aren't paying for it out of our federal income taxes like a lot of people think wer it's been a good system but has to be reformed andefined. if i was faced with no more fun, i would stand upnd say, i'm going to be more aggressive on tolling, something that everybody hates, but youave to have revenue coming in to fund it. i'm going to swoop up $100 million. if i was the president, i'm going to put it in and find $100 million and put it in private activity bonds and do a project streamlining until unemployment gets down ol all projects and lieve nepa -- i said it, until unemployment gets down to%. i would take this stuff and find every bit of leverage because

that's what it's going to take. the money, you know -- nobody is going to agree to a tax increase. it's not there and we need to desperately. the highway trust fund -- it was not indexed for inflation. so the 18.5 tax, bause the cost of steel and concrete. we are going to have a longer term vision how we are going to replace this providing every ounce of leverage to get leverage for every dollar that goes into this thing is what i would do. >> can i just add a quick thing. there is something about the story that i haven't told very well. when you travel abroad and talk to administrators of oth

countries, they come around to the fact about how they fund their transportation system and how they envy us because we have a dedicated source of transportation improvements and programs. and thattable dedicated source d so well.orke so the trust fund has turned out to be a marvelous invention, . p. . pay-as-you-go works extremely well for us and other countries envy. it was never intended to be the last word. it was intended to be the mechanism to allow us to get started and worked well because of the technology at that particular point in time. as you well know, with technology changing, it's not the right instrument to move forward. but user-fee policy is still a good policy and still holds.

so, i think having the trust fund, having user pay and the fact that tolls are a form of direct user fees is also more -- >> that actually alls me to go into the next question and topic. but very interesting that we have matt and jim talking about increasing the gas tax and the administration saying no to the tax. that's for a different debate. i think what you both talked about user fees and you both brought up tolls, but and matt, you have been in front of raising the gacks tax where it is versus where it started. what are your views how surface programs should be paid for. is it totaling are other ideas that come to the fofere front? >> it's a user-based system.

and if we get away from that. i think we are going to be in real trouble and will be subto the political process. we need a long view, transparent stream of money and it has worked well. we just -- we haven't done a good job of educating the traveling public. >> i know you have been one of the ideas is to move the money and move it into the account as a way to get more money. >> i find every available dollar unspent in washington, d.c., and put it into tifia. you brought up user fees as well. do you see it the same way? >> i do. both of the congressional commissions came out with a whole host of ideas and opportunities and i know they are being explored.

some are relatively simple to do and others are more complex. we need to look at the short-term. we have a short-term need and continuing investment. but there are longer terms options, we need to be looking now of how we transition of what we have in place now to the longer term and tknoling plays a huge role. there are a number of options out there on the table but staying close to the user pay option, it serves us well now and will serve us well in the future. >> i'm going tond this segment with you. although fraggete railroads pay for their own networks new york city -- networks, but why is it so poor to have a national

freight strategy and in the idea of how railroads fit into this national strategy when they are private based? if you look at our economy in the last 0 years, 40% of our economy is driven by trade. if you go out to the west coast, these ports, in 2006, when the economy was still moving forward, these ports were choking because of all the volumes and now we want to double exports. if we don't have national freight vision we won't cnect the highways to the ports and the railroads. if you look at the top 30 cities in our country, it equates for 70% of the commerce and if you look at the costs that are studied around the world it's in these top cities. that's where the congestive costs are going to the economy and a lot of it is

freight-driven. we did these listening sessions and what we have heard, we don't have a commuter problem but a freight issue in this country that is causing a commuter issue. we have to have a national vision that i think, lays out what the economic future of how we are going to sell, who we are going to sell, those types of things. >> to stay with the idea that when we think of infrastructure for us, it's very broad-based, not just surface-related but aviation and transmission and broadband. we have lou who is the chairman and c.e.o. of a leading clean energy company with 2002 revenues of more than $15 billion, 43 mega what thes of generating capacity and 15,000 employees in 28 states as well

as canada. next to matt -- lou is lora, senior adviser to the u.s. secretary of energy, secretary chu. she regulated electricity, natural gas and water industries. thank you both for coming. lou, i'm going to start with you. we hear a lot about transmission and frarke. but i don't think we really understand the problems that the infrastructure is facing today. >> i want to start by acknowledging what tom said in the earlier panel and pleased to hear it and one of the biggest opportunities for new jobs is in electric transmission and unlike everything we talked about today, one thing that is different, we don't need a penny

