumer. this almost always occurs on public land in nevada and the cumbersome to get rich alleges once again appear. this affects all energy transmissions including solar, geothermal, wind and other forms. when companies think they have reached the final administrative hurdle here come the legal challenges. i'm not just advocating that --

i'm not advocating we do away with sensible environmental regulation. i just think that the process could be done in a matter that allows the country to move forward and a more conductive and responsible manner. when businesses are forced with more money than they make in order to jump through bureaucratic and legal hoops they compensate for those losses by laying off workers are oftentimes closing completely and moving to other areas in the world where environmentally -- environmental regulations are often nonexistent. as one of the witnesses to testify today, the 11 projects were those considered green have been installed in nevada as a result of permitting challenges. this means an estimated almost 6,000 jobs have not been created or saved, counseling an estimated economic benefit through my state of the vote $100 billion. at a time when the fed is facing the highest unemployment rate in the country in the budget shortfalls, we cannot afford to lose one single job in overreaching regulation.

nevada is on to the largest lithium deposits in the country. as you know what the ama and other minerals are necessary to manufacture advanced wind turbines, batteries, hybrid and electric vehicles and other clean energy defense technologies. but even companies like western of lithium looking to employ more with good paying jobs are carefully navigating the regulatory spiderweb to insure they do everything necessary with all the myriad agencies involved to the permits and approvals required to begin operations. in the meantime, china, who currently slides 97% of the rare earth minerals used globally and in the u.s. has recently indicated they plan to cut the exports by 72% of the second half of 2010. while china is moving to expand the renewable production, however, they also haven't stopped exploring and utilizing all of their available energy resources at their disposal.

what would that mean for our green energy economy? are we ready to further subject ourselves to the will of china? these misguided policies our regulatory headaches not only of mining and the energy industry but nv's ranchers and sports enthusiasts, sportsmen and all other from nevada as well. as anyone using the public land for recreation for their livelihood. the largest and most dangerous job destroying a big reaction be advanced by the obama administration, however, is allowing the epa to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. these regulations the epa is looking to impose could force businesses to cut jobs, close down the energy production, increased dependence on foreign suppliers of energy and threaten the national security making housing less affordable and make every consumer goods more expensive. this will not help create jobs in fact many of my colleagues

agree to prevent it from obering and unfortunately that effort failed. this administration to be morew honest with the public about thñ goal to lock up the nation's national resources to make as a- more globally dependent nation. it's clear to me thismñ administration will stop at nothing to further the goal is in french as in the west even-- earlier this year the draft of the interior department was leaked to call for curbing the two national monuments all ofñ we parts of central and northern nevada, part of the great nation this range is in mw county and the desert in nevada= and oregon. it appears to me this administration doesn't have the= ñst interest=ñ--ww==== of las vegas and of the nation'= greatest convention and tourist- destinations.

as a= result of irresponsible= comments can't list companies= and agencies counseled thew5 conventions have lost hotels causing these totals and the city millions of dollars and thousands of jobs. that is one impact these policies have had a much more far-reaching and negative impacw beyond los vegas.ww and closing i want to thank both of you for holding the hearing today and it's really important- job creation should be number one back here and instead we are having policies that are costing jobs in the western states. thank you. >> thank you for your timely comments and i appreciate the insight you brought to this discussion. we have a number of people who wanted to be here to testify. we have a short video of some of that testimony we're going to the video now and then to the panel. this will be very brief video from the west.

while they are working at the technicalities perhaps we could to the panel and i'm delighted to have this incredible panel with us. congress of california, the competitive enterprise institute and the wonderful author as well as the u.s. chamber of commerce i know you've heard a lot already from the governor and the panel and congressman if you wouldn't mind leaving off we would love to hear your comments. >> thank you, mr. bishop i appreciate the work of the western caucus and continues to do to draw attention to these very important issues and i want to highlight a few of those now.

as americans confront the economic hardship of double-digit on employment and stagnation in many parts of the country they are feeling of a national leaders with growing distrust and why shouldn't they. the president and the congress have shown a blatant disregard for the economic health of our country. for example, last year tens of thousands of jobs evaporated in the valley of california when the obama administration and the democratic controlled congress at the urging of the radical environmental allies allow water to be cut off the family farms in california. they decided the 3-inch minow was more valuable than the jobs of the hard-working californians this misguided policy is turning the great valley that has long produced the bulk of the nation's fruits and vegetables and said the country in some areas to the bering desert where tumbleweeds thrive and farmers themselves are not in the interspecies.

in exchange for the fourth and employment which is now reached 40% in some communities the obama administration claims it provided $400 million in government stimulus money for water projects. get the majority of the money went to congressional districts of democrats who actively supported cutting off the water in my district. in fact, today, thousands of californians are forced to stand in food lines to add insult to injury when hungry families reach the front of the line there recently given care its imported from china. that's right, the country has been reduced to importing carrots. to the region that used to produce 89% of the nation's carried supplies. this of course after we borrow the money from china to buy the carrots. if democrats were not so blinded by political ideology and support from radical environmentalists, logic might prevail. it doesn't take $400 million

baled stimulus money to recover thousands of jobs. it's free just to turn on the water. as if the deliberate destruction of the san joaquin valley of starving of water were not enough my constituents are also worried about the designation of more national monuments. senator in san diluted to them earlier. i actually call them monuments to the unemployed. monument designations have a devastating impact on surrounding communities because such designations force people from the public land that used for economic activities without logging, mining, drilling and other resource management activities, communities in at about these new so-called monuments close their jobs. the blunt instrument of environmental extremism was behind president clinton's as publisr and as he was leaving the white house of 19 monuments. including designations in california that decimated the state's timber industry.

since 1989, for the lost 84 board product mills and factories, job losses represent 54,000 people nationwide in the timber industry. in my area the designation of the giant sequoia monument destroyed on gazzo jobs directly and many businesses including the products forced to close their mills. i actually have a short video from one of the owners if you don't mind i would like to play that now. >> on april 15th, 2000, the president [inaudible] we were running to sawmills in

2000 and shortly thereafter [inaudible] probably one-fourth or one-fifth of what we had in the year 2000. >> thank you, center. i spoke to him on many occasions, and his primary concern now is further expansion of the giant sequoia monument. to the state he still has not been able to harvest the timber he was promised when the monument was created. his fear is not unfounded, and it looks like it could become reality. according to the tikrit interior minow, president obama is considering the establishment of 14 new national monuments to the unemployed and the nine states. rumors are the president may

extend the boundaries of the giant sequoia a monument in my district, which is sending shudders through out local communities and the sierra foothills surrounding the valley. the west remains the risk of politically motivated land restrictions that model the andre economy but increase our nation's dependence on foreign resources. mr. chairman, it is time we end this and i appreciate you raising the profile of these issues and i yield back. >> thank you very much. and we are happy to be joined by senator jim risch of idaho, the representative from wyoming, and with that, mr. horner, thank you very much for your patience and we look for to hearing from you. >> thank you, senator and panel for addressing today and the renewed war on the west. the region suffers more than most from the current economic downturn that we were assured the new ad and attrition policies would make better, not worse. sadly, restricting domestic resource production is an

ingrained as a policy objective and proved irresistible. your constituents are bearing the brunt of this and unfortunately should expect more of the same. i've been asked to touch on the impact of expanding the clean water act reach, the latter involves efforts to undo the two supreme court decisions for restoring the congress of original intent of the act. this was after years of serving as a lot of bureaucratic creed and overreach of the expanse of private property rights and economic activity. in response comes america's commitment to the clean water act, h.r. 5008 in the court and federalism all u.s. water. the objective seems clear as we see the administration using the clean water act now to bring the coal mining and appellation to a halt in the name of the flight. if they succeed this could lead to the facto prohibition on the disturbing to the country. as to the ground as i will not rehash the rush to massively lock up the land from domestic energy production. i simply note the administration's world view.

here to this body out for tax code encourages over production of domestic energy. today we hear from the administration the press release that it is interested in, quote, harnessing the conventional energy resources in the right place and in the right places which experience shows this always some other way and in some other place. the approach to domestic energy production of traditional energy sources appears to be one of making it safe, legal, and rare. similar to the land grab, both past and senator insel and congressman nunes indicated, but possibly in the very near future to remedy this perceived over production of domestic energy the at the patrician proposed as we all know now and moratorium on the deep water drilling. the federal court in joining that moved cited factors which equally applied to today's discussion, quote, the court is persuaded that is only a matter of time before more business and jobs and livelihood will be

lost. the defendants in the administration trivialized such losses by characterizing a small percentage of the troubling suspected but it does not follow that this will somehow reduce the convincing harm suffered. the effect on employment, jobs, loss of domestic energy supply caused by the moratorium will clearly ripple throughout the economy in this region. that's from the eastern district of louisiana. and the same applies to locking up the land out west. helping more than energy production but harming the divers in response to the administration press release today let me say that recreation towards them are not mutually exclusive with energy production despite the rhetoric indicating the preference the west becomes an e kofi am i park to the exclusion of energy that works. all these policies are historically not in the rhetoric of environmental protection in the face of current justified public concern about the economy, however, and not coincidentally the rapid expansion of government. they're perversely being read in the best job creation programs.

