the point is, how much help could the government do to help the economy at this time? what would they need to do? >> i agree with putting the money in people's hands. they will spend it. they will buy >> the republicans philosophy is to cut taxes and put money in people's hands. the philosophy behind the stimulus was to juice up the demand side, which one is more efficient. those are questions that the economists and academics are going to talk about and better answered by them than a reporter like me. >> got a little show going on inside the show for the viewers on espn. thanks for joining us, folks. thanks for the great calls, we appreciate it. we have tom from davenport, why can't the government make a law stating if you build a product everywhere else, you'll be

taxed what you charged. those companies make all their profits from u.s. citizens if they don't want to make it here, tell them not to sell it here. well, i mean, that's fine, but the problem becomes, don't you end up penalizing the people who manufacture here because they can't compete with companies that bring things in. we certainly can't being an isolationist when it comes to taxing things that are brought in. boy, if you got something over in, being made in china, how can somebody here with the costs for labor and everything else and health care costs compete with what they're spending over there. >> it's a question of whether you want to use your tax code and laws to demonstrate the

behavior of companies. that's done with policies as relates to foreign profits. one of the arguments now is what do you do with the tax on foreign profits. republicans, as i recall, they want to eliminate it or lower it, try to bring some of those profits home. the other side will say that simply is a license to ship jobs overseas. >> they make the argument about, and truly we are a more global economy. that's great. the problem is until things even up when it comes to cost, you know what, how fair is it going to be? what happens, either somebody has to come up and somebody has to come down. unfortunately, we're at the top of the food chain, we end up coming down. you haven't seen any kind of increase in wages. you see jobs go overseas. >> have you been looking at your paycheck? >> no, i have been looking at mine. i'm dan kennedy, ed tibbets is from the quad city times political reporter, has been for a number of years and has covered a lot of iowa politics.

so feel free, you can email us at news at woc 1420.com with any kind of questions especially when it comes to politics, presidential politics here in the quad cities or in the state of iowa, or if you aren't familiar with the quad cities, we're right on the mississippi river. the debate rages over one of the quad cities, there is really more than four. on the illinois side, you have moline, rock island, east moline and then you go on down to silvis and colona and on the iowa side you have got davenport and beten dolph. >> talk about a hot topic. >> we don't want to get into that. that's a little background on the quad cities right here on the mississippi river. yes, we are getting a flood. if you have seen some of the pictures from here, probably the most graphic is our ballpark where our minor league team plays which is completely

surrounded by water. >> they're still playing. >> they're still playing because they built, they have a flood wall that keeps it intact and the surface fine and they built a lillibridge from the parking lot over to the ballpark. so you have got this great visual of this ballpark surrounded by water and the game going on. lights on in the ballpark and so it's just one of the little quirks here in the quad cities. >> you know, during normal times, i have seen people pull their boats up on the mississippi river to watch whatever is going on in the park. now they can get closer to the stadium if they were allowed on the river. >> if they can be allowed in the river. right now there is not a lot of boating going on. >> no. >> in fact, boaters here are always complained it may be june before they actually get their craft back in the water because of the high flooding. we hit the crest and we're hopefully on our way down.

let's see. 344-1420, 563-344-1420 if you want to try to get on our conversation. i have been a bit surprised that the birther topic is still so hot with people. >> maybe if this happened a couple of days ago, maybe not so much. >> maybe not. they're still, because i guess with the equation, you got people who are mad because it's an issue, mad because republicans were demanding it and you got mad people because if he had it all the time, why not show it and be done with it two years ago. so there is a lot of different angles to it. i still maintain that the reason he finally came forward was it started effecting the polls. it started factoring the independent voters and maybe donald trump was responsible for that maybe because he got behind it and with his celebrity, they felt like, you know, this was it. maybe there was something to it. and when they started seeing that reflected, maybe people in the camp said, you know what

you better bring this out. >> like i said earlier, it's the swift vote argument. how far do you let something go before you try to take it off the table? >> that was something else that i thought was not going to be a factor in that race. >> it was. >> and it was. it was. and the fact that he tried to wear-wing tips to go hunting, but, yeah. i really was surprised that that stuck and it did. you just never know. "no. >> who knows what will be the issue of 2012. >> as you know, so much of it is timing. when that issue comes out, do you have time to respond to it in an effective way, or can you respond to it in an effective way and do it before the polls.

563-344-1420, that's our number. >> i was on c-span once and i got calls from all over the country and i was delighted when a call came in from molina, illinois. >> there you go. we got one coming up here. >> welcome back. this is "the jim fisher show" on news talk 1420, w.o.c. i'm dan kennedy filling in for jim and ed tibbets, political writer for the quad city times is in as we're taking your questions from all over. a wide range of topics and a lot of birther questions, too. they're still out there let's go to james in north carolina. james, good afternoon. hello, james? >> good afternoon, how are you all doing? >> good. what's on your mind? >> i was listening to the

callers that have been calling in. >> yes. you got to turn down your tv. >> i was just wanting to say we need to stay focused on the big matters. we need to stop talking about the birth certificates and focus more on the economy, people losing their homes, people not being able to eat around the world. what's more important, a birth certificate? we got a very educated president who is in the house now. so let's focus more on what really needs to be taken care of. >> what do you think should be done on the economy, sir? >> what needs to be done on the economy? >> yeah, what would you like to see happen? what would you like to see the government do? >> i would like to see them focus on the people who lost their homes or don't have food to eat. we have people in homeless shelters and it's very upsetting that they're not

getting help and everything. >> what are things like in your neighborhood? >> in my neighborhood? >> yeah. >> i'm seeing people sleep on the streets. >> are you there, james? >> yeah, i'm still here. >> you broke up there. it makes me think of the fact that we keep hearing that the economy is getting better and i don't see it around here in the quad cities. >> i don't know what unemployment is in north carolina, but i do know in the quad cities, it's higher than it historically has been. it's higher at the statewide average. it just doesn't seem to be going down consistently and markedly. and that is something that has got to be worrisome for any incumbent politician. >> yeah, we need to get on it, you're right, james, thanks for the call. >> more importantly more worrisome for people who can't find a job, who have been on unemployment for weeks at a

time or who have gone off benefits because they have been off work for so long. that's got to be a difficult situation. >> 563-344-1420, that's our number or you can reach us at news at 1420.com. >> i don't want to talk about the birth certificate stuff too much. however, if it is the fake, the obama pulled off the biggest heist ever that the united states has ever seen. we had a man that has become president that should have never been in that position. >> and that may well be true. i just don't think there is any way, even if he has done it, there is no way to get around it. i don't know how you prove it at this point in time. my grandmother said, i lied. i watched him being born in kenya. that's not going to happen. >> at the same time, too, if some high school kid goes to apply at mcdonald's, he has got

to give his birth certificate to show that he is a u.s. citizen. why don't we have that same standard for the united states president? >> we talked about that a little bit earlier. ed was saying that basically election laws are run by the states. >> right. >> and frankly, i know iowa does not require a birth certificate. i don't know if mcdonald's requires a birth certificate. i was not required to show a birth certificate when i was employed at the quad city times. i had to show my driver's license. >> i had a driver's license and a social security card. >> and the other thing that kind of irritates me with the whole, like the tsunami thing for japan, we sent millions of dollars over there to help them out. we sent, the united states people to help out with this incident. at the same time, we never see any other country ever sending us money for national disasters or sending their agencies over. take 9/11, for example, that is one of the biggest things that we have seen for years and

years. >> justin, i'm going to disagree with you. i do believe that when we had the oil spill, i think other countries offered to send vessels in to help clean up. i understand where you're coming from. it's not on an even keel, but i do know that at times countries have done that. justin, thanks so much for the call. >> you know, i think that the american people, well, certainly cognizant of the financial challenges we face see something happen in japan like the earthquake and the tsunami and they want to help. you're right. there probably isn't a level playing field when it comes to the amount of money that the united states has september to other countries, but we're also a well their country -- wealthier country and there is a history of the american people to help when that

happens. >> you're waiting for the first telethon. >> i don't think i would be any good at it. >> let's head to michigan, tim, good afternoon. >> good afternoon, guys, i have to admit this whole c-span thing is interesting. i'm actually from the quad cities and i am actually online today. i'm tuning in and i hear callers from all over the country. >> it's been a different perspective for us. i hope people are getting a different views of the opinions and some of the stuff from iowa, what it's all like. >> that's why i listen every day. one quick comment on this whole birther thing -- what would have happened if yesterday obama said, oh, you got me, i'm not an american citizen? isn't it like a dog chasing a car. he doesn't know what to do when he gets it. [laughter] >> i think you're right, tim. i think you're probably right. i don't know what would have happened. >> thanks, guys. >> thanks a lot, appreciate the call. >> didn't expect that. >> didn't expect that.

it's 4:13, that is central time. mike from south carolina, mike. how are you? >> hey, how are you doing? >> good. >> all right. two quick comments. one thing about that we do help people overseas like in the earthquakes, chili and haiti and japan, and, yes, it's good to help all of those people. but the way we're going downhill it's just not right. congress is not doing something right. the president, we should help ourselves with other people. i think we're going overboard. the second thing and i'll leave you alone, social security. social security was fine, had trillions of dollars in it. and then the government took and spent it invested in whatever they had done. now they're trying to do something with the old people on social security and the government's fault. they should have left it alone and we would be have been just fine. i think the republicans and

democrats are fighting each other and not looking out for us and that's very sad. >> all right, appreciate the call, mike. >> thank you. >> i don't know that you can entirely discount the baby boom generation and the problems that social security faces. that's a pretty big problem. >> a lot of it goes all the way back to, what was it, lyndon johnson when he first used it to pay for the vietnam war. i believe that's where all of a sudden it was funded fine, but when they started using money taking it out to fund other projects, that's when we got ourselves in trouble. you're seeing that with funds from states, look at the state of illinois is broke. a lot of them have done that. now all of a sudden they're -- there is not enough people to pay for it. >> i don't know about the lyndon johnson thing, but there is a wave of elderly who are

coming up because of the baby boom generation that is causing a great deal of social security's problems. in 1983, ronald reagan and tip o'neill came to an agreement and agreed they would raise the payroll tax and the retirement age. that helps with social security's long-term problem for a while. and we're at a point now whether it's benefit cuts or raising the payroll tax, there is probably going to be some accommodation down the road toward either putting more money into the system or paying less out in benefits or some combination of that. >> something is going to be done and it's something they can't put it off anymore. everybody just wants to move that on down the road, don't they? >> as i have heard others say that medicare is probably a neitherer term problem. that, i think, probably is why you're hearing about that now in the discussions over the