of government money to make this happen. most people can relate to airlines and roads but don't think about electric transmission and our industry has challenged a lot. we had a vertically-integrated system where electric utilities were all local and built their power plant close to where the ectricity was consumed and we didn't need a lot of electricity transmission. there are two things that have changed. one is, many states, it has been opened up to competition and we don't have that vtically integrate the structure and if you owned a power plant, you could sell it anywhere you want. and the second thing is the advent of renewable energy and there has been renewable energy investments made over the years and renewable whether it's wind,

solar or geothermal and you have to build it where the wind below zero or sun shines and not necessarily where the people live. we need to get that clean, economical power to our customers. the transmission system hasn't kept up with that and so we have a lot of constraints in the system. any time you have a constraint that is imposing a tax on consumers because it means the lowest cost electcity can't get to those markets and therefore, higher goss costs, less efficient end up running and there are a lot of benefits to transmission investment in terms of reliket in the grid and also using the most efficient generation resources and all of that will save customers money. our industry wants to invest in new transmission. we have the means by which to do

it. but the big challenge has been the way we sighted and paid for transmission. was all based on local community-typed structure. and it doesn't really work for building longer transmission lines, particularly when you have to cross state lines. so it's a very slow, very burdensome process. and to give you an example, and that's about the same amount of generation tha our entire coal fleet in america today has applied for and is waiting for transmission for access to the transmission system and we need more transmission built in order to support that. very fundamental issues that we are dealing with. one is planning, which is where do we put the transmission lines. there is financing. how does it get paid for.

and not that the utilities aren't willing to get invested. even thee there is an economic investment and the third is how do you sight these transmission lines. and we at the jobs croum are working on proposals for all three of those and the federal energy regulatory commission is working on these along with the department of energy. >> we are going to come back to questions on the smart grid. but lauren, the federal energy regulatory commission, ferc, i'm hearing about this order called 1,000, about transmission planning and costallocation. why is this so important? why are we hearing about it? >> what is it and why is it so pour? >> it accomplishes three things. it helps with the regional planning aspect of transmission.

and as lou just mentioned, history keafl with regards to the transmission, everyone was looking and we are the united states and essentially the states were looking only within their own state. and order 1,000 helps put united back into the unid states to develop a system that is more integrated, to allow the kind of transfer of electrons that lou is talking about to transform our economy. so the regional planning aspect of it, it helps put guidelines on that and to enforce to design the system and design it in a much more regional manner. it requires the same entities to figure out how to pay for it. so it doesn't mandate how the grid is going to be paid for but says look, guys, once you develop and pick lines that have

to be built to reduce congestion and help power all of these gadgets that you have in your bags right now, you have to figure out how to pay for you and the person who built it pays for it and gets paid back through the rates or anybody who benefits from a line that is being built with chip-in and they would get paid back, so there are a variety of ways to do it but ferc said you have to get it done. you have to figure out how to pay for it and match up with the lines that you have identified that need to be built. and it opens up the development of transmission by historically the guys that were building transmission were the incumbent utilities and what this does is allow and allow them to come in and build a prevents the

incumbent utilities from blocking merchant transmission developers from coming in. >> we heard from two business c.e.o.'sbout permitting and regulatory hurdles. besides the cost allocations that you mentioned, what are the other reforms that are needed to spark investment in this new transmission smart grid? what are the hurdles youre nding and what are we needing to do? >> the biggest hurdles we find today is sighting and permitting and finding where y are going to put those lines. nobody wants transmission lines in their back yards. any time you are talking about a new prospect, there are a lot of people to weigh in. and the system that we use today for sighting transmission lines was developed back in 1935. the world has changed a lot

since then and especially as i mentioned forward-building lines that are longer, you start crossing the many state boundaries, so you have many municipalities involved, you have the states, if you cross any federal property, you also have federal government involved. so we need a lot more coordinaon. and we really need permitting reform. to give you an example of how burdensome the process is. a.e.p., was trying to build a 90-mile transmission line. that's not a long line. took them 13 years to get it sighted and permitted. another example is a.t.c. corporation trying to build a 220-le line and took six years. i want to contrast that with gas hype lines and i could give you

examples, it took 11 months, eight months to build. we know how to do it. we have a great mechanism in place in terms of how we sht this kind of infrastructure. we need to apply the same framework to electric transmission and away we go. we can generate efficiency for customers and follow that model. and there was legislation passed in 2005 as part of the energy poll sill act that really -- that the intent was to provide the federal government more of a role and without you supering the states and called it federal backstop fighting, that law was actual written, we believe we can really redesign the implementation of it and get a lot more transmission built very, very quickly without changes to the law, without