so, later this week the house public lands subcommittee will hold a hearing about how public land can be used to create jobs in the communities. the focus is to fold the point of the everett is the money the impact from booking domestic energy production on the tax payers land. the first is to promote projects texas thir expense but second it is unveiling the latest rationalization of the federal government appetite for land holdings and the fashionable branding of economic planning green jobs. and of course expect any meaningful installation of the economic wind and solar projects or transmission and more of a campaign by allied groups i think bill will know in more detail using the plan water and the endangered species act to block solar rays and transmission out of concern for disturbing the california mojave's will desert tortoise and so on. the green jobs are essentially census jobs exist only as long as the government program underwriting of the jobs does. part of the transfusion they

then disappear of the government level this is largely make work but when the private sector engages in it, the research from president obama cited eight times as his model spain shows 90% of the jobs were temporary, that is to say most the installation jobs. but they were created however temporarily at the subsidy cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each similar to the cousin dustin a list of. worse created a further expense of real jobs because to try to keep the bubble inflated their typically accompanied was soon followed by some form of mandate that the politically dictated energy be purchased at the expense of economic energy sources. that is to say they also increase the cost of energy which cost jobs. the presidents model export jobs to kentucky. should we follow their lead is the president vows those and many other jobs will go elsewhere with most of the world to choose from. in closing i quote from research published late last year by the old lying in state funded think

tank and another of the president serially cited models, germany, quote although germany's production of renewable energy is commonly portrayed in the media as a, quote, shunning it simple providing the harvest to the world, the guardian, we would instead regard the country's experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is to avoid the economic and environmental benefits. that is to say it's actually possible to make land crabs worse. by using them to enable a further economic intervention and so-called green jobs agenda. thank you for your opportunity to speak today. and i look forward to any questions. >> thank you. we appreciate your comments and your insight. mr. koacs, welcome. >> thank you members of the western caucus for inviting me here today. while i will limit my testimony to five minutes i have provided written testimony which think

gives enormous number of examples of a regulatory process impact jobs but what i would like to focus on first for my few minutes is figure number four in my testimony. figure number for this hour website and it's called project new project and we arrived at website asking the set of simple questions to some of the best energy technologies in the world and that is as we transition from the fossil fuel economy to a green economy what is it we need to do that the record the discussing the technology and how they would be developed but the one question no one could answer is how to get a permit for the facilities and what is the impact of getting permits? we went into the literature and found there was no study anywhere in the world on the number of projects the were being killed across the united states and everything was anecdotal. what we did is assembled a team of researchers and put together a federally state-by-state started looking for projects and one of the things that will sell amazing when we finished is we

were quite five enormous number of the projects that were not done or were not permitted but what we found out is there were actually more renewable projects and advanced projects that were being killed over the project for example there were 167 renewable projects in the united states over the last several years that were not able to get permits whereas only 129 projects. 41 gas projects, 20 nuclear, 24 transmission, but the grand total of this is 381 projects on land-based energies is a place with the total investment of private sector money $560 billion the number of direct jobs that would have been developed by building projects was to lend it 50,000. and that is a figure number four. if you go to figure number five what we did is we looked at just what would happen in the western state and we found and

discovered there were 152 projects in the western states that had in mind a permanent of the total 73 of the projects were alternative fuel projects for a total loss to direct investment of $271 billion deprive the the west of 102,000 jobs. we are now having a complete economic study done on which will be reviewed and we are asking the question what would this be by the time you ended up with a multiplier effect of the suppliers and the gores restores and everyone who had participated and that should be fleshed by the end of the summer. i was also asked to address how does it fit into this and why we don't have an analysis of nepa on figure number six what we did do is we went through a series of projects throughout the west to find out how has been applied and occurred, and this is

whether or not it is an oil and gas was a little transition facility logging on federal land for the proposed expansion of the refinery you can see it is being used throughout the entire west but i don't want to just keep focusing on the fact the west has lost energy jobs because i think everyone has said that. in figure number 7i think it is probably the most important and in figure number seven what we did is we took a survey of all of the other kind of activities that was not able to receive permits, and as you look at figure number seven, you will find that the ability to get a permit stretches across every activity of the congress from the big box scores to residential development and transportation projects and the expansion of shopping malls and self and towers for expanding broadband. i could have done -- we could have done the study we did on the energy projects just on the

big box of 400 of them that didn't get a permit the last several years. could have done it on cell phone towers but the amount of economic activity in the west and literally throughout the country is amazing and if you want to begin creating jobs we have to find a way in which to deal with the permitting process because what we found in the permitting process is that it operates in a sequential matter and it was the first challenge to did developers permit would be local, they might to local zoning but it did it for local zoning than they might do a state claim and then they go to a federal claim and then nepa and endangered species and if we take the cape wind seeking a permit for ten years it's been getting approved and then the challenge we have now gone through in the last several years birds and burial grounds, fishing grounds and now back on to the endangered species. if you want investment in this country you have to be willing to be able to get investment and so many times there is the discussion as well building this

in china they are building that in china. you need to do a comparison how long it takes to build out and permit in china compared to the united states and i think you'll find that a large part of this is the regulatory process. the final charts that i would like to use and this is not by way of getting into any policy that is why we of just discussing how some of these issues proliferate and that is in that figure number eight which is the climate change battleground. one of the points that we all talk about in the climate change battleground is we focus on either the epa regulation or the congress. if you look at the regulatory side on the battlefield, you find out that you have the clean air act but that's just one strand of federal regulation. you then move over to the clean water act, ocean acidification and endangered species and over to nepa and the sec.

when you talk about how the conagra's is going to regulate the agencies, we believe if there is any constitutional authority to congress has and the only institution that can actually bring common sense to this issue it's going to be the congress because when you look at the metal which is where congress is then you go to the litigation site and find out that today there are over 268 cases there are litigating in some way shape or form the co2 and it's all being litigated into the permanent context, so you have this proliferation of the conflict and the only institution we said this for years the only institution that has the constitutional authority to bring common sense to this issue is congress. i only bring it up because as the preemption issue is brought up, the difficulty here is if you preempt the clean air act you literally leave most of the conflict moving forward for the future and that is a huge issue and that's why i think this

chart is so important and then my final point as the recommendations one is if you want to create jobs it's been mentioned i think by senator ensign 90% of the earth will come from china. it's crucial we needed for every application we are going to have in the alternative fuel whether they be the batteries or the window and we don't have any mining in the united states for that and in the next several years there are going to be applications for the lines that are going to be in the western states that have to come to some very difficult decisions with whether or not we accept that, and finally i raise this point every time i get a chance to testify and it is section 321 of the clean air act, section 321 applies to the administrator requirement to do a continuous evaluation of potential job loss and shift of employment results in the administration clean air act. i know all of you up there i

believe have signed letters to the administrator or have gotten responses back but say it's not the authority because if you look up the 321 beat it relates to the employee claims. 3218 relates to the job loss and the legislative history clearly states from 1977 the administrator is mandated to undertake an ongoing evaluation of job losses and employment shifts due to the requirement of the act. that is the only provision that requires the clean air act to cut jobs and its essential because if you look at other parts of the testimony especially even on the ozone you're going to have other impact on jobs of the regulatory process so it's important we get it right. thank you very much. >> thank you to the members of the panel. congresswoman it to reflect principate now by either an opening statement or questions that you may have for the panel. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

it's great to be with you and your fellow senator and of course my colleague, rob bishop who's the chairman of the western caucus on the health side and our pleasure to be over here joining you this afternoon. my first question is for congressman nunes, who has been an absolutely tireless advocate for his constituents and their ability to grow the food we need in this country, and at the same time provide the jobs the verso desperately needed in central california. congressman nunes, do you see any light at the end of the tunnel of this issue? >> currently, no because if you look up the votes that were taken last year in the house of representatives they are about seven votes that were taken as it relates directly to the water issue to allow the water to be turned back on and the current regime in the congress killed every attempt we have so we left tens of thousands of people

unemployed. the only light we have this year is that mother nature was nice to us and we had flooding this year in my area we had 140% so the government couldn't capture the water quick enough to then take it away from us. and so, we only have several hundred thousand acres out of production instead of half a million out of production. so, we've probably dropped the unemployed from 40,000 unemployed to probably 20,000 unemployed because of the crisis. the video ai plater leer, these are sawmills that are going to stay out of business. 84 of them in california. they are gone. only one is left in the entire san joaquin valley. when i was a kid i had numerous friends and family that grew up in this industry and it's gone, and i can remember in 2000 after bill clinton declared this

monument there is a big hearing that was held several thousand people showed up to the hearing and the san joaquin valley and speaker after speaker said the government, they are not going to do this, this isn't going to happen and they were given promises by trend setters from california said know we are going to create stimulus and we are going to have training centers and we're going to train all of you. we have a 5 million-dollar earmarks for the training center in one community that now sits empty. the saw mills are empty and the bottom line is the government can take your job away into the case of my district, they did, and those people -- the jobs are gone and nowwe import temporary imports are up and a temporary production of my area is finished. >> senator barrasso and i have sympathy for where you are saying. there was only one sawmill left in the entire state of wyoming, and surprisingly there is only

one sawmill left in the entire state of colorado. so these are occurrences' all over the country that have just decimated jobs in the natural resource industry and are now desperately needed to help us harvest -- >> if i may and this may be the case in wyoming and colorado the only reason that the sawmill is still going in my district of california the only one that is left is because now when there are these catastrophic forest fires the have to go in and clean out the timber it's fallen on the road and everything. that's the only thing that keeps it open so it used to be the old days the increase the firebricks student of the catastrophic forest fires. of the ten biggest fires in the last hundred years seven of the

ten have happened in the last seven years since the creation of the monument so if that doesn't tell you something. >> i've just been reminded of the remaining colorado sawmill has now closed so when you state is occurring all over the country. questions for all of the panelists to marwan and natural resources committee we are going to be marching up the clear act which we had a different purpose when i was introduced. it has now been converted into the response to the deep water horizon oil spill but the bill contains sweeping policy changes on issues completely unrelated to this bill, it's clean up or offshore drilling including the safety issues associated with offshore drilling flexible the bill makes substantial changes to onshore oil gas and uranium exploration and development and one of the praises that jumped out at me and the bill that

alarms me is a provision in the bill that provides permitting four wheel and gas would be issued when it conflicts with know whether you switch is substantial the contrary to a verbal to what use doctrines already embodied in the lobby. could i ask the panelists to comment on this bill in particular? ..