deficit. >> we need to take a breaking and do some business with the station. we'll be right back. all of the folks from c-span and all of our listeners here in the quad cities, this is woc news talk 1420. yeah, we got a little email from lisa from davenport. if jobless americans would do the jobs that illegal legal immigrants were doing, there is no incentive to come here. those that hire the immigrants and people that have those jobs can afford to live. that's a very popular sentiment right now. >> i have heard people say that before, sure. >> in a lot of ways, it's hard to argue with that. >> well, whether it would eliminate the problem all together -- a lot of people across the border face dire conditions back home. that's probably a pretty good motive. >> we're talking politics and

of course still the viewers on c-span, what do you think romney's message hasn't caught on the way that you think? on the surface, doesn't he look like he would be a perfect candidate? he has the looks. he has the business background. is it almost like a john kerry where he just doesn't come off as genuine? >> i think that what we saw in 2008 with romney is what we're seeing in 2012. there are questions about, frankly authenticity questions. there are questions about the health care reform bill that was passed in massachusetts that he has to deal with in iowa. there were questions about his faith and he is not running the same type of campaign in iowa this time, assuming that he is running again, that he did in 2008. he is not spending as much time here. but he has got those kinds of

questions to deal with and so i think that's why you're seeing -- that's why he is not risen immediately to the top of the polls. he is also not been out there as much as others, donald trump, for example. you get attention when you seek attention. >> well put. >> in some cases. the caller may disagree with me. >> that's true. welcome back here to the "the jim fisher show." this is news talk 1420 w.o.c., dan kennedy and ed tibbets from the quad city times. he has joined us this afternoon as we're taking calls from the folks over at c-span and of course our listeners in the quad cities. kind of a treat if you go to media com channel 2 and watch what is going on here and keeping abreast of what is happening. let's go back to the phones

right now and hopefully, birthers don't want to go away. somebody has another question. i have this opinion on that birther thing. tom, from texas, how are you? >> not too bad for an old guy. >> i know what you mean. >> i'm curious as to how we have multiple economic experts out there, all of whom have different opinions about what actually stimulates or grows the economy,est. so i'm curious as to how so many times the question is answered, the government gives working class people a little money, they'll stimulate the economy and that's going to have a director effect. i don't see the reasoning there. if i give you a check today as a wealthy person, you can buy something extra you wouldn't have bought, you stimulated the economy, who is going to give you the check tomorrow? >> that's why the inis sensitive packages, that's one of the complaints against them

is because, ok, is it going to bring new jobs? is it going to make the factories grow where more people are employed and wages are going up. >> you have only one transaction available. what kind of a stimulus is that? if i hire you, i give you a check every week. are you suggesting that the government should be sending checks to the working class every week to keep the economy going? >> i think that one of the arguments behind the stimulus was that you injected money into the economy at a time when economic conditions were such that the -- that the private economy wasn't supplying that activity. and i believe the idea was that you sort of stood in the breach waiting for the private economy to recover. well, it's taken a great deal of time for the rest of the economy to recover and so as i said, with the obama administration's projections

earlier about unemployment, they didn't come true because things were worse than they thought. as for giving somebody a check, when somebody spends something in the economy, it tends to get spent again and circulates. and there certainly are zpwreerments as to -- disdisagreements as to the best way to do that, you cut tax rates or you do what obama did. those are key philosophical differences. >> as you said, the money gets recent. every time it gets recent, it gets taxed, my dollar turns into 80 cents and 620 cents, etc. >> that is one of the limitations. >> that is one of the arguments. people say taxes should be done and instead if you -- money that is spent into the economy is going to be taxed at a greater rate than just coming up and saying i'm going to take so much of your payroll tax. >> a lot of times it's not a

one for one relationship. in the first place, you have a problem they have been talking about in the 1960's, 1970's which was calculated on so will he -- obsolecence. you have products that are not going to expire. g.e. announced the 50-year light bulb. it didn't take too long that you have 48 years there with nothing to do. why do we buy so much for the defense industry when we don't have another superpower to contend with. if you stop buying, the industry goes away. then when you need it, where are you going to get your jet planes from? >> yes. thanks for the call. >> appreciate it. >> yeah. 563-344-1420 or news at woc 1420.com. karen emailed us. i would love to see a candidate that did not waste money on the campaign travel. we're paying a lot of tax

dollars for security measures for the president. he can make a very good point by campaigning through internet and tv. >> well, that's common refrain that you hear from people. i know there are rules when they got a candidate, a president campaigns, there are costs that need to be borne by the campaign. but certainly because he is the president of the united states, there are going to be taxpayer costs that are part of that. >> let's go to, let's see, florida, jerry. hello, jerry, how are you? >> hi, i'm good, how are you today? >> we're doing pretty well. we're hanging in there. what's on your mind? >> i thought the birth issue was pretty funny. is this a sign that the major media is starting to doubt mr. obama a little bit? sure there is a story that is

more damaging than the birth issue. i didn't hear about the millions of dollars that he was paid in settlement before his name even came up. the birther issue and made that a big deal and actually his -- >> the case, the settlement, what are you referring to there? >> shirley sherrod. >> i might be able to help out there. sheryly sherrod was the department of ago official who made statements that some on the right deemed to be racist against while people. there was a video put up of her on a conservative website that that video was edited. she was fired by the secretary of agriculture, former iowa governor, tom vilsack and i think that got some play here in iowa. now you mentioned a settlement.

i don't recall much about the settlement. there may have been a settlement after she left. i don't recall much about that. >> yeah. >> well, prior to her being fired by the white house in her own words as she was driving down the road, she had received a $30 million settlement from the government on behalf of her lawsuit for the farmers that had been discriminated against by the department of ago call tuesday, the people that she was working for. remember that big settlement, her corporation, her and her husband and then they paid all of these farmers. it was 80,000 farmers but something like 8,000 of them registered at the time. >> i think he is talking about the settlement and i don't know that she or her husband got any money or amount of money. i don't know that level of detail about it, but i think he is talking about a settlement that was made with black

farmers who were discriminated against and i don't recall the particular involvement. >> all right. thanks, jerry, appreciate the call. let's squeeze one more in. ross from south elgin, illinois. ross, good afternoon. >> hi, ed. kudos to c-span and woc radio for putting this show together and give us people a chance to speak out and i got a surprise, a different subject. i'm talking about line item veto. >> all right. what's on your mind? >> i would love to see something said about line item veto. i heard a broadcast with one of the higher-ups at "forbes" magazine and he said, sadly, we can afford the wars that are going on, but we can't afford all of these lobbyists with the

line item veto thing. i don't know if i said that right. >> yeah, i got it. and thanks for the call. >> line item veto is something that some republicans and democrats have want forward a long time. >> i think it is very dangerous. >> one of the reasons it probably doesn't happen is that there would be a natural tension between the branches, the executive and the congressional branch about power shifting. my guess is there might be congressional folks who might not want to hand that much power to the executive branch. there may be constitutional issues. it's been something that republicans in general have asked for for a long time, some democrats, too. >> michael emailed us, why can't government cut down the bureau accuratic paperwork. there are sbornse that can't -- entrepreneurs that can't

borrow. that's funny. they were supposed to free up cash with the stimulus program. they actually seem all they really it is they made it harder to get your hands on money, harder to borrow money, especially for a lot of small business owners. >> i don't know. >> you look at and what they did, it's like that pendulum swung too far. first they made it too easy and then they turned right around and then when everything had problems and they want to say, well, we're going to bail you out. we're going to give you all this money, but now you have to back to stricter guideline it's on who qualifies for loans. >> i know part of the stimulus program included loans for small businesses. there were a number of small businesses around here that received loans. whether those loans were more difficult to get than they previously had been, i don't know. i think the thinking was that because they weren't able to get those loans in the private sector because of the financial collapse and the result of that that the government was going

to provide those loans. i can't say how successful or unsuccessful that program was. >> i have heard a lot of complantse complaints along those lines. it's 4:29. we need to take a break and we'll do more business on the "the jim fisher show," news talk 1420. no, my brother-in-law is in the financial market and he looked up and said, yeah, you got a few issues, you got some problems basically they made things too lax. you give people no down payments, you can borrow money, subprime loans and you're doing all of these kind of things and all of a sudden you're bailing out these people, you create this bubble, so to speak, especially when it came to housing and then it's like, ok, it's collapsed on you and we

got to change thinks, but we're going to put all this money in so we can reinflate the bubble. the guidelines got tougher so people couldn't get -- probably back to where they should have been to begin with which would have averted some of the problems. >> you feel like going solo? >> you need to get out of here. >> i do need to go back to work. >> ed, thanks so much, appreciate it. >> it was a pleasure being here. >> i appreciate you coming by. thank you. so, all right, folks, we need your phone calls, we need your emails. i'm going solo now. ed had a candidate in town answered needed to get away and actually do his real job of doing some newspaper reporting. so are you ready to go on,

kara, our producer. our number is 563-344-1420. news at woc1420.com if would you like to get to us via email. we'll talk about anything. it's always funny, you prepare for these programs and we took a look at the different candidates, tried to predict what people would want to talk about and for the most part it's gone a different way. so, but that's good. we're all about what the opinions are and what people want to talk about and hopefully we'll be able to keep things going here. we got about another hour of the program. you still have a chance to get in and voice your opinions. the guys from c-span, you guys seem to be holding up pretty well. seem to be doing all right. that's good. that's good.

is there anybody i wonder in the news business that can come up with their copy of the birth certificate that obama released ? i was looking here, somebody said was there a place on here for religion. i don't necessarily see it on here. it's been interesting with all of the different theories about why he didn't want this actually brought out. i don't see it on here. i don't see a spot here for anything for religion. anything you want to talk about, feel free, we're getting calls from all over the country which is kind of one of the

nice side bars here. we don't normally get to talk to folks from everywhere from hawaii to connecticut to new york to florida and they have been calls all over and we certainly appreciate that. 563-344-1420 or news at woc1420.com. we have been getting a lot of emails over there. you're keeping kara busy in the other room. once again, woc, we see a picture of ronald reagan that is because ronald reagan, this is his first radio home just down the road over in dixon, illinois. this is where he got his start.