federal money and that sort of thing. >> lauren, i hit it with your government hat on, not to be surprised there is a follow-up. we know the administration has announced the formation of renewable response team. i guess we aren't going to use the acronym. but it's to improve federal coordination and ensure timely review and i meantimely review. how is this initiative going to work and intended to move the process forward? >> let me thank lou because i was e of the attorneys that represented them in sighting that line over the seven years it took. so i lived through that nightmare d secretary chu brought me on 75 days ago to

comment on and figure out how to build things quickly. we actually have a rapid response team for transmission and that's the r.r.t.t. and how that works is a couple of things. we are going to get all of the federal agencies that are dealing with a large transmission projectogether and we rg going to have a number of projects we are focusing on. we take our federal agencies and sit them down and we get a coordinated schedule amongst all of the agencies and put that schedule up on a dashboard and so the public is going to be able to see when the deadlines are and the immediate milestones are. within each agency there is permitting and consulting. there will be specific designated staff that is going to be essentially held accountable for meeting those

deadlines and milestones. that staff is going to be trained in transmission shugs specifically. and going to be trained in transmission technologies and transmission economics and transmission development. from my perspective. having them understand is very important sohen they are looking at a variety of solutions for a specific prosecute problem, they'll understand the business impacts of picking a specific solution. they are going toave to comply with the statutory requirements and doesn't mean every program is going to be approved but will help with the communication and get things done much more quickly. that is a snapshot and i know the president issued a memo yesterday with regards to streamlining and making sure we expedite the permitting processes among the agencies which will help a lot.

>> lou, my advertisement fee is going to bey last question. we are in texas and next ter after is developing a transmission line in texas as part of the initiative. you might as well tell us about it. >> i'm delighted to be here in texas and texas is a state that has been doing a lot of things right in terms of energy policy. there has been more wind generation built in texas in the last five years than anywhere else in the united states, just as one example. 's all being built in west texas. it is window and there is so much built and we have constraints going from west texas and northern parts of the state and you see price differentials and wind developers would love to build wind generation and they can't.

well, the state figured this out several years agand they started a process called the competitive renewable eney process and made it a competitive process. my company happened to win a piece of that business. we are building a 300-mile long line from west texas to the northeast part of texas. that's going to involve an investment of $800 million on our part. but the entire proces represents investments of almost really over $5 billion in new transmission, not requiring any state money, no federal money. it will generate -- these assets will be paying hundreds of millions of taxes into the state. but most importantly, it's going to -- the state of texas is determined it's going to lower electricity prices for people who live in texas on average

between $150 and $350 less per customer per year. the environment is going to benefit and the state of texas is going to create jobs in the meantime. >> i'm not going to tell you i gave you that lay-up. [laughter] >> not a lay-up for me but for the state of texas. >> go s.m.u. >> broadband. before we open it to q and a, we want to talk about broadband which people would not necessarily define broadband as infrastructure. david cohen is the executive vice president of a corporation and serves as a senior cocil, the acquirer of nbc.

his experience extends beyond the corporate suite. many of you are familiar with his tenure as chief of staff to then philadelphia mayor ed rendell he is one of the three, alongside mayor bloomberg and governor schwarzenegger of buildingmerica. david, great to have you and next to david is john donovan, chief technology officer for at&t. thank you for coming, john. and his role, he oversees the global technology and product development, network and engineering operations, at&t labs and the security and intellectual property of the organization. so thank you both for coming. david, i'm going to open up with you. i guess from a macro

perspective, talk to usbout the role of broadband and economic development in terms of investment in broadband infrastructure and what is your experience will be the most effective in terms of stimulating economic growth? >> thanks, bob and great to be here and carrying through on the football theme, one of my other part-time jobss i'm chair of the trustees of the university of pennsylvania and i wanted dr. walton to know we are also going to be focused on academics. [laughter] >> i have to finish, as a guy who played football at the university of pennsylvania and only way i could get in -- [laughter] >> so, and i think that question really helps to tee up the question of why broad broadband is part of an infrastructure panel and it plays a unique

role, because -- broadband is infrastructure. the broadband plant, wire line or wireless represents investment and jobs and real, physical plant that is layered through the -- layered throughout the entire country. you have the direct impact from building broadband plant and there have been numerous studies done. you could pick your study done. within study which the f.c.c. cites is a national broadband plan, for every $10 billion that is invested in additional broadband infrastructure in the united states, you create or retain almost 500,000 jobs. real direct connection by investing in broadband. broadband has a longer term