we just address the issue at hand, which at least would be a nice change if we actually first address the problem, and i suggest that this was an issue more specific to the company which does not have a great safety record than it is specific to offshore drilling which has a very spectacular safety record over the decades, focus on specifically what the issue was if you must legislate now, let the idea of bringing and as it turned out to be 814-- 2000 page bill in response to this. i believe we will look back and see this created another series of headaches we are trying to address here. broad and often vague congressional grant of authority are run with by the agencies and granted deference and it is difficult to honoring that bell. >> thank you mr. horner. there is another real head scratcher in that will, the head of the blm had testified before committee earlier that he wanted dlm leasing functions to remain

with the blm. and the bill provides that they be moved into a new agency within the department of the interior. i don't know whether that indicates that the agency is not involved in drafting the bill, or whether there has been a change of heart of the food chain in the administration, but it is going to be an interesting discussion tomorrow. a question for mr. kovacs, and that is regarding these permits, how much of the permit denial has been litigation based versus non-litigation based in your wildest summation? >> it is a mixed bag. there is really no one-size-fits-all and what seems to happen is sequential and virtually every series that can be applied to it will be applied over time and the way that

congress handles this issue in transportation projects and the safety lieu bill several years ago was to one, put a lead coordinator on four, have a lead agency in two have a 180 day statute of limitations in the reason why that is effective is because if you get sued first under a zoning series and then get so-- sued under federal theory and they are sequentially you could drag it out for six, seven, eight years and what seems to be occurring about six or seven is their project finance and they lose the financing of the project goes away. the absolute antithesis of this because the developer kept on funding it and it is funding it but most of the time these projects go away both so by putting the 180 days that chu limitations forces everyone to go before one judge and that is not uncommon in regulatory litigation for example. when we sue the agency we are

given 60 days to decide so it is very common but it would move projects. >> i want to thank the chip co-chairs for presenting this opportunity to meet with this panel and i yield back. >> let me ask a a few if i could, representative nunes first of all. i appreciate you being here and i had the opportunity of going down into your area and hearing first-hand from those farmers impacted by the lack of water.hh simply stated, what would it take to turn the water on? speedy right now, over 80% of the water that enters the delta, the sacramento delta goes out to the ocean, and so all you have to do is increase the pumping-- the palms are there, the infrastructure is there and all the land historically was farmed for decades until basically 1992 and then the waters slowly ratcheted back, so the

infrastructure is in place and all that has to happen is you have to go back to 1992 pumping level so essentially you just have to let the infrastructure that was built actually run. all you need is some government official to make the decision and allow the jobs. >> government official meaning of the united states congress needs to give the authority because the lawsuits have been@ brought by the endangered species act so you have to have either a waiver or a change in the law. >> okay. mr. horner as well, actually for both of you mr. kovacs said mr. horner as well what i'm hearing you say is the concept of having green jobs, alternative energy sources those projects are also not being started in the west or anywhere else for the same reason traditional energy sources are not being started. is either regulation hitch or simply the ability of finding some reason in the process to

stop them from going forward? is that what i'm hearing you say? >> i go back to the administration press release today from a department of interior saying when it comes to traditional sources of energy so long as it is in the right way and in the right place and it always turns out to be it is never the right way and the alternatives proposed also oddly in end up being blocked as well. you recall the green groups were strong components of nuclear power in the 1950s and it is fair to say they aren't anymore and it goes on windmills and transmission solar panels have a tremendous uphill climb to get permitted and in fact i will defer to bill kovacs because i use their project research extensively. my book, they found these were disproportionately, in fact green projects were being blocked at an even higher rate than traditional energy sources so bill is the expert on that. >> we did at the simple way. we worked at it every day and got empirical evidence that more

of these were being denied permits and as we move forward in the future they are going to have a harder and harder time as we need the-- i don't want to focus on that but china has said over the next 10 years they need their own material so even if we are going to move forward and we believe you need every form of energy that you can get and the smudges renewables as you can get that they are not having an easier time with any form of energy. >> asim's desired the regulatory problems that we face are really one of the things that is strangling the ability to actually create jobs, anywhere but especially in the west and mr. kovacs specifically i think in part of your written testimony it talks about the impact climate change might have. we have already seen how land managing agencies incorporate climate change into their decision-making process and the regulatory process as well. how do you think that is going to impact jobs especially in the west?

>> well, the difficulty with trying to deal with the climate change issue through a regulatory structure as opposed to a congressional policy is that right now we have-- epa regulates about 300 million tons of pollutants today under the clean air act. when it has to deal with climate change it is going to regulate about a billion times and so, it radically changes how the agency is going to do it and what is going to be the focus so right now today, the 300 million tons are knocked off whatever it isn't all of a sudden you have the 8 billion tons, you have got a totally different agency with a completely different focus. >> mr. horner, if i can go back, there was another time which he said the impact on an oregon community does not have the same resonance with congress but you would have if it impacted a server in chicago.

is there a method you would recommend so that you could maybe elevate the needs of all communities, not just particular ones? >> well, i have to say we would have to actually step back, first recognized in the clear and manifest in a revisiting of any of the statues many of which are being used now. never intended to hault economic development, never intended to meet lima change statutes statutes and all being employed that way. to hault economic development. we need to go back and make sure these laws recognize wealthier is healthier. wealthier is cleaner. it places economic value on environmental e. a n. pay to clean it up. you can go to a border and see which side is cleaner, richer or poorer. food fuel and medicine and when the economy turns down the environment as you have seen in polls but also in reality takes a backseat. we need to recognize promoting

economic growth however that is in the west is resource development. it is done in rich countries cleanly, responsibly and it does not need to be micromanaged out of washington. instead we are seeking to apply. i suppose that is one major problem with washington national standards is that they don't necessarily apply to specific situations and i'm afraid our laws to reflect this mentality. they view i think inc. lately but they reflect the mindset of a great part of them berman took community that needs to be curbed by the state when in fact it is wealth creation, it is rich societies that cleanup and healthy economies that lard on moore's transient vos. >> when all of you speak towards the problems developed in creating good jobs, creating jobs in the west they come through our political climate, they come through people, challenges and regulatory ability and come by congress passing onto the bureaucracy the ability to make rules and

regulations that we never intended in the first place. i find it somewhat chilling if i look at the climate as a rhetoric we are also hearing coming from government agencies that manage land. you talked about the net loss of jobs that have been created because of some of the decisions that have been made and now we start talking about agencies. no longer talking about limiting simply to the political boundaries of federal lands that now starting to talk about economic and ecosystems, they need to either do away with holdings or expand the concept of where the government has some kind of control. it scares me because we are talking about expansion of what has been a strangulation process towards new development of jobs in the west. it also worries me that when the governor was talking about the rmp, research management plan in essence that becomes land management impact, that has an impact on whether we move forward or not or develop and 70 resource on government land that it is the same situation you are

talking about with regulation to come through bureaucracies and the only way to-- u.s. congress to help out when indeed congress not being specific in our legislation that rather than simply turning over authority to make rules in the future unlike the original congress did, but the way we do that now seems to be part of the problem and part of the process problem that we have. >> certainly, i mean certainly the way congress is legislating with these broad grant of authority through the agency. i was sitting here as you are saying that and thinking, i don't know how many laws we have but i do know there is a calculation of how many regulations we have. we have 116,000 regulations today. we are increasing them by 4000 a year and then in the environmental field which actually affects the west more than anything you have the citizenry provisions in all of them berman told statutes and the citizenry of 150,000 regulations 30,000 pages of epa regulations. each one of those regulations

can be enforced generally by citizens so what is happening is you are not just handing the authority over to regulators, the way the laws are structured, you are are then emboldening this new industry so you are getting it several ways. you are getting opposed from the regulators themselves and the bureaucracy and then anyone who is really upset with it has able to sue and then we go in-- i know the congresswoman lewis is going to go and then you have the payments under the judgment act and the equal access to justice, and that completely undisclosed set of revenues that if you want to know was something you should find out, you need to find out what is being paid. >> we are at least creating a growth area in litigation. >> you certainly are. >> we do have the video ready to go with voices from people around the rocky mountain west