we would like calls for warm weather. we're supposed to be at 65 degrees here in the quad cities. we're struggling to get to 52, 53, plenty of rain. welcome back here to "the jim fisher show," 1420 woc. the local listeners, i'm not gym fisher, i'm dan kennedy. i normally do the morning show, we're pulling double duty as jim is under the weather. we expect him back tomorrow, his bright chipper self, let's go back to the phone, 344-1420. let's go to anthony in new york. anthony, good afternoon. >> hey, mr. kennedy, thank you so much and i commend woc for having such a kind rapport with the callers. you're very patient. i do appreciate this opportunity to speak. as far as president obama not having being a citizen

potentially, when you consider the heavy footprint that the united states has throughout the world, what would be so bad as to have a leader of the world. i'm pretty certain and a caller had called you yesterday and mentioned that his brother is an american citizen. if that's the -- mother is an american citizen. no matter where she had him, he would be an american citizen. what concerns me most, i would vote for president obama. what troubled me when he came into office, he granted immunity to the telephone industry for violating the constitution. that troubled me mostly because as a constitutional law scholar, for him to allow such lawsuits to be stopped and to grant immunity for violating the constitution, i thought he was the one hope for some form of justice or at least to review the situation. if you notice with bradley manning and the wikileaks, i

mean they're lying, they're very critical of using the same technology that they're using against us. so it seems like -- who is working for who here? >> to me, that's been one of the things that was most surprising about barack obama. he came in and made all these promises of transparency and was going to do all of these different things. generally, and i don't know that a different administration would have done things that much differently, but basically it's the same old same old. >> the truth sets you free. what i can't understand mostly about it is why the other side of the story didn't get its day in the court it. just seems like there is a lot of stuff, it's one-sided, our government now. it's like we have turned into somewhat of a police state, do as i say, not as i do kind of mentality. that's horrible. as a world peace prize, a nobel peace prize winner, for him to jump into libya now, so we have a third assault on these people

throughout the world, it's like i said, a heavy footprint that we are leaving. it doesn't seem like we are getting anywhere. with all of this money wasted, we're making a whole lot of enemies. >> i agree with you 100%. that to me, anthony, thanks for the call, is one of the things that -- in some ways i have to laugh when you go back to the peace prize. i wonder if they could do a re-vote if he would still be there. george from maryland, george, good afternoon. >> good afternoon, how are you doing mr. kennedy? >> i'm doing pretty well. >> it's so good for someone to really see your show because a lot of fans that the people want to bring out and didn't have a chance to bring it out. i have three or four points on the presidential. >> ok. number one is i felt within myself that somewhere down the line, someone would have thought about this at the time.

the only reason why obama is our president right today and he should give all of the credit to the kennedy, that one that is deceased. >> ted. >> he thought a lot of obama and obama served with him in congress for two years and they were very close, very close. and knowing this, that was another thing. stars on the black race concern, reverend wright helped him on that. these come into context. you know exactly how it was at that time. now another thing is -- i feel that way myself. now obama is very intelligent, very knowledged as far as that is concerned, but as a leader, as a commander in chief as the president of the united states, i don't feel within himself that he has that much knowledge

towards that -- >> don't you think -- don't you think that he lacks the practical experience from everywhere with foreign policy to even running businesses? >> you're exactly right. i have seen truman, all of them that came in, roosevelt, all of them that came in here, reagan was a good president, no doubt about it. he had his ups and downs, but he was a good president in the same manner. now, i tell you, i really believe within myself that even if the democrat does run again, i have a funny feeling that clinton is going to run back again. >> well, you know what? that's kind of been -- that's kind of been, some hinting out there. i don't see that happening. george, thanks so much for the call. it's 563-344-1420 if you're calling from outside of our listening area here in the quad

cities or you can reach us at news@1420news.com. wayne, we got a local caller from east moline. wayne. >> dan? >> yeah. >> i hear your voice here in the ann. >> i'm surprised that i still have a voice. >> that's true. you had a lot of callers today. >> on the obama birth certificate, fun stuff. >> yeah. >> it's typical. everybody is looking at the big flashy stuff. does he have a birth certificate! that's not the major point. the law and i read this from the lawyers that are arguing so it's not just me. at the time he was born in hawaii, in hawaii, his mother was 19 and according to law for him to have been given birth right status as a natural-born citizen, she had to have been 19 and been in the country for

so long, so many years which with her time in the time in the country, there wasn't enough time, 19 instead of 21. and his dad by his own admission, dad was aikenan of british -- a kenyan. >> wayne, you're telling me that the law says an american citizen who was out of the country, comes back into the country and has a baby is not a citizen? >> no. the law at the time of his birth in 1961 said that the mother had to be an american citizen of a certain age and in the country for so long. >> yeah, but if she is a citizen -- >> i know, i'm telling you what the lawyer's argument was what the law was in 1961. beyond all that part, the

founding fathers meant a natural-born citizen, your parents were both sole allegiance united states citizens when you were born. his father was a british subject, a subject of british law, a british citizen, was not a u.s. citizen. the birth certificate says that itself. right there, he is not under article ii eligible. everybody keeps telling me, he doesn't have a birth certificate. he want born here. that's not the point. >> maybe somebody else has more light on that you're right, wayne, i had not heard the angle on that one. so we'll see. brenda from kansas, brenda, good afternoon. >> good afternoon, how are you? >> i'm doing real well. >> what's cooking? >> what's on your mind? >> well, well, well, life is a box of chocolates, you don't know what you're going to get. do you remember in the early

days, the cowboys and the indians. >> right. >> rock 'em, sock 'em, just give this a w-2 tone. the cowboys and indians, ok, they captured a lot of the cowboys, didn't they? >> uh-huh. >> but they never heard the word racists. we never wanted to catch them by the coyote tail. and one thing i cannot stand about the united states is this damn racist crap. you know, get over it. nobody is against anybody. i don't care if you're blue, black, green, or yellow. you know what if we -- they want us to step keying, why in the hell can't we stop them from saying racist. i'm so sick and tired of hearing that crap, that i want to crawl in a worm hole and go away. it needs to stop. just stop. get over it and go on with your

life. it's like halle berry, she wants to go around and saying everybody is against her. she is worrying about racism. she is worrying about this guy that she just divorced, he is white. there is no sense in that crap. just get over it. everybody loves everybody. i don't give a mother roaching if you're red, white, green, or yellow. get over it. if -- he didn't need to enter that subject. he needs to stop. focus on the united states' problems and quit sending, just like mrs. obama, she sends all this money to -- >> on that note, brenda, i'm going to put you on hold because we got to take a break. i think that's the most interesting call of the day so far. 563-344-1420, back with more of "the jim fisher show" on woc after this.

>> well, that was pretty interesting. you know, we had that conversation a little bit earlier where we talked a little bit about racism and are you ever going to fully get rid of it? are you going to ever make people like people if they're too tall or they got a big nose or whatever, people find ways to or reasons to dislike somebody else. i don't know. too fat, too skinny, too tall, too short, don't know. if you weren't here earlier, we talked about the caucus systems themselves here in iowa and one of the things that we talked about was the democratic process in the democratic party where they actually, each precinct divides the delegate

seats into candidates in proportion to the caucus-goer's votes. they move you over to a corner. if you're for ron paul, you stand over here. if you're for this candidate, you are in this corner. they break into how many groups there are, candidates that are supported, that's how many groups you are. depending on how many people are in your group, if you don't have a correct percentage, you go away. the other groups try to convince you to come to their party, to their little gathering and it works its way down until you just have one main candidate and that's how they decide the precinct votes. it's a very unique style in iowa. republicans, a little more straightforward, but the other thing is you have the straw poll which is coming up in august which is a first indicator of what is going to be happening here in the state of iowa when it comes to these candidates. you're kind of watching this mini show here on c-span as the

folks across the country are getting a little taste of what goes on here in middle america. by the way, what is the tampa bay, cara? 47 -- what is the temperature kara? 47. we're going from winter into summer. we're not going to have a spring here. it is cold. >> 4:48 here on "the jim fisher show." i'm dan kennedy, c-span, the folks are here. they have been here all day. we appreciate or they have been here since the start of the program. john marks, a columnist filled in the first hour and then ed tibbets from the quad city times was here for an hour and a half. we have been taking calls from all over the country.

let's see, we have got ruth from alabama. ruth, good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i have a comment on two issues, how to make the stimulus work a little better and what i feel about social security. first, though, i would like to say a couple of things about the quad cities before it was the quad cities. i was to graduate from high school in may 1941. i'm 87. and at that time, i had a cousin who worked for the united fruit company in honduras. my family was going to give me a trip, my graduation trip to go visit my cousin and his family in honduras. but at the time, you couldn't fly. you had to go on a boat and the submarines were down here in the gulf, so they decided that wouldn't be wise, so my aunt and uncle who lived in illinois

invited me to come up and spend some weeks with them. i was still there until july 4 and they wanted to know what i wanted to do. they wanted to take me to chicago. well, i had never -- i lived in mississippi at the time. i had never been in about three states, so i told them i would rather go into iowa that i remembered in my fifth grade geography book seeing a picture of the dam over the mississippi river and i wanted them to take me across and they took me across there at moline, rock island and what's the other one? >> moline, rock island, davenport. >> right, they took me across the river there and we went down south in iowa, didn't see much, crossed the river and came back up by the dam.

anyway, i thought maybe that might be interesting, maybe boring to you. but anyway, what i said about when they give money to -- send us checks to boost the economy, if they put the stipulation that we could buy only those things made in the united states with the money -- >> i see where you're going with that, that basically, you know what? the only problem i would say is how hard is it to find -- how hard is it to find products that are exclusively made in the united states? >> it's pretty hard. >> it's real hard. >> another point that i want to make, like i said, i was born in 1923. well, they have mr. -- anyway, he bought up issues about what to do -- one of the things to

do about social security and the democrats all scream and say that you can't cut the old folks' social security. but they cut that once already about 20 or 30 years ago. they said everyone who was born before 1921 would stay on a certain schedule, but everybody after that would draw less and they called us notch babies. >> yep. >> anyway, those are things that you can do to preserve these things. for instance, what i would have been drawing social security, if they hadn't cut it, in other words, you just take what they send you. >> ruth, thanks so much for the call. appreciate it. your thoughts of the quad cities, we got an email from kathleen, what are the thoughts of viability about third party

or independent candidates? i have lost confidence in both parties. i just don't see that happening. i don't see that is going to be viable that there is going to be somebody that can draw enough people from both parties that they're going to be a contender depending on who comes out as a third party, it's going to be a death knoll to either the republicans or the democrats, who they're going to draw folks from. let's go back to the phones, 563-344-1420, bruce in hawaii, bruce. >> aloha. >> aloha right back at you. >> i got a comment to make. we have the local news here and we had a doctor's wife who delivered obama, she said his signature matched on the birth certificate. i don't know if you have gotten that information yet or not. >> yeah, i had heard from some of his kids saying that they never realized because, of

course, it was no big deal back then that he gave birth, he delivered barack obama, but now it's kind of a big deal. his wife said that the signature matches. >> yes, she did on the local news today. so i take her at her word. i don't think she has anything -- and i'm sure if there was a discrepancy, i think they can match signatures. >> how big a sphere of influence would have to be involved to pull off a scam like this. look how many people would have to be involved. >> right. i think there are bigger issues like jobs, national security, things that need to be taken care of. during reagan's administration, there was the c.i.a. agent that delivered 20 tons of c 4 to libya. he was found guilty and later on he was found innocent. that should be an issue. that should be brought up more than this birth certificate to me.