economic and jobs impact. that comes on the a doppings side and comes in empowering everything that we talked about today in the sense of if you went back and asked every person who you have talked to how they would conduct their business, how you would run aviation and run an business and surface transportation business, how you would run small businesses that are the vendors of all these businesses, without broadband, they would tell you it is impossible. you get a spinoff effect and there has been recent work done around that question and that work has concluded that for every one percentage point increase in broadband adoption, you eate or retain another 300,000 jobs. so these are investments that ally do produce jobs and really do power the economy both directly and indirectly in terms of long-term investments in the

countrs future. >> great. john, i think something like 90% of this country, broadband reaches patrol 90%-plus of this country and we are going on those who are declining to participate and getting that type of service, but in the rural areas, in the less populated areas, what role can wireless satellite technology play in lowering the cost of deployment to these currently unserved areas. >> let me underscore what most of the panel has talked about and that is direct connection between infrastructure, jobs and competitiveness. and before i jump into the wireless, i would transition by saying that like most of the infrastructure that has been represented at this table with air and ground and energy, roads and so on, broadband is just a little b different, as david

pointed out, because broadband has the added effect of not only the effective development but the wireless broadband is becoming an engine in the economy that is allowing us to get aglobal advantage and one of the most important industries out there and i'll highlight that i don't need to reiterate the velocity of money that discussions most have talked about, but i'll only highlight the fact that nth alone that is spent $75 billion in capital in the last four years in this industry and the industry itself right through the recession continued to invest for the demand that was out there. wireless and satellite is economical and i think that there is a lot that is dependent

upon the terrain and what is already installed out there, but it is more economical for us and one of the big benefits for the at&t t-mobile merger we stated, it affords us the ability to extend our network from at&t% -% to 87%, so adding 55 million additional members of the population to adapt broadband. >> we currently he about 35% of our population that could be served not taking it up. it is mainly in the low income

households, which is needed the most to further education, for the job opportunities. what can the private sector and the public sector do to increase the user? >> i really appreciate being asked that question. we are a heavily urban cable company, so we have more than 99% of the household saddled for broadband, and this is really not a criticism. if you only spend time in washington, you would think of broadband problem was all about building and constructing broadband. you hear very little about it, yet there are three times the four times as many who do not

subscribe to broadband as there are who do not subscribe to broadband because they have no cess. i personally have a passion about urban adoption of a broad band, which is income-based, and the good news is we have some very good research on what the broad jokes region was the projects are, and in preparing the plan, they actually did the country a great service by coecting that research and putting a spotlight on it, and we have identified three major barriers. the first and most important is of bucket of digital literacy issues. people do not understand what the internet is. they arefraid of it. people think the government will

spy on them if they have broad band in their homes. they do not know how to use the computer. they do not know how to use the internet. the second factor is the absence of computer uipment. to researchers did a study, which is almost a quarter of the households in america do not own a computer. since i am not sure i know anyone who does not own a computer, i will guarantee in upper income communities, you are talking about 2% o 3% who not on a computer, and in low income you are talking about 60% or 70% who did not own a computer. if you do not own a computer, why would you sign up for broadband access the third is the cost of broadbent.

it now costs $30 to $40 a month. you can get it cheaper in of promotion or a bundle, but it is an expensive service, so the way the government and private sector has to attach this -- has to attack this is through a program that addresses each and every one of these barriers. almost all of them are public- private partnerships with local government, state government, and private sector to try to figure out a way to break down those barriers and to make affordable broadband with affordable equipment and digital literacy available. we are rolling out a program to recall internet a essentials,

which within our footprint we will offer to eligible families of three-part program, broadband servic for $9.99 a mon. we are going to give them a voucher that will entitle them to buy a computer for $149.95, and we will give them a suite of materials in print online and in person in the communities. we are rolling it out in 4000 school districts in 39 states d the district of columbia. >> that is great. >> we all get our softball. >> i am waiting for it. we just talked about

infrastructure deployment common -- so clement, and how do we get there. can tax incentives broadband? what works best and is most fair? tax credits, accelerated depreciation, other options? i know you do not want to put your current political hat on, but if you are putting on your current political hat, what can we do in this economic climate with avoiding this infrastructure? >> i do not own of political cap, but i think asking questions is always a dangerous place to start. tom donahue mentioned earlier that the broadband is an area that can attract its own investment.