and we will take a couple of seconds to look at it. >> our health care has gone up 25%. our workman's comp, all of our government programs have all gone up, so we have got an additional cost coming down from washington and then we have got a lot of resources we can use. >> an example of what cap-and-trade it to us, today we had 160,000 miles on her ranch vehicles. at the same time i did 60 miles on one of my-- going out and searching for cattle, making sure they are in the water. we have had a lot of dry conditions and have been short of water so we have to put a little extra time out there. the to increase their energy

costs and our fuel costs are really going to tighten up our ability to continue to operate in the red. >> the cap-and-trade, to me the impact they are is financial for one thing. higher taxes,-- we run our ranch here and we have our farm. irrigated farming is really high energy user. it takes a lot of running equipment and there is really no realm of financially for higher energy costs. >> the issues we have with what is happening today in washington d.c. is the-- has been changed to modify simply an administration that had an effect on us. we saw our unemployment rates go

from less than 3% to over 9% and it had more to do with the change in policies than it did with the actual recession. what is confusing to us is we had enter the obama administration and called for more nuclear power. beer is on the strip has 40% of uranium in the united states, higher grade than anything we have. it is in concentrated areas, easy to get to, easily mined. the employment it would bring to our county is significant. by the time that mine is permitted, minds are reclaimed over a seven to eight year period. there is maybe $100 million they figure over half of that would stay in the state and local

areas. >> we would like for congress to understand that when they close federal lands it makes us impossible for recreation. it not only affects us but it also affects the small communities, the ones that depend on those of us who recreate on public lands who stay in hotels, eat the restaurants and use their services so keep in mind as the debate over public lands continues, that not only are you affecting the access to the responsible montana public lands that you are also affecting the livelihood of those who depend on our contributions to the economy to continue. >> we thank you sincerely for taking the time to listen to producers. i know sometimes it is hard to apply attention to the actual environment so as someone out here where the rubber meets the road i appreciate you hearing what we have to say.

>> any comments from the panelists or anything you would like to add after watching this? >> i would just say that some of those folks were from california senator, but you would conduct interviews in my district and you would hear the same thing except in my district we are at 20% unemployment whereas those areas are half of what is in my district. so i assume you would have doubled the number of people saying that. >> i would say we need to wreck nice the state is not the engine of productive economic activity. it is the individuals in the key to that is affordable reliable energy. nuclear must be a part of that particularly as we proceed down this climate road. but we need to recognize that despite the rhetoric, the president met 50% of the way by securing reactors. is on assessment met 2% of the

way. we are going to have to build nuclear as well as access what is our energy security and that is cool and unfortunately there is a war on carl and we are seeking disciple nick lear. let me just say i don't unfortunately, there is a war on coal and we're seeking to stifle nuclear. i don't appreciate -- a chicago-based utility was thoroughly exposed and i don't appreciate what they are doing. a oil domestically. it is not true we are in deep water so to speak because we are running out of places to keep energy on shore, thoroughly untrue and we may have a percentage of the world's proven reserves but that is because it has been unlawful to look for 25 years and that is what happens. usgs and the world's largest

energy resources. that is their energy and economic security and i thank the committee for the caucuses, are opening up a dialogue on hopefully stopping the war in years. this is a little less than an

hour. >> good afternoon everyone. we are so pleased to have you here at the whitehouse at the launch of the national hiv/aids strate. this is such an important day, and it is important that we put this day in context. it has been 30 years since the hiv/aids epidemic first hit our country, and it has been 20 years since passage of their ryan white care act, and at this important marker in our history, we think it is imperative that we refocus our attention on the issue of hiv/aids and what we have to do in the united states to address this issue appropriately. it is also important to keep in mind wht this means for individuals, and for all of the statistics there is a human face behind them. we know that 1.1 million people

are living with hiv in the united states. we know that 56,000 people are infected every year, and every nine and a half minutes, and that is one of the statistics when you say it, i always have to doublecheck it because it is so stunning. every nine and a half minutes someone is it that you-- infected with hiv and for that ason during the campaign for of president obama promised that as a nation, domestically, we would focus on this issue. as important a it is to focus their attention on what is happening internationally, there hasn't been enough attention focused on what we are doing in this country. and for that reason he went all over the country talking about this issue and when he entered the white house, he told us that talk wasn't enough, that we have to put acions and deeds and resources behind our words. r that reason, we are launching our initiative, our nationallan today.

this document is the culmination of a great deal of work and one of the things that i want to do with thank so many of you who were in this room with us today, for your support, for your input, for your thoughts and ideas around this report and implementation plan for without you we would not have been able to get it done. i also want to thank people around the country. we went to 14 different cities in the united states, everywhere from san francisco to jackson, from los angeles to new york and philadelphia, all over the country and we talked to people and communities are go as i said there is a face behind all of the statistics. there is expertise in research and communities all over the country and we wanted to benefit from that. we also benefited in those community meetings there o web site and we asked for their ideas and their opinions and their thoughts. we engage with our federal partners as they also engage with people through panels in three meetings and we held

panels and forums. some of you were there, that i also participated in here at the white house to talk about as different aspects not only of this disease but the ways that we can address it and the way we n do that in partnership with the federal, state and local government as well as the private sector and the philanthropic sector and ngo's. so we bring all of that information to the work that we have done thus far and it is a part of the report and a part of the implementation plan. i am now going to turn this mic overo secretary kathleen sebelius and because of her work and her leadership in her drive, and i know her well and i've worked with her closely for several years so i can tell you she is a great leader and there is a lot of drive. because of that work we are here today so i want to thank her for that and she is now going to give you a better sense of the work that is now a part of our

national hiv/aids strategy and to tell you the ways we are going to be able to work together so i welcome secretary kathleen sebelius. thank you. [applause] >> thank you melody, not only for the nice introduction but melody has provided as the head of the mestic policy council, an enormous important strategic focus to this effort, and also some real personal passion. this was not something that was going to drop by the wayside with melody's help and support. she has played an enormously important role, but so have the other two gentlemen on the stage with me tay. jeff crowley who is the director of the office of national aids policy you will hear from and also dr. howard koh who is my

terrific assistant and secretary on health who is charged with actually reading the department wide effort, localizing the all hands-on support for the initiative we are going to outline and i want to start by thanking the three of them because they do deserve a lot of credit for getting us to this spot today. as melody has already said, the plan is informed by not only those of you in the room but those from around the country who have worked in this area for years, who are providers and citizens living with hiv/aids, family members, advocates, faith-based communities represented and we wanted the most effective strategies and approaches so we needed to talk to the people who knew about that most effectively. and i again want to thank all the health development

strategies. when president obama announced our plan to put together a comprehensive national hiv/aids strategy, he recognized that this actually is a critical turning point. in the 80's, when aids was first discovered in this country, we were vry slow to respond, but eventually a coalition came together with government officials and ployers, community based groups and health advocates to put together a series of effective approaches for treating and reducing the spread of hiv/aids. in partnership with the affected community, we began to speak frankly about the sexual and drug use behaviors that put people at risk for hiv and aids. we develop procedures for screening blood transfusions, encourage the screening of pregnant women and supported hiv testing programs or persons whose behavior plays place them

most at risk for aids. we promoted community based and clinical strategies for reducing infections among injection drug use and discovered new therapies that were much more effective in keeping the disease in check. combined, these approaches helps turn the tide against disease and a number of new hiv infections among people who inject drugs dropped by 80%. transmissions during pregnancy went from 1600 to fewer than 200 a year. total annual infections went fr about 130,000 a year in the mid-80s to just over 50,000 a year in the mid-90s. and at the same time that length and quality of life of people living with hiv rose dramatically thanks to better treatment and better access to care. and that reversal is a pretty great accomplishment.