my dad was in the cuban missile crisis in puerto rico. there are things that are dangerous in the world and the birth certificate isn't one of them. >> no, i still scratch my head and people still want to talk about it. i scratch my head. but it's out there and hopefully it will finally be put to rest. bruce, thanks for the call. >> one thing i would like to bring up on jobs. >> oh, yeah. >> hello. >> go ahead. >> my family is from michigan. my grandfather was a treasurerer of wayne county in 19 70 and he was in the state legislature. i have seen michigan destroyed, the auto industry destroyed. a lot of it was that reagan came in and jobs were brought in our country down to the south and the union, ford and chevrolet and others were destroyed up there. i can take that, those were destroyed, jobs were brought in

our country. but now when mills and other things are being made outside of our country and reagan was able to make jobs at least come into our country and agree to disagree with the good of that, but why aren't jobs being, mills are made in other places or things being made in china that we need for energy and that we're getting tax deductions on those, why can't those be made in this country? >> that's a valid point. >> can't the republicans and democrats get along on that issue there? is there someone on the republican side that says we got to defend, we go by the free market no matter what? we can't compete with china. >> then you get back, bruce, thanks, i have to get out of here.

you get back to the point, what are you going to do? put tariffs on all of these products that are coming in? are you going to make it so that we can compete with them in that way? do you really want to start that kind of battle? so i don't think that is the answer. i don't think you can pull that off and make that happen. if you're going to be a global economy and you're going to compete and your labor costs in this country are at a high level and other countries are at a low level, until they start evening out, it's going to be hard to be competitive in a global market. that's kind of the bottom line, it's just very difficult to pull that off. it's 4:57 here at the interstate battery studios at woc 1420. news at woc 1420.com if you want to reach us by email, or

our phone number, 563-344-1420. we'll be here for about another half hour as we wrap up this edition of "the jim fisher show." jim a little under the weather if you were expecting to hear him today. we expect him back tomorrow. we'll be back after this. all right. yeah, i was hoping to talk a little bit about some of the candidates. i was hoping to get a little better feel for what people thought of people like tim lenty, whether they thought he was a viable candidate. michelle backman, another candidate, a lot of people talking about her. is this strictly too one-dimensional. i don't know. that's the beauty of politics

here in iowa, they're going to come here and meet the people and we'll get a firsthand impression on what we can expect from them and whether or not they're going to have any roots, whether or not they're going to have any staying power when it comes to the election. i heard somebody talking about mitch daniels, the governor from indiana, how his appeal in this race was, well, the theory being that, look, you have barack obama who is about charisma, is about personality. if you try to come up with a candidate for the republicans that is going to compete with him, you're going to lose because that's not how you have to fight him. there is somebody like a mitch daniels who is more kind of straight laced, not quite as flame boyiant, that he -- flame boyant, that he is the perfect opposite of him and bringing up

points. that is an interesting commentary. he is boring enough to be president. he is kind of laid back. we'll see. we got a couple of emails from folks saying, look, this woman has 3 million fans on facebook and she is a viable candidate, people will vote for her. it's going to take obviously more than 3 million on facebook to pull her through to be president. i don't know. i don't know if she has goti d'e reality show is part of it, i just don't know. but i would be surprised if she could get yourself elected. i also think donald trump -- we had a few people talk early on because of the birth certificate issue in the things he has brought to the table. i cannot argue he has brought more people back into the political arena and has created

some interest and you have people now looking at politics in a different light and following it, but i don't think donald trump has any intent running for president. i think it is donald trump's way of having fun with the general public. he is able to go out and speak his mind about what every wants to say and he gets ratings for his tv show and makes himself a bigger celebrity. what is donald trump going to do when he's hit with a barrage of these 32nd attack ads that come with every campaign? -- with these 30-second attack ads that come with every campaign? he does not take criticism very well. i don't think donald trump wants to be part of that. just after 5:00 in the quad

cities. we will be taking your calls. we appreciate you hanging on. 563-334-1420. if you are watching on the c- span, we are on cable channel 2 in the quad cities. who put snooki for president up here? i may have to get up and walk around and smacker and come back. you can also reach us at news@woc1420.com. we carried paul harvey for a number of years until his passing. they finally decided on mike how could be -- mike huckabee to

take over for paul harvey. one of the things ronald reagan did and did very effectively was he was able to do his commentaries. we had a special ceremony when they issued the new stamp in february which would have been his 100th birthday. we went back and took a look at the reagan commentaries. in those, he told a story and cut his political point of view across in telling stories. he was a storyteller. mike huckabee tried doing that but is not able to tell the stories like ronald reagan did. that seems to be one of the ways he is at least trying to make something happen. newt gingrich, i still see him as a potential candidate. the number of books the man has written about all of the

political issues, all of the speeches he has given papers he has written, he is probably the most well versed, well-prepared candidate to go out stumping and be in a debate because he has thoroughly researched every issue that is going to come up. his personal baggage with his marriages and a lot of people upset with the way he treated his wife, is that going to go by the wayside? time will tell but i would not be surprised to see newt gingrich's step forward. limbw i'm going out on a here. you can call jim fischer and say the guy who took your place was all wet.

we had some discussion on ron paul. why ron paul doesn't get better treatment from the general media -- he just does not seem to get the same amount of press coverage and to be honest, he doesn't. i think it is because he has been viewed as somebody who is on the extreme of the party, whether that is true or not, a lot of what he said the first time around has come true. he is hoping his message will ring true and he can get some support in iowa. and get some leverage as he goes through the rest of the campaign. we have philip, harold, ruth and lisa. we're going to go to lisa because you have been hanging around the longest.

we will be here with you and a couple of moments. we have another minute before we come back from break. don't know what the weather is like. we complain about the weather here because we are below average and we're getting a lot of rain, but our thoughts and prayers are going out to those who have been hit so hard by the tornadoes and severe weather that swept through the south. we were talking earlier this morning about how with all of the warnings people got, the number of deaths in alabama alone are just staggering. people said the first storm came through and that knocked out power and they were not able to see the tv or radio or computers. i am dan kennedy, filling in for jim who is a little under the

weather. but we are expecting him back tomorrow. as promised, lisa has been hanging on from texas. good afternoon. >> how are you? >> i am doing pretty well, how about yourself? what's on your mind? >> what is a big deal -- why is donald trump doing that? i'm not understanding. >> that's my point. i was saying during the break that i don't think donald trump is going to run. i don't think he has any intention of running. i don't think he wants to deal with the 30-second attack ads, i don't think he's going to put up with that. i think he is having a good time and jerking people's chains. obama did not want to deal with this birth certificate thing until i came on board and i pushed the buttons. i am a big enough guy that he had to deal with it.

i think he's just having fun. >> i think that's real ugly to do. you don't do that to people. >> its politics. >> just to take time out to deal with that, he could have been doing something else. >> let me flip that around on you. if he should not have taken the time, why did he do it two years ago? >> you are right. has anythingif he to hide or whatever, but it could have been handled more professionally. >> i appreciate the call. 563-334-1420. if the number of facebook fans were any indication of voters said snooki is a viable

candidate -- you have a point there. you can send us an e-mail at news@woc1420.com. we have philip from iowa. >> i'm from sioux city, iowa. what is on my mind is social security. i worked so many hours and i don't make enough and then when i do, they start taking it away if i make too much. >> you have to turn down your tv. >> my mother passed away and i got assets from that and i don't know why the government has to step in and look at that and say you have to spend this because we're going to take your social security away or else you have to put it into a trust

fund and that is where it went. >> there are way too many regulations. >> yes, there is. >> i don't blame you. my dad dealt with some of that when he retired before he passed away. all of the regulations made absolutely no sense to me. >> there is too much red tape. you are going to do this or that or you are not going to make it. how do you make it on the money that you make on the social security? any not enough to pay bills. i tried to tell them that and they would not listen. >> go to the poll is all you can do. thank you very much for the phone call. who is up next? ruth from alabama. how are you? hello? ruth?

i think greece's gone. -- i think bruce is gone. we have heralded in florida. -- we have herald in florida. >> thank you for giving me this opportunity to voice my opinion. i was going to jamaica and i came to this country in 1964 and lived in new york city and worked in washington d.c. and now i am retired in florida. at one point when i came here, i thought this country was a great country and in a lot of ways, it is. but the people, all lot of people in this country, both blacks and whites, are in this

civil war that seems like it never stops. people are working against each other. that americaeve convinced a lot of black people in this country that they are the problem. the way i see it, we are a minority in this country. we are at the mercy of the majority, which is the european white people. they said the rules. there are more of us in prison than any other race compared to our numbers in america, but we are the problem. barack obama, president barack obama, i worked on his campaign for a year-and-a-half. yes, i am disappointed because mr. obama has not lifted a finger to do anything for blacks in this country.

basically, he lectures us like we are the problem. america should be very grateful that the black people who were born here are so timid and so sheepish because as much as i have read this history and what i have read myself in this country from living here, i cannot understand how black people can sit down and take what this country has done to them. this country has opened doors for a lot of people and there are good people, innocent people, but enough is enough. >> i and understand where you are coming from and i think most people -- obviously there are

going to be people who don't like somebody for color or height or whatever, but for the most part, has an american, i don't have a problem giving a helping hand to anybody who just wants to work. if you want to go out and 60 and be part of society, you should never, ever be a night -- never be denied that opportunity. if you think you should not be a part of that, that is right disagree with folks. e-mail -- i was wondering why the caucuses are in february, it's too darn cold. why not june? that's because we want to be first. let's go to james. good afternoon. >> you opened up a conversation earlier about the business people -- about the businesses here in the quad city and unions. i have to differ with you on that.

we have a state house and senate run by democrats and a governor that is a democrat. they raise taxes over and over again and they're chasing businesses and to missouri, indiana, and wisconsin. everybody over here is that up with the tax rate and the tax- and-spend policy. we have a president that came from the state of illinois, from that same mindset, tax-and- spend. we are fed up with it. we elected a great man by the name of body shilling. he's our congressman and he wants to cuts here -- he lost to cut taxes and get us back to fiscal responsibility. we elected a rock island county board member who stood up against the other democrats who wanted to give themselves a pay raise and he said no. >> i said -- barack obama did

not do a thing for the state of illinois. what could he do for the rest of the country? two years into his presidency, he's yet to do anything for our country but tax-and-spend, borrow more money from china. dick durbin, back in march a ben bernanke if china wanted to, they could come here and say we want you to make good on your debt and otherwise we want alaska or report and we have to give it to them. >> i don't think that's going to happen. i understand why you are saying, but china has a stake. they want us to do well so they are not going to do much to sabotage us. we have to take another break but we will be backed.