i think it has shown a propensity to be an in festival area. henry j. tv and -- has shown a propensity to be an investibal area. projects that are providing stability are much more important than those trying to manage the building of infrastructure, so i would highligha couple of points. look for things that now gives service providers and no way to maximize. not be overly prescriptive. keep the requiremes from being rigid, and focus on the demand and stimulating demand side of the equations, because we have a side of the segment that just

needs a light touch and consistency from the regulatory environment that would allow it to continue to build. >> we are running of a little behind schedule. the idea of repurchasing for broaand only services -- is that sufficient? is that something you would recommend. >> certain public policy more than technology. the fcc has teamed up on universal service reform. at&t has played a leading role in putting a proposed restructuring, and i think there is widespread in reconstruction. number one, it should be repurchased, exclusively for

broadband deployment purposes. no. 2, it should be limited to the building of our broadband in underserved locations. no. 3, it should be expanded on a technology bases. there should be some form of cap to limit the consumer expansion to find it, and i am very optimistic that the commissio is going to act on this this fall and we are going to create a real appropriate funding stream to be able to address the deployment side of the broadband issue. >> do not enter data. i have a better question to end with.

-- do not answer that. how can funding for government- sponsored institutions demand infrastructure deployment and basically -- you think there is a winning strategy to go forward? >> there are several longstanding programs, so today at&t serves several of those anchor institutions, and i think there have been some states that have some creative things, like whereou aggregate demand and get something planning that allows you to get sustainable planning in place, so i think a lot of those programs are out there, and to continue those, about role of stimulating demand, adopting new services,

helps accelerate the deployment cycle, so i think continuing those programs are in the barrel and can be executed much more quickly. >> we want to open it up to questions from the audience. we are going to get you a microphone. >> i am the president and ceo. i have officers he -- i have offices here and in dallas. i am fortunate enough to work in the field. did i hear you correctly? did i say -- did i hear you say the high school is here? >> i am not trying to be facetious or cynical. i thought i heard you say that. >> i think matt mentioned, and

matt and i agreed that we need a national transportation policy that sensibly lays out what roadways you need and has to be answered for anything that we do, and i thought that his leadership on that was outstanding. there is a place for rail, air, mara thurman, and -- their return region -- rail, air, maritime, and passenger trains. you already have 45 or 50 dail round-trips. what possible purpose could spending billions of dollars adding passenger trains that will only get you there slower -- what purpose does th serve?

but as the questn we have to ask ourselves. thank you for dishing me the soft ball, too. we are in business to win customers, and if we are lucky, and weave cents. -- fans. we are in the transportation business. if we thought people really wanted to travel between dallas and houston on a train, we would do that, but in taking a more holistic picture, you can put a train in, and what are you going to do? you are going to take people off airplanes -- not everybody and not very many people, but you are going to diminish one mode that is already built.

new york to washington and is different. it plays a valuable role, and it is there. one reason you do not have high- speed rail in many cities in the united states of america and now i would argue is because you have southwest airlines, and europe did not. lastly, there is no rail system in the world that makes a profit. not one, so if we want to change the user fee system we have with rowor air to a subsidized system, i do not think that is the right direction, but we can vote on that.

>> in this corner. next question. >> i am an american merchant mariner, ande have not heard a lot about maritime today, and i want to follow up on a comment th our courts are congested. i wanted to mention that texas has more maritime activity, and we are looking at that to expand in the near future, particularly with not the panama canal, and we are probably gng to be dealing with a lot more infrastructure requirements. we think the term has come to build aarine highway network,

and that would be to get some of the exce cargo of the railway is -- of the railway. this would be better for the environment. it would be better for safety and relief where and tear on our bridges and roads. how do you see that plan working out? is that on the radar screen? we think it potentially could be a public-private partnerships, and i would like to hear your i eighth -- to hear your ideas. >> higher agree about traffic safety. i think the water system is not unlike the infrastructure. it is in reatroue. the trust fund is not working. there is a lot of money we cannot get spent, and we go through the same stuff.