the unfortunate piece of this story is that since the late '90s, our progress in preventing new infections has slowed. annual infections have held steady in the mid-50 thousand a year-- 50,000 a year. because of the number of people livingith hiv has gone up over the years it means we ae driving down infection rates slightly but not fast enough or do we are keeping pace when we should be gainingground, and that is why the president thought it was so important for the first ever comprehensive national hiv/aids strategy to be put together. after a year of information gathering and analysis, conversation with health care providers and persons ling with hiv and aids, with researchers and health workers, with activists and community leaders, we are announcing a plan today that has an ambitious vision. that vision is the united states

should be a place where new hiv infections are rare and when they do occur, every person, regardless of age, gender, race d ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or socioeconomic circumstances will have unfettered access to high-quality life-extending care, free from stigma and discrimination. that is a prettyall order and in order to achieve that vision, the strategy is focused on three concrete goals. reducing new hiv infections, increasing access of care and optimizing health outcomes for americans with hiv/aids, and reducing hiv related health disparities. the goals aren't necessarily new but the strategy for achieving them is new. we know we couldn't keep using the same approach and expect different results. we knew at the same time all of

us, the federal government, states and communities, not-for-profit groups, businesses are being forced to do more with less, and we can't expect this to be solved by a huge infusion of new resources. so while the strategy does highlight areas for additional investment, it also identifies ways we can use the resources we have more effectively, to prevent, diagnose d treat hiv and aids. and to do that, we are really looking in areas where we know we can do better. for example, we have been very successful at keeping hiv and aids incidence low for some populations. if you are a white heterosexual woman, like me, your chances of being infected by hiv and aids are very low, one and 50,000. but if you are a black female, also in injection drug use or your chances of being infected

are more than 1000 times higher than mine. one and 35. if you area hispanic man, your chances are 350 times higher. in some u.s. cities it is estimated almost half the but men are hiv positive. so part of the strategy says we are going to intensify our prevention resources in the communities where infections are concentrated. when it comes to identifying resources, it can't just be one approach. are important, so is tesing, especially since we think one in five america with hiv doesn't know it and therefore spreads it. what we have learn is that prevention is most successful when we use all the tools available, whether it is educating people about health behaviors or better substance abuse treatment and prevention programs or breakthrough medical

research on vaccines. so we are taking in all of the above approach because it is the overlapping layers of prevention that get the best results. and the final piece of our prevention strategy is education. the progress we have made in the last 30 years comes with an unintended side effect, americans have become less fearful of hiv and aids. in 1995, nearly half of all americans said the hiv/aids was our most pressing health issue. today, it is one in 20. andwe can afford that kind of complacency. not plan, as melody said in the last few minutes i have been talking to you, another american just contracted hiv. and that is why our strategy calls for aggressive efforts to educate americans about just how dangerous this disease still is and the steps that they can take to protect themselves and their loved ones.

earlier this year, we got a headstart on these goals when we enacted the affordable care act, which included an unprecedented attention and public health fund. over the next 10 years, that's fund will invest nearly $15 billion to prevent disease oretect it early before it becomes severe. today we are announcing a $30 million from the first wave of new funding will go to support new and existing efforts to help more americans learn about hiv, particularly in the most vulnerable populations. the funds will be available for community organizations to apply for very soon and they will provide a critical boost to our prevention efforts across the country. as their implementation of this strategy gets underway. but even as we strive to reduce new infections, the strategy we are announcing today also calls for us to refocus and re-energize our efforts on

behalf of the 1.1 million americans w are currently living with hiv and aids, and they will all benefit from the affordable care act too. under the new law, medicaid will be expanded and medicaid has been the most reliable source of support for manymericans with hiv and aids. there is also a new consumer friendly health inrance marketplace, where plans will be forbidden from denying people coverage because of their medical condition. a fate that has the fallen too many americans with hiv and aids in the past. these changes won't hapn until 2014, but if we were quickly and responsibly to implement the new law, we are also taki some short-term steps to help those with hiv and aids right now. in the last three months we have been mailing 250-dollar rebate checks to seniors who have fallen into the medicare's description doughnuthole. and 2011, those drugs in the

doughnut hole will cost 50% less, and that is a huge help to seniors who were living with hiv and ais. we are working the states to create new temporary preexisting condition pools to offer insurance plans to those americans who have been locked out of the insurance market because of their medical conditions. and states already have risk pools in place. this will be an additional step. we have announced a new patient bill of rights that will restore some basic fairness this year to those health insurance marks. under the bill of rights, insurance companies will be forbidden from canceling coverage when you get sick or putting a lifetime cap on benefits, which happens too often to people who are ill and need that coverage the most. eachof those steps will help americans with hiv and aids bridge the gap until we get to 2014, and get the care they need

to lead healthy and comfortable lives. but that is not enough. under the strategy, we also want to work to link testing to care since the latest evidence shows that the earlier care is started, the better the results. we will build on the provisions of the affordable care act and strengthen our health care workforce. we will work to supplement the medical care with other supportive services like housine assistance that we know can make the difference between someone staying on the treatment regimen or dropping it. this goal is especially important at a time when budget shortfalls have made it hard for many americans to get the care they truly need. that is why when they learned that many states had begun creating waiting list for the aids drug assistance program, we quickly pulled together an additional $25 million in deral resources to meet the demand for the remainderof the

year. we want to make sure that our prevention and treatment resources reach the most vulnerable americans and especially in communities with the greatest need. we must continue to change america's attitude. in too many communities today, hiv and aids still carries a stigma. there are still too many people who don't get tested because they are afraid of what their friends might think. too many people who won't pick up a yer about treatment because they are afraid if they are seen with that someone will make a judgment about their sexual orientation part of the stregy will continue to look for concrete ways to reduce the stigma associated with hiv and aids, such as ending sending the hiv entry ban, a long-overdue step, which we finally did this year. for each of these goals, we set ambitious but reachable targets for the year 2015 and the national strategy is not only a

document we are releasing today. with it we are announcing the national hiv and aids strategy implementation plans that lays out steps for every department across government to contribute to these efforts. the strategy isn't a white paper. it is a detailed action plan that is going to lead to real changes in our approach and we hope real improvements in our results. it is also a critical partnership. there are a wide range of cabinet agencies and subagencies that do work on hiv and aids from the department of justice to the department of labor, to the department of housing and urban development. one thing we hope to work together better on as we implement thisaw is to work together. to that in the implementation plan calls on howard kh, our assistant secretary for health who you will hear from in just a few minutes, to take on the key coordinating role, not just for

the agencies within hhs but for agencies across the federal government. howard got a great adviser in dr. ron valdiserri, one of our nation's leading experts on hiv and aids who just pointed-- joined our department. this partnership also has to extend outside government to the community and faith-based organizations and employers and business is. the health care professionals and activists who play such an important role putting together the strategy. our only chance of success is if we carry it out together. is we implementhe strategy we are also recommitting ourselves to laboratory research that promises better prevention tools, treatments and ultimately a cure for hiv and ai. under the president's leadership we delivered the biggest boost to biomedical research in

american history adding more than $10 billion to nih over the two years as part of the recovery act. la week, we saw some exciting news about how big the payoff from this investment might be one nih scientists discovered three antibodies that could potentially used as part of an hiv vaccine. going forwd, we pledge to contue our work to promote new discoveries and eliminate obstacles that gets us from microscope to marketplace. when the president took office, we had reached a turning pnt. either we could choose to get used to hiv and aids, to accept it is a permanent feature of the u.s. society to be satisfied with lengthening lives instead of saving lives, or we could choose to redouble and refocus our efforts to put a new emphasis on prevention, to expand access to care, to target hiv and aids in the most

vulnerable communities that they are the brunt of this disease. with the new strategy we are announcing toda we are choosing the second path. we refuse to accept a stalete to dig in and just hold the disease had a. we want to be moving forward. we want to see infections going down once again, access to care increasing and awareness expanding. the strategy we are releasing today is not an end of our work. it is just the beginning. we have set a target and now it is up to all of us working together to go achieve it. the person who has been leading that effort in the white house is jeff crowley, the director for office of national aids policy. jeff is absolutely one of the visionaries behind this document and now i would like to introduce him to talk a little bit more about it. jeff. [applause]

>> good afternoon. thank you madam secretary. we clearly would not have got here today without your leadership and we thank you in your whole team at the department of health and human services for all the good you are doing. it also like to acknowledge my friend and colleague dr. howard koh. he helped us get to this point and i'm not sure he really understands what lays ahead or him because really his work is just beginning. we are investing a lot of responsibility in him and his office to make sure we deliver the promise of the strategy. i would also like to express my deep appreciation for melody barnes. it is a gift for the hiv community that they president placed the policy within the domesticolicy council. we could not produce a solid strategy i think we have or enga in the comprehensive process to get here if it were not for her steadfast support so thank you. [applause]

i would also like to announce the many partners across the federal government including a federal hiv and interagency working group that helped us get here, the president to advisory council on hiv/aids. they are also critical to our work so thank you are a much. pplause] now at the risk of sounding lik i'm giving my academy award acceptance speech i'm almost done with my thank you's that i really need to balance the office of national aids policy. it is really an incredible team that has worked hard over man monthsnd this made sacrifices in their personal lives to try to produce the best strategy we could. greg militants are senior policy adviser. [applause] he is an epidemiologist on details om cbc and he has led the development process working with federal agencies and working with documents. james is our senior program

manager. [applause] he led the planning for the strategy's implementation and he has worked with hhs and the office of news media on our new and improved web site so he will also allow me to get and plugs to check out www.whitehouse.gov and it is going live today with new information. del simmons has been our policy adviser. she was on detail from hhs. [applause] she let our women's policy work in her work on access of care. thank you. natalie is my executive assistant and she tries to keep me in line and she is sort of the glue in the office. [applause] gannett is the guy he was a communications adviser and he spearheads our communication. now let me turn to--