we can still take a couple of calls if we want to. thank you. it has been fun talking to all of the folks from c-span. we appreciate it. we don't necessarily get that opportunity in iowa. we got folks from georgia and washington state. south carolina, indiana, all over the place. that was always one of the parts -- i was born in terre haute, indiana. try spelling that. when the first time people see it, ask them how to pronounce

it. i've got that on my birth certificate and i have a legitimate one. i am a bit surprised because of all the folks still talking about the birth certificate. this comes from different angles, it's not the same thing. some are just upset that it still an issue and some talking about other aspects of it. we are at 25? is that what time it is scheduled? 25 after? that is a hard time? we're trying to make sure we get all of the timing set to go. 563-334-1420 if you are calling from outside the quad city area. if you want to sneak in an e- mail -- please don't e-mail me

about snooki. understand the fascination with that show. more than any of the birthers, to be honest. i know a lot of people watch it the. -- i know a lot of people watch it. see if we can get to a few more phone calls before we wrap up this edition. don't forget you can listen and hear what jim actually sounds like tomorrow. we are streaming. 5:19.

jim is not here, but i have been filling in. you have made it easy. the folks from c-span are here and we appreciate that. the folks who have called from all around the country. let's get in a few more calls before we have to wrap up. mark is in south carolina. >> how are you today? >> i'm well. what is undermined. >> we get a variety of these t party folks in south carolina and people coming down here because we are third in the next round of primaries. who looks like the golden boy up there now? who is the media darling or who are people latching on to? >> there is no real media darling right now. hardly anybody has announced, but i would say probably mike huckabee because he won here

last time and people seem to respond to him. he could not carry it on through but that's who i would say -- >> are they making their way through the state yet? the former louisiana governor? >> we are not seeing a lot of those folks come through yet. >> the mississippi governor? heavy seen him? >> no. >> you mentioned tim pawlenty, has he spent anytime there? >> a little bit. we have had michele bachman and sarah palin and rick santorum. ron paul has been here. they are making their way through but it's too early to tell. thank you for the phone call. we're going to see if we can squeeze in byron in georgia.

how're you doing? >> how are you doing? i want to make a comment. i've been around long enough that i experienced the change when we used to have to sit in -- balcony's and now we sit now in the transition where we sit with the populations. i say that to make this comment. i know everybody is talking about jobs and creating the economy to grow, but i want a candidate that will deal with the issues of the housing market. i say that because i had a dream that when i got older, i went

into the neighborhood where they have homes and dreamed i was going to have a home, which i do have a home now. but the thing that worries me the most is the fact that government is able to come in and assess your home at a higher price that you bought it at and then perhaps say you are in an area that grew and boomed like housing industry now and they overtax you out of your home. when you get older, you may not get into the bracket where you can afford your home if it is in a booming area. there should be candidates to deal with protecting -- like some of the elderly people, from their homes being taken away from them to to the fact they cannot pay higher taxes because the government has assessed their property at a higher price of where they bought it at. >> i would like to see a program like that. you don't want to see somebody

kicked out of their house because they cannot pay their taxes. thank you very much for the call. we're going to try to get one more before we have to go away. john has been hanging on the line from the state of washington. good afternoon. >> i just want to change it a little bit. i have been watching nostra thomas -- nostradamus and all of that. >> is it the end? is that what you're telling me? >> you study all of that and all of the different things on the mayan calendar -- >> i don't mean to cut you off but is depressing. i have run out of time. that's going to do it for this edition of the jim fischer show.

thank you to everyone who called in with c-span. thank you to the guys who came in. it has been a fun afternoon and i'm sure jim is sorry he had to miss it. but he will be back right and early tomorrow afternoon. this has been dead jim fisher show. go out and enjoy the rest of your day. there rego. it has been a lot of fun. we appreciate you -- there we go. it has been a lot of fun. at least an impression of what things are like in iowa and of the quad cities. we are on the border near the mississippi river. i have you can get home and get yourself back in your own beds for a while. it has been a lot of fun. thank you for being here and making as part of your trip.

if you are back this way when the caucuses, about, feel free to stop by. you always going to be welcome here. thank you to all of your viewers on c-span. call seven fabulous and we appreciate it. thank you very much. on that note, we will see you soon. >> if you missed the other two i a lot radio shows we covered this week, you can go to our website an hour of video library and search iowa radio. here is a look at our prime-time schedule coming up on c-span starting at 8:00 eastern. president obama announces personnel changes to his national security team. then the joint chiefs of staff talks about military leadership and political developments taking place in the middle east and northern africa. after that, more about political unrest with a look at the protests in syria as the government continues to crack down on peaceful protesters and

foreign journalists. later, former senator and potential republican president -- presidential candidate, rick santorum outlined his vision for foreign policy. on c-span2, is "a book tv prime- time." then, teach for america founder, wendy kopp a examines her but a chance to make history. frank brady talks about chess master turned international fugitive, bobby fischer. that's on "book tv prime-time" on c-span2. >> this weekend, univ. of scranton professor on medical science during the civil war and the advancements made by the north and south. former senator and presidential candidate bob dole looks back at his political career during the nixon administration and the

examination of the disputed presidential election between rutherford b. hayes and samuel j. tilden. get the complete weekend schedule on c-span.org, where you can have our schedules e- mail to you. >> what i try to do is tell a story with visuals instead of words. i am writing paragraphs that happen to be with images. >> with four pulitzer prizes for photography, she has won the award more than any other journalist. >> the great thing about being a journalist is a variety we get to experience. some of parts of the human condition on so many different levels. she will -- >> she will talk more about her craft on c-span. >> earlier this week, the defense and energy department announced plans to work together

on energy issues by developing clean energy technology. to get the secretary's announced this plan of understanding at a white house forum on energy security. this is an hour-and-a-half. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> american families are feeling the impact of higher gas prices.

in an economy that relies so much on oil, rising gas prices affect everyone. workers and farmers, truck drivers and restaurant owners and businesses see it impacting their bottom line. families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank. we have known about the dangers of our dependence on oil for decades. president richard nixon talked about freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil and politicians of every stripe have promised energy independence, but the promise has so far gone on that. since day one, president obama has pursued a comprehensive national energy policy because he believes the guided states of america cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity and security on a resource that will eventually run out and even before it runs out "more and more expensive to extract from the ground. we are proud of the progress we have made, but we do run into

the same political gridlock and inertia that has held back for decades. in his march 30th address on energy security, president obama made it clear why we cannot repeat the mistake. why we cannot keep going on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise and then hitting the snooze button when they fall again. the folks on today's panel know this very well and we are eager to have them discuss the national security implications of america's oil dependency. securing our energy future is critical to our military. we must transition away from a department of defense that relies too much on fossil fuels which can create a strategic operational and technical vulnerability for our forces. to solve this critical problem, the people in this room are working together to reduce our

military's dependence on oil and to better support america's security and our armed forces. by developing clean energy technologies and getting them into the field. to happy to welcome you here hear about these efforts with discussion from leading thinkers in this arena. i have the pleasure of introducing the deputy secretary of defense who intimately understand the energy security through his long experience on defense issues in the private sector and the department of defense. thank you. >> thank you. it's a pleasure to be at an event at the white house that does not involve a crisis. we usually meet in this situation room.

the lighting is much worse, but they do allow coffee. i think that's one improvement that might be made here. i also want to welcome some of the leading experts in washington and around the country house in the area of energy security. they are all leaders in national security and energy security in particular. if you have not seen, you should look at the 2008 article from the center for american progress with plays out a lot of challenges and a way ahead. also with us today are the two leaders in the department of defense and energy security. withoing to be marking up a very low retail their ideas. what i would like to talk about is the connection between innovation in energy technology

and the projection of military power. this linkage has spanned history. just as the shift from wind to call revolutionized naval power in the 19th century, so did the introduction of nuclear energy on submarines and aircraft carriers transform the global balance of power in the late 20th-century. our mastery of energy technologies then both enabled our nation to emerge as a great power and gave us a strategic edge in the cold war. today, energy technology remains a critical element of our military superiority. addressing energy needs must be a fundamental part of our military planning. our department is operating at -- in over 100 countries around the world. we have aircraft -- we have troops in afghanistan, air crews flying over libya and relief operations in japan. everything we do, every mission

to perform, requires significant amounts of energy. three-quarters of the energy department consumes involves military operations. insuring our forces have access to that energy is not easy. our forces in afghanistan and iraq have long the logistical tales. more than 70% of the convoys in afghanistan are used just for fuel or water. we all the supplies on roads and are proned's to ambush. more than 3000 troops or contractors have been killed or wounded protecting those convoys. this reflects of the nature of war is changing. rather than confronting our forces had on, our adversaries are increasingly employing asymmetric tactics. in those tactics, energy can be a soft target. whether using ied's against supply convoys or cyber attacks

against our critical infrastructure, we face a wider range of threats and must be prepared to defend against all of them. the nature of war is also changing in a second way. conflict is an evolving from a focus on intent the short times of combat that and decisively to longer, more drawn-out engagements. as conflicts become longer in duration and more expeditionary in nature, the amount of fuel it takes to keep our forces in the field represents a significant vulnerability. we must change how we manage energy on the battlefield and strive to reduce demand at all levels of our forces. to minimize our future energy for prime, we are building energy performance parameters into our requirement process. this includes calculating the fully burden cost of fuel used by potential rapid -- potential weapon systems. a new generation of technology that uses an stores energy more effectively will only emergency

change how we do business. when it comes to that future, the navy is leading the way. the navy is not only incorporating more efficient propulsion technology, including hybrid drives, it is experimenting with biofuels and other sources of alternative energy. our push for highly efficient systems extends to the individual soldier. over the past decade, our ground forces increased the use of radios by to wonder to% and their use of over all information technology by over 300%. the demand for batteries has nearly doubled. soldiers on a 72 hour patrol in afghanistan may be carrying 18 pounds of batteries. all of this extra gear means more capable forces but it increases our reliance on energy in theater. in afghanistan, we are finding clean energy technology is one way to lighten the load and get

our troops more capability. in the 1990's, engineers develop a flexible solar panels that could power a range of devices. the marines decided to deploy these panels to afghanistan last fall. marines sent this new equipment right to the heart of the fight. the regiment's elected to try out the solar panels deployed to one of the most violent districts. the operational gains were immediate. marines ran to patrol basis completely on solar power and cut diesel fuel consumption at a third base by over 90%. on 1 foot patrol, flexible solar panels eliminated battery resupply needs entirely, and in supply drops that previously required -- were required every 48 hours. as this and other pilot programs show, our initiatives to develop

new technologies provide materials advantages to our troops in theater in terms of energy consumption. especially at the tactical edge, new energy technology makes our fighters more agile, allowing them to focus on the mission rather than their logistics' chain. it is important to note energy on the battlefield is the only vulnerable in the last mile when convoys come under attack. military installation in the u.s. provide direct operational support to troops in theater. today, the front lines extend to uav operators in the united states. they're heavily dependent on civilian electrical grids. energy security here at home is becoming increasingly important to operations abroad. disrupting energy supplies at any point along the logistics network undercut our ability to

project force. we are taking steps to enhance the energy resiliency of our installations. the power grid at most of our installations is now more sophisticated than a large off- on the switch. when the grid is under strain, everything loses power. at 29 palms in the mojave desert, we are demonstrating new microbe rig technology. a system of self generated electricity and intelligent controls that can be operated independently if the commercial grid goes down. micro grids improve energy efficiently -- energy efficiency and make it easier to incorporate solar and wind power and make sure power is directed to the facilities that need it most. most importantly, they reduce the vulnerability of our power supplies to disruption. energy is important to the department as a budget item. our military consumes more energy than used by two-thirds of all the nations on earth.