as far as european trade, it is going to come down to a permit issued. you cannot permit a new and who water court in california. we are doing them in texas. we are expanding. it is an industrial oil refinery location. you go out there, and you go, this is notuts. you woul never build the national transportation highway system we have today, because some of the views we have allowed to say stop. a lot of freight is going to go to canada, because they are welcoming it. they have a government

initiative to build more support capacity. you are going to see more trade go to mexico, because they have a government initiative to build more jobs. we are the only country i know of that we shun its, so at some point the american public now is going to say, a enough is enough. putting of court since the facility and spending half a billion dollars to green it ought not is a pretty good deal -- sue green it is a pretty good deal, but we are not tre yet. >> any other questions? >> i am thinking about the job studies i have seen by economists on the broadbent new issue, and a lot of the emphasis is on the construction -- on the

constraint, so it seems to me if there is an issue of the money may be there, but there is a partially a scarce resources, so i thout maybe david might want to say something about that. >> this is a technical question. >> we have a good division of responsibility. >> that is certainly paramount. as you looked at the assets necessary, it is dramatically different. there has been a challenge of a policy that has been 25 years and going on and on, but underneath tha the demand that exists today is causing a

spectrum crisis in america, and one thing is tt our focus on with t-mobile is to find the specum, and that continueso be a dark cloud on the jobs and innovation donohue that looms, maybe not for every market in the next six months but for some markets in the next six months, for the next 12 months there are going to be some the start to run out, and that is going to be bad for jobs and bad for growth. not only is this about providing a service for users. it is also about providing a catalyst in an industry where we

have a global leadership. >> another difference between a lot of infrastructure issues, and i do not say this to be an apologist in any way for the administration, but the administration has laid out a series of specific plans to be able to address the broad band infrastructure needs and adoption needs of the country. they are not controversial. they do not cost the government money. they actually make money, so whether it is the broad band plans, the president's wireless initiatives, the national

broadbent plans initiative on wireless, this has been laid out in a very clear way in this environment. this tells me how to a boil all this is in a relatively short term. >> you forgot merger approval. >> i just wanted to say one thing f our texans. senator hutchison deserves credit for her leadership. she joined hands with rockefeller in a truly bipartisan piece of legislation. passed 21 voice in favor. a majority of republicans and a majority of democrats. it does three things, and delivers $10 billion in deficit

reduction, puts us on a path that opens the capacity for innovation we are seeing. our smart phones consume 25 times more than which than voice phones. cabalists -- tablets consume more than phones, so this industry is incredibly dynamic, extrely enthusiastic, and it is going to run up against his capacity crunch if we do not get our long term plan. we are 10 years today from one of the biggest tragedies in our nation's history. we have not given our first responders access to the tools our kids have. my fourth grader has a better

schools than our first responders do. it is high time we give them the inastructure and serviceshey need. we can make this happen. it is bipartisan. >> we want to thank this panel. i was also going to thank senator hutchison, a she formed the energy financing bill, which is similar to what we have been talking about, and something are council has been looking at in a positive light and something we are going to continue to speak about. before we end, i would like to see if i can ask laura to come back top.

>> i have been given t task of closing remarks. my job is zero -- it is an enviable -- un-enviable because he is so wonderful. i would like to thank everyone for coming and the panel. [applause] thanking smu, and i just want to reiterate that the council is an ongoing process. it is dedicated to an ongoing discussion of issues. i think you have heard clearly that the council does not always agree. i thinkhe discussion of the railroad illustrates that a little bit, so i think what we

are trying to do is get as much employment as weekend. we have common with recommdations from the president. an illustration that he is taking this seriously was his announcement yesterday. these are things that came off of the focus, of trying to say, let's get some things done we agree upon. we are discussing recommendations. the president is listening. following this, anyone listening on c-span, if anyone wants to send ideas, we suggest they go rights to don. he is our coordinator inside the treasury. you can tell we have a lot of technically sophisticated people

who do things like pay attention to e-mail and stuff like that, sir your ideas will be heard. thank you forthcoming. thank you for being involved. we will do our best to make sure good ideas get to the president and that the a administration act upon it. thank you for a much. [applause] >> the white house and house speaker's office have agreed to a 7 p.m. eastern start time. you can watch live coverage of president obama's speech here on

c-span. >> he's a partisan guy who wants to unite people. all of the problems of the era you could get from this guy. why we couldn't elect him is why we eventually went to war. it couldn't be resolved. so, i don't really think there is anyway that stevenson could have won. >> you think offal smith in 1928, pave the way for roosevelt. there are 14 people in this series. many of whom viewers have never heard of. all of whom you will find fascinating and surprising.

flu >> history professor eugene baker, talking about the 14 men who ran for president and lost. tonight at 8 p.m. eastern and pacific. a preview for, the contenders beginning friday september 9. >> washington journal is next. we'll look at today's news and take your calls, emails and tweets. congress returns next week for legislative business. at 10 eastern. coming up this hour, we'll talk with fred barns of the weekly standard about dik cheney's