[applause] now let me turno all of you. thank you to all of you that helped us get to this point. many of you will hear are people we met along the way as we travel across the country and others of you posted your own meetings and contribute to the work we are doinin a numeral ways. so many people can judah did what i think was a robust national dialogue and i hope you think the end product relect our best collective effort so thank you. the strategy provides a roadmap to move the nation forward. i said this before but it is not intended to be a conference of list of all the activities we need to do to address hiv. incentives to be a concise plan that will set clear priorities and strategic action sets tied to measurable outcomes. now would like to tell you what our key priorities are. to produce new hiv infections we believe we need to do three things. we need to intensify our prevention efforts in communities where hiv is most heavily concentrated. we need to expand targeted efforts to prevent hiv infection

using a combination and that is the key word, combination of effective evidence-based approaches and third we need to educate all americans about the threat of hiv and how to prevent it. to increase access to care and improve health outcomes we have three key steps to identify. building on the affordable care act, the landmark health reform law that is going to do so much to improve access to health care for millions of americans but including people with hiv so building on this we believe we need to establish a seamless system to immediately link peop with hiv and continuous corrugated quality care as soon as they are diagnosed with hiv. second, we believe we need to take deliberate steps to increase the number of diversity of providers of clinical care and related services for people with hiv and third we need to support people with hiv to-- who have co-occurring challenges. to reduce hiv related disparities, we believe we need to work to reduce hiv related

mortalities and communities with high risk of hiv infection. we believe we need to adopt community level approaches to hiv reduction in high risk amenities and reduce stigma and discrimination against people living with hiv. to achieve all of these goals we added a fourth goal and that is achieving a more corrugated national response to the aids epidemic in the united states and we believe we need to increase the coordination of hiv programs across the government and with other levels of govement and community partners and we need to develop improved mechanisms for monitoring our progress toward achieving national goals. the secretary did a wonderful job of sharing her vision and direction for the strategy. we intend to back this up with a an. in addition to seeing the strategy and implementation plan today the president is releasing a presential memorandum to support implementation of the strategy. this memorandum directs the office of national aids policy to continue to provide

leadership on policy-setting as we seek to implement the strategy and it also calls for an annual report to th president on their progress. we are going to do this on an annual basis and measure what we are doing. it designates lead agencies a primary responsibility. they a hhs, hud, justice, labor, veterans affairs and social security administration. for each of these it has an immediate requirement and a longer-term requirement. each of these agencies within 150 days to develop their own operational plan from lamenting the strategy and reporting that the president. and it also calls on them to ke long-term actions such as designating a league official, preparing assistance to collect data across there in agencies and synthesizing it in taking ongoing steps to implement the strategy. now, the presidential memorandum also gives the secretary of health and human services additional responsibilities for improving coordination across the governnt and it is my understanding the secretary

designated dr. koh as the leading person responsible. in addition to the lead agenci, there's also sponsibilities for three other agencies. the department of defense is asked to develop a plan to implement the strategy in the context of the health care system serving the military. the department of state is us to develop a plan and provide recommendations on how we can apply the lessons learned from the pepfar program to the domestic epidemic in equal employment opportunity commission and independent agency is being asked to develop a report on how we can expand employment opportunities for ople with hiv and address employment related discrimination. so the strategy and implementation plan demonstrates the president is serious about tackng the epidemic in the presidential memorandum is a gn that he means business. a couple of days dr. colin i will trap gold to vienna austria to vertus bigamy national aids

conference. because a the present obama's leadership the 19th international conference on aids conference will be held in washington d.c. and 2012. [applause] this is the first, we the first time the conference will have been held in the united states in 20 years and we think it will be an opportunity to spotlight her work and show the global community the united states is committed to the domestic epidemic and abroad. now let me introduce dr. howard koh. dr. koh. [applause] speech of thank you so much for that kind introduction and for your tremendous leadership on this issue. is such a great honor to work with you. let me a knowledge melody barnes who has been such a wonderful colleague and we are so proud to have her in the administration,

doing so many efforts with respect to public health in this country and of course the great or wish to wk with secretary sebelius of the department of health and human services. thank you for this great honor to be with you today for the unveiling of this important strategy. i also did want to recognize again dr. ron valdiserri. if you would stand up and wave and get some applause. [applause] >> we are very pleased to be with you today because the strategy has been informed by your efforts as you have heard her go the voices of many americans have shaped the strategy, voices of people across the country who are advocating for it and living with hiv. and this strategy pays tribute to the many we have tragically lost to this epidemic, but it also represents a commitment for

an entire nation for a healthier future. the message is clear, we need the entire country involve. and this epidemic affects everyone. you don't have to be infected to be affected by this virus. i am especially honored to be part of this unveiling because i have had the privilege of viewing this epidemic from multiple perspectives. first i am a physician and in mica rear of caring for patients for over 30 years, cared for many patients with hiv/aids. in fact i was chief resident of boston city hospital 30 years ago when the first cases were being described so to watch this progression has been extraordinary for me on a personal level. secondly i'm a former state health commissioner so i got to oversee hiv/aids efforts in massachusetts and it is great to see many of my colleagues here today. now is the assistant secretary for health it is a great privilege to work with you to move forward and build better systems of care and prevention

and insure all americans truly achieve their highest attainable standard of health. as you have heard from my colleagues, this plan stresses several themes to put our resources where the epidemic is hitting the hardest, to put out strategies where they will get the best results and to put evidence-based science first so those are our themes moving forward. over the next 150 days we have a lot of work to do and it is my great privilege to work with all of you in the department under the direction of the secretary, to map out a plan that has specific steps for federal binet agencies and suagencies and we look forward to working with you and mr. crowley and his office to make this strategy, live over the next 150 days. ouoffice of the assistant secretary has a new mission

statement, mobilizing leadership in science and prevention for a healthier nation so this integration is something that we embrace and we look forward to working with you. the secretary is articulated a number of steps, how we can make this strategyoncrete immediately and let me just review a couple of them for you. first our offce of assistant secretary will be coorditing activities throughout the depament and across federal government. we will be connecting with many of you and the community and many of you have been tremendous leaders on these issues for many years. will start a process of better tracking how each state and territory is implementing this plan at the local level. we will be initiating consultations with the bisexual and transgender, the lbj lb gt committee to advance health

promotion of disease prevention in this critical area. we will be connecting with offices of faith-based and community initiatives to make the strategy, live, and we are again very grateful to members of the presidential advisory council on hiv/aids, many councilmembers are here today. you are national experts in this area and we are very honored to work closely with you to make the strategy come alive for the american people. the job of implementing the strategy is not one that is belonging to the federal government alone. our succs requires an entire nation to join together so that every person reaches his or her full potential for health and our vision and our goal is to have a day soowhere hiv infections are rare and everybody receives care. thank you very much for being here, for your presence in your commitment and let me turn this back to melody barnes. thank you are a much.

[applause] >> wonderful. secretary sebelius and i were saying this podium is awfully high. [laughter] thank you and i hope that you all have a betr sense of what we sought to accomplish in the way we went about doing it, and now i would like to open the floor for a few questions. if you could let us know your name and where you are from we would appreciate it. why don't we start here. >> i would like to-- my name is robin webb from jackson. i would like to see the day the 2000 people living with hiv in mississippi are the same as other areas of the country because disparities and inequities of the services and it looks like so many flks have lost hope that there will ever come that day. has there have been any

discussion about geographic disparities or geographic inequities in terms of services and in terms of how they are going to be delivered and how the strategy will work? >> absolutely. >> thank you robin. we recognize when we talk about concentrating on the community that gratis or is there a different elements and certainly geographic differences is something weonsider so the strategy does talk about how effective they are-- the epidemic is concentrated in the northeast and the south, puerto rico and the virgin islands but even if you go a level lower if you are in any state, we know the epidemic is not spread so if you one-- pick one state maryland, you could say most of the cases are in baltimore and montgomery, prince george's county but even in the city so in the district of columbia it is concentrated so there is much more hiv is to the river here than other parts. so the geographic issues are something we think the strategy

needs to address. >> can i just say also, piece of this puzzle is that i think, tell the passage of the affordable care act, the dealing with health disparies and the gap in access to good care were dramatic, and some of that have differentlevels of eligibility for medicaid. that will change. states have different outreach efforts with the doubling of the community health center footprint that occurred because the recovery act, that will change. with the pipeline for additional medical providers, particularly medical providers coming out of minority communities. i think we have me strategies now in place and some funding now in place that goes directly to some of the disparities, some of which are geographic and some of which are economic that have been plaguing this effort for such a long time.