we account for 80% of the federal government's use and 1% of consumption nationwide. our energy bills are already in the tens of billions of dollars. with increasing volatility in energy markets and tightening of global supplies, our expenditures on gasoline alone are up to under 25% from just -- up 225% from just a decade ago. any use would be a benefit to the sources we are able to provide to other fighting priorities. the department of defense needs to address energy as a military planning challenge. supply is limited. cost is increasing. with the changing nature of war, our current energy technologies not optimized for the battlefield of today or tomorrow. to remedy this, we are renewing our partnership with the department of energy. we have signed a memorandum of

understanding. this memorandum launched a committee to steer investments and specific technologies and foster programmatic cooperation. already, we are working on micro grids, alternative fuels, batteries and energy storage. in the coming years, our collaboration will grow, targeting energy reliability and installations and strike capabilities and operations. the key to this partnership is focusing the unique knowledge on meeting defense requirements. by taking technologies from laboratories to the battlefield, the department of energy can enroll its scientific ingenuity in the service of our nation's most important national mission -- national security. innovative technology can increase the operational effectiveness of our forces and our department can use its size to leverage technological developments of different energy

technology. by serving as a sophisticated first user and early customer for inner free -- for innovative technologies, the military can jump-start their broad commercial adoption as we have done with jet engines, high- performance computing and the internet. by combining technologies with innovation, we can achieve a payoff that extends well beyond the defense sector. under the continued leadership of president obama and with an earned -- and with industries help, our partnership can transform how this partnership develops and uses clean technology, laying the foundation for a future that is both cleaner and more secure. i am now delighted to yield the floor to my good friend and colleague, the deputy secretary of energy. [applause]

>> thank you very much for that kind introduction. i am also delighted to be here and join my old friend and colleague. thank you for organizing this event. i'm honored to be joined by distinguished americans who have already contributed so much. john deutch, when the department of energy was newly formed at a senior role there and later served in the position that the secretary lynn is now in. john podesta at the white house and the thought leadership of the center for american progress, it's an honor to be with you. our national economic and environmental security obviously deeply dependent on the energy resources that power our economy and armed forces. as we are all aware and as the deputy secretary made clear in his opening remarks, our economy

and military are deeply dependent on petroleum and petroleum derivative products, making our country vulnerable to price spikes in the global oil market. the crisis in libya is only the latest of a series of reminders that offer a vivid picture of how our own energy security can be affected by political events and forces outside of our control. while as the president has made it clear there is no silver bullet to free ourselves from excess of oil dependency or even bring down the cost in the short term, there are a number of important steps we can take, that we must take, indeed we are already taking, that will protect our armed forces and help protect america's families and businesses from price spikes in the future. as president obama has made clear, our long term energy security demands we take aggressive action to reduce our

addiction to foreign oil. this means increasing domestic resources, improving efficiency of our vehicles, ships and aircraft, and finding new ways to power them. the department of energy and the department offense have both been at the forefront of this country's efforts to develop advanced energy technologies that will be essential in meeting our energy challenges. in fact, under the leadership of secretary gates and that the secretary lynn, the military has taken a number of steps to diversify its fuel supply and reduce its energy use, including the visionary goal of requiring the navy and marine corps to obtain 50% of their energy from non-fossil sources by 2020. $500 million in savings the air force has achieved in reducing fuel consumption within the air mobility command. and the announcement last week by the army that more than 20 installations nationwide will be piloting net-0 facilities.

that means they will only consume as much energy or water as they produce and eliminate solid-waste going to landfills. the strategic partnership that the deputy jerry -- dippy secretary and i launched last year billed on the progress already under way. that has been a robust engagement and both departments have put full shoulder to the wheel. it leverages each level -- each energy -- each agency's strengths for clean energy innovation and helps to meet the president's energy goals. as you may know, the department of energy is already the nation's largest funder of the physical sciences in terms of basic science research and development. through our national laboratory system, the department brings tremendous scientific expertise to bear across a portfolio of priorities. coupled with the scale of the defense apartment operations and

its potential to act as a test bed for innovative technologies, this partnership is a crucial vehicle to strengthen our national security and build a clean energy economy for america. to date, joint projects under the memorandum of understanding have been primarily focused on three areas -- first, advancing mobility and strike capability which includes reducing the military's dependence on oil. second, increasing energy reliability and efficiency on department of defense fixed and ford operating basis. third, furthering institutional cooperation between the departments, including stationing department of energy advisors among the combat and commands to deploy their experience implementing education programs to develop energy and education programs through each service. in order to help reduce the department of defense's dependence on oil, we are working to develop next

generation drop in by -- biofuels and fleet vehicles that will diversify the fuel supply options and unable to power our ships and aircraft without requiring the dangerous fuel convoys the deputy secretary just described to drive to war zones and reach the fighters. these technologies will create new jobs in the united states, help reduce oil imports, and enable our military to power our vehicles and aircraft with homegrown resources. commercializing these technologies at scale remains a major challenge for the advanced biofuels industry. while the government cannot and should not be responsible for single-handedly driving product demand, it can act as an important catalyst for the market. as the deputy secretary mentioned, the size and broad scope of the operations provide significant opportunities to test new, innovative technologies and jump-start

their commercial deployment. for example, in 2009, the defense department accounted for nearly 2% of all u.s. petroleum use. while that may not sound like much, for a small refinery, the market pull that comes with 300,000 barrels of oil consumed per day can be a game changed. it is this type of ongoing partnership between our departments, leveraging department of energy innovations to meet the department of defense operational requirements that will grow the clean energy economy and strengthen our national security. the second focus of our partnership centers on improving the energy efficiency of our bases and installations. you heard the deputy secretary discussing the importance the military attaches to a new microbe grit and good reliability technology. to help advance these projects, we are jointly funding of three demonstration projects known as

spiders for energy reliability and security. we are good at acronyms, apparently. these projects will demonstrate smart, secure, reliable micro grids that can be replicated across the military. anyone who has been reading the news recently about the vulnerability, not just in crucial military terms, but in our national infrastructure knows how important this effort must be. the department of defense also has over 307,000 buildings with over 2.2 billion square feet of space under roof. that's more than 12 times the square footage of all of gsa's buildings for the rest of the federal government combined. there are enormous opportunities for cost savings in these buildings. under the recovery act, the department of energy provided technical assistance and energy audits for nearly 70 military products -- projects nationwide.

our teams identified more than 200 energy conservation measures that could be implemented to save more than three trillion british thermal units of energy per year and cut the energy bills by $15 million per year. this is not just efficiency for the sake of efficiency, rather by reducing energy waste in our facility, we can reduce the ratio for armed forces. instead of putting more money into power in our facilities, we can put more limited resources into the sharp end of the spear. and we will be able to build the leanest, meanest, most energy efficient fighting machine in the world. we all know that our nation is facing significant energy insecurity challenges. but through the kinds of partnerships we are discussing today and the commitment of a president, are secretaries, and the efforts of so many of you

here joining us today, we will be able to achieve our clean energy goals, strengthen our national security, and grow america's economy in the years and decades ahead. thank you. [applause] >> with that, i would like to invite our distinguished guests to join us at the table. >> i would now like to turn things over to our panelists to make some brief remarks and then we will open up for questions

and a discussion. our first panelist to speak is -- has unique and deep experience in energy and national security issues. and the places where those me. he is the woodrow -- she is the woodrow wilson center president, jane harman. >> thank you. i think it was invited here because i survivor. i served 17 years in the united states congress, which in dog years is 119 years. and i'm still alive. but that does give me some insight into congress and their unfortunate inability to be a major player on energy conservation and efficiency. if ever there was a time, as both bill and dan have said, this is the time to fulfill the

promise of every president since richard nixon to help us with energy independence. let me make several points. first, about congress. i served on the energy subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee for some years. i helped author the landmark legislation on lightbulb efficiency. you would think what we need in this congress is bipartisan, bicameral legislation to retire the 100-year-old incandescent light bulb that sheds more heat than light. 90% eat, at 10% light, just like congress. [laughter] you would think we would want to transition to modern lightbulbs and save tons and tons of energy. we did that. we passed that in 2007 and george bush signed the bill into law at the energy department, as i recall. and now the mantra of the tea party is to repeal the law

because it is big brother somehow. forcing to change to something that will somehow cut american jobs, not true. it will build american jobs. there is a small example of congress not working. to be brief, what do i think the opportunities now? especially in light of this mou o.e.eend.o.d. and d. people in light of high gas prices are going to change their own behavior. finally, there is the political will to do things differently. i do think, regardless of congress, there will be popular support for initiatives that will be taken either by the

executive branch or by state governments to make us more energy-efficient. what to observe that and applaud that. i do support federal funding for npr. there was a piece about how ford has remade itself into a modern, productive company and people are buying more fuel-efficient vehicles in droves. but the other opportunity is for the department of defense to lead it once more. let's remember that d.o.d. has been in the forefront of all of our change in this country -- there the forefront of racial integration, forced by harry truman and at the forefront recently of the repeal, finally, of the unconstitutional don't ask, don't tell law. it took a 4 front, led by president obama, of moving past

one of the obstacles to to -- to true equality in our society. it should be much easier for the department of defense to lead on this issue and i suggest all of the reforms going on are appropriate. i would urge one more. i assume that dod has the largest fleet of vehicles by one single owner in the country, perhaps in the world. wouldn't it be nice if, by some form of administrative action, every single vehicle over some short time had to be a fuel- efficient vehicle? i can just imagine how much difference that would make. we don't have to pick one winner, i agree, but electric vehicles, those that would run on any form of biofuel, hybrid vehicles, pick a number of them.

the dod can drive innovation for those vehicles and it can be, as a mass producer, the place that drives efficient production which makes those vehicles more available at an affordable cost for the public, which now wants to buy those vehicles. this is all a win/win. the only loser is the united states congress, which is at the back of the line and hopefully soon, the public will also be involved in demanding appropriate by partisanship out of our congress. i think these other thoughtful out it's in this town are trying to urge that to happen and i just can't wait. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] i would now like to turn things

over to mit prof., john deutch, who has a long and distinguished career working on energy and security issues. thank you. >> thank you. the energy security is a word that reminds us energy securitys that development of international consequences. important international events have domestic consequences. the nuclear accident in japan. the united states and its allies and climate change that will bring the greatest

attention. i want to salute them for their actions supporting the president's energy security initiative. the overriding objective should be to reduce the cost and logistic burden of providing energy to u.s. military forces in peacetime and conflict situations. it has the potential for having been benefits to the private commercial sector. i want to mention a couple of places where the opportunities are greatest. and we should be measuring the progress in this very exciting

venture. none of these have been mentioned by previous speakers. energy management is a tremendous place to save money and reduce logistics' of our activities. the department of energy can be used here for more efficient building design and operations, integrating buildings in the bases, that energy management for those bases in one integrated manner. experimenting with hybrid electric vehicles and natural gas fleets in the department of defense. it is very important that these activities did documented. it is in that way that the value will be spread to the private sector.

also we have heard the opportunities to support deployed operations taking place. we have to remember that the principle for deployed operations has to remain the security of our forces and the fact that our men, women, and uniform are overworked and there'll be little opportunity to expand different gangs. we have to be selective. they have very able officials. it will pursue these activities. i am optimistic about it. let me say something about the longer-term opportunities in the mainly technology area. i would highlight areas of batteries. bill of tremendous positive

effect for the military and the private sector. i don't carry 18 pounds of batteries. i carry a lot of them around and i prefer -- fuel cells is the other place, and i would also mention alternative fuels research and development. whether it is a gas, natural gas converted to liquids, or whether it is fuel from elegy or other sources. it is very important and with the department of defense, enabling people to do this, the head of pushing the r&d technologies, the issue focus should be on technology rather

than moving to large-scale deployment of alternative fuels. let me close with water mark. i am a big person on managing these enterprises. i think you project office should be established by the department of defense and the department of energy. that office should have a budget set by the distinguished that the secretaries of these different departments. in selecting among the very many different options. i believe milestones should be said for these projects so that we can see how well we're making progress. i close by saying that i of the industry. u.s. universities are eager to participate. it is a privilege to be here with you this morning.

[applause] ourf lectern's one of leading thinkers and instigators for energy security. the president of the center for american progress. >> we appreciate the invitation. a lot has been said by both secretaries and i want to add a couple of points. there is a security jealous of the country faces. i think they went through in good detail, the perspective of the security challenge. it has national security implications as well. we have $1 billion a day imported oil. as more than half of our trade deficit.

before libya, 20% of our oil was coming from states and countries that the state department classified as either dangerous or unstable. it should come as no particular shock that in one of those places, events would happen that would likely cause the price of oil to supply. the secretary laid out in good detailed when the security questions on the fighters. it bears repeating, they mentioned as well the fact that our fighters are lugging around 18 to 30 pounds of batteries for 72 hours has its own operational effect and it is something that obviously needs to be attended to. therefore, i would recommend the

secretaries of his program for trying to answer the challenge. having particularly, blending the expertise of the departments, the innovation and the emphasis on new technology that comes from the department of energy, the operational requirements of the department of defense and the ability and a sense to be able to the first purchaser her of some of these technologies that will never get off of the market. but the operational requirements provide a place that the high-performance technologies generally find their place and find their market. i would like to add a couple of points to what has already been said about how to think about this and how this program can be wrapped up to a higher level.

at the center for american progress, we have been thinking about the american security challenge and the focus on building markets, giving companies access to financing. and we need to expand u.s. clean energy infrastructure. with respect to building markets, i think there's been a good deal of discussion this morning about the ability through the procurement process and advanced purchase to be able to take in new technologies, particularly in the biofuel arena. i have been spending my time on the direct expression of hydrocarbons. there is a suite of investments that is being made.

on thinking those programs up, i think it is a promising aspect. the one thing that i would note, the defense logistics agency can only provide a five-year forward contracts. another would be to extend that to a 10-year time that would give the potential for newer technologies. i think that is something worth looking at in getting the support of the administration for. with respect to financing, they have the lion's share in terms of providing guarantees to companies that are trying to come up with a breakthrough products. there are issues in a lot about whether companies can use those

loan guarantees essentially to serve as government contracts. it was limited in the recovery act and going forward, i think access to programs he is the opportunity for companies to find a stable financing in the private sector. and not just to bring government money, but a good deal of private sector money as well. with respect to the clean energy infrastructure, a good deal has been said about the environment using the most efficient technologies in the dod building. that area building efficiency. one thing that my colleagues at

the center have focused on, perhaps less attention. there was an installation for solar technology. i recommend that it would be tremendous savings for u.s. air force airplane hangars to provide savings in that area. the other thing that i think is important is to think about the energy infrastructure. as an opportunity. the way that they think about that, the need to invest in the defense basic. taking the lessons from the program, creating the work force and technologies and innovation

in manufacturing, applying those to the energy area would be a very useful place for the collaboration of sharon and her team. let me finish with that. [applause] >> will like to open it up for your questions or comments. i heard a rumor that there would be microphones. raise your hand if you have a question or comment and we will bring a microphone to you. please identify yourself. >> quick question, we have on the commercial side a possibility of loan guarantees. on the early stateside, we have

a gap in there. some people collect the cash flow valley of death. they are pretty costly in and of themselves if you talk about production technologies. and >> we often think of to valleys of death. traditionally, the department of energy is at a very early stage when there are so many dozens of unexpected earnings. it is not reasonable to expect any shareholder to be that patient. the classic example of what we are looking at lately in the wee '70s and early '80s,

looked at horizontal drilling and techniques. we have zero and dressed. out of the cubic foot market, about 1/5 of that comes from conventional. after those initial investments, you can get a private equity as they come in. we have what you have a knowledge with your questions, you have a demonstrated technology. you have a market that will allow the company to grow and prosper. this is rendered even more acute. in the case that we have been promoting under some of our loan guarantee programs, it has been very hard for some of those projects to get financed.

and following the big credit crunch, the length that is required to get a payback, we have used that program in the gatt. the very early stage plays that we have some of the traditional grant proposals, it is more of the front end, looking for those transformational breakthroughs. it is really rather modest investments with the kind of paradigm that we're using. looking at ways to get away from petroleum based fuels. you're using not only the traditional brass programs, but some of our research centers to address some of those challenges. some of these issues where you

have a big energy problem has crosscutting currents and it is not easy to break through the stovepipes. that is where the secretary of energy has put his focus on building these hubs for efficiency, grid level storage, and the interdisciplinary team of a greater scale and greater duration. this sort of between those values of death. >> the problem of transferring good research ideas and programs is not unique to the energy area. there is a challenge for everything we do. the path i think in the energy area is probably stronger than most other areas. it derives from what i talked about.

the operational utility of an improved energy efficiency in the field, in afghanistan is being demonstrated. it demonstrates a huge hole from the operational forces into the requirements process. that tends to jump the gap between research and production. the other is the potential to save large amounts of money. already spent $15 billion the year. there is a very real return on that. resources can be better spent in other areas in area it tends to pull across the gap. it is definitely there and you have to manage in. >> i agree with that. from my experience representing a district that i call the

satellite center of the universe, i have seen the-you're talking about. of think we have already done a lot of the major works. some of the energy savers that have demonstrated applications like solar, the defense makers have perfected the use of solar power in space. and applying it commercially is both a profit center for them and something they know how to do well. i'm not saying they're the only people that know how to do this, it is interesting to hear his stories about how it is being applied on a mobile bases. i remember hoping to get a little bit of money for an effort to provide additional redundant towers to make sure that telephones work that night which is a big security move here.

we already know how to do this to some extent. and creating the mass market necessary to help a lot of those of you in the private sector to produce the stuff, at an efficient cost, it will get not only the defense department and the government in this game, but will get more from the private sector. if we can just work together and to make sensible moves right now to crossing the threshold that will save money, save lives, reduce the deficit. we will cut defense spending in allies ways. >> let me just say a couple of things.

there are bipartisan proposals on the hill to provide for greater finance and support through the form of a multi window financing facilities. i think that what held in direct answer to your question. from the perspective of this, the joint management of this program i think can give a strategic direction to the investments they will make based on their requirements and will provide the platform for companies to go out and raise private sector funding. through the best preferment and other demonstrations, across the field we have been discussing. i think they have a very important rule to play in being the consumer the can provide the

basis for those abilities to raise private sector capital and get out into the market and make a place on the commercial side as well. >> other questions in the front? >> thank you, bill and then for your leadership by former boss, thank you for your leadership. he both of you. this is a critical area where i think we have a unique opportunity. we can build on a work that has already been talked about and has been well put in place.

he worked to extend into the demonstration phase, energy environment and technology programs that had been established as the strategic environmental research program. to help a program which is findings of the work we're talking about today. he talked about the funding mechanisms and i think there is an opportunity here, perhaps a better line with this program. he later stage funding which could also have the support from the congressional bipartisan efforts better working its way through congress now. there are some republican co- sponsors the could support and champion these efforts as the demand perhaps for the energy in

the field of the clients, and the withdrawal will lead to be important to help sustain these efforts in the increasingly challenging climates. that might be an opportunity to do so. >> that was an important comment. the problem we have time for two more questions. >> in the industry, we talk about this conversation all the time. i think we have raised a couple of points of our industry can contribute to clean energy. i like to hear a few other ideas of what the expectations are for industry moving forward as we go together towards clean energy. -- but whateasured

doesn't get measured in doesn't get done. of like a few more words on that and what your expectations are. thank you. >> in terms of the major defense companies, one of the things that we're looking to do is institutionalize energy planning as part of the requirement process. it is well known that 2/3 of the cost of a weapon system comes from operating in a. only 1/3 comes from the initial purchase. the other is the energy costs. as you develop proposals and designs, you'll be looking to

lower those costs to develop innovative technologies to work with some of the smaller companies around the room to come up with ideas that will be a breakthrough in nature in terms of breaking the back of our dependence on energy. >> i would make two kinds of comments. one of my former mentors is on the stage. usair if you don't measure it, you don't manage its. we have got a lot of work. there are over 300,000 buildings. you get a termite inspection. if you have an energy audit inspection, it will tell you what you're losing by various inefficiencies, particularly important where china and india

are building 250 million structures for people that did not yet exist. the tremendous existing stock. if we can start to build than those kind of measurement tools, beacon of finance a pretty modest investment. it might seem like a lot of out of pocket expenses. toughe looking at a very economic situation. that is the kind of thing that we can do institutionally. it is still important for us to put goals out there. the president was very articulate that the state of the union. if we could double the amount of energy that we get from power generation, and get it up to 80%, to the extent that it is expressed through legislation and senators putting out a questionnaire, they are taking

beta and. that can give as an achievable but ambitious goals that will help drive investments to the extent that there are congressional mandates to go along with that. other things have been phenomenally successful at getting us to become more efficient in a way. and most recently, the georgetown speech. all of these things by setting a target of the cascading effect on other things that can be done to make sure that we're getting the kinds of investments in energy in the policy and regulatory tools in place to support this overarching objective. >> any other comments? >> one of your competitors also

located in my former district has made a huge deal about reducing the energy footprint of its facilities. with the gigantic other energy consuming facilities, you have opportunities to change the way that you like them. and the way they are insulated. for ever you are located in many parts of this world. you reduce your own cost the presumably increases your competitiveness. i would put that out there as another thing you might consider. >> building at the front end of the procurement process, the requirements will be full life cycle of the system is really critical. that is what will make a huge difference.

to the point of setting goals, but in the very aggressive goals set by all of these services, particularly hot to indicate to the people that are working in those pre germans environments what is likely to look like in 2016 and 2020. and begin to think about how to meet those extremely aggressive requirements to back out so much. particularly on oil. a think that is a very exciting development. it just needs to be pushed through to conclusion and fruition under your leadership. i commend you for that. >> we will go there. then we will go here.