>> state your name and whereou are from. >> i am charles king, housing works for new york city and not to be too cynical, i just wonder how we think going from one new infection every nine minutes to one new infection every 12 minutes is making infections in the united states exceedingly rare and my second question more specifically is given the voluminous evidence provided to the white house about the efficacy of housing as a structural intervention and prevention why there is no mention of how for example directing hud to target housing for those most at risk instead of many of the current hud policies that are in opposite effect. >> the first question is really about the goals and we said within five years we would reduce hiv infections by 25%.

we think that is an achievable but also very aggressive goal. some of the challenges we face are that for a number of years we have increasing numbers of people living with hiv and we have been able to maintain a steady state of the number of new infections from year-to-year. quite frankly we are a little worried that if things stay the same we are going to start to see increasing numbers of new infection so just to hold steady is going to be work for us. in the past there've been efforts to quite frankly set aggressive goals, cutting incidents in half. i think we went through serious process and are trying to be honest about what is achievable so i think by setting a goal of 25% is aggressive but realistic. i wish i could tell you we could set a goal of 50% or 75%. i just don't know how we could do that in the short-term but again we are setting goals for the next five years. now your question about housing, you know we travel the country. we have heard a lot about

housing. when we talk about increasing access to care, optimizing health outcomes, we specifically say that we need trecognize some people are challenged in meeting basic needs such as housing so we think there is an importt role for expanding access to housing. our point on community level interventions in addressing health disparities is that we think we spent too much time focusing on individual level interventions and we need better approaches we can apply to the community level. we don't think-- we have a start. i'm not saying-- housing certainly has a role to play but the emphasis we place on the community level interventions as we need to develop more and better ones to move us forward and certainly housing has a role in that. >> why don't we take this question right here. i am sorry. >> i have the mic so i have the floor. [laughter] nancy mann, mac cosmetics and congratulations and thank you all. a question in terms of private donors. i've seen in the history of

epidemics we have not had enough private dollars in the united states so i just wanted to invite yu to talk a little about how you see private donors making a difference in actualizing the plan and how we could work together to make all these happ? >> nancy as you know, the white hoe has done a series of specific topics on issues like women and hiv, youth and hiv but six weeks or so we held a meeting at the white house on public partnerships. one of the things we can't say enough is we can do this alone. this is a national strategy. we need all parts of american society to reengage and the business community does and the foundation community does need to support us. at this meeting we have really talked about three areas where we think they have expertise and the capacity to help us. one is helping us address some of the short-term challenges abroad access to are and we know many pharmaceutical companies and others are stepping up to the plate to help

provide support of the local level. we think that is very important. when the obama administration came into office we workedith cities to launch the-- business plan before he got here so we are not saying we id it alone but when we launch if it was the first social campaign launched by the federal government in 15 years. so to some extent we think we need to as a country remember how to do the things we used to know how to do and certainly engaging media. we think that is where there is a lot of credit sector partne that can help us and do a better job than we could do alone. the third areas the issue i was just mentioning about community level interventions. we don't have all the answers and we need a broad range of private sector stakeholders to help us figure out what those interventions are. thanyou. >> thank you. i which would just add to that participating in that form with you on that particular topic. one, the president has consistently consistently said

and you see it here and you see it across the range of different issues we work on, that we have to work in partnership with every sect, that the federal government brings a lot to the table but we rognize the state and local govrnment, the private sector, ngo's, the philanthropic ctor all bring pertise and resources and knowledge and experience in one of the things we talked about on that panel was the fact that the private sector has experience with the communities in which it works, in which it lives and by building on that expertise, by building on that knowledge we have a better base of information not to mention the resources and just the expertise of what you do, not to mention the people who you employ, the people that you work with so we believe it really is an all hands on deck moment and we all learn from each other and leverage each other so i just wanted to have that and take a question here unless someone else has the microphone and i missed it. >> first, i want to express my

personal appreciation. my name is dr. gets from south carolina and at my state pages recently cut all funding. they cut he only hiv extension faith-based program in 30 years for aids in our state, so my question is, given the reection of many states around the ideology and evidence-based research, plants and outcomes promoted in this national plan, what strategies are proposed to monitor local compliance or alignment with the president's national plan and will be outcomes derived from the proposed federal assessment impact federal funding to states who fail to acknowledge or incorporate the strategies into their programs? [applause]

>> in response i would say a couple of things. yes we believe that there will always be too limited resources and we can't afford to waste them so how we tackle so many issues is to say we need to rely on the best evidence of what works and make sure we fund them. already when we allocate funds whether it is prevention funds to the cdc or care funds for ryan white given to local committees, so already we make significant efforts to make sure we are funding the right dings and giving to the right groups but we think we need an enhanced effort on that. there are a couple of things. as the departments develop their own pls we will be looking for steps ey can take to ensure that we are again only funding the evidence-based approaches that work. the other is that the presidential memorandum also imposes requirements for the departments to make sure that they consult with omb so that when they are putting forth budget request for theiannual budget, that the goals and directions of the strategy are

reflected in their request, so i think those things together will help address it. .. >> well, i am given the "i have to stop" sign back there. before i do, i just also want to thank everyone on the stage. the secretary, the assistant secretary, the dro director, as well as his office. i also want to recognize someone who has been a real leader on this issue and dogged in her

pursuit on solutions in this issue which is representative christianson who is here with us today. applause [applause] and again, i want to thank all of you for your input and your work with us this far and also all the things that we anticipating a plan to do together. thank you so much for being here. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> next, remarks from the aids

foundation president michael weinstein. this is about 20 minutes. >> i would like to discuss this strategy. first of all, if you go to webster's dictionary, "strategy" is defined as plan or art of war. there is not a strategy. most importantly, you cannot

fight a war without resources. as we know from the trillions trillions of dollars we are spending on fighting foreign wars as we speak. so in response to the woft crisis in the aids drug assistance program in many, many years and a response by a coalition of many states for $126 million in assistance, the administration offered $25 million. which would not even be a rounding error in tarp of the stimulus plan. today we learned the administration plans to devote new money to h. iv efforts.

it amounts to 9 cents for every man, woman, and wild. -- and child. so we heard a few interesting things today. we heard from secretary sbeelous -- sebelius that this strategy rests on unfettered access to care. well, the act doesn't take effect until 2014, but today we have 3,000 people on waiting lists for aids drugs across this country, a person died on that waiting list in south carolina, and access to care for h.i.v. is declining in this country.

you can't say this is a strategy if you don't intend to spend any money on it. the secretary also referred to the slow response to aids in the 1980's, and we know that president reagan did not mention the word "aids" in the first six years of his administration. you can hardly say 18 months into this administration coming up with a plan which will collect dust on the shelves of the library of congress has -- as have hundreds of other plans that have been developed over the years is lightning speed. the reality is that the number of people who are currently becoming infected with h.i.v. is

rising. the people who are positive and don't know it has been static, and we're seeing that people are not getting the care that they need. not only does rationing care to h.i.v. patients hurt those people, but it sends a terrible message to the people we want to get tested. why should someone get tested if they won't have access to care? so to go a little further, right now there is a bill before the senate, sb 3401. that bill appropriates $126 million from unspent stimulus money.

no democrat has signed on to that bill and the white house is opposed to it. the reasons that were given that they are opposed to it is that it is not a proper use of stimulus funds, and also we have a partisan attitude that since the republicans voted against stimulus, that they don't have any right to say how it should be spent. but the reality is that we desperately need this money. we led a vigorous campaign to get them to contribute, and their contribution will exceed $135 million. that puts in stark relief to how

stingy really this $25 million amount of money is. i just want to say if we look out over the horizon of aids money and where we have had success fighting it, the one factor that's been universal, whether it is from rich countries or poor countries has been political will. and the reason why i believe we have not succeeded in fighting aids successfully in this country is that we have never had the political will, and today's national strategy does not represent that. disturbingly, you have to go all

the way back to the reagan administration to find the administration indifferent to the issue than this administration. so i would next like to introduce brian. >> good afternoon. my name is brfment randon eecsa

-- mascata. i work for adap, an advocacy association for aids. michael, tom, thank you for letting me come in on your parade and support you in what you are doing. i stand before you today as someone who has been living with h.i.v. for eight years. i stand before you today as someone who has actually been on the aids drug assistance program at one time in my life. unfortunately i address you this afternoon conflicted by a feeling of accomplishment with a sense of defeat. the moment we should be celebrating the first ever national aids strategy in the united states we find 25 million americans living with h.i.v.-aids that we are aware of waiting to access their medication. in the wealthiest nation in the world, it begs the question,

where is the justice? who is looking out for the people living with h.i.v.-aids waiting to access care. when will the relief that comforted the banks, financial institutions, auto makers, and people who purchased homes that they could not afford find it's way to the most under-served people in our country. and finally, what happened to the audacity of hope promised by this president. i can tell i after speaking to the people on this waiting list, there is no such hope. there is nothing but fear, frustration, and quite frankly, there is anger. the crisis is real, and it is most definitely dangerous. over 6-10 adap patients are people of color -- african-american, hispanic -- .75% live below the federal poverty level. strikingly, over 86% of the adap

patients on waiting lists reside in the south. there has been a 2,000 waiting list -- 2,000% waiting list increase. this was supposed to be a milestone by a president willing to extend political capital, willing to put the needs of the poor other head of the want for the wealthy, willing to inspire a nation for leadership rather than special interest and willing to address the domestic aids crisis long ignored by his predecessor in the oval office. yet today we cannot celebrate such a milestone. michael, i have to tell you, your poster is quite accurate and it depicts an accurate picture. we expected more, mr. president, but we cannot, because there are

thousands of our fellow people dying because they cannot access the care that will make them more productive members of their community. if the necessary funding does not accomplish the lofty goals, then any strategy is due for failure, one final thought -- as a nation, how can we send a message to our people, to our citizens to go get tested so that you can quote, unquote, "know your status, and that you can manage this disease as a chronic illness by accessing early treatment when statement there is a likelihood existing that a waiting list lurks right around the corner? with that, i conclude it is time to end this wait. we can do better mr. president. thank you very much.

>> i would like to introduce tom myers. chief of public affairs. >> good afternoon, everyone. the announced strategy may have some good things come out of t it clearly puts -- the first two promises of the strategy are to prevent new infections and increase access to care. that clearly puts testing and treatment front and center. that's where it ought to be. this epidemic is driven by people who have h.i.v. and don't know it. will it be 20% of all americans with h.i.v. and any other source of 70% of all new infections. so that's a good thing. however, in dealing with the strategy and creating this strategy to be implemented sometime in the future, the

administration has unfortunately ignored the crisis today. as brandon said and as michael said, you can't have a strategy where your first two prongs are to prevent new infections and provide access to care when there is a waiting list to provide this care. the failure to address the issue today is going to severely am per the administration administering their plan going forward. that's what is so critical about fixing the crisis today so they have the ability to go forward. that's all i have. thank you very much. >> we will take questions. >> with the shortage of

resources due to the economy and so forth, will they acknowledge that they don't have the resources at the moment -- [unintelligible] >> well, the proposal was that they would take money away from the low prevalent states and give it to the high prevalent states. i think that's a prescription for disaster. when we were trying to end smallpox, we went to the remoteest village to find the last case. if you are trying to contain a forest fire you put out the hot spots but you have a ring of containment around the entire thing. do i believe that there could be eefficiencies. yes. ornled, congress passed -- on

the other hand, congress passed a trillion dollar bill. they say it is revenue neutral because it is going to save monday in the out years. right now we are running up a lifetime tab of $36 billion for newly infected patients. so this is definitely, you know, pay now, pay later scenario. the reality is that it seems like every initiative that benefits big business gets a blank check and everything that meets the needs of the under served there hasn't been enough money for. i would like really an explanation about why buying

medications for people or hiv doesn't qualify as stimulus. but pridges and roads to nowhere does. people are employed making medications. they are employed working for the agencies that distribute them. also, don't do pomp and circumstance if you don't plan on spending a nick l. don't do the dog and pony show and invite people to the white house if you are broke and can't do anything. that sort of adds insult to injury that they are trying to get a photo op with all they are

doing about aids when people are dying on waiting lists around the country. i have to add, a lot of attention is paid to waiting lists because it is easy to understand. that is really not the worst part of it. because if you get on a waiting list and you don't die, you will get medication at some point, but if you drop the eligibility from 300% of the poverty level, which is $33,000 for medications that could cost you $20,000, you drop it down to 2 hin hundred% -- to 200% and you kick 10,000 people off the program who will never be eligible, that's a really bad thing. if the state takes their formulary and the drugs that they cover and cuts it in half, that's horrible.

so the reality is that medicare and medicaid are entitlement programs, and we have a weird situation in this country where the only way you become eligible for public assistance if you are h.i.v. positive is if you very well full-blown aids which is more costly and then become disabled. the legislation to change that was intended to be part of the health care reform bill, and it didn't make it. it is part of a laundry list of legislative initiatives that people who are supposed to be sympathetic toward this community have ignored. i have to say also, you know, we're sort of banging hard on the president but even more shocking is that anancy plosey, the speaker of the house, who represents one of the most

infected districts in the nation has yet to say word one or do anything to aleve -- to alleviate this crisis. >> keep in mind the president's own advisory council voted and recommend for the early treatment for h.i.v. act, etha, which michael referenced. if you go and read the stimulus bill, there is language in there that clearly states that stimulus dollars can be used to address a public health emergency. i don't know the exact wording because i don't have it in front of me. they are simply playing politics behind this and hiding the fact they don't have money. the money is there. it is appropriated.

secretary sebelius said they acted quickly. we have been pounding the pavement trying to get the money before the beginning of the year. if it takes six to seven months, i don't know if that qualifies as a quick turn-around time. >> one of the first things this administration did, while it didn't mention the word "aids" was to remove $400 million from the stimulus package for h.i.v. testing, which would have made a major difference, and certainly qualifies as stimulus given the fact that it could have circulated very quickly. another question? >> "the new york times" did a story last week on adap and reporting on a lot of the problems you have raised, but it did say something though about although the waiting list was large, whatever the number was, 1900 or something, according to

the "new york times" almost everybody on the waiting list was getting their drugs through various programs like the special programs from the pharmaceutical companies. is that true? how many are getting them or how many aren't? >> i don't know the exact number. i don't think anyone can know that exact number. but i think the point really -- several points here. first of all, it is a very come ber so many process -- cumbersome process to get people on. if someone loses their eligibility and they are on medication and there is going to be an interruption in their medication, beyond that, as i have said, really to my mind the eligibility reductions and the reductions in the formularies are the more serious issues. but suggesting you can run the aids drug assistance program through company donations is

pitiful. i mean, it is stop-gap measure, and it is not a solution. again, i would be more sympathetic to the view of the white house if we had not extracted these huge concessions from the drug companies. we will continue to push the drug companies to restrain their pricing from these drugs. thank you very much. we will be available for questions after the press conference. thank you.

>> c-span is now available in over 100 million homes bringing you a direct link to public affairs, politics, history, and nonfiction books all as a public service, created by america's cable companies. now a town hall meeting on bp's $24 million -- fund. kenneth feinberg talks about the claims processed and answers their questions. this is a little over an hour.

>> good morning. this man has had a long history of working with people such as those during 911 and hurricane katrina. i have heard him speak now twice . the first was when the senator from louisiana brought him down and we had the good fortune to meet at that time. after that we beggeds him to come to houma because we have so many people that ed claims, information, how they process claims, and what's in the future. it is my great pleasure to introduce the person known has

the $20 billion man, the man selected to actually handle the $20 billion fund, mr. kenneth feinberg. [applause] >> thank you very, very much. that's a nice introduction, and i appreciate it. i want to thank everybody for being here. i particularly want to thank the governor who i've been working with to try to get this program up and running. the governor helped arrange this entire day. i'm traveling throughout the gulf of louisiana today, mississippi tomorrow, alabama next week, florida on the 29th. i'll be coming back here as often as is necessary to answer questions and to help you understand what this program is all about. and in the next few minutes,

before i take questions, let me try and give all of you a thorough understanding of what is going on. first, the program that i'm administering is a private program. an agreement was entered into between the obama administration and bp to set aside $20 billion to pay any and all claims arising out of the spill.

bp has agreed to pay any and all of the $20 billion. so the money is there. but i am not working for bp or the administration. they picked me to run an independent facility company claims program. if it works, i get the credit. if it doesn't work, only i get the blame, nobody else. this is not about politics. this is about helping people in the gulf. that's what this is about. i'm working for you, not for bp.

next, i believe that bp deserves some credit for the program it has already set up. daryl willis is right here, the man behind bp in all of this. they have paid out about $150 million already in eligible claims. that hasn't even come out of the $20 billion. that's separate. so what bp has already done, i commend them. but in about another two weeks around august 6th, 8th, 10th, bp is gone. they are out of the claims business, and i will be responsible for processing all claims from individuals and businesses. i do not have jurisdiction over two types of claims. i want you to understand.

right now, i have no thord authority to process government claims, the county, the parrishes, the states, the feds. that i do not have. government claims go to bp. i also do not have jurisdiction yet over moritorium claims. now bp set aside $1 hin hundred million -- $100 million, $20 billion -- not part of the $20 billion. $100 million set aside just for rig workers out of work because of the moritorium. that $100 million is for rig workers only. not rig-related businesses, just

for rig workers. and unlike the $20 billion, it will not be added to. that's it on rig worker moritorium claims. now right now that $1 london hundred million -- right now that $100 million is not part of the $20 billion and it is not even part of my program. it is over here somewhere. bp is currently trying to decide how to distribute that $100 million. so keep in mind i am not here today to talk about government claims. i'm not here today to distribute $100 million in moritorium claims. i'm here with a $20 billion fund

for individuals and businesses, private. that's what i'm doing. now, keep in mind that this program, this $20 billion, is not just limited to my -- the government claims come out of the $20 billion, even though it is not part of my watch. the government claims do. the moritorium claims are separate. clean-up costs come out of the $20 billion. so i don't control this $20 billion. i control whatever i need to process individual and business claims. out of that fund. if it is not enough, bp has stated it will pay additional claims as needed.

now i want to urge everybody to file a claim in this program. i believe and i have told all the louisiana government officials that will listen to me that it is a mistake for people not to file a claim, and here's why. if you file a claim with me and the claim is eligible and it is corroborated, you will be paid forthwith. 24 or 48 hours you will be paid emergency payments totaling what you need for six months.

now bp to its credit has been paying emergency payments one month at a time. you come in for a month, you get a check, you come back next month, you get a check, you get a check, you come back a third month, you get a check. forget it. when the gulf coast claims facility is up and running in the next few weeks, come in, file a claim, sick months -- six months advanced emergency payments. you may not want six months. you may like coming back every month. that's all right. but if you want six months up front, no obligation, you don't waive any rights. if you need an emergency payment and you are eligible and you corroborate the claim, you will get a check for six months

without any requirement that you sign away any legal rights that you may have or what have you. but if you don't file a claim, i can't pay you. i've got to look athe -- at the claim, make sure it is backed up with facts. six months emergency payment. now, when the oil stops and you want more money, you can come in, and i'll examine your claim for all of your loss now and in the future. mr. feinberg, i think i won't be able to fish for 18 months. it will take 18 months for me to