>> i am on assignment at the state department right now. thank you, professor for mentioning that. my question is a hot as it relates to state and local governments. energy policies laid at the state level local levels, how can d.o.d. and d.o.e. in terms of having local and state energy policy? >> there are a couple of things. we had a recent experience in this field out of the recovery act.

under which the department of energy who was trusted with billions of dollars of taxpayer money. they went directly to the states. he also had community block grants. these were for precisely the kinds of investments you want to make in whether as asians and so forth to give you a strong incentive for communities to do that. if you look at the programs that we continue out of the continuing efforts, many of them have stayed in the local participants. to sort of set a goal of the opposite shore and have specific programs where those participants, i have traveled to

new hampshire. there was a high school that was fuelled by solar panels. it was a matter that they had gotten state support for. because the president says in who wins the energy revolution will win the world, there is a quite robust self interest that can drive states and localities to make the kind of public policy choices had such catalytic efforts so that the private sector can get involved. i don't want to sound like it is a state dominated washington's center the market. it can be much more averse than that. >> and the role with the state in local government is likely to

be in direct. the underlying purpose, it was to develop a partnership between technology and the operational these. the result of that can be microbrewed, solar panels, breakthroughs in technology. all of that can be imported into the commercial market including state and local governments. the benefit is because of the scale, we essentially, our own market. if we can pioneer these things, they can be transferred to commercial use. that starts to address the broader national security issues about reducing the deficit, reducing our alliance. >> [inaudible]

questionn't we take a there in the third row? >> director of the electricity 2.0 initiative. with a goal of increasing the resilience of communications, the defense department undertook investments in the internet. we also yield a very substantial benefits economically, domestically, as well as at what was intended on the communications side. the information technologies, in the case of electricity, they probably resemble the communications system. it doesn't have that distributional resilience until

then. i wonder if anyone could comment on the parallels of whether it might make sense to do these micro grids that the secretary alluded to. on the electricity side, it could in the not the other thing that characterizes the telecommunications system, through the breakup of at&t was be limited research and development that was going into the products that were coming. the system created an open architecture. police of the dynamism of the

ability to have that cascading affect of misinformation opening of the communications grid at the edge of the cloud. that is what has to happen. that will probably take policy out of the national and that the state of all to open the opportunity i for innovation to be currently innovated. that is the promise of the revolution. >> why don't we go here to the front? >> i run an independent national gas -- natural gas exploration. and the energy secretary pointed out in the early '80s that there

is a lot of work being done. i participated in that. they had a wonderful results. i am afraid most people here don't recognize. you talk about who secures energy wins the war. you have secured energy. he about the shale gas we have discovered is immense. i can't tell you how much there is. i am sure that he will disagree to some extent. you can run the world out of the gas. you could do away with nuclear and coal to run the world of emerging renewals. it was complementary.

they are complementary. we can produce it with new technologies. there one-tenth of 1%. with efficient systems, you could win the carbon war. you can be declared a change in keep the countdown. you have won the war. if you have an almost unlimited amount of gas, what are you going to do with that? how much redundancy nihon? this is a transformational event. it needs to be recognized. >> i will be brief. the opening remarks about the international relief ringing true here, think about how we

used to read stories in the press about how pipeline issues were caught and also and security issues across central europe. the premise we broadly agree with. as the energy administration has just shown, he discoveries internationally are now adding another order of magnitude. the opportunity is great. we have to be very smart and careful about how we develop the resources. and they will be speaking more to that and because of the advisory board together with the department of the interior will be working on that aspect. the third point is just about energy security to me. it talks about diversification. and i think we still believe in

the need for a broad portfolio approach to the future. therefore, we see a continued need to look for the nuclear option of taking into full account. and if you look at india and china, it will be with us. as part of a longer-term strategy that will be important. >> this is still an area where the problem is not solved. innovation needs to happen. in part, i think that is on the set of questions that dan raised about the careful development of those supplies. it is also on the end use side

of natural gas. if it is actually going to be replacement fuel for oil, there is still a tremendous amount of capacity. i believe it is focused on this to some extent, thinking about where the innovations can take place whether it is using natural gas as a precursor to chemicals, whether it is using natural gas as a substitute for liquid fuel or using natural gas for liquid fuel. this to work that needs to be done. >> [inaudible] the oil and gas industry needs to change its culture and have standards to become the most noble and trustworthy industry on earth.

level one way to go to do that. we have another question in the back. >> we have to deal with the fact. >> this will be the last question. right there. >> i would like to think the white house for hosting this event today. we appreciate the opportunity to have his leadership in front of us. there are a lot of challenges facing the military. the pots of money that are considered, they don't exist now. and the fact that the investment comes from a source that doesn't realize the savings, you have a disconnect. that is where i think the white house and the leadership can create a situation that recognizes this so that the

investments that may not come back in two or three years comes back for a building that is going to exist for 50 years. we have the services of implementing those bases and no funding. it is totally reliant on the private sector. the private sector as though the market to get those funds. and yet the military is prohibited right now from building installations for power. there is no priority given in the funding for security at all. for energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gases, yes. but security, now. the scoring issues prohibit the military from doing that.

if there is one thing this administration could fix, it is the policy issue regarding scoring. renewable energy projects on military installations to allow the military to lead like the leadership here in this room. they will do it. the industry is ready to come back to help do it. it can't be done unless you get rid of this impediment. we can't do it. we want a government that just by burning federal laws, regulations, and executive orders for at least a year. last but not least, if you come down to charleston, who will get to see the largest on the new

plant and will provide more for the plant. >> i will take that as an invitation. >> if you can solve the issues you mentioned, the scoring and congressional restrictions on what kind of power we are allowed to do, that would be terrific. it was certainly eased our lives. what we're trying to do is put in a mixed of centralized funding and component level funding. for instance, we have funded at a centralized level, to test out these various technologies. it will make the multi-year investment that it takes to develop these technologies and test them, but the return is quite quickly.

the incentives for a component to be more energy-efficient in its buildings pays back very quickly. what we're trying to do is get the centralized funding in a position where it primes the pump for the components to utilize those technologies to reduce their costs and reduce their energy consumption. the broad issues you mentioned are substantial. they have to be tackled. it is beyond one department to do that. >> will close with a question that came in from facebook. eric says transport is the biggest use of fossil fuels and the u.s. and probably the world. what are you doing to mitigate that?

>> i miss the opening. >> i will read it again. it came in through -- transport is the biggest use of fossil fuels in the united states. and probably the world. what are you doing to mitigate that? it brought question to and on. -- a broad question too and don. >> hot number one, by dropping the imports and making room for hopefully ultimately dropping biofuels. that will be a very important part of the equation. we hope this partnership will provide some of the driving force. we have already taken a very diversified approach through the loan guarantee program. we invested billions of dollars

in the full suite of vehicles for incremental improvements on their internal combustion engine on the theory that a modest improvement would have a significant effect. all the way over to the electric vehicles, the plug in a hybrid, we're investing a million of those by 2015. the whole sweep of things that we are doing in terms of enhancing domestic production, it will reduce the import used on that. the increasing use of biofuels and what we heard described earlier today, whether it is in terms of electoral fuels, that is all directed toward shifting the transportation of the united

states of its current path of excessive dependence on imported oil. i would think about the points that john was making earlier, you need to think in an overall systems approach. the critical issue shifts to how your powering the fleet with stationary sources. that is why you need is a broad portfolio approach. the way are obviously no longer rely on the oil white from decades ago. we will have to reduce reliance on things that have as high greenhouse gas profile. as john indicated, even as we move to gas combined cycle plant, in time that will have to get the carbon capture he's going as well. -- carbon captured he's going as well. >> transportation is a critical part of our efforts to reduce

our dependence on energy whether it is the direct operations of the military forces or even more importantly, the transportation of the fuel from those resources to the operations in afghanistan. there in doing enormous vulnerabilities. any step we can take to reduce that is a critical step. >> i want to endorse that. had the commented john made about energy security being a huge piece of national security. on transportation, my former district has four major refineries. one of them as a chevron refinery where much of the aerospace industry is based. it is the second refinery in california. almost everything that is

refined goods and cars and the neighborhood that have one driver in that and no passengers. let's understand that the way america moves is as energy efficient and as energy and secure as it possibly could be. we have more vehicles in this country that we have people with driver's licenses. if we could think about the advantages to the country, things like high-speed rail the was where the -- what the congress just passed for the fiscal year. i would hope that high gas prices will fuel popular outrage. we would change the way we fund in the about that we find a mass transit in this country. and my point about the transportation fleet is that it can change the culture. it can be a mass driver of the

people in our military and can also create a mass markets necessary to lower the costs of more efficient vehicles for everybody else that will hopefully drive in the same vehicle and contribute to energy security. >> the most important things are a vehicle efficiency, and the rules that out in the planning phase on the next phase. completing the rules and getting 16 mpg fleet vehicles standards in place for the early 2020 is is probably the most critical. followed by the new truck rolls and more efficiency in truck engines. we talked about that shifting in the past vehicle sector and perhaps natural gas.

and to follow up, southern california is probably not be model for land use planning. if we can make better investments in the transportation bill on public transport, i think that as another place where there is tremendous capacity in the midterm to save fuel, reduce the price that consumers are paying to move from one place to another and to improve budgets to create the right platform for a stronger security for our country. >> i will give john the last word. >> i want to close on some

remarks on transportation. first of all, whatever we do, it is going to be modest compared to what china does and other rapidly growing developing countries in asia. on a world basis, what is going on is much more severe than in the united states. and what determines transportation, the united states is basically three things. one is population growth. we want to be in cars as much as they do. economic growth, if we have the pleasure of economic growth, it is the price of gasoline.

i filled up my car with gasoline yesterday and it cost me about $60. it made me think i wanted to do something about how much i drive. it is only going to be if we shift to another source of energy. certainly natural gas and automotive news, it will be biofuels, if we can get costs down. it will be plugged in hybrid. if the price of gas remains high, i believe over the next couple of decades, we will see a very sharp decline in our use of petroleum for transportation. our job is to make sure the others do that as well. >> i would like to thank everyone for coming here today

in participating in the critical part of our energy security strategies. i want to thank our panelists. thank you all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> live saturday, the annual black-tie dinner with the red carpet arrival at 6:45. in remarks